Armies - is it worth it?

Armies got upgraded with C3C - extra movement and a lot of attacks depending on speed.

They are not invincible, you might lose one army of four to a single defender, but according to the holy law of preserve random seed 4 single attackers would have lost the same way.

But if you win - you probably saved 2-3 units, and armies can crack even mountain fortresses and kill one defending unit, a thing no other unit could do.

A victorious army also enables a slew of new small wonders that are rather good.
 
I use armies a lot, mostly with cavalry or tanks. I did use an infantry army for defense once, though, but that was the only thing it could do. If I get an early GL, I won't use him until I have cavs.
 
Armies can attack three times per turn. If you let them sit in one spot without moving for a whole turn it completly heals itself, regarless if it is in a jungle on a moutain or in a city.

Armies strike first each round. That means that if you have two a red line armie and a red line spearman the armie will hit first. Killing the spear.

People say armeis suck and i can not understand why. The main argument is "I can attack 4 times if i didnt use them in an armie." My retort is "Yes but you would jsut red line 4 different units while the army would kill one. Oh and the fact you can attack multiple times makes it nice."
 
Originally posted by anarres

Edit: I am very sorry for dragging this thread up with nothing useful to add - I followed a link here and didn't notice it was a month old. :blush:
Click to expand...

make that 2 years and a month old :D
 
Originally posted by widdowmaker
Armies can attack three times per turn. If you let them sit in one spot without moving for a whole turn it completly heals itself, regarless if it is in a jungle on a moutain or in a city.
Click to expand...
They can attack as many times per turn as their movement allows so that's 4 with tanks and cavalry.

I use armies with tanks and cavalry. But what's even better is using them with Sipahi, now that's a force to be reckoned with.
 
Originally posted by anarres
Edit: I am very sorry for dragging this thread up with nothing useful to add - I followed a link here and didn't notice it was a month old. :blush:
Click to expand...
A month? Notice Zouave...
 
Heheh.. I was wondering why EVERYTHING in this thread (up until someone mentioned digging it up from the paswas wrong. It's ancient.t)
 
Ahh, where is Zouave when you need a good argument...
 
Say you've got an army of cavalry which is obsolete and you want an army of modrn armor now but you don't have an army free. Is there anyway to get the cavalry units out of the army and replace them with modern armor?
 
No. IIRC there used to be a bug where you could put the army in a city with an empty boat and use the load option to transfer units from the army to the boat. Then you could refill the army. I'm pretty sure this has been patched out now. May still work on 1.29f. Not sure. It's an exploit anyway ;) You're not supposed to be able to do it.
 
I use armies fairly often - but usually with a bit of editing.
My Armies (After construction of the Pentagon) nomally hold 5 units and move 3.
I also found it interesting to give it a zone of control and hidden nationality.
BTW, Hidden Nationality on an army means that no matter what units are in an army - even civ specific one - are all then hidden nationality. The AI tends to 'suddenly' realise whos it is after it attacks and captures a city thought..
 
Originally posted by Amask
...they are too slow
Click to expand...

Why do you say this? Once I've had an army of 3 cavarlies... they moved 3 a turn...
Well, if you load into an army same units (i.e 3 cavarlies) it will have the same options of the units what you have loaded into it (for cavarly-army: 6/3/3)
But if you dont load same units into it... yes that is too slow... :D
 
Armies are absolutely worth it!

They are NOT slow (with conquests) For example, a samurai army has 3 move and 3 attacks!

Yes there is always a risk of losing an army, but that is probably because:
a) The army is wounded
b) The army consist of obsolete units (e.g a swordman army trying to beat a single rifleman)

I cannot understand how people can underestimate the value of armies.
 
i love armies especially in the industrial age

normal calvary can't defeat infantry but armies can
 
The creators of Civ noticed that the Armies really sucked, so they improved them greatly. Also they made it so that a great leader cannot rush Great Wonders, this means that an army might be worth it. But I don't understand those claiming that Army's are great for capturing cities, bombardment is the way to go. I recently got a leader, there was nothing to rush so I created an Army with. 3 horsemen in the army (I think 2 of them were elite), they lost to a fortified regular spearmen in a town. So much for that 2nd chance.

For playing on lower difficulty levels where you can basically do anything and still win, I guess they are worth it, after all they look cool and feel like something special.
 
In Conquests, Armies are essential. Prior to that, they are adequate - which basically means don't bother unless you have a Leader to spare...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
[C3C] General civ3 strategies - improving my game
Replies
11
Views
2K
alfa156
A
J
[C3C] First Large Map Win
Replies
0
Views
851
Jivilov
J
PDX Katten
Developer Diary | Combat
Replies
7
Views
1K
The_J
The_J
Tekamthi
  • Locked
[DLL] (7-NS) defensive buildings destroyed as corresponding city hp is lost
2 3
Replies
55
Views
829
azum4roll
A
K
Could unit diversity be simplified for CIV7?
Replies
14
Views
563
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
Top Bottom