building an army unit

[hamster]

i'm a bit confused on how the army unit works.

what type of units should be put in an army unit for best results? right now, the only units at my disposal are: calvry, longbowman, swordsman, musketman. should i just bunch up 3 calvry? or should i mix it up with some musketmen? also, would putting an artillery in there be any helpful?

also, can i change units in the army unit after forming? or can i upgrade the internal units later on?

should i put elite units in the army? or just regular and veterans?

sorry if these questions are in the manual. its real thick and i'm only 1/4 way through it.

Dan

 

[hamster]

also, if one of the units in the army should die, can i replace it later?

or when i get the pentagon, can i add the additional unit later?

thanks
Dan

 

[Zouave]

An army unit acts as one giant unit for hit points. None of them die until every hit point is used up.

I've posted before that a combined arms force of infantry, cavalry, and artillery should be the best way to go. That is how it worked in actual war. But I think putting in your strongest units works best - if it is purely for offense go for knights; if it might have to go on the defensive throw in a musketman, for instance. That's what I do. Maybe it's best. I'm not certain.

I don't think you can upgrade. I couldn't.

I have seen nothing that tells me an elite unit in an army prohibits you for getting another leader as a result of that army having combat. But I've never had that occur, although I have attacked only maybe a dozen times with armies containing elites.

You can't change units.

I believe the Pentagon affects only subsequent armies; those already created are stuck at three units.

A minor complaint about the game is that armies, and leader units, are not nearly as important as they could have been. You think a Napoleon, Hannibal, Frederick the Great, or Alexander is truly reflected by this Civ III system? No way.

 

[hamster]

thanks alot for the reply.
Dan

 

[SGX]

Yeah, I think having an army created by leader, should have some extra combat bonuses or something, because once you make the military academy, you really only use leaders to rush a wonder or whatever...

I only use army units offensively, but now I hardly use them at all, since I can simply bombard or attack with multiple fast units, getting more kills.

 

[Psychlone]

I have tinkered with army composition a bit, since I play a militaristic civ and usually get a few leaders. Initially when I first made armies, I put in 2 offensive and 1 defensive unit (2 tanks and 1 infantry, in this case). This was not a good mix at all. If you put fast units into an army, make sure they're all fast, because the army moves at the speed of the slowest unit in it.

If you make an army in the middle ages or earlier, then by all means, mix it up a bit. Two longbowmen and a pikeman would be just fine, two swordsmen and a spearman, whatever; just don't mix speeds, or you'll find your army disappointing. In fact, I'm of the opinion that in the early stages of the game is when armies are the most effective.

If I recall correctly, I was able to add in the additional unit to existing armies when I built the Pentagon.

Armies can be great, but they have some severe limitations. You can't swap units in and out, and you can't upgrade units placed in armies. Armies also only heal one hit per turn, so a badly mauled army with 4 elite units could conceivably have to sit idle for 19 turns to heal to full. I'm not 100% certain, but again, if I remember right, an army consisting entirely of modern armor only gets one attack, where the individual tanks can attack twice in a turn.

Situations where I have found armies to be the best are when facing a technological disparity. They're useful for situations where your best attack units aren't really up to the calibre of the defenders. Your cavalry don't seem to be doing well attacking cities defended by riflemen? Put 3 in an army, it should do the job. Even then, it's likely easier for the average civ to muster a big stack of artillery to soften up the defenders than it is to get an army.

On the whole, in my opinion, armies aren't as useful as you might initially think, particularly in later eras. Once in awhile, an army in the right place can make the difference in a successful attack or defense compared to individual units, but not really often enough to worry about it if you can't seem to generate any leaders.

 

[Panda]

Armies attack only once / turn regardless of what units they contain.

Once you build the Pentagon, you can add a forth unit in every single army you have, no matter when that army was created. Definitely and absolutely.

Armies heal 1 HP/unit/ turn, not 1 HP/army/turn. Healing an army in a city with barracks speeds this up even more (Can't say excactly how much though )

(Just make sure your naval transports can pick up at least 5 units if you plan on shipping your army across the water...)

I prefer 'Blitz' campaigns, large amounts of fast units (riders / knights / cavalry) pushing rapidly deep into enemy territory. Unfortunately these units have low defense values, so I find an army of these same units most useful for defense purposes. Just let your army stand still and protect those stacked single units, the AI will have a hard time killing something that has 17 HP and your attack units are undamaged and ready to roll next turn

 

[eyrei]

I generally make armies of defensive units. An army of infantry is nearly invincible on defense until modern armor, and even then it will take a few of them to defeat it. I usually use these to defend my artillery, and occasionally take out a defeneder in a city. Armies of swordsmen are also effective if you are lucking enough to get a leader that early. They will destroy one unit per turn in a besieged city without having to worry about losing. I almost never make armies of fast units. They seem to work just as well individually. I once made an army out of necessity on an island city that was about to fall to a horde of cavalry. It consisted of a regular rifleman, an elite knight, and a veteran infantry. Talk about bizarre. It held that city against numerous attacks for about a hundred years.

 

[FullofHoles]

I always use veteran units in armies. I think that it is a waste of leader-generation potential to use elites.

My whole strategy regarding elites is to use them to try to gain great leaders by using them to attack the weakest enemy units. I want my elites to not merely win all of their battles, but also to suffer as little damage as possible so that they do not have to sit around "healing" for any more time than possible. During heavy fighting, I frequently will not heal my elites until they are down to two hit points or less because I am using them to attack easy kills. (You don't need a full-strength unit to attack, say, a longbowman that only has two hit points and is standing in grasslands...)

All things considered, an elite unit within an army cannot attack as often as I require.

 

[Moulton]

I put veteran Samauri in my first and only army. Samauri have a tough time against a vet or elite Legion, and cities defended with legions. Having only catapults at the time, bombarding was only abaout 15% effective, and then only like one point per hit. The army took the first offenseive against a city, after bombarding, and took the most effective defender, then Samauri cleaned them up. A single samauri often did not survive a city assault, so this worked well. Even a badly mauled army heals in a barracks in a couple of turns. Two units made elite status so far.
CAvalry are replacing the samauri, but with its high defensive rating, it makes a great shield for the cavalry. I can imagine an army of infantry would be perfect defensive cover for an artillary squadron. Scuse, my army men, battalion.

 

[Archbob]

I'd go with 3 Cavalry if it was for offense.

 

[Fr8monkey]

i TRIED THE LOAD/UNLOAD AND UPGRADE CHECKS IN THE UNIT EDITOR, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

if you have more then one leader (or plan to get them soon ;-)) here`s what you should do:

1) form a defensive army (3 veteran/elite defenders - as strong as possible) use it to cover artillery and your offence troops

2) form an offensive army (3 veteran/elite offence troops) use it (covered by the defensive army) to kill off city defenders. You will have to use more offensive armies though. I currently have 3 offensive armies with Cavalery and 1 defensive with Infantry - takes down every City in 2 turns with NO Artillery or 1 turn with 1 or 2 more Cavalery and some Artillery

DONT INCLUDE ARTILLERY / CATAPULTS INTO ARMIES - they don`t bring hitpoints!

 

[Moulton]

Well, maybe its time to build some armies. I build the military Academy... Next job is the russians, and their cossacks are better than my cavalry

 

[markv]

I've got to disagree with this statement, Zouvae:

"A minor complaint about the game is that armies, and leader units, are not nearly as important as they could have been. You think a Napoleon, Hannibal, Frederick the Great, or Alexander is truly reflected by this Civ III system? No way."

In one game I was playing, I was on the verge of getting wiped out by enemy civs. I had maybe four cities left, won a defensive battle and was awarded a leader. I grouped up my few remaining swordsmen into an army and went on the offensive. That GL was single-handedly responsible for allowing me to not only survive, but triumph over my AI enemies.

As for army composition, I think that depends a lot on the era you're fighting in. I like to have primary offensive armies in the pre-industrial era, and defensive armies in the post-industrial era. The reason that offensive armies become less important later on is that you have greater tools at your disposal as the game advances: bombers, battleships, etc.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

markv:

I agree with you. Once you have bombers and battleships..... still it`s nice to keep a few offensive armies around - e.g. on small islands where you can save yourself the bombers and artillery and still clobber any landingparty cheaply....


A general hint: I fyou have an outdated army (say: 3 Knights) DON`T disband it! Build the Pentagon, then add a tank - formidable attack unit with 2 movement points!

By the way: Units CAN be promoted when in Armies (contrary to opinions posted here). I`ve had it happen to me several times....

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Psychlone
armies aren't as useful as you might initially think, particularly in later eras.

Of course not. Later eras require a more complex system of leadership than that of a single person.

Alexander fought better than anyone, on the front line.
Caesar was merely there, on the front line.
Wellington rode just behind the lines.
Grant was on a hill near the battle.
Petain was in a French chalet miles from the line.

 

[Huanie]

I think the best use for armies might be for defensive units. After all, you need these units to protect your calvaries and/or tanks while advancing the front line, especially fighting on a continent that's not your own. Having unloaded all them units on a different continent to fight on enemy's turf, having strong units along makes a big difference, especially when AI goes crazy and get 100+ tanks...and all connected with railroads...

 

[Special_O]

Armies are a total waste of time in Civ3. First of all, they do very little for you in a battle and you should always use leaders to rush things.

Armies are stupid.

 

[robz]

how do you use to rush a wonder? I am building the Hoover Dam and I have the GL Barbarosa in the city but I cant figure out what to do? And how do you build an Army?
thanks