Changes to Armies

[fitchn]

While launching an attack with 6-8 armies loaded 4 modern armors each, I got to thinking... What if armies took the strengths of each unit, rather than simply what the units have in common. Let me explain:

Currently, when units are combined into armies, their attack and defense stats are the average of the units within the army. The number of moves for the army is determined by the unit within the army with the least number of moves. Also, any attributes of the units within the army (ie, blitz, radar, all-terain-as-roads, etc.) are only given to the army if ALL of the units within the army have the attribute(s). And finally, the hit points of the army are cumulative of the hit points of the units within.

I would propose that when they are combined, their attack, defence, and moves be the greatest of each of the units in the army. For example, putting a swordsman (3.2.1), a pikeman (1.3.1), and a horseman (2.2.2) should yield an army with an ADM of 3.3.2; the current system would only yield a unit with an ADM of 2.2.1, which is arguably less than that of it's members. Furthermore, the army should gain any attributes possessed by any of it's members. For example, an army containing a Modern Armor and a Mech. Inf. would still possess the blitz attribute, even though the Mech. Inf does not have it.

I think that making these changes to armies would enhance their strategic use by essentially allowing custom units within a game. I think that this will add to the fun of them by allowing the player to strategically place units into an army, rather than simply loading it up with their strongest unit. Any thoughts...?

 

[EddyG17]

armies now are just a waiste of units, i agree!!
but what about replacing an unit or upgrading it

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by fitchn
Also, any attributes of the units within the army (ie, blitz, radar, all-terain-as-roads, etc.) are only given to the army if ALL of the units within the army have the attribute(s)

Actually, a non-blitz two-or-more-move unit can get the Blitz ability if all those same units are in an army. e.g.- An army of Gallic Swordsman, Horsemen... Makes armies more valuable in the Ancient Age, Middle Ages... They do lose their effectiveness as the Industrial and Modern Ages hit...

 

[Mr Black]

I think if you have 4 units in an Army, then all of those 4 units should be able to attack simultaniously 4 others in a city, for example.

Instead of going after the invincible 2 Infantry, you could attack the weak Cavalry, in the city as well.

 

[PurplePacifier]

I agree that armies should be made stronger and more useful. To me, they would be if you could unload units from armies so that you can later load new up-to-date units. Even better, be able to upgrade the units in the army.

 

[Xen]

armies arnt a waist of units...its been many a game where an army (or legion might be better in this case...) of legionaries has taken on those tough defenders, and sprared other units from deafeat at the hands of that fould foe....

 

[EddyG17]

if you have an army of 4 you should attack 4

 

[The Last Conformist]

As pointed out, armies always have Blitz. But making other abilities "shared" opens up a whole can of questionable tactics - your suggestion would allow (post-Pentagon), an Army consisting of one Moderan Armor, one Mech Inf, one Paratrooper and one Marine unit. It would roll in at 24.18.3, with amphibious and paradrop abilities, as well as, people being the sneaky gits they are, most probably twenty HP. It would be the evil big brother of the four-MA army for less cost!

Or leave out the Para, and you can stuff two of these monsters into a single transport. That's up to six attacks at strength 24, with probably a total of 30 HP. Amphibious assaults would become vastly more effective.

In short, I prefer the armies in their current incarnation. The ability to upgrade the units inside wouldn't hurt, tho'.

 

[fitchn]

Hmm... Hadn't even thought about the paratroopers or marines... These actually would make my idea that much more fun! As I said before, this would make your choice of units for an army that much more strategic... you only have 3 (4 with pentagon) spots... how do you fill them...? Do you add a Modern Armor for 24 attack...? A Mech. Inf. for 18 Defense...? A Marine to allow amphibeous assaults...? A Paratrooper to allow paradrops...? An Explorer to treat all terrain as roads...? Add a unit with radar to see two tiles...? Some of the new units and flags in C3C will allow for even MORE strategic... Add a unit with bombard abilities so that the army can bombard (if you will notice one of the screen shots that was released, there is a ground unit in one of the scenarios with an attack, defence, and bombard value)...? Add a unit with double defence vs. xxxx...? Double damage vs. xxxx....? The list could go on and on, but there's only room for 3-4... Choose, and choose wisely! And these are only the late-game choices!!!

An important side effect of this is that units that were otherwise useless would become useful when combined in an army, such as the explorer. Personally, I rarely (if ever) use marines or paratroopers, as more powerful units are just around the corner--why waste the time researching these optional techs...? This change to armies would make these useful techs once again!

True, this will make armies a force to be contended with, but isn't that the whole point...? After all, in the real world, isn't an army supposed to make the best of all of it's components? Aren't the units supposed to complement each other and fill in the gaps in their weaknesses? As it stands now, armies actually pose less of a threat than the individual units alone... think about it: an army with 4 modern armors can only attack three times in a given turn. However, 4 individual modern armors can attack up to twelve times in a single turn... These proposed changes will once again provide an advantage to an army, and make this cost worth while!

On a side note, implementing this as I suggested would still allow for current tactics, if you wish--simply load the army with the same unit! The best of both worlds!

Edit: Allowing 0.0.x ADM units to join an army would increase the options that much more! Add a unit with bombardment to add bombardment to the armies list of abilities, as well as preemtive defensive strikes; add bombard units with various stats to tweak the BRF of the army. Add a worker to the mix to allow your army to build a fortress or radar tower where it stands. Or, on the flipside, add fast units to an army with a worker to make a fast-moving worker unit. The combinations are virtually endless!

 

[BomberEscort]

A good rule of thumb for armies is that they allow you to attack a unit with triple the attack value of the army (after all modifiers for defense) and allow it to succeed 50% of the time (given elite army vs elite unit, veteran army vs veteran unit, etc.) So they are good for expelling high defense units from anywhere, and offer an advantage to less technologically advantaged civs attacking more technologically advanced ones...

 

[fitchn]

Originally posted by BomberEscort
...they are good for expelling high defense units from anywhere, and offer an advantage to less technologically advantaged civs attacking more technologically advanced ones...

I am fully aware of the advantages of armies, but IMHO the cost of an army is too great for this marginal benefit. For instance, let's say I use a GL to build an army, then load it with three Veteran Modern Armors. The result is essentially a single unit with an ADM of 24.16.3 and 12 HPs, that can attack up to three times in a single turn. What it costs me, however, is three Modern Armors with ADMs of 24.16.3 each with a cumulative 12 HPs, that can attack up to nine times in a single turn. It also cost me the GL, which I could have put to good use by anything from creating another Modern Armor to building a wonder from scratch. In addition to being able to attack more, the individual units can also pillage faster and/or 'starve' more tiles from an enemy city, as well as being able to block a larger area from enemy (or friendly) troop movement. Is this single army worth this cost...?

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
But making other abilities "shared" opens up a whole can of questionable tactics - your suggestion would allow (post-Pentagon), an Army consisting of one Moderan Armor, one Mech Inf, one Paratrooper and one Marine unit. It would roll in at 24.18.3, with amphibious and paradrop abilities, as well as, people being the sneaky gits they are, most probably twenty HP. It would be the evil big brother of the four-MA army for less cost!

I understand your point. As I stated in my previous post, I think that Armies should be powerful forces. Based on your comments, however, I would modify my suggestion to say that perhaps the army should still get any attributes possessed by any units within it, but that the attack and defense values should remain the average of the contained units. This would perhaps be a better balance, as it would force more critical decisions since each unit added to the Army would potentially decrease the attack and defense values. For instance, you could add a marine to the lone Modern Armors now in an army to give it the amphibeous assault ability, but it would also lower it's attack and defense values to 16 and 12, respectively.

A few final thoughts regarding more abilities, and than I'll leave this open to some more outside opinions. Other existing abilities that could be added to your army (with C3C) would be: stealth attack, stealth, hidden nationality, enslavement, and the ability to see stealth units. These, combined with those mentioned earlier, would force some critical decisions, as well as provide for virtually limitless combinations of armies...!

 

[Roland Johansen]

The way armies are implemented in the game at the moment is different then is mentioned in some of the previous posts. They don't use the average of the attack and defence numbers of the various composing units. The average number that is mentioned as it stats in the game is misleading.
If an army attacks, it first uses its best attacker and if this attacker loses its share of the HP's of the army, the next best attacker is used, until the army dies or is victorious. After the battle the HP's are redivided between the various units in the army. Defence by an army functions of course with the best defender starting the fighting.

An example to make things a bit more clear.

An army of 16 HP's consisting of 2 MA's (24/16/3) and 2 MI's(12/18/2) attacks an enemy unit. The first MA starts the fighting (attack of 24) and retreats after losing 4 HP's. Then the second MA starts (attack of 24). It wins directly without losing further HP's. Now 12 HP's are left to the army. They are redivided between the composing 4 units, each getting 3 HP's. Now the army is attacked. The first MI starts defending (defence of 18). It loses all its 3 HP's and the 3 HP's of the next MI are also lost and 2 out of 3 HP's of the defending MA are lost before the lucky attacker is killed. Now the army has 4 HP's remaining that are equally divided between the composing units (1 each). If the army is attacked again this turn, then first the 2 MI will defend (with 1 HP each) and then the MA's.

This redividing of HP's means that an army will often fight with the stats of the best unit it contains.

About the effectiveness of armies:

It's a disadvantage that you can't attack as often with an army than with its composing units. But an army will (normally) never lose. This has two advantages. 1: You'll have to rebuild far less attackers, so the army earns itself back during the war 2: You won't experience as much War Weariness because of the low casuality rate.

So if you build an army you'll trade a little raw attack power now, for a bit more power on the long term. That is not necessarily a bad deal. I often use armies to spare my other units.

But I like some of the suggestions for improvement here because they add some charm to the army. It could use that. The combining of abilities sounds like fun. If an army uses the ability of one of its members in a battle than this unit should start the fighting (a marine in an army should spearhead an amphibious landing).

 

[The Last Conformist]

Couple of "realism" points:

1) Armies should stay at the movement of the slowest member. It makes no sense whatsoever that banding up with a unit of Modern Armor would allow three units of Inf to move three times faster. In addition, treats all terrain as roads shouldn't be sharable - we don't want to see, effectively, three-move Tanks or Inf armies (by joining them with Explorers).

2) No mechanized or mounted unit should be able to paradrop!

Again, I think the present incarnation of armies is pretty satisfactory. Remember that any added complexity in army composition is going to hurt the AI.

 

[WickedSmurf]

I concur with Conformist. Even though I find the whole army-thing a bit odd there is really no reason to change it, works rather fine.

 

[EddyG17]

i think they should inplement each other, like fichn said but their HP should be average.