Corps and Armies

[Leyrann]

I feel like it is always worth to combine as many units as possible into corps and armies, but what do other people think about that?

 

[Bigv32]

There are several pro's and cons to doing this, so for me it is situational.

Pro's

The main three reasons are (especially the 3rd):
-Less maintenance costs as an army costs the same as one unit I believe (if not it is significantly less than three units).
-The way combat works in civ6, the increase in strength over the base units is very good. While it may not seem like it on the surface, the smallish increase is significant.
- You can effectively give units promotions by combining them with older more experienced units. Example, take one infantry unit with 4 promotions and combine it with 2 fresh units, you now have an army with 4 promotions. I am not sure how things such as faster experience gain from barracks work, but it is a great way to significantly increase the strength of your army.

Others pros:
Easier to move fewer units.
More dense packing of unit = more firepower per area. Yes this is a bit odd with how I said it, but what I mean is you can fit more units that are stronger in the same area.

Con's
-Longer production times. There are times I have found it easier to have smaller cities produce the base units and then combine them later (Yes I know technically it is faster to produce 1 army over 3 units, but if I need the units now, it works)
- You lose the ability to "cover" the area/have fewer units to create a line. There are times it is preferable to have 3 units on 3 tiles rather than 1 unit on 1 tile.


Other considerations:
- How many encampments you have and the buildings in them can be a big investment to make.

 

[Bobfregman]

Once I get the requisite civics I usually start consolidating my forces into corps and later armies immediately. The advantages are significant and there aren't many drawbacks. The only situation where I consider keeping my units alone is if I have a nice tech lead over my opponent. If I have Tanks going against knights then it makes sense to keep the tanks separate and use the numbers to advance more quickly.

 

[Leyrann]

There are several pro's and cons to doing this, so for me it is situational.

Pro's

The main three reasons are (especially the 3rd):
-Less maintenance costs as an army costs the same as one unit I believe (if not it is significantly less than three units).
-The way combat works in civ6, the increase in strength over the base units is very good. While it may not seem like it on the surface, the smallish increase is significant.
- You can effectively give units promotions by combining them with older more experienced units. Example, take one infantry unit with 4 promotions and combine it with 2 fresh units, you now have an army with 4 promotions. I am not sure how things such as faster experience gain from barracks work, but it is a great way to significantly increase the strength of your army.

Others pros:
Easier to move fewer units.
More dense packing of unit = more firepower per area. Yes this is a bit odd with how I said it, but what I mean is you can fit more units that are stronger in the same area.

Con's
-Longer production times. There are times I have found it easier to have smaller cities produce the base units and then combine them later (Yes I know technically it is faster to produce 1 army over 3 units, but if I need the units now, it works)
- You lose the ability to "cover" the area/have fewer units to create a line. There are times it is preferable to have 3 units on 3 tiles rather than 1 unit on 1 tile.


Other considerations:
- How many encampments you have and the buildings in them can be a big investment to make.

What would you say when playing a generally peaceful game? You'd not have a big army, of course, but you're probably not fighting more than one war at the same time. Use few units to just pick off enemy invaders, or instead fill up all tiles to stop the enemy from advancing by occupying the tiles yourself?

Then again, I suppose this is dependant on the map layout. If I think about my current game (where I got only Corps right now and just unlocked Armies a couple of turns ago), I am bordered in the west and north by sea, in the south I have two three-tile (broad) mountain passes and several 1-tile passes. Meanwhile, in the west it's mostly the smae mountain range, which doesn't have passes there, though I do have a few cities beyond it, and north of that I have some open border with Poland, who is so far behind I have a casus belli for colonial war (which is actually about to give me three free cities). So yeah, even when I get into a war, I'm looking at either just a few tiles to defend, for which Corps and Armies are perfect, or I'm fighting with someone who's so far behind it all doesn't matter. Heck, my strategy for conquering Poland is to park some Mustketman corps in front of my Bombard corps on fortify (while in own territory) and use an Observation Balloon to allow my Bombard to shoot down the city walls of the nearest city. If a Musketman attacks my corps, it's some 15 vs 50 dmg, if the city bombards it's some 8 damage, and it heals 15 every turn.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I think it's usually better to consolidate your army during peaceful times, and produce them one by one in times of war.

While at peace, the higher strength of your units should discourage any attacks. Couple it with the home advantage (better positioning, walls and encampments) and good scouting for better results.

However, when someone DoW's you, then produce them separately in many cities. Use your Corps/Armies to buy time; their increased strength should cover any slight tech disadvantage you may have. Producing units separately lets you have many units exercising ZoC earlier, slowing down the enemy even more. Also, your units take less time to get where they're needed, while the enemy must walk a bit to reach you, making replenishing losses faster.

Similarly, when on the offensive, a carpet of units may let you attack multiple targets at once, and have more units to rotate to prevent losses. That is, unless you're in a clusterf*** type of terrain.

 

[PeteBDawg]

What would you say when playing a generally peaceful game?

I think in a peaceful game the lower maintenance cost is the biggest factor and would be persuasive in consolidating to corps and armies. The only exception would be if you were trying to use troops to block opposing religious units from converting a holy city.

Oh, also -- your city's defensive strength is based on the combat strength of your strongest melee unit or your unit garrisoned in the city. Corps and armies have stronger combat strength than single units, so forming and garrisoning them gives your defensive city strength a big boost.

 

[Jarms48]

Other considerations:
- How many encampments you have and the buildings in them can be a big investment to make.

Another consideration, maybe it was a bug, I need to test it again. Is if you manually combine single units in the field it "heals" the corps and/or army not to full, just to whatever the average between the two is. As I said, I need to test it again, but I swear I remember it.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

Another consideration, maybe it was a bug, I need to test it again. Is if you manually combine single units in the field it "heals" the corps and/or army not to full, just to whatever the average between the two is. As I said, I need to test it again, but I swear I remember it.

Pretty sure you're right.
My guess is that it's just the medium of the 2 hps but given the fact that the Corp/army is as a single unit tougher, you get effective hp somehow.
Just my wild guess.

 

[Victoria]

As I said, I need to test it again, but I swear I remember it.

Most games at the moment I am merging a wounded unit and it is as you say, about 50% of the two.

I'm going to use my ships as an example because its easier to explain.

I will build 2 galleys and 4 Quads (shooty ships are better but need anti sub later)

As the game progresses some get great promotions. I will send one of my quads/frigates up the district damage line and the other 3 up the navy damage line. I also tend to leave my caravels/ironclad/destroyers single. You can merge them at any time if you have to so its not like you have to go to base.

When I am nearing time for fleets I will build an extra frigate and add it to my district frigate to make that a fleet, same again at armadas.

The reason I do it this way is my anti navy ships can surround and my destroyers get flanking bonuses. I have flexibility to search more area and have more visibility. My district damage armada is much harder to kill if I do something stupid, it can go inside a coastal city to get an extra tile range inland and the concentrated fire just wrecks. Having in essence 3 ships in one square all with +1 range while I only started with 1 ship having +1 range is important. Also having my anti navy ships having different things like +1 movement means some ships can catch the enemy. So its variety of promotions in utility troops and concentration in punching central troops.

######

Now take that to the army. You have an attack force of soldiers that you want as an corps/army. They are pretty slow for flanking so unless you want a long line playing a MP game they are best as a hard hitting central unit with army of artillery.

On the flanks having for example an army of cavalry to take their army of cavalry on is of some import or some shooters to reduce it. Then you have single cavalry units to flank and vulture the kill. They also are scouting your flanks to ensure your attack will not be disturbed and its just cheaper to so with single units. The downside is cheaper units get destroyed easier which is more weariness as well as less troops.

#######
Merging is a one-way action, there is some benefits in having more single units and so only merge when required. Heavy hitting troops just need to merge.
One last benefit, corps/armies = less units to move