DavesWorld
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 39
---
The Army decision
1. I have not in the past observed armies that would retreat from combat rather than fight to the death and this problem concerned me in this example. I had factored the retreat ability into the combat plan.
---
The retreat option appears to work with mobile armies as is does with mobile units. The trick is whether or not the army has any non-fast (i.e., non-retreatable) units contained within it. If so, my experience indicates it will fight to the death as all non-fast units do. If the army is entirely fast units, it has the same retreat chances. I often observe my tank and modern armor armies retreating when I conduct WWII/WWIII in my games. After I figured out the mobility thing, I stopped garrisoning a defender (non-fast) unit in my armies and started simply stacking one with the army where I felt the need.
---
2. The inability to upgrade units in an army would mean that these any units loaded into the army would be forever locked into their current combat ability.
---
No argument, as there is none. However, so what if it locks in old units? By the time you advance technology to the point where the army is no longer valid, you rightfully should have been able to generate 2-3 other armies you could then fill as replacements for the outdated army simply from production, to say nothing of additional GL appearances beyond your Forbidden Palace destined GL. Disband the old army and move on it served its purpose. Or were you not planning to construct additional armies that would make the one GL created one more valuable I suppose.
However, if you were not planning to construct additional armies, why was it a priority to get the first army created and victorious? Doing so only opens up the Army and 1/12 vs 1/16 GL chance wonders you were only interested in the 1/12 GL wonder, and not at all in the MilAcademy?
---
3. When this battle was over and Japan was finally subdued, I would need to load the army into some form of transport to deliver it to any continent where it could be of use. At this time in development of the tech tree, we only had galleys and could only transport an army with one unit loaded inside. We were still at least 40 or 50 turns away from having a galleon that could transport a full army with three units loaded.
---
That's valid I suppose, but how much other ancient war were you engaged in? Your reasoning makes sense if you were planning to be in heavy war throughout (I find this odd since I tend to do anything possible, ANYTHING POSSIBLE, to avoid the pain of warfare prior to atleast gunpowder. I'm one of those Civ players that prefers and enjoys to play with warfare *after* my civ is developed, and as such non-industrial/modern warfare is contra-indicated). However, if this was a prime factor and you did have needs for that army "on the mainland", why retain it in the Japanese Theater at all? Move it immediately to your mainland and equip it for the mainland war would have been my decision with those transport considerations. Replace mainland with "Other War Theater" if it was also water separated from your mainland and/or the Japanese theater.
---
5. If I loaded three units into the army, I would be able to attack twice instead of three times and then the units would not be able to enter the captured city to help quell any resistors and avoid any counterattacks. This might leave the army exposed to being destroyed even after the battle was concluded as a win or a loss. If I only attacked once with the army to preserve its final movement ability, then I would have traded three attack moves for just one.
---
Yes on two attacks with the combined three units vs three attacks with individual units .. but I feel this is counterbalanced by the lower chances of individual unit death from the army vs the chance of each individual attacker perishing. I would have used the loaded army for one of the initial attacks, to "safely" kill off a defender without losses to myself. HP losses, surely; but no unit losses. Intact unit can still heal; dead unit must be reconstructed. With Barracks Armies heal as fast as single units that I've noticed.
Your other comments related to not using existing elite units in the army I only place veteran units in armies if I have no other option (and only build Reg units if there is an extremely urgent need). Elite units excel in armies when added to two or three other elite units. However, if you were low on Elites then I agree using them for the Army would certainly lower your chances for a second GL appearance. And assuming a reg/vet only army, then yes your math works. Vet only in the army would have been 3 units at 4hps, not 3 at 3hps this goes back to the lack of barracks prior. Doesn't the combat math favor victory for a vet-only army .. and certainly for an elite-only army?
I suppose my questions stem from your play style you apparently didn't or weren't developing your cities? Thus the slave-rushing of war chariots from all cities? Which resulted in the inability to slave-rush or otherwise produce barracks in these cities to grant Vet status for the units.... ?
Just curious, btw. Always enjoy discussing differences in strategy and tactics, and on outlook for both.
The Army decision
1. I have not in the past observed armies that would retreat from combat rather than fight to the death and this problem concerned me in this example. I had factored the retreat ability into the combat plan.
---
The retreat option appears to work with mobile armies as is does with mobile units. The trick is whether or not the army has any non-fast (i.e., non-retreatable) units contained within it. If so, my experience indicates it will fight to the death as all non-fast units do. If the army is entirely fast units, it has the same retreat chances. I often observe my tank and modern armor armies retreating when I conduct WWII/WWIII in my games. After I figured out the mobility thing, I stopped garrisoning a defender (non-fast) unit in my armies and started simply stacking one with the army where I felt the need.
---
2. The inability to upgrade units in an army would mean that these any units loaded into the army would be forever locked into their current combat ability.
---
No argument, as there is none. However, so what if it locks in old units? By the time you advance technology to the point where the army is no longer valid, you rightfully should have been able to generate 2-3 other armies you could then fill as replacements for the outdated army simply from production, to say nothing of additional GL appearances beyond your Forbidden Palace destined GL. Disband the old army and move on it served its purpose. Or were you not planning to construct additional armies that would make the one GL created one more valuable I suppose.
However, if you were not planning to construct additional armies, why was it a priority to get the first army created and victorious? Doing so only opens up the Army and 1/12 vs 1/16 GL chance wonders you were only interested in the 1/12 GL wonder, and not at all in the MilAcademy?
---
3. When this battle was over and Japan was finally subdued, I would need to load the army into some form of transport to deliver it to any continent where it could be of use. At this time in development of the tech tree, we only had galleys and could only transport an army with one unit loaded inside. We were still at least 40 or 50 turns away from having a galleon that could transport a full army with three units loaded.
---
That's valid I suppose, but how much other ancient war were you engaged in? Your reasoning makes sense if you were planning to be in heavy war throughout (I find this odd since I tend to do anything possible, ANYTHING POSSIBLE, to avoid the pain of warfare prior to atleast gunpowder. I'm one of those Civ players that prefers and enjoys to play with warfare *after* my civ is developed, and as such non-industrial/modern warfare is contra-indicated). However, if this was a prime factor and you did have needs for that army "on the mainland", why retain it in the Japanese Theater at all? Move it immediately to your mainland and equip it for the mainland war would have been my decision with those transport considerations. Replace mainland with "Other War Theater" if it was also water separated from your mainland and/or the Japanese theater.
---
5. If I loaded three units into the army, I would be able to attack twice instead of three times and then the units would not be able to enter the captured city to help quell any resistors and avoid any counterattacks. This might leave the army exposed to being destroyed even after the battle was concluded as a win or a loss. If I only attacked once with the army to preserve its final movement ability, then I would have traded three attack moves for just one.
---
Yes on two attacks with the combined three units vs three attacks with individual units .. but I feel this is counterbalanced by the lower chances of individual unit death from the army vs the chance of each individual attacker perishing. I would have used the loaded army for one of the initial attacks, to "safely" kill off a defender without losses to myself. HP losses, surely; but no unit losses. Intact unit can still heal; dead unit must be reconstructed. With Barracks Armies heal as fast as single units that I've noticed.
Your other comments related to not using existing elite units in the army I only place veteran units in armies if I have no other option (and only build Reg units if there is an extremely urgent need). Elite units excel in armies when added to two or three other elite units. However, if you were low on Elites then I agree using them for the Army would certainly lower your chances for a second GL appearance. And assuming a reg/vet only army, then yes your math works. Vet only in the army would have been 3 units at 4hps, not 3 at 3hps this goes back to the lack of barracks prior. Doesn't the combat math favor victory for a vet-only army .. and certainly for an elite-only army?
I suppose my questions stem from your play style you apparently didn't or weren't developing your cities? Thus the slave-rushing of war chariots from all cities? Which resulted in the inability to slave-rush or otherwise produce barracks in these cities to grant Vet status for the units.... ?
Just curious, btw. Always enjoy discussing differences in strategy and tactics, and on outlook for both.
