How is it possible to upgrade units in armies?
- Thread starter Ankka
- Start date
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
In my experience, once a unit is in an army, it is there to stay. It can neither be removed nor upgraded.
LionQ
Noble
Indeed you can't upgrade units when you've placed them in a Army. It would be an idea voor PlayTheWorld!
Reboot
Privateer
I think we've discussed before that Armies were made non-upgradable because it is potentially unbalancing?
LionQ
Noble
Can be, I don't know. Do you have the link?
Catt
Emperor
In one of the Firaxis chats (here or at Apolyton) or magazine interviews, the designers said that they specifically coded armies so that you couldn't unload or upgrade units once placed in an army -- in their view those abilities made armies too powerful and therefore unbalancing.
The solution (at least a partial solution) that some have found useful is to only very rarely load armies completely full at the first opportunity -- it is often better to keep a free spot available for future loading of more advanced units. For example, a 2-swordsman army is darn near unstoppable in the ancient age, but begins to look weak in the Middle Ages. But a 2-swordsman and 1-musketman army is one heckuva defensive army in the Middle Ages, and no slouch on offense. And after the Pentagon, a 2-swordsman, 1-musketman, 1-infantry army is a powerful defender even in the early modern age. By contrast, a 3-swordsman army is also darn near unstoppable in the ancient age, but loses a considerable amount of its luster come Cavalry, and is largely useless other than as a military police unit after infantry.
The solution (at least a partial solution) that some have found useful is to only very rarely load armies completely full at the first opportunity -- it is often better to keep a free spot available for future loading of more advanced units. For example, a 2-swordsman army is darn near unstoppable in the ancient age, but begins to look weak in the Middle Ages. But a 2-swordsman and 1-musketman army is one heckuva defensive army in the Middle Ages, and no slouch on offense. And after the Pentagon, a 2-swordsman, 1-musketman, 1-infantry army is a powerful defender even in the early modern age. By contrast, a 3-swordsman army is also darn near unstoppable in the ancient age, but loses a considerable amount of its luster come Cavalry, and is largely useless other than as a military police unit after infantry.
LionQ
Noble
Good ideas. No, I now think they (FG) can let it better so.
Catt
Emperor
Might very well be, especially if attacking a Greek city on a hill acorss a river
- but for the most part I find a 8 or 9 HP 3-attack unit to be pretty daunting in the ancient age. Depends on the individual game, and player taste for risk. On an archipelago map, for example, I usually expect armies to be few and far in between until well into the late industrial age - just one example when I would hate to "use up" an army in the ancient age (by loading it full), without the opportunity to make it "army-powerful" in the middle ages. Other times, as you point out, I'll load an army with the most powerful units available and go a conquering! I will almost never risk my first battle with an army on a dicey attack (I need that battle win for the HE and later the MA, else my leader has been wasted on an early army.) "Be flexible" is always a good admonition.
tyguyx12
Chieftain
I think there was a glitch using transports; you could unload individual units rather than the whole army, but this has since been fixed in a patch.
LionQ
Noble
Yes, it's a nasty point. At the one side, they may do it (it's nice and difficult if the computer does). But at the other side: it's onrealistic. So, I say it again: Firaxis Games, let it so.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
YOu can't upgrade units in an army but they can gain "experience"
they can go from say a regular to a veteran unit, or a veteran to an elite. So I like to NOT put elites in an army...
they can go from say a regular to a veteran unit, or a veteran to an elite. So I like to NOT put elites in an army...
Hellfire
Prince
Okay lets follow this logic a moment.
#1 Every civ has access to armies, so who has the unfair advantage
#2 Firaxis introduced armies themselves and they turned out to be unbalancing?
#3 instead of removing armies entirely, they "nerf" them (to borrow a term from MMORPGs) so they are so much less useful than they could be.
The frustration with armies is they are so NOT useful because they don't behave like a stack of normal units. They behave like a stack of units with fewer abilities than regular units. Thats so stupid. Either Armies are in with full abilities or they are out entirely. This is just an example of a programmer or designer trying to be cool and failing miserably.
It would be an exploit if you can unload and then reload an army. For example:
After fighting several battles, your army is down to 1 hp so you immediately unload that army and reload it with some fresh units while safely move the wonded units back to your cities. By doing that, you will never need more than 4-5 armies and you will never lose any units.
After fighting several battles, your army is down to 1 hp so you immediately unload that army and reload it with some fresh units while safely move the wonded units back to your cities. By doing that, you will never need more than 4-5 armies and you will never lose any units.
DaDoo
Prince
When you mix units, the only way to make army workable and make sense is to use the lowest denomination ability wise. Which is how it is currently implemented. I don't see how that is stupid as you claim.
Catt
Emperor
No - only civs which have generated a great leader and chosen to use the leader to create an army have access to armies.
No - Firaxis programmers stated that being able to upgrade units or unload units (same thing as upgrading, as Hades pointed out) would be unbalancing. The army itself is not unbalancing.
No - they kept armies in the game because they remain useful - just less useful (read: not unbalancing) than they could be with alternate rule sets.
I find armies very useful. I particularly find mixed-unit armies useful. And they shouldn't behave like a stack of normal units - if they did, why would I bother with armies?
Mixed-unit armies are useful for a couple of reasons. The short version (for me) comes down to one particular key point - I expect my army to essentially guarantee a battle win in almost any circumstance. Two swordsmen or two horsemen in an ancient age army just about get you there; 2 knights in the early middle ages will do the same. Adding a third unit doesn't appreciably increase the odds of winning a battle - the odds are so skewed in your favor due to the 8 or more HPs (no chance for defender promotions before death) that adding a third unit might rightly be thought of as overkill (might take expected battle win percentage in a given circumstance from 96% to 98%? not a big gain). Now also take into account that armies can be few and far in between until the ability to build the Military Academy arrives with Military Tradition. I don't want my army to become obsolete quickly -- as may naturally occur as tech progresses -- because I don't know if I'll get another one into well into the Industrial Age.
An example probably helps here: If I have carefully left a space in my early army (loading only 2 horseman, say), I can add a knight to my army as the age of chivalry arrives. The 2-horseman army is an exceedingly powerful ancient age attack unit, and I am pretty comfortable that it is going to take down anything in its way (yes, there are a couple of exceptions
). If I add a third horseman, the relative strength of the army vis-a-vis other ancient age units is largely unchanged - it remains a supremely powerful ancient age monster. But soon the age of chivalry arrives, and with it knights, pikemen and musketmen, together with more Cities (7 pop or higher) and the defensive bonus Cities provide. Had I created a 3-horseman army in the ancient age, the army itself would now be largely obsolete - sure, I could use it against spearmen, and I could use it against units in the open field, but I probably can't confidently use it to "crack open" that City guarded by a tough defender. However, since I only created a 2-horseman army in the ancient age, I can now add a knight to the army. My knight-horseman-horseman army is still very powerful in the Middle Ages - its 12 HPS, led by a 4 attack unit and then two 2 attack units, means it still retains the key capability I desire from my armies - the ability to essentially guarantee a victory in battle. By loading units into armies over time rather than as soon as an army appears, you can successfully extend the useful life of a single army significantly. A second reason to use mixed unit armies (particularly mixed units across ages) is that armies appear to "share" hitpoints. What does this mean? A 2-swordsman army defends with a "2" defense. Add a musketman to the army, and the army now defends at a "4" defense. With three units overall, the army probably has at least 12 HPS. If this mixed unit army is attacked by an enemy knight and wins, losing 3 HPs in the process, you're left with a 9 HP army. Guess what? That now-9 hp army defends (for 3 HPS) with a "4" defense. You have successfully leveraged the "2" defense HPs of the swordsman into "4" defense HPs of the musketman. Not bad - and goes a fair way to overcoming the limitation on upgrading units in an army.
Hellfire
Prince
Hades: more reason why armies shouldn't even be implemented. You add a cool feature to a game but then find out it has lots of exploits so you limit it so its not as cool as you once thought. Thats BAD design in any world. I can understand not unloading armies but sheesh not upgrading them?
Dadoo: I ment in the sense that you can't upgrade units, and that they can't attack more than once even if all units attack more than once in the stack. You also can't airlift them either (like artillery and worker units, but that might be a more generic design issue not limited to armies).
Catt: people keep telling me about the "clever use" of armies. I've taken to playing entire games without armies. There are plenty of clever strategies without armies. Armies add nothing to the game and ignoring them takes nothing away. Plus I never seem to be able to get much in the way of armies until the industrial age anyway, so I don't waste my time.
I understand how people use them, I just see no point in why using them in the first place.
Perhaps I'm jaded because Civ3, in all its coolness, also breaks a lot of smart standards they established in Civ1 and 2. Armies just seem like "hey thats a neat feature lets put them in. Oh wait they have a lot of possible exploits lets put lots of limitations." If its exploitable don't nerf it... get rid of it!!!
Dadoo: I ment in the sense that you can't upgrade units, and that they can't attack more than once even if all units attack more than once in the stack. You also can't airlift them either (like artillery and worker units, but that might be a more generic design issue not limited to armies).
Catt: people keep telling me about the "clever use" of armies. I've taken to playing entire games without armies. There are plenty of clever strategies without armies. Armies add nothing to the game and ignoring them takes nothing away. Plus I never seem to be able to get much in the way of armies until the industrial age anyway, so I don't waste my time.
I understand how people use them, I just see no point in why using them in the first place.
Perhaps I'm jaded because Civ3, in all its coolness, also breaks a lot of smart standards they established in Civ1 and 2. Armies just seem like "hey thats a neat feature lets put them in. Oh wait they have a lot of possible exploits lets put lots of limitations." If its exploitable don't nerf it... get rid of it!!!
Similar threads
