steviejay
Now in Black and White!!
I always keep whatever units I build but I upgrade them, it costs a huge amount but sometimes it can be worth it
Military: Quantity versus quality?
- Thread starter Dr. Dr. Doktor
- Start date
I always keep whatever units I build but I upgrade them, it costs a huge amount but sometimes it can be worth it
Quantity can make up for poor quality if you have a massive advantage in numbers. The Aztec UU truly sucks, but if you have like 10-20 in the ancient era, conquering the closest AI should be a breeze. They are very cheap to build, too.
Someone during WW2 (IIRC) once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." 
That said, numerical superiority helps but ultimately overall strategy and tactics will matter more IMO. Work with what you have and utilise them most effectively.
That said, numerical superiority helps but ultimately overall strategy and tactics will matter more IMO. Work with what you have and utilise them most effectively.
Mad Bomber
Commander
Knight-Dragon:
The quote is Russian, and dates to the great patriotic war (WW2 for the rest of us), It was particularly popular during the height of the cold war, and was, at times, grimly recited by NATO commanders, who were contemplating taking on 10,000 Russian tanks pouring through the Fulda gap with little more than 1,000 tanks of their own to stop them.
The quote is Russian, and dates to the great patriotic war (WW2 for the rest of us), It was particularly popular during the height of the cold war, and was, at times, grimly recited by NATO commanders, who were contemplating taking on 10,000 Russian tanks pouring through the Fulda gap with little more than 1,000 tanks of their own to stop them.
When you are not at war the production speed is not that crucial and the limiting factor for your military size is the unit upkeep costs. Therefore it is advantageous to produce the best units in terms of A/D/M factors (plus special abilities if needed). If your budget allows max 100 units regardless of their type then it makes sense to have the best you can get.
"When in peace optimize quality regardless of cost."
When you are at war then "punch per shield" is what counts. If I can produce units at a speed that allows them to kill your units faster than you can replace them, you will lose. In civ3 industrial war (sometimes referred to as the "peacounters' war") is not restricted to modern times as all units from ancient to modern are produced and supplied the same way.
"When at war optimize quality per cost."
"When in peace optimize quality regardless of cost."
When you are at war then "punch per shield" is what counts. If I can produce units at a speed that allows them to kill your units faster than you can replace them, you will lose. In civ3 industrial war (sometimes referred to as the "peacounters' war") is not restricted to modern times as all units from ancient to modern are produced and supplied the same way.
"When at war optimize quality per cost."
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
I value quanity over quality. Or quality in quanity amounts. Unless the defending unit is injured, then maybe I'll rush with dead-end swordsmen and longbowmen. But in modern ages warfare I couldn't have won with dead-end quanity units - I had to have a swarm of quality units in quanity.
DaDoo
Prince
keep in mind though;
Even if you have the quantity but not the quality, it can work against you very quickly in battle. For every battle you lose and an unit of yours dies, the enemy gets a chance for promotion and a leader if its already elite. After that they could make an army and that'll make your battle even harder.
I prefer quality AND quantity together. That's what wins the battle. Not one or the other.
Even if you have the quantity but not the quality, it can work against you very quickly in battle. For every battle you lose and an unit of yours dies, the enemy gets a chance for promotion and a leader if its already elite. After that they could make an army and that'll make your battle even harder.
I prefer quality AND quantity together. That's what wins the battle. Not one or the other.
Bismarck
The Iron Chancellor
True, though that's not a problem with units that can retreat.
To avoid giving the AI a chance to generate GL's, I focus all of my attacks in one turn, rather than launching several smaller waves.
nullspace
King
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 728
I like quality for all the reasons that Pembroke and DaDoo mentioned, but quantity has its benefits too. Quantity is good for military police, flip prevention, and riot suppression. A big stack of chariots could move from conquered town to conquered town and stop the resistance just as well as a big stack of tanks.
What if there's one cavalry in range of one of your towns that's defended by a single rifleman, and all your "quality" units have other things they need to do? Put a warrior in that town too, and even if the cavalry kills the rifleman, he won't take the town.
Are your terrain improvements being destroyed by enemy aircraft or bombardment from the sea? Cover your territory with cheapo units to absorb the damage. Keeps enemies from landing troops on your shores, too.
Yeah, I prefer quality for my main fighting force, but having lots of units, even if they're obsolete, is nice, too.
What if there's one cavalry in range of one of your towns that's defended by a single rifleman, and all your "quality" units have other things they need to do? Put a warrior in that town too, and even if the cavalry kills the rifleman, he won't take the town.
Are your terrain improvements being destroyed by enemy aircraft or bombardment from the sea? Cover your territory with cheapo units to absorb the damage. Keeps enemies from landing troops on your shores, too.
Yeah, I prefer quality for my main fighting force, but having lots of units, even if they're obsolete, is nice, too.
Joesocwork
War Waging Social Worker
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2002
- Messages
- 81
A different tack using a peaceful strategy: I thought that I read in either one of the guides or posts that the A.I.'s only assess numbers and not the tech and so might be less likely to attack civ's w/ 4 warriors-spearman per city vs. ones w/ one infantry per city. Feedback?
Joesocwork
War Waging Social Worker
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2002
- Messages
- 81
A different tack using a peaceful strategy: I thought that I read in either one of the guides or posts that the A.I.'s only assess numbers and not the tech and so might be less likely to attack civ's w/ 4 warriors-spearman per city vs. ones w/ one infantry per city. Feedback?
Cartouche Bee
Appropriations Consultant
You may well have read that in one of the guides but one of the patches, I think, 1.29 changed that to evaluate quality rather than just quantity. Personally, I'd rather have tanks than spearmen.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Like real war, its a question of how easily you want to win, and with how many casualties. In real war, you could throw a million soldiers armed with handguns at 1,000 dug-in soldiers, and you WOULD eventually win. You'd win much easier with combined arms and better equipped forces, of course. This applies to civ in the same way: 100 swordsmen could still win against 10 infantry, but 15 tanks would do the trick much better.
Strategy seems to be useful in civ, but only up to a point: like the example above: 15 tanks will win against 10 infantry, but using artillery, air runs, and the terrain will give you less casualties. Numbers count for more than strategy, but that doesn't mean strategy is any less important.
CG
Strategy seems to be useful in civ, but only up to a point: like the example above: 15 tanks will win against 10 infantry, but using artillery, air runs, and the terrain will give you less casualties. Numbers count for more than strategy, but that doesn't mean strategy is any less important.
CG
RobOz
Whatchoo lookin at?
I'd rather have my capitol defended by 2 mech infantry than 4 rifleman. Against a modern armor you are gauranteed a dead rifleman every attack where as the mech inf has a excellent chance of survival at each encounter.
As for offense I also go quality over quantity. Yeah, I can spend the next 30 turns throwing every swordsmen I can make at them or I can send in my large force of knights and quickly finish them off. I can then spend those extra 20 some turns rebuilding my quality army, while the quantity people are still throwing their swordsmen against the wall.
I always spend the time to make a large quantity force and then attack. If the maintenance costs are the same, why not just build quality?
I can see using quantity in a desperate situation where you are about to be destroyed and just need to create some cannon fodder to slow them down enough to make some combat worthy units, but that's the only circumstance I go for quantity that I can think of.
As for offense I also go quality over quantity. Yeah, I can spend the next 30 turns throwing every swordsmen I can make at them or I can send in my large force of knights and quickly finish them off. I can then spend those extra 20 some turns rebuilding my quality army, while the quantity people are still throwing their swordsmen against the wall.
I always spend the time to make a large quantity force and then attack. If the maintenance costs are the same, why not just build quality?
I can see using quantity in a desperate situation where you are about to be destroyed and just need to create some cannon fodder to slow them down enough to make some combat worthy units, but that's the only circumstance I go for quantity that I can think of.
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
Originally posted by Lynx
I think doktor has communist mmilitary ideas. think about it... Mass army of bad troops that suffer insane losses just to take down 1 unit which is quite advanced. I HATE COMMUNISTS!!!
I beg to differ. The German Volksturm, which took insane losses, were not produced by a Communist regime.
The final Japanese mobilization plan before the atomic bomb was dropped included arming citizens with spears. Japan was not a communist regime either.
I believe Mussolino said that an allied invasion of Italy would be met by a million bayonets. And we all know what sort of person Mussulini was.
In short the preparation of immense sacrifize in the name of one´s country has little to do with what really constitutes the essence of communism.
MTheil3508
Prince
If I am able to maintain units from a previous war, then I will save and upgrade them. But if I am going to build an army of soldiers then I would need to see how advanced my opponent is. If my soldiers are a fair match to my opponent then I will utilize the cost benefit and build them. If the fight is hopeless with my lacking units then I will wait and build more modern units. The older the unit is the more I need , the newer, the less I need.
gugalpm
Veteran of psychic wars
Mussolini...
The Russian military industry was the only thing that really had a chance against western research...
The Russian military industry was the only thing that really had a chance against western research...
LeoHat
Chieftain
Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Someone during WW2 (IIRC) once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
'Uncle' Joe Stalin in regards to the massive Russ. casulties taken in the campaign to defeat Germany
mad bomber, the units in civ 3 are in divisions, its more like 100 mechanized units against...say 400,000 immortals. they have to run across a field toward the veicles while getting shot at by machine guns and tank fire. since it is fairly obvious to see an army of 400,000, you wont have problems with sight and they are clumped together. Omaha beach was marines charging against 100 foot bluffs with unobstructed view of the marines and machine guns there. and more than 2,000 marines died there even heavily spread out.
Similar threads
