Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by jimkirk, Nov 17, 2005.
whatever happened to armies?
I'm guessing they got rid of them because of the improved artillery when dealing with stacks.
Dang, I didn't even notice that there was no armies in CivIV...
IMO Civ 4 doesn't need armies. Instead it has the kick ass promotion system
Armies it Civ 3 were awesome but they didn't make much sense. In reality any group of units can be an army.
Yes, the idea of the civ 3 army was that it was the leader of an organized group of units but in civ 4 you can correctly group different units together that have different promotions that all complament eachother and you get something much cooler than a civ 3army can ever hope to be.
True and it's best to have several 4-5unit (about the size of a Civ3 army)stacks instead of one big stack of Doom.
exactly, Civ 4's system allows for much more creativity and strategy
Which is truly the game at its best.
...but you cannot attack with your stack in one combined move right?
The benefit of the armies was that you rarely had unit losses
I hated armies in CivIII,much prefer the promotion benefit in Civ IV,its so much more diverse and just seems to improve gameplay. A couple of armies could walk through enemy cities
So without the benefit of the increased health and attack it's more difficult to overrun fortified units....
I won't miss not being able to upgrade units just because they happened to be stuck in an army. Nope, not for a minute.
Thanks God armies in Civ 3 manner is gone. Armies were not an addition to combat at all. With the new stack system you can costum make your own armies with combined forces, and it's possible for you to take losses too, and that's good!
In CivIII Vanilla and PTW, armies were an add-on that didn't make much sense together with the rest of the unit and combat system. In C3C, armies were broken. I, for one, don't miss them.
I really miss the armies. I hope they bring them back for those of us that liked them. Those that don't miss the armies can continue to play without them, just as you were able to do in C3.
Removing Armies was an alternative for not being able to solve the issue of the AI not being able to use Armies correctly.
As the AI couldn't use them (in an effective way), it's good they good rid of it as it was too unbalancing towards human players.
I understand, but removing things that are "fun" from a game makes a game less fun. Rebalance can occur by the human going to a higher level. Again, for those that think armies are unbalanced you could always play without them. Just disband a MGL when you got one. For those of us that had fun with armies... we have no options in C4. I hope they add a preference for "play with armies" similar to the "no scientific leaders" preference in C3.
I think that about sums up what happened to armies and why we don't need them.
And that's not a problem? Why should you be able to attack with overwhelming power and not take losses. That's easy mode, not strategy.
I didn't think armies were implemented well in Civ3/C3C. Your troops should be unstoppable due to superior tactics and execution, not due to an uber unit that can't be killed.
It might be cool to have a military general unit or great leader. Something you can stick with a stack that gives the stack some kind of bonus and reflects the presence of a superior general vs lack thereof. Make a unit, make em costly, make them limited like spies or missionaries, make em require the national or heroic epic or something (and only be produced in that city). Either give em a +10% flat bonus to their stack or give them less and let them earn xps and gain promotions to diversify their power, so you might have a general that added +10% when attacking cities, or +10% vs armor, etc.
I always viewed Armies in Civ III as a necessary evil, introduced into the game to help compensate for the brokenness in the combat system.
Mounting an offensive against a reasonably well-defended opponent in Civ III, especially during the long stretch between the development of Pikemen and Modern Armor, required constructing a big Stack of Doom, consisting either of many underpowered (at least when attacking cities) offensive units for waves of suicide attacks, or tons of artillery units to try to damage the defenders...or preferably both.
Because defending units healed fully in the time between consecutive-turn attacks--and added a hit point all too often after repelling a defender--while the offensive units either destroyed themselves or got severely damaged (usually requiring long retreats to repair, pre-Battlefield Medicine), it often was the case that even a reasonably well-organized attack would leave the defenders stronger, and the attackers broken and begging to be mopped up with a mounted unit or two, after a few turns. Unless the SoD was ridiculously big...but then, that had a way of being a bit too easy to achieve.
The Army (particularly in Conquests, if I remember correctly), provided a way for a city-attacker to triple its hit-points, and therefore be able to kill several defenders dead without making them stronger, before it got damaged enough to have to retreat. It introduced a bit more strategy, above simply "build a whole lotta x and a whole lotta y and throw 'em both against the enemy in waves" (with "x" and "y" being simply the offensive and artillery units with the highest attack strengths available); but still was ultimately more a workaround than a brilliant design idea.
The revamped combat system in Civ IV resolves this problem wonderfully. It preserves the challenge in attacking cities--indeed, more detailed planning is now required--while making it possible enough, in enough ways, for the attacker to prevail that the Army kludge is no longer necessary.
That's my .02, anyhow.
so i gather in civ4 i am supposed to put togetehr a stack of 3 or 4 different kinds of units but how do i attack an enemy as a group? as i recall the last battle i fought in civ4 i could only use individual units of a stack to attack
and soes the computer decide which of my units gets to fight? or do i
Separate names with a comma.