Some More Army Questions

[Scary Penguin]

What are people's thoughts on using armies?

In my current game, I used a leader and three knights to make one army, and built two other armies, but ended up leaving them unloaded for the next several centuries. I also faced an enemy tank army with several modern armor units, and lost two before I finally killed it.

My observations:

- Once you build an army, you can't unload or upgrade the units in it.

- It seems to me that the army doesn't heal as fast as the three units would individually. Even with a barracks, it looked like it took 2-3 turns to heal the army from the brink of death.

- As a result of the army, I'm only able to attack one unit per turn with the three knights, rather than three.

As a result, my initial take is that an army might be helpful on defense (even then, if I'm right that the army cuts healing to 1/3, then maybe not). On offense, however, it doesn't look like it's much good, particularly if you have an offensive advantage.

Any thoughts?

 

[adamschroeder]

Well an army is a good defender as well. Consider a case where you might have 10 cavalry attacking a city defended by 10 rifleman. So you have an attack of 6 vs a defense of 6 plus terrain and city defense bonuses.

Likely what will happen here is that you cavalry might damage the rifleman a few times before getting destoryed or retreating, and occasionaly might win. Each time the next unit attacks you will have a fresh undamaged defender to deal with.

If your 10 cavalry were devided into 3 armies of 3 cavalry a piece you would almost certainly win the three battles and actually kill the rifleman since 3 cavalry get a shot at one rifleman before he gets replaces by a fresh one. Repeat this a few times and you will eventually clear out the defenders.

Usually the enemy will have 2 or 3 good defenders and then a bunch of straglers in the city. Having a nice army or two can take out the two best defenders while your remaining forces clear out the easier forces.

 

[Scary Penguin]

Also, as Pale Horse pointed out in another thread, Armies have the new Civ3 zone of control (i.e., they get a free one-hit attack on units moving past them).

 

[Peteus]

Agreed, when you have an attacking advantage, you have to think twice before dumping a bunch of your fast-attack units into an army, which will limit their attacks from 3 or 4 to 1. The army is good for attacking units that you aren't likely to kill with one of your units though, especially when they are stacked or in a city.
Armies are stronger on defense - It would take a lot to kill a unit of 4 mech inf!!

Healing - The manual states that the army heals as fast as the component units would if still seperate. I haven't tried the barracks test yet though, to prove it to myself. I have seen my tank army regenerate more than one (I think three) hp resting in the field.

Note - a lone horseman has a zone of control, so the fact that an army does is not a big deal!

 

[strollen]

I found Cav armies to be very useful. The 6 attack of cavalry is not enough to reliable get rid of 3 or 4 stength defender, much less a rifleman or an infantry. Sure you can weaken them with Cav but than you can be killed by the counter attack.

However, a veteran cav army can kill even a infantryman in a city. Best of all they can move 2 square in enemy territory and still attack. They also have enough hit points to survive counter attacks.

 

[Malys Faisent]

I made an army of immortals (the only army and the only GL I've ever seen in fact...either mine or the AI). It worked wonders in decimating the Babylonians. I noticed a few odd things about it though, first the troops that fought in battle could go up in rank, the first unit reached elite almost immediately, and the second reached elite once the first got weakened in an assault. That was nice.