This is a little embarrassing but I still don't use corps...because I don't understand them

[ShakaKhan]

Thanks for all the replies! Great insight here. I never considered how corps (and etc.) help to counteract the movement "penalty" that we all incurred when moving from Civ5 to Civ6. Admittedly, this is something that I find, not so much frustrating but tedious, and perhaps utilizing this mechanic that I've neglected may alleviate that to a degree.

Anyways since you are playing deity and you seem to have no issues, there's no reason you have to go to corps. If you are happy with the status quo, stick to it.

The reason I want to understand the concept better is due to the context and timing of the question. I haven't picked up R&F yet. I watched the horror videos of loyalty and people conquering a city, immediately engaging all of the loyalty boost tricks to get it as high as possible, and still have it flip in 3 turns, then they just keep reclaiming the same cities over and over playing whack-a-mole. Watching this, it seems game-breaking to this point I refused to pick up the expansion solely for this reason (governors seems pretty cool though, and the whole era thing is meh, pros and cons.) Although from the way I understand the mechanic solely from observation, it seems you could sidestep the problem by bringing 2, 3, or 4 cities including the capital, down to 0 HP and only conquer them when you can do all 4 in the same turn - shouldn't that significantly reduce the loyalty pressure? Anyways, now I'm seeing the additions that GS is going to add, and I'm not gonna lie- my chins on the floor and I'm mopping up the drool. Presumably I'll have to pick up R&F to make GS work, which adds a further complication- do I pick up R&F now or will the price get cut in half when GS is released? Or will there be a double-expansion purchase option that will save me $? If so, how much, because if it's a dollar or two, I'd rather pick it up now and give myself time for a crash course in R&F so I can jump right in when GS comes out, but I'm not made of money so if the savings is considerable, I'll take it. Anyway, I know Shaka is only one part of R&F and his inclusion won't impact every game, but he does appear to be the best civ for circumventing my greatest dread in the change of game mechanics so a good first civ to try out a few times to learn how loyalty works, and since his specials revolve heavily on the corps (et al) feature, it's something that piques my curiosity now.

a corps unit has 50% higher maintenance cost than a single unit of the ame type (ie 4 gold per turn becomes 6 gold per turn) and armies have 100% higher maintenance than a single unit of the same type (so 4 becomes 8). which means that combining your units to corps and then to armies reduces your unit maintenance.

That's disappointing - I thought I read that corp and army were the same, so presuming base maintenance was 4, the corps upgrade would save 4 (4 instead of 8) and the army would save 8 (4 instead of 12) I guess it's half the savings in both cases, which doesn't seem to be enough (although there are situations where every GPT counts...)

Corps and Armies are first and foremost a way to augment a highly-promoted unit that may not otherwise have any strength or survivability advantage in a given situation. Once you unlock the civic, build some units for that purpose. Doing so is essentially investing the production or gold into a quantity-over-quality proposition.

And this is where the cost:benefit ratio seems the most skewed to me. +10 strength is no joke, and you want to not lose highly promoted units (although this was a much bigger deal, at least to me, in civ5 than in civ 6, the extra attack and range promotions are nice, but not as important as having more units or stronger units.) But to pay twice the production cost of the unit to gain that bonus? Not saying it isn't worth it, but that's a hefty pricetag.

 

[DWilson]

Usually new expansions include the game content of the old ones, but not the civs. As a result, I would expect you will not have to buy Rise and Fall, unless you want to play as one of those civs, but will get things like loyalty and era changes.

 

[Takfloyd]

My biggest problem with corps/armies/fleets/armada is forgetfulness. It's a mechanic that is new to the franchise and I often forget it is available to me. Recently I was trying to capture a city with 5 Frigate and a Caravel. Unfortunately, the layout of the map prevented me from being able to get all my Frigates into firing position, so some of them sat idle for a few turn before I realized, "Duh! I can just form some fleets and attack with stronger units!" Sooner or later I'll get used to it.

It's not completely new to the franchise, the concept of combining units into a single, more powerful Army unit was in Civ III as well, though it was a bit more complex in that you could combine different unit types, and the active unit type would rotate in the middle of combat.

 

[Sostratus]

I have one piece of advice for you: always build corps and armies as soon as possible, every chance you get. Here's why: they are stronger units. you can still use the same tactics that you are used to but why not do it with stronger units? Corps and especially armies will win over single units. So having corps and armies when the AI does not, will be a major advantage.

+1. This is especially important as you stack boosts. Yes, combat strength difference is linear, but the math that translates the difference into damage is exponential.
Three key points:
7- about 30% bonus
10- 50% bonus
17- 100% bonus.
Corps are just another way to get +10, or +15 if you're the zulu. Each point of advantage becomes more and more powerful until +30, which is a OHKO.
This stems from the fact that the formula for the damage modifier is basically exp(Difference/25). But a difference of say 10 is better than 5 twice because
exp(10) = exp(5+5) = exp(5)*exp(5), not exp(5)+exp(5).

If you consider two individual units going up against a corps, without flanking bonus, its actually well balanced. In simulations the two individual units usually win but lose one unit and that last man standing will need to heal considerably. And there are scenarios when either are preferable as people have mentioned, depending upon combining promotions, terrain defense, flanking, ZoC, etc.
I didn't bother doing the test for army, but based on the above and considering that going from corps to army requires only a basic individual unit this I would suggest is a much stronger.

Using an army for simple numbers - the +17 means they deal 2x damage. But it also means they receive 1/2 damage. So it's like a factor of 4, for the price of three units (and maintenance of two. I know which units attacks first etc comes into play in real tests but on paper, there are real advantages. Plus, military academies give a huge discount to building corps and armies which makes them economical anyways.

 

[man_in_finance]

Using an army for simple numbers - the +17 means they deal 2x damage. But it also means they receive 1/2 damage. So it's like a factor of 4, for the price of three units (and maintenance of two. I know which units attacks first etc comes into play in real tests but on paper, there are real advantages. Plus, military academies give a huge discount to building corps and armies which makes them economical anyways.

Here are a few scenarios for you (without randomness and disregarding optimal turn ordering which makes little difference to the conclusions anyway)...

Spoiler Corps versus 2 Individual Units (flanking, no terrain modifiers) :

Here Unit 2 survives to fight another day and the Corps is defeated.

Spoiler Corps versus 2 Individual Units (flanking, full terrain defence) :

Here the Corps just survives - the reason being the more numerous attacks from individual units suffer from the terrain defence of the Corps. Terrain defence is more powerful amplify the Corp's strength on multiple occasions.

Spoiler Corps versus 2 Individual Units (flanking, all unfavourable terrain) :

The Corps gets smoked - the 2 units remain standing. The corps suffers here due to first attack advantage of the units and having its combat advantage diminished over the multiple attacks.

Spoiler Army versus an Individual Unit and a Corps (flanking, no terrain modifiers) :

The army wins - just. I think this is good evidence that an army is actually worth it.

Spoiler Army versus an Individual Unit and a Corps (flanking, full terrain defence) :

The army easily wins, for similar reasons with the above similar scenario.

Spoiler Army versus an Individual Unit and a Corps (flanking, all unfavourable terrain) :

The army does lose - again for similar reasons as above.

So having run the number my conclusions are that combining units are worth it. The randomness in the game ensures the outcomes vary, however.

- The numbers are well balanced, but combining a unit and corps to army seems to me to be slightly stronger than combining two units to a corps.
- The terrain is a consideration, intending to place an army or corps on terrain defence is supportive of combining.
- Unit promotion combinations is very valuable. This wasn't considered above but it would only favour the army and corps formations considerably.
- Combined units will be much more resilient against higher powered enemies. You might be able to hang in there against a strong opponent with corps and armies but the weakness of single units means they will be useless or perish quickly.
- The cost savings on maintenance are nice too.
- Individual units have to be manoeuvred into flanking positions to make them effective which is a pain and not always possible due to terrain modifiers.
- The time saved manoeuvring less units is a delight.

 

[Sostratus]

Combined units will be much more resilient against higher powered enemies. You might be able to hang in there against a strong opponent with corps and armies but the weakness of single units means they will be useless or perish quickly.

Being able to heal up in a couple turns vs having to build a replacement and march him to the front is hard to value but definitely a powerful side effect. Armies are just so tanky, especially in sieges. I for one, cannot wait to get my Warak'aq -> rangers -> spec ops army rush on.

Also: ZULU ZULU ZULU. That +5 turns corps into armies and makes armies into godzilla because +22 is a +140% bonus to attack. Its almost cheating.

 

[NukeAJS]

I think the OP answered their own question --

If armies can compete with the next tier above, it stands to reason that if you were a tier ahead already, you would functionally be using +2 tier units. That's warriors against knights for comparison.

But, yeah, if you don't need them, don't use them. If you can afford them without too much time/difficulty -- absolutely get them. Armies take less damage by definition and thus have to fewer turns healing. Because of that, they have an inherit speed bonus as far as turns they're ready for battle. Waiting for 2 badly damaged normal units is longer than waiting for one mid-damaged army unit. Although a convoy always makes that a bit of a moot point

 

[Bechhold]

The reason Corps are a thing is because if you built so many X amounts of units you can combine them to make more space etc. Firaxis I imagine thought with the R&F and Emergencies there would be more instances of World War type scenarios. Except there isn't as the AI is meager, Diplomacy is crippled, and game time passes too quickly for such an event.

 

[Victoria]

how much HP does the corp start with?

Tested, it is the combined HP / 2 rounded down.

a corps unit has 50% higher maintenance cost than a single unit of the ame type (ie 4 gold per turn becomes 6 gold per turn) and armies have 100% higher maintenance than a single unit of the same type (so 4 becomes 8). which means that combining your units to corps and then to armies reduces your unit maintenance.

I have 2 knights and the 2 gold maintenance card. My 2 knights cost 2 gold to maintain (6 without the card). I combine them and I get a maintenance cost of 2. It does not always save.

Corps are just another way to get +10, or +15 if

I challenge this... as shown 2 singles versus a corp may not be that different... but as the difference is not linear.... getting to +24 means chances of one-shotting... so corps and armies are ways of reaching extreme single shot scenarios. Also I find corps really useful when there is only a few tiles to attack on. However I tend to only combine them for the inspiration.... I like the additional ZOC and vision of single units. Bottom line is a mix is probably best.

are there any other bonuses to a corp compared to the same unit individually other than the 10 combat strength?

I can add....

• You have a level 3 swordsman and can build a new recruit and join him to the level 3 because the abilities of the more experienced unit are always used. In cases where the units have the same experience it is the blue target unit that is chosen so in the rare situations do it the right way around.
• Your cities defence is based on the strength of your strongest unit, merged units count for this.

I have merged to save losing a unit before, it has been mentioned but is nice to have as an option.
For things like a 4 rangle battleship, it can go into a city and effectively get an additional tile inland... so having Amada battleships for this purpose is useful
Do not have Amada carriers unless you really need the defence...... they loose plane space.
Shame you cannot join air units... but then again who cares

 

[ShakaKhan]

Tested, it is the combined HP / 2 rounded down.

Thank you so much!

Your cities defence is based on the strength of your strongest unit, merged units count for this.

Very interesting - this could really change the outcome of defending a position. Of course we all try to be on the offense more often! This might be one of the best uses of corps, etc. but it seems like a bit of an exploit since the AI doesn't utilize tactics like this. Correct me if I'm (probably) wrong, but does this also mean that having a corp in a city or encampment also increases the ranged attack of the city/encampment?

Here's another question - let's say you have one of your units from your initial archer rush, made before you even got BW. He's survived, upgraded to field cannon, and has several promotions. Now you have cities with encampments and all three buildings. If you build another fresh unit for corps (or two for army), would the unit (with all the promotion from the former archer) maintain the experience percentage bonus from the encampment buildings?

 

[Sostratus]

but does this also mean that having a corp in a city or encampment also increases the ranged attack of the city/encampment?

Ranged attack is based on the strongest ranged unit you've built to date, so garrison doesn't affect it- you want to make field cannon corps for that!

 

[Victoria]

but does this also mean that having a corp in a city or encampment also increases the ranged attack of the city/encampment?

As @Sostratus said but typically for me it ... because I get the admirals, I will have an early frigate Amada and the walls shoot with this strength which TBH is embarrassingly good.

would the unit (with all the promotion from the former archer) maintain the experience percentage bonus from the encampment buildings?

sadly no, it would be nice if it did and it should be nice but TBH it has 3 promos already, sure the 4th will take a while but you are no doubt thrashing the opposition by this stage.
Everything is taken from the higher xp unit.

 

[Furycrab]

The point is just that you can pile on more power into a small amount of map. You can win without them, but you can also break a position much faster and with fewer casualties with them too. It's a bit of a bigger deal for melee units though where you might want to keep ranged units separated for better critical mass.

Right now I think it's more relevant in the late game when you can really churn out units out of specialized cites. Guessing with GS that might be even more relevant with the extra later game Era being added.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well promoted armies with a general can dumpster units an era ahead. They one-shot anything equal or behind unless the enemy similarly invests.

Late in the game you have the production to add bodies to your well-promoted units, and still have a decent frontage. You don't "need" to do any one thing to win. You can for example never build a knight, or stop teching after a point and it is still possible to win.

Corps and armies make your military stronger, just like technology does.