Useless Armies?!

[Canuck]

I've encountered this problem and was just wondering what everyone else's thoughts are...

How useful do you find armies, really? The game seems to emphasize them as rare and powerful judging how difficult they are to get but I haven't found them to be that powerful at all. With an army you use the attacks of all three units just to destroy one other. In the case where it's an easy fight this seems a complete waste. If you're attacking a superior unit... fine the army helps... BUT what about the counter-attack? You've not got three weakened units in one spot that will ALL be destroyed by one counterattacking unit. If you used three separate units to attack the larger one then they wouldn't all be able to be destroyed by one counter-attacking one.

To top it all off, I haven't found them to be useful in ANY circumstance. Example: being on the same relatively small continent, me (Germans) and the Russians were forced into an early conflict. I had control of most of the strat resources, AND I had two full armies of horsemen (best unit at the time). I attack with one army: it gets destroyed by ONE SPEARMAN. The other army is defending a town on the border, it also is destroyed by ONE ARCHER. I was reeling for a dozen turns after trying to fend them off until I got iron units. From now on I vow to use Leaders only for rushing production.

What are everyone elses experiences with armies?

Canuck
(sorry for the length)

 

[eyrei]

I only ever use one leader to make an army. Then I make sure that army wins its first battle, and then when you get military tradition, you can build the Military Academy and make your own armies. Horsemen were probably a bad choice for an army. Try spearmen or swordsmen in the ancient times or knights in the middle ages, and then infantry in the industrial age. Armies are very useful, in one sense, because one made of defensive units will be avoided by the AI unless it is badly damaged.

 

[slatemen]

I (the Americans) had the same experience with armies. I have only been playing Civ3 for a few weeks now and when I finally got a leader I was really exicted. I was in the middle of a war with the Persians, the Russians, the Chinese and the Azetcs but the Persians were the only real threat.

Anyway Washington appeared after a battle and i was really exicted I thought I would be able to crush the Persian empire in 5 or six turns....Not a chance (as the my foreign policy advisor would say)... My stinking army (2 cavs and one musket man) could not move very far and I tried to attack a fortified spearman in the Persian capital (on grasslands), and guess what..he decimated my whole army. Something is not right with that.

Anyway, net time I think i'll save my leader until my technology advances more and I can build a Tank Army of something to that effect. Either that or I will just use him to hurry production. All in all I was really disappointed with my first army experience. Maybe the next one will be better, but I don't have my hopes set too high..

 

[eyrei]

Always make sure your army wins at least one battle before you take any chances with it, like attacking a city. That way you can make more later. An army moves only as fast as its slowest unit. Your army would have moved 3 squares a turn if it had been all cavalry.

 

[War4War]

I've had a similar (bad) experience with armies. I once had an army made of 3 modern arnours. It got killed (from full health!) by one mech inf without even damaging it! And to top it off, when you create an army out of modern tanks you lose their great ability of attacking more than once in a turn. It's a lot better to have 3 modern tanks than one stinking army I'll tell you that.

I think I'll reserve my leaders for improvements rushing too.

 

[Allemand]

The first army should be used to gain a victory, after that it's probably not of much use. The victory allows you to build the Heroic Epic (increasing your chances of getting leaders) and the Military Academy (allowing you to build more armies). 10-12 armies working together can have a big impact on a campaign, but because you can't reconfigure the armies you need to put like units in each one. An army should be all-infantry or all-cavalry, don't mix them.

I build a bunch of armies over the years (in the Military Academy) but don't put any units in them until I have tanks or modern armor, or infantry or mech infantry if I want defensive armies.

They really impress the AI, which won't attack them. On the other hand, I attacked an AI knight army (3 knights) and destroyed it with just one cavalry unit.

 

[Ironikinit]

I'd advise using swordsmen for your first army. 3 reasons:

1. Horsemen can be upgraded, swordsmen cannot.

2. Horsemen can retreat, which pretty much is what armies do anyway.

3. Swordsmen have a defense of 2.


I find an army useful for 2 things in the early game:

1. Escorting other units. The computer has yet to attack my army, which makes it easier to amass an attack stack at the doorstep of an enemy capital without losing horsemen or archers to enemy suicide attacks.

2. Cracking cities. First, I attack with the army which breaks the most powerful unit, then I follow it up with my horsemen, and finish with single swordsman attacks.

I haven't bothered with armies later than the ancient period.

 

[Headmaster]

I usually have one or two armies of 3 cavalry units to crack cities and defend them afterwards. It's very important that you only add elite units to your army:

The army always attacks with its strongest unit. When all 3 units are at full health, one unit will become elite soon and then it will always be the first unit that attacks. The other units only get the chance to become elite when the first one is wounded. And because you won't want to attack with your army when two of its units are wounded, the 3rd unit will stay at regular/veteran level which makes your army more vincible.

Why don't armies completely heal when skipping turn in a city w/ barracks? They take about 4 turns which is a big disadvantage...

 

[WarKiwi]

Armies are good for defending important cities like your (or your enemies) capital, or a city with lots of wonders. The only advantage is that an army attacks in the same move so the unit you are attacking doesn't have a chance to get promoted where-as if you are attacking with 3 units sequentially there is a chance the regular unit you started attacking is elite at the end if it wins all 3 battles.

I also use the first leader for an army and the rest for wonder building (esp Hoover Dam).

 

[MightMakesRight]

I agree with Ironikinit. Armies aren't all that they are cracked up to be, but an early swordsman army can be very useful. The combined offensive and defense values make a swordsmen army very useful for breaking down the initial defenses of a city, while minimizing the risk of being destroyed by a single offensive unit. If I get a really early army I will put 2 offensive and 1 defensive unit (like a spearman and 2 archers) together.

The biggest down side is their vulnerability to attackers. Even on a stack of defensive unit the army fights first (My first army was all archers sitting on top of spearmen. I was attacked by a single archer and lost the army. If a spearman would have defended, I probably would not have lost.)

 

[ChickinSht]

Indeed. I've found armies to be most harmless. On occasion, they are useful. On rare occasions, which are (for me, at least) always early game, and basically for intimidating the computer. The Heroic Epic is nice, because that means more leaders and therefor quicker Wonder production. But as for the Military Academy and Pentagon, who really uses armies by the time you get those? By then, they're just expensive wastes of time and units.

 

[Zouave]

I'd have thought a great leader would in fact supply a big combat boost for the units it is stacked with.

Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander, Caesar, et al, did a lot more than just create armies.

At the least Firaxis should have given every unit stacked with a leader an extra hit point, if not a combat bonus.


And what about naval leaders??

 

[Rock]

I like to suggest you change the army ability to include multipile attack. Look at tank ability for references. This will make a Modern Tank army attack more times And enchances the usefulness of army.

Note: do not add unload to the Army ability, it will hang the game.

Enjoy.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by ChickinSht
Indeed. I've found armies to be most harmless. On occasion, they are useful. On rare occasions, which are (for me, at least) always early game, and basically for intimidating the computer. The Heroic Epic is nice, because that means more leaders and therefor quicker Wonder production. But as for the Military Academy and Pentagon, who really uses armies by the time you get those? By then, they're just expensive wastes of time and units.

I for one, use armies a great deal in the industrial era. I build the military academy in my second most productive city, and then set it to build armies until I max them out. I make an army of infantry to protect every border city, effectively rendering them impervious to AI assault. Granted, a human player would probably be able to overcome one with some effort, but we have no mp. At this point, I am free to do whatever I want diplomatically and militarily, because I can be almost certain that my border cities are protected. Most of the time the AI will not even attack these cities. Once you build the Pentagon, these armies actually do become invincible, barring an attack of like 20 tanks. It is definately a good feeling, when you know the AI cannot take any of your cities. Try this out, and then tell us again how harmless the armies are.

 

[BillChin]

Well, I built my first army the other night. The army is not as useful as rush building a Forbidden City or a good wonder, but it is useful. Think about this way, how would you like to fight an enemy with an army or two? Man, that would be a b*tch. Use the army much like you use the queen in chess, to support the other pieces, not to smash pawn formations.

Armies are not good for attacking fortified cities. They heal slow and can be destroyed by a tough defender. They are good for beachheads in an invasion to prevent being driven into the sea. They are good for defending vital choke points. In a defending city with a barracks they heal up entirely after each combat. Armies are good for escorting catapults and cannons. So they have a lot of uses, but they are not all powerful. I am sure Firaxis tested stronger armies, but toned them down to where they are now.

 

[Moulton]

Armies can be useful, but are not all powerful. One good advantege is the stacking of hit points. Even the most modern unit has only 3-5 hit points, regardless of AC or DC. An army had 9 - 15 (assuming you are not editing basic rules.) If you face one or their insane stacks, your army will go down eventually. But in 'normal' warfare it is a very stron unit. I use it to crack cities, to spearhead an advance.
I watched France attack Russia last night. I was in the conflict, yes, but not in that charge. 37 units in the France stack attacked a russian just out of my sight. They won about half of their attacks. Then the russian attack on their turn... and wiped out the last of the french. My guess is that that was the offensive army of each.... leaving one or two defenders in the cities. As soon as I took the first city Russia sued for peace... and France and Russia signed a turn or two later. An army would havd gone down in such an attack--the difference it makes, it would have taken many enemy units with it, instead of one or two.
My armys of samauri and cavalry rocked in my last game...
Problem: cant load them into a ship, so theya re stuck on the continent they are on. Havent tried air-lift.. maybe that would work.

 

[eyrei]

The AI will generally not attack an army of defensive units. The army itself counts as a unit when loading onto a ship. You need at least a galleon.

 

[Moo]

You guys are not using armies correctly. The value of the army lies more with defense than offense. Using an army as another offensive unit is indeed a waste, but its true worth is that it lets you engage in quick and devastating warfare with extremely low (and sometimes zero) casualties. Also, never put elite units in armies, save those for your regular troops to get more leaders.

 

[Super Mutant]

Armies should let all units atk at the same time. so a army wiht 3 swordsmen would be a 9/6/1 whit 3xhp. but then an army whit 3 mod armor would be 72/42/3 and thats a little overkill

and naval armies would be nice too, call them "Fleets" instead of armies

 

[Moulton]

Well, I have a leader in storage... I'll have to try the larger ships. i may have been using caravels, but I was thinknig it was a galleon... but its been awhile.

On attack each unit attacks separately, and if the first unit gets wounded, the second attacks, then the third if necessary. You can see them cycle. So if one cavalry is not enough to take out the opposing unit, with an army the second takes over during the same battle, and the enemy does not get a chance to upgrade and heal..

Your atack points and defence point are unit points... one unit at the time. They do not add up. But if you have 3 veteran units of whatever class, they have 4 hp each, total of 12. If the first gets down to 1, the second takes over, then the third. Put your finest unit on line, and when he loses 4 hp (5 if elite) he is dead. The army just rotates him for R&R.