which best combination to put in a Army?
- Thread starter redhulkz
- Start date
Catt
Emperor
No.
This was true in vanilla Civ 3. I haven't tested it in PTW yet, but the Firaxians indicated that this would change with PTW -- that in PTW an army of only marines would have amphibious assualt and an army of only paratroopers would have airdrop ability (but that mixing marines or paratroopers in an army with other units would prevent the army from using the special ability).
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,869
Really! Could you test if its true?
Shabbaman
rebuffing the rebels
Bizarre. I'm fairly sure that I've had multiple leaders out of armies. I'll see into it myself.
EDIT: from the faq, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=298795&t=729#post298795
No Gl will appear from wins with an army.
EDIT: from the faq, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=298795&t=729#post298795
No Gl will appear from wins with an army.
There's the thread that answers all the leader/army questions:
"Great Leaders: Everything you always wanted to know" by sumthinelse
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24371
Physicist
"Great Leaders: Everything you always wanted to know" by sumthinelse
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24371
Physicist
Traveller
Chieftain
, I have found a great use for them as a defensive force. An army of 4 vetran infantry is much more defendable than 4 separate units, especially when accompanying an offensive force.
As an example, you have 4 tanks and 4 infantry (unfortified) and the AI attacks with 8 tanks. Each of the first 4 AI tanks die and reduce each of your 4 infantry from 4 to 2 hp. The next 4 tanks attack and your tanks defends, because they are stronger (4hp tank vs. 2hp infantry), and all 4 of your tanks are killed. Consider the same situation with 4 infantry in an army. After the first 4 tanks attack, your army is down from 16 hp to 8hp and is still the strongest defender. For the next wave of attacking tanks, your (weakened) army is still the target, and your tanks remain untouched and ready to strike the following turn. Though the math presented here is not exact, the basic premise should be clear, and the princple sound.
I began using this strategy to defend an amphibious landing force, but soon I began to use it accompanying spearheading forces invading enemy territory. Two infantry armies once defended an onslaught of over 75 cavalry allowing the loss of a single offensive unit! More recently, I have applied the same ideas in the middle ages and ancient times with amazing success. An added bonus is the effect garrisoning an army of infantry (or rifleman or whatever) has on resistors in a recently captured city.
As an example, you have 4 tanks and 4 infantry (unfortified) and the AI attacks with 8 tanks. Each of the first 4 AI tanks die and reduce each of your 4 infantry from 4 to 2 hp. The next 4 tanks attack and your tanks defends, because they are stronger (4hp tank vs. 2hp infantry), and all 4 of your tanks are killed. Consider the same situation with 4 infantry in an army. After the first 4 tanks attack, your army is down from 16 hp to 8hp and is still the strongest defender. For the next wave of attacking tanks, your (weakened) army is still the target, and your tanks remain untouched and ready to strike the following turn. Though the math presented here is not exact, the basic premise should be clear, and the princple sound.
I began using this strategy to defend an amphibious landing force, but soon I began to use it accompanying spearheading forces invading enemy territory. Two infantry armies once defended an onslaught of over 75 cavalry allowing the loss of a single offensive unit! More recently, I have applied the same ideas in the middle ages and ancient times with amazing success. An added bonus is the effect garrisoning an army of infantry (or rifleman or whatever) has on resistors in a recently captured city.
Melanic Sheep
Emperor
Two mechanized infantry and my king unit in regicide would make a nice army...
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
i generallly dont use armies much i like my units extremely mobile and great leaders are better for getting great wonders.
I generally fill the army full with the best offensive units and use it while it lasts. Keeping a slot open is better in the long run, of course, but that reduces the effectiveness of the army in the short term.
As someone else mentioned, the main purpose of the first army is to get the HE and MA, not necessarily one that must have a long life.
As far as aGL from an Army, I am sure that I had that happen a couple of times. It does matter a great deal which unit comes first in combat, since the first one sees all the action and must be an elligible elite to spawn a GL.
As someone else mentioned, the main purpose of the first army is to get the HE and MA, not necessarily one that must have a long life.
As far as aGL from an Army, I am sure that I had that happen a couple of times. It does matter a great deal which unit comes first in combat, since the first one sees all the action and must be an elligible elite to spawn a GL.
Cannon
YHVH has a son
I had a neat one for the Zulu:
one Impi, two horseman....
It was pretty nasty in the first era.
one Impi, two horseman....
It was pretty nasty in the first era.
gugalpm
Veteran of psychic wars
Any combination with only one unit type.
Like, 3 tanks or 3 infantry, never a combination of them.
3 modern armor are invincible.
Like, 3 tanks or 3 infantry, never a combination of them.
3 modern armor are invincible.
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
2 MAs and 2 MIs. Wow. I think I'll have to try that combo sometime soon!
Too bad those programmers at Firaxis makes army units unloadable, or even salvagable - you disband one, you loose everything like it was one big unit - which it is, I know that.
Too bad those programmers at Firaxis makes army units unloadable, or even salvagable - you disband one, you loose everything like it was one big unit - which it is, I know that.
Panda
Metal head
Always units of the same kind - three knights, three tanks, or three infantry etc. I don't want slower units in the army to slow down the advance.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I usually stuff my Armies with three (or, post-Pentagon, four) of the best available offensive unit I have, and use it crack AI defenses. I don't worry much about Armies getting obsolete - I use them pretty aggressively and they tend to die before getting that obsolete. I did, however, once have Horseman Army that survived until the end of the game. It's last actual combat was killing off an Iroquois Riflemen that got landed on my shore. In retrospect, I could've put a Tank or an MA in it after building the Pentagon, but the thought didnt hit me back then.
However, during the worst trench-warfare years of the Industrial Era, I like having an Army stuffed with Infantry protecting my Arty stacks, since the AI seems extremely reluctant to attack defensive Armies.
However, during the worst trench-warfare years of the Industrial Era, I like having an Army stuffed with Infantry protecting my Arty stacks, since the AI seems extremely reluctant to attack defensive Armies.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Combining MA and MI is not smart.
A 4 MA army has 24/16/3
A 2 MA 2 MI has 22/17/2 You get 1 more defense. You lose 2 offense and 1 move (3 moves makes MA very usefull)
Also, artillery cant join armiers.
A 4 MA army has 24/16/3
A 2 MA 2 MI has 22/17/2 You get 1 more defense. You lose 2 offense and 1 move (3 moves makes MA very usefull)
Also, artillery cant join armiers.
Praetorian
I came I bought I played!
I generally keep my armies empty until the Modern Age so that I can put Modern Armour and Mech. Infantry
Cantankerous
...but I do know Shinola
I always try hard to get my first Great Leader in wars in the Ancient and Middle Ages (although I am not always successful). But regardless of when the first GL shows up, I will ALWAYS make that first leader into an army. I can't understand the people that never make armies (and say they always use GLs to rush wonders). At the very least your first leader should always be made into an army so that it can win a victory allowing you to build Heroic Epic (making future leaders more likely) and the Military Academy.
That first army victory is SO necessary IMO.
But if I do get my first GL in the Ancient Age, I stock it with three Horsemen. If my first GL appears in the Middle Ages, I stock it with three Knights or three Cavalry. Regardless, I always put fast (horse- or mechanized-based) units into that first army and look for a weak target to attack.
If another leader appears right after the first one, I will typically save him to rush a wonder, unless I'm in danger of being overrun by enemy forces (or too far away from friendly territory to protect him) and need another army to ensure my survival.
But I don't consider an army with obsolete units to be "obsolete" per se. I will keep armies with nothing but horsemen hidden away deep in my territory until I collect enough armies total to build the Pentagon. Then I can disband the now totally obsolete army in a city building something of importance, and getting 100 shields for disbanding it is almost like rushing construction with a leader (perhaps to a smaller degree but of course it certainly couldn't be used for wonder construction since the 100 shields would therefore be wasted).
That first army victory is SO necessary IMO.
But if I do get my first GL in the Ancient Age, I stock it with three Horsemen. If my first GL appears in the Middle Ages, I stock it with three Knights or three Cavalry. Regardless, I always put fast (horse- or mechanized-based) units into that first army and look for a weak target to attack.
If another leader appears right after the first one, I will typically save him to rush a wonder, unless I'm in danger of being overrun by enemy forces (or too far away from friendly territory to protect him) and need another army to ensure my survival.
But I don't consider an army with obsolete units to be "obsolete" per se. I will keep armies with nothing but horsemen hidden away deep in my territory until I collect enough armies total to build the Pentagon. Then I can disband the now totally obsolete army in a city building something of importance, and getting 100 shields for disbanding it is almost like rushing construction with a leader (perhaps to a smaller degree but of course it certainly couldn't be used for wonder construction since the 100 shields would therefore be wasted).
danwhit
Chieftain
That is not true about losing the blitz ability. Thats one of the beauties of an army with 2 or 3 movement. You can attack multiple times in one turn. I agree with the above statement that you should always use your first army to attack and fill it completely. I usually use swordsmen but I see the benefit of horsemen. I never use bowman unless I have no resources. Holding armies to the end is pointless, you're going to get more by that time(or should if you play your cards right) and by building the Military Academy in a high production city. If you don't have a pressing issue with Wonders, I would never build a wonder with a leader(what are your big cities doing?). There have been games where I have gotten the Pentagon very early. I think before chivalry. It was very devastating to the AI. I imagine the people who don't fill their armies and don't build them play with a pretty much peaceful style, until your certain you can dominate. This is fine but your holding your civ back by doing this.
