Civ Army: How Big is Big Enough?

[tsubame]

I had a 120 stack in Noble once...

That's just ridiculous.

[nepereta]

in one game I had enemy send in enough cavalry to force a fighting retreat of 30 of my tanks and about 20 cavalry. I had to concede a couple of cities. Think he must of had several waves that consisted of about 100 of those pesky horses. He had a few cannon as well.

[Unimatrix11]

a stack limit for ground-units ? i had suggested that more than a year ago and got flamed pretty much...

I still think it might be worth a try, for i still miss the development of frontlines. It just seems a bit dull to just move incredibly huge stacks around. I mean 20 units per tile should be enough, right ?

(i guess i better start digging now, before the firing starts)

[Gailon]

immune to collateral damage

For the AI's new use of artillery it is important to get some units with double first strike upgrade followed by the upgrade for immune to colalteral damage. I don't know if this is only available on machine gun, but I had a bunch of these in my stacks and cities and it made a big difference.

As for the size of army it take to fight the computer, you can manage an invasion with a smaller force. I think the best addition to BtS is the way AI handles invasions of its territory. It responds to where your forces are. You can cause masses of damage and effectively cripple an AI by have two 'fake' invasions at different spots before moving in with your main one. The computer will move the bulk of its forces to deal with the 'fake' invasions (just use them to pillage as much as you can before you die). by pulling a battle of the bulge like strategy and just driving into deep territory with a few tanks I was able to grab and raze cities that only had one defender in them.

[Unimatrix11]

Gosh - i would hate to play against You. This deep-strike-strategy reminds me so much of civ3, where the comp seemed to know exactly, which of my inland cities was not defended properly and aimed exactly for that one. Well, now, he might actually be able to see it (without "cheating")...

But Your advice will be remembered next time i start a continental invasion... sounds like fun - thanks.

[Shrapnel12]

I would approve of a stack limit. It's realistic as you can't keep and infinitely huge army in one little space. I'd also be for bonuses to units attacking a unit from the rear, or flanking. Of course then Civ would have to programmed to recognize the concept of what direction an army is facing (this can be done as it's already in the mod AfterWorld). I think this would do well to develop front lines, which I also think is cool.

[Saygame]

What a great question! My latest BTS game (huge, panagea, normal speed) I won (and would have prolly lost militarily) I played Arabia and by late game had vassaled Dutch, Chinese, Zulu and Carthage. I had arranged for my vassals to use their lands as a buffer against the remaining countries (Ethiopia, Ottoman and their two vassals, Germany and Rome). In 1980 they all came at once. While I was the largest army and navy, combined they started to gobble up my vassals who had small but modern armies. I had build 55 tac nukes and 11 ICBMs but resolved to win with conventional modern armor, modern arty and mech inf. Ottoman brought a coupla SOD of about 70 units which, because of the four front war, I was unable to eliminate. They knocked off Dutch and then China and I was rapidly feeling alone. I had positioned tac nukes in all my vassals but they could not reach nor fire on friendly land. Computer actually played well. It felt like Germany in WWII, watching as satellite countries had to be garrisoned. All countries were losing points by this time. I had over 450 units and was killing other units at about two for one and still falling. My nukes would have been better used onboard my navy but I used a NATO '90s approach to defense. I won culturally eventually but it would have been interesting to play it out completely. With the new 500 turn limit and more BTS cultural corporations, it is much more possible for a cultural victory. Firaxis has done a GREAT job in balancing all the victories so no one predominates I think.

One standard strategy I use is to create "pop one" buffer cities on my borders which I do not build infrastructure with. I keep them at one pop by using Caste System (or theatre) and putting the one pop on Artist specialist duty. The maintainence costs of these newer cities does rise my other cities, but the pop one cities maint is minimal. When the attack comes they]ll usually wipe out those small cities but be deep in my cultural territory anyway where attackers are easiest to pick apart no matter how large they are. Artillery, even in BTS, is King but combined arms is now necessary rather than stack of Arty alone. BTS is head and shoulders above Warlord, especially now that the computer AI is programmed a bit fairer. Gee, defending countries are now even losing pop when they use slavery and moving units no longer heal on the move. What a concept to be playing by the same rules again!
Hope this helps.

[]LoL[Harm]

I always check the statistics screen to see where I stand militarily. I always try to sit in the top three (playing 11 AI's). My border cities rarely have less than 10 units in them each in the early eras and by gunpowder that number is usually closer to 20. I have my inner cities usually chuck full of 2 movement units to help respond to any spearhead assaults.

And navy is a large must have.

As for variety, have enough EP into your neighbors that are most likely to attack you so that you can see what type of units they favor. Then gear your defenders to counter this. Without this information I tend to favor a very balanced approach, equal number of anti-horse, anti-melee and anti-siege.

[BigWilly1974]

I've never understood how some of you guys manage to keep so many units in your cities. Except when I'm prepping for an imminent war, I typically have 1-2 units in cities as I'm focusing on building infrastructure to thrive mid-late game. If I have 8-10 units per city, I'm going to war, at which point usually, my troops drop precipitously in number (so to does the enemies cities hopefully), and then I consider it time to re-invest in infrastructure so I don't start falling behind in tech.

[jbp26]

Originally posted by BigWilly1974
I've never understood how some of you guys manage to keep so many units in your cities. Except when I'm prepping for an imminent war, I typically have 1-2 units in cities as I'm focusing on building infrastructure to thrive mid-late game. If I have 8-10 units per city, I'm going to war, at which point usually, my troops drop precipitously in number (so to does the enemies cities hopefully), and then I consider it time to re-invest in infrastructure so I don't start falling behind in tech.

well you have to consider what infrastructure is actually necessary. you dont need a library, barracks, or bank in every city, just inthe ones that will actually make use of them. if at any point you only have 1-2 units per city as your whole army, other civs will come for you- if you're playing BtS, theyre going to eat you alive, by land and sea.

[BigWilly1974]

I should have clarified 1-2 per city in the interior cities, but even my border cities (at least those facing an enemy rather than sea), I won't have a lot more. I do usually beeline for the military units, so the units I have are typically better or at least on par with enemy civs.

I play Monarch on BtS, and after the first few throw away games where I was getting a taste of the new AI, I've won most of the games I've played. I guess it's what you get used to, and good at running as far as strat.

[Blaupanzer]

BigWilly, do you always play the same civ? If so, which one?

[BigWilly1974]

I go random on civ selection more than half the time. When I do choose, some that I like are Pericles, Hannibal, or Brennus/Boudica.

[Arpad]

Armies

I am still learning strategy, but I try invading another civ and avoiding its cities and military units, I try to destroy as many improvements as fast as possible, starting with hamlets, villages, and cottages. I'm not sure, but I think the loss of people and natural resources causes the other civ to be forced to disband military units because it cannot afford their upkeep.
Does this make sense? Will pillaging really reduce the other side's military units?

Thanks, I'm still learning.

[BigWilly1974]

Arpad, it's unlikely it'll cause the AI to disband units. But...pillaging towns/villages will seriously hurt their income which will set them back in technology. Pillaging farm land will often cause their cities to shrink, and pillaging mines and resources reduces the enemies ability to build city improvements and military units (and rob them of key resources, and you get the extra advantage of taking something important away such as the ability to produce key military units, or health/happiness bonuses that may throw their cities into unrest).

Any way you look at it, if you don't think you can outright take the enemy city or cities, pillaging is a great way to ensure that you choke them out in the short/medium term so you can come back in 10 or 20 turns and finish the job with relative ease.

Good luck.