On the Utility and Use of Armies

[notyoueither]

rpodos.

The obscene thing is I was serious when I said *waiting for something useful to do*. Got as many armies as I want and I can build them by this point. Next GW coming up in 20 turns or so, might as well get a manicure while he waits.

[Txurce]

I'm playing the Aztecs right now, on my third try at Emperor. This time I was on a large land mass with the Americans below me, and the Iroquois south of them. This made it much easier to build enough cities while I cranked out JWs. I reduced the American spearmen to a couple of distant cities before 1AD, then attacked the Iroquois first with JWs, then upgraded them to swordsmen. I pillaged to keep MWs at a minimum, and by 1050, I was the second-biggest civ, and in Republic. I kept science low throughout, researching only monarchy, and picked up two GLs. So did I turn them into armies, given how entertaining this thread is?

Well, no. The first GL became the FP, which was essential, given that I had a sprawling monarchy; I built it in corrupt, size-8 Washington, which had the Colossus. By the time I acquired a second GL, I was about to build my first wonder, Bach. But by then I had secured my continent, was first in score and size and second in population, and had switched to democracy. My goal is to win the space race, I needed to catch up in the techs, and so converted my second GL into Newton's in Washington, which promptly became a science city.

Now it's 1400. The Germans - no longer #1 - attacked me. The French joined in, and I signed up the English. (I wiped out the other three.) I am struggling to finish my rail system, because invasions at this stage are usually pretty uninspired, and unlimited mobility is all I probably need. So what do I do with a third GL, which I picked up by sailing to destroy the last Persian city? I considered an army, but given that I have no plans to leave my continent, will save it instead for the Hoover Dam.

I think I'm on the downslope, although those are famous last words. But the point is that when I got my three GLs, I either had a more pressing priority - the FP - or had already turned the corner toward builder mode. Building an army would have been more viable for me had I gained a GL before I needed the FP, if I was on a continent with a serious adversary, or intent on a domination victory. Whether or not to go "army" is largely dictated by circumstance, in my opinion, as opposed to a hard-and-fast "yeah or nay" perspective.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Arrian
...

Again, has anyone else noticed the "first free shot" thing I was talking about above, or am I nuts?

1) haven't noticed yet, could have been too preoccupied to notice though;
2) don't know yet, still wondering ...


AJ

[Dominae]

I'm inclined to agree with Txurce regarding building the FP with your first GL. There are certain games when, after some relatively early warmongering, you have an "empire shape" just begging for another capital. In every game that I've build the FP in such cases, I've gained an insurmountable lead almost immediately. The trick is to recognizing when to build the FP right away, or wait until a better chunk of land has been conquered. If you're going to wait, might as well form an Army, I think (forgive me if I sound like an Army-pusher!).

I'm playing a game as the Japanese now, and I just want to take this opportunity to mention how utterly dominating Samurai are.

What are their advantages?

1. Best attack rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry, of course).
2. Best defense rating of the Medieval era.
3. Best movement rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry).
4. Only requires Iron to build.

Combine 2 and 3 together and you essentially have a "mechanized infantry" unit that wins most battles on defense and that fast units (Knights) can't retreat from. 4 isn't really all that impressive because the Japanese find Horses first (start with The Wheel), and typically want to do a Horsemen rush, then upgrade to Samurai. Still, 4 is pretty funny when you compare Samurai to War Elephants.

The best part is, Samurai upgrade to Cavalry for 20 Gold (although I tend to keep a few Samurai around for defense)!

What's better than Saumurai? An Army of Samurai! Hai!


Dominae

[Arrian]

[SIZE=1] I'm playing a game as the Japanese now, and I just want to take this opportunity to mention how utterly dominating Samurai are.

What are their advantages?

1. Best attack rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry, of course).
2. Best defense rating of the Medieval era.
3. Best movement rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry).
4. Only requires Iron to build.

Sorry, gotta quibble with #3 there. Riders have 3 moves. Of course, if you're Japan, you tend to forget about China, as they are dead long before the Medieval Era.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

nye: You can NEVER have enough Armies. In your situation, I would still convert the GL to an Army, but not use it. I'd hold off until Infantry or Tanks, and then, voila.

Dominae: Couldn;t agree more. Samurai are the most balanced unit in the game. Armies of Samurai are almost ridiculous... a couple of weeks ago I had 4 such Armies running around, and it felt like I was invulnerable.

Brings up an interesting point:

As pointed out before, the units OTHER than the first to fight in an Army often get promoted quickly, as they are usually in combat with damaged units.

This is especially true in a homogenous super-strength Army, like one composed entirely of Samurai.

So, often enough, you will end up with an Army of 4 elite Samurai.

I STILL DO NOT KNOW if Armies can create GLs!!!!!

Sombreros will burn...

R

[Dominae]

Quite right Arrian, on both points. I never play the Chinese, and the only time I ever fought against Riders, my Tanks made quick work of them.

Edit: It seems as though my example has nothing to do with your second point...In any case, I hope you can understand why I forgot about the Chinese Riders!


Dominae

[Dry]

Originally posted by Dominae
I never play the Chinese, and the only time I ever fought against Riders, my Tanks made quick work of them.

I have the same feeling toward the samurais.
AI japan is never powerfull enough to threaten me (prefered Govt: despotism )
When we first meet, my soldiers usually think they are musicians, chime players (glockenspiel), they love the music they make hitting our armor with their, errr... stick.

[Harovan]

Hmmm, I keep to hear great things about the Japs, got to try these fellows too.

[Arrian]

rpodos,

Re: leaders from armies.

I don't know either, sorry. I've never had it happen, but then again, I don't often have armies running around. And even then, I usually put veterans in an army (due to this very question... I save the elites in case armies cannot generate leaders) and those often don't fight enough for them all to get promoted. I often end up with 2 vets and 1 elite in my armies.

I imagine a samurai army would rock, but I usually try to finish off my neighbors by the early middle ages so I can settle down and build for a while. Thus, my forces see little action until I'm almost to Military Tradition. I made the mistake of creating a horseman army in my latest game - I was still two techs from Chivalry, I think, and I wanted to get that victory. I should have made it 1 horsie and added two Samurai later, but I forgot and loaded it w/3 horsemen. Doh. It was sitting in Kyoto when I won the game via domination in 1420 AD.

Dominae - yeah, I don't play China either (due to the lack of the religious trait) and normally squash them in ancient times.

The one time I had to fight Samurai pre-Cavalry it was NOT fun. I was Babylon and they sneak attacked me. It was, IIRC, the first time I had actually lost cities to the AI, and I was really, really hard pressed. Only Cavalry saved me from a bloody stalemate.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian, I was asking myself why I never use the Japanese despite the samurai, and it's probably because I play like you, and am settling into builder mode by the time the samurai could be put to serious use. But in a domination game, having your UU in the middle might be just the ticket - the samurai could make the mid-game an end-game very quickly!

By the way, a 1420 domination victory sounds very impressive to me. Is that your best game?

[rpodos]

In one of my early games, before I learned the joys of early warmongering, Japan almost SQUASHED me as China.

I didn't beat them down before Chivalry, and we had the mother of all Rider-Samurai wars. The only thing that saved me was the speed with which Riders could get to the front, and, in a nod to Industrious, that I had an excellent road network.

Again, I think on ongoing series of wars makes sense, especially every time you achieve relative strength. So even if I have beaten my neighbors down, and expanded as much as I want to, AND I'm building, I will still go to war with my existing, upgraded military the second I get new military tech. So, for instance, the moment I upgrade all of my Horseman to Samurai, a-marching they will go.

It's all about generating GLs. Especially when you get to the second set of GWs. If there are no GWs or SWs to build, I create Armies. If I have enough Armies for the time being, I stockpile them.

Again using Samurai as an example, if I had any stockpiled Armies from the Warrior / Archer / Swordsmen / Horsemen rushes, I would immediately create a 3-unit Army of just upgraded, vet Samurai.

That beastie gets to strike the first blow in the new war.

R

[Txurce]

Rpodos, if I've conquered my continent, I generally lack the energy to prepare the invasion of a second one. Instead I just go for the spaceship. The exceptions are always for need: resources or stopping a launch. Do you assemble invasion fleets in space-race games, or do you generally play for domination?

[rpodos]

You ready?

I've never actually completed or won a game.

I suppose I should.

I just get bored with the endgame... once I have total momentum, and know that I could choose any win I want (except diplo, heh heh), I just move on to the next game.

That said, I also don't bother with invading other continents... too much corruption with no GW solutions, and there's no sense of adventure on the high seas.

In general, to keep it interesting (the way I play), I play large maps with large continents, or even pangaea. My empires get as big as I want them to be (40-50 cities), without taking complete control of my continent.

So I always have someone to attack.

I am almost always at war, with short respites, as opposed to war-build-war-build. I still seem to build most everything I want.

R

[Txurce]

That's great! A lot of what you post makes a lot more sense now (not that you aren't eminently sensible). And I agree that coasting downhill is pretty boring.

It's a shame that corruption and the near-total absence of naval strategy makes transcontinental invasions worth it only when you need to. Where would Alexander the Great be if he had played Civ3?

The end game is fun only when you're a close space race... which I'm in right now, because while I have owned my continent for about 500 years, the Germans have conquered all but two cities on theirs, are now bigger than me, and have attacked. I'm pretty sure I'm going to win, but I definitely got too cocky.