Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences?

[Ilkuul]

This may seem a dumb question, but after reading some of the comments in the "Ask the Civ Team 8/22/01" thread about Armies in Civ3, I began to wonder exactly how these will differ from the unit stacks we've known about for some time.

For instance, will we be able to stack units and move them simultaneously WITHOUT them having to be an Army? I had so far assumed this, but when Firaxis talks about army units being 'loaded' onto a Great Leader, who then functions something like a Transport... does this imply that ordinary unit stacks CAN'T be 'transported' like this, i.e. can't move simultaneously (as in Civ2)?

Further, will ordinary stacks of units (not armies) behave exactly as in Civ2, i.e. all be wiped out simultaneously by a superior unit if not in a fortress or city? (How disappointing!)

OR, could it be that stacked units that are not armies will still attack and defend individually, but without a Great Leader or Army status they will lack the army bonus of combined hit-points, or whatever?

How do you understand the differences between stacked units and armies?

[joseph1944]

Re: Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences?

Originally posted by Ilkuul
This may seem a dumb question, but after reading some of the comments in the "Ask the Civ Team 8/22/01" thread about Armies in Civ3, I began to wonder exactly how these will differ from the unit stacks we've known about for some time.

A stack of unit standing in a single stack are still individual units standing in a single stack. You have to move one at a time.

For instance, will we be able to stack units and move them simultaneously WITHOUT them having to be an Army?

No

I had so far assumed this, but when Firaxis talks about army units being 'loaded' onto a Great Leader, who then functions something like a Transport... does this imply that ordinary unit stacks CAN'T be 'transported' like this, i.e. can't move simultaneously (as in Civ2)?

An Army is when you have a great leader and then add up to 3 units to make a Stack Army, you may add a 4 unit if you have built the Pentagon as a minor wonder. They will fight as one. Moved together as one. You may only have one Army per 4 cities.

Further, will ordinary stacks of units (not armies) behave exactly as in Civ2, i.e. all be wiped out simultaneously by a superior unit if not in a fortress or city? (How disappointing!)

I don't know. DAN?

OR, could it be that stacked units that are not armies will still attack and defend individually, but without a Great Leader or Army status they will lack the army bonus of combined hit-points, or whatever?

I would guess yes. Again DAN?

[barefootbadass]

About non army units stacked but not in a fortress, I would guess they would do something like in SMAC and the collateral damage system, which I think is a major improvement over civ2's whole-stack-dies-at-once system.

[Ilkuul]

Re: Re: Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences?

Originally posted by joseph1944

A stack of unit standing in a single stack are still individual units standing in a single stack. You have to move one at a time.

OK, that would make sense, but have you seen this explicitly stated anywhere? In earlier discussions on this forum it was assumed that stacked units would be able to move simultaneously (before all the stuff about Armies was spelled out). I haven't seen any statement that ONLY Army stacks can move simultaneously.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well this is how I see the how armies work, and they seem quite powerful.

For example I think that if you get an army first that even the defense rating the Greek phalangs (three) will not help the that much against an egyptian chariot with attack strenght two. Since three chariots in a stack attacking as a single unit and sharing hitpoints might actually make them stronger than a fortified hoplite.

If the Greek hoplite has defence strenght 4.5 (if fortify multiplyer stays 50% ) and you get 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 chariots attacking (if they are veteran at .25%). Hoplite has 10 hitpoints, so do chariots each but they share them so they in effect have 30 hit points.

So roughly in every three hits chariots will lose 2 hit points and hoplite will lose 1. So after holite dies chariots all chariots together will have 10 hit points left which might be three, three and four.

They might be almost dead, but they should in 2/3 of the cases kill the fortified Greek Phalangh (not to mention the normal one).

And this implies that the whoever gets a great leader gets a good advantage over others. But there might be a hidden trick that makes armies less powerful, or everyone will have to have city walls built first.

Even with city walls, elite chariots (if elite modifier is 50%) will be quite dangerous for other (non-greek) civs.

This is how it looks currently for me.

[dainbramaged13]

Good thinking, ofitg. I really hope that there are stacked units that basically move together and dont all die togther, but rather have collateral damage. I also hope that since armies ( i think) will be rare, each one requiring both a great leader (which will not come as easily as you may think, i suppose) and four cities, they will be very powerful.

just my $0.02

[Soren Johnson]

Re: Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences?

Further, will ordinary stacks of units (not armies) behave exactly as in Civ2, i.e. all be wiped out simultaneously by a superior unit if not in a fortress or city? (How disappointing!)

There is no collateral damage in Civ III, so stacks are not wiped out after a loss.

[korn469]

There is no collateral damage in Civ III, so stacks are not wiped out after a loss.

Hi Soren! thanks for the info...one question though, any reason for the change in Civ3? I mean it went from being a complete loss in civ3, to collateral damage (by ground units) in SMAC, to no extra damage at all.

hmmm...this means that armies, while almost impervious to single units, now can be held up by a stream of cannon fodder units, unless it is easy to stack/unstack units from an army...also this would make air units more powerful

[War4ever]

might make waging war difficult..basically working out to one unit per city..... and getting an early army together looks looming.... i wonder if some of the first strats will be with the powermongers of the beginning.... i figure the adage of get em quick will apply even more so...

[Urban Ranger]

I am now confused.

My undestanding is there will be combat among stacks in Civ 3. You can't have collateral damage when there is stacked combat.

But how does stacked combat work differently than armies?

[korn469]

My undestanding is there will be combat among stacks in Civ 3. You can't have collateral damage when there is stacked combat.
But how does stacked combat work differently than armies?

Urban Ranger from what I understand the only time you have combat between two stacks is when two armies fight, the rest of the time the combat will be just between either single units or when an army faces off against a single unit...so that means the largest confrontations will be when a four army stack attacks another four army stack (of course both would of had to build the pentagon first)

otherwise combat is the same as in civ2/SMAC with one exception, in civ2 when a single unit was victorious over another single unit, all of the units in the square with the defeated single unit died, in SMAC all of the units in the square with the defeated single unit took some damage

in civ3 it appears that when an army or single unit is victorious over another single unit then all of the other units in that square are undamaged, and when an army or single unit is victorious over another army then only the units in the defeated army are destroyed

this is however not taking retreat into account

and as far as we know if an army or single unit gets attacked by a unit with less mobility than the defender the defender can retreat (retreat might apply to the attacker also but its details haven't been confirmed)

[Urban Ranger]

Now I am completely confused.

Previously I have always thought that a player can stack units together like CtP, and they fight as a group. My impression was "army" is just a way to denote these stacks.

Now it appears that armies are different from stacks.

Can somebody from Firaxis clear up this point?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I am now confused.

Im also confused. A complete official showdown of ALL facts regarding armies, stacked movement and combat sure would feel like a big relief.

Its only 8-12 weeks left to official release anyway, and perhaps 6-10 weeks to a pre-released demo (if any - I sure hope so). So then any tidbits of info IS released from now on - why not make it as recapitulating, concluding and claryfying as possible, in relation to all the previous info released on that particular subject?

[Urban Ranger]

That would be good.

I don't want to become bald that quickly

[ChrisShaffer]

Well, they haven't released all the details yet, but it is fairly obvious from what has been said that a stack of units that are not joined in an army is just a bunch of individual units that happen to be in the same hex.

When a non-army unit attacks, it is moved and attacks as an individual unit. When a non-army unit defends, it defends (and possibly retreats) as an individual unit. The combat (attack or defence) has no effect on the other units in the hex with the non-army unit.