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

[Ilkuul]

It was good to see Soren Johnson's response above about all units in a stack NOT being killed simultaneously.

I wonder if he or someone else from Firaxis could answer my other burning question: Can unit stacks that are not Armies be MOVED simultaneously?? I really hope so, because this was one of most tedious features of Civ2, having to move units around the map one by one...

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Ilkuul
It was good to see Soren Johnson's response above about all units in a stack NOT being killed simultaneously.

I wonder if he or someone else from Firaxis could answer my other burning question: Can unit stacks that are not Armies be MOVED simultaneously?? I really hope so, because this was one of most tedious features of Civ2, having to move units around the map one by one...

Straight up, brutha!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Ilkuul
Can unit stacks that are not Armies be MOVED simultaneously?? I really hope so, because this was one of most tedious features of Civ2, having to move units around the map one by one...

Good question that needs an good official answer (more then just 1 line, please). I can live with the fact that max 3-4 units can fight as an army. But I sure as hell want to be able to at least move stacked units without those great leaders. If great leaders is the ONLY way you have to move around stacked units, then I see before me an awful lot of tedious unit-move management in Civ-3 as well.

IF however, it IS possible to move leader-less stacked units....

- Any upper unit-limit?
- how does such a leader-less unit-stack behave if it gets attacked?
- how do you attack? One by one? How is it different compared with having a great leader as well?

[Ralf]

I found below army-related info at Civilization III Fanatics Center:

Armies come into play in one of two ways. The most common is via the researching of nationalism, one of the few new additions to the tech tree. Once discovered, nationalism enables you to put your economy in one of three different states: mobilized, normal, or peace. In peace mode all military units and buildings cost twice as much to build, and all peace-related buildings, like libraries and temples, cost half as much. When mobilized, the reverse happens with all military units costing half the normal price. In addition, mobilization allows the construction of army units. This enables players to prepare more effectively for war, with cities churning out troops like a well-oiled soldier factory.

My italics. So you cant build armies just by discovering nationalism alone - you must mobalize the economy to war as well, before these armies can be forged. And the limit is still 3, max 4 units.

The other way to create an army is with a great leader unit. Rewarded randomly after a successful battle, these celebrated figures, named after war heroes like Patton and Stonewall Jackson, serve a similar function to an army, with different military units able to attach to them. It's clear that leader units will play a significant part in the game as prized possessions that can alter the course of the game, swinging major events one way or the other.

OK, the ONLY way to move around max 3-4 units in one and the same stack, is by A: spawn a great leader, and B: mobalize your economy to war (which possible for any gov-type after you have researced the nationalism-tech).

Besides above, there is no additional way to move around unit-stacks (besides sea-transport) - is this correct?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It does look confusing.

At present it looks that you can stack the units up, they will not act as an army and you will have to kill one by one to get to the next point!!! That could mean that someone could just stack up warriors and that they would be killed one by one (like in fortresses before), but since there are so many of them enemy could be slowed down for a few turns, until you get your defenses up?

It doesn't seem from the info we got so far that we will be able to move units together, but I guess Firaxis has this on board just haven't announced it formally. (I would be suprised thay haven't done that in 2 yrs of playing the game)

And last you cna have armies with great leaders, or with a few improvements later on in the game. And those armies look certain to defeat any individual unit of the time. So great leaders are a road to success (but they might not last very long.

And guess what. THIS IS THE RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRES that we asked for!!!

If great leader does not last forever, than you can get the advantage in the beginning of the game, and lose the advantage later if some other armies attack you and your great leader is dead, only at the end of time everyone can have armies,and than the stronger (with pentagon) kick ass of the weaker.
Buit therefore you cannot be only a warmonger, if you are, once your great leader dies, you will have major cultural problems, and cities that you conquered might eventually deflect to other empires.
This is a major step forward if it is correct,and it is a great way to accomplish rise and fall of empires in the game.

It looks really promising now!!! I can't wait!!!

However this is still just speculation, and we could do with some explanation

[Ralf]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
At present it looks that you can stack the units up, they will not act as an army and you will have to kill one by one to get to the next point!!!

I sure hope this is possible. I just want an additional third way of moving around unit-stacks by land (land-units only); by air (air-units only) and by sea (sea-units only) in order to avoid too much micro-management. Sea-transport is of course still available for land-units on sea.

As said above; In contrast to armies, they dont fight as an army at all - only as a bunch of indevidual units which happen to stand on the same square.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, like a lot of people, I too am confused!
So how about it Dan? Soren? How about a nice, easy to understand tutorial to explain to all us dunces out here how the ENTIRE combat system works?! It certainly did the trick for Resources and Colonies!!

Yours,
The Aussie Lurker.

P.S: If any Firaxis people are currently reading this list, I need a couple of things explained:

1) If a single unit attacks a stack (NOT an army!), which unit in the stack will be attacked, and do the other units in the stack give any kind of bonus to defense?

2) Will ranged-attack units have any advantages in combat over melee units (both in armies and as single units)?

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
If great leader does not last forever, than you can get the advantage in the beginning of the game, and lose the advantage later if some other armies attack you and your great leader is dead, only at the end of time everyone can have armies,and than the stronger (with pentagon) kick ass of the weaker.

Even if a great leader doesn't last forever, you can still get new ones, so it doesn't really create a "Rise and Fall of Empires."

And is pentagon really a major wonder?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by isaac brock

And is pentagon really a major wonder?

No, the Pentagon is a MINOR Wonder...Every Civilization will have the oportunity to build one of them.

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe we should unleash the Code Red worm against Firaxis' server if they don't clear up our confusion soon.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by isaac brock


Even if a great leader doesn't last forever, you can still get new ones, so it doesn't really create a "Rise and Fall of Empires."

And is pentagon really a major wonder?

I think that this model might bring a lot of 'instability' military wise, and the civ that will not have great leaders is more or less doomed...

Imagine one civ having an army that can beat any individual unit, and that it can reorganise as well in one turn (get fresh units in)

I think that this will give it the ability to conquer its neighbors (as in the history great leaders gave something special to the host country).

Whenb your great leader dies, you lose this ability, but someone else might have it... i see this as a clean rise and fall of empires way.

I guess it will not be easy to get a great leader, and you might have a smaller chance of getting one (lets say for next 50 turns after the last one died) but this is plain speculation.

anyway I don't think there will be many armies early on in the game, until the modern times, and thoe empires that will have them will be military superior to the others.

[Kuciwalker]

Can't we just use the Ctp2 combat model? It solved all of these problems easily.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

i think CTP combat model was good for added military complexity/ reality... i think this was actually the best improvement in CTP series over Civ II.

However it woiuld be great to have rise and fall of empires, and this Civ III system seems to give just that.

[Edward]

Armies come into play in one of two ways. The most common is via the researching of nationalism, one of the few new additions to the tech tree. Once discovered, nationalism enables you to put your economy in one of three different states: mobilized, normal, or peace. In peace mode all military units and buildings cost twice as much to build, and all peace-related buildings, like libraries and temples, cost half as much. When mobilized, the reverse happens with all military units costing half the normal price. In addition, mobilization allows the construction of army units. This enables players to prepare more effectively for war, with cities churning out troops like a well-oiled soldier factory.

1/2 cost for military units! This is more powerful than Civ2 fundamentalism! Perhaps Firaxis was trying to put an element of having to gear up for war into Civ3, but it'll actually have the opposite effect.

Civ2: I'm peaceful with few if any offensive troops and a smattering of defensive troops in cities. I'm suddenly attacked by a strong neighbor. I switch to max taxes in hopes of rush-buying a lot of troops. It'll take me a number of turns to build up an effective counter-attack, especially if I don't use incremental buying. If I'm really scared I can switch governments to Fundamentalism or Communism. Without a quick Oedo year, I've really got a lag time in gearing up my civ for war.

Civ3: Same situation, but I've discovered Nationalism. I merely snap my fingers and say "mobilize". Suddenly my peace-nik empire is a recruiting powerhouse. With max taxes and discount unit rates I'll have my counter-attacking army in no time! (Of course this'll only be late game when Nationalism is discovered.)

Unless, like government revolutions, it takes time to switch your mobilization "state", I predict that nationalism will make mobilization a non-factor. Perhaps this is its purpose.

[Edward]

Will an army be able to attack multiple times? In order to capture a City in Civ2, you could send in a bunch of crusaders. One by one they attacked the city, damaging or killing defenders. If Civ3 armies can only attack once per turn, then they might have a REDUCED ability to conquer cities. For example, my 4-crusader army attacks the enemy city and easily defeats the first phalanx defender. In Civ2 I'd continue to the next defender, but if my army can only attack once (maybe twice if all it's units have a two movement rate), then I have to stop for the turn, allowing my opponent to heal his defenders and build new ones. I certainly hope armies can attack at least as many times as they have units. ('though certainly they'd have normal movement rates regardless of the number of units.) This runs counter to Civ2's "you can attack and or defend only as many times as you have movement" philosophy.

I too am anxious to see a developer update elucidating the whole stack/army issue.