Upgrading units in armies

[The Rook]

I think the fact that you can't upgrade units in the army was an oversight on Firaxis part. It doesn't seem like it was a desired feature of the game. It doesn't make any sense. Still, armies are useful. I'm sure people can do just as well without them, but I have found a way to use them for great affect.

[zulu9812]

Not being able to upgrade units in armies wasn't an oversight: it was a design decision. Can't understand why, though.

[Mickeyj]

I agree I never build armies as you loose your ability to attack more than once.

[player1]

FIRAXIS said several times, that UPGRADEABLE armes were too powerfull (unbalancing) in beta, so they removed them in final version of Civ3.

[Redstar]

i think its fine the way it is...you can build an army and not fill it right away..so you can get more leaders.

even better -- when you win often enough with your army you can build small wonders to allow you to make armies...so in a way you can upgrade at your convenience (by spitting out new ones).


The part that is not fine is covered in another good post.

[Rhuarc]

I also like using armies, although I feel that units within an army should be able to fight using flanking and things. But overall I really like the use of the army. Even though I never manage to get as many armies as I would like!!

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
An army of swordsmen can defeat a knight.

Of couse they will. You're talking about 3 units beating down one unit. Outnumbered 3 to 1? Of course that knight is gonna lose. Jesus. What's your point? That one big army costing 39 shields is good at beating a single unit that only costs 7 shields?

[Austin]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Not being able to upgrade units in armies wasn't an oversight: it was a design decision. Can't understand why, though.

Because until fairly recently armies tend to ossify and stick with technology and methods even when newer advancements pass them by.

For example despite all the evidence to the contrary the British army in 1916 was STILL trying to use Napoleonic style tactics (bombard, then charge) against machine guns, with predictable results.

The die hard cavalry charges of von Bredow into the muzzles of French riflemen in 1870, the stubborn refusal of many armies to accept the consequences of gunpowder, Admiral Sir Tom Phillips refusing to admit AFTER Pearl Harbor that ships could be sunk by aircraft right up until the Japanese sunk him, the list goes on and on.

Remember that grouping your troops together into an army means you need a lot of beaurocracy. And bearocracies don't like change.

Austin

[zulu9812]

Hold up Austin - the Armies in civ3 are not the armies of the real world. The armies you're talking about are equivalent to your civ's entire military. I always thought of Civ3's Armies as being brigades or corps - simply large collections of troops.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Theseus
Let's see how you feel about it when a 4X Legion Army shows up on your Spearman's doorstep... or how 'bout a blitzing 4X MA Army when you are still on Infantry. Not to mention mixed-unit Armies.

Armies cannot airdrop or blitz, no matter which units are inside.

[player1]

ARMIES CAN BLITZ (in 1.21f patch)

[Evil_Eric_4]

I agree I never build armies as you loose your ability to attack more than once.

Micky--
This has been fixed.Any army can attack as many times as they have units. Unless a unit in the army dies -then the next resumes the attack but you lose that units attack.
Example--An army of 4 Cavalry attacks a city--If the first attack succeeds then you will be allowed to attack again-up to 4 times.
If however the first cavalry fails it will retreat and the next unit will resume the battle.In this case then you would only have 2 attacks after that.
I dont know if im making sense to you but these are my observations in 1.21.

One question I do have though is why cant you form Artillary armies?
Even if it gives no benefit I would still build them just so I can move the things 4 at a time.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Armies are only as strong as their weakest unit, therefore, they should only be allowed blitz if all its units can blitz, and its speed should be that of its slowest unit. You shouldnt be getting unit cheats just for having them in a army. Armies traditionally move/react slower than a unit.

[Evil_Eric_4]

I agree AW

Leave it to firaxis to go from one extreme (useless armies) to the other (blitzing foot soldiers).

[Austin]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Hold up Austin - the Armies in civ3 are not the armies of the real world. The armies you're talking about are equivalent to your civ's entire military. I always thought of Civ3's Armies as being brigades or corps - simply large collections of troops.

This is true, however even within armies you often have big differences. When von Seekt and Co. where hashing out the doctrine that was to become stormtrooper tactics on the Eastern Front during WWI, Falkenhein was trying to take Verdun by bashing it old style.

Having legions running around in 1940 is a bit silly though.

Austin