Offensive armies have a clear advantage. They will destroy a unit without allowing it to get promoted between attacks. But what about armies on the defense? I'm thinking they're not worth it since it could allow multiple units to be destroyed by one (obviously strong) attacking unit. Where as, if the units are not in armies each attacker must end that attack (and their attacking for that turn if they don't have blitz) with the defeat of the defending unit.
I had been thinking of putting some infantry into a defense army (for defense out in the open), but now I've decided against it.
Anyone disagree with this logic?
I had been thinking of putting some infantry into a defense army (for defense out in the open), but now I've decided against it.
Anyone disagree with this logic?
I use them as protection for my offense... so if I have a forward rally point, on a mountain, say, the Army stays there, and protects units as they heal. Same goes for an intercontinental invasion.
I've never used a defensive army in anything but a chokepoint city but I have lost artillery many times from surprise attacks. That's a good use for them.
Comment