Armies suckman

[civjunkie]

IMHO, building an army is a waste of a leader. OK: build one and have it win a battle, then you can build Heroic
Epic and get more leaders to build good things with;
but I'd rather have a stack of mobile units (even
Horsemen) than a slow-moving army. Frankly,
I don't see the point of armies. Can anyone enlighten me?and

[Theseus]

Nice attitude.

Here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46197

[vmxa1]

Not sure if I can, but I will say that armies have several uses. biggest for me:
1- pacifiy captured cities
2- bust down strong defensive units

[civjunkie]

OK, have read the thread on armies: I must admit I haven't used them much, I got the impression from the Civilopedia that they only had 1 MP, but I gather they have the MP of the slowest unit in them. Still ... I like to develop peacefully and save my strength for a big battle in the modern era. In my current game (Americans-Regent-huge map) it is 1824 AD; I have assembled a kick-ass force of 38 modern armor, 120 MI, 13 elite tanks and assorted other units. With this force I have
attcked the Iroqouis, who have nothing better than infantry and cavalry, and in a single turn I have so far captured or razed 15 of their cities, created 3 GLs (which I have used to rush spaceship parts - I mean I am WAY ahead in science): so what did I need an army for? My objectives are limited, I just want to corral all the uranium so they can't ever build nukes, finish my spaceship, then rack up points waiting for the last moment to launch, without the chance of the other civs
starting a major fracas. Therefore I don't intend to grab any of their big cities or try to control them, and for this kind of warfare I don't miss having armies.

[Theseus]

Farir enough... by the time you have MA (much less facing only Infantry), Armies are sort of superfluous.

Uh, hmm, er... there's a whole period of the game that happens before then?

Do me a favor, and at least try it... I just played CFC GOTM 11, and having a Samurai + 2x Horsemen Army at the van of my forces just felt GOOD!!

[Jaybe]

I am finding that MA facing Mech Infantry entrenched in metros or in mountains results in the loss of too many MA for a Republic. Bring on the Armies!!

Even then, my armies are down to half strength (or worse) after knocking down 1 or 2 MI and it's back to a barracks for refit. Unfortunately, I had been undisciplined and had my 6+ armies going against multiple targets, not all focused on a single city or SOD at one time.

[coryl]

I only build an army with a GL if there are no wonders to build and I'm not going to research a wonder tech anytime soon.

I usually find armies to be excessive and I'd rather have 3-4 separate units. I use artillery and aircraft to crack tough defensive units instead of using offensive armies. Defensive armies often deter the computer from attacking completely and I want them to expose their offensive units (Knights, Cavalry, Tanks) so I can kill them.

I'm also a builder who plays on Emperor and try to push off war until I get Cavalry.

Killing an opponent's army is very satisfying though.

[planetfall]

civjunkie--

Armies aren't needed. However using one GL for an army and then winning is valuable for Heroic Epic and higher odds of more GL's.

I started playing with armies not because it is necessarily better, just more fun. Often I will use military academy to build shell armies. Just General and no units, until tanks/panzers/MA arrive. 12 MA can take out a city of 18 with 4 Mech Inf, but I hate losing the MA's. I would rather use 2 armies of 4 MA to remove the elite Mechs with no unit lost and then use the other 4 MA for the remaining defenders. I might need a few more MA initially, but I lose less units with armies than I did when I didn't use them. The biggest disadvantage of doing this is armies don't generate GL's. So I tend to use one or two armies to knock out the strongest defender, and then let normal force work.

I would not agree that armies suck, but you lose very little by not playing with them. They are somewhat like radar artillery, interesting but not really needed. They are not in the suck category like-- stealth fighters, explorers, privateers, and helios.


-- PF

[WarpStorm]

In addition to the good things about armies mentioned previously, they get blitz even if none of the units in them have it.

[Lucarse]

Armies are useful in a CIV military sense for destroying heavily fortified units or that pesky first unit in the city.

How many times have you chewed up 2 or more units trying to dslodge a heaviliy fortified unit?? use an army job done.

(bombarding/bombing also works of course)

[civjunkie]

>>They are not in the suck category like-- stealth fighters, explorers, privateers, and helios.>>

Hey, I like explorers. Much better than they were in Civ2.

[Theseus]

I noticed in your other "suck" thread (at least be more creative...) that you said you'd rather have individual units, especially fastmovers.

First, fastmovers don;t always retreat.

Second, in an Army, the attacking unit can use ALL of its hps without dying (except the last one, of course).

Third, you don't understand the power of Army hps... if you have say, a Tank on top of 2 Horsemen, the Tank is the attacker on each successive blitz attack, using 1/3 of the remaining hps.

You don;t know the game well enough to knock it yet... yeah, you may have been a primo Civ2 player (so was I, and many others around here), but it's a new ballgame, jack.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by civjunkie
My objectives are limited, I just want to corral all the uranium so they can't ever build nukes, finish my spaceship, then rack up points waiting for the last moment to launch, without the chance of the other civs
starting a major fracas. Therefore I don't intend to grab any of their big cities or try to control them, and for this kind of warfare I don't miss having armies.

One thing you should be made aware of is that, when you build the spaceship-game over, once you build the 10th piece it launches.

[Sheik]

I always build an army unless Sun Tzu is an option. Armies open up so many possibilities and I find them to be fairly powerful.

[vmxa1]

Like I said an army is great to sit o a city with a few resisters. I often have an early army of calvary left over and they can sit on a city and it will not rebel. The later armies of say MI can sit on a city that is in danger of a counter attack. Not many counter attacks have enough behind them to crack it. A nice MA army or two can come in to a city and bust that defender without having to send in 3 or 4 units losing most. When I have pacified the previous city or the one with the MI defending is no longer in danger they move up to sit on the next one. I may have made many armies if I generate lots of leaders late in the game with no strutures needing a rush.