Armies suckman

[civjunkie]

um, well. Two of my MIs just killed an Iroquois army: the poor saps just kept stepping up like sheep to the slaughter while the MIs blazed away. (If I saw
what I think I saw, the first MI took them down to 1hp each and the second one finished them off). If they had been a stack instead of an army it would have taken 3 MIs to kill them. So there are apparently downsides to armies on defence ...

As to attack, if I have a stack of a tank and two horsemen, surely I can choose to attack with the tank first if I want to? And there might be times when I don't want to, e.g. if their top unit is down to 1hp and I want to save the tank to deal with the healthy unit below it.

OK, I accept that armies have some advantages over
stacks, but there are some advantages that go the
other way. It's not clearcut.

[Artifex]

one drawback is armies take so long to heal back up to full combat strength..and when they take on a tough fortified defender in a city many times they end up in the red taking several turns to replinish their strength.

[Barchan]

Until you've seen the power of a swordsman or Legion army or, God help us all, an Immortal army, don't talk smack about 'em. Admittedly, once you get to the MI/MA age, armies are pretty much worthless. But in the age before ships and airplanes, where catapults are your best artillery piece, an army of slow but powerful attackers can be decisive. Yeah, horsemen are nice and all, but they're not as powerful as they used to be since they don't always retreat. If you've got an army (or two, if you really want to crack skulls) you can use it to take down the best city defender and let your mobile units pick off the stragglers. If you've ever thrown away a stack of attackers trying to dislodge a Hoplite or Legion from a hilltop city, you'll appreciate the utility of armies. Also, their defensive power is ridiculous in the ancient eras. It's almost impossible to budge a Roman Legion army fortified in a city without bringing every attacking unit in the world to bear.

I'm not saying armies are the best thing on the market, and there are games and civs for which they're pretty much useless. But if you're going to go on the rampage and want an early juggernaut, give 'em a go.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Barchan
Until you've seen the power of a swordsman or Legion army or, God help us all, an Immortal army,

Oh yes, I love them. There's no worthy opponent for an Immortals army for a very long time. I didn't try them on riflemen, but I wouldn't be surprised if my army killed some.

I'm not sure if somebody mentioned it or not, but an army of defender units is almost unbeatable.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Barchan
Until you've seen the power of a swordsman or Legion army or, God help us all, an Immortal army, don't talk smack about 'em. Admittedly, once you get to the MI/MA age, armies are pretty much worthless. But in the age before ships and airplanes, where catapults are your best artillery piece, an army of slow but powerful attackers can be decisive. Yeah, horsemen are nice and all, but they're not as powerful as they used to be since they don't always retreat. If you've got an army (or two, if you really want to crack skulls) you can use it to take down the best city defender and let your mobile units pick off the stragglers. If you've ever thrown away a stack of attackers trying to dislodge a Hoplite or Legion from a hilltop city, you'll appreciate the utility of armies. Also, their defensive power is ridiculous in the ancient eras. It's almost impossible to budge a Roman Legion army fortified in a city without bringing every attacking unit in the world to bear.

I'm not saying armies are the best thing on the market, and there are games and civs for which they're pretty much useless. But if you're going to go on the rampage and want an early juggernaut, give 'em a go.

[WarpStorm]

In my current game I just built an army of elite Samurai. It rocks. That blitz attack is eating up cities. All the low tech neighbors are worried.

[nationalist]

I find armies useful for guarding my cities. By endgame, I usually have armies of Mech. Inf. guarding all of my core cities. I build at least one army in every game, to allow me to build the Heroic Epic and get more leaders.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by nationalist
I find armies useful for guarding my cities. By endgame, I usually have armies of Mech. Inf. guarding all of my core cities. I build at least one army in every game, to allow me to build the Heroic Epic and get more leaders.

Ah, yes, the HE. That's another BIG argument for armies. The HE could come in very handy in pre-modern era times, but if you've got it by the time MA comes around, you'll have more GLs than you know what to do with. My last game I was the Indians (non-mil!), and I couldn't get rid of my GLs fast enough once the MA began mowing down the competition; I was using some of them to rush factories in newly-captured cities just to make space for the next GL to be created. Seriously, I believe I had at least nine GLs on Monarch level. As a Militaristic civ, you could count on even more GLs, which you need to do to overcome the lack of building bonuses in other areas. I know, it's realllllly tempting to use that first GL to rush an ancient wonder (particularly the Great Library, if it's available), but building that army, and then the HE, will almost guarantee you many more GLs to come in the following years.

[vmxa1]

I make some armies alright, but why would you have them in your core cities? If you are making armies of MI, those cities should not need defending. They should have a big buffer and be quite safe. With your rails you can get help back if any troops come in from air/sea.

[civjunkie]

OK, I replayed the combat I mentioned above, just to get a closer look. What happened is this: one MI took out a cavalry army singlehandedly, in one turn. As I said, the poor saps just stood up, one by one, and let themselves be mowed down. If they'd been stacked instead, it would have taken me 3 MIs to take them out.
So I'm not that impressed with armies on defence, though I take the point that AI has a phobia about them.

I think the division in this debate is really between the early and late warriors: personally I never fight early, I'd rather husband my resources and attack when I have a decisive advantage. Also I usually play on a huge map, so it takes a long time to make contact, and large-scale warfare really isn't practicable until I have RRs. By then armies are a waste of time. Next game I'll try picking a fight early, just so I can build HE and get the kulcha.

Incidentally, I can't find any reference to blitz in the civilopedia or manual. What it it? If a 1.29f feature, I'm waiting to apply 1.29f until I've finished my current scenario (when I try appying it to a scenario in progress, it crashes)

[Theseus]

Uhhh, I'm not impressed with Cavs on defense either. Against MI... yeah, good example. Try attacking a 3x MI Army in a metro with a Tank.

Blitz allows the individual units in an Army to attack in one turn (it came in one of the patches).

If you don;t fight early, you'll have a heck of a time on Deity. There are some ideas re same in the Strategy forum.

[Catt]

Originally posted by civjunkie
OK, I replayed the combat I mentioned above, just to get a closer look. What happened is this: one MI took out a cavalry army singlehandedly, in one turn. As I said, the poor saps just stood up, one by one, and let themselves be mowed down. If they'd been stacked instead, it would have taken me 3 MIs to take them out.
So I'm not that impressed with armies on defence, though I take the point that AI has a phobia about them.

I think what some of the others have been trying to point out (politely) is that you apparently lack the experience with armies to generate sufficient confidence in your opinion among readers of the forum that "armies suck man."

An army is not a magical unit that guarantees a victory in all circumstances; the strength and utility of an army depends quite significantly on the strength of its constituent units. Forming a conclusion that defensive armies are not impressive based on a "12 attack" unit (MI) defeating a "3 defense unit" (Cav) is silly.

Now, I myself have concluded that offensive armies suck because my 3-warrior army (all elites, mind you) failed to defeat a lone infantry unit!

Catt

[Theseus]

... but you should see the way that 3x Spearmen Armies take out Tanks!!!

[Arrian]

I like the nutcracking & stack defending ability of a swordsman army in the ancient era. Nearly guaranteed death for any single unit I need to kill, and defense the AI will not mess with. The other reason I like swordsman armies is that I am not sacrificing units that could later be upgraded. An elite* swordsman can never become something better, and cannot produce another leader. Therefore it is best used in an army, which cannot produce leaders anyway.

I love knight armies and cavalry armies. After that it doesn't matter unless you have to deal with mech inf. in metros.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Have I ever told you about mixed-unit Armies...