Useless army

[Arrian]

I'm finishing off my latest Roman game, and my invasion of Egypt (best AI civ on the other continent) was spearheaded by 2 4xTank armies. I later put together a 3xTank+1xMech Infantry army too.

Infantry, even fortified in a city, don't stand a chance against 16hp of Tank. I wiped out the 2nd largest empire in the world in ~12 turns.

Now, I probably could have done that without the armies, but they saved me some casualties. Both by acting as "nutcrackers" to deal with the top defenders and by providing cover for stacks of tanks so I didn't have to wait for infantry to catch up. Once I had Mech Inf, this was no longer an issue.

-Arrian

[Inverse Icarus]

i've been successful with 2 swords + 1 num merc as carthage

[Arrian]

I was just thinking about something...

Let's say you're playing as... Rome. You fight an archer war and get a leader. You make him an army. You fill the army with 3 legionaries. Will using that army trigger your GA? It should, but sometimes the game treats armies differently than normal units.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

I'm pretty sure it does... doen;t forget Armies don;t fight battles, rather the units in them do, sharing hps.

[Rommel2D]

Just confirmed this in a game- UUs in armies do trigger a GA.

[Reinhard-Baer]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Next time you want to attack veteran infantry put three tanks into your army and do some bombardment beforehand. That should produce a better result.

Yup imagine three divisions of infantry running accross an open field against a well fortified and prepared enemy. Hmm sounds alot like WWI. And you know the outcome Inf against Inf? forget it. You would need alot more punch to get through. How about panzer attacks? More like WWII and you know the result in this case too
And if all else fails nuke your enemy into oblivion

[pedrojedi]

There's that small gap between replaceable parts and mobile something that makes us going to war with some cavalry and infantry. This is the time when bombardment can make all the difference, as the AI does not know how to use it and you can get a deffinite advantage with the cities you take during this gap. Of course, this only make sense if you do not have a tech lead in the time... If you have, a little waiting and a good panzer timing is all that separates your enemy from the grave.

[Boris Godunov]

I like armies and find them very useful, but you have to use them carefully and in conjunction with other units, such as bombarding units. I use "pure" armies of attack units (an army of tanks is one awesome weapon), stacked with one or two good defensive units and then a couple of bombarding units, and following them will be some rapid-moving units. Having the bombarding units and the army attack will usually allow me to take cities without losing a single unit.

Just keep in mind that armies alone aren't meant to be an invincible superweapon.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Just keep in mind that armies alone aren't meant to be an invincible superweapon.

That's true! And losing armies can be a major pain in the know know where.

[Boris Godunov]

Absolutely. Use them carefully.

[RGBVideo]

I had a metropolitan city on a hill with walls. 6 ELITE modern armours were fortified inside. Here is how the stupid computer (Level: Monarch) took it:
Step 1: Waste a ten minutes moving immortals and longbowmen (all veterans, thanks to their barracks).
Step 2: Spend thirty minutes attacking my city (human tidal wave). By the way, I managed to kill all but 5 of the bastards.
Step 3: Raze the city and steal the 6, I repeat, 6, settlers sealed inside.
Step 4: Get your ass whipped by the blitzkrieg.

Hey, it worked for Iran.