Question on Mixed Army Stats

[Theseus]

I tested an MA/MI Army, I posted my conclusions on the thread in General.

I believe hps are shared.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I tested an MA/MI Army, I posted my conclusions on the thread in General.

I believe hps are shared.

Phew! I didn't really want to do the test, but I did want to understand fully how M-U armies worked. Thanks for taking the time to test and post.

Catt

PS - I assume that you will post the same in the CFC thread?

[Sheik]

This may seem like a dumb question but why do you want to mix armies? I generally only use armies for offense and therefore choose powerful units of all the same type to put in there. Why not use only the best?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Sheik
This may seem like a dumb question but why do you want to mix armies? I generally only use armies for offense and therefore choose powerful units of all the same type to put in there. Why not use only the best?

It's not a silly question - I think most players are initially taken aback by the thought of putting different types of units in an army - especially different types of units from different ages in the same army. It's a somewhat long thread, but you should definitely read through Theseus' treatise (which is the Apolyton treatise on armies, IMHO) - the thread is one of the featured threads on the Strategy Page - and can be found here.

The short version (for me) comes down to one particular key point - I expect my army to essentially guarantee a battle win in almost any circumstance. Two swordsmen or two horsemen in an ancient age army just about get you there; 2 knights in the early middle ages will do the same. Adding a third unit doesn't appreciably increase the odds of winning a battle - the odds are so skewed in your favor due to the 8 or more HPs (no chance for defender promotions before death) that adding a third unit might rightly be thought of as overkill (might take expected battle win percentage in a given circumstance from 96% to 98%? not a big gain). Now also take into account that armies can be few and far in between until the ability to build the Military Academy arrives with Military Tradition. I don't want my army to become obsolete quickly -- as may naturally occur as tech progresses -- because I don't know if I'll get another one into well into the Industrial Age.

An example probably helps here: If I have carefully left a space in my early army (loading only 2 horseman, say), I can add a knight to my army as the age of chivalry arrives. The 2-horseman army is an exceedingly powerful ancient age attack unit, and I am pretty comfortable that it is going to take down anything in its way (yes, there are a couple of exceptions ). If I add a third horseman, the relative strength of the army vis-a-vis other ancient age units is largely unchanged - it remains a supremely powerful ancient age monster. But soon the age of chivalry arrives, and with it knights, pikemen and musketmen, together with more Cities (7 pop or higher) and the defensive bonus Cities provide. Had I created a 3-horseman army in the ancient age, the army itself would now be largely obsolete - sure, I could use it against spearmen, and I could use it against units in the open field, but I probably can't confidently use it to "crack open" that City guarded by a tough defender. However, since I only created a 2-horseman army in the ancient age, I can now add a knight to the army. My knight-horseman-horseman army is still very powerful in the Middle Ages - its 12 HPS, led by a 4 attack unit and then two 2 attack units, means it still retains the key capability I desire from my armies - the ability to essentially guarantee a victory in battle. By loading units into armies over time rather than as soon as an army appears, you can successfully extend the useful life of a single army significantly.

I've rambled on long enough - for another key reason to consider using mixed armies which centers on how HPs and ADM stats work together in the army context, see Theseus' thread in the General Forum titled How do Armies handle damage?

Catt

[Theseus]

Catt - Yes, I will post at CFC, thanks for the reminder... we need to bridge better and more often. Not a true dissection though; I'm happy to do empirical tests, but I'd love to see the true analysts, say alexman or Carver, do it right.

Sheik - Ahhh, mixed-unit Armies, still my beating heart. It's late, so not now, but I'm inspired to start a new thread extolling the virtues. Give me a couple days...

Short answer (not!): Create a 3x Swords Army right off. What damn good is that thing in the modern era, even with a Pentagon-allowed 4th unit?

My philosophy is to evolve Armies through the ages, increasing their strength over time, and taking advantage of older units' hps.

[Sheik]

Thanks.