army or wonder?

Darth Sidious · January 10, 2002, 04:59

I currently am playing the (non militaristic) french on diety on a regular sized map.

I am just done razing my first opponent with swordsmen, it is about 500 BC. It gave me 2 leaders, the first one i used to build the forbidden palace in the capital i took over (cuz it had a good position for being a second capital and it had the pyramids, lucky me)

3 other tribes are busy building the sistine chappel, i have no other wonder yet, and since i have started at about the same time and the AI cheats, i do not expect to win this without using the leader.

Is it wort using the leader for this wonder, or should i use it to get an army to help me raze the next opponent when i have knights?

I don't know the value of an army, cuz i never had one yet. I did fight against 2 in the other game i played though, and i i beaten them without too much difficulty (legionares vs swordsman army)

korn469 · January 10, 2002, 05:07

Darth Sidious

i would go with a wonder for the following reasons

*you can't unload units from an army, so if you put swordmen in your army then it will be obsolete once the industrial age rolls around
*except in a few select circumstance high mobility units outperform an army because their retreat ability provides a similar outcome to what an army does
*a wonder which provides a constant bonus will benefit your empire much more than an army that you might never use

Darth Sidious · January 10, 2002, 05:24

I do understand that one army is not worth a wonder by FAAAAR

but the point is that i need one army in order to build that militairy academy or whatever it is that will enable me to build more.
Then again, i just got back to peace again so it probably would hurt my already bad reputation pretty damn much to get that army a "victorious amry"

thanx for you advice.

korn469 · January 10, 2002, 05:30

Darth Sidious

even if you do build an army to get the military academy then each army you build cost 400 shields, or the same as 3 modern armor...i'd take 7 modern armor over 3 modern armor in an army

Darth Sidious · January 10, 2002, 05:33

I didn't really notice the insane prize yet.

*starts building his chappel*

notyoueither · January 10, 2002, 05:36

korn is right.

Unless you have 156 Modern Armour. Then, what is 1 more rat to the pack?

Armies give you some different capabilities, not much, but a little.

I torture myself over whether to rush that Wonder or get the MilAcad. I usually go for the Army, just to add to the flavour (options).

Salve

CB2034 · January 10, 2002, 09:07

I usually build one army so I can build the heroic epic (or whatever its called) after I build that I usually get about 5-6 leaders in the next 100-200 years.(I do a lot of warmongering)

kailhun · January 10, 2002, 09:32

Quote:

Originally posted by CB2034
I usually build one army so I can build the heroic epic (or whatever its called) after I build that I usually get about 5-6 leaders in the next 100-200 years.(I do a lot of warmongering)

Ah, I wondered why I couldn't build this. Hm, so you have to waste an army to be able to build the HE. Nothing the editor won't solve.

Robert

The Hun · January 10, 2002, 11:09

I've heard that it is better to use the first leader for an army so you can build the HE. The HE will open the flow of more leaders to use to your ends. However, I have yet to get one leader and I am on my 5th game. 2 of 5 games I played a Mil Civ. 5 of 5 games I played on Warlord to Electricity.

-Craig

Grumbold · January 10, 2002, 14:03

You have to attack A LOT to get military leaders. In my early regent games, playing Militarist Rome, I got between 1 and 3 leaders per game in destroying two factions. When I started playing the tournament games I was far more aggresive seeking early victories against all my opponents. Despite being pacifist civs the leaders were more common just because of the sheer number of battles. I'd build an army and the epic if you plan to be a complete warmonger but ignore it if you don't irrespective of what your Civ abilities are.

Arrian · January 10, 2002, 14:45

If I'm AT ALL concerned that the AI may beat me to a crucial wonder (Sistine qualifies), the leader goes to build the wonder. Only if I have a lock (or think i have a lock) on building the wonders I feel I must have do I make an army, for the heroic epic, and thus (in theory) more leaders.

However, in my latest game I got 4 leaders w/o ever making an army. #1 - Forbidden Palace, clearly. #2 - Theory of Evolution. #3 - Universal Suffrage. #4 - Hoover. I was playing the Egyptians.

Armies themselves are of little use. The only thing that matters is more leaders to use on wonders. The question is whether using one of those precious leaders so that you can build the heroic epic and thus get more later is worth it. It's hard to tell.

-Arrian

TinCow · January 10, 2002, 14:56

I personally do one of two things with my first leader: Build an Army or build the Great Library. If the GL has already been built, or I can get it by building it faster than other civs, then my leader goes into an army. I do this because the only Great Wonders that I have found that I really feel like I can't live without don't occur until the industrial and modern ages. Building the Heroic epic gives me a better chance of getting more leaders by the time I have the tech to build these bad boys. Besides, using that one puny leader to make one puny army also lets me build the Military Academy and the Pentagon later on to satisfy my perfectionist instincts.

Willem · January 10, 2002, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by kailhun

Ah, I wondered why I couldn't build this. Hm, so you have to waste an army to be able to build the HE. Nothing the editor won't solve.

Robert

Sorry, it doesn't quite work that way. You have to have a "successful" army before you can build the Epic. And there's nothing in the Editor that will change that, I tried. But that probably means that all you have to do is waste some Barbarian in order to have a successful Army. I haven't had one yet so I don't know if that would count.

Darth Sidious · January 10, 2002, 20:06

so no combat value is armies.

Well, this was a pretty early war that gave me 2 leaders as you could see in the first post.
I just killed my neighbour as soon as i had about 12 swordsmen, and i immediately went for ironworking and an iron hill. so that was pretty early.
Perfect strat i think, the AI is so slow with getting iron, just don't try it when your only neighbour has hoplites....

anyway, at the moment i had this leader, i wasn't really in a position to make "bonus" wonders like HE since my best city had about 9 production.

Also, with the hapiness **** on diety, the sistine is pretty damn important i think.
To me it is the most important one together with the pyramids in early game.

GeneralTacticus · January 10, 2002, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Sorry, it doesn't quite work that way. You have to have a "successful" army before you can build the Epic. And there's nothing in the Editor that will change that, I tried. But that probably means that all you have to do is waste some Barbarian in order to have a successful Army. I haven't had one yet so I don't know if that would count.

Actually, you can change that in the editor, assuming you have the patch. If you don't you'll have to download it, otherwise, then uncheck the box on the HE that says 'requires a victorius army'.

Willem · January 11, 2002, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Actually, you can change that in the editor, assuming you have the patch. If you don't you'll have to download it, otherwise, then uncheck the box on the HE that says 'requires a victorius army'.

Well that's news to me, thanks. I've been using the hacked editor, which doesn't have the newer features. I find it a bit silly that I can make it all the way to the middle ages without once getting an army together.

Grumbold · January 11, 2002, 07:03

Armies do have a use, but a very narrow one. They are the ideal assault force against a tough target like a fortified hill city when you just know that throwing in your normal attack units individually is likely to see one or more killed trying to wipe out that last defender hitpoint.

kailhun · January 11, 2002, 07:04

Just adapted the HE. It now no longer requires a victorius army, but writing (For a HE to last it will probably have to be written down at some point) and monarchy (the story of how a hero defeated the evil despot and led the nation to enlightened absolute monarchy ).

Robert

Hurry · January 11, 2002, 09:55

It very much depends on the situation. In my current game (emperor) I got a leader when I started a war I believed would be pretty long. I could build no wonders at the time. This left me with two choices: a) build an army and hope you get another leader during the war, or b) wait until a wonder is available for building (and thus lose the chance of getting another one since it seems the chance of getting two simultaneous leaders is close to 0%).

At emperor level (and even worse on deity) it´s almost impossible to get a wonder by building it traditionally. So I waited and eventually built Sun Tzu´s.

Armies can be good on the defence later in the game. An army packed with veteran mech inf will take care of almost any enemy counterattack, which allows you to move your attackers up to the next enemy city unharmed.

Grumbold · January 11, 2002, 10:04

I'm sure I've had multiple leaders in play simultaneously. The odds of getting one after an elite victory is so small that its just unlikely you'll still have the first around unused when the next lucky roll shows up.

Darth Sidious · January 11, 2002, 11:49

that i got both leaders when razing a capital?

Velociryx · January 11, 2002, 12:16

There have been a lot of people who have made the comment that they seem to get more leaders when:

Their elites are in a closely contested battle and/or when an elite captures a city. I'm still on the fence there....part of me suspects those are just the battles we remember, and I HAVE gotten Great Leaders from just busting units in the field, so I'm not 100% sure that's accurate.

In any case, I agree. Armies are currently quite weak and hard to come by for their cost. Much improved if they were:

a) cheaper (by about 25%)
b) had blitz
c) had ZOC
d) could be created on a 1:3 ratio, rather than 1:4 (armies:cities)

The option to unload units from an army would make them FAR too powerful....just goes too far the other way.

Uses for armies (obsolete or no).

1) Lead element of an attack group. The AI defends with its best unit first. If you have an Army, your best unit has a TON more HP than the AI's best, and you're all but guaranteed a win.

2) Defense. Just park an old (obsolete) army in some newly captured town. 15hp worth of pikemen is a pretty tough customer for massed cav to chew through, and you'll find it'll serve you quite well for defending trouble spots.

3) Beachead. Let's say it's the Industrial age, and you just got the ability to build airports. You launch an attack on yonder continent, leading with your army, and then move to some piddling city and take it, rushing an airport as soon as the resistance has ended. Obviously, the loss of your primary means of shuffling troops over to the new continent would be a grim setback, so plop your army down there and flood the continent with tanks....

-=Vel=-

Arrian · January 11, 2002, 13:16

I think I've gotten roughly a 50/50 mix of leaders from battles "in the field" vs. taking cities. It's all about using your elite units as much as possible, and picking fights they will win. I had some great success recently using War Elephants vs. longbowmen (4 to 1, if I'm attacking).

I have seen nothing to support that winning a "tough" battle increases the chance of getting a leader. I got one recently hitting a spearman with a Cav that didn't lose a hitpoint.

I think the best improvement for armies would be adding the blitz ability. Making them cheaper to build would be nice, too. Perhaps any army should prevent retreat, too... well, maybe not.

If I build an army w/a leader, it tends to consist of Knights. They make decent defenders, and they will not allow a 2-move attacker to run away, so they make good escorts for artillery/attack troops, and good defenders for a key city, so long as knights aren't horribly out of date.

-Arrian

Willem · January 11, 2002, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

In any case, I agree. Armies are currently quite weak and hard to come by for their cost. Much improved if they were:

a) cheaper (by about 25%)
b) had blitz
c) had ZOC
d) could be created on a 1:3 ratio, rather than 1:4 (armies:cities)

-=Vel=-

You can change all these things in the Editor if you want to.

TinCow · January 11, 2002, 16:04

As for Armies being useless, I wouldn't go that far. As stated by a few guys above, there are times when Armies are nice. That being said... I don't know if this is just me, but I always have times when the city I build my Military Academy in doesn't have anything to build but units. Whenever this happens, I have that city building Armies. Sure it could be building other units, but I usually have enough other cities building units so that the loss of one city's production doesn't mean squat. The Armies I produce I stockpile empty in some well defended city. Then if I ever find I need them in the future, they're there. If I don't need them, I haven't lost much.

Arrian · January 11, 2002, 16:36

Tin Cow - that exactly summarizes what I do when I have the mil. academy. That one city builds armies whenever it has nothing better to do. They stay empty until I want to use them... and usually end up being Mech. Inf. armies.

Note: The Pentagon requires several armies in the field in order to be built (3 or 4, I think), but those armies don't need to have troops "loaded" in them. They can be sitting empty in a city.

-Arrian

Aqualung · January 11, 2002, 17:37

The Heroic Epic produces 4 culture. Military Academy and Pentagon both produce 1. Don't know if that's important to you, but if it is, then make an army.

I added Blitz and Unload to my Armies in my rules.

Skanky Burns · January 11, 2002, 20:19

Arrian reminded me:

I actually never build the Pentagon any more. It requires 3 armies to be built, so i used to go and build my 3 armies (normally build 2, and have my original swordsman army still standing around) and then build the pentagon. Yay, now i can put an extra unit in my army...

But then i realised that the whole idea is useless. Why build a wonder if it doenst give me any tangible bonus. Putting a modern unit in my swordsman army would detract from my fighting ability. A cav unit can move 3 times, but putting in a swordsman army would let it only move 1 per turn. A cav can retreat, but if my cav gets defeated first in an army, chances are my swordsmen wont do any better leaving me with a total defeat for my army.

Question: Can you make an army of marines?? Only thought of that just now. They are one of the few useful modern units with only 1 movement point so cant retreat, and it seems to me would actually benefit from being in an army.

Willem · January 11, 2002, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Arrian reminded me:

I actually never build the Pentagon any more. It requires 3 armies to be built, so i used to go and build my 3 armies (normally build 2, and have my original swordsman army still standing around) and then build the pentagon. Yay, now i can put an extra unit in my army...

But then i realised that the whole idea is useless. Why build a wonder if it doenst give me any tangible bonus. Putting a modern unit in my swordsman army would detract from my fighting ability. A cav unit can move 3 times, but putting in a swordsman army would let it only move 1 per turn. A cav can retreat, but if my cav gets defeated first in an army, chances are my swordsmen wont do any better leaving me with a total defeat for my army.

Question: Can you make an army of marines?? Only thought of that just now. They are one of the few useful modern units with only 1 movement point so cant retreat, and it seems to me would actually benefit from being in an army.

Does anyone know whether there is a definite ceiling on the unit limit for Armies, or whether adding more Pentagon type wonders will increase the limit by one each time? Anyone tried that one yet?

Grrr · January 11, 2002, 22:04

Wonder, every time!

I recently saw the AI use a leader to produce an army, in a city where he was producing the Military Academy! If he had finished the wonder, he could build an army next turn!