On the Utility and Use of Armies

[rpodos]

I am a proponent of Armies.

I play an early warmonger style, with one of my primary objectives being the generation of GLs. Therefore, I like to build the Heroic Epic as early as possible; it only requires 200 shields, and generates HUGE culture. I am usually in the position of fighting a lot of elite battles, so I generally do see the benefit of the increased odds.

EARLY ARMIES

So that means at least one early offensive Army. I've seen complaints that early Armies are a waste, as the units cannot be upgraded, and become obsolete.

First, the value of early Armies can be maintained by being smart about what kind of Army it's going to be and starting it off with the appropriate number of appropriate units. For slowmovers, I will only use units that have offense and / or defense of 3 or higher. So I am happy to start an Army off with 2 Immortals, Legions, or even Sworsdman. For early fastmovers, I will start off with 1 of any unit with an offense of 2 or higher.

Second, notice that I start early slowmover Armies with 2 units, and early fastmover Armies with only 1 unit. The exception is probably a Legionairy Army, which I would fully build to 3 units ASAP. Starting with fewer units, though, is to provide an ability to maintain the utility of the given Army over time. A great way to grow that early Immortal Army is to add a Pikeman or Musketman... I call that the Incredible Hulk (note: this degrades offense to 3, although with 9 to 15 hps; see discussion of the Pentagon below). For certain early fastmovers though, the long-term negative impact of a 2hp offense is too great, so I will only start with 1 unit, e.g., War Chariot or Horse, and use it very carefully, just once, to win a battle. I will then wait for Knight-level units to build it out to a 2 unit Army, and then use it when appropriate. If starting a Mounted Warrior or Knight-level Army, I will start off with 2 units. In all fastmover cases, I will not add the 3rd unit until I have reached Cavalry.

Thus, early Armies can be maintain value over time with judicious additions. To further this concept, I will build the Pentagon to add 4th units to all Armies. The Incredible Hulk gets an additional vet Musketman, which, as the 2 Immortals are now elite, takes the stats to 3-3-1/18, which is more than enough for even a 5-hp Musketman. I am still experimenting with this... I have gone so far as a 4 unit Army composed of Horseman, Samurai, Cavalry, and Tank!! That's still 7-4-2, which is better than the Cavalry lying around, and along the way all offensive Army units get promoted, so by the time an Army is full it will have 20 hitpoints!

BTW, the same concept holds for defensive Armies, although I usually won;t consider starting them until at least Rifleman.

THE USE OF ARMIES

The whole above discussion revolves around early Armies, potentially only one. Why not just stop there?

I find them indispensable, with various uses.

* First, obviously, as the Nutcracker. You're attacking a city, and for whatever reason you haven't bombarded down to the redline (perhaps it's early, and catapults sort of suck). The first unit will be the hardest, at least in terms of defensive stats, so why not beat the cr-p out of it?

* Stack cover: It just feels good. Looks intimidating.

* Remote razing: While you've got major theatre battles going on, send a good balanced Army, say 4 Samurai, out on its own where the AI has dotted the map with little junk cities. Destroy one, fortify the Army on the nearest hill or mountain, heal, and move on to the next.

* Defense: Nothing makes me happier than to know I've got a 3-4 unit defensive Army, say 2 Rifleman and 1 Infantry, in a mountain fortress at a chokepoint, or at any strategic point really. Do that two tiles away from a major enemy city, and let a rain of artillery fire ruin their day for a couple of decades! Or, and you might not know this, just fortfiy an Army along an important route, and it will nail passing enemies units as if it were in a fortress!

* Pillaging cover: Although Armies can't pillage themselves, send out a good defensive Army with a 3-hp Cavalry, and it's pillage, move, pillage, move. Fast and safe.

* Feints: I'm still just getting my more sophisticated strategies together, but I tried this last night... went to war with Egypt, and sent a 3 Legion Army BY ITSELF deep into their empire, straight at Thebes, along a chain of mountains and hills. I could see Spearmen and WCs scurrying around me, although they did not attack until I was on plains. Definitely kept their forces away from the front.

Combine the use of Armies with some good basic tacticsand you can't go wrong. Look at some of Zachriel's examples:
[URL=http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Defense.htm]
[URL=http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Attack.htm]


There is one question mark that I have addressed before, but is still on open issue: Is it possible to generate GLs from Army battles?

R

ps to Firaxis: Please make sure to fix the stack movement bug.

[Thrawn05]

You made a lot of good points. After all these months I have not recieved a GL from a battle (I did get one from a goody hut, thank you 1.17f version 1).

I don't bother looking to get GLs anymore, now that stacks have been enabled, if I lose a unit, I just send in another.


I will try to get a GL and try some of your ideas though, just to see if I'm really missing somthing.

[DrFell]

You've never gotten a GL from battle? I usually get 1-5 per game, you must be doing something wrong.

[rpodos]

Yeah, I find that surprising. Do you have many elites?

R

[Thrawn05]

9/10, I play as Rome. I don't rage war until industrial age, and when I do, I go for the kill, no two cities then stop.

I am just unlucky i guess. Yeah I finish wars with 10 - 15 elite units that are at like 1 health point. I'm not complaining though, not since they put in stacking.

[Dominae]

rpodos, great post!

I usually form Armies comprised solely of my best unit available at the time (Cavalry, almost all my games). However, your post has convinced me to explore the other options!

I too create Armies as quickly as possible (with my first GL) when playing Militaristic civs, just to be able to build the Heroic Epic. If you test it out, its effects are quite noticeable, not to mention the amazing Culture it produces.

I never build the Military Academy anymore. In my current game I've built it in my capital (had to switch to it when another civ stole Universal Suffrage from me). My capital can produce an Army every 12 turns (or is it 9?), but I can also produce a Tank every 2 turns. The benefits of an army just aren't worth 4-6 Tanks, in my opinion. This sad fact about building your own Armies limits my use of them to GLs only (and then usually only the first).


Dominae

[rpodos]

Right, the Military Academy is sort of extraneous anyway, if you've generated enough GLs along the way (meaning if the happen to be created while there are no Wonders to build). I'll only build it if I reach that part of the Industrial Age where some of my core cities have maxed out in buildings, and I have a world-crushing military already in place. Just or the hell of it, I guess.

The opportunity cost of building an Army is also too high, I agree. The only time it makes sense is if you haven't generated enough GLs, and you're still at Cavalry... at a certain point you don;t want any more of them, UNLESS it's for Armies.

R

R

[Arrian]

rpodos,

I have found that, with 1.17f, the Cavalry army is pretty poweful, and nice to have. However, I usually don't use leaders gained in early war for an army, because I have so many other things I need to build.

My latest game: Japan, Monarch, Normal, Continents, 8 civs. Early horseman rush on China, India, France (in that order). 4 leaders. #1 = Pyramids. #2 = Great Library, #3 = Forbidden Palace, #4 = Sistine Chapel.

The first leader came before I even had enough cities to build a forbidden, and I hadn't conquered my way anywhere near an optimal spot for it anyway. I didn't have literature yet. Therefore, I had two choices: Pyramids or Army. Which would you have done? I'm curious, would you have created an army?

Leader #2 emerged post-literature, but pre-optimal fp placement was available. Hence the Great Library. Now, I admit that I have a strong attachment to the GL and didn't really need it in this game, because I could simply have beaten the techs I got from it out of the AI. After the initial few techs I received, I became the tech leader... by a lot. So perhaps #2 should have been an army.

Leader #3 had a forbidden palace to build, and there was therefore no other option I would consider.

Leader #4 was held for the Sistine, as I was concerned about maybe missing out on it. I stayed a despot a bit longer than I would typically like, and had no idea how the other civs were doing. It turned out that I was way ahead, but I feel I did the right thing with this guy. Combined with a fair'n'square building of Sun Tzu, I triggered my golden age.

Eventually, a colony (city, really) I built on the German continent for dyes was attacked, and I received leader #5. He became a 3 Cavalry army (vets). This army, in one turn, destroyed 2 3-swordsmen German armies (hit, retreat, hit = 3 moves), suffering only a few hp's damage. I used it, in conjunction with several other cavalry units, to destroy the bulk of the German armed forces, and gain a favorable peace.

In short, I rarely can bring myself to sacrifice an early leader to make an army. Yes, I know that in the long run, I may reap the reward, but in order to be worth it, you need to gain two extra leaders. One to replace the leader used on the army, and another to justify the wait. Also, I feel that leaders gained in the ancient/medieval eras are MUCH more powerful than leaders gained in the industrial/modern eras, so I am unwilling to give up a leader early in the hopes of a few extras late.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Rpodos, I think your use of armies is terrific and - much more important - a lot of fun as well. I'm jealous. I still haven't had more than two GL's in one game, and my first one is usually reserved for either a happiness wonder or the FP (whichever I am more in need of). I've gone the Heroic Epic route only once, in a game with the French where I had an atrocious starting position. I was so far behind that I needed any advantage I could find, and armies in the knights-to-cavalry period proved very helpful. I don't like the uncertainty of a strategy based on getting GL's... and given my history, it's very uncertain, indeed. But if you get GL's as plentifully as you seem to, then it makes for a more varied and aggressively entertaining game.

[rpodos]

Arrian:

I also use GLs for the Pyramids and the Great Library first (although the latter is unnecessary, as I beat techs out of the AI civs; sentimental holdover from Civ2). I generally wait until I have 15 or so cities for the FP, so I will use a 3rd early GL for the first Army. Sometimes though, I'll get the 2nd and possibly 3rd GLs before Literature, in which case I'll do the Colossus and then the Army, or possibly the reverse depending on the fortunes of war.

I forgot to mention all-Cavalry Armies in the first post; they are unbelievably powerful with blitz. If I get lucky during the looong Cavalry stage, I love having 2-3 Cav Armies banging up distant civs... Cav Armies also maintain value until the age of Modern Armor. Good tactic for Germany: leave an all-Cav Army at 3 units, and later add a Panzer.

Txurce:

I think the key is that I go to war early and often.

I have been leaning towards slowmover UUs lately, for two reasons. 1) I build hordes of warriors to explore, and to conduct my first campaign, and 2) to give the AI civs time to build up large but weak military forces. Whichever Warriors are left alive are almost certainly vets if not elites, and upgrading to a Swordsman-era UU, with a large experienced force, gives me unbelievable relative strength for a long time. So, four waves of battle: Warrior rush, reinforcement with Archers, then upgrade and Immortal / Legion rush, and lastly Knight rush.

If I'm playing with a fastmover UU (except JW or Impi, which trigger the GA too soon), I won't depend so much on Warriors, and try to get to The Wheel as quickly as possible (Konichiwa, Tokugawa-sama!). Then it's three waves: Chariots or WCs, Horsemen, and Knight-level.

It's sort of a combination of Vel's oscillating strategy, with progressively more powerful waves. So not only do you beat down the AI civs, gain lebensraum, extort techs, etc., you are also honing and improving your military, with an eye toward elites and GL creation.

The keys are relative strength (use new offensive units as quickly as possible), good tactics (create kill zones), overwhelming strength, and smart utilization of forces.

The last is very important. Imagine you've got a stack of 6 Warriors, made up of 2 each elite, veteran, and regular. You're facing an enemy stack of 3 vet and 3 regular Warriors.

The trick is the order of battle. When I started playing Civ3, I went strongest to weakest, as I knew that's how the defense works. Thus:

E - V
E - V
V - V
V - R
R - R
R - R

If we were to disregard the string this would be fine... but we can't. The elites are too valuable to risk this way.

Now reverse it: I believe in burning up my junior troops first.

R - V
R - V
V - V
V - R or damaged V
E - R or damaged V
E - R or damaged V

So what happens? I lose some regulars, but maybe some get upgraded. Same for vets. But the elites have it easy, and will probably win. Also, to the extent there are any enemy survivors, they will likely be more damaged than my units, and either retreat or stand still.

This is especially true in very early war, when I still have a bunch of regular warriors, who also do not have relative strength. Later, when I'm mostly building vets, and I have achieved relative strength, it's not as important although still good practice.
__________________

So: A lot of early battles. Relative strength. A good corps of elites. More wins than not. GLs. Heroic Epic. More GLs. Armies.

That's fun.

R

[rpodos]

As an example, I just checked a Roman game I'm playing.

It's 930 AD, and I'm at war with everyone on my continent.

I have three major attacks going on, each with a primary stack and then some strike forces.

Force 1, attacking Persia: 13hp Legion Army, 11 elite Legions, 4 vet Legions

Force 2, attacking Persia: 13hp Knight Army, 2 elite Knights, 2 vet Knights

Force 3, attacking Greece and then Egypt: 7 elite Knights, 6 vet Knights

The Greeks are counterattacking with Swordsman at Athens and Thermopylae (hmmmm...). I've got 2 elite Legionaries, 2 vet Legionaries, 1 elite Knight, 4 vet Knights, and 3 vet Pikemen protecting.

That's what, 23 individual elite units. I'll take out some roamers along the way, and they are all garrisoned with Spearmen, so I have good (!) relative strength.

Yum yum, gonna get me a GL or two (Heroic Epic was built eons ago).

Oh, yeah, and beat the stuffing out of my neighbors.

R

ps: I STILL don;t know if Armies can produce GLs.

[Dominae]

rpodos, you've perfectly explained what I've just begun to realise about GLs and Armies in Civ3: if you spend work a little and play the Army game, there's some great rewards to be reaped.

Taking care of your Elites is key, I think. I look at them as potential Great Leaders, making me squeamish about sending them into any battle they could conveivably lose. Sure, it's annoying to lose one of your Vets to the AI's defenses and see them gain a rank, but your Elites will usually mop up the remaining units, extra hit points and all.

I know a lot of the Builder players on this site wouldn't even consider forming an Army with their first GL. I tend to agree with them (especially if I can rush the Sistine Chapel...things are so much simpler with that little baby on your side!). However, if you know you're planning to engage in a lot of warfare, forming an Army and building the Heroic Epic is definitely a viable strategy. It's not a "sure thing", but if you work at it, the odds are definitely in your favour.

In my last game as the Aztecs, I formed an Army early on and built the Heroic Epic. I also paid extra special care to my Elite Jags. Twice those little dudes took the last hit point off Musketmen and got me a GL! As the war raged on, I gained a total of 5 GLs. I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened had I built the Hanging Gardens with my first GL instead.

Again, great thread rpodos.


Dominae

[rpodos]

Dominae and Aeson,

You guys seem to be the proponents of the really early fastmovers, JWs and Impis.

I'm going to try them both, but...

How do you fare in early offensive combat? I guess better than Warriors, due to retreat. So, build a boatload, some get promoted on barbarians, a big rush... I can see it. I predict I'll like JWs more though, since they can now upgrade to Swordsmen.

Such an early GA though. This would work better on standard and smaller sized maps, where the early lead is so commanding.

So many games to play, so little time.

R

[Barchan]

Armies + Explorers = Long-range pillaging

As a preface, I’d note that unless I’m playing a militaristic Civ I only get 1-2 GLs a game. If militaristic, I tend to get 3-5 a game. When you can count on 3-5 GLs, armies, particularly early armies, can be very effective. Sadly, though, if you’re only going to be able to count on one or two, burning one to create an army is usually a luxury I cannot afford.

Still, having said that, perhaps the only real use for Explorers is long-range sabotage. The ability to move two spaces treating all terrain as roads means that they can travel with an army and move up to two spaces out, pillage and return. For deep suicide missions, they can penetrate up to five spaces away and pillage. Two explorers can neutralize a strategic resource or luxury fairly cheaply this way, whereas other forms (ie. bombardment) may not have the range or certainty of removing the improvements. Combine the protective cover of a defensive army with a host of Explorers and you can strip an enemy’s countryside bare in short order.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by rpodos
Right, the Military Academy is sort of extraneous anyway, if you've generated enough GLs along the way (meaning if the happen to be created while there are no Wonders to build).

I almost always build the Military Academy, usually in a strong producer. Once the city is fully developed, I switch to army production. I usually have 5 or 10 by the Late Industrial Age.



http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Overwhelming.htm

[Harovan]

One of the best ancient times army I ever had was one with 2 Horsemen and 1 Impi. That's a great mix. I used it in a lot of wars and it remained even useful after I had Knights. Later, the Impi and 1 Horseman died while the last Horseman survived, and I was able to add 2 Cavalries. This army served me well till I got Tanks.

I'm also pretty much into army usage. There's nothing better to protect a big stack of Artilleries than an army of 3 (or even 4) Infantries. To my offensive forces I usually add a Cavalry or Tank army as spearhead and nutcracker. Helps a lot against those $§"!%&*# entrenched vet Infantries, even a single Tank has a problem here. After I took the city (if I decide to take it, what rarely happens, but if the city has the Sixtine...), I place the Army there as defender. It's usually about 50% wounded, but still a though defender. Praying that the city doesn't flip. Sometimes it does, oh well, I have the MilAc. The remaining forces encircle the city and push back the counterattack. After a few turns, the Army is healed and I move on.

Armies can be very powerful, if used well. I can't understand the rants about them being useless.

[Dominae]

rpodos, early fast units (Jags and Impi) are simply amazing. I use them primarily to destroy my neighbours' infrastructure in anticipation of a future attack. The ability to move-and-pillage or pillage-and-move is great; once their roads start crumbling, their pesky Archers won't ever catch up to well-coordinated Jags. I've found that the AI has a Ancient era mobilization mode: if you threaten their cities early enough, they'll call in their Workers, call all their Warriors home, and start producing their best military unit. This obviously dampens their expansion significantly. I continue this sort of terrorism until a force of Horsemen or Swordsmen come along, at which point the AI is in no shape to defend itself.

Using this strategy, I can actually delay my GA until I have at least 5-6 cities; I simply let my Impi run away from their Archers and whatnot. Once I start taking over their cities though, I look to create Elites at every opportunity. I play on Standard-size maps exclusively, so an early GA usually translates into a superb advantage (hopefully from 1-3 dead civs by the time I run out of steam).

Because of their 2 movement, Jags and Impi are never useless until very late in the game. During the early Industrial era (when I'm usually starting a Cavalry offensive), I again use the little suckers to pillage the enemy landscape. The AI will actually send defensive units (Musketmen and Riflemen) out from their cities to destroy a nearby Jag, making the city much easier to conquer. Of course, I'll also usually try to get some Elite Jags or Impi to prove their worth in combat and become Great Leaders. I never upgrade my Jags because I think that 2 movement is better than 2 defense for resiliency; Jags will last longer than Swordsmen in the open field, meaning more chances for GLs to appear.

So, rpodos, I suggest you try fast early UUs (even War Chariots are good in my book): their resiliency and longevity really supports any GL/Army strategy.


Dominae

[Arrian]

I can vouch for the power of the war chariot, but the problem there is the lack of the militaristic trait. If your goal is to destroy a couple of neighbors, war chariots will do the trick, no problem. If your goals include destroying neighbors and generating GL's, then war chariots aren't nearly as effective as a Japanese horseman rush. I've tried - really, really, tried - to pull off early, GL-generating war as the Egyptians. I've failed. You need elites to get GL's and non-militaristic civs have trouble generating elites, especially early on when you don't have all that many units. Egypt might fare better on large or huge maps, due to sheer number of units.

-Arrian

[DrFell]

I've generated a couple GLs from early war chariots rushes (on small maps). The best thing about Egypt is that you have good builder stats in addition to the nice UU, which really pays off later on (quick change to govt, cheap temples, fast workers and development, and free shields in your bigger cities). You can develop up your core a bit faster than say, the Iroquois or Japs. I'm going to try out another Japan game soon, I think they do have a better timed GA and it will be nice to see horses from turn 1.

By the way, normally my goal is just 1 GL by 1AD for the FP. Any others are bonuses.

[alexman]

Originally posted by rpodos

The Incredible Hulk gets an additional vet Musketman, which, as the 2 Immortals are now elite, takes the stats to 3-3-1/18, which is more than enough for even a 5-hp Musketman. I am still experimenting with this... I have gone so far as a 4 unit Army composed of Horseman, Samurai, Cavalry, and Tank!! That's still 7-4-2, which is better than the Cavalry lying around, and along the way all offensive Army units get promoted, so by the time an Army is full it will have 20 hitpoints!

Wow, is this really how army stats get calculated? Taking the average and rounding up? If so, it's interesting because, for example, an army with two legions and a warrior is the same as an army with three legions!

I always thought that each unit in an army fights (using its own stats) until it's left with one hit point, and then the next unit takes over.

[rpodos]

You are correct, each unit fights individually, with their own stats, which is much better for both the upgrade through add'l units, and for Armies that have both offensive and defensive units. Blended stats are just my own shorthand for total strength.

R

[Arrian]

There are typically only three types of armies I create:

The fast attack army: All fast mover attackers (horsemen/knights/cavalry/tanks/etc). Blitz really makes the later variations of this type useful.

The early 1-move attacker: 3 swordsmen. Oh little spearman...

The defender: infantry (or the equivalent). Yeah, come and get my artillery! I dare you.

The overall most balanced is the army of knights. Powerful on both offense and defense, with 2 moves. I've added Tanks to these later (pentagon) just for the hell of it. I don't recall actually attacking anything, though.

I really like the defender army that the AI is scared to death of. 12 or 16 hp of infantry is not to be trifled with. It's the perfect siege train escort. Actually, that's what I use armies for, mostly. Escorting a stack of artillery. I've tried using them as "nutcrackers" but after having a 12hp army of knights come within 1hp of dying attacking a veteran musketman defending a Persian city twice (I attacked, ran away, healed, attacked again, and had the exact same, heart-stoping 1hp result) I switched to the escort role.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Anyone know the exact probabilities for generating a GL with and without the Heroic Epic? I'm under the impression that it's 1/8 with and 1/12 without: could someone confirm this?


Dominae

[Harovan]

According to Firaxis, it's 1/16 in general, and 1/12 with either the Heroic Epic or the militaristic trait. There's no probability given if you have both. I say it's 1/9 (1/16 * 4/3 * 4/3), others say it's 1/10 or 1/11.

[alexman]

Actually, Sir Ralph, the militaristic trait does not affect GL creation at all. It affects only unit promotions.

Edit: Added link to the post where Soren clarified this fact.

[Dominae]

I don't know if anyone else has written up a good analysis of the usefulness of the Heroic Epic, so I'll just post what I've found.

I think the real question is whether it is worth it to build an Army with your first Great Leader, or to rush build some Wonder. For those of you who are interested, using any civ you must win 22 battles with Elite units in order to be guaranteed a 75% chance of getting your first GL, and 47 such battles for the odds to rise to 95%. So, if don't get a GL after around 50 victories with Elites, consider yourself unlucky.

Once you have your GL, consider the first case where you do go ahead and form an Army and subsequently build the Heroic Epic, and the second case where you rush build, say, the Hanging Gardens (or whatever). Forget that the Army you'll have in the first case is useful in and of itself (as rpodos has already described), and that the Heroic Epic generates substantial culture: what we want to know is how fast the Heroic Epic allows you to get another GL, thereby offsetting the "loss" of the first one to the Heroic Epic. Here's a little table showing how many battles you need to win to get a good shot at another GL:

-----1-----2-----3-----

HE 16/35 32/56 47/74

HG 22/47 43/75 62/99

Here, HE stands for Heroic Epic, HG for Hanging Gardens, and the numbers across the top are the number of the GLs you can expect if you win the number of battles given in the entries (the first number is for a 75% chance, the second for almost a guarantee - 95% chance). For example, you need to win 56 battles to almost guarantee two more GLs with the Heroic Epic, as opposed to 75 battles without it.

Obviously, you should expect to do quite a bit of fighting with Elites to reasonably hope for a GL, with or without the Heroic Epic. What the table shows in general is that you'll get your GLs 12-20 victories sooner if you've built the Heroic Epic. Put another way, without the Heroic Epic you should expect GLs 2/3 as often as with it.

The Militaristic trait doesn't change these numbers. What it does do is create more Elites than non-Militaristic civs, meaning that you can battle with Elites more often, drastically increasing the rate at which you can expect GLs to appear. This advantage is a lot harder to quantify, but I think it's pretty obvious to see from just playing (personally, I've always received at least two GLs when playing a Militaristic civ).

This analysis assumes that the tests for Great Leader creation are independent. This means, roughly, that the chances of getting one early are just as good as getting one late, for any given Elite victory. I'm pretty sure this is the case.

So, I have 2 conclusions. First, the Heroic Epic isn't as effective as I intuitively thought; it does what it claims to do, but not particularly drastically. If you're planning to go to war a lot, especially wars with many skirmishes, I think the Heroic Epic is worth it. If you just want to perform surgical strikes on enemy cities, this isn't the Wonder for you (stick with the Hanging Gardens). Second, it is well worth it to "train" your units on Barbarians and other petty forces to increase your chances of getting Elites. This is why I think the Romans get GLs so frequently (in all my games, at least): the fact that Legions can do "double-duty" on offense and defense means that Elite Legions will enter (and win) more battles than other types of units, not to mention that Roman Warriors can "train" early and then upgrade to Veteran Legions.

I hope that this rather long post has (at least) given some of you food for thought.


Dominae

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dominae

I think the real question is whether it is worth it to build an Army with your first Great Leader, or to rush build some Wonder. For those of you who are interested, using any civ you must win 22 battles with Elite units in order to be guaranteed a 75% chance of getting your first GL, and 47 such battles for the odds to rise to 95%. So, if don't get a GL after around 50 victories with Elites, consider yourself unlucky.

Dominae

Those are the chances of at least one Great Leader.

An easier number to remember is that if you fight eleven battles, you have a 50% chance of at least one Great Leader. If you are militaristic, you have a 50% chance of at least one Great Leader every eight battles.

[asleepathewheel]

this is a great thread, and has shown me how to more effectively use an army. Thankyou.

but...I thought there was no strategy to Civ3.
This seems like strategy to me. Is anyone accumulating this and other strategies, so they won't be lost in the mass of threads?

again, great thread

[Dominae]

Zachriel, your numbers are correct. So are mine. I was just trying to give the odds of getting one or more GLs with a high probability (75%) and near certainty (95%). Saying that you get a GL 50% of the time every eight victories with Elites doesn't mean much to me, to tell you the truth; if it helps you to think of those numbers, so be it. In any case, my post focuses on what you can expect from Heroic Epic, not how likely it is to generate your first GL.


Dominae

[Txurce]

Rpodos, I use my elite units the same way that you do, but I finally understand why you get so many more GLs than me: you have a lot more elite units! And that's because you have a lot more military, period. I build as many as I think I need to carve out a dominant position on Monarch, and that number is a fraction of yours. As Dominae spelled out, you have to fight a lot to justify going the HE/army route... but if you do, having armies is better than using those original GL's for wonders. (I still can't imagine not saving my first for a FP, though!)

Now that I'm starting to play on Emperor, I need all the help that I can get. Since I'll never pop out as many settlers as the AI, I will have to fight more - and better - to create enough lebensraum. This should lead to more GLs, and therefore to armies. Which means I'm using more of the game, making it more interesting. A good thing.

Using state-of-the-art units is certainly key, and so is having the mobility or smarts to gain tactical numerical superiority, even if your force is not necessarily the largest. (I don't enjoy having a huge numerical superiority all that much, because then the game is effectrively over.) Knowing how to mass units when you aren't necessarily numerically superior is the key to any war-game battle; in Civ3, it seems that the easiest way to gain it is by distracting the AI. The AI eventually responds to a thrust into its territory, regardless of whether it's a feint or not. But sometimes it's easier to make the AI move the wrong way forward rather than backward. You've pointed out that the AI invariably prefers to attack wounded units and workers; it also homes in on undefended cities. I will sometimes take a city garrison and move it out three spaces on a road. The AI goes right for it. As you said, the goal here - apart from taking a consequently less guarded enemy city - is to lure the enemy units into open ground, within range of (usually) mounted units. This gives you the sort of advantage that Dominae cited, helping you to win a war of attrition, even against a larger enemy.

Dominae, you mention my two favorite early units, the JW and the WC. Pillaging is a great feature of these units (as well as the Impi). The retreat factor is also huge in the very early game, since no one has that many units. In theory I prefer JW's to Impis, because being twice as cheap is more important than defending twice as well, given that you plan on taking the offensive most of the time.

Rpodos, with regard to both these units, you again mentioned an early GA as an argument against. Why? To me, the GA benefits don't last long enough to seem all that meaningful... and I might even prefer them at the start, when I can use all the help I can get. (I only play on standard maps as well.)

Zachriel, that image of your armored armies is as unforgettable as Aeson's perforated world map.