On the Utility and Use of Armies

[notyoueither]

rpodos.

The obscene thing is I was serious when I said *waiting for something useful to do*. Got as many armies as I want and I can build them by this point. Next GW coming up in 20 turns or so, might as well get a manicure while he waits.

[Txurce]

I'm playing the Aztecs right now, on my third try at Emperor. This time I was on a large land mass with the Americans below me, and the Iroquois south of them. This made it much easier to build enough cities while I cranked out JWs. I reduced the American spearmen to a couple of distant cities before 1AD, then attacked the Iroquois first with JWs, then upgraded them to swordsmen. I pillaged to keep MWs at a minimum, and by 1050, I was the second-biggest civ, and in Republic. I kept science low throughout, researching only monarchy, and picked up two GLs. So did I turn them into armies, given how entertaining this thread is?

Well, no. The first GL became the FP, which was essential, given that I had a sprawling monarchy; I built it in corrupt, size-8 Washington, which had the Colossus. By the time I acquired a second GL, I was about to build my first wonder, Bach. But by then I had secured my continent, was first in score and size and second in population, and had switched to democracy. My goal is to win the space race, I needed to catch up in the techs, and so converted my second GL into Newton's in Washington, which promptly became a science city.

Now it's 1400. The Germans - no longer #1 - attacked me. The French joined in, and I signed up the English. (I wiped out the other three.) I am struggling to finish my rail system, because invasions at this stage are usually pretty uninspired, and unlimited mobility is all I probably need. So what do I do with a third GL, which I picked up by sailing to destroy the last Persian city? I considered an army, but given that I have no plans to leave my continent, will save it instead for the Hoover Dam.

I think I'm on the downslope, although those are famous last words. But the point is that when I got my three GLs, I either had a more pressing priority - the FP - or had already turned the corner toward builder mode. Building an army would have been more viable for me had I gained a GL before I needed the FP, if I was on a continent with a serious adversary, or intent on a domination victory. Whether or not to go "army" is largely dictated by circumstance, in my opinion, as opposed to a hard-and-fast "yeah or nay" perspective.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Arrian
...

Again, has anyone else noticed the "first free shot" thing I was talking about above, or am I nuts?

1) haven't noticed yet, could have been too preoccupied to notice though;
2) don't know yet, still wondering ...


AJ

[Dominae]

I'm inclined to agree with Txurce regarding building the FP with your first GL. There are certain games when, after some relatively early warmongering, you have an "empire shape" just begging for another capital. In every game that I've build the FP in such cases, I've gained an insurmountable lead almost immediately. The trick is to recognizing when to build the FP right away, or wait until a better chunk of land has been conquered. If you're going to wait, might as well form an Army, I think (forgive me if I sound like an Army-pusher!).

I'm playing a game as the Japanese now, and I just want to take this opportunity to mention how utterly dominating Samurai are.

What are their advantages?

1. Best attack rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry, of course).
2. Best defense rating of the Medieval era.
3. Best movement rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry).
4. Only requires Iron to build.

Combine 2 and 3 together and you essentially have a "mechanized infantry" unit that wins most battles on defense and that fast units (Knights) can't retreat from. 4 isn't really all that impressive because the Japanese find Horses first (start with The Wheel), and typically want to do a Horsemen rush, then upgrade to Samurai. Still, 4 is pretty funny when you compare Samurai to War Elephants.

The best part is, Samurai upgrade to Cavalry for 20 Gold (although I tend to keep a few Samurai around for defense)!

What's better than Saumurai? An Army of Samurai! Hai!


Dominae

[Arrian]

[SIZE=1] I'm playing a game as the Japanese now, and I just want to take this opportunity to mention how utterly dominating Samurai are.

What are their advantages?

1. Best attack rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry, of course).
2. Best defense rating of the Medieval era.
3. Best movement rating of the Medieval era (until Cavalry).
4. Only requires Iron to build.

Sorry, gotta quibble with #3 there. Riders have 3 moves. Of course, if you're Japan, you tend to forget about China, as they are dead long before the Medieval Era.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

nye: You can NEVER have enough Armies. In your situation, I would still convert the GL to an Army, but not use it. I'd hold off until Infantry or Tanks, and then, voila.

Dominae: Couldn;t agree more. Samurai are the most balanced unit in the game. Armies of Samurai are almost ridiculous... a couple of weeks ago I had 4 such Armies running around, and it felt like I was invulnerable.

Brings up an interesting point:

As pointed out before, the units OTHER than the first to fight in an Army often get promoted quickly, as they are usually in combat with damaged units.

This is especially true in a homogenous super-strength Army, like one composed entirely of Samurai.

So, often enough, you will end up with an Army of 4 elite Samurai.

I STILL DO NOT KNOW if Armies can create GLs!!!!!

Sombreros will burn...

R

[Dominae]

Quite right Arrian, on both points. I never play the Chinese, and the only time I ever fought against Riders, my Tanks made quick work of them.

Edit: It seems as though my example has nothing to do with your second point...In any case, I hope you can understand why I forgot about the Chinese Riders!


Dominae

[Dry]

Originally posted by Dominae
I never play the Chinese, and the only time I ever fought against Riders, my Tanks made quick work of them.

I have the same feeling toward the samurais.
AI japan is never powerfull enough to threaten me (prefered Govt: despotism )
When we first meet, my soldiers usually think they are musicians, chime players (glockenspiel), they love the music they make hitting our armor with their, errr... stick.

[Harovan]

Hmmm, I keep to hear great things about the Japs, got to try these fellows too.

[Arrian]

rpodos,

Re: leaders from armies.

I don't know either, sorry. I've never had it happen, but then again, I don't often have armies running around. And even then, I usually put veterans in an army (due to this very question... I save the elites in case armies cannot generate leaders) and those often don't fight enough for them all to get promoted. I often end up with 2 vets and 1 elite in my armies.

I imagine a samurai army would rock, but I usually try to finish off my neighbors by the early middle ages so I can settle down and build for a while. Thus, my forces see little action until I'm almost to Military Tradition. I made the mistake of creating a horseman army in my latest game - I was still two techs from Chivalry, I think, and I wanted to get that victory. I should have made it 1 horsie and added two Samurai later, but I forgot and loaded it w/3 horsemen. Doh. It was sitting in Kyoto when I won the game via domination in 1420 AD.

Dominae - yeah, I don't play China either (due to the lack of the religious trait) and normally squash them in ancient times.

The one time I had to fight Samurai pre-Cavalry it was NOT fun. I was Babylon and they sneak attacked me. It was, IIRC, the first time I had actually lost cities to the AI, and I was really, really hard pressed. Only Cavalry saved me from a bloody stalemate.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian, I was asking myself why I never use the Japanese despite the samurai, and it's probably because I play like you, and am settling into builder mode by the time the samurai could be put to serious use. But in a domination game, having your UU in the middle might be just the ticket - the samurai could make the mid-game an end-game very quickly!

By the way, a 1420 domination victory sounds very impressive to me. Is that your best game?

[rpodos]

In one of my early games, before I learned the joys of early warmongering, Japan almost SQUASHED me as China.

I didn't beat them down before Chivalry, and we had the mother of all Rider-Samurai wars. The only thing that saved me was the speed with which Riders could get to the front, and, in a nod to Industrious, that I had an excellent road network.

Again, I think on ongoing series of wars makes sense, especially every time you achieve relative strength. So even if I have beaten my neighbors down, and expanded as much as I want to, AND I'm building, I will still go to war with my existing, upgraded military the second I get new military tech. So, for instance, the moment I upgrade all of my Horseman to Samurai, a-marching they will go.

It's all about generating GLs. Especially when you get to the second set of GWs. If there are no GWs or SWs to build, I create Armies. If I have enough Armies for the time being, I stockpile them.

Again using Samurai as an example, if I had any stockpiled Armies from the Warrior / Archer / Swordsmen / Horsemen rushes, I would immediately create a 3-unit Army of just upgraded, vet Samurai.

That beastie gets to strike the first blow in the new war.

R

[Txurce]

Rpodos, if I've conquered my continent, I generally lack the energy to prepare the invasion of a second one. Instead I just go for the spaceship. The exceptions are always for need: resources or stopping a launch. Do you assemble invasion fleets in space-race games, or do you generally play for domination?

[rpodos]

You ready?

I've never actually completed or won a game.

I suppose I should.

I just get bored with the endgame... once I have total momentum, and know that I could choose any win I want (except diplo, heh heh), I just move on to the next game.

That said, I also don't bother with invading other continents... too much corruption with no GW solutions, and there's no sense of adventure on the high seas.

In general, to keep it interesting (the way I play), I play large maps with large continents, or even pangaea. My empires get as big as I want them to be (40-50 cities), without taking complete control of my continent.

So I always have someone to attack.

I am almost always at war, with short respites, as opposed to war-build-war-build. I still seem to build most everything I want.

R

[Txurce]

That's great! A lot of what you post makes a lot more sense now (not that you aren't eminently sensible). And I agree that coasting downhill is pretty boring.

It's a shame that corruption and the near-total absence of naval strategy makes transcontinental invasions worth it only when you need to. Where would Alexander the Great be if he had played Civ3?

The end game is fun only when you're a close space race... which I'm in right now, because while I have owned my continent for about 500 years, the Germans have conquered all but two cities on theirs, are now bigger than me, and have attacked. I'm pretty sure I'm going to win, but I definitely got too cocky.

[rpodos]

TX:

Yeah, I only play early to middle / industrial ages, so all of my thoughts are within that context.

I hope Firaxians are paying attention.

Resolution: I'm going to play for a win this weekend. Space race.

Hopefully it will be close, with someone on another continent.

Even better, I hope I'll need to attack to prevent their construction. Wish I could transport Armies.

R

[notyoueither]

You can Transport Armies. Just can't fly them.

You need a ship big enough to hold the entire Army though. Try Transports. Available with Combustion.

You may find that playing for a win, especially for max points, will effect many things that you do in the early and middle game.

Good Luck

[Txurce]

Rpodos, good luck with the space race. I just won my first Emperor game (Aztecs, Space race, standard) in 1888. The Germans were four components behind, which is not that close. They attacked near the end, but their seaborne invasion force - eight panzers - is a joke against a modern-era civ with railroads. The biggest invasion force I've ever faced is 16 tanks, and as you might imagine, they were wiped out easily in one turn. It's a shame, really, that once you secure your continent and build a rail system, you cannot lose a tile, let alone a city.

How much of the total land mass do you need to win at domination? I ask because I would imagine that you would have come close to stumbling on it in some of your pangea games.

NYE, I scored over 4000 points in this game - my highest - because the continent I dominated covered about half the total land mass. But don't you find it boring to go for maximum points, given that there is almost no limit to the micro-managing you could do to get that score a little higher?

[notyoueither]

Points is tedium. There is no escaping that, but not all point getting strategies add to it. For instance. Conquer a civ. Through conquest and razing (then Settlers) you wind up with 20 cities. Max them at 6 pop (they are too corrupt to be productive). Set as many pop as possible to tax collectors. You usually wind up with 6 pop adding to score (happy and specailist) and 3 or 4 gold per turn from each city. Times 20 cities. Thats a lot of gold and a lot of points. Add the territory that the cities control (tightly spaced [3 tiles] will avoid blanks in the middle) and you are adding big time to your score with a bunch of cities that you never have to visit again. Set them to Wealth.

[Dominae]

rpodos, if you like warmongering as much as I think you do, I suggest you try your hand at modern warfare. To do this, try to finish the game via Domination when the Industrial age is almost over and there are still 2-3 powerful AI civs running around. On the higher levels, I think you'll find the AI puts up quite a fight.

Getting a Domination victory when you have "momentum" on one big land mass is pretty boring, in my opinion; just crank out Cavalry until you've won. The games I prefer are those where, after the dust settles, there are only 3 "superpowers" left in the world (invariably in my games the French are one of these). True, breaking through the AI defenses at this point is daunting (and sometimes pretty tedious), but also loads of fun.

At this stage in the game, the wars will be epic, meaning no running over Spearmen with Cavalry. Every tech you get over the other civs will be crucial (I've developed a great respect for Flight). You'll consider Espionage in order not give any Gold to potentially rival civs by buying techs. Communism will be very attractive. The wars are completely different from other eras due to Railroads and Airports, but this just changes strategy, it doesn't diminish it. And best of all, Armies are still useful!

It all depends on whether you've found the right difficulty level for you. On Monarch, I can usually get a tech lead in the late Medieval era, allowing me to reach Steam Power, Industrialization and Replaceable Parts before the AI. This typically seals the game. On Emperor, I have to fight to get ahead research-wise until the mid to late Industrial era. At this point, a couple of AI civs are giants. An attack on them would be suicide...unless lead by a wise Shogun.


Dominae

[Txurce]

NYE, that is excellent advice on what to do with corrupt cities... whether you're maximizing your score, or not. Who says there's no solution to corruption? I can't wait to try it.

Dominae, I want a few more space-race wins on Emperor to make sure I have the hang of it, but after that, I intend to play Domination. As you point out, the right geographical balance at that level should make for some meaningful competition. I would actually wind up researching those modern-age military techs for the first time.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

To answer your question, yes, my 1420AD domination as Japan was my best game to date. It was actually a mistake on my part, because I was trying to milk the score (which ended up being 5950). I intend to go back, give a city away to the French, and see how high I can get the score. I don't think I will go so far as to sell off my libraries and universities, though.

You're playing Emperor, huh? I have toyed with the idea of moving up, at least for my warmonger games. The thought of trying "builder" style on Emp. just doesn't appeal to me. But beating the stuffing out of the AI is easier.

NYE: your suggestion for conquered cities does at least make them contribute to the empire, but of course isn't the way to maximize score. It all depends on your goals. If you want those cities to be worth something, the size-6 taxman city is a good idea. If you want a high score, get that population up high & keep 'em happy. Sure, those people are a drain on your economy - they produce nothing except score.

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
You're playing Emperor, huh? I have toyed with the idea of moving up, at least for my warmonger games. -Arrian

Move up! Play Persians for starters and use Immortals at the first opportunity. With a reasonable starting location -- and your obvious knowledge of the game -- you shouldn't have any trouble t'all.

[Arrian]

Zachriel,

I'm sure I could win (warmonger style, anyway) on Emperor, it's just I don't know if it would be any more fun than Monarch. Despite the fact that I know the AI needs help to compete, I start getting annoyed at the AI bonsuses at the highest levels.

I'm quite enjoying honing my abilities on Monarch, while seeking higher & higher scores. When Monarch starts to actually feel too easy, then I'll move up.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

Zachriel,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't go on the attak until Swordsmen-level units?

I tried moving up to Emperor, and found that very early warmongering, e.g. Warriors, Archers, and Horsemen, was just too frustrating given the bonus units the AI gets.

I've gone back down to Monarch, and there I'll stay for a while. I'm gonna finish a game, I swear!!

R

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by rpodos
Zachriel,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't go on the attak until Swordsmen-level units?

R

Depends on the position. Usually have to wait for Sword on Emperor or Deity level, but I have rushed sooner if the opportunity arises (not always successfully, but heh, what kind of game would it be if you didn't take a few chances?!)

Arrian, I too prefer Monarch, as it provides the greatest number of alternative strategies. Deity almost requires city packing, for instance.

IMHO, of course.

[rpodos]

In my Roman game (which will now go to the stars!), I have build a largish early military. Lots and lots of Legions, incl. 2 elite Legion Armies.

I am now up to Cavalry and Rifleman, and last night came up with I think a good solution to extend the shelf-life of all of the older units.

I built the Pentagon, and I have added a vet Rifleman to one of the Armies (I'm saving the other for Infantry). That gives me an Army with total stats of 61-69 "points" (a or d X hps, added for each of 4 units). This compares to a single vet Cav having attack of 24 points, or a vet Mech Infantry having defense of 64 points.

I made this the foundation of a stack, and added the other Army, and about 35 of the remaining Legions (I left 2 in each of 5 cities on my sole battle front).

I'm now at war with Persia... I sent the Legion stack directly to Persopolis, on hills / mountains where I could, with some pillaging along the way. Nobody touched it, of course. While this slowmoving Army made progress, I had 3 stacks of 5 Cav each conducting lightning strikes on other Persian cities, razing them as I go. I only want Persepolis, which has the Colossus and a harbor. I obviously don't have to worry about flipping, and as I'm still in Monarchy, I'll have so many units in there that it should be productive after capture.

When I'm done with this maneuver, I plan to use the to augmented Legion Armies to create a permanent forward outpost.

The continent I'm on is an inverted T, with me at the top:

R
E P

Rather than take over the continent (I don't want that many cities), I have decided to oscillate back and forth between Persia and Egypt for the rest of the game, just to get GLs, extort tech, and generally continue to be a psychotic bastard.

As I will only be razing, this will creat a permament war zone in the bottom middle of the continent. I'm going to build a mountain fortress there, supported by a guarded road / rail network back to my front. There's a perfect spot: a solo mountain surrounded by grassland and plains. This will be my primary center of battle ops, rather than shuttling troops back and forth to my cities.

Too bad you can't build cities on mountains... that would obviously be better. I now think that units do not heal immediately in fortresses, but given the surfeit I have, that shouldn't be a problem.

And people think this game is tedious....

R

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Arrian
Dominae,

Again, has anyone else noticed the "first free shot" thing I was talking about above, or am I nuts?

-Arrian

Has anyone noticed this in naval battles against more that one ship, especially? Speaking of, too bad you can't build "fleets". Wonder if Gramphos' stuff over on the files section would allow you to do that, make an floating leaders, floating armies. Hmm.. The ai would probably freak out, though in all my extensive mods, its been pretty suprisingly adaptive unless you change colors of civs.
Other good combo: Longbowman/musketman, either balanced, w/ pentagon, or lbow strong for punch. I generally find lonbowman to be semi-useless, a real dissapointment, give 'em zone of control.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by bigvic


Other good combo: Longbowman/musketman, either balanced, w/ pentagon, or lbow strong for punch. I generally find lonbowman to be semi-useless, a real dissapointment, give 'em zone of control.

Had good luck in GOTM5 over at civfanatics during the War of the Longbowmen. In any case, I think bow would work better if they did not automatically move into the vacated square after the attack, but the player could manually complete their move after the attack.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/gotm5/0700ad.htm

[rpodos]

Zachriel,

First, great job with the ongoing story.

Second, I very much like the mixed-unit Army you came up with. A strong attacker (Longbow), a good middle (Sword), and a strong defender (Musket).

If you think of how Armies work, serially from strongest to weakest, this is a very effective configuration. Wait until you get Infantry to add a fourth unit, and that will be first up in either attack or defense.

I have attached a spreadsheet I whipped up on mixed-unit Armies... yours is at the bottom.

R