Suggestions to improve army concept

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Rpodos has recently started a thread on the strategic forum 'On the utility and use of armies' that has become rather interesting. It appears that at least some of us really like using them. Civ3 has introduced certain new features, and the great leader/army concept was one of those.

But as all things eventually need improvements (if not they're outplaced by newer and better concepts), so does the army concept. Let's face it, the idea and implementation function rather well in the game, but need some more polishing up ...

This thread is meant as a source of army related suggestions toward Firaxian programmers. Please stick to that.

ARMY CONCEPT

An army should represent a major 'problem' toward the enemy. Therefore an army should become more powerful. Have you ever feared an army of an enemy AI civ? No, I haven't yet. Of course the AI can't work with them very properly (they manage to create armies with eg. knights instead of riflemen whilst they can produce both!), but with a couple of new ideas this might change.

1) not being able to pillage is just crazy (they've overlooked this I suppose) --> for an army it should be easier in comparison to a single unit. Imagine an army marching on through enemy territory: they can always send some divisions around to pillage and sabotage.
So an army must be able to pillage TWO surrounding squares from the square it stands on.

2) whose countrymen can stand the presence of an enemy army for too long before capitulating? In the game this is possible, because the AI civs won't attack you if your army is defensively strong. So we must create the need to attack enemy invading armies.
suggestion 1: army's mother civ receives % of enemy's treasury each turn the army is on enemy's territory; increasing % as turns proceed.
suggestion 2: trade blockade; if an army enters the 12-square radius of an enemy city, that city won'y have acces to any strategic and luxury resource from the mother country.

3) armies take too long time to heal, even in barracks, not exactly representing real life. In real life damaged armies get reinforcements. So healing should be faster.

4) armies must be able to disband and form a new one after a certain period; this would reflect peace/war times and would make us easily able to upgrade the army's units.

Ok, a couple of first thoughts.

What do you think?

AJ

[Rotten999]

Perhaps a modest bonus to attack/defense or even move? You'd think the leadership would make the units more dangerous than units without a "great leader." If Napoleon can't make a unit stronger, who can?

Pillage, too.

More attacks per turn?

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Yes, a modest combat bonus (1 HP each unit) to represent the leadership would be nice.

More attacks per turn is already slightly included (if first attacker retreats, second will take over ...).

And pillaging, of course.

AJ

[Jaybe]

Eliminate blitz loophole that makes it so that a 2MP unit cannot hit same tile twice from where it started the turn.

Give Armies 2 or 3 MP, and these MP apply to all units within the Army.

[nationalist]

Give units in armies attack and defense bonuses, maybe multiply their attack power by 1.25 and their defense by 1.5.

[Beren]

Other idea for army:
-Give an option in the world sizes editor: heroes appearance ratio.

[rpodos]

AJ, great ideas.

The 2-tile pillaging concept is great. I've been doing effectively that by sending out 3 pillager Cav with a 3-Legion Army, but it's a pain. Much better, and it feels more realistic, to have super-pillaging power in the Army itself.

I also very much agree with the concept that the very presence of an Army on enemy soil should be a factor. In addition to draining treasury or the health of a nearby city, the presence of an Army should have an impact on happiness, corruption, and waste. Depending on circumstances, this could be for good or bad, like the happiness boost that comes from killing the first invader on your own soil (I think).

Re healing of Armies: Yes, it takes a long time, but I picture that as the Army having been decimated, and needing to be re-organized. It happens, unfortunately.

Lastly, and this may be a personal bias, I think Armies should accrue special bonuses for age. I tend to create very early Armies, and while I do improve them over time by adding progressively stronger units, they still end up finally obsolete. I don;t mind not being able to replace units, but I feel there should be someting like esprit du corps... think of some of the classic English, French, and American units.

R

[Atahualpa]

Actually Armies move much slower in reality.
Small units are much much more flexible than huge armies. Armies just have a huge firepower to cover up their lack of speed.

[Dr Strangelove]

If an army has multiple units lumped into one army then it should be able to either attack repeatedly or attack multiple enemy units in a stack. Let's say that I've managed to gain a technology advantage on an enemy. He's got 3 riflemen in a city, I can put up to 4 tanks or armored units in an army. If I attack with my armored units independent of each other I'll take his city in one move., but if I have them gathered in one army I can't take the city in one move because I can only attack one unit / move. This makes using the amy a disadvantage.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

You're right Doc.

Armies are about specials/more power and extras, not about less.

So an army should be able to attack as many times as the general (the Leader in the game) decides.

There's no greatness in a Great Leader if the army can't always attack multiple times, especially since a single unit (eg tank) can do so.

Should be modified.

AJ

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by rpodos
...
The 2-tile pillaging concept is great. I've been doing effectively that by sending out 3 pillager Cav with a 3-Legion Army, but it's a pain. Much better, and it feels more realistic, to have super-pillaging power in the Army itself.

Yes, this feature should be included. If the Pentagon is built maybe pillaging of three squares.

I also very much agree with the concept that the very presence of an Army on enemy soil should be a factor. In addition to draining treasury or the health of a nearby city, the presence of an Army should have an impact on happiness, corruption, and waste. Depending on circumstances, this could be for good or bad, like the happiness boost that comes from killing the first invader on your own soil (I think).

This effect can easily be simulated by the principle of trade blockade whenever the army passes or stands in a certain radius of the enemy city.

AJ

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Actually Armies move much slower in reality.
Small units are much much more flexible than huge armies. Armies just have a huge firepower to cover up their lack of speed.

Yes, an army physically moves slower because it is a huge conglomerate taking up all the roads, etc.

OTH, we are talking about year(s) per turn. It is more a matter of decision and focus than of physical movement. That is the heart of strategy gaming.

[Atahualpa]

Relative to other foot units armies move slower. Why would an army of 3 Infantry suddenly move 2 tiles per turn, while a single Infantry can only move 1 tile per turn.

I dont care at all if it is years/turn. That is an abstraction and should be accepted by now!

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Actually Armies move much slower in reality.
Small units are much much more flexible than huge armies. Armies just have a huge firepower to cover up their lack of speed.

As armies exist of several divisions (air, naval, land, special), armies offer more than just huge firepower. The small units you're talking about are a part of an army. Therefore the army itselfmust be able to choose between several options.

Armies don't necessarily move slow. In contrary, speed is/was often a crucial element in earlier major wars, remember eg how fast the Germans conquered Europe ...

To represent the actual threat of an enemy's army between your borders, I'd even dare to suggest one extra movement bonus for armies (so 2 moves for inf. army, 3 moves for mobile army). How so? Imagine the 'genious' troops building prefab bridges, 'amphibiing' waters, taking short cuts (tanks on plains/through forests instead of using roads),...

An army is a synthesis of different militaristic capabilities of all military units of an empire. Therefore an army is not to be taken so lightly (in civ 3) as it is right now. More options, like suggested in this thread, would better represent the importance of armies.

That's IMO of course !

AJ

[planetfall]

Want to increase fear of armies?

Easy:

1- max number of units == 10
2- army attacked in turn X, before turn Y, army gets a bonus counterattack turn.
3- armies report real AI military units within an 5 tile circle.

Those changes should be enough to add excitement for armies. It would definitely encourage more army vs army warfare instead of each unit for itself in present game.

[PerpetualNewbie]

Hmmm. Maybe it is just me, but I thought the army was butch enough as it was. I already think armies are a great deal, and once I get the military academy, armies are usually all that city ever produces.

Adding extra pillaging power seems overkill. Pillaging is already tough enough that the AI generally doesn't recover from a good spanking.

I would actually venture a guess that the "problem" is not that armies are too weak, but that leaders are too rare and/or too powerful as builders -- it is a pretty tough decision to make an army when you could use the guy to snag a wonder...