Armies suckman

[civjunkie]

Uhhh, I'm not impressed with Cavs on defense either. Against MI... yeah, good example. Try attacking a 3x MI Army in a metro with a Tank.

Yeah, but the point isn't whether Cavs are good or bad defence units, but whether their defensive strength is enhanced by being packaged in an army. In this example, in fact they are weaker in an army than they would be on their own. MIs being limited to one attack per round, it would take 3 of them to wipe out 3 stacked cavs (or warriors, for that matter), where one MI can easily wipe out an entire army of weaker units, even tanks. And try attacking 3 stacked MIs in a metro with a tank, or an MA - also not a picnic. If I had time, I'd work out the math, but impressionistically I'm not convinced that it wouldn't take a bigger stack to take out the 3 MIs individually than an MI army.

Armies would have been the greatest thing if they hadn't dropped the rule that killing the top unit in a stack kills the whole stack. As it is ... well, I'm not going to knock them further until I've tried them some more, but so far it's been a mixed pleasure.

[Theseus]

Cavs on defense are just NOT a meaningful discussion.

You will see the light, oh yes, you will...

Try any of the following, when it fits into your game:

2x Sword-level
Same, plus Musket or Rifle
2x Knight-level
Same, plus Cav
2x Rifle
Same, plus Infantry
2x or 3x Cav
Same, plus Tank
3x Tank
Same, plus MA
Same, Plus MI
3x or 4x MI
3x or 4x MA

Let me put it another way: you said you are a late warmonger... how would you feel if an AI civ sent in 10 Sword-level units, led by a 2x Sword Army, to show up at your doorstep when all you had on defense were Spearmen?

[Catt]

Originally posted by civjunkie


Yeah, but the point isn't whether Cavs are good or bad defence units, but whether their defensive strength is enhanced by being packaged in an army. In this example, in fact they are weaker in an army than they would be on their own. MIs being limited to one attack per round, it would take 3 of them to wipe out 3 stacked cavs (or warriors, for that matter), where one MI can easily wipe out an entire army of weaker units, even tanks.

Actually, no. That isn't the point, and serves only to further highlight your lack of experience with armies and/or your lack of experience with Civ 3 combat. Lack of experience isn't fatal of course - we can all learn; but lack of experience with a strong conviction of one's own abilities in new and unknown circumstances is awfully risky.

Using Cav's as a "defensive test" for just about any purpose in Civ 3 is a bit silly - using MI as an "offensive test" is almost as much so. Putting 3 Cavs in an army and using it as a defensive unit is just plain stupid -- coming to conclusions about armies based on seeing a 3-Cav army on defense is almost as much so.

Cavalry is an offensive unit. Putting 3 cavs in an army creates a potent offensive weapon. Cavs against infantry defenders sustain a lot of losses. A 3-Cav army against an infantry enjoys a lot of success. Cavs against Mechanized Infantry is rarely (if ever) a good idea.

On an entirely different arm of the argument - how in the world can you make any conclusions about armies when you compare combat results by using units from more than an entire age apart? Putting aside the issue of armies, I can easily come to the conclusion that Riflemen suck because my Modern Armor roll over them with hardly any resistance at all. Or, if you prefer, Swordsmen suck because my Cavalry cut through them like a knife through butter. But is this a rational and convincing fact in support of the proposition that Riflemen or Swordsmen suck? Your argument comes down to: (1) units more than an age out of date suck; and (2) because I've only ever seen armies with units an age out of date, armies suck. Hardly a convincing showing.

Catt

[Arrian]

Theseus and his mixed units armies... heh.

The only time I do not load an army fully is if I want it to fit on a caravel. Otherwise, I figure I might as well load it up and use it to kick ass in its era. Once I have mil tradition and thus the academy, I can start building better armies. In the meantime, I'd like to get the full (offensive) punch from my current army. That usually means 3x sword or 3x knight. Later, with the Pentagon, the sword army would get an infantry, and the knights would be joined by a Tank.

-Arrian

[civjunkie]

OK, the conclusion I come to is that armies are good for combat between units of fairly even strength; when one unit is massively stronger then it doesn't matter if it's in an army or not, and if it's massively weaker then under some circumstances an army is a positive liability. Being a builder rather than a warmonger, I never fight until I do have a massive advantage, so, yes, I guess I lack experience in the finer points of warmongering.

Having now dipped my toes in deity, I can see that it is pointless to try to outrex the AI - not only do they start with an extra settler, but they also build 2nd generation cities in 16 turns, whereas it takes 17 for a human player, even with an ideal starting position. Theseus believes that the solution is to let AI build your cities for you and then take them over, thank you very much, and I can see that this would do the trick; but I am not entirely convinced until I have tried it out some more
that you can't concede the AI a huge early lead and then still just outsmart it. Rex runs into natural barriers - corruption, oceans - and the AIs will soon run into each other and start fighting; in the meantime you can find/steal/trade/buy tech to keep from falling too far behind. As you get to around 1ad you should be more or less caught up in population and then you can start to forge ahead. That's the theory, anyway: we'll see how it works out in paractice.

Btw, I have figured out how 'man' got into the thread title. I have a wireless keyboard and a wireless network router, and the keyboard receiver seems to pick up random net traffic. While I was away from the keyboard for a few minutes, the network monkeys contributed the following deathless prose:

/a and the can in new the . a half and have a half to the of war. Due to the in the current law new were a way I can I buy the war were you be a way the way I new were to a long long haul all the new home a and I am a a man who is then for a a a half an hour and O. A. A. A. I have a few of all who were on a a a I I knew the the a half /

Shows that technology has its downsides in real life as well as civ.

[civjunkie]

Oops; it takes 16 not 17 to 1st city (14 to get to size 3, 2 to move to a suitable square); 14 if you get real lucky and have 2 food bonuses in your radius; 22 if real unlucky (no food bonuses). Glitch in mental calculator.