Useless army - Page 3

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 23:43

I never even make marines, let an army of them.
Anyway MA is modern armour or the last upgrade for tanks. They can attack three times like panzers.
A stack of elite MA's is a GL machine. I have made 6 in one turn and many times got another on defense when they counter attacked. But it is true I was a warmonger. I do feel that PTW has toned it down a bit, not sure how, but it seems that I get alot less then before.

Theseus · March 9, 2003, 13:08

Abbreviation gibberish? Well then, what's ROFL?

MA = Modern Armor
mp = movement point
GL = Great Leader
3xMA = an Army with three Modern Armors
hp = hit point

The point is, MAs losing a city to Immortals and Longbowmen is absurd... used properly, they should kick mofo @ss, and generate GLs in the bargain.

vmxa1 · March 9, 2003, 16:06

Theseus you know the combat rolls can get ugly, so it could happen. It should not, but as I said I would take no chance. Those 1 move units would be getting a trim on their way in. I would have lots of money so once I saw them coming (way ahead of time), I would have been getting troops bought (MA and Arties). They would have been decimated. Further I do not have lightly defend frontier towns. I get them by conquest, so Iwill have a real army at hand or be clearing out the neighborhood, so no sneak attacks could take place and reducing the culture drag.

Theseus · March 10, 2003, 01:51

Agreed... my advice above was a bit, hmmm, shortsighted and after the fact.

MAs as an attacking force, with Immortals and LBs as the primary counter-attackers?

Roll over'em. All of them. Powell Doctrine. Buh-bye.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 10, 2003, 10:25

Oy vey. Powell Doctrine again. Here's a scenario I'd like to see: 1 MA vs. 60 Immortals. Just see how crafty you are...

(i betcha most people around here could do it).

Well, back to Armies:

I finally built an army in my last game as the Mongols, and though it died in an Indian counter attack, which caused me no small amount of rage, I found I was still able to build the heroic epic, and later, the military academy, and then, armies without a leader!

I still generated far fewer leaders than, IMO, I should have... and I achieved a cultural victory before I had a chance to use that 3-tank army...

...but still, I can now see the utility and use of armies, finally. However, I would venture to say that armies are still little better than huge stacks of troops... to witness their demise in a counterattack is horribly frustrating.

vmxa1 · March 10, 2003, 13:54

I understand the sentiment, but really if you have 3 tanks in a battle and attack an infantry unit in a metro, you may well lose all 3 tanks as individuals, it could go either way.
Now send those 3 tanks as an army and witness the army continue to attack and usually it will prevail under those conditions, not a lock, but a big favorite.
By the time I have MA, I like to have at least 3 armies in the field so I can make the Pentagon and add that fourth unit to my armies. Now a 4 unit MA army of vets/elites are going to win that battle almost every time. It can have up to 20 HP and 3 attacks.
As to an MA against 60 immortals, no thanks. Can I have the 20 turn march that was mentioned and a few bombers? If so then I will do a lot of damage.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 10, 2003, 13:59

I guess my problem is that I play with all victory conditions on, so by the time comes for me to be building MA armies, I generally achieve a cultural victory before I can actually build the dang things.

When I move up in difficulty level, perhaps this will change.

Mad Bomber · March 10, 2003, 20:00

Yahweh:

turn Off the cultural victory condition, IMO its a very unsatisfying way to win. I have had spaceship victories feel like losses also. I usually play only with Conquest enabled.

vmxa1 · March 10, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Yahweh:

turn Off the cultural victory condition, IMO its a very unsatisfying way to win. I have had spaceship victories feel like losses also. I usually play only with Conquest enabled.

Now you are talking, conquest and maybe domination, brutal, please no huge maps though.

Mad Bomber · March 10, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Now you are talking, conquest and maybe domination, brutal, please no huge maps though.

Hey to each his own. I could never get a handle on small maps though. Maybe I just hate archer rushes, or the german sneakattacks, or finding out that you are next to the persians and they have iron already hooked up and you are still making warriors. I hate to quote a racist lunatic, but I need breathing room.

badams52 · March 10, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
When I move up in difficulty level, perhaps this will change.

When I first saw your statement, this is what I thought. I used to win most often by cultural victories, till I started playing higher levels.

vmxa1 · March 11, 2003, 01:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

Hey to each his own. I could never get a handle on small maps though. Maybe I just hate archer rushes, or the german sneakattacks, or finding out that you are next to the persians and they have iron already hooked up and you are still making warriors. I hate to quote a racist lunatic, but I need breathing room.

I am not fond of small either, but standard works and maybe a large, but Huge is more work than fun playing Conquest.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 11, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

I am not fond of small either, but standard works and maybe a large, but Huge is more work than fun playing Conquest.

Absolutely. Cultural I could see turning off, but I'm never even going to attempt to achieve a dom/conq victory on a huge map! And I'm going to keep playing those huge maps. I like the unsolvable conflicts of our actual, huge, Earth... I like even my meglomania to be tempered by corruption, huge oceans, etc.

And besides, I need to sleep sometime.

Killazer · March 13, 2003, 04:56

I'm playing a game now where its ended up that all countries have gotten eliminated by my the Japs and the AI Bablyonians. Babs have a huge continent to themselves surrounded by ocean and I have one to myself surrounded by ocean. We are about the same land size and we have the same tech. BTw. communism kicks ass in this situation lol. Ive been at war now for 100 yrs with Babs and Commies just luv war no weariness at all (my Democracy had collapsed a while ago) plus its better overall cuz of unit support and distributed corruption (Im at around 700 units now no joke lol). Anyway, I'm beating the Babs but its taking a long long time. They have managed to wipe out one of my beach heads =/

Anyway, Id just say that armies are very very useful. Infantry armies are unbeatable almost by the AI (cuz they cant use arty very well) until armor which is at the point im at now. Just got tanks but the babs have em too. Im hoping that building several 4-unit tank armies will let me start advance at a good pace.

BTW - armies now can indeed blitz I think if they are any fast-moving attack unit. I had cavalry armies earlier and they could blitz-attack. Not sure bout everything else but im sure I was blitz attacking with cavalry armies which is wierd cuz cavalry dont have blitz by themselves.

Anyway armies are useful - im cranking out an army every 5 turns or so now from 1 city so why not use them? Certainly give an edge.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 13, 2003, 09:06

I am coming to see the utility of armies more everyday. I just I just wasn't emphasizing the necessary defence of armies enough before...

Arrian · March 13, 2003, 11:04

I'm finishing off my latest Roman game, and my invasion of Egypt (best AI civ on the other continent) was spearheaded by 2 4xTank armies. I later put together a 3xTank+1xMech Infantry army too.

Infantry, even fortified in a city, don't stand a chance against 16hp of Tank. I wiped out the 2nd largest empire in the world in ~12 turns.

Now, I probably could have done that without the armies, but they saved me some casualties. Both by acting as "nutcrackers" to deal with the top defenders and by providing cover for stacks of tanks so I didn't have to wait for infantry to catch up. Once I had Mech Inf, this was no longer an issue.

-Arrian

Inverse Icarus · March 13, 2003, 12:14

i've been successful with 2 swords + 1 num merc as carthage

Arrian · March 13, 2003, 13:04

I was just thinking about something...

Let's say you're playing as... Rome. You fight an archer war and get a leader. You make him an army. You fill the army with 3 legionaries. Will using that army trigger your GA? It should, but sometimes the game treats armies differently than normal units.

-Arrian

Theseus · March 13, 2003, 23:11

I'm pretty sure it does... doen;t forget Armies don;t fight battles, rather the units in them do, sharing hps.

Rommel2D · March 18, 2003, 00:59

Just confirmed this in a game- UUs in armies do trigger a GA.

Reinhard-Baer · March 18, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Next time you want to attack veteran infantry put three tanks into your army and do some bombardment beforehand. That should produce a better result.

Yup imagine three divisions of infantry running accross an open field against a well fortified and prepared enemy. Hmm sounds alot like WWI. And you know the outcome

Inf against Inf? forget it. You would need alot more punch to get through. How about panzer attacks? More like WWII and you know the result in this case too

And if all else fails nuke your enemy into oblivion

pedrojedi · March 19, 2003, 10:19

There's that small gap between replaceable parts and mobile something that makes us going to war with some cavalry and infantry. This is the time when bombardment can make all the difference, as the AI does not know how to use it and you can get a deffinite advantage with the cities you take during this gap. Of course, this only make sense if you do not have a tech lead in the time... If you have, a little waiting and a good panzer timing is all that separates your enemy from the grave.

Boris Godunov · March 19, 2003, 12:49

I like armies and find them very useful, but you have to use them carefully and in conjunction with other units, such as bombarding units. I use "pure" armies of attack units (an army of tanks is one awesome weapon), stacked with one or two good defensive units and then a couple of bombarding units, and following them will be some rapid-moving units. Having the bombarding units and the army attack will usually allow me to take cities without losing a single unit.

Just keep in mind that armies alone aren't meant to be an invincible superweapon.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 19, 2003, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Just keep in mind that armies alone aren't meant to be an invincible superweapon.

That's true! And losing armies can be a major pain in the know know where.

Boris Godunov · March 19, 2003, 13:02

Absolutely. Use them carefully.

VJ · March 23, 2003, 06:37

Quote:

I had a metropolitan city on a hill with walls. 6 ELITE modern armours were fortified inside. Here is how the stupid computer (Level: Monarch) took it:
Step 1: Waste a ten minutes moving immortals and longbowmen (all veterans, thanks to their barracks).
Step 2: Spend thirty minutes attacking my city (human tidal wave). By the way, I managed to kill all but 5 of the bastards.
Step 3: Raze the city and steal the 6, I repeat, 6, settlers sealed inside.
Step 4: Get your ass whipped by the blitzkrieg.

Hey, it worked for Iran.