 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
Also, all armies can blitz, i.e. attack more than once per turn.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
bongo

|
 |
TRBNGR
Sep 1999 time: 06:37
|
|
You got the bonus part right, but when fighting, the army always fight one unit at a time. The strongest unit always fight first, until *his* hitpoints are exhausted.
With one MI and 2 muskets, you got an attack bonus of (4+2+2)/6=1.33, and a defence bonus of (2+4+4)/4=2.5
We also assume the MI is an elite unit.
When you attack, you attack with (4+1.33), if you don't succeed in winning *before* your army lose 5hp, the MI will be pulled back and the second best attacker(a musket) will continue the attack, this time with an attack strength of (2+1.33) 3.33. If however, you win before you lose 5hp, you can have another attack(remember blitz ability and bonus movement) and the MI will lead this attack as well(he will still be pulled back if he lose 5hp)
Personally I only use mixed armies to strengthen old armies after I build the pentagon. Add one cavalry to that knight army for example. Then again, there are others who are very fond of mixed armies and use them all the time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Solomwi

|
 |
Don King of the Apolyton HLA Movement
Dec 2002 time: 23:37
|
|
I prefer homogenous armies for a few reasons:
The army takes on any special traits of the unit (I absolutely love my 4xMarine armies ). The exception to this is the paratrooper army, which is nigh on worthless, except as a weak infantry army.
A homogenous army of the fastest unit of the era becomes one move faster, effectively giving you an era's worth of speed. The 3xKnight or 4xKnight is a great example of this. It basically becomes cavalry (3x: 6/4.5/3) or Sipahi (4x: 8/5/3), well before you get MT. 4xTank armies bridge the 3-move gap from cavs to MA. NB: I know heterogenous armies still get a move bonus, but am not sure how it works with units of differing speed, so this point may not stand in the context of homogenous v. heterogenous armies.
Third is that it allows for more "mission specialization". Due to its bonus and sheer number of hit points, an army of the era's top offensive units is still going to be a pretty good defender, so my focus is maximizing offensive power and speed. Putting a defensive unit into an offensive army waters down the offensive strength, and doesn't really help as much on the defensive side, especially given that the AI tends not to attack healthy armies. There are times I'll make a defensive army, and the reverse holds. I'm not going to use it to attack, for the most part, so I want it to be an overwhelming obstacle. Honestly, until the Ind. Era, I don't build many defenders, only the bare minimum to hold what I take, and maxed offense armies fit my playstyle best.
Fourth is aesthetic purposes. I name all my units, keep them fairly well organized and keep histories of my wars, and it's just tidier to have armies made up of one type of unit.
I'd be interested to hear benefits of mixed armies, to see if any make playing with the idea worthwhile. Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is cramming some units into an army in a desperate situation to stave off an AI attack, but I'm a mere Monarch player, so that's a rare situation. 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|