14-03-2005 18:46									#1
	Filling out your armies Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What is the best strategy regarding placing your units in an army?

For instance, I have turned my great leader into an army, but I haven't placed any units in it yet.

I still have 3 civs on my continent that I plan on destroying but as I have just finished 2 wars to secure some territory I am planning on building infrastructure while I manuever my forces into position for the final pushes against these 3 unsuspecting civs.

This could take maybe 20 turns to accomplish and I am quite confident I could finish them off with my regular units. I am playing as the Japanese (wow those samurai are amazing).

So my dilemma is this:

Do I create a Samurai army knowing that it will be outdated shortly (maybe before the final wars are over)?

Or do I leave the army unfilled and protected in the center of my empire until better units become available?

What sort of 'shelf life' do you expect from your armies; short and glorious, or long termed and victorious?

Any advice is welcome, and thank you in advance for your considerations.

	14-03-2005 19:30									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Fill it and kill. With the bonuses giving to Army in Conquests, a Samurai Army would be : 13/13 6/6/3 Blitz/Free Pillage. It would work as 3 Cavalries that defend better than a Rifleman (Not that any AI would attack it) and could tear up the countryside on its way.

	14-03-2005 19:51									#3
	Tired of ads?

Samurai armies are among my favorites. They'll serve you well for quite some time yet.

	14-03-2005 20:27									#4
	Support Apolyton

Yep, Samurai Armies are quite the treat. Being native 4/4/2, their is little advantage in mixing them with anything else, even with Cavs. So yeah, go for it, 3xSamurai, and add a Tank down the road.

	14-03-2005 20:58									#5
	Tired of ads?

Nonono, haven't you seen The Last Samurai? They don't like modernization.

	15-03-2005 03:49									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Any army I get before the Military Academy is built gets filled ASAP. Once I'm cranking out an army from the MA every 4-5 (sometimes even 3) turns, I'll let some sit idle waiting for the next big thing.

As for makeup, I like to keep mine homogenous, but that may just be to keep the math simple. Actually, the reason I do this is because you never want to mix slower units into an army, thereby slowing it down. I like to make my armies out of fastmovers, with a few exceptions (sword army in ancient, marine/berserk army), so that limits the choices to something like mixing knights and horses, and really, what would be the point? The same holds for cavs. By the time another 3-move unit comes along (assuming you aren't China or Germany), you should have a stack of empty armies waiting to be filled.

	16-03-2005 04:38									#7
	Suffering from ads?

When not playing the AU Mod, I am still a big fan of mixed-unit Armies.

Typically, if I have an initial force of Swords, I'll put two in, then later add a MedInf or possibly even later a Rifle. One of the nice things about C3C is that these Armies keep up with Knights.

Horsemen *never* get put into Armies... the Chivalry upgrade is too valuable and comes too soon. 2xKnight Armies are pretty kick-ass though, and get upgraded with a Cav... again, I love it that they now can keep up with the Cav's movement.

Whatever type of Army, I usually leave them at 3x until the advent of Infantry and Tanks, at which point they get bulked up respectively.

Regarding mixing slow- and fast-movers, well, that used to be a religious blasphemy. But with C3C Army movement, however, I've seen situations where I could justify it... for instance, if I were going for domination or conquest with Tanks (and in the absence of a meaningul Cavalry force), I could see foregoing the 3mps of a a 4xTank Army for (drum roll, please ) a 3xTank+Infantry Army.

* Theseus ducks

	16-03-2005 06:56									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I would never put an infantry unit in a 3xTank. Giving up that movement for what? A 10 vs 8 defense and that is only for one unit. No thanks, tank armies are for attacking, not worried about D that much. If I am I will have an infantry army to do the defending.

I got to speak up for 4xCalv as well. It can be so critical to attacking those civs with infantry and you still only have Calvs. You will lose that battle with a 4X enough, so no way I want to do it with a 3X.

PS do not bother me with using artie stacks please. That is not an option for most invasion from sea. Anyway do you know how many units a sid civ can build in the 3 or 4 turns needed to get them to cover the ground that the army does?

I understand at Demi and Emperor, you do not face this much, but I face it at Sid in every game at least once.

I toss a few 4X armies at them and protected them with my healthy units. even when I finally get tanks, I still need to use those 4x calvs a few times to get to those cities I can not hit with tank armies. Those with only 2 or 3 defenders and only my 4 move army can attack.

	16-03-2005 07:21									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I can see the logic behind what you're doing with slowmovers, T, but do have a couple of small quibbles.

First, I want three units in my armies ASAP, in order to maximize the blitz ability. A 3xsword army, for instance, parked next to an enemy city can take on two spears and, even if the RNG decides not to cooperate, still have enough HP left to be a formidable defender if the AI tries to attack. That frees up other defenders, of which I have precious few in the ancient era, for the war effort. I'm just not nearly as confident with an 8 or 9-HP army on its own. That's probably more of a style issue than anything, since I'd probably do it your way if I intended to keep the army with other units at all times.

I'm with v on slowing that tank army down. I just don't see the benefit an infantry gives you. The defensive strength of the tanks is increased by 8.5, instead of 8, and the infantry goes to 18.5, as opposed to a tank's 16. I'm just not seeing that as worth losing a movement point and cutting the offensive bonus for your tanks from 16 to 13.5.

I do agree completely on horses, though. The only thing that starts to make sense is a pure horse army, for the movement, but I tried that once and was, to say the least, underwhelmed by its performance.

	16-03-2005 22:10									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

fast moving armies have brought me victory several times when an enemy has broken thorugh my lines...

I highly recommend fast moving armies in pbems

so by adding in units that take away movement I can only see as a negative

happy playing out there Uberloz

	17-03-2005 04:32									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Solomwi ... since I'd probably do it your way if I intended to keep the army with other units at all times.

I do.

quote: I'm with v on slowing that tank army down. I just don't see the benefit an infantry gives you. The defensive strength of the tanks is increased by 8.5, instead of 8, and the infantry goes to 18.5, as opposed to a tank's 16. I'm just not seeing that as worth losing a movement point and cutting the offensive bonus for your tanks from 16 to 13.5.

Yeah... I know, but I was just trying on the idea for size.

	17-03-2005 06:24									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I will confess to slapping in an infantry for a calv army in a pinch for the defense on some maps. Especially when I am trying to hold a town that may get 3-6 attackers and not extra help, except maybe the one infantry.

IOW there are times when I have to take a hit on speed.

	17-03-2005 07:11									#13
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 I will confess to slapping in an infantry for a calv army in a pinch for the defense on some maps. Especially when I am trying to hold a town that may get 3-6 attackers and not extra help, except maybe the one infantry. IOW there are times when I have to take a hit on speed.

If you do it... it can't be all bad.

That's an even more extreme example, especially in C3C... 4 mp down to 2? But the point remains: It's not so much the impact on a/d strength, but rather the use of hps, i.e., sure, vxma1's example is not awe-inspiring from a strength standpoint (+4d), but when defending the Infantry ALWAYS goes first, with 16-20 hps initially behind it.

* Theseus , btw, lives in abject-huddled-naked-in-the-corner fear of some of the challenges vxma1 goes up against in Sid games.

	17-03-2005 11:14									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I can definitely see getting the hitpoints in a crisis. Hey, a two move army is better than no army. I was thinking more in terms of actually having a choice.

V's example offers quite a bit more benefit with that one infantry (over a defending cav), too.

And yeah, I don't even like to think about the situations he gets into.

	17-03-2005 11:14									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Bear in mind that this reconstituted army is never going to move again, unless it is using my newly laid rails.

IOW it is no longer going to be an offensive force and is just an attempt to make its defense better. Its job is to sit on a city until the land is taken and it is free to move to sit on another town.
That does not require great speed, even if I do not have rails up.

	18-03-2005 17:19									#16
	Tired of ads?

Will the individual units that constitute an army continue to receive experience and eventually become elites?

Or should I wait until they are elites (that maybe generated a GL already) and then load them into an army?

Or is it just ok to have an army of veterans?

	18-03-2005 17:25									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by uberloz Will the individual units that constitute an army continue to receive experience and eventually become elites?

Yes, they will receive experience. They fight starting with the most experienced unit.

quote: Originally posted by uberloz Or should I wait until they are elites (that maybe generated a GL already) and then load them into an army?

Only add Elites that created Leaders before (the ones marked *). The others should fight alone, to retain the ability to make more Leaders.

quote: Originally posted by uberloz Or is it just ok to have an army of veterans?

Veterans are ok. I often get Regulars into Armies, because they tend to die too often fighting alone.

	18-03-2005 19:32									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Thanks Modo44, and thanks to everyone that responded here. You have helped me alot!

	19-03-2005 23:36									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

ok. who's been planting listening devices?

it seems the rng has heard about my feelings on armies

quote: Originally posted by Theseus Typically, if I have an initial force of Swords, I'll put two in, then later add a MedInf or possibly even later a Rifle.

yes - two, two, two

war with japan:
having finished off the major objectives, i'm winding up hostilities, just snacking on a few after-dinner burgs. suddenly, i pop a leader. praise the lawd!
rush barracks, build army.
just then a japanese galley sails past and drops off a lone regular spearman on undefended plains ... purrfect. cav is just around the corner, i'm not planning any new battles 'til then. i'll just load up a single knight, get my victory and have the epic built in time for the next outbreak. cav comes along and i've got an almost pure cavalry army ready to go.

of course, civ doesn't always turn out like you planned.

not happy mr washington, not happy at all

* lebensraum stares into darkened corner, muttering to self

	14-04-2005 14:25									#20
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I found the mixing units in an army normally makes it easier to kill.
But that something different.
If I make an army of anything I keep it until I lose it, at which point I make a new army, exactly the same but with the upgraded units from the original.

	14-04-2005 20:43									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The #1 rule with armies is never, ever mix slow movers with fast movers inside the same army.

It's generally prefered to also have all units in a given army be the same type. This eliminates the risk of mixing. And plus units with special abilities can retian them inside an army that's all of the same type.

I like to place units that can never upgrade (or at least have a long time before they can upgrade) in armies instead of units whose upgrade is just around the corner.

In addition, offensive units in armies is better for a human than defensive units in armies. Filling the army is itself a form of defense.

	14-04-2005 23:04									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'd say the #2 rule is never attack anything that isn't red-lined with a single-unit army.

I know you're eager to get that first victory and build HE, but unless you're using poor tactics, you'll have a second unit to put it the next turn, most of the time, and the army's primary advantage is the increased hitpoints. In the grand scheme, delaying HE one turn in order to ensure that you keep your army is a good trade (and if you switch a city to pre-building as soon as you have an army, you're not even giving up that one turn of HE).

	16-04-2005 16:42									#23
	Support Apolyton

There are times when I have no great desire to fill an army - I may be attacking weak defenders and want my tanks to keep their individual movements, but I will place 1 tank in the army, this gives the tank 1 extra movement point, so i gain an attacking move without losing attacking moves from multiple units

	16-04-2005 23:36									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

There are always special cicumstances and unique plays.

	17-04-2005 23:30									#25
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by trev There are times when I have no great desire to fill an army - I may be attacking weak defenders and want my tanks to keep their individual movements, but I will place 1 tank in the army, this gives the tank 1 extra movement point, so i gain an attacking move without losing attacking moves from multiple units

If I have no great desire to fill an army (which does happen often), I keep it empty. I'd be very wary of a third attack with a single tank, even against the vaunted spearmen . Even if you're just looking for a second attack, I'd rather move in an extra tank than get it from the one. The risk of losing that army is just too great. I don't mind so much losing one 100-shield tank, but losing a 100-shield tank and 400-shield army just to whittle the enemy stack down one more unit or take a city this turn when I can probably take it easily next turn with the forces on hand is too much risk for too little reward. If I can successfully fight the war without that one tank getting an extra attack move, and therefore hold the army empty, it turns into an MA or MI army instead. As v says, there are always unique circumstances, though.

That brings to mind another tip for filling armies:

Unless you're filling them with units that will never upgrade, don't fill any during peacetime. For hypothetical example, you pop a few leaders at the end of your early Middle Ages war, have already had one victorious army, get excited and cram them full of knights, now ready to take on the world. You finish that war before your armies can play a role, and had thought you'd turn east to take out India. You decide to see what they have to offer first, and wind up trading tech for a lux or two, plus a significant amount of gpt. For that or whatever other reasons, your next conquest gets put on hold for a while. By the time you finally do go to war, you've got cavs. Keeping those armies empty would have let you fill them with cavalry, giving them M:4, but you're stuck with M:3 knight armies.