25-08-2001 00:22									#1
	Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences? Inflate your Upload Space

This may seem a dumb question, but after reading some of the comments in the "Ask the Civ Team 8/22/01" thread about Armies in Civ3, I began to wonder exactly how these will differ from the unit stacks we've known about for some time.

For instance, will we be able to stack units and move them simultaneously WITHOUT them having to be an Army? I had so far assumed this, but when Firaxis talks about army units being 'loaded' onto a Great Leader, who then functions something like a Transport... does this imply that ordinary unit stacks CAN'T be 'transported' like this, i.e. can't move simultaneously (as in Civ2)?

Further, will ordinary stacks of units (not armies) behave exactly as in Civ2, i.e. all be wiped out simultaneously by a superior unit if not in a fortress or city? (How disappointing!)

OR, could it be that stacked units that are not armies will still attack and defend individually, but without a Great Leader or Army status they will lack the army bonus of combined hit-points, or whatever?

How do you understand the differences between stacked units and armies?

	25-08-2001 01:24									#2
	Re: Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences? Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul This may seem a dumb question, but after reading some of the comments in the "Ask the Civ Team 8/22/01" thread about Armies in Civ3, I began to wonder exactly how these will differ from the unit stacks we've known about for some time.

A stack of unit standing in a single stack are still individual units standing in a single stack. You have to move one at a time.

quote: For instance, will we be able to stack units and move them simultaneously WITHOUT them having to be an Army?

No

quote: I had so far assumed this, but when Firaxis talks about army units being 'loaded' onto a Great Leader, who then functions something like a Transport... does this imply that ordinary unit stacks CAN'T be 'transported' like this, i.e. can't move simultaneously (as in Civ2)?

An Army is when you have a great leader and then add up to 3 units to make a Stack Army, you may add a 4 unit if you have built the Pentagon as a minor wonder. They will fight as one. Moved together as one. You may only have one Army per 4 cities.

quote: Further, will ordinary stacks of units (not armies) behave exactly as in Civ2, i.e. all be wiped out simultaneously by a superior unit if not in a fortress or city? (How disappointing!)

I don't know. DAN?

quote: OR, could it be that stacked units that are not armies will still attack and defend individually, but without a Great Leader or Army status they will lack the army bonus of combined hit-points, or whatever?

I would guess yes. Again DAN?

	25-08-2001 01:47									#3
	Support Apolyton

About non army units stacked but not in a fortress, I would guess they would do something like in SMAC and the collateral damage system, which I think is a major improvement over civ2's whole-stack-dies-at-once system.

	25-08-2001 01:51									#4
	Re: Re: Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 A stack of unit standing in a single stack are still individual units standing in a single stack. You have to move one at a time.

OK, that would make sense, but have you seen this explicitly stated anywhere? In earlier discussions on this forum it was assumed that stacked units would be able to move simultaneously (before all the stuff about Armies was spelled out). I haven't seen any statement that ONLY Army stacks can move simultaneously.

	25-08-2001 02:48									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Well this is how I see the how armies work, and they seem quite powerful.

For example I think that if you get an army first that even the defense rating the Greek phalangs (three) will not help the that much against an egyptian chariot with attack strenght two. Since three chariots in a stack attacking as a single unit and sharing hitpoints might actually make them stronger than a fortified hoplite.

If the Greek hoplite has defence strenght 4.5 (if fortify multiplyer stays 50% ) and you get 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 chariots attacking (if they are veteran at .25%). Hoplite has 10 hitpoints, so do chariots each but they share them so they in effect have 30 hit points.

So roughly in every three hits chariots will lose 2 hit points and hoplite will lose 1. So after holite dies chariots all chariots together will have 10 hit points left which might be three, three and four.

They might be almost dead, but they should in 2/3 of the cases kill the fortified Greek Phalangh (not to mention the normal one).

And this implies that the whoever gets a great leader gets a good advantage over others. But there might be a hidden trick that makes armies less powerful, or everyone will have to have city walls built first.

Even with city walls, elite chariots (if elite modifier is 50%) will be quite dangerous for other (non-greek) civs.

This is how it looks currently for me.

	25-08-2001 07:36									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Good thinking, ofitg. I really hope that there are stacked units that basically move together and dont all die togther, but rather have collateral damage. I also hope that since armies ( i think) will be rare, each one requiring both a great leader (which will not come as easily as you may think, i suppose) and four cities, they will be very powerful.

just my $0.02

	25-08-2001 10:38									#7
	Re: Stacked units vs. Armies -- what are the differences? Support Apolyton

quote: Further, will ordinary stacks of units (not armies) behave exactly as in Civ2, i.e. all be wiped out simultaneously by a superior unit if not in a fortress or city? (How disappointing!)

There is no collateral damage in Civ III, so stacks are not wiped out after a loss.

	25-08-2001 10:48									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: There is no collateral damage in Civ III, so stacks are not wiped out after a loss.

Hi Soren! thanks for the info...one question though, any reason for the change in Civ3? I mean it went from being a complete loss in civ3, to collateral damage (by ground units) in SMAC, to no extra damage at all.

hmmm...this means that armies, while almost impervious to single units, now can be held up by a stream of cannon fodder units, unless it is easy to stack/unstack units from an army...also this would make air units more powerful

	25-08-2001 10:50									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

might make waging war difficult..basically working out to one unit per city..... and getting an early army together looks looming.... i wonder if some of the first strats will be with the powermongers of the beginning.... i figure the adage of get em quick will apply even more so...

	25-08-2001 11:43									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I am now confused.

My undestanding is there will be combat among stacks in Civ 3. You can't have collateral damage when there is stacked combat.

But how does stacked combat work differently than armies?

	25-08-2001 12:05									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: My undestanding is there will be combat among stacks in Civ 3. You can't have collateral damage when there is stacked combat. But how does stacked combat work differently than armies?

Urban Ranger from what I understand the only time you have combat between two stacks is when two armies fight, the rest of the time the combat will be just between either single units or when an army faces off against a single unit...so that means the largest confrontations will be when a four army stack attacks another four army stack (of course both would of had to build the pentagon first)

otherwise combat is the same as in civ2/SMAC with one exception, in civ2 when a single unit was victorious over another single unit, all of the units in the square with the defeated single unit died, in SMAC all of the units in the square with the defeated single unit took some damage

in civ3 it appears that when an army or single unit is victorious over another single unit then all of the other units in that square are undamaged, and when an army or single unit is victorious over another army then only the units in the defeated army are destroyed

this is however not taking retreat into account

and as far as we know if an army or single unit gets attacked by a unit with less mobility than the defender the defender can retreat (retreat might apply to the attacker also but its details haven't been confirmed)

	25-08-2001 12:26									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Now I am completely confused.

Previously I have always thought that a player can stack units together like CtP, and they fight as a group. My impression was "army" is just a way to denote these stacks.

Now it appears that armies are different from stacks.

Can somebody from Firaxis clear up this point?

	25-08-2001 12:56									#13
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I am now confused.

Im also confused. A complete official showdown of ALL facts regarding armies, stacked movement and combat sure would feel like a big relief.

Its only 8-12 weeks left to official release anyway, and perhaps 6-10 weeks to a pre-released demo (if any - I sure hope so). So then any tidbits of info IS released from now on - why not make it as recapitulating, concluding and claryfying as possible, in relation to all the previous info released on that particular subject?

	25-08-2001 13:11									#14
	Got spare money?

That would be good.

I don't want to become bald that quickly

	25-08-2001 18:24									#15
	Got spare money?

Well, they haven't released all the details yet, but it is fairly obvious from what has been said that a stack of units that are not joined in an army is just a bunch of individual units that happen to be in the same hex.

When a non-army unit attacks, it is moved and attacks as an individual unit. When a non-army unit defends, it defends (and possibly retreats) as an individual unit. The combat (attack or defence) has no effect on the other units in the hex with the non-army unit.

	25-08-2001 21:38									#16
	Tired of ads?

It was good to see Soren Johnson's response above about all units in a stack NOT being killed simultaneously.

I wonder if he or someone else from Firaxis could answer my other burning question: Can unit stacks that are not Armies be MOVED simultaneously?? I really hope so, because this was one of most tedious features of Civ2, having to move units around the map one by one...

	25-08-2001 21:58									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul It was good to see Soren Johnson's response above about all units in a stack NOT being killed simultaneously. I wonder if he or someone else from Firaxis could answer my other burning question: Can unit stacks that are not Armies be MOVED simultaneously?? I really hope so, because this was one of most tedious features of Civ2, having to move units around the map one by one...

Straight up, brutha!

	25-08-2001 23:43									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul Can unit stacks that are not Armies be MOVED simultaneously?? I really hope so, because this was one of most tedious features of Civ2, having to move units around the map one by one...

Good question that needs an good official answer (more then just 1 line, please). I can live with the fact that max 3-4 units can fight as an army. But I sure as hell want to be able to at least move stacked units without those great leaders. If great leaders is the ONLY way you have to move around stacked units, then I see before me an awful lot of tedious unit-move management in Civ-3 as well.

IF however, it IS possible to move leader-less stacked units....

- Any upper unit-limit?
- how does such a leader-less unit-stack behave if it gets attacked?
- how do you attack? One by one? How is it different compared with having a great leader as well?

	26-08-2001 00:25									#19
	Remove this text

I found below army-related info at Civilization III Fanatics Center:

quote: Armies come into play in one of two ways. The most common is via the researching of nationalism, one of the few new additions to the tech tree. Once discovered, nationalism enables you to put your economy in one of three different states: mobilized, normal, or peace. In peace mode all military units and buildings cost twice as much to build, and all peace-related buildings, like libraries and temples, cost half as much. When mobilized, the reverse happens with all military units costing half the normal price. In addition, mobilization allows the construction of army units. This enables players to prepare more effectively for war, with cities churning out troops like a well-oiled soldier factory.

My italics. So you cant build armies just by discovering nationalism alone - you must mobalize the economy to war as well, before these armies can be forged. And the limit is still 3, max 4 units.

quote: The other way to create an army is with a great leader unit. Rewarded randomly after a successful battle, these celebrated figures, named after war heroes like Patton and Stonewall Jackson, serve a similar function to an army, with different military units able to attach to them. It's clear that leader units will play a significant part in the game as prized possessions that can alter the course of the game, swinging major events one way or the other.

OK, the ONLY way to move around max 3-4 units in one and the same stack, is by A: spawn a great leader, and B: mobalize your economy to war (which possible for any gov-type after you have researced the nationalism-tech).

Besides above, there is no additional way to move around unit-stacks (besides sea-transport) - is this correct?

	26-08-2001 00:36									#20
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It does look confusing.

At present it looks that you can stack the units up, they will not act as an army and you will have to kill one by one to get to the next point!!! That could mean that someone could just stack up warriors and that they would be killed one by one (like in fortresses before), but since there are so many of them enemy could be slowed down for a few turns, until you get your defenses up?

It doesn't seem from the info we got so far that we will be able to move units together, but I guess Firaxis has this on board just haven't announced it formally. (I would be suprised thay haven't done that in 2 yrs of playing the game)

And last you cna have armies with great leaders, or with a few improvements later on in the game. And those armies look certain to defeat any individual unit of the time. So great leaders are a road to success (but they might not last very long.

And guess what. THIS IS THE RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRES that we asked for!!!

If great leader does not last forever, than you can get the advantage in the beginning of the game, and lose the advantage later if some other armies attack you and your great leader is dead, only at the end of time everyone can have armies,and than the stronger (with pentagon) kick ass of the weaker.
Buit therefore you cannot be only a warmonger, if you are, once your great leader dies, you will have major cultural problems, and cities that you conquered might eventually deflect to other empires.
This is a major step forward if it is correct,and it is a great way to accomplish rise and fall of empires in the game.

It looks really promising now!!! I can't wait!!!

However this is still just speculation, and we could do with some explanation

	26-08-2001 00:55									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave At present it looks that you can stack the units up, they will not act as an army and you will have to kill one by one to get to the next point!!!

I sure hope this is possible. I just want an additional third way of moving around unit-stacks by land (land-units only); by air (air-units only) and by sea (sea-units only) in order to avoid too much micro-management. Sea-transport is of course still available for land-units on sea.

As said above; In contrast to armies, they dont fight as an army at all - only as a bunch of indevidual units which happen to stand on the same square.

	27-08-2001 03:28									#22
	Put an end to popups!

Well, like a lot of people, I too am confused!
So how about it Dan? Soren? How about a nice, easy to understand tutorial to explain to all us dunces out here how the ENTIRE combat system works?! It certainly did the trick for Resources and Colonies!!

Yours,
The Aussie Lurker.

P.S: If any Firaxis people are currently reading this list, I need a couple of things explained:

1) If a single unit attacks a stack (NOT an army!), which unit in the stack will be attacked, and do the other units in the stack give any kind of bonus to defense?

2) Will ranged-attack units have any advantages in combat over melee units (both in armies and as single units)?

	27-08-2001 03:44									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave If great leader does not last forever, than you can get the advantage in the beginning of the game, and lose the advantage later if some other armies attack you and your great leader is dead, only at the end of time everyone can have armies,and than the stronger (with pentagon) kick ass of the weaker.

Even if a great leader doesn't last forever, you can still get new ones, so it doesn't really create a "Rise and Fall of Empires."

And is pentagon really a major wonder?

	27-08-2001 04:24									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by isaac brock And is pentagon really a major wonder?

No, the Pentagon is a MINOR Wonder...Every Civilization will have the oportunity to build one of them.

	27-08-2001 09:03									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Maybe we should unleash the Code Red worm against Firaxis' server if they don't clear up our confusion soon.

	28-08-2001 17:45									#26
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by isaac brock Even if a great leader doesn't last forever, you can still get new ones, so it doesn't really create a "Rise and Fall of Empires." And is pentagon really a major wonder?

I think that this model might bring a lot of 'instability' military wise, and the civ that will not have great leaders is more or less doomed...

Imagine one civ having an army that can beat any individual unit, and that it can reorganise as well in one turn (get fresh units in)

I think that this will give it the ability to conquer its neighbors (as in the history great leaders gave something special to the host country).

Whenb your great leader dies, you lose this ability, but someone else might have it... i see this as a clean rise and fall of empires way.

I guess it will not be easy to get a great leader, and you might have a smaller chance of getting one (lets say for next 50 turns after the last one died) but this is plain speculation.

anyway I don't think there will be many armies early on in the game, until the modern times, and thoe empires that will have them will be military superior to the others.

	28-08-2001 18:58									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Can't we just use the Ctp2 combat model? It solved all of these problems easily.

	28-08-2001 19:17									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

i think CTP combat model was good for added military complexity/ reality... i think this was actually the best improvement in CTP series over Civ II.

However it woiuld be great to have rise and fall of empires, and this Civ III system seems to give just that.

	30-08-2001 20:42									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Armies come into play in one of two ways. The most common is via the researching of nationalism, one of the few new additions to the tech tree. Once discovered, nationalism enables you to put your economy in one of three different states: mobilized, normal, or peace. In peace mode all military units and buildings cost twice as much to build, and all peace-related buildings, like libraries and temples, cost half as much. When mobilized, the reverse happens with all military units costing half the normal price. In addition, mobilization allows the construction of army units. This enables players to prepare more effectively for war, with cities churning out troops like a well-oiled soldier factory.

1/2 cost for military units! This is more powerful than Civ2 fundamentalism! Perhaps Firaxis was trying to put an element of having to gear up for war into Civ3, but it'll actually have the opposite effect.

Civ2: I'm peaceful with few if any offensive troops and a smattering of defensive troops in cities. I'm suddenly attacked by a strong neighbor. I switch to max taxes in hopes of rush-buying a lot of troops. It'll take me a number of turns to build up an effective counter-attack, especially if I don't use incremental buying. If I'm really scared I can switch governments to Fundamentalism or Communism. Without a quick Oedo year, I've really got a lag time in gearing up my civ for war.

Civ3: Same situation, but I've discovered Nationalism. I merely snap my fingers and say "mobilize". Suddenly my peace-nik empire is a recruiting powerhouse. With max taxes and discount unit rates I'll have my counter-attacking army in no time! (Of course this'll only be late game when Nationalism is discovered.)

Unless, like government revolutions, it takes time to switch your mobilization "state", I predict that nationalism will make mobilization a non-factor. Perhaps this is its purpose.

	30-08-2001 21:00									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Will an army be able to attack multiple times? In order to capture a City in Civ2, you could send in a bunch of crusaders. One by one they attacked the city, damaging or killing defenders. If Civ3 armies can only attack once per turn, then they might have a REDUCED ability to conquer cities. For example, my 4-crusader army attacks the enemy city and easily defeats the first phalanx defender. In Civ2 I'd continue to the next defender, but if my army can only attack once (maybe twice if all it's units have a two movement rate), then I have to stop for the turn, allowing my opponent to heal his defenders and build new ones. I certainly hope armies can attack at least as many times as they have units. ('though certainly they'd have normal movement rates regardless of the number of units.) This runs counter to Civ2's "you can attack and or defend only as many times as you have movement" philosophy.

I too am anxious to see a developer update elucidating the whole stack/army issue.