 |
|
Akron
|
|
I don't think they pool attack, just hitpoints. Also, its likely that they have the movement of the slowest unit or 1 since anyway they will be very powerful with their pooled hitpoints.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
squid
|
|
I like that sig, but I would rather
chmod -x /bin/laden
vi /bin/laden
rm -rf /home/terrorists
rm -rf /bin/laden
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
How do you know that Firaxis filters out messages about multiplayer?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
|
 |
The Metropolis known as Hunt Valley
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Grumbold
I've never seen the army info appear all at once so some of this may have changed or been misunderstood by me:
An 'army' is a container which can hold up to 3 units, 4 if they are great leader created armies.
You can have (city count/4) normal armies in the field irrespective of city sizes once you have the tech/wonder to create them. If you lose cities and have too many armies we don't know what happens.
The army moves at the speed of its slowest unit.
When you attack your best offensive unit is used. It continues to attack the enemy until it is badly damaged. At this point the second best unit will fight for you instead. This continues until you halt the fight or one side dies completely.
Defence is either the same as attack, with units defending in turn using their own ratings or the best defensive unit gets to play with all the hitpoints of the entire stack. Not sure about that.
In either circumstance a 4 unit army will not get any bonuses for outnumbering, flanking or surrounding even a 1 unit opponent.
Army recuperation of damage is no different to how the individual units would recover if not stacked. |
That's a pretty good summary, Grumbold. IIRC, losing a city won't force you to disband an army, the only time your number of cities is checked is when you're actually trying to produce an army.
One thing you had wrong was the number of units in an army: it's 3 unless you have the Pentagon (Small Wonder), then it's 4.
You always need a Great Leader to build an army, unless you've built the Military Academy (Small Wonder), then you can build armies without them. The catch here is that before you can even build the Military Academy, you need to have an army that has been victorious in combat.
IMHO, the only real motivation for using an army is that you get to pool hitpoints. Consider that if you have the Pentagon and you put 4 elite units into an army, you've got TWENTY hit-points to play with during an assault. It allows you to even the playing field somewhat if you have a lot of weaker units and you need to take out a couple of stronger ones, but it doesn't tip the scales so far that you're going to see warriors taking down a tank.
Dan
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
So... does that mean that you don't use them, Dan? Are they not effective for long campains?
You'd figure that they would be able to take a beating, so that if you're far way from a city you could send an army out like an expeditionary force.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
You always need a Great Leader to build an army, unless you've built the Military Academy (Small Wonder), then you can build armies without them. The catch here is that before you can even build the Military Academy, you need to have an army that has been victorious in combat.
|
I'm probably misunderstanding something here as the previous paragraph is confusing me.
From what you've said before, it seems quite difficult to get a Great Leader unless you are a militaristic civ. According to the last sentence you can't build a Miltary Academy until you have an army that's been victorious. But you can't build an army in the first place unless you have a GL, which is difficult to get unless you are a militaristic civ.
This seems to put the the militaristic civs at a huge advantage because it seems they are the most likely to have GLs *and* the Military Academy while those who aren't militaristic will have neither for a long time, and must fight without armies against armies which isn't fair.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
|
 |
The Metropolis known as Hunt Valley
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pembleton
I'm probably misunderstanding something here as the previous paragraph is confusing me.
From what you've said before, it seems quite difficult to get a Great Leader unless you are a militaristic civ. According to the last sentence you can't build a Miltary Academy until you have an army that's been victorious. But you can't build an army in the first place unless you have a GL, which is difficult to get unless you are a militaristic civ.
This seems to put the the militaristic civs at a huge advantage because it seems they are the most likely to have GLs *and* the Military Academy while those who aren't militaristic will have neither for a long time, and must fight without armies against armies which isn't fair. |
It's designed to allow people to play to the strengths of the Civ they've chosen. So militaristic civs will have an advantage in creating armies, yes, but they're still not exempt from the "one army per four cities" rule, so they don't really have *that much* of an advantage.
The other thing to consider is that to truly take advantage of your militaristic abilities, you're going to be cranking out units and trying to get armies as quickly as possible; this means you can't really emphasize technology or culture, which makes it harder to gain new units, as well as to keep your own cities happy and on your side. And, because a militaristic civ is less likely to have much of a culture value to speak of, when they conquer cities, the chances of that city rebelling and reverting back to its former nationality are pretty high. It's a tradeoff.
Dan
|
|
|  |
 |
|
sekong
|
|
Then can we disband an army? If we can, then we have a "detour" to upgrade the army, right?
quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
That's a good question, and one that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head. I suspect no, because that would allow you to circumvent the "can't swap units in and out" restriction of armies.
Dan |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
When armies are defeated in battle, do they die all at once or individually... unit by unit? I would imagine that if they pool their hit points together, they act as one unit, right?
Also, is it better to mix and match units in an army?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|