 |
| |
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
This thread probably belongs in the General Forum, but the regular presence of so many army experts in the Strat Fourm and the small twist in strategy that I will try and place on the question compel me to post here. 
PLaying 1.29f, Emperor, no mods, my civ is Russia. I just added a Cossak (6.4.3) to an army of 2 knights (4.3.2). See the screen shot below -- the "stats" of the army are listed as 5.3.2. Now, I've always known that an army moves only as fast as its slowest unit. I've certainly used my fair share of mixed armies on the past, and though I can't say I paid dilligent attention to army stats in the past, I always thought that a mixed army showed the stats of the "top-most" unit. The "5" attack doesn't match any unit in the army, but it does match the rounded average of the three attack values (6+4+4)/3. Similarly, the defense stat (3) matches the rounded defense average of the three defense values (4+3+3)/3.
So, my question: Is the ADM of the army purely eye candy, and when attacking, does the army have an attack value of 6 while the cossack attacks, dropping to 4 when the cossack yields to a knight? Same Q for defense stats. What are the strategic implications of the answers? (See, this does belong in the Strat Forum ).
Obscure Reference, in a sultry, female, faceless voice: "Well, boppers, it looks as if our ball players have struck out in the subway, and the Warriors are now headed uptown."
Catt 
Edit for spelling.
 Attachment: army stats.jpg
This has been downloaded 178 time(s).
Last edited by Catt on 19-08-2002 at 22:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
Naw, just eye candy, although sometimes a good shortcut.
The units act individually, in a series starting with the strongest unit for the application. So in this example, on both attack and defense, the Cossack goes first for each individual battle. They evidently 'share' the remaining hps for each individual battle, so if total hps available are 12, the Cossack gets 4, and if total hps available are, say, 8, I believe the Cossack gets 1/3, rounded, for 3.
That's a nice combo, btw.
And yes, I've decided that our leetle friend thought he was bringing a gun to a knife fight, only to get stabbed in the hand.
[Edit: ps, better hope Arrian doesn't pay too much attention to the picture... oh, look what I've gone and done...]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
The units act individually, in a series starting with the strongest unit for the application. So in this example, on both attack and defense, the Cossack goes first for each individual battle. They evidently 'share' the remaining hps for each individual battle, so if total hps available are 12, the Cossack gets 4, and if total hps available are, say, 8, I believe the Cossack gets 1/3, rounded, for 3. |
Theseus are you sure? In 1.21f it was certainly true that if you bombarded an AI army, you would hit the unit with the most defense. If e.g. you shot him down from 4 to 1, and later on attacked him, that defender would only have 1 HP before retreating. Not the average of total HPs...
I'm really trying to remember what I did with the 2xMI,1 MA and longbowman army of the Germans in MT V, but I can't say for sure. I mean, I don't know if the longbowman was at full health before I killed him, and I don't know how many HPs I got from him. Even if I had a few of those mixed AI armies, I think I wiped out a few of them with some nukes... no problems with stats anymore
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Catt,
Yeah, that looks like a tough one. Playing a weak civ (especially on a small map) and dealing with the mean, nasty, impi-wielding Shaka man...
To be honest, I didn't even notice the city spacing, but now that it's been pointed out, it's not all that bad. Closer than I would use (but then again, I'm still playing primarily on Monarch), but appropriate for your situation.
Theseus, even the Dark Side recognizes there are times when caution is the better part of valour. He's sandwiched between two militarists with nasty UU's, and he isn't a militarist, which makes early war harder.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
This may seem like a dumb question but why do you want to mix armies? I generally only use armies for offense and therefore choose powerful units of all the same type to put in there. Why not use only the best?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
|
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sheik
This may seem like a dumb question but why do you want to mix armies? I generally only use armies for offense and therefore choose powerful units of all the same type to put in there. Why not use only the best? |
It's not a silly question - I think most players are initially taken aback by the thought of putting different types of units in an army - especially different types of units from different ages in the same army. It's a somewhat long thread, but you should definitely read through Theseus' treatise (which is the Apolyton treatise on armies, IMHO) - the thread is one of the featured threads on the Strategy Page - and can be found here.
The short version (for me) comes down to one particular key point - I expect my army to essentially guarantee a battle win in almost any circumstance. Two swordsmen or two horsemen in an ancient age army just about get you there; 2 knights in the early middle ages will do the same. Adding a third unit doesn't appreciably increase the odds of winning a battle - the odds are so skewed in your favor due to the 8 or more HPs (no chance for defender promotions before death) that adding a third unit might rightly be thought of as overkill (might take expected battle win percentage in a given circumstance from 96% to 98%? not a big gain). Now also take into account that armies can be few and far in between until the ability to build the Military Academy arrives with Military Tradition. I don't want my army to become obsolete quickly -- as may naturally occur as tech progresses -- because I don't know if I'll get another one into well into the Industrial Age.
An example probably helps here: If I have carefully left a space in my early army (loading only 2 horseman, say), I can add a knight to my army as the age of chivalry arrives. The 2-horseman army is an exceedingly powerful ancient age attack unit, and I am pretty comfortable that it is going to take down anything in its way (yes, there are a couple of exceptions  ). If I add a third horseman, the relative strength of the army vis-a-vis other ancient age units is largely unchanged - it remains a supremely powerful ancient age monster. But soon the age of chivalry arrives, and with it knights, pikemen and musketmen, together with more Cities (7 pop or higher) and the defensive bonus Cities provide. Had I created a 3-horseman army in the ancient age, the army itself would now be largely obsolete - sure, I could use it against spearmen, and I could use it against units in the open field, but I probably can't confidently use it to "crack open" that City guarded by a tough defender. However, since I only created a 2-horseman army in the ancient age, I can now add a knight to the army. My knight-horseman-horseman army is still very powerful in the Middle Ages - its 12 HPS, led by a 4 attack unit and then two 2 attack units, means it still retains the key capability I desire from my armies - the ability to essentially guarantee a victory in battle. By loading units into armies over time rather than as soon as an army appears, you can successfully extend the useful life of a single army significantly.
I've rambled on long enough - for another key reason to consider using mixed armies which centers on how HPs and ADM stats work together in the army context, see Theseus' thread in the General Forum titled How do Armies handle damage?
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
|
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
Catt - Yes, I will post at CFC, thanks for the reminder... we need to bridge better and more often. Not a true dissection though; I'm happy to do empirical tests, but I'd love to see the true analysts, say alexman or Carver, do it right.
Sheik - Ahhh, mixed-unit Armies, still my beating heart. It's late, so not now, but I'm inspired to start a new thread extolling the virtues. Give me a couple days...
Short answer (not!): Create a 3x Swords Army right off. What damn good is that thing in the modern era, even with a Pentagon-allowed 4th unit?
My philosophy is to evolve Armies through the ages, increasing their strength over time, and taking advantage of older units' hps.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-08-2002 21:51
.
Attachment: 
|
