Militia changes make no sense

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Militia changes make no sense

      So - militia upkeep has been reduced from 100 grain to 50. Good! But why not do the same for infantry units?

      Militia have also had their stats buffed. Now they are only 0.5 to 1.5 attack/defence factors weaker than plain infantry. However, they also get a massive 75% boost in combat power in hills/forests - which actually makes them better than infantry in these terrain types. They also now have the same number of hitpoints as infantry.

      Militia still have slower movement than infantry, but they are not much slower than heavy tanks which are built extensively from midgame, so they won't slow your armies much.

      However, given that you can now field two militia units for the same grain upkeep as one infantry unit, why would you ever bother building infantry again? There was already almost no reason to ever build an infantry unit, now there is none at all.

      So what was by far the most common unit in WWII - the infantry unit - has pretty much effectively been eliminated as a viable unit from this game. It was already pretty silly that you could build far more armoured units in this game than infantry, now militia units are far cheaper and more useful to build as well! Not to mention the fact that militia take only half the time to build and don't even need infrastructure!

      These changes make no logical sense at all and make this game even less credible as a WWII simulation than it was. The devs should reduce infantry grain upkeep for infantry proportionately, and remove the absurd 75% boost for militia in hills and forests.

    • The militia before is both expensive and weak, the new militia decrease the grain upkeep but still retain their high manpower upkeep.

      The purpose is this.
      Militia is made to defend your country not for combat, infantry have 0 penalties in any terrain this make them a highly flexible force suitable for early offense as well as defence plus their cheaper to make and maintain then other unit types, which makes the infantry my favorite unit of the game.

      The militia change is both historical and most of all fulfill its intentional purpose in-game, militia are units formed to defend their homelands in an event of war, they act like guerrilla forces getting defense buff on hill and Forrest, in terms of actual performance the infantry is far better than the militia both stat-wise and intended purpose, the militia on the other hand complements infantry in defense with their stat buff in terrain but never effective in offensive operations.

      Just to answer some questions.
      1. The militia train time is 2 days without industrial complex, by context infantry is cheaper and better in that regard.
      2. Yes there are other units that are better than infantry like the tank, but in terms of war economy the infantry will be the bulk of your military, this is because to fill the gap in number, conduct multiple orders by splitting forces, and especially to counter those that will normally counter tanks like anti-tank and artillery in a defensive position
      3. Infantry is the most flexible force, tanks are good at rushing and opposing the enemy but infantry with support units like artillery and anti-tank is better in defense and can eat tanks for snaks so don't base the tank as a supreme land unit.
      4. Armor is common? Good luck on their upkeep the navy and Air Force will compete in that area as well.

      And as an actual suggestion it's better to further reduce militia upkeep or cost than touching the infantry, compare the militia to the infantry the infantry is worth 5 militia to 1 infantry.

      Trust me on this one, infantry and defensive tactics is my specialty.
      "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
      -imperium thought of the day

    • The militia change is historical? You mean, you think militia units were more useful units in World War II than trained infantry units? Then why didn't armies spam militia units instead of infantry? Your claim of historicity is clearly nonsense.

      And if you think infantry are a better unit in this game than tanks, I hope I get to play you sometime. I routinely spank players with infantry based armies.

    • I mass tanks too, but infantry are an incredibly good supplement, especially since I go for naval and air superiority. As for militia vs infantry, sure, militia is effective in hills and forests, but that's incredibly situational for when you want to defend your cities, the actual lifeblood of this game. Also, their speed being somewhat equal to heavies is irrelevant, that is when the entirety of what's left has large, bulky armies. maneuvering is essential early game
      "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

      "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

      "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"

    • You also lack the capacity to realize that infantry pave way for motorized and mechanized infantry, so sure, mass your militia, but your speed cuts your ability to takeover fast enough to really make a difference before those come into play
      "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

      "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

      "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"

    • infantry especially in high levels are great in many situations, tanks are just too linear in my taste, and no militia are not well trained than infantry historically, but they are defensive, as I said again militia is for supplementing your defense not for using in battle.

      Joe your wasting your time, its better for you to play and gain experience then asking around in the forums that you will just disagree with.
      "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
      -imperium thought of the day

    • aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:

      You also lack the capacity to realize that infantry pave way for motorized and mechanized infantry, so sure, mass your militia, but your speed cuts your ability to takeover fast enough to really make a difference before those come into play
      It's a total waste of oil to build motorized or mech infantry. You are much better spending it on tanks or aircraft. Motorized inf are just slightly faster inf and mech inf not much better.

      As for infantry being "an incredibly good supplement", they are actually highly vulnerable to aircraft and get blown away in no time.

      But anyhow, this thread is not about how useful or un-useful infantry are - though the fact remains that you generally build far fewer infantry than tanks in this game, which is TOTALLY ahistorical. The thread is about the fact that militia are now actually far more powerful than infantry because of their very cheap grain upkeep and huge buff in hills/forests. That, again, is plainly and totally ahistorical, and renders infantry even less attractive to build than they already were.

    • V1nd1cat0r wrote:

      militia are not well trained than infantry historically, but they are defensive, as I said again militia is for supplementing your defense not for using in battle.
      Yes, militia are great defensive units in this game now, which again is totally ahistorical, because historically militia units fell apart when fighting real infantry. Militia units lacked the heavy equipment and training needed to fight well. They were stopgap units or units scraped together from suboptimal manpower to add a little support to regular units, they were far from the chief defensive units but you wouldn't know that from playing this game.

    • motorized infantry useless? having an anti-anti-tank moving as fast as a light tank is beautiful for fast attacks to cities, where again, tanks suffer. mech units, second fastest land unit in the game, have armor class, and no disadvantage in any terrain is broken midgame, especially their much lower oil upkeep make them a better than their medium tank comparison, and are also stronger than them outright. I won't deny that I mass armor as well, but I believed that this discussion was a comparison between militia changes to infantry?
      "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

      "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

      "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"

    • Infantry is way better than militia, the current militia just have a boost in terrain that some units have a disadvantage in, are you even paying attention?

      Also tanks are also better than infantry in general and a lot of people mass them, but infantry will remain in any army because they don't need oil as an upkeep where almost every unit needs oil, the current militia change means that they have a use and that's it.

      And to hit the nail in the coffin is that this is a historical strategy GAME, boy we don't care about the game being historically accurate or not just by name, we're here for fun and mixing actual history in a GAME will make this GAME completely not fun because it will negate the fact that this is a game in the first place. I mean what do you even expect? If the militia can destroy a heavy tiger tank it will destroy a tiger tank! Because this is a very fun GAME to play, now if have anything else to say then I would suggest for you is to read a history book because that's what this GAME does not need.
      "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
      -imperium thought of the day