I don't know why that is, but I have observed something similar in my use of commando units. They seem to consistently underperform their on-paper stats against units that they should destroy and survive (albeit with damage to their condition), even in mountain terrain where they receive a +100% strength bonus. On paper, the in-game commando battalion is stronger than conventional infantry and motorized infantry regiments at all research levels AND they have 5 more hit points (20) than conventional and motorized infantry (15). They also seem to do worse when they are a single attacking unit, and I have observed significantly better results when I double them up in two-unit stack when defending or attacking, and even better when I mix them into a stack of other infantry-class units.

The best I can say from using them fairly extensively since they were buffed during last year's unit "re-balancing" exercise by the developers is that commandos are a better combat unit than militia, conventional infantry and motorized infantry, and I will produce them in lieu of other infantry units during the first month of the game. However, once the mechanized infantry regiment is available and I have completed the research to produce them, I prefer mech infantry rather than commandos in most situations. Mech infantry outperforms all other infantry, armored cars and light tanks, with the notable exception of battles fought in mountain terrain.

JCS, please report back with details of the battle outcome. I, for one, want to hear how your commando stack performs.

Citius, altius, fortius, my friend. Look at the mech infantry's spec sheet for a list of their strengths and weaknesses compared to other infantry units, lights tanks and armored cars. They are stronger and have more hit points than conventional and motorized infantry, and they outperform light tanks in most situations, armored cars in all situations, and . . . damn . . . they're fast.

When I first figured out how to keep my research running 24/7, I experimented with motorized infantry in mixed battle stacks fairly extensively. Motorized infantry are basically a faster, slightly stronger version of conventional infantry, and they are usually the most fragile unit in the stack if they are caught in the middle of a battle between big armor stacks. In that situation, mech infantry do at least as well as light tanks, and better than other infantry units and armored cars. Of course, armored cars have no business being in combat after tanks become available.

The downside of mech infantry is that they cost more to produce, require an L3 barracks, and they consume more fuel. If you're not maxing out your core oil production between 6,000 and 12,000 tons per day, it's probably better to emphasize tactical bombers, tanks, and fighters (as needed).

We might want to ping @Restrisiko to get his take on this. He has the best overall empirical knowledge of game mechanics and unit match-ups from having widely experimented with just about everything.

Like I said, though, commandos look more impressive on paper than they seem to perform in actual in-game battles, including in situations like mountain terrain where they should excel.

Moderator @VorlonFCW likes to experiment too. Perhaps you could persuade him to do some of his "Mythbusters" experiments on this topic.

Your experience is similar to my own. Given their numbers on paper, I still don't understand why a single commando battalion doesn't just massacre any infantry-class unit, armored car or light tank brigade in mountain terrain, where the commandos get the +100% strength bonus. In mountains, they should be out-shooting conventional infantry by something like 3:1, and commandos have 5 more hit points.

That said, I have often complained that our in-game commando battalion is over-powered and needs to be adjusted to better conform to reality. I would really love to have a serious discussion with the developers about re-working the commando unit. If and when an airborne infantry regiment is ever added to the game, the commando unit will need to be revamped to better distinguish the two units.

Typically, a regiment is composed of two to three battalions, although that can vary widely from country to country, and across different eras. The personnel size of regiments and battalions can also vary widely. Our in-game infantry regiment has 1,500 men, and that's on the smaller side compared to typical American, British and Commonwealth units.

A typical WW2 Allied infantry division had ~15,000 men, and included three frontline infantry regiments, plus headquarters, artillery, combat engineers, military police, and other organic support units. In an American infantry division, the four artillery battalions were the equivalent of a fourth regiment.

A WW2 American airborne division typically had ~13,000 men, usually including two parachute infantry regiments, one glider infantry regiment, three battalions of 75mm howitzers, and one battalion of 105mm howitzers. An airborne division had the same number of infantry regiments as a conventional infantry division, but it had ~2,000 fewer men and its organic artillery was lighter (75 mm & 105 mm vs. 105 mm & 155 mm). An airborne infantry also had less organic anti-tank capability, but that was often supplemented by additional attached units for particular operations. On the other hand, "paratroopers" were almost always better trained infantry, and their esprit de corps was usually unmatached.

So, in some ways, paratroops and commandos were similar (e.g., parachute insertion), but their operational objectives and capabilities were very different. Commandos typically fought small-unit actions in squads, platoons and companies, and only rarely in battalion-size units (e.g., the British/Canadian Dieppe Raid, U.S. Rangers at Pointe du Hoc), with objectives of sabotage, disruption and even assassination. The "commando" mission rarely included taking and holding ground, and certainly not for more than a few hours without reinforcements.

Contrary to some of the factually inaccurate posts you may read in the forum, American and British airborne divisions were intended to take and hold ground at high-value strategic points on the map (river crossings, cross-roads towns) in advance of larger amphibious invasions and/or ground offensives. Unlike commandos, airborne troops were organized and fought as full-size divisions, with divisional headquarters, artillery, engineers, intelligence and jeep reconnaissance subunits, in addition to their three core infantry regiments. An airborne division was supposed to overwhelm local enemy opposition with surprise, capture their strategic objectives and then hold them for 2 to 3 days against enemy counter-attack until they were relieved by larger follow-on ground forces. As the Dick Winters character famously said in Band of Brothers: "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded."

Anyway, I have repeatedly suggested that any single country should only be able to produce and maintain a total of six to nine airborne infantry regiments -- the equivalent of two or three airborne divisions -- and I base those numbers on the fact that the combined Allied air forces of the United States and Britain were only able to deliver three airborne divisions in the two largest airborne operations of the war.

If we assume two infantry battalions per regiment, and three infantry regiments per division, your suggestion of 75 battalions would be the equivalent of 12+ divisions.

I produce a lot of commandos too. It important to know on what terrain the battle took place. Militia get a bonus on hills. If the playhr controls and is defending a core province, the enemy gets a 15% home defense bonus. It also makes a difference whether the L1 infantry and L1 militia are defending. They get better stats when defending.
I mix commandos in with other types of units. A mixed stack tends to get better results than a single unit stack.

That is strange. Again it is important to know what terrain the battle will take place on. I use a variety of mixed stacks. I recon with either air and/or armored car. I usually have one high condition commando in my stacks. That may be why I don't usually lose commandos. The stacks I use depend on what the enemy has. I will use a LT, a MT, a mech inf, a motorized infantry, a commando, a infantry, an AT, AA (if needed) or some combo of those depending on what I have available. Oh, and don't forget to use art and/or SP art. You also want local air superiority whenever possible.

Someday I will read this whole mess, but what I see so far:


It might have something to do with one of the combat mechanics that works with the X factor.

The magic number is a 20:1 advantage. If that is exceeded you get a normal combat with the x factor. If you don't have the 20:1 advantage you will never completely destroy the enemy in the first blow.

I cannot provide you with precise numbers, but I can confirm that as an avid user of Commandos in one of my games, I have been somewhat surprised by the way they performed against Infantry (mostly in cities) ; they were notably less powerful than I expected them to be given their significant stats.

Against Light tanks however I noted a good performance, although they may have more to do with the fact that the combat took place in city terrain.

Maybe this is a "glitch" ?

My dear Montana, it is amazing how you manage to turn discussions on different subjects into your factually incorrect views and arguments about paratroopers time after time again. This thread is about commando's. It is still a pity that Sarah stifled our earlier discussion, you were about to lose it.