Lower manpower requirements for militia, infantry, motorized infantry and mechanized infantry

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

    • Lower manpower requirements for militia, infantry, motorized infantry and mechanized infantry

      Hello fellow players and developers,

      As to balancing the game I have the following suggestion. Lower manpower costs for infantry, militia, motorized infantry and mechanized infantry to 1000.

      In the description of militia and infantry it is stated that they are cheap. In terms of manpower however they are the most expensive units in the game.

      Manpower is the most valuable resource early in the game. It is always in short supply since every single unit requires manpower to be built. On top of that, the most ‘standard’ units require the highest amount of manpower. This greatly stresses unit production in the early to mid-game.

      When comparing infantry to motorized infantry something very unwanted and strange happens according to me. Motorized infantry is better than infantry in every single way. Their levels have the same amount of growth in terms of damage output, however motorized infantry gains one of these levels on infantry when it is first researched. Meaning level 1 motorized infantry equalsto level 3 infantry. Level 4 infantry is researchable as soon as level 3 motorized infantry is, thus making the difference even bigger. This means the research tree favors the use of motorized infantry when considering damage output. Up until now this is all somewhat fine though, differences among units make the game fun.

      The problem lies in the manpower costs. Motorized infantry costs 1300 manpower versus normal infantry’s 1500. While motorized infantry is better at everything (at the cost of oil).

      I think lowering the manpower requirement for militia, infantry,motorized infantry and mechanized infantry makes their differences more of a strategic concern. As things are now the high manpower requirements are a very big plus for the player that makes units that cost less manpower early on.

      This would also relate infantry and militia in a more balanced way when considered to the rest of the infantry tech tree in my opinion. Units in the infantry tech tree would all do very different things with about the same cost in manpower. Spamming units that have low manpower cost early game would become much less effective. On top of that it might make beginning games more interesting since players could grow their army size faster.

      This would also combat that later in the game when a multitude of units can be built, training infantry is often not effective anymore because of its manpower costs. In terms of manpower 1 infantry = 3.5 tactical bombers for example. When the manpower requirements for infantry will be lowered, they would become a more viable unit throughout the game during early, middle and late game.

      What do you all think?

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Edepedable ().

    • I don't know, I'm skeptical. Yes, you are right in every way about Mot. Infantry being far better than regular, but you should consider the cons.

      An infantry regiment takes 500 food, 750 goods and 1,500 manpower right? So far so good. But once you meddle with the base manpower, it starts to get a bit... wonky. An Infantry regiment is 1.5k manpower. An infantry regiment in-game is exactly 1,500 men, as far as I know. Makes sense to account 1 man for 1 manpower. So should you lower the costs, the infantry should in theory become much, much weaker. 33% weaker, a massive blow. At this point a L.6 TBomber cam obliterate 1 regiment in one run. A Nuclear Battleship, albeit a unit used much less, also kills it in one bombardment mission. We're talking same HP as AT or AA. At this point I'd rather build those at lower costs to hold off a unit till air superiority comes in. I'm not going to talk about damage, because you can imagine what that side will bring too.

      I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion on what should be changed, but the way I see it they (devs) probably want some sort of consistency when it comes to cost/durability ratio. Also, don't forget that infantry is still the most versatile unit in-game, and backbone too, considering it may be the only unit reflecting it's real cost in the game. They have no weaknesses in any territory. They can handle themselves fine as escorts for weaker units while your better units are out in front, city invaders, etc. I'd consider no disadvantages a good trade for higher cost.

      I only considered Infantry in this reply, because the other units can get a bit touchy. I would just say 1.5k manpower as the default cost, but the trade-off is the oil/metals cost,and disadvantages. I won't even touch on Mech. Infantry, because whereas the 2 different Infantry units rely on manpower alone to determine raw durability (or so I think), they have actual armour, which you know is far better at stopping deadly things than flesh is.

      Also, I would say the lower manpower on planes is OK. A plane wing isn't as big as a regiment. It takes less men to run. Same for AT, AA, Artillery, etc.
      "A nation, like an individual, to find itself must lose itself in the service of others." - L. M. K.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Shoravaz ().

    • Thank you for your reply. I have indeed considered this. However when the manpower requirements for the anti-air were lowered, the rest of the unit did not change.

      If manpower requirements for the infantry types are to be lowered I think the rest of the unit can stay as it is now. Infantry's attack, defense and hp should not go down by 33%.

      I can see that infantry seems like a beautifly balanced unit since their 1500 manpower cost relate to 15 hp. Meaning 100 men are 1hp, as is the case with anti-tank. However there are plenty of units where this is not true. Commandos cost 875 manpower and have 25 hp while artillery cost 1000 manpower and have 5 hp. I don't think the rest of the units need to logically be altered. Just the cost of manpower needs to be lower.

      I think as the way it is the infantry units fit the game really well. Except that their high manpower cost makes them impractical. This results in almost no one training infantry later on in the game. As it is they are not a 'cheap' unit like their description says. In terms of manpower they are the most expensive units in the game.

      As a 'standard' unit their usefulness throughout the game diminishes a lot. Infantry, militia, moto infantry and mechanized infantry their upgrades after level 3 are very unimpressive. Gaining only 0.5 damage versus infantry every level on the attack and 0.5 damage versus armor every 2 levels.

      As it is they are most useful in the beginning in the game, which is fine. But their high cost in manpower makes them hard to build early in the game. It is no wonder most players opt for light tanks early in the game with their 625 manpower cost in a time when manpower is in short supply.

      Besides, moto infantry is better than militia and infantry and their manpower cost already is lower.
      I think the high cost of manpower takes away from militia and infantry their backbone role and causes them to be poorly balanced into the game. They get progressively worse over time while other ground units get better.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Edepedable ().

    • I have always felt that it is strange that the most popular unit in history (infantry, composing 60-80% of major combattant armies) is one of the least-built units in the game. In fact, I rarely build it after the first round on day 1. There are three main reasons for this:
      1) in the early game, manpower is the problem. This would be alleviated by your proposed decrease.
      2) in the late game, food often becomes a key problem. Since infantry consumes most food, both in build requirements and maintenance, it becomes "expensive".
      3) in all stages, IC's are precious commodities. Infantry clogs them up for a long time (an infantry takes equal time to an LT, for example). Game functionality is very limited though (they are easily killed by advanced weaponry and don't have much killing power themselves), and choosing between an LT and an infantry isn't very hard.

      I don't think the second problem needs to be tackled; with careful planning food problems can be tackled, and the unit remains viable. The third problem is what really obsoletes it. It also isn't very realistic: infantry regiment formation involves passing a rifle to everyone and 6 weeks of basic training - incomparable to learning people to fly a plane, aim a howitzer, or drive a tank.

      So in addition to your lowered manpower proposal, I'd suggest decreasing the production time drastically as well (50% ?). Maybe we'd finally see "realistic" armies, geared much more to infantry than your average CoW army is now.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Though I did not mention this in my original post, I totally agree. There is no comparison to how much easier it is to train infantry in real life to having people use equipment. In fact, most equipment using army branches go through basic infantry training before they get additional training to use equipement. That is not reflected in the game at all.

      This also strangely sets infantry apart from militia quite a lot. I know opinions are divided on this, but when looking at militia and infantry they do somewhat the same thing in the game. Yes militia are good defenses in forrest and hills dammit! Militia takes 9 hours to train compared to infantry's 24. Quite the difference.

      So yes, I would like to see both manpower requirements and building time lowered for infantry. I think it would make for a much more unit rich and more exciting early game.

    • Edepedable wrote:

      So yes, I would like to see both manpower requirements and building time lowered for infantry. I think it would make for a much more unit rich and more exciting early game.
      I too, would like to see this.

      But, with buffs/nerfs, comes change. No doubt you know this. If infantry were simply to be reduced in costs right from the get-go, I can see a whole lot of change. Mainly in play style.

      To avoid being pelted and overrun by infantry forces early on, the only way I see it is to either counter with more infantry than the enemy, or research>produce T. Bomber immediately.

      From now on we could see massive air forces early on (yes, the upkeep of planes were increased but I can still manage a formidable air force early on). Not only are you forced to choose something to research that counters the play style that probably 85% of people would use, it takes more than a day while your enemy is happily stockpiling units. Thinking about the amount of time spent on researching then producing, it seems the only way you actually can defend relatively well is with infantry too, or pick a country that has terrain that suits tanks.

      I don't know about you, but my first things I research are AC/AT for L.Tank tree/defense against L.Tank spam then I always 100% choose Subs (considering I don't have a landlocked country which I avoid like the plague) and it's 50/50 with either air force/L. Tank. Having to chose air force 100% of the time takes fun out of the plethora of strategies you can start with, just because infantry much cheaper to produce now. I'm not saying it's impossible to L.Tank spam, or any other strategy, but is a hell of a lot harder.

      Not to mention the amount of units on the battlefield now forcing players to change strategies can also ruin the experience for new players. Starting out in a game you know nothing about, making infantry/militia because the game told you to, then just getting bombed out of oblivion wouldn't just be frustrating, it might just overwhelm them over and over to the point where they never come back.

      The only way I can see this happening in a controlled fashion is to decrease the cost/time of infantry/militia at level 3. Think of it as higher-standard equipment, more efficient services, etc. Not only does it give you the choice of either choosing Mot. Infantry right before, you can also continue down the line at reduced cost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would make it the first unit with different upkeep at different levels. Only Infantry/Militia change, to offer some bigger differences in infantry. At the point where you aren't limited to just those 2, manpower shouldn't be too much of a problem. I just don't want lower-level infantry defining the early game too much.

      I'm sorry if this post was confusing in any way, and if it's disorganized and going everywhere. I'm writing this tired, not to mention I wasn't the best in English class. :)

      EDIT: If it were up to me, I'd change the Militia cost to 750 manpower, it would only make sense as its lower production time and it's probably local population or something similar.
      "A nation, like an individual, to find itself must lose itself in the service of others." - L. M. K.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Shoravaz ().

    • Hello Shoravaz,

      Thank you for your reaction.

      I honestly don't think that spamming infantry early on will be much of a problem if they reduce the cost to 1000 manpower and have a shorter training time. I think it won't be a problem because infantry is not very strong on the attack, like in the way light tanks are. Especially on lower levels and also because units their HP is unchanged throughout the research tree, defending infantry units have a huge advantage over attacking infantry.

      Say you start with 14 infantry units and have around 6000 manpower to spend. As an example you would gain 4000 manpower every day. Lets also asume you have 6 production centers. In the new situation that means that after 24 hours you could have 20 infantry, or 22 if their production speed is indeed halved. As it is now after one day you would have 18 with these numbers. I would hardly name that spamming infantry.

      In their core provinces 14 infantry should be quite able to defend against 22 enemy infantry since their defense numbers are 50% higher with a 15% core bonus. So 50% + 15% = 65% 14 × 1.65 = 23.1. Combining this with other starting units like the AC in the right terrain and an infantry invasion is almost garanteed to end bad for the attacker. Besides, this asumes that a player would send all of its infantry, which is a very bad idea.

      Even if training some infantry at the beginning would become somewhat mandatory I still think it is a good idea. Like K.Rokossovski said it would sure be a lot more realistic. It would also give infantry units the backbone role their game description says they already have.

      Of course a change like this would first be beta tested. If it turns out that early game infantry training is indeed to much of a game changer then I think an easy solution would be to reduce the amount of manpower players start with at the beginning of maps. This way the research is completed for the LT by the time any large scale infantry training can be done and it will no longer be effective or a threat. Also, training a lot of infantry early on would seriously strain your manpower and food production. So smart players will learn soon not to over do it.

      As for your newbie argument, some people give up soon. Some make an effort to understand the game because they like it. I think it has a lot more to do with people's taste in games in general than with getting beaten to easily. In fact, one dimensional kind of players would get a bigger number of units to work with giving them better results. So if anything it would be a good thing.

      For the totallity of the game balance I consider it to be a very welcome change. Both for early on and later in any map.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Edepedable ().

    • In this I totally agree with Edepedable and Rokossovski: It's a shame that it hardly ever is reasonable to recruit infantry in CoW, whereas "spamming" infantry was what actually still happened in that time in history.
      I'm always happy to read in the newspaper of somebody building barracks, because that means he's making mistakes and I'll defeat him easily. What an ugly distortion of reality!

      So yes, infantry needs a buff and militia a smaller one (since if you buff infantry and leave militia the same, infantry would always be the better choice - which it should be in most situations, but not always).
      I also agree that production time of infantry should be reduced a bit.

      But I like it's manpower costs to be high. In real life, infantry is a choice for economically weaker, less industrialized countries, that cannot use much in war but their manpower. Militia even more so. Whereas rich countries with a lot of goods, steel and oil wouldn't let their men go to war by foot, without heavy weapons as equipment. To picture this in CoW, manpower costs should stay the same, but resources required for production and upkeep should be lowered:
      Militia: Production 200 food instead of 250.
      Militia: Production 200 goods instead of 250.
      Militia: Upkeep 40 food instead of 50.
      Infantry: Production 250 food instead of 500.
      Infantry: Production 500 goods instead of 750.
      Infantry: Upkeep 80 food instead of 90.
      (Also reduce goods and food requirements for motorized and mechanized infantry by about 20%.)
      As a result, manpower and food will limit the amount of infantry and militia you can have. And goods, steel and oil limit the amount of all other units.
      That would be realistic and also give manpower a value in the later game... which it currently does not have.

    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      But I like it's manpower costs to be high. In real life, infantry is a choice for economically weaker, less industrialized countries, that cannot use much in war but their manpower. Militia even more so. Whereas rich countries with a lot of goods, steel and oil wouldn't let their men go to war by foot, without heavy weapons as equipment. To picture this in CoW, manpower costs should stay the same, but resources required for production and upkeep should be lowered:

      Militia: Production 200 food instead of 250.
      Militia: Production 200 goods instead of 250.
      Militia: Upkeep 40 food instead of 50.
      Infantry: Production 250 food instead of 500.
      Infantry: Production 500 goods instead of 750.
      Infantry: Upkeep 80 food instead of 90.
      (Also reduce goods and food requirements for motorized and mechanized infantry by about 20%.)
      As a result, manpower and food will limit the amount of infantry and militia you can have. And goods, steel and oil limit the amount of all other units.
      That would be realistic and also give manpower a value in the later game... which it currently does not have.
      I seriously doubt that changing the upkeep in the way you propose will change anything to the meta. Compared to someting like a ligth tank that has an upkeep of 25 food, 80 is still quite a lot. The reason for not training infantry is not its upkeep however. It is the amount of manpower you have to spend on the unit initially.

      Just make a comparison. If you get up to a point in the game where you have 30k of manpower, you can train 20 infantry. Or, you can train 20 planes for 8000, 10 light tanks for 6250, 8 anti-air for 6000, 8 artillery for another 8000 and then add 2 SP artillery for 1000 and be left with 750 for 1 SP anti-air. This latter option gives 49 units instead of 20. On top of this these are all units that can work together and support each other. The 20 infantry have an upkeep of 20*90=1800 in food. And the mix of units has 1200+,250+400+,400+100+50 = 2400 upkeep in just food. So with the same amount of manpower spent, the mix of units gives you a higher food upkeep but is still prefered.

      The problem is the amount of manpower needed to spend on an infantry unit. Spending 1500 manpower on infantry with 90 food upkeep a day is a worse trade than spending 400 manpower on a tactical bomber with 60 food upkeep because of the manpower cost. Not the food upkeep.

      Like I said in my original post, the amount of manpower being so high for infantry makes no sense at all. Especially when comparing the power output of normal infantry versus that of motorized infantry and mechanized infantry in relation to their manpower cost. Infantry/militia costs 1500 manpwer, moto infantry costs 1300 and mechanized infantry costs 1200. Since the differences in these units is already quite present in added oil use and steel cost for moto infantry and mechanized infantry respectively, I see no reason not to make manpower cost equal. Right now, their manpower cost sets them apart a lot more than their other traits. Even commandos cost less and they are way more powerful.

      The reason I consider 1000 for all to be a good number is because some of the infantry tech tree units cost 1000 manpower already. If they all cost around the same amount of manpower than choosing one over the other will be more of a choice in what a unit can or can not do, than its cost in manpower. Which I think will make for a more interresting meta. Besides this, their manpower cost would still be higher than that of most machinery, but not insanely high in a way that makes you not want to build them.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Edepedable ().

    • I'd like lower manpower costs for infantry, militia, motorized infantry and mechanized infantry too without changing attack, defense or hit points. Few people build many infantry after the early game. Their manpower cost is high. So, you can often build more of other units when you are constrained by manpower. Late in the game, most units that are built are usually fast units unless constrained by oil. Maybe more players would build more infantry type units.
      As the game goes on, their is a bias toward building fast units.
      The leading player or coalition often has multiple advantages (military, economic, perhaps skill).
      It would be interesting to see what would happen with lower manpower cost for these units.

    • In my opinion, the manpower costs are all pretty realistic. The gap between reality and the game lies in logistics: the difficulty of moving the supplies of oil and munitions forward as fast as the oil-consuming units can theoretically move. It is as if the oil upkeep costs of units in the game reflect only the cost of moving the tanks, not of moving their supplies. In reality, most transport was done by horses in WW2 (at least for the continental European countries). To simulate this realistically, you would need the oil-consuming ground units to consume more and more oil the faster they move across the map, and the air units to consume more oil when moving to a new air base.

      We don't want to simulate logistics like HOI or allow the research of varied buffs to units (e.g. extra AT power for infantry) like HOI. Because then we would just play HOI if we want those complexities. Perhaps I should get back to HOI some day, but for now I like CoW better.

    • It does have an unrealistic result though. In some players not even having any infantry at all later in the game instead of infantry being a sizable portion of an army.

      It becomes more realistic if you think about the units as what they are, regiments and batalions. A light tank unit consists of 625 manpower. With a typical crew of 4 that would mean a light tank unit would have around 100 tanks, with 125 people working in support roles. Or, the way I see it, there are 50 tanks in 1 light tank unit with 300 infantry to fight alongside the tanks and 125 manpower in support roles. In this way the support lines are there, you just don't see them.

      This is also reflected in the bigger units like battleships and railroad guns having a name, since those are single machines.

      Regiments vary in size between armies and through the ages. Around ww2 it is not that strange for a regiment to consist of 1000 men.

      Besides, anti-tank and artillery regiments also require 1000 manpower to be built. So as far as realism and consistency goes, its not that strange to have 1000 manpower requirements for infantry/militia/moto infantry and mecha infantry.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Edepedable ().

    • Fair point. But a couple of details should modify your blanket 1000 manpower build cost for all infantry. The biggest is that you have included support people in the armor units as you describe them, but only the fighting edge in your 1000. Secondly, the difference in manpower cost for motorized and mechanized and foot infantry is that, as you progress from foot to motorized to mechanized, a real division had progressively larger amounts of armor in the mix. Which explains both the progression in their power and the decrease in their manpower cost. So maybe the manpower costs should be 1200, 1100 and 1000. And the artillery and AT should probably be 900 rather than 1000, because they really did have fewer people in them than an infantry unit.

    • Also the lower training time for foot infantry makes sense (but still should be much higher than militia, so you should also reduce the training time for militia just a tiny bit). And militia of course should have the same manpower cost as infantry.

      By the same token the manpower upkeep should be reduced to 100 and 70 rather than 110 and 75.

    • Same thing could be said for infantry. Having 700 riflemen with 100 machine gunners and then commanders + the cooks could also result in 1000 men. I think a big reason in arillery costing 1000 manpower is in its support. It takes a crew of 10 to operate a 152mm howitzer gun smoothly on the ground. Bringing ammo around, carrying the guns, aiming and such takes lots of people.

      Though the most imporant thing is balance in the game. Not historical accuracy. As it is now, infantry units need to actually become cheap units. Infantry is unbalanced because it is the most expensive unit in the game (manpower wise) while having very unimpressive level ups after level 3. Since manpower is not something that players have in the early to mid game, their relatively strong early level ups are useless. To make infantry a more viable unit throughout the game, their manpower cost needs to be lowered.

      I find it hard to put numbers to training time, but what you say makes sense. I supose artillery taking 20 hours is somewhat realistic, since they have a lot to learn. The 9 hours for militia makes sense since you just give a couple of people some equipment and an instruction booklet with it (i know thats not all). So I guess infantry should be in between? At 15 hours maybe? And anti-tank at 17? I do think all these changes need some testing.

    • Edepedable wrote:

      The reason for not training infantry is not its upkeep however. It is the amount of manpower you have to spend on the unit initially.
      That totally depends on
      a) The size of the map. Bigger maps last longer, which makes a big difference to your relation manpower <-> resources (after about 2 weeks, you're never tight on manpower any more). Secondly, after a while you'll have a wider country with lower average morale on the larger maps - which doesn't matter to your manpower, but to your resource income.
      b) Your personal strategy. If you're planning long-term and first raise industry/infrastructure and only afterwards build a lot of units, you won't be tight on manpower from the beginning on.

      With the current balancing, infantry doesn't make sense for aggressive players (those which build a lot of units from the start) and/or on the smaller maps due to the high manpower cost.
      And it also doesn't make sense for passive players (those who start with buildings and build many units later on) and/or on larger maps because of the high food (and goods) costs.

      Since certainly nobody wants infantry to be the ultimate one and only choice in all situations, we shouldn't reduce both. So I would only reduce food and goods production and upkeep costs (additionally production time a bit), because that would
      1.: ... realistically reflect poor countries with high population having a lot of infantry and few ships/planes/tanks/artillery/etc - on the other hand rich/industrialized countries with low population having few infantry and more ships/planes/tanks/artillery/etc.
      2.: ... manpower having a value also on larger maps and also for passive players. Which would make the game more interesting on these maps / for these players.