Militia and ROW are mostly useless, some ideas to improve

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

  • Militia and ROW are mostly useless, some ideas to improve

    Militia = Newer players overbuild barracks all over the place. This causes a huge demand for food and goods. Later in the game if you expand at all, you have to turn most if not all barracks off and goods are used to maintain the growing population. A level 1 light tank that attacks a level 1 militia on a forest/hill province wins, even though the militia has a 75% province buff. Militia NEVER increase their speed (no matter the level) of 15 kph which is only 3 better than a slow railgun. In a proper stack with mixed units, militia's ONLY value is they add some HP. They have very poor anti-air ability and melt to bombers. Players that research/level militia are wasting time and resources that are better spent researching much more effective units. Solution = Don't buff this unit, just remove it from the game and make infantry a tad easier/faster to build (with less resources to maintain as well). No good/great player uses militia, they just don't.

    ROW access = Players abuse this mechanic in two ways. First, many request ROW access from all inactive/NPC countries and then use that to quickly/easily take their cities OR to sneak attack an active player that borders the AI. Some players also abuse ROW to backstab "allies" by moving units in quickly into unguarded provinces. Solution = AI can only offer peace, never ROW. Also, add a diplomatic option that is a real NAP (non-aggression pact) and has a 24 hour (or longer) unbreakable timer (like the peace period) and has to be renewed by both parties. It cannot be cancelled unless both parties agree. This would add better gameplay to people that dont trust their neighbor (and feel ROW gives away too much). Allies that go inactive have a higher risk of being attacked...as they should.

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

  • I think the point of militia was solely from a defensive standpoint. Militia is just in case you're unit production cannot go as fast as you need and sometimes about 5 barracks in high manpower provinces can allow just a few militia. I do hate militia though, they are terrible, but necessary. You need some unit that you can mass produce, just in case, when you barely have any industrial complexes, even if it's weak militia (the manpower needed should be lowered though). You also mentioned making "infantry a tad easier/faster to build". The only thing I would understand in regards to that is if you allow lvl 1 infrastructure for infantry, but then it should take longer to build to decrease excessive infantry. If you really want something to happen to infantry I need more details than that to actually agree or disagree with you there. It's a very unclear solution.

    I consider right of way as a more secure version of a non-aggression pact, if they try to attack me, they cannot initially. Then I may prepare for whatever they're planning b/c of their suspicious activity. Your solution sounds great for the AIs; and regarding the real NAP logistics, you could stop all NAP allies on your border, if any are already in your land, they automatically take the shortest route to your border (includes RoW for auto-home returns so war is not declared). The timer could require a renewal on the NAP every 5 days (you are able to renew early too), and the game would give a popup for that every day, and add a number for the diplomacy tab notifications if you close it or have an adblocker.

    Overall, you just need to be more thorough whenever you suggest any solutions, you just gave the bare basics, we need to speak of the exact details, what buildings, or resources are required for the unit or whatever.
    "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

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

  • Lukenick wrote:

    I think the point of militia was solely from a defensive standpoint. Militia is just in case you're unit production cannot go as fast as you need and sometimes about 5 barracks in high manpower provinces can allow just a few militia. I do hate militia though, they are terrible, but necessary. You need some unit that you can mass produce, just in case, when you barely have any industrial complexes, even if it's weak militia (the manpower needed should be lowered though). You also mentioned making "infantry a tad easier/faster to build". The only thing I would understand in regards to that is if you allow lvl 1 infrastructure for infantry, but then it should take longer to build to decrease excessive infantry. If you really want something to happen to infantry I need more details than that to actually agree or disagree with you there. It's a very unclear solution.

    I consider right of way as a more secure version of a non-aggression pact, if they try to attack me, they cannot initially. Then I may prepare for whatever they're planning b/c of their suspicious activity. Your solution sounds great for the AIs; and regarding the real NAP logistics, you could stop all NAP allies on your border, if any are already in your land, they automatically take the shortest route to your border (includes RoW for auto-home returns so war is not declared). The timer could require a renewal on the NAP every 5 days (you are able to renew early too), and the game would give a popup for that every day, and add a number for the diplomacy tab notifications if you close it or have an adblocker.

    Overall, you just need to be more thorough whenever you suggest any solutions, you just gave the bare basics, we need to speak of the exact details, what buildings, or resources are required for the unit or whatever.
    You have no clue...why would a player need an infrastructure to build infantry? I meant the time and cost to build (goods/food/manpower). And if we have a ROW agreement, I can still attack you. ROW actually makes it EASIER for me to take your provinces quickly. Please don't comment if you can't comprehend the basics of the game.

    You don't need militia, ever. Diplomacy and smart use of your factory cities is the solution. Eventually you might even half to "kill off" militia because they are so terrible.
  • BeerBelly wrote:

    I hope we meet on the battlefield Kanaris because your militia wont stop ANY of my units. You obviously don't see the big picture of newer players wasting time, resources, research on a slow unit which never improves speed and has limited use. And yes, when you are negative food and low on goods, militia become a very useless unit.
    By all means please feel free to remain snugly confined in the recesses of you narrow mind it will make my task of defeating you sooooo much easier.

    You dont even see the contradiction in your own words. When something has limited use (as you youref claim above) then by definition its NOT useless.

    There in lies the crux of the whole argument I never said militia is the best unit in the game I maintain that it does have its uses in certain tactical situations. If you can't or do nor want to see that, its fine just dont bloody use it but quit complaining about. Let people decide for them selves and agree to disagree
  • BeerBelly wrote:

    You have no clue...why would a player need an infrastructure to build infantry? I meant the time and cost to build (goods/food/manpower). And if we have a ROW agreement, I can still attack you. ROW actually makes it EASIER for me to take your provinces quickly. Please don't comment if you can't comprehend the basics of the game.
    You don't need militia, ever. Diplomacy and smart use of your factory cities is the solution. Eventually you might even half to "kill off" militia because they are so terrible.
    The idea for having infrastructure for infantry was stupid I know, I was just thinking of making infantry easier to build and, well that would make it easier, but yes I agree it's a stupid idea. I was trying to play along with your idea of making it easier to make infantry, that was my best solution albeit terrible. Unless you just decreased the manpower needs of infantry, then it's reasonable. The goods and food for infantry is fine for infantry if you ask me, the main reason people don't get infantry is because of it's manpower constraints.
    As for ROW, I know it makes it easier to attack people, that's why I don't really love to use it. When I see somebody in my land under a ROW agreement, I get upset and I want them out, and I might declare war on them for ignoring me. I would love to have some sort of NAP that works better than ROW, but as of now there is nothing good for that purpose. Many times I thought about using my ROW, usually with an AI, to base troops in all the main provinces, and then just declare war. But there is usually a delay on attacks to allies when you have a ROW agreement, it just makes it a tad bit harder to declare war. If there was a NAP that didn't come with a ROW but still made attacks on me just as hard, I would never use ROW again (as far as I'm aware at least).

    Now when you say that people NEVER NEED MILITIA, there is one main time that you might want it. In early game, if 2 or more countries that border you team up against you and you can't find ANY help, militia MIGHT be beneficial if you can use its defensive boost to your advantage. Sometimes diplomacy does not work in favor for you, and may in fact make it worse for you. Once the militia is done serving its purpose though, I may want to kill of the majority of them, but leave the rest in some essential border provinces with (potential) enemies. Now have I ever had to do this? No, but some have, and I'm sure it has sometimes worked well for them, depending on how fluent they are in the battle mechanics. I would definitely favor tanks though for any province (other than city and maybe mountains too) over all the other units, but that's where infantry may help. Sometimes you don't have enough factory cities to deploy enough tanks/infantry/whatever unit you like, and need some barracks to TEMPORARILY create militia for defense (WHICH WILL BE DISABLED LATER). I hate using militia, but sometimes it's the only thing that seems reasonable in my unfortunate situation. Right now my militia is level 1, in research, that's it. I have no need b/c the game I'm in is just AI and allies on my side (alliance map), but just in case, besides I had some space in research for 20 minutes on militia anyways.
    "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
  • Kanaris wrote:

    No such thing as a useless unit just unimaginative commanders. If you dont like militia dont use it, but not by any means does it make it useless
    No really, Militia is pretty much useless, once you get to the higher tiers. I think there should be a mass produced unit, but it should be VERY weak and made to be used in mass numbers, militia's aren't that, they are groups of people guarding an area with little military training and some guns. A better mass-produced unit that only requires a barracks would be conscripts or something, not good at defense and not good at attack, just bleh.
    "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
  • BeerBelly wrote:

    No good/great player uses militia, they just don't.
    There you go, starting this conversation right off with an unjustified claim.

    I use Militia...some of the time. And I find them very useful in several situations. Among them, is escort duty for that unit that you said was the only one slower than it, the Railroad Gun. Sure, Militia are pretty sad on the battlefield -- especially against bombers and tanks -- but they do take the heat off the RR Gun in their primary role...as pawns.

    Yes, that is what the ubiquitous Militia is used for, as pawns.


    BeerBelly wrote:

    AI can only offer peace, never ROW. Also, add a diplomatic option that is a real NAP (non-aggression pact) and has a 24 hour (or longer) unbreakable timer (like the peace period) and has to be renewed by both parties.
    I happen to like and hate the idea of a true NAP. The fact is, anyone at any time can betray anyone (except in team games). That's life....it sucks, but there we are.

    Now, I have an idea that might make the game a bit more fair, and ironically, more realistic. The real problem is in the short-cutting aspects of having a RoW with another player and/or the AI. Instead of letting all units pass through an RoW partner's land at 80% of speed, you should be able to pass through at the full 100% of speed for RoW (and Shared Maps and coalition/team mates, too).

    Now, the fix would be to disally that full speed near urban provinces (or near all "factory" provinces with an IC). So, under a RoW, you can go at full speed through your ally's lands, but you either can't enter their urban provinces or make is so that when in an urban province, or any province of theirs that directly-adjoins one of their urban provinces, you can't travel at a speed faster than if in enemy territory (the 50% speed penalty). At least this would deter (though not prevent) betrayal. This would also make it slower/harder to take over easy-AI targets.

    This variable-speed idea would automatically make units try to route around urban provinces when you are targeting a distant way-point, so that would prevent the accidental-appearance of an attempt to take over an ally's territory. Thus, one would have to deliberately force a unit's path to pass through slower territory to set up a betrayal. And so, by that obvious-slow path deliberate-ness, you can identify a potential backstabber before they actually pull off the backstabbing.

    Yes, this is a good idea. I'm so glad I thought of it. Too bad the devs likely won't even consider it. Heck, they probably won't even read this.


    Lukenick wrote:

    Militia is just in case you're unit production cannot go as fast as you need and sometimes about 5 barracks in high manpower provinces can allow just a few militia. I do hate militia though, they are terrible, but necessary. You need some unit that you can mass produce, just in case, when you barely have any industrial complexes, even if it's weak militia (the manpower needed should be lowered though)
    Well, having a high Manpower cost does help to drive the sales of Gold to buy more Manpower but, as I argued above, this is a noob-trap. However, that Manpower usually isn't an issue in the late-game. And though many players don't use Militia (even those that do use Militia early in the game but eventually stop as the match progresses), a properly-upgraded Militia can still be useful later on when Manpower is no longer a problem.

    If you've survived the first several weeks/several months of play, by now, you've likely got a large empire and have literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Manpower available. So building Militia now is more of a question of the Food maintenance than anything else. But even in the late-game, Militia can be good to use. I do, sometimes. And when I do, it surprises and pisses off my opponents who are so sure that they (the Militia) will be a pushover unit...and aren't. And nothing pisses off a heavy golder more than to give them a giant stack of Militia as a target with tons of other units in support and all their gold-bought bombers and tanks melt in the face of what seemed like an easy target.

    I gotta admit, I really love pissing off heavy golders. It really makes my day when they rage-quit the game for awhile. Perhaps I should change my name from Diabolical to "PissesOffHeavyGolders" :-D



    BeerBelly wrote:

    I hope we meet on the battlefield Kanaris because your militia wont stop ANY of my units. You obviously don't see the big picture of newer players wasting time, resources, research on a slow unit which never improves speed and has limited use. And yes, when you are negative food and low on goods, militia become a very useless unit.
    And there is the crux of the matter -- the real reason many people hate Militia...the Manpower requirement. Obviously, it is a weak unit for the amount of Manpower required. But that's because that early Barracks rush is a trap laid out by the developers to suck in the noobs who don't realize that Manpower is actually a secondary premium point, behind Gold. The point is that that new players quickly build a lot of Militia as a fast and easy unit, but then are dumbfounded why this seemingly-slow game doesn't let them build more.

    So they then buy Gold to use for making more Manpower....ergo, it is the secondary premium point system -- especially since you can't trade Manpower with other players. And, btw, that is why I espouse the idea of a black [secondary] market where you can trade otherwise-normally-untradeable items, like Manpower, mercs, assassins-for-hire (non-Gold-based "Agents" with limited but always-successful missions), unit trades with members of an enemy coalition, etc.

    Back on point, the high Manpower cost is a sucker's bet for raising more revenue for the company. But that fact doesn't delegitimize Militia's value. The key to proper employment of the Militia is to use it for garrison duty in a forest or hill fort, well fortified, with the proper support units...AA Guns and AT Guns. Those three units together also do a fine job of escorting Artillery Guns or RR Guns. Now, would you want Militia as a frontline unit? Of course not. But not every unit serves the same purpose. So, barring the obvious Manpower troop for noobs, a good Field Marshall will find that Militia are quite capable of doing there job.

    Now, it might make sense to offer some better improvements for the Militia as their level is increased. After all, they do represent the partisan force in this game. And a properly motivated partisan can achieve great success when defending home and hearth. Thus it would make sense to let higher level Militia gain an additional core province bonus per level (i.e., +5 points per level above level 1).


    BeerBelly wrote:

    You have no clue...why would a player need an infrastructure to build infantry? I meant the time and cost to build (goods/food/manpower). And if we have a ROW agreement, I can still attack you. ROW actually makes it EASIER for me to take your provinces quickly. Please don't comment if you can't comprehend the basics of the game.

    You don't need militia, ever. Diplomacy and smart use of your factory cities is the solution. Eventually you might even half to "kill off" militia because they are so terrible.
    Nope. Argued in favor of Militia, further above. Sure, diplomacy is a solution, but it is not the only solution. But if you need to "kill off" your Militia, then you've obviously not been using them correctly. They shouldn't be a burden. Just because they have Food and Goods maintenance requirements, doesn't make them a bad unit type. By your argument, Tanks are a bad unit just because, for me, I have to "kill off" a bunch of them because they suck up my Oil with their high Oil maintenance requirements.

    Also, if you have to frequently "kill off" units, then you aren't being aggressive enough in the game.

    Solution: GO TO WAR WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS!!!
    It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

    The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3
  • Kanaris wrote:

    You don't even see the contradiction in your own words. When something has limited use (as you you claim above) then by definition its NOT useless.
    BRAVO!!! Well, said.

    Lukenick wrote:

    The idea for having infrastructure for infantry was stupid I know, I was just thinking of making infantry easier to build and, well that would make it easier, but yes I agree it's a stupid idea.
    Actually, it's not that stupid of an idea. You're trying to come up with ideas to help. And, as the saying goes, "there's no such thing as a bad idea, just poorly executed ones". Simply put, there might be a way to make the Militia less-expensive or less-"useless" as some seem to think. But therein lies the problem -- as mentioned above -- that Bytro wants the Militia to be a noob-bait unit for encouraging more gold premium point purchases.

    Lukenick wrote:

    The goods and food for infantry is fine for infantry if you ask me, the main reason people don't get infantry is because of it's manpower constraints.
    To me, the real problem with Infantry isn't the Manpower -- that prevents over-building of them -- it is Food maintenance. In the mid-game (and later), for most players, Food production pales in the face of unit demand and thus many players suffer a death spiral from overbuilding units (especially Infantry and the like) or by underbuilding Food production. Either way, for those players, they open themselves to the very-dangerous situation where a few well-placed economic spies can push their barely-functioning empire into a self-fueling burn pit of angry rioting citizens who rebel in your provinces and lower the morale so bad that you can't recover enough to make your Food production meet the demand.

    Actually, exploiting the Death Spiral is a strategy that can be quite effective against over-stretched late-game empires. It's actually an even better strategy against over-stretched early-game empires where the player in question hasn't even had the time to really grow their core Food provinces, having bought up tons of forces with all their gold.

    Did I mention how much I love pissing off heavy golders...especially after they've run out of that Gold and can't afford to buy any more? HA HA HA HA HA!


    Lukenick wrote:

    Many times I thought about using my ROW, usually with an AI, to base troops in all the main provinces, and then just declare war. But there is usually a delay on attacks to allies when you have a ROW agreement, it just makes it a tad bit harder to declare war. If there was a NAP that didn't come with a ROW but still made attacks on me just as hard, I would never use ROW again (as far as I'm aware at least).
    Actually, I find that using the AI players can come in quite handy. As an example, I often will send some defensive units to shore up an AI's cities that is between me and a particularly-persistent human opponent. This way, I can use the AI's forces as a shield for my own empire. Plus, so long as an AI player is allied with me, their core provinces are producing at 100% (instead of 25%) and they can put excess resources on the Market, which I then scoop up right away.


    And, after the AI's armies have been bled dry by my opponents, I can then take over their factories and use them to produce more armies near to my enemies and then push into the enemy's territory, while preserving the AI's more-useless provinces for a later capital farming technique to keep my own province morale maxed out (it's a whole big strategy).


    T-3PO wrote:

    I only have militia in major cities.
    That is actually where you really don't want them...Militia get no bonus in cities, they get that 75% bonus in hills and forests. As weak as they are, Militia do have a usefulness that you are just wasting. Put them in fortresses either at choke points or in a line of provinces -- all with those hills or forests -- and use them to defend in a way where their multiplier helps. Now, if you want them on the move, tie them to stacks of AA Guns and Anti-Tank guns with Artillery so that they can be useful in a more-forward position. But on defense, at least keep them to the hills with forts and AA/AT Guns.

    JCS Darragh wrote:

    Kanaris wrote:

    No such thing as a useless unit just unimaginative commanders. If you dont like militia dont use it, but not by any means does it make it useless
    No really, Militia is pretty much useless, once you get to the higher tiers. I think there should be a mass produced unit, but it should be VERY weak and made to be used in mass numbers, militia's aren't that, they are groups of people guarding an area with little military training and some guns. A better mass-produced unit that only requires a barracks would be conscripts or something, not good at defense and not good at attack, just bleh.
    Militia represent the mass produced "easy" unit. They are the partisan. They are the patriot. They might not be well-trained, but they stand in the gap when no one else will. They are brave. They are heroes. They are forced to protect their homes. That is why they should be given an additional defensive bonus in core provinces when they are increased in tech levels through research.
    It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

    The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3
  • Diabolical wrote:

    Militia represent the mass produced "easy" unit. They are the partisan. They are the patriot. They might not be well-trained, but they stand in the gap when no one else will. They are brave. They are heroes. They are forced to protect their homes. That is why they should be given an additional defensive bonus in core provinces when they are increased in tech levels through research.
    Dang, that was deep...
    "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
  • I use milita tonhild down a province while the moral goes up. Stops revolts. Quciknto build. They're also good to slow incoming attacks so your AA and any long range troop can better more rounds dropped. I also use them as scouts and along strategic roads to slow any attack and alert what's in the stack.

    Theres a use for every piece. I used militia and anti tank and 5☆ fort to hold off a couple waves of attacks. Then added arties and some air.
    Was quite formidable defense and cheap.
  • Add me to the ones that ignore the existence of Militia - yes I do consider them a pure waste of manpower, food, and goods at the start of the game. I also agree that they seem tempting to the new players, misleading them to greatly abuse them. Still, they exist in the game, and we are in the Suggestions domain: let's try to be constructive then:

    1. Remove the need to research Militia Lvl1 (it could be an already researched technology). Many people see only that they are fast to research, while I see 1500 Goods thrown in the sink, exactly at the moment that I need them most. I flatly refuse to waste my precious starting Goods for a (politely) "weak unit", instead of using them for a new Infra.Exactly the same applies for the Rare.

    2. Certainly remove the million levels of upgrade. The more the levels, the more the newer players will be tempted to research them, without realizing that no matter what is the level the opponent will come with planes and tanks (where Militia will still be weak).

    Don't get me wrong - I can see how to use Militia properly (and it is NOT to defend territory at the start of the game, as the newer players think). It is simply that their uses are so limited (and require very careful handling) that it tends to be a weapon for self-destruction.
  • BeerBelly wrote:

    Militia = Newer players overbuild barracks all over the place. This causes a huge demand for food and goods. Later in the game if you expand at all, you have to turn most if not all barracks off and goods are used to maintain the growing population. A level 1 light tank that attacks a level 1 militia on a forest/hill province wins, even though the militia has a 75% province buff. Militia NEVER increase their speed (no matter the level) of 15 kph which is only 3 better than a slow railgun. In a proper stack with mixed units, militia's ONLY value is they add some HP. They have very poor anti-air ability and melt to bombers. Players that research/level militia are wasting time and resources that are better spent researching much more effective units. Solution = Don't buff this unit, just remove it from the game and make infantry a tad easier/faster to build (with less resources to maintain as well). No good/great player uses militia, they just don't.

    ROW access = Players abuse this mechanic in two ways. First, many request ROW access from all inactive/NPC countries and then use that to quickly/easily take their cities OR to sneak attack an active player that borders the AI. Some players also abuse ROW to backstab "allies" by moving units in quickly into unguarded provinces. Solution = AI can only offer peace, never ROW. Also, add a diplomatic option that is a real NAP (non-aggression pact) and has a 24 hour (or longer) unbreakable timer (like the peace period) and has to be renewed by both parties. It cannot be cancelled unless both parties agree. This would add better gameplay to people that dont trust their neighbor (and feel ROW gives away too much). Allies that go inactive have a higher risk of being attacked...as they should.
    Militia: i never produce them, they are weak, slow and cost a lot of manpower and upkeep compared to their strength. They either have to remove this unit or lower the manpower cost. It's just not interesting.

    ROW: we all have the same arsenal, ROW is great to invade AI or a player and is amazing to attack a gold user. This knowledge about ROW is a huge advantage for players who take the effort to master the game mechanics. Also in real wartime ROW can be given. As for allies, ROW is not for allies. You either give me shared maps so i can see what you are doing or you don't get to move trough my territorries. In fact i don't give anyone shared maps for espionage and leaking risks. Only my coalition partners get to see what i'm doing.
    BMfox
    Moderator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
  • BMfox wrote:

    BeerBelly wrote:

    Militia = Newer players overbuild barracks all over the place. This causes a huge demand for food and goods. Later in the game if you expand at all, you have to turn most if not all barracks off and goods are used to maintain the growing population. A level 1 light tank that attacks a level 1 militia on a forest/hill province wins, even though the militia has a 75% province buff. Militia NEVER increase their speed (no matter the level) of 15 kph which is only 3 better than a slow railgun. In a proper stack with mixed units, militia's ONLY value is they add some HP. They have very poor anti-air ability and melt to bombers. Players that research/level militia are wasting time and resources that are better spent researching much more effective units. Solution = Don't buff this unit, just remove it from the game and make infantry a tad easier/faster to build (with less resources to maintain as well). No good/great player uses militia, they just don't.

    ROW access = Players abuse this mechanic in two ways. First, many request ROW access from all inactive/NPC countries and then use that to quickly/easily take their cities OR to sneak attack an active player that borders the AI. Some players also abuse ROW to backstab "allies" by moving units in quickly into unguarded provinces. Solution = AI can only offer peace, never ROW. Also, add a diplomatic option that is a real NAP (non-aggression pact) and has a 24 hour (or longer) unbreakable timer (like the peace period) and has to be renewed by both parties. It cannot be cancelled unless both parties agree. This would add better gameplay to people that dont trust their neighbor (and feel ROW gives away too much). Allies that go inactive have a higher risk of being attacked...as they should.
    Militia: i never produce them, they are weak, slow and cost a lot of manpower and upkeep compared to their strength. They either have to remove this unit or lower the manpower cost. It's just not interesting.
    ROW: we all have the same arsenal, ROW is great to invade AI or a player and is amazing to attack a gold user. This knowledge about ROW is a huge advantage for players who take the effort to master the game mechanics. Also in real wartime ROW can be given. As for allies, ROW is not for allies. You either give me shared maps so i can see what you are doing or you don't get to move trough my territorries. In fact i don't give anyone shared maps for espionage and leaking risks. Only my coalition partners get to see what i'm doing.
    I produced them at first... But then i realize they are just like security guards in several cases. Or most cases. When i was new i did that and when the enemy attacked. I use Militia to attack tanks! What is that? I normally produce 2 in each game in case some sort of mad commander launched 50 rockets and destroy all my main forces.
    Criticism is the key to being proud but empathy is the key to being successful.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost
    Ask not what your countrycan do for you, ask what you can do for your country. John F Kennedy
    Time is beyond our control, and the clock keeps ticking regardless of how we lead our lives. Priority management is the answer to maximizing the time we have. John C. Maxwell
  • Nobody mentioned this, but Lvl 1 Militia do NO damage to buildings. Not sure how much it helps, but I use them to take ICs after clearing troops with Arty or Air to minimize repair costs.

    When barracks with Militia in production is captured, don't need to occupy an IC that can produce something better (i.e., anything else).

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