Militia and ROW are mostly useless, some ideas to improve

  • Kanaris wrote:

    That already exists your core provinces get 15% defense bonus to all units and there are of course forts that can be built for damage reduction to units.

    But I fail to see the logic of advocating for the removal of militia, don't like'em dont use them, problem solved.
    mmmmm i suppose he could be talking about noobs that spam militia like its fat grease and, with good cause, lose all the army therefor are more of aproblem for newplayers rather then experianced one that figure out this and never use them again
  • Well I guess I am noob as I use militia. Albeit not often, but in very specific situations and they accomplish their job admirably more often than not.

    The part I dont understand why are people asking for militia to be removed. I have build strats a few times and really tried hard to use them but they are never as effective or versatile as rockets... You don't see me asking for strats to be removed, I simply do not research them. So please do the same dont research militia and let the rest of us noobs that find uses for militia to build them. Feel to laugh at us all you want but quit your bellyaching please.
  • oh i will...... every time i see someone with a lv6 militia i just laugh my way to his capital in a single lv 1 medium tank. i dont use them cause of the terrible stats ( good only in a specific scenario and not even then) and the huge hit on manpower and resource and again, i have to say it more clearly, the sh*t stats, they get cut throught with almost anything else (apart of paras apparently)
    with that resources spent on studying them, upgradeing them and building them could better be invested on more useful units
    i call it noob unit cause lots of user19288274 makes them, probably figuring them as really powerful and cheap therefor making russian mentality of "just send wave of soldier at them" if you use it im sorry for your state thats all. :thumbsup:
  • JCS Darragh wrote:

    Why not just remove militia entirely?
    JCS, if you would care to read the discussion thread, you would have your answer.

    Anyways, I currently have a (lazy) game, playing the Soviet Union on historical 1939 map with 25 players. My entire West Flank is defended by Militia icw AA, AT and Arty.
    Why Militia? Because I am not going to move on that front. So Militia is doing the job and I am happy not to spend more on the defense of that line.
    Just imagine I would have to produce Infantry for that def-line.... The horror! The horror! (most of you too young to know what I just quoted, I guess :)))

    BTW, I never have manpower issues and I never have grain issues. If that is your reason for not using militia where they fit, then it is not the militias fault, but your country management...

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

  • Spiffolo wrote:

    oh i will...... every time i see someone with a lv6 militia i just laugh my way to his capital in a single lv 1 medium tank. i dont use them cause of the terrible stats ( good only in a specific scenario and not even then) and the huge hit on manpower and resource and again, i have to say it more clearly, the sh*t stats, they get cut throught with almost anything else (apart of paras apparently)
    with that resources spent on studying them, upgradeing them and building them could better be invested on more useful units
    i call it noob unit cause lots of user19288274 makes them, probably figuring them as really powerful and cheap therefor making russian mentality of "just send wave of soldier at them" if you use it im sorry for your state thats all. :thumbsup:

    I just don't understand people who always think in mono-cultures.

    - your LTs will run straight to their deaths, when attacking an objective with a few militia supported by AT (and accompanying AA and Arty).
    - your Tacs will get shredded by militia supported by AA (and accompanying AT and Arty)
    - your [any unit] will get shredded by militia supported by [the right mix of other troops].
    etc. and so forth...

    Militia by itself is not much, but neither is AT or AA by itself. Militia provides a lot of ultra-cheap HP and some def to the group they are in. They will transform the useless-by-themselves-only heap of HP-less AT into a formidable tank barrier.
    Same goes for AA etc.

    Asking for removal of militia is a ' noob-question' IMHO. Just don't use them if you don't like them and keep building strats and cruisers or MTs and HTs (just to mention a few units that I never-ever research or build, but fail to ask to be removed, because maybe you like to use them...)

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

  • Because all other units at least have a utility, Even nuclear sub or strategic bomber is somehow used even if once every blue moon. Militia have the exact utility of wet paper, there is a reason why no one above a certain skill level even look at them, don’t believe me? Check the PL or the dirty dozen or the World Cup and see the stats if anyone even used them, we are talking about the best players in the world and close runner ups there... I can use a broken fork to eat soups but that doesn’t mean it has to be used. And seen that lots if not all of new players think of them as the go-to unit to makes means there is some foggy explanation in the tutorial so they actually are not improving their skills nor learning how to play the game in an efficient way. ||

    You can say “it’s a game and I play as I want. So if you don’t use them leave them
    ” but then don’t complain if other people actually want them to either be removed(resolve the questionable problem to new players so they can use units that allows them to be competitive) or get them a buff or at least reduce all of the malus of it(so to make them at least considerable in a plan therefor even helping noobs) because then you don’t actually want to improve the game for all but just be a defender for a terrible unit for the sake of being a contrarian :huh:

    All of this argument is null. Because you are just adding other units in support to militia, but instead my argument of a single medium lv 1 shred a single militia lv6 it’s well on ground and calculator at hand. Damn a LT lv1 against a militia lv6 will win!
    Don’t go chase a “welllll if the militia is supported with an AT and arty then the medium is gone” because it’s not the militia strong but the AT and arty! You just gave me 3 example and in all of them the militia is just there to suck dmg while using the proper unit for the fight, which means I can place any unit in that stack to suck the dmg and pretend it’s strong while using the proper unit for the job, I’m not gonna pretend AA is a powerhouse against a LT because is in a stack with AT and I’m not gonna pretend militia is even worth anything in the current state at all just because it’s sometimes in a proper build unit stack and wins :/

    _Pontus_ wrote:


    Spiffolo wrote:

    oh i will...... every time i see someone with a lv6 militia i just laugh my way to his capital in a single lv 1 medium tank. i dont use them cause of the terrible stats ( good only in a specific scenario and not even then) and the huge hit on manpower and resource and again, i have to say it more clearly, the sh*t stats, they get cut throught with almost anything else (apart of paras apparently)
    with that resources spent on studying them, upgradeing them and building them could better be invested on more useful units
    i call it noob unit cause lots of user19288274 makes them, probably figuring them as really powerful and cheap therefor making russian mentality of "just send wave of soldier at them" if you use it im sorry for your state thats all. :thumbsup:
    I just don't understand people who always think in mono-cultures.

    - your LTs will run straight to their deaths, when attacking an objective with a few militia supported by AT (and accompanying AA and Arty).
    - your Tacs will get shredded by militia supported by AA (and accompanying AT and Arty)
    - your [any unit] will get shredded by militia supported by [the right mix of other troops].
    etc. and so forth...

    Militia by itself is not much, but neither is AT or AA by itself. Militia provides a lot of ultra-cheap HP and some def to the group they are in. They will transform the useless-by-themselves-only heap of HP-less AT into a formidable tank barrier.
    Same goes for AA etc.

    Asking for removal of militia is a ' noob-question' IMHO. Just don't use them if you don't like them and keep building strats and cruisers or MTs and HTs (just to mention a few units that I never-ever research or build, but fail to ask to be removed, because maybe you like to use them...)
  • Spiffolo wrote:

    All of this argument is null. Because you are just adding other units in support to militia, but instead my argument of a single medium lv 1 shred a single militia lv6 it’s well on ground and calculator at hand. Damn a LT lv1 against a militia lv6 will win!
    Don’t go chase a “welllll if the militia is supported with an AT and arty then the medium is gone” because it’s not the militia strong but the AT and arty!
    And this is precisely why you fail to understand anything we are saying. We are not adding other units to support militia, we are adding militia which are the perfect cannon fodder to support all the other units present.

    Requirements for perfect cannon fodder:
    Cheap to produce
    Quick to produce
    Thats it.

    Milita do not need to be max tech level to do what I use them for, mine soak up damage just fine at level1 and I never research them past level1 as its not required. If additional research gave milita higher HP I would definitely research it but it doesnt; it gives them better att/def stats that I dont give a crap about.

    All I care about is HP pool, not attack value, not speed not defence vs air none of it. Militia = damage sponge, for every damage they soak up my regular front line units dont take damage.If you cannot or do not want to undersand that its fine by me just dont use them.
  • Exactly to the point (even mentioning my own proposal for HP increase per level, which would perhaps justify researching higher levels).

    I only disagree about speed - it is an issue, as it doesnt allow them to follow the troops in a profitable way. With one very notable exception, which must always be remembered.

    Militia are the perfect damage sponges for RR Guns. If you are a fan of them, then Militia (Lvl1 ofc) are a must.
  • Spiffolo wrote:

    there is a reason why no one above a certain skill level even look at them
    I am not defending militia to be a contrarian. I am simply opposing the idea that they have to be removed, because some players don't seem to be able to put them to good use.

    Because I don't play enough, I just dropped out of the top 200 (was160something; 203 now). Top 200 doesn't make me a 'pro' ofc, and maybe it does not qualify as a good player in your eyes, but it shows (I hope) I am not a complete idiot (well... relative to the game, that is). And this not-so-complete idiot does use militia; not always; not everywhere; not for everything; but where they fit. (i.e. my Soviet west flank in Poland and Romania in def-positions, while my mechanized army rolls over the Far East, supported by air force, on their way to the USA)

    And if player rank should count towards removal priority, then first HTs and Strats would have to go.... and all the nuclear ships... and cruisers and and and.... But luckily that is not the case for those who like to use them, because these units fit their particular play-style.

    Concerning:
    - the noobs-build-militia-and-that-is-why-they-quit-argument: most new players probably quit, because they are very young and/or hope for a fast paced game with a lot of action, which this game simply is not. Stating that newbies quit because of militia is just outrageous.
    - the wasted research, I am wondering. I always have lulls in my research. If I have them, then everyone else should have them too. When I have none of my priority units to research, I would rather add another level to my militia than research paratroopers, for instance (costing a mere 14hrs, only a few goods and very few rares). Why? Because that 1 oil, steel and time costing LT lvl4 will surely not make it past my ultra-cheap, fast produced militia with 1 AT. (which ofc does not mean that I max militia in every game)

    The only thing to be added to this is: ... what Kanaris said!

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

  • because a militia will always dies on any unit that isnt spec

    _Pontus_ wrote:

    And if player rank should count towards removal priority, then first HTs and Strats would have to go.... and all the nuclear ships... and cruisers and and and.... But luckily that is not the case for those who like to use them, because these units fit their particular play-style.

    Concerning:
    - the noobs-build-militia-and-that-is-why-they-quit-argument: most new players probably quit, because they are very young and/or hope for a fast paced game with a lot of action, which this game simply is not. Stating that newbies quit because of militia is just outrageous.
    - the wasted research, I am wondering. I always have lulls in my research. If I have them, then everyone else should have them too. When I have none of my priority units to research, I would rather add another level to my militia than research paratroopers, for instance (costing a mere 14hrs, only a few goods and very few rares). Why? Because that 1 oil, steel and time costing LT lvl4 will surely not make it past my ultra-cheap, fast produced militia with 1 AT. (which ofc does not mean that I max militia in every game
    yes, like any videogame the rank is one of the main factor on judging a statement, if bonky comes and says that tact bomeber are the go to unit to win a game im surely more inclined to belive him rather then user1938874 that says the best unit in the game is the AT in attacking (ok it can be falsified the rank, and it can be misleading but for the majority of time its a clear tell on his playstyle and his dangerousness)

    using militia on your eastern front just means russia is not aiming to fight you becasue again, against any unit it will just get cut like butter(save in specific situation as posted above, like in core with forrest. but again, i will pass by and make you chase me so i will fight you to my advantage). you just again made the example of using a militia WITH an AT, is not the militia doing the job, but its the AT.... therefor with your logical fallacy i could put an AA with an AT and just say AA are good to defend against a tank? or i use a militia in the water with a sub and they destroy a BB then its good against navals? :thumbdown:

    its a wasted research becasue making a militia to lv 4 surely aint cheap on resources epecially on day 12 due to the need to also balance the rest of your economy/army countig the expense to that level is (6k box, 5k rare, 6k cash) with a meager 2.5-3.8 on infantry, and it would be way more suitable for an infantry lv3 where the cost is (5.7k box, 4.5k rare 7k cash) and 4.0-6.0 on infantry therefor you wasted that resources for a dud unit that, yet again is only usable in a specific situation or in support of another more suitable unit. only advantage of it against the infantry? at lv5 factory it takes 4.5h to make while the inf takes 12h but then again, that edge will be lost on the walking pace that i will waste moving it with a 15kmh speed therefor doing them just because its a empty spot means to me that you havent researched a unit more useful overall or even more usefull on a specific case

    not really, becasue the games i see players lower then lv 20 they use a lot of militia, then when they see i just march trought it easily they drop out, if they had a unit more balance or used a proper unit then i couldnt do so therefor maybe they would still be in the game. this is an argument only a mod or dev can answer seeing the overall stats of players of the games, becasue they could drop out for whatever reason so can be the need for a fast-paces-game or a not pay-to-win one or a game with a better balanced starting unit or even for a game with a more caroony UI for the matter.


    surelly keeping the milita, a unit that the tutorial makes you build first, as it is aint worth even looking at it.... but hey , do as you like. again you can eat a soup with a broken fork but dont think your consideration would be more acceptable then others that at least ask for a spork to use.
  • Spiffolo wrote:

    using militia on your eastern front just means russia is not aiming to fight you
    (you got it the wrong way round)

    I am SOVIET UNION (aka Russia) and I have def-positions on my WESTERN front in PL and RO (and Scandinavia), consisting of Militia and other. This means I am not planning to move further WEST as Soviet Union aka Russia.
    Further, I know I can trust my militia+other to easily hold the line vs whatever Germany might want to throw at me and - if not defeating the attacker - hold it for long enough to have my air force return to decisively end all enemy aspirations.

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

  • Spiffolo wrote:

    using a militia WITH an AT, is not the militia doing the job, but its the AT....
    Please, , don't you see that you corroborated the usefulness of militia?
    The AT is nothing by itself. So is the militia. But together... Get it?

    Spiffolo wrote:

    its a wasted research becasue making a militia to lv 4 surely aint cheap on resources epecially on day 12
    Why make militia level 4 on day 12? You should research your priority units first and ...as said: when you have a lull in you research and then you can easily add a level... if you wish to. The cost and time are limited.


    Spiffolo wrote:

    it would be way more suitable for an infantry lv3
    Excusez le mot, but it is so ' noob' to upgrade infantry. Infantry is like the African hoe, a tool that one can use for anything from cutting trees to working the land. It can do anything, but is good at nothing.
    Infantry is exactly like that, plus it is expensive and slow to build and expensive in upkeep.
    Developing - and thus logically also producing - infantry guarantees nothing, but food and manpower shortages.


    Spiffolo wrote:

    at lv5 factory it takes 4.5h to make while the inf takes 12h but then again, that edge will be lost on the walking pace
    I fail to see how you can fail to see that militia has been described as useful in a defensive role. They need not walk; they need to hold a position or delay an attacker icw other units (which could not do that on their own either).
    And what is not fantastic about being able to spam several of these ultra cheap HP supplying militia in the time that your enemy advances towards you?


    Spiffolo wrote:

    but dont think your consideration would be more acceptable then others that at least ask for a spork to use.
    Oh... I thought that you respected higher ranking player's opinions? My bad that I rank about 7500 places above you and do use militia. How could I be só foolish to ignore your advice?
    I shall heed your words and never use militia again. Thank you for the guiding light...


    Nevertheless, despite all moaning about militia and requests for removal of this unit, a few things remain unchanged and are indisputable:
    - militia are ultra fast produced defensive units
    - militia are ultra cheap in production and in upkeep
    - militia provide a heap of cheap HP and def-capabilities to any defensive group
    - militia research levels are cheap and cost little time, which easily fits in the lulls in research which everyone encounters

    and:
    - over the past 40 games or so, no-one has broken my defense lines without paying dearly (and ultimately losing), despite me using militia in multiple games

    and, despite all that good stuff about militia:
    - militia are no good by themselves ... but so are all units! Tacs w/o fighters? AT or AA w/o extra HP? Tanks or (SP)artillery w/o (SP)AA? All very vulnerable in solo roles!

    Please ...
    Stop thinking in mono-cultures!
    Stop thinking in 1-solution-fits-all!
    Learn to combine well and exploit the advantages of each unit in a well balanced group to the benefit of your play-style. Both on attack and on defense.

    And please stop bashing militia, just because you don't know how to use them correctly...

    The post was edited 6 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

  • _Pontus_ wrote:

    Please, , don't you see that you corroborated the usefulness of militia?The AT is nothing by itself. So is the militia. But together... Get it?


    Why make militia level 4 on day 12? You should research your priority units first and ...as said: when you have a lull in you research and then you can easily add a level... if you wish to. The cost and time are limited.


    Excusez le mot, but it is so ' noob' to upgrade infantry. Infantry is like the African hoe, a tool that one can use for anything from cutting trees to working the land. It can do anything, but is good at nothing.
    Infantry is exactly like that, plus it is expensive and slow to build and expensive in upkeep.
    Developing - and thus logically also producing - infantry guarantees nothing, but food and manpower shortages.


    I fail to see how you can fail to see that militia has been described as useful in a defensive role. They need not walk; they need to hold a position or delay an attacker icw other units (which could not do that on their own either).
    And what is not fantastic about being able to spam several of these ultra cheap HP supplying militia in the time that your enemy advances towards you?


    Oh... I thought that you respected higher ranking player's opinions? My bad that I rank about 7500 places above you and do use militia. How could I be só foolish to ignore your advice?I shall heed your words and never use militia again. Thank you for the guiding light...


    Nevertheless, despite all moaning about militia and requests for removal of this unit, a few things remain unchanged and are indisputable:
    - militia are ultra fast produced defensive units
    - militia are ultra cheap in production and in upkeep
    - militia provide a heap of cheap HP and def-capabilities to any defensive group
    - militia research levels are cheap and cost little time, which easily fits in the lulls in research which everyone encounters

    and:
    - over the past 40 games or so, no-one has broken my defense lines without paying dearly (and ultimately losing), despite me using militia in multiple games

    and, despite all that good stuff about militia:
    - militia are no good by themselves ... but so are all units! Tacs w/o fighters? AT or AA w/o extra HP? Tanks or (SP)artillery w/o (SP)AA? All very vulnerable in solo roles!

    Please ...
    Stop thinking in mono-cultures!
    Stop thinking in 1-solution-fits-all!
    Learn to combine well and exploit the advantages of each unit in a well balanced group to the benefit of your play-style. Both on attack and on defense.

    And please stop bashing militia, just because you don't know how to use them correctl
    yes, i simply see that you can find positive things for militia only as support of other units while they do their job.... which means you cant admit that a milita is a laughable unit used only to suck dmg and do nothing else. an AT by itself will tear a LT, another AT, will injure a militia and an inft will make either destory a MT or make it go down to 1%hp and will still also give a 50% hit on a heavy tank..... more units i add to it, more dmg can suck up and therefor its going to be even better, but by itself will still be powerful and useful, more than a militia. by just this an AT is already superior to a militia with maybe a tenth of the cost


    by day 12 all your most important units are already upgraded or on their way to be and as yo usaid if you have an empty spot will make it upgrade it.... which is a waste of that rare where it could be used to make another factory or research something way more useful waiting for it


    oh, why oh why should i make an unit that is better on any way only becasue its slightly more expensive? which to make a militia i have to open a barack and make it everywere but that also means for the 9h to make it allowing 9h of advancing the enemy it will also have a negative hit on producing food and the upcost will just mean you get in the red even after the 9h waiting..... all of this which its compensate for it by being way more powerful and i fail to see how a jack of all trades is wrong being it will allow me to quickly adapt to any situation on the spot both are gonna be useless by day 8 for the amount of mecha units and planes focused players. again, if you stay still the enemy can easily go around


    yes, i listen to advice of higher player but again you are higher since you started 2015... while im rapidly increasing after just one year witouth using them. wanna be better adviced? rokossovski, diabolical bmfox, lord twarty and many other players which i only can greedly listen to all said that militia is useful only as cannon fodder and nothing else in the current state or they dont even use it at all, due to the upkeep and cost in resources. being then why should i make an unit that the sole purpose is to die when with the same expense in resorcues i can make an unit that allows me to counterattack too? you keep bragging that militia is cheap and good for defense but again, pick a calculator punch some numbers and figure out that its actually not good for your economy and manpower. early game is just a bleed of manpower and you will just be passive till its time to have other units(where with any other one i cna both be passive and active) and mid-late game its just an unit to be tear trought it(late game is even more focus on aviation, artillery, mechanized etcetc)

    being that no one broke your defense just means either you are a good or you play with noobs. its useless as an argument :rolleyes: becasue also by my past 40 games neither did they pass my front and i dont use militia soooooo how is that at all a point to the usefullness of militia?

    im not thinking at all in monoculture, i showed you more and more that this unit for as much as could be tempting just for the defense forest bonus its easily avidable, and can be easily destroyed and lose all the meager advantage it has becasue again, i see you are waiting for it on an advantagius position i will move around or fight you from the distance or force you to move and if you move with the rest of your army to counterattack i can adapt and get back to it later. being monoculture means i only use one type and only that when its not the case. ive proved by data that if i have to pick a unit to make i will much rather spend my resources on something that isnt just there to be shot at

    if i was looking to a 1-solution then i would just stick with LT and aviation but this thread is just to point out the defect and uslessness of militia against 90% of troops in 90% of situation.
    yes, lets see the benefits of militia on attack show me. im eager to see where this unit can be even consider as an attack with that 15kmh..... again, you at most can place it with a train cannon and keep it as meatsheild waiting for it to arrive in range

    stop defending militia just becasue you think its perfect as it is since its clearly not. :whistling: you play your style, i will play mine.... the game allow for more use than one and allows for also different approach to be all good. but you keep missing the point that also the game makes you use militia in the tutorial when teaching you about recruiting and immediatly after it teachs you how to attack which mislead youngs players, becasue then they associate militia as an early important unit and just get wreck
  • Crazy that this thread keeps going!

    The question '' Is militia useless? '' meaning, without any use (emphasis on ''any'').

    Answer: No. Why? Some players find use for them. As has been demontstrated many, many times over.

    So militia is not useless. Even if it is ueselss to you personally. They do not deserve the name useless when everything is considered. Some players even state that they find very good use for them. Militia is not without use, so it is not useless. :thumbsup:

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

  • Spiffolo wrote:

    yes, i listen to advice of higher player but again you are higher since you started 2015
    Again an argument that has no foundation. Rank is not attained by years played, but by points gathered; militarily and economically. There are people with a high rank without ever winning a game, just because they played a flabbergasting number of games and there are people with a high rank and few games, but all played well, and everything in between is also possible, including golden victories.

    And if you care that much about noobs quitting because of the - in your opinion - faulty tutorial, then write about the tutorial, instead of bashing militia. Further, you can do as I do and join the programme 'Adopt a noob in every game you play'. Maybe when you start doing that, you will also realize that - no matter what you tell a newbie - they will make mistakes. And especially that some learn quick and some ... never learn.

    Concerning the uselessness of militia, even when disregarding all else that has been said, Edepedable just said all that matters:

    Edepedable wrote:

    Militia is not without use, so it is not useless.

    I will stop replying here, because when someone - in the face of indisputable arguments and facts (as summarized a few times) - still maintains his own view w/o even considering the other arguments and facts, well, then one might just as well be talking to a wall.

    I can only hope that other people, who read the thread, now better understand the pro's and con's of militia and that will be the profit of this ' discussion'.

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

  • _Pontus_ wrote:

    Spiffolo wrote:

    yes, i listen to advice of higher player but again you are higher since you started 2015
    Again an argument that has no foundation. Rank is not attained by years played, but by points gathered; militarily and economically. There are people with a high rank without ever winning a game, just because they played a flabbergasting number of games and there are people with a high rank and few games, but all played well, and everything in between is also possible, including golden victories.
    yes, if one has 400 games and only won 20 and its top 10 its clear he tricked the stats around. but again, none of the players ive namedrop had this kind of stats, and even taking them with a grain of salt its way more trustworthy than others

    _Pontus_ wrote:


    I will stop replying here, because when someone in face of indisputable arguments and facts (as summarized) still maintains his own view w/o even considering the other arguments and facts, well, then one might just as well be talking to a wall


    right back at you buddy. becasue even, and here im really laughing, those """""indisputable arguments and facts""""" (if they were insdiputable the argument wouldnt even be here now woudlnt it?) in in front of the facts that militia has more cons then pros(which apparently the only pro being a defensive meatshield) you still maintain yours idea without even accepting that people would prefer them to get a fix and be more useful..... feel like a kettle and pot here :whistling: good luck with your inviceble defense stacks :thumbsup:
  • New

    One last remark, though I promised to end it. But this concerns relevant and recent happenings, tied in with the Event-End-Game maps, putting an end to all theories and speculations.

    Twice I was dealt the Southern Army Group (SAG). Anyone who was dealt SAG will definitely have cursed the devs for setting up SAG as they did:
    - lots of militia, few inf, few AT, few AA and only very few mechanized regiments (4 LT, 2 AC and 2 or 3 motorized Inf) spread out and no way to replace them.
    - Not a single piece of artillery
    - Not a single plane
    - lots of infra in many places, but none at a factory site, inhibiting any production of quality units and artillery
    - too limited man power supply to produce a lot of inf-class units

    In short, SAG starts with militia, inf, AT and AA only and is stuck with that for the first 2-3 days, until infra is build and factories become able to produce more than 1 unit a day (and never mind the often 10-15 hour transit from factory to front to be added to the production time).

    The Ukraine, the UK and the USA, however, all sport huge and heavily mechanized armies, with MT, SPA and Mech-Inf (yes, the Half-tracks). Ukraine even has a sizable air force including Tacs...

    Concentrating forces in a few strategical spots, allowing for intercepting movement if the enemy would try to flank, and madly producing reinforcements (AA and AT primarily) in the 1st 24hrs of peace, allows SAG to put up something that almost resembles a real defense.
    Almost... because it is outnumbered and outclassed by the enemies on every front.

    Then using terrain to the advantage:
    - blocking positions on the border of hills and enemy cities (enemy with armor engaging the inf-class defenders would thus still be fighting on city soil, while defenders with lots of militia would be on hills results in a 50% MALUS for the enemy armor vs a 75% BONUS for the militia + regular def bonus)
    - making then engage or engaging the numerous armor class units in cities or if need be in hills and forests, but not on the plains.

    All in all a very feeble defense force facing an OP enemy in every position that mattered.

    On the Ukrainian Front: only Inf-class(mainly militia), because the few armor class units were needed to put at least some fighting power into the forces countering UK, USA and France in Northern Italy.

    Several battles ensued on all fronts, the main battles being for Bologna in the West and Zagreb and Sofia (Ukrainian) in the East.
    Bologna changed hands twice, where most armor was lost, but MILITIA, AA and the first Arty reconquered it.
    The Bologna battles ended in a bloodbath for both sides, but were relatively small compared to the troop numbers in the East.

    The battles in the East were between large armies, and were fought by MILITIA as mainstay, with some Inf, AA and AT.

    The remarkable thing in these battles: MILITIA were always the last men standing and in numbers! Notably MY militia, not the few the Ukraine had.

    Long story short: without MILITIA (oh... notably quickly maxed out to Elite by the way; I am such an idiot... or am I? Not really. Due to the numbers present, maxing Militia was the fastest way to add maximum def-points!) the Ukrainians would have rolled over the East.
    Because of the Militia's excellent performance on defense, the Ukraine could not break the SAG positions they attacked and their forces fully perished.
    Except in Sofia, where I became overzealous and attacked. Though the battle was lost, my force of militia with 4 AA and 3 AT wiped out the remainders of the air force and inflicted such damage on the Ukrainian army that the Ukraine was unable to counter attack from there.

    Militia useless? I beg to differ!

    (PS: the game was already decided (with compliments to Army Group Central for performance on Belo-Russian and Baltic Fronts) on day 3, with large parts of Ukraine, UK- and USA-Italy and France in SAG hands on day 4 and just mopping up today = day 5)

    The post was edited 7 times, last by _Pontus_ ().