Again, because it's very important: infantry

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

    • Again, because it's very important: infantry

      Reality: About 70% of all military in WW2 was from one of the four infantry types (militia, motorized, mechanized or regular infantry).

      CoW: There are only two very seldom edge cases in which I can imagine recruiting infantry might be the right choice: Either you don't have a single gram of steel (a situation that every skilled player knows to avoid) or a good human player attacks you during the very first days and you have to defend by building militia in every province.
      Apart from that, recruiting infantry is always a mistake.
      The following table shows that - assuming all ressources have the same value on the long run and cost 5.0$ on the market (note that I calculate the food consumption of barracks in a province with IC level 3):


      prod. ressourcesprod. manpowerupkeep ressourcesupkeep manpower
      Militia 6501300 50 75
      Reg. infantry15251300 90110
      Artillery15501000 50 60
      Anti tank1900
      1000 70 60
      Anti air1350 750 50 45
      Mot. infantry24101300165100
      Armored car2400 675110 0
      Light tank3650 625125 0
      Medium tank5100
      800195 0
      Mech. infantry38001200190100


      For example compare 3 regular infantry with 1 artillery + 1 AT + 1 AA: Both are similarly useful and have practically the same production costs. But upkeep for the infantry is 60% higher. So why should I ever build infantry?
    • My proposal since almost two years: Reduce infantry food costs clearly and increase infantry manpower costs slightly.
      Like this (in brackets current values):

      prod. foodprod. manpowerupkeep foodupkeep manpower
      Militia100 (250)1500 (1300)40 (50)85 (75)
      Reg. infantry200 (500)1500 (1300)75 (90)115 (110)
      Mot. infantry150 (350)1500 (1300)75 (90)115 (100)
      Mech. infantry100 (250)1400 (1200)75 (90)115 (100)


      Result: Whenever you have manpower and a few goods spare, you'll always want to recruit one of these four units (unless no war in sight) - because they cost no steel and only a bit more food than their alternatives (tanks and towed units). Which is realistic: If it came to a serious war, every man who could carry a gun got one in his hands and was sent to the front.
      And a second positive effect: Manpower would always be valuable (because if you have more, you can recruit more of that otherwise cheap infantry). Which it currently isn't for players with a economy-first strategy as well as for those who don't lose many units. Manpower also becoming a decisive factor would add one more strategic dimension to the game. And also would make every province valuable - not only those with ressources. Similarly, would make end-game more satisfying, because manpower income is the same in provinces with low morale, so provinces far from your capital would then have a value for you other than their victory points.
    • A very good game play proposal, and completely accurate historically as well. I would take this even further and shift upkeep from food to manpower even more extremely. I' d like to add to this proposal that build times might be decreased as well.

      Given the recent changes in mech inf stats (they won't be the super-light tanks any more), I' m not completely sure if they need to be taken down this road as well, and I' d like to get some battlefield experience with them first. My gut says "yes" though.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Thanks for your support ^^ !

      But reducing their recruitment durations I wouldn't like.
      Firstly for regular, mot. and mech. infantry you should still feel that good training requires years in real life. Being a good infantryman was a way more demanding job than for example reloading a AA or AT gun.
      Secondly after my proposal is realized, it would be an interesting strategic decision when to do the "call to arms", i.e. when to use up your manpower for infantry. After my proposed change, you should only do so if you expect serious fights soon ahead - otherwise better safe manpower for such situations further in the future. What I'm aiming at: It should be rewarding to have many barracks, so you can do the call to arms quickly. That effect you'd take away if shortening recruitment durations.

      Oh but one thing I had forgotten - for consistency:
      prod. foodprod. manpowerupkeep foodupkeep manpower
      Paratroopers300 (500)1500 (1300)75 (90)120 (110)
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      But reducing their recruitment durations I wouldn't like.
      Firstly for regular, mot. and mech. infantry you should still feel that good training requires years in real life. Being a good infantryman was a way more demanding job than for example reloading a AA or AT gun.
      Well, yes and no. For example, after the huge Barbarossa losses, the Soviets just raised their manpower reserves, passed them a rifle, and said "you're an infantry division now". Similar for German Volksgrenadier units towards the end of the war. Yes, training would increase quality (and CERTAINLY survival chance for individual soldiers), but not quite so dramatically; and actually being in battle increased it in the MOST efficient way (anyone not killed as a rookie was a good soldier after the first serious engagement).

      Handling heavy equipment on the other hand, would ALWAYS require training.

      I see your point about the "call to arms", but I wonder if people would use it that way. IC's are limited, and keeping them producing is important for small- and medium-sized empires anyway. Currently, production is sometimes limited by initial build costs, but I don' t think many players limit their production on upkeep considerations.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      For example, after the huge Barbarossa losses, the Soviets just raised their manpower reserves, passed them a rifle, and said "you're an infantry division now".
      Yes - that's represented as militia in CoW. And militia already has quite a short recruitment duration. Would you like it to be even shorter?

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Currently, production is sometimes limited by initial build costs, but I don' t think many players limit their production on upkeep considerations.
      You're right that hardly anyone does (which - by the way - often is a mistake, especially on the larger maps). But would be nice if there was a little additional incentive to plan ahead / to have the patience to wait for the right moment for building many units and engaging in war. And if infantry recruitment times remain unchanged, my proposal would be that incentive.
      Anyhow, mobilization wasn't a quick and easy process and in my opinion also shouldn't be in CoW... unless you content yourself with militia.
    • One of the reasons I don't make more infantry is the costs associated with the barracks. Compare the associated costs of navy and air force bases to the barracks and they are really out of whack when you upgrade them to L2 and L3.
      I would suggest that this should be tweaked as well or just lowering the cost really may not be enough.
      What do we all do when we start running short of food? disable the barracks...
    • I totally had the upkeep costs of barracks in mind when writing my proposal.
      You're right they are the reason why infantry appears to be cheap at first glance, but isn't.

      But in my opinion rather the production and upkeep food costs of infantry should be reduced (as proposed above), while barracks costs should be untouched. It would then become an interesting question not only how many barracks to build (to be able to do the mobilization "call to arms" quickly when you need it), but also whether you can afford to keep them running in a few selected provinces even while not recruiting - to gain more manpower to be able to recruit more of that cheap infantry later on.
      There should be a trade-off: Keeping barracks running should cost something precious (food), but also give you something precious (manpower - as I described, manpower would always be valuable after realization of my proposal).
    • I always use motorizd and mechanized infantry. By the time my barracks are level 3 and I can train mechanized infantry my food stock is 80K at least so no problem to go in the minus on the food side while producing. When i have enough mech infa I switch them off again. Also by that time food is pretty cheap at that time because everyone goes to armor. Still a mech infantry wins from a Medium Tank in all terrain except on flat lands.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • BMfox wrote:

      I always use motorizd and mechanized infantry. By the time my barracks are level 3 and I can train mechanized infantry my food stock is 80K at least so no problem to go in the minus on the food side while producing. When i have enough mech infa I switch them off again. Also by that time food is pretty cheap at that time because everyone goes to armor. Still a mech infantry wins from a Medium Tank in all terrain except on flat lands.
      L3 Mech Inf (MI) attacks hard 3.0 defends 4.6....L3 MT attacks hard 6.5 defends 6.5...While I totally get the advantages of making MI, you having to turn off your barracks and limit your exposure is the problem. You don't have to turn off airfields or Navy bases do you (I know it can save you a little of navy but who bothers most of the time)? If we could make a string of barracks L1,L2, and L3 without the penalties involved, wouldn't we be more inclined to make more infantry? I capture other cities and if they are mature enough, can make MT's in a day or so. How long for your MI's? No have L2 or L3 barracks when you capture do they? Must be a reason.
    • Every player has it's own style but Mech Infra is one of the best units in the game. It's the fastest unit in the game, also one of the strongest, it gets the bonus like all armor units but doesn't get the penalty in cities. Totally worth the effort if you ask me.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • OK, about the relation medium tanks <-> mech infantry, I think the research tree update already did a good job. No need for further modifications there.

      Again I use the same calculation method as in my first post, which includes the food consumed by barracks during production; values in brackets again showing current situation and the black values as would be after my proposal:
      prod. resourcesprod. manpowerupkeep resourcesupkeep manpower
      medium tank5100 (5100) 800 (800)195 (195) 0 (0)
      mech. infantry3650 (3800)1400 (1200)175 (190)115 (100)


      Medium tanks are stronger against armor but weaker against unarmored targets.
      Medium tanks have 5 HP more, but are weaker against air.
      Medium tanks have higher resource production costs, but less manpower costs.
      Medium tanks don't require you to build level 3 barracks (as I said barracks upkeep is included above, so I'm now talking only about resources and time needed to raise the building), but are slower.
      Medium tanks are stronger in plains, but weaker in cities.
      Medium tanks are stronger in offense, but weaker in defense.

      All in all I think the advantages and disadvantages are pretty much in balance. So you cannot say "build MT" or "build MI". But you can say
      "if you have a lot of steel&oil but few manpower&food, also plan to research SPAA and want a strong offense unit already in early game, then you should prefer MT over MI".
      And equally
      "if you don't have much steel&oil, but a lot of manpower&food, don't plan to also research SPAA and want a strong defense unit in mid and late game, then you should prefer MI over MT".

      So that's well balanced. I my opinion, same accounts for the comparison light tank <-> motorized infantry. Which is (together with regular infantry having been the most common unit in WW2) the reason why my proposal buffs regular infantry more than the other three infantry types.
    • I love your analysis!
      The X factor imo is the ability to build MT's in the enemy's cities while advancing quicker than MI.
      Again, no one conquers a city and finds a L3 barracks and to make the L2, L3, (maybe repair IF) takes more time than what is usually required to repair the IF and start cranking out MT's plus the food costs associated with leaving those darn barracks open while kicking out MI's.
      Since you already are losing any surplus food you were producing if you have a long, fast advance (and most likely go negative) the making of the troops plus the open barracks just accelerates the issue.
      I really do agree they are about equal, except the speed of the MI is fantastic and may give it an edge but the time and places to make them turn that advantage south in a hurry.
    • - Focusing on one troop type is never smart
      - I prefer to make SP arty in new conquered territory because it requires only infrastructure level 1. Not all newly taken IC have infrastructure level 2. We all know most players don't even know they have to update their IC.
      - When i take down an IC with barracks level 2 for sure i will upgrade it to level 3.
      - I also diversify to save resources in enemy territory. Being some IC with level 3 barracks, some IC with infrastructure level 1 and some with infrastructure level 2.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • Going back to the original subject of the thread.

      I think it's a good change that food is used instead of goods for research. In the early and mid game i had to sell my food to buy goods. Prices of goods spiking up leaving me empty handed with no more cash to spare. Now there is a good balance between the use food and goods which leaves your money untouched and usable for other purposes. On top of it players who don't know to build an economy will be forced to do it know because if not they will be in the red very soon.

      The biggest disadvantage is that the use of infantry will be more difficult to use and producing mechanized infantry will become more challenging. Then again, players who take the time to invest in an economy will pluck the fruits of their labor and have an important advantage.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • ike53 wrote:

      The X factor imo is the ability to build MT's in the enemy's cities while advancing quicker than MI.
      Now that you make me think about the question MT/MI again, I have to admit for the smaller maps you're right that MTs are the better choice in most cases. Because there the 4 days required to build barracks level 3 are a big factor - having in mind that in most provinces you wouldn't want to start with that before having IC level 5 and infrastructure level 3. With that precondition, you can start building the first MI on day 13 - smaller maps might be decided by that time.

      But isn't a bad problem, because there were indeed more medium tanks in WW2 than mechanized infantry vehicles; especially at the beginning.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      ike53 wrote:

      The X factor imo is the ability to build MT's in the enemy's cities while advancing quicker than MI.
      Now that you make me think about the question MT/MI again, I have to admit for the smaller maps you're right that MTs are the better choice in most cases. Because there the 4 days required to build barracks level 3 are a big factor - having in mind that in most provinces you wouldn't want to start with that before having IC level 5 and infrastructure level 3. With that precondition, you can start building the first MI on day 13 - smaller maps might be decided by that time.
      But isn't a bad problem, because there were indeed more medium tanks in WW2 than mechanized infantry vehicles; especially at the beginning.
      Can you study the results on the board with the commando's?