Again, because it's very important: infantry

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

    • BMfox wrote:

      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.
      Off topic a little..but worthy of discussing...I really like the change also but haven't come close in working out the 'kinks'. I am one of those idiots who early on if they have a dollar must spend the dollar - either on research, upgrades, or troops - I am running out of cash now as I am attempting to upgrade too many troops too fast. Having the patience of Nat is sometimes not so good. I think most of the gamers like the changes as well due to the silence of criticism so far.
      (btw making SP arty/SP AA is something I like to do in captured provinces going forward also)
    • (btw making SP arty/SP AA is something I like to do in captured provinces going forward also)
      Aye. In fact these days I seldom build LT after SP arty becomes available; I rely on the pool built in the early days, and switch to MI as that pool runs out.

      Haven't tried this on "new" mech inf values (switched from off to def unit) yet though.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Marcos Sicilia wrote:

      Can you study the results on the board with the commando's?
      I guess you're asking me to include Commandos in my proposal?
      Well, Commandos already have low food costs and also in my eyes don't count as "infantry" - so they are a whole different topic. OK, graphics and their speed values indicate they use their own feet to get from A to B, but they weren't a frontline unit in reality. CoW totally doesn't model them the way they were and there's no point trying to fix this by only modifying a few of their values. Instead, one way to make them less of a fantasy unit I described in --> this thread <--.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Reality: About 70% of all military in WW2 was from one of the four infantry types (militia, motorized, 4mechanized or regular infantry).

      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?
      I think you are missing something very important in your proposal. Your suggestion on making the 5 infantry types (infantry, militia, motorized infantry, mehanized infantry and paratroopers) all cost 1500 manpower has been tried. It has been lowered and since, I have been building and seeying more infantry.

      I agree with all your other proposals, lowering food and manpower upkeep would certainly help. Though like lowering initial food cost, I think also manpower requirements need to be lowered. Again.

      Just look at your example. Build 1 artillery, 1 AA and 1 AT. Thats 1000 + 750 + 1000 = 2750 manpower for 3 units in initial cost.
      For 3 infantry, the way you propose it would be 1500 × 3 = 4500 manpower. Thats a huge difference.

      Especially since initially manpower is a problem. Its always in short supply. So building a light tank (625 manpower) or an airplane (400 manpower) just gives you a bigger number of units. Stronger units even. That means that your damage output goes up by a lot if you chose to spend manpower on armor or air units.

      The way you propose to change the meta will not have the favored results. Because in initial manpower cost, the 5 infantry types can not compete with other units. Lowering manpower requirements for infantry would make them serious competition compared to other units. It would still be better to use AT, AA and arty for their specific purposes and/or game mechanics. But, there could be a serious option to train a lot more infantry. Like you and many have pointed out before, infantry was the go to unit. The true workhorse of every army in WW2. If any unit should be ''spammable'' it should be infantry. But of course not to a point where it can win the game for one.
      Manpower cost for the 5 infantry types should be lowered to 1000.

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

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Manpower is just one of the resources needed. Tanks and planes are capped by other resources. And yeah, if you have relatively low manpower, higher tech units will still be the way to go.
      You just described the start of every map, manpower is the first thing you run out of. Oil upkeep is around 100 when a map starts, so the upkeep is not what will stop you from buildig tanks and planes.
      Lack of manpower will make every player start building planes and tanks when a map starts. With the limited amount of manpower and production centers available you just get more, and stronger units in a shorter amount of time when you go mechanized. You can keep on producing non stop for almost a week, if you do NOT train the 5 infantry types. If you do train the 5 infantry types you are left waiting to get enough manpower to produce a unit again.

      So to be able to compete with other units, the 5 infantry types need to have their initial manpower cost reduced to 1000.

      Also, though not sure on this, perhaps planes should start costing 500 manpower instead of 400. Manpower is to big a factor at the start of a map to decide which unit will be produced in greater numbers and which one will not.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Manpower is just one of the resources needed. Tanks and planes are capped by other resources. And yeah, if you have relatively low manpower, higher tech units will still be the way to go.
      You just described the start of every map, manpower is the first thing you run out of. Oil upkeep is around 100 when a map starts, so the upkeep is not what will stop you from buildig tanks and planes.Lack of manpower will make every player start building planes and tanks when a map starts.
      Well you start with a whole bunch on infantry, so that's not really strange or unwanted. Game start catches you low-tech, working your way up. When that phase is over, this whole story kicks in.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Apart from industrial capacity, there's always just one limit that keeps you from having a larger army: Either manpower or resources. Which of the two is the limit for you in a specific moment totally depends on these three criteria:

      1.: Players with a slow, long-term strategy (economical buildings first, only afterwards many units) tend to have resources as their limit.
      While players with an offensive strategy tend to have manpower as their limit.

      2.: Players building more mechanized units than units from the infantry tech tree tend to have resources as their limit.
      While players building more units from the infantry tech tree tend to have manpower as their limit.

      3.: Early in the game you tend to have manpower as your limit.
      While later on, you tend to have resources as your limit (this is due to the fact that conquered territory on average has lower morale than your cores... which impedes your resource income, but not your manpower income).

      So if for you manpower often is the limit, you cannot conclude that's the case for everyone.

      I still strongly recommend that infantry should cost less resources than other units of comparable usefulness, but more manpower. That's what it does in reality and that would give manpower a value in all situations / for all players.

      Or see it this way: If a nation has a lot of resources but few manpower, it wouldn't let its sons go to war by foot and without heavy equipment, would it? Infantry should only be the best choice for nations limited by resources rather than by manpower.


      Edepedable wrote:

      If any unit should be ''spammable'' it should be infantry.
      I very much like this sentence - well said & fully agreed!
      It's also true that my proposal buffs infantry only a bit. So let's reduce the food production costs of infantry even a bit more - here's my final version:

      prod. foodprod. manpowerupkeep foodupkeep manpower
      Militia50 (250)1500 (1300)40 (50)85 (75)
      Reg. infantry150 (500)1500 (1300)75 (90)115 (110)
      Mot. infantry100 (350)1500 (1300)75 (90)115 (100)
      Mech. infantry50 (250)1400 (1200)75 (90)115 (100)

      Paratroopers...250 (500).....1500 (1300).....75 (90).....120 (110)......

      Then increase research duration for every research level of militia and regular infantry except for level 1 by +4 hours.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Hans A. Pils ().

    • While I like and agree with the suggestion, none of it will matter if the open barracks penalty isn't addressed. How many L3 barracks can you afford to keep open vs airports strung throughout the world?
      I'm not saying that I'd switch from tanks and planes to Mech and jeeps but with the barracks penalty I don't even consider it.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Edepedable wrote:

      If any unit should be ''spammable'' it should be infantry.
      I very much like this sentence - well said & fully agreed!It's also true that my proposal buffs infantry only a bit. So let's reduce the food production costs of infantry even a bit more - here's my final version:
      Thanks, I think it makes sense if infantry would indeed be spamable up to a certain degree. Though without lowering their initial manpower cost, that will never happen.

      Its very apparent in the early game, and that does not really change later in the game.

      I always struggle for manpower on any map I play. The lack of manpower is holding back unit production well into the 3rd week of a game. That means I always finnish my pool of manpower every day so that my army never grows weaker than that if my neighbour. Army wise I am usually in the top 3 of any map I play.

      However, the same goes for my economy. I do not cut back on growing my economy because I use resources for units instead of growing my economy. Im usually also in the top 3 for biggest economy on any map I play.

      Its very simple, I build a maximum of units, untill manpower runs out and put the rest of my resources into growing my economy.


      Hans A. Pils wrote:

      So if for you manpower often is the limit, you cannot conclude that's the case for everyone.
      My conclusion is that if you have capable enemies, you have no other choice but to be low on manpower. If you opt for an 'industry first' type strategy while your neigbour choses an 'units first' type strategy in the way you describe, the person chosing industry will always lose.

      Creating an amount of units that is as large and as strong as possible is the way to win. Manpower is more rare than the other resources. You can just buy the others at the market. On top of that, increasing manpower production is not that effective through barracks building, and for growing your empire you will likely also lose manpower.

      So to grow a strong army you are wise to save on manpower. So everyone rather builds 3.75 aircraft or 2.2 tanks for 1500 manpower instead of 1 infantry.

      The 5 infantry are the most expensive units in the game in terms of manpower. So as long as manpower is more rare than the other resources, infantry can not compete with other units. Not for damage output, not for HP, not for speed, not because of the upkeep being to high but because its expensive in initial manpower cost.
    • There several flaws in your reasoning. If manpower is your bottleneck, it is due to YOUR build-up schedule; for my schedule, I rarely have manpower problems, while early rares and goods problems are serious, followed by food and oil later on.

      If you finish your resources on low-manpower units (tanks, ships, planes), you are left with a quite adequate pool of manpower. Only when you build lots of guns (arty, AA, AT) you will constantly be out of manpower. And yes, you need more guns as the competitiveness of a map increases; but that's a matter for a different thread. Otherwise, it would be perfectly possible to build more infantry EXCEPT for food and IC space limitations; which this thread attempts to adress.

      "You can just buy other resources"? Well first, you don't have infinite money to do that; and second, the problematic resources are usually the same for all players, which means those key resources are either very expensive or not available at all on the market.

      The key of being in the top of the economy list is NOT based on the amount of buildings you build in your core, but on the speed of your conquest. You'll note that the top of the economy list is more or less the same as the victory point list. Economy list = resources produced = territory, with just a MINOR adjustment for core buildings (what's 10% extra on one or two provinces compared to 25% of an entire conquered neighbor?)

      Later in the game, for an expanding empire, pools of tens of thousands manpowers will grow for which there is zero use. This thread attempts to give meaning to those pools again by allowing people to actually spend them. Mind you, goods and iron tend to grow to high levels as well later on; maybe it would be nice to seek an outlet for those as well.
      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:

      There several flaws in your reasoning.
      Yet you have not pointed at any. I understand what you are saying, though you seem to have missed my point. Its not just about the build up shedule an individual player has. Infantry costing to much initial manpower is a serious problem in there not being enough infantry around. Serious enough for Bytro to already have lowered requirements for the 5 infantry from 1500 to 1300. The high manpower cost for the 5 infantry type do not pay back in the amount of damage output and over all performance you get from them.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      If manpower is your bottleneck, it is due to YOUR build-up schedule; for my schedule, I rarely have manpower problems, while early rares and goods problems are serious, followed by food and oil later on.
      This tells me you tend to build Planes and Commandos as fast as possible, thats not something you can rely on when fighting against, Ill say it again, capable enemies. Especially but mostly in a gold less format. Where choices on what to build matter a lot.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      If you finish your resources on low-manpower units (tanks, ships, planes), you are left with a quite adequate pool of manpower. Only when you build lots of guns (arty, AA, AT) you will constantly be out of manpower. And yes, you need more guns as the competitiveness of a map increases; but that's a matter for a different thread. Otherwise, it would be perfectly possible to build more infantry EXCEPT for food and IC space limitations; which this thread attempts to adress.

      "You can just buy other resources"? Well first, you don't have infinite money to do that; and second, the problematic resources are usually the same for all players, which means those key resources are either very expensive or not available at all on the market.
      In a competative environment there are worse and better ways to do things. You NEED to finish your entire manpower pool because if you do not and other players do, you will fall behind in number of unit and power output. Staple in this is the need for artillery. Doing damage without receiving it is a manpower saving mechanic in the game. Since most units in the game have better defending numbers than attacking placing them in between your own artillery and the enemy units is a sure way to do good. You get the advantage of both doing damage without receiving and if the enemy charges in your defensive numbers are higher. Whether versing AI or players. During the time the enemy is not online his units will slowly melt away at the cost of nothing but time.

      Yes you can buy other resources but not manpower. Or trade for it. No you do not have infinate money but you do not need to have infinate money. As you point out later in your post conquest gives economy. Conquest gives money and resources to be exact. But not manpower. I'm not saying that buying resources is easy on a map where everyone needs them. But the starting resources you can buy in the market when you start a map and the conquests you do help at least a little. Not so with manpower.


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      The key of being in the top of the economy list is NOT based on the amount of buildings you build in your core, but on the speed of your conquest. You'll note that the top of the economy list is more or less the same as the victory point list. Economy list = resources produced = territory, with just a MINOR adjustment for core buildings (what's 10% extra on one or two provinces compared to 25% of an entire conquered neighbor?)
      Exactly, so an ''economy first'' type of play as mentioned by @Hans A. Pils makes little sense to begin with. And then what happens, you get more resources fast upon every resource producing province. But manpower keeps on lacking.

      So my point remains, manpower is more rare than resources are. And as you said you need to feed your conquest. So it makes sense to build as many units as possible with either high damage numbers OR good game mechanics.

      From all this you can conclude that increasing initial manpower cost does not make any sense if we want to see more infantry in the game. If you want to make as many units as possible that are as strong as possible and have favorable game mechanics you need to build units that do as much damage as possible for the amount of resources that are rare for you. Which in the beginning and middle of a game is always manpower. The tipping point arises to far down the line. So yes, you build tanks, planes and commandos and artillery. Better numbers and power output and a beneficial game mechanic for less manpower.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Later in the game, for an expanding empire, pools of tens of thousands manpowers will grow for which there is zero use. This thread attempts to give meaning to those pools again by allowing people to actually spend them. Mind you, goods and iron tend to grow to high levels as well later on; maybe it would be nice to seek an outlet for those as well.
      Later in the game when? In my experience maps end way before manpower has a chance to build up that high.
    • This is from a 100p speed map I'm currently playing. It started last tuesday and is in day 16 now. Most continents aren' t consolidated, and only 2-3 nations have bridgeheads on a second.

      gyazo.com/5d1f6632985e72beec6c644e14daeeae

      I rest my case.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Of course if you have a strong neighbour that might attack you, it would be suicide to go for "economy first". But if you don't (and it's part of good diplomacy to make sure you don't have that situation early in the game), it's usually a wise thing to do.

      Anyhow this thread was not intended to find the best strategy. It's a fact that players have different strategies, as well as it's a fact that for some manpower is the major limitation, while for others it's just piling up fully uselessly.

      And it wouldn't be good for CoW as a strategy game if infantry was the best choice for all / in all situations. Which is one of the reasons why it should cost less resources and more manpower compared to other units. The other reasons I described above. I now also rest my case.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      This is from a 100p speed map I'm currently playing. It started last tuesday and is in day 16 now. Most continents aren' t consolidated, and only 2-3 nations have bridgeheads on a second.

      gyazo.com/5d1f6632985e72beec6c644e14daeeae

      I rest my case.
      I am very unfamiliar with the dynamics of the 100p map, since I never play it. It could very well be the case that things are different there from what I am used to. I based my case mostly on the playthrough of the 22p europe map.

      As far as your resources in the screenshot you sent, it means very little without knowing how many provinces you control through conquest and what buildings you have been building so far. I do notice the +875 manpower and that is much, much higher than I am used to on any map really. But, this number also really does not say a lot without knowing what troops you have (due to upkeep). I wonder what % of your total troop count is made up of the 5 infantry types (Infantry, militia, moto inf, mecha inf and paras). I asume not a whole lot but if this is not the case than I do not mind being told differently. It would surely mean that the 100p map compares differently to the maps I usually play.

      Perhaps the only thing learned from this thread is that it matters a lot in which type of map you are if you want to say anything about the balance of manpower and resources. Your and @Hans A. Pils view on the matter could very well be the case in the 100p and 50p maps. My experience with said maps is limited. Though for the smaller maps, I do think manpower is an ''always'' type of issue, as has been my experience. So for the smaller maps at least, the proposal from @Hans A. Pils will not work very well at all.

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

    • Damn, now you force me to answer even once again: Amounts of resources and manpower are almost the same on all maps.
      However there is a difference, because large maps last longer.
      A) You might say on the small maps there is no late game, only early and sometimes mid game. And as said earlier, manpower is more often the limiting factor in early game.
      B) On the other hand, on the small maps it plays a bigger role that almost all of your starting units are infantry. Due to that, you research the first level-ups of infantry anyways. And on the small maps, there's not so much time to research many other units to higher levels. So that effect is a bonus for infantry on the small maps.

      I think A) and B) are quite outweighing each other. Hence my proposal is valid for all map sizes.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      As far as your resources in the screenshot you sent, it means very little without knowing how many provinces you control through conquest and what buildings you have been building so far. I do notice the +875 manpower and that is much, much higher than I am used to on any map really. But, this number also really does not say a lot without knowing what troops you have (due to upkeep). I wonder what % of your total troop count is made up of the 5 infantry types (Infantry, militia, moto inf, mecha inf and paras). I asume not a whole lot but if this is not the case than I do not mind being told differently. It would surely mean that the 100p map compares differently to the maps I usually play.
      Hmm, kinda hard to describe the dynamics of a 100p map to someone who never played it... but I guess I' ll try.
      A 100p map has 4 core cities. I' ve upgraded IC' s to 5 there, infra to 1, two have barracks (2 and 3) and two have airfield-2. 5 resource provs are in the process of upgrading to infra-3. No other IC' s built in core.

      The nation is Peru, and I' m sharing S.America with my ally Colombia. That means I control about 7 former major' s territories, and some minors. Landing in Africa now, but no significant ground there yet.

      Didn' t do any major upgrades non-core, just some airfields, infra and docks to get remaining IC' s producing, maybe 15 buildings total. Ah yes, and airfields for connections obviously.

      Army: 15 AT, 6 arty, 3 AA, 11 inf, 9 LT, 12 mech inf, 10 commando, 30 SP arty (yeah I love them)
      Air: 35 fighter, 24 tac, 8 nav.bomber
      Navy: 17 subs, 6 destroyers, 1 carrier

      I wonder why you exclude commando' s from your " 5 infantry types" , they function like inf in many ways!
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • So it seems very fair to say that the map difference is in fact a huge difference (and perhaps that the same research tree for different maps is not the best idea). Comparing the 22 and the 100 map shows that:

      1. Distances are much smaller, which makes certain units less attractive (for example, you might not need ever to research mech inf, due to the fact you don't need to travel that much - this is also connected to point (2)).
      2. Resource distribution is completely different. For example, in the 22 map you start with 5 IC, and in general you have at least 2 Core Rares (very important with the new faster research tree). On the other hand, depending on where you are Food and Oil might be much more difficult to get.
      3. The number of immediate opponents is much smaller, which affects the expected time of the critical conflict.
      4. The duration of the map is much different, again affecting investment in both units and buildings.

      In total, we can fairly say that those two maps are so different that perhaps they need a different research tree, and some different strategies.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Damn, now you force me to answer even once again: Amounts of resources and manpower are almost the same on all maps.
      However there is a difference, because large maps last longer.
      A) You might say on the small maps there is no late game, only early and sometimes mid game. And as said earlier, manpower is more often the limiting factor in early game.
      B) On the other hand, on the small maps it plays a bigger role that almost all of your starting units are infantry. Due to that, you research the first level-ups of infantry anyways. And on the small maps, there's not so much time to research many other units to higher levels. So that effect is a bonus for infantry on the small maps.

      I think A) and B) are quite outweighing each other. Hence my proposal is valid for all map sizes.
      But B does not make you train more infantry. Due to smaller maps ending faster it makes sense to put what little manpower you have to train as many units as possible. So infantry is a bad idea.

      I do not think A and B outweigh each other at all. Fact remains that on smaller maps, there is no use to train additional infantry. You can usually manage the entire map with the infantry you start with. Upgrading them or not depending whether or not there is any of your starting infantry left or not.