Units which I never use

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

    • Comrade genz wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      RBoi200 wrote:

      Andromeda wrote:

      Comrade genz wrote:

      Greta Thunberg units: I never built it but it's useful. As it changes terrain.
      I'm Swedish :cursing:
      There are a lot of Swedish stereotypes...
      what, like that you all have Ikea furniture?
      Whowh, did you build the other units I mentioned?
      Which ones?

    • Commandos, after the introduction of scout units, comandos lose their Main advantage.

      It's Easy to spam lvl 1 interceptors AND lvl 1 Armored cars, but it's hard to get comandos, if at least would be necesary get lvl 4 of scout units to reveal comandos i would use them again.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • Very late but still :D

      Andromeda wrote:

      Mechanized Infantry - I usually only use them with the allied doctrine. The other doctrines have units that are cheaper or more powerful then mech infantry
      They are used the same way as armoured cars, but don't have the view range and scouting ability. They are far better in the other ways though (and have fair offensive values). They're mostly good on large fronts and against infantry and artillery blockade, but such b lockade occurs on smaller fronts rather, making mech infantry less often the best choice.

      Andromeda wrote:

      Artillery - Ever since Rocket Artillery & SPRA was introduced, I've found no need for artillery. In fact, there are some games where I abandon the whole ordnance branch.
      Many players love tanks, so good luck with that. It may make sense if you focus on units that cost goods and for some reason (smaller front, skilled opponent?) you don't use planes to pick on weak armies. Planes require rare materials and RA do too.
      If you decide to counter tanks in close combat though (AT as you use food/goods units?), it'll be difficult to defend off large front offensives. On a small front though, planes mostly don't make sense and those unarmoured units (slow but cost-effective in equal resources spent fights) become the best option. So yes, I could imagine RA working well sometimes, but not always.

      Andromeda wrote:

      Strategic Bombers - Rocket Artillery and SPRA are better at attacking buildings, and you don't have to worry about enemy AA.
      Strategic bombers are almost named after their main difficulty. It requires a good strategy (usage of spies, secure airports, watching the enemy composition to deduce the importance of their faciliti es...) to make strat bombers work. Their great range makes them useable for stopping enemy economy and production, doesn't work for expanded countries though. I agree that rocket artillery has great value and so are a better choice for destroying forts and other buildings on the front.

      Andromeda wrote:

      Naval Bombers - I only use them in critical situations, like if the enemy unexpectedly and quickly destroys most of my navy.
      You may have missed out. You need a large navy to properly defend off raids on a large shoreline. You just need to have atleast one big enough navy within X (depends on geography) units of measurement of every place at the shoreline to make sure no enemy navy sneaks through. This makes naval bombers a far more effective option for active players. They can scout, and in case they find a hostile intruder, very quickly transfer to the place and get rid of the enemy. With naval units, you will only have a small part fighting the enemy while other ships are still on the way from the opposite side of the shoreline. Having more numbers is an exponential advantage on the scale of 1-10, and still more than additive over 10. In other words, having a smaller army there not only means you are weaker, but also that you weaken your enemy less effectively and thus when comparing total losses, a country which only uses a small part of its army loses more than the one using a larger part.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • BMfox wrote:

      Railroadguns: They are the slowest unit in the game, need to be protected against air and land units, high upkeep, costs a lot to produce and you don't get that much firepower in return. Give me tacs and attack bombers any day. They have a bigger range and are much faster, same goes for SP artillery, just shoot and retreat every 30 minutes.
      I think that railroad guns have greater utility (when accompanied by support units) in breaking fortified lines and prepared defenses mid-to-late game. Also, they're basically a necessity in "Arms Race" because of the level 5 forts and copious amounts of AA.

      Also, I never use strategic bombers for their lack of unit damage, AT for its lack of utility against unarmored units and lack of speed, and commandoes because of their lack of usefulness in most cases (scout units basically render them useless).

    • Rand74 wrote:

      commandoes because of their lack of usefulness in most cases (scout units basically render them useless).
      Not everyone uses AC, mot infantry or interceptors. Many player don't upgrade their units too. As soon as you have commando's level 2 most players won't see them coming.

      There's something far more important about commando's than their stealth and it's the fact that they IGNORE fortifications. Depending on what units are sheltered in the fort, commando's can be an excellent choice.

      Railroadguns are indeed a viable option when there are forts. You can also use them when you play an island turning your island impregnable or to guard important chokepoints like the straight of Panama, Suez, Bosphorus,...
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • Well, Naval bombers is very useful to counter enemy landings. I was playing my 3rd game (Pacific theatre) as North Manchukuo (which at that time controls 3/4 of the entire asian coast including oceania). Pan asian doctrine give me viewrange advantage so i put approx 20 armored cars sctretched along the entire coast which serve as an outpost/radar. so everytime a large landing occures, my armored cars spot it and 10 naval bombers on each assigned region comes to destroy them. I also prepared 30 battleships, a bunch of cruisers& destroyers to push away any enemy carriers that would threaten my radar. With this counter landing tactics alone, my 20 naval bombers can hold off approximately 150 combined enemy units that try to land. British columbia was smart enough to give air protection during the landing but my interceptors shot theirs anyway

    • Andromeda wrote:

      Here are some units that I rarely/never use:

      Mechanized Infantry - I usually only use them with the allied doctrine. The other doctrines have units that are cheaper or more powerful then mech infantry

      Paratroopers - Maybe I would use them more often if it weren't for their long mobilization time (12 hours). While they are mobilizing they are just target practice for enemy artillery, which can destroy the paratroop before it is even done mobilizing.

      Artillery - Ever since Rocket Artillery & SPRA was introduced, I've found no need for artillery. In fact, there are some games where I abandon the whole ordnance branch.

      Strategic Bombers - Rocket Artillery and SPRA are better at attacking buildings, and you don't have to worry about enemy AA.

      Naval Bombers - I only use them in critical situations, like if the enemy unexpectedly and quickly destroys most of my navy.

      Feel free to comment your opinions! :)
      Mechanised infantry can be useful in a land campaign as it gives extra oomph to an infantry or motorised attack. Also neither offensive nor defensive. Not good for a whole field army, and expensive, but useful to assist other units.
      Paratroopers I can agree, except in the Pacific.
      Artillery seems fair enough, it depends on whether the enemy has more tanks or infantry. You've a point. They do make good coastal guns.
      Strategic bombers — fair enough most of the time.
      Naval bombers are invaluable. When defending coastline, a sub costs more to picket then an equivalent bomber, and is slower so only covers effectively 1/10 of the area. When defending coasts they are useful. Also excellent when co-oping with destroyers on submarine-killer ops, and good as a carrier-based aircraft.
      I'm a bit surprised you didn't list SP anti-air
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I'm a bit surprised you didn't list SP anti-air
      or tank destroyers and heavy tanks, for that matter.

      the nice thing about mech.inf is that it has pretty good AA values, when you add a few to a tank stack it becomes a real deterrent against air attack. I rarely use tank stacks though...
      Agree about naval bombers, I start researching them as soon as my units see any blue around.
      Artillery is good since it doesn't fight with the air force over the usage of rares.
      It is knd of weird to compare artillery with strategic bombers, the range difference is enormous.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.