Normal Infantry, Motorized Infantry, or Mechanized Infantry

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

    • Normal Infantry, Motorized Infantry, or Mechanized Infantry

      Normal Infantry, Motorized Infantry, or Mechanized Infantry? 14
      1.  
        Normal Infantry (2) 14%
      2.  
        Motorize Infantry (9) 64%
      3.  
        Mechanized Infatntry (3) 21%
      I use motorized infantry because it is fast and cheap unit to produce. It's more powerful then infantry, but cheaper then mechanized infantry. Its damage values can compare with most mechanized infantry units. In fact it deals more damage against infantry then mechanized infantry does. Just to clarify I am asking what is your preferred type of infantry.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by vietcong2005 ().

    • Heavily depends on Doctrine, Economy, and Enemies, listed from most to least important in my book. I had a hard time choosing between the two because those factors are so variable, especially Enemies. If my enemy has plenty of motorized infantry themselves for example, then perhaps mechanized is the better pick for me since its light armor gives it an advantage in 1v1 against motorized. Ultimately it's 50/50 for me.
    • I voted normal infantry. Poll is kind of confusing, I mean it's not really an "or" is it? You can have all three. That said everyone has infantry every game. I rarely tech mechanized and motorized usually make up a small part of my force. How could anyone say "Yes" motorized and "No" to infantry? I suppose you could play without regular infantry at all but I don't see why you would try. Motorized favor attack, infantry favor defense. They have different resource requirements.
    • Guess my vote stands anyway. Early and mid-game infantry are usually the backbone of my army. I transition at some point to a more mobile army. Late game mobile units are so fast that the fighting is usually long over before the infantry show up, in my experience. I find air power and artillery get so strong late in the game that my conventional forces are just mopping up and infantry are relegated to urban defense while motorized and mechanized rule the battlefield. They will still see combat and are effective enough for their cost, oftentimes helping break through tough positions when the armored offensive gets bogged down. Motorized is still probably the unit I end up building the most of, not sure it's my favorite.
    • New

      It really depends on the circumstances but normally I always keep the core of my army as mot infantry UNLESS I am pan asian. In that case, I only really use regular infantry as my main battle force and mot as a scout.

      For axis, only a fool would ever not use mot infantry due to the 30 damage against infantry.

      I always keep my infantry at a low level as a reserve troop that can be spammed in emergencies. See my Roman Empire thread for info on that as a strategy.
      Forum Rank list here.

      Make sure to read and like this thread ->The new Roman Empire
    • New

      whowh wrote:

      It really depends on the circumstances but normally I always keep the core of my army as mot infantry UNLESS I am pan asian. In that case, I only really use regular infantry as my main battle force and mot as a scout.

      For axis, only a fool would ever not use mot infantry due to the 30 damage against infantry.

      I always keep my infantry at a low level as a reserve troop that can be spammed in emergencies. See my Roman Empire thread for info on that as a strategy.
      Purposely avoiding infantry research is an interesting strategy. High level infantry are very effective at defending urban centers, much better than motorized. Like everything in this game, it's situational. If you're under siege, fighting a defensive war, you don't want to build motorized. If you're on the offensive and there's a lot of green field in front of you, obviously motorized is the better choice.
    • New

      Spite_Is_Right wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      It really depends on the circumstances but normally I always keep the core of my army as mot infantry UNLESS I am pan asian. In that case, I only really use regular infantry as my main battle force and mot as a scout.

      For axis, only a fool would ever not use mot infantry due to the 30 damage against infantry.

      I always keep my infantry at a low level as a reserve troop that can be spammed in emergencies. See my Roman Empire thread for info on that as a strategy.
      Purposely avoiding infantry research is an interesting strategy. High level infantry are very effective at defending urban centers, much better than motorized. Like everything in this game, it's situational. If you're under siege, fighting a defensive war, you don't want to build motorized. If you're on the offensive and there's a lot of green field in front of you, obviously motorized is the better choice.
      Well if you can produce 1 regular infantry in an hour or 1 elite infantry in 12 hours, 12 regular infantry is the choice I would go with for the sake of intimidation. Besides, it saves research costs. I like to do the same for regular artillery and using SP artillery instead.

      Interestingly, the Pan-asian doctrine is the opposite for me. I use mainly infantry and artillery instead of my normal mix.
      Forum Rank list here.

      Make sure to read and like this thread ->The new Roman Empire
    • New

      whowh wrote:

      Spite_Is_Right wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      It really depends on the circumstances but normally I always keep the core of my army as mot infantry UNLESS I am pan asian. In that case, I only really use regular infantry as my main battle force and mot as a scout.

      For axis, only a fool would ever not use mot infantry due to the 30 damage against infantry.

      I always keep my infantry at a low level as a reserve troop that can be spammed in emergencies. See my Roman Empire thread for info on that as a strategy.
      Purposely avoiding infantry research is an interesting strategy. High level infantry are very effective at defending urban centers, much better than motorized. Like everything in this game, it's situational. If you're under siege, fighting a defensive war, you don't want to build motorized. If you're on the offensive and there's a lot of green field in front of you, obviously motorized is the better choice.
      Well if you can produce 1 regular infantry in an hour or 1 elite infantry in 12 hours, 12 regular infantry is the choice I would go with for the sake of intimidation. Besides, it saves research costs. I like to do the same for regular artillery and using SP artillery instead.
      Interestingly, the Pan-asian doctrine is the opposite for me. I use mainly infantry and artillery instead of my normal mix.
      Yeah, I see the wisdom of that. I try to limit research lines rather than trying to keep things balanced. It gets so expensive in late game, from a time standpoint, that you can't keep everything current.

      I do the same sort of thing with AT and AA, but if I'm sticking with infantry I will tech them too. They're great companions and make the stack much more versatile. I think people really underestimate the strength of a good infantry army with air support.
    • New

      I'm following on my own response here, but I had some more thoughts on this build. Like any other army composition, you have to tailor it to your opponents.

      That being said heavy and medium tanks pair really well with the infantry/ordnance army. You can ignore a bunch of technology and have a formidable force. You basically just need these technologies at highest possible level.
      Infantry
      Artillery
      Anti-tank
      Anti-Air
      Medium Tank
      Heavy Tank

      These units are not mobile, but you don't have the problem of the armored advance getting away from your infantry army and getting destroyed. You basically just methodically shell and destroy everything in front of you. This variety of troops can be combined in a force that optimally matches up against your opponent. This is basically what you would call a "combined arms warfare" composition. You still need some kind of scout, I use interceptors for it. You'll want an air force but you can limit it to just interceptor research if you want. You may need a navy. You can add tank destroyers, but this composition already has pretty good tank defense. It's important to keep the infantry/AT/AA around the same level otherwise they slow each other down.


      AA and AT are so cheap that in the long run they destroy so much more economy than they cost. Their stats at high level are formidable:
      Level 4 Allied AT defends at a 13 versus light armor and 15 versus heavy armor and has 40 HP.
      Level 4 Allied AA defends at a 4 versus light armor and 8.6 versus heavy armor and has 40 HP.
      A level 2 heavy tank would only attack these units with an attack power of 7 and has 85 HP.

      It might surprise some people to learn that in a one-on-one fight a L2 heavy tank attacking a L4 AT would be a very close fight without terrain bonuses. Turns to kill for the AT is 85 /15 = 5.67, turns to kill for the tank is 40 / 7 = 5.71. The economic costs are hard to compare because they're mostly different resources, but to me it seems tanks are much more expensive:

      L4 AT
      600 Food
      1,300 Goods
      980 Manpower
      180 Metal
      1,060 Money

      L2 Heavy Tank
      1,910 Manpower
      2,150 Metal
      2,150 Oil
      1,080 Rare Materials
      2,690 Money

      This is not conjecture, I've used this tech strategy in 1.5 and it works well. You can essentially just modify production to adjust to your opponent's strengths and weaknesses. If they have a lot of tactical bombers, start producing more AA. If they have a lot of medium tanks build more heavy tanks and more AT. AA and AT don't attack well, but if you're attacking stack on stack I will bring AT to a tank fight on the offensive. It's not always quick, but if you're patient it can be very effective.
    • New

      whowh wrote:

      What doctrine do you mainly play? That stack seems extremely effective for pan-asian.
      I think Pan-Asian is literally the best doctrine right now. I frankly think it's unbalanced. In an active player's hands it's very hard to fight against. This composition definitely works extremely well for Pan-Asian, but I prefer to focus on more mobile forces with them. They are just so fast. For later game Pan-Asian I would use self-propelled rocket artillery and SPAA instead and stay away from medium and heavy tanks. Infantry stops being a follow up force and is used to hold territory the armored forces storm through. I still use the infantry army throughout the game though and will keep researching upgrades for infantry/ordnance forces also, but it becomes much less of a priority after infantry hit level 5.

      However, I also play allies and I think this composition works well for them as well. The ability to keep all your forces upgraded and focus your technology on fewer units gives you a serious tech advantage against rivals. In my opinion, this composition is best suited to Allies who are already pretty slow. Your mobile army will just never be that good. Embrace the slow behemoth, build lots of heavy and medium tanks and artillery to support your infantry and they will walk over everything.

      Probably wouldn't be ideal for axis or comintern.
    • New

      Spite_Is_Right wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      What doctrine do you mainly play? That stack seems extremely effective for pan-asian.
      I think Pan-Asian is literally the best doctrine right now. I frankly think it's unbalanced. In an active player's hands it's very hard to fight against. This composition definitely works extremely well for Pan-Asian, but I prefer to focus on more mobile forces with them. They are just so fast. For later game Pan-Asian I would use self-propelled rocket artillery and SPAA instead and stay away from medium and heavy tanks. Infantry stops being a follow up force and is used to hold territory the armored forces storm through. I still use the infantry army throughout the game though and will keep researching upgrades for infantry/ordnance forces also, but it becomes much less of a priority after infantry hit level 5.
      However, I also play allies and I think this composition works well for them as well. The ability to keep all your forces upgraded and focus your technology on fewer units gives you a serious tech advantage against rivals. In my opinion, this composition is best suited to Allies who are already pretty slow. Your mobile army will just never be that good. Embrace the slow behemoth, build lots of heavy and medium tanks and artillery to support your infantry and they will walk over everything.

      Probably wouldn't be ideal for axis or comintern.
      i think eather axis or allies is best i love both of them allie infatry is good to as then thread is about
      when being betrayed betray
    • New

      whowh wrote:

      RBoi200 wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      I always keep my infantry at a low level as a reserve troop that can be spammed in emergencies.
      I prefer to spam militia.
      That's why you never do playthroughs!!! :D
      What does that have to do with playthroughs?
      "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

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

      DxC's battle calculator(not updated for 1.5):
      dxcalc.com/cow
    • New

      RBoi200 wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      RBoi200 wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      I always keep my infantry at a low level as a reserve troop that can be spammed in emergencies.
      I prefer to spam militia.
      That's why you never do playthroughs!!! :D
      What does that have to do with playthroughs?
      Bad tactics.
      Forum Rank list here.

      Make sure to read and like this thread ->The new Roman Empire
    • New

      I don't think people see the game for what it really is, that's why their tactics are not optimal. This is an economy game, period. Your economy builds units, your units fight wars, wars win games. Your goal should be the economic destruction of your enemy in every war. That means targeting core provinces and destroying their units with the least economic cost to yourself. Take the core, they will fold.

      Artillery and naval artillery are as economical as it gets, they do damage (which equals resources) but take none in return. Air forces against low air defense targets are very economical. Fighting forces with units that counter them is economical. In general, regular infantry, anti-tank, and anti-air are economical units because their build cost is low relative to their battlefield performance. The worst thing you can do is just build up some stack you think is "OP" and just ram it at the enemy blindly.
    • New

      Larry is god lol lol wrote:

      Spite_Is_Right wrote:

      whowh wrote:

      What doctrine do you mainly play? That stack seems extremely effective for pan-asian.
      I think Pan-Asian is literally the best doctrine right now. I frankly think it's unbalanced. In an active player's hands it's very hard to fight against. This composition definitely works extremely well for Pan-Asian, but I prefer to focus on more mobile forces with them. They are just so fast. For later game Pan-Asian I would use self-propelled rocket artillery and SPAA instead and stay away from medium and heavy tanks. Infantry stops being a follow up force and is used to hold territory the armored forces storm through. I still use the infantry army throughout the game though and will keep researching upgrades for infantry/ordnance forces also, but it becomes much less of a priority after infantry hit level 5.However, I also play allies and I think this composition works well for them as well. The ability to keep all your forces upgraded and focus your technology on fewer units gives you a serious tech advantage against rivals. In my opinion, this composition is best suited to Allies who are already pretty slow. Your mobile army will just never be that good. Embrace the slow behemoth, build lots of heavy and medium tanks and artillery to support your infantry and they will walk over everything.

      Probably wouldn't be ideal for axis or comintern.
      i think eather axis or allies is best i love both of them allie infatry is good to as then thread is about
      I'm not a big fan of Axis. I see why people like it, but it doesn't really favor my playstyle.