Curious about some units...

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

    • Every unit does have usefulness but not every unit is created equally some units will be more useful than others in the majority of scenarios

      For example take Artillery And militia Artillery will majority of scenarios be Faar better than militia
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara

    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      Every unit does have usefulness but not every unit is created equally some units will be more useful than others in the majority of scenarios

      For example take Artillery And militia Artillery will majority of scenarios be Faar better than militia
      IMO the least useful units are rocket fighters, paratroopers, SP rocket arty, tank destroyers, railway guns, heavy tanks, attack bombers, and SP anti-air. Now you know my weaknesses if you ever happen to fight me.
      My favourite units are, in order: medium tanks, gun artillery (SP or otherwise), tactical bombers, infantry, battleships, and a controversial one — militia. Yes, militia's awful for your K/D ratio but is cheap, and when combined with anti-tank, can stealthily destroy both tanks and infantry. Armoured cars in the early game and especially mechanised infantry are good too.
      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:

      AMG Morgan wrote:

      Every unit does have usefulness but not every unit is created equally some units will be more useful than others in the majority of scenarios

      For example take Artillery And militia Artillery will majority of scenarios be Faar better than militia
      IMO the least useful units are rocket fighters, paratroopers, SP rocket arty, tank destroyers, railway guns, heavy tanks, attack bombers, and SP anti-air. Now you know my weaknesses if you ever happen to fight me.My favourite units are, in order: medium tanks, gun artillery (SP or otherwise), tactical bombers, infantry, battleships, and a controversial one — militia. Yes, militia's awful for your K/D ratio but is cheap, and when combined with anti-tank, can stealthily destroy both tanks and infantry. Armoured cars in the early game and especially mechanised infantry are good too.
      Yeah, funny we have different preferred units.

      Even funnier that you think militia is a controversial choice but preferring infantry is normal.

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Yeah, funny we have different preferred units.
      Even funnier that you think militia is a controversial choice but preferring infantry is normal.
      Whoops I meant motorised infantry.
      Ha, that makes more sense! But I actually do play with regular infantry when I play Pan Asian. I'm probably a rarity for that. They're cheap and well rounded defensive unit with decent terrain bonuses.

      I'm not a mot infantry player myself. I only play Pan Asian or Comintern and have very different play styles depending on my doctrine.

      Comintern, late game ground stacks of SP rocket arty, SP arty is best with tank destroyers, SPAA, and ACs protecting and scouting for them. I rarely play with air as Comintern. It requires you to be active, but you can just bombard and retreat until your enemy is defeated. Everything is mobile.

      Pan Asian I use ground stacks of regular arty with rocket arty. I don't spring for the SP versions because of the speed bonuses. I just use regular infantry and ATs to protect them and don't bother with AA because of how good Pan Asian interceptors are. Just give ATs research priority so they don't slow you down. I do usually go heavy on air with just interceptors, tac and attack bombers. Armored cars to scout too. Pan Asian armored cars are hard to stop when you have air power working in conjunction. Have the bombers clear their path of anything small and send ground stacks at any significant ground formations.

      Naval strategy is the same regardless of doctrine. Just focus on cruisers and destroyers. Subs and carriers are situational as are naval bombers. Naval bombers can be great for coastal defense or naval choke-point control.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Naval strategy is the same regardless of doctrine. Just focus on cruisers and destroyers. Subs and carriers are situational as are naval bombers. Naval bombers can be great for coastal defense or naval choke-point control.
      Ah, a proponent of the Jeune École doctrine.
      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

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Yeah, funny we have different preferred units.
      Even funnier that you think militia is a controversial choice but preferring infantry is normal.
      Whoops I meant motorised infantry.
      Ha, that makes more sense! But I actually do play with regular infantry when I play Pan Asian. I'm probably a rarity for that. They're cheap and well rounded defensive unit with decent terrain bonuses.
      I'm not a mot infantry player myself. I only play Pan Asian or Comintern and have very different play styles depending on my doctrine.

      Comintern, late game ground stacks of SP rocket arty, SP arty is best with tank destroyers, SPAA, and ACs protecting and scouting for them. I rarely play with air as Comintern. It requires you to be active, but you can just bombard and retreat until your enemy is defeated. Everything is mobile.

      Pan Asian I use ground stacks of regular arty with rocket arty. I don't spring for the SP versions because of the speed bonuses. I just use regular infantry and ATs to protect them and don't bother with AA because of how good Pan Asian interceptors are. Just give ATs research priority so they don't slow you down. I do usually go heavy on air with just interceptors, tac and attack bombers. Armored cars to scout too. Pan Asian armored cars are hard to stop when you have air power working in conjunction. Have the bombers clear their path of anything small and send ground stacks at any significant ground formations.

      Naval strategy is the same regardless of doctrine. Just focus on cruisers and destroyers. Subs and carriers are situational as are naval bombers. Naval bombers can be great for coastal defense or naval choke-point control.
      what bout militias they cost much less than infantry and take less time to produce they r stealth And they do good damage
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • Yep. Militia have their uses too. I use them more with Comintern, but I know good Pan Asian players who swear by them. They are very weak in the early game, but Comintern gets level two on day two so can be worth producing in the early game if you skip level one.

      My preferred use is to move them into place prior to an invasion. You can move them into position just outside a boarder providence center of a country you plan to invade. If there are troops there, send your regular ground stack. If not, take the providence as you declare war and send your main unit through right behind them. That way your main unit gets more favorable movement rates and you can get them deeper into enemy territory quicker. This also has the added advantage of making your opponent think only a militia regiment took the providence only to find your main force advancing through.

      They are also great for a shoot and scoot strategy. Just move them off the main path in a providence they get stealth in and when you are bombarding and moving in half hour increments, they can be used to retake a providence after the enemy moves past it to keep the favorable movement rate in the providence for your main unit.

      They are also valuable late game when you need to raise an army quickly in recently conquered providences. They pair well with anti-tank for this as both can be produced quickly. However, it works best when you haven't researched too far with AT technology, otherwise those take too long to produce.

      Paired with AT, they can be useful for ambushes too. Especially if there are chokepoints in forests. I've even used them with a random single unit like an AA or something so the enemy thinks they see an easy kill only to send opposition insufficient for the larger force.

      I do probably lose more militia than any other unit, but I'd rather lose a cheap unit than expensive ones.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Yeah, funny we have different preferred units.
      Even funnier that you think militia is a controversial choice but preferring infantry is normal.
      Whoops I meant motorised infantry.
      Ha, that makes more sense! But I actually do play with regular infantry when I play Pan Asian. I'm probably a rarity for that. They're cheap and well rounded defensive unit with decent terrain bonuses.I'm not a mot infantry player myself. I only play Pan Asian or Comintern and have very different play styles depending on my doctrine.

      Comintern, late game ground stacks of SP rocket arty, SP arty is best with tank destroyers, SPAA, and ACs protecting and scouting for them. I rarely play with air as Comintern. It requires you to be active, but you can just bombard and retreat until your enemy is defeated. Everything is mobile.

      Pan Asian I use ground stacks of regular arty with rocket arty. I don't spring for the SP versions because of the speed bonuses. I just use regular infantry and ATs to protect them and don't bother with AA because of how good Pan Asian interceptors are. Just give ATs research priority so they don't slow you down. I do usually go heavy on air with just interceptors, tac and attack bombers. Armored cars to scout too. Pan Asian armored cars are hard to stop when you have air power working in conjunction. Have the bombers clear their path of anything small and send ground stacks at any significant ground formations.

      Naval strategy is the same regardless of doctrine. Just focus on cruisers and destroyers. Subs and carriers are situational as are naval bombers. Naval bombers can be great for coastal defense or naval choke-point control.
      what bout militias they cost much less than infantry and take less time to produce they r stealth And they do good damage
      Good stack is 2 militia unit, 1 anti-tank unit, and 1 commando unit. A nice trap is to put an obsolete lvl.1 light tank in forests as bait, stacked with anti-tank guns. Assuming they're not smart, a lot of players (especially noobs) will send in other tanks to destroy it. You can do the same thing at sea with a convoy and submarines.
      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

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Ha, that makes more sense! But I actually do play with regular infantry when I play Pan Asian. I'm probably a rarity for that. They're cheap and well rounded defensive unit with decent terrain bonuses.
      I'm not a mot infantry player myself. I only play Pan Asian or Comintern and have very different play styles depending on my doctrine.

      Comintern, late game ground stacks of SP rocket arty, SP arty is best with tank destroyers, SPAA, and ACs protecting and scouting for them. I rarely play with air as Comintern. It requires you to be active, but you can just bombard and retreat until your enemy is defeated. Everything is mobile.

      Pan Asian I use ground stacks of regular arty with rocket arty. I don't spring for the SP versions because of the speed bonuses. I just use regular infantry and ATs to protect them and don't bother with AA because of how good Pan Asian interceptors are. Just give ATs research priority so they don't slow you down. I do usually go heavy on air with just interceptors, tac and attack bombers. Armored cars to scout too. Pan Asian armored cars are hard to stop when you have air power working in conjunction. Have the bombers clear their path of anything small and send ground stacks at any significant ground formations.

      Naval strategy is the same regardless of doctrine. Just focus on cruisers and destroyers. Subs and carriers are situational as are naval bombers. Naval bombers can be great for coastal defense or naval choke-point control.
      Sometimes militia and infantry are needed. Sometimes they are the only economical way to get an army.
      Fighting on an oil budget
      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:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      Good stack is 2 militia unit, 1 anti-tank unit, and 1 commando unit.
      The commando is completely out of place there; it is an attack unit and this is an ambush stack. Again, stacks are situational and something like a "universal good stack" doesn't exist. For example, that stack gets wiped out if it is in the middle of the main attack route of an enemy. If there is an enemy air base in the vicinity with lots of scouting interceptors and a bomber group it won't survive long either.

      It gives me the same shivers as someone saying "L3 battleships are powerful". They may be good the day they become available, but they also get obsolete in the late game. Better talk about "current tech battleships" or "one level behind battleships" or something like that.
      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.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      Good stack is 2 militia unit, 1 anti-tank unit, and 1 commando unit.
      The commando is completely out of place there; it is an attack unit and this is an ambush stack. Again, stacks are situational and something like a "universal good stack" doesn't exist. For example, that stack gets wiped out if it is in the middle of the main attack route of an enemy. If there is an enemy air base in the vicinity with lots of scouting interceptors and a bomber group it won't survive long either.
      It gives me the same shivers as someone saying "L3 battleships are powerful". They may be good the day they become available, but they also get obsolete in the late game. Better talk about "current tech battleships" or "one level behind battleships" or something like that.
      I suppose it is, yes.
      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

    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      well I just use militias as normal troops they have high damage even though they r for defence. Especially blueprint militia
      Why would you research blueprint militia? That defeats the whole purpose.
      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:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      well I just use militias as normal troops they have high damage even though they r for defence. Especially blueprint militia
      Why would you research blueprint militia? That defeats the whole purpose.
      Why do you think so? A BETTER cheap unit is better than a GOOD cheap unit, right?
      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.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      well I just use militias as normal troops they have high damage even though they r for defence. Especially blueprint militia
      Why would you research blueprint militia? That defeats the whole purpose.
      Why do you think so? A BETTER cheap unit is better than a GOOD cheap unit, right?
      If I want good, why would I choose militia? Except in Pan-Asian.
      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:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      well I just use militias as normal troops they have high damage even though they r for defence. Especially blueprint militia
      Why would you research blueprint militia? That defeats the whole purpose.
      why not? It literally 4x the damage of lvl 1 militias and only take 14 hrs to produce in a lvl 1 barrack
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      well I just use militias as normal troops they have high damage even though they r for defence. Especially blueprint militia
      Why would you research blueprint militia? That defeats the whole purpose.
      why not? It literally 4x the damage of lvl 1 militias and only take 14 hrs to produce in a lvl 1 barrack
      That's 7 times the relative production time. Is it more cost-effective than 4 normal militia to maintain?
      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