What is the Most Useless CoW Unit?

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

  • miech wrote:

    Marat666 wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:


    • In the air, it's the strategic bomber.

    The only good thing about strategic bombers is that you can use them to escort tactical bombers: of course in a squadron of 5 tactical bombers, 5 interceptors and 5 strategic bombers, your tactical bombers will suffer less losses. That's the only reason why I produce strategic bombers.
    You just gave a fine argument why the biggest problem in this entire game is the tac bomber. You forgot naval bombers, oh yes, ive seen 'tackies' use 5 5 5 5 or 6 6 6 6 air armadas of death. Near invincible, no matter how many AA units you use (unless you like to build ONLY AA's).
    Nerfing the tac bomber, would ensure a lot of 'useless' units would see more play, more variety - not the borning old tac/fig + LT is autowin game. @Dr. Leprechaun
    I didn't forget naval bombers, it's just that normally I don't use them in my squadrons (at least not in the early stages of the game): their range is shorter than interceptors range and don't forget that naval bombers don't do any harm to armour units until they are level 3.

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    You were telling me about how you and some other guy won the Med map via spamming militia.
    Yeah, militia isn't useless, but it has the least uses.
    Indeed

    every unit has its advantages and disadvantages, but some have more advantages than others



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • I picked mobile AA in the armour group poll, but probably should have picked Tank Destroyers.

    Those two and Mobile Artillery share a serious problem that they can be replaced by a cheaper unit that has no oil cost/upkeep. Once your army gets big, oil scarcity is likely to become a big problem, and using AT guns instead of TD is a big help in that situation.

    TD are also in competition with Medium Tanks, which are nearly as good in defense against armor, nearly as good in HP, and better in every other stat.

    You don't have time to fully upgrade everything, and an obvious one to skip is the TD since it is so replaceable (same argument as Cruisers.)

  • CityOfAngels wrote:

    I picked mobile AA in the armour group poll, but probably should have picked Tank Destroyers.

    Those two and Mobile Artillery share a serious problem that they can be replaced by a cheaper unit that has no oil cost/upkeep. Once your army gets big, oil scarcity is likely to become a big problem, and using AT guns instead of TD is a big help in that situation.

    TD are also in competition with Medium Tanks, which are nearly as good in defense against armor, nearly as good in HP, and better in every other stat.

    You don't have time to fully upgrade everything, and an obvious one to skip is the TD since it is so replaceable (same argument as Cruisers.)
    While normally I use very few tank destroyers (I definitely prefer AT), I find mobile AA useful. However the most useless unit here is probably the SP artillery (to be clear: I'm not saying it's the most useless unit in general, to me it's just the most useless among the armour units).

  • @CityOfAngels @Marat666

    In the armor tree, I voted armored cars. But I should've voted TDs. Both of them are pretty useless. The AC is fixed very easily by giving it a bigger LOS than other units and by making it a bit faster. The TD is also easily fixable. It is stupid that TDs are weaker than their medium tank counterparts. Simply give them more strength, both on the offense and on defense.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    In the armor tree, I voted armored cars.
    I use armored car units as they were intended to be used: as fast-moving reconnaissance units. If someone uses AC brigades in their big stacks in the latter stages of the game, AC units are nothing more than cannon fodder because they don't perform particularly well in heavy combat against other unit types, including defending infantry and other "light" armor types such as AA and artillery.

    That said, if you're hard-pressed for research time or rare materials, higher level light tank brigades can serve the same function as AC units because of their speed. That said, I would rather burn out an AC unit on "forced march" speed than an LT brigade, because the LT units are more combat-worthy.

  • "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'."

    And the corollary is, "If you really must march on Moscow, get it done in the summer time, and bring a warm coat and snow boots just in case." Russia can be conquered, and has been several times in history by Asians on horseback, but Russia has been fortunate in her pick of enemies in the past 205 years not having a firm grasp of (1) the logistics required to conquer a country of Russia's enormous size, and (2) the reality that a country of such size probably cannot be conquered in a single campaign season.

    BTW, is Rule 2, on page 1 "never fight a major ground war in Asia"?

  • MontanaBB wrote:

    I use armored car units as they were intended to be used: as fast-moving reconnaissance units. If someone uses AC brigades in their big stacks in the latter stages of the game, AC units are nothing more than cannon fodder because they don't perform particularly well in heavy combat against other unit types, including defending infantry and other "light" armor types such as AA and artillery.

    That said, if you're hard-pressed for research time or rare materials, higher level light tank brigades can serve the same function as AC units because of their speed. That said, I would rather burn out an AC unit on "forced march" speed than an LT brigade, because the LT units are more combat-worthy.
    What interests me here is the second paragraph, and the second half of the first one.

    "AC units are nothing more than cannon fodder"
    "light tank briagdes can serve the same function as AC units because of their speed".

    So, to solve the AC problem, simply give them for LOS and speed so they become a proper recon unit.


    WayneBo wrote:

    Does anyone else actually have any constructive suggestions as to how their least favorite unit might be improved/modified?
    My unit improvement wish list:
    • Make artillery and SPA cause more damage.
    • Improve TDs so that they are stronger both on offense and on defense than their MT equivalent.
    • Give ACs more speed and LOS.
    • Make strat bombers slightly better versus units.
    • Make naval bombers a lot better versus subs.
    • Make cruisers better versus subs and give them a higher AA value, while lowering the AA value of the rest of the naval units.
    • Give rocket interceptors more speed and range.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'."

    And the corollary is, "If you really must march on Moscow, get it done in the summer time, and bring a warm coat and snow boots." Russia can be conquered, and has been several times in history by Asians on horseback, but Russia has been fortunate in her pick of enemies in the past 205 years not having a firm grasp of (1) the logistics required to conquer a country of Russia's enormous size, and (2) the reality that a country of such size probably cannot be conquered in a single campaign season.

    BTW, is Rule 2, on page 1 "never fight a major ground war in Asia"?

    WayneBo wrote:

    So far off topic!
    Sorry about that. Sometimes the digressions are the most fun.

    I think the larger point is that most objections to the so-called "most useless units" are based on ignorance of the purpose and capabilities of the particular unit type. Most of these unit types serve a valid purpose and reflect historical reality fairly well in a simplified board game such as COW. That said, the two units most in need of adjustment are submarines (their AA defense is far too strong) and naval patrol bombers (their range needs to be more than doubled, and their combat effectiveness against submarines increased). I remind everyone that almost half of the lost u-boats whose fates are known, were sunk by aircraft:

    uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

    As is often the case in these forum debates, history provides the answer, if only someone will do the homework and stop whining about "balance."

    The post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    So, to solve the AC problem, simply give them for LOS and speed so they become a proper recon unit.
    I think ACs are fine the way they are; at each level, the speed of AC units equals or exceeds the speed of LT units. They just need to be properly used -- if you want to invest the research time in maintaining them. Your choice, because you can use LTs as a rough equivalent -- but LTs do not reveal enemy units at the same distance as ACs do.

  • MontanaBB wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:

    So, to solve the AC problem, simply give them for LOS and speed so they become a proper recon unit.
    I think ACs are fine the way they are; at each level, the speed of AC units equals or exceeds the speed of LT units. They just need to be properly used -- if you want to invest the research time in maintaining them. Your choice, because you can use LTs as a rough equivalent -- but LTs do not reveal enemy units at the same distance as ACs do.
    To quote the dude, "that's just like, your opinion man." In your opinion, ACs perform better than tanks. Which they do, but not enough to make them worth producing after day 5, when people already have LTs. We need to give them a much bigger LOS and slightly increase their speed. Imho, that is.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    In your opinion, ACs perform better than tanks. Which they do, but not enough to make them worth producing after day 5, when people already have LTs.
    Again, it depends on the purpose for which you're using them. If you're using them as combat armor, then ACs are not nearly as valuable as LTs. If you're using them for reconnaissance and/or speed racers on "forced march" to capture ungarrisoned provinces in your enemy's rear, they can be very useful. That said, I rarely have more than 5 or 6 of them at a time, even in a large army of 200+ units, because their role is limited. Nothing wrong with that -- the specialty units are the ones that sometimes count the most in particular situations, and every player has to make choices as to which units you will maintain via research (unless you're a gold-bomber, and then you can have everything via accelerated research).

    One other down side of ACs -- and I think this reflects reality too -- is ACs can get popped by wings of high level fighters. They are, after all, light armor vehicles.

    My theory of the game is that the capabilities of the various unit types, including their strengths and weaknesses, should come as close to historical reality as we can within the confines of a simplified board game such as COW. Juicing unit types beyond the historical reality for the sake of "balance" turns the game into more of a fantasy game, and less of WW2 combat game. If we're going to have nuclear battleships that never existed, 100-mph armored cars, and submarines that can shoot down whole squadrons of patrol bombers, why not have X-wing fighters and fire-breathing Nazi dragons too? I am, of course, being facetious, but it is only a matter of degree.

  • I see where you're coming from, but historically ACs were a recon unit, and the stats that the game gives them doesn't make them that. Lower LTs speed, give them a bigger LOS, and all solved. I for one would use them a LOT if they were to have a bigger LOS.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    I see where you're coming from, but historically ACs were a recon unit, and the stats that the game gives them doesn't make them that. Lower LTs speed, give them a bigger LOS, and all solved. I for one would use them a LOT if they were to have a bigger LOS.
    Agreed: ACs were primarily reconnaissance units. Armored cars were never intended to go toe-to-toe with tanks or even entrenched infantry in stand-up fights. Add some AT guns, and they get massacred in a jiffy. On an empty plain, they should do okay against infantry.

    The in-game LOS (line of sight, right?) radius (i.e. the distance at which it reveal enemy units) is currently bigger than that of other armor and infantry units, but I would not object to enlarging it somewhat. The speed should approximate historical reality.

  • MontanaBB wrote:

    Agreed: ACs were primarily reconnaissance units. Armored cars were never intended to go toe-to-toe with tanks or even entrenched infantry in stand-up fights. Add some AT guns, and they get massacred in a jiffy. On an empty plain, they should do okay against infantry.

    The in-game LOS (line of sight, right?) radius (i.e. the distance at which it reveal enemy units) is currently bigger than that of other armor and infantry units, but I would not object to enlarging it somewhat. The speed should approximate historical reality.
    Ok, I think we see things eye to eye then. LOS is line of sight, and I would like AC's LOS bigger. And about speed: the historical speed of ACs was bigger than that of LTs, so the speed of LTs should be decreased.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • The best way to make militia better is to reduce its manpower cost and food usage. In fact they shouldn't cost much at all in manpower, since for the most part are made up of people not qualifying for active duty. The military strength is irrelevant IMHO. Keep them weak. You could even make them weaker if you wanted and felt the need for balance. They are not for fighting real frontline military units. They are for garrison objectives. Keeping moral of behind the lines conquered countries up and putting down rebellions, spotting amphibious invasions before they land and those types of things.

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