The gold rewards for achievements are nice but please remove the "guerilla fighter" one. People will just join games to spam militia.
Heh. Enjoy your 500 gold units for spamming militia. Now you have to feed them.napoleon2018 wrote:
The gold rewards for achievements are nice but please remove the "guerilla fighter" one. People will just join games to spam militia.
I think his point is that people will join a game just to spam a lot of militia, then go inactive after that.
Anything is an improvement over just going inactive without even doing anything in a game. 
MartinB wrote:
I think his point is that people will join a game just to spam a lot of militia, then go inactive after that.
VorlonFCW wrote:
Anything is an improvement over just going inactive without even doing anything in a game.
Spammed militia = artillery bait
And now I get free gold for killing militia with artillery? Ain't life grand?
MontanaBB wrote:
Spammed militia = artillery baitAnd now I get free gold for killing militia with artillery? Ain't life grand?
For the record, let me just state that I do not agree with the OP's point of view that building a lot of militia can be considered a 'hack'. As you yourself never tire of stating, Montana, there are a lot of creative and imaginative ways in which you can use every type of unit in this game.
If you are playing a power that has a superabundance of manpower (as I am in my current game), then militia are essentially an almost worthless unit that you get for practically free. And they have their uses. As I have mentioned before, probably my most satisfying land victory was against an LT spammer, using just one AT gun and a whole lot of militia.
I like to think of players who build a lot of stuff then go inactive as being representative of an incompetent government, which spends a lot of their national resources on building obsolete or inefficient units for their military (as, for example, the French did).VorlonFCW wrote:
Anything is an improvement over just going inactive without even doing anything in a game.
Love the French. So far from reality.
Half right. In 1940, the French military had better tanks and more or less equivalent aircraft compared to the Germans, and their army combined with the British was as big or bigger than the Wehrmacht. What the Germans had was better doctrine, better general staff work, and better general officers -- and a coherent plan. The French didn't lose for lack of equipment; they lost in 1940 for lack of leadership with a grasp of the new armored tactics and fast movement. Thanks to the English Channel, the British got a second bite at the apple.MartinB wrote:
I like to think of players who build a lot of stuff then go inactive as being representative of an incompetent government, which spends a lot of their national resources on building obsolete or inefficient units for their military (as, for example, the French did).
What the Germans lacked was sound logistics in conquered territory, a sustainable long-term economic development plan (too much reliance on involuntary labor and smash-and-grab), and a viable strategic air force, all of which came back to bite them in 1943-45. The German army as a mechanized force was also vastly over-rated. The overwhelming majority of German infantry divisions marched into battle on foot (when they were outside the German railway network), unlike the Americans and British infantry units of 1944-45, who usually moved by truck when they weren't in battle. And contrary to the vaunted reputation of the German army as a big, scary mechanized force, most German artillery and supplies moved by horse.
Montana, I was not just alluding to popular misconceptions about the relative size and modernity of the French and German armies, but also to the overall political state of France. If you look at history of France in the 1930s, it was plagued by corruption and poor political leadership deserved the designation of 'decadent'. In game terms, this would be perfectly reflected by an inactive player, who would represent a government that does not invest in developing the country properly (e.g. building infrastructure etc.).MontanaBB wrote:
Half right. In 1940, the French military had better tanks and more or less equivalent aircraft compared to the Germans, and their army combined with the British was as big or bigger than the Wehrmacht...
Please log in to post a reply.
