Building infrastructure

For most part, kind of. Though when you have long ways to the front line and you got spare resources it’s pretty helpful to get troops to the front quickly.

It’s useful in the Antarctic map

There's several good uses, for example:

- When you have long supply line from your core (or other production centre) to the front, and when these go through rough/mountainous terrain in big provinces;

- When you have a medium/long front line with a (potential) enemy and you rely on a mobile reserve force. Building infra will make it available to counter an enemy attack much sooner;

Some other remarks:

- In general, its value is (amount of troops moved through a province) x (time saved per unit). So that means:

-- Build it in provinces where you will move a lot of (or very important, like railroad guns) troops through;

-- Build it in provinces that you spend most time moving through, so that means:

--- Build it mostly in rough terrain, that's where the difference matters most. Mountains that you can't avoid in your routes are best;

--- Build it in big provinces where you need to take a long path through. NEVER build it in cities; the duration of the speed gain is so marginal in these small provinces that it will hardly ever be useful.

- You don't have to build continuous lines; for example, when you want to move through the Rocky Mountains it is absolutely OK to build them only in the mountain provinces and not in the plains in between.

- Note that your enemy will also benefit from YOUR infrastructure when he's moving through your province; arguably it is even better for him since he has half speed anyway so the effect is bigger.

Well, most was said in the previous post, but i can add one observation: Game is usually over before i can afford infra.

Carking the 6th wrote:

To a large extent, yes. However, in situations where you have considerable distances to cover to reach the front line and you possess surplus resources, it proves quite advantageous to swiftly deploy troops to the front.

Wilsom wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

To a large extent, yes. However, in situations where you have considerable distances to cover to reach the front line and you possess surplus resources, it proves quite advantageous to swiftly deploy troops to the front.

It’s useful if:

• You’re in a mountainous region, like Caucasus or Tibet
• You want to have one major supply route connecting your core provinces to the frontlines
• A city is going to be captured by the enemy soon, you can build Level 1 infra, and when the city is captured the infra will absorb some of the damage that he other building would have taken, so they don’t get as damaged

Claudio NVKP wrote:

Wilsom wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

To a large extent, yes. However, in situations where you have considerable distances to cover to reach the front line and you possess surplus resources, it proves quite advantageous to swiftly deploy troops to the front.

Did you just rephrase that?

Carking the 6th wrote:

Claudio NVKP wrote:

Wilsom wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

To a large extent, yes. However, in situations where you have considerable distances to cover to reach the front line and you possess surplus resources, it proves quite advantageous to swiftly deploy troops to the front.

Did you just rephrase that?

Why do people keep using AI and rephrasing my words?