The following are the units that I produce the least:
1. Militia: Not completely useless, but pretty close. A militia regiment is weaker in most respects than a conventional infantry regiment, and it's slower than molasses. It does have a smaller daily upkeep in terms of food and manpower than conventional infantry, but it costs just as much to feed militia as it does commandos! They do have a +75% strength bonus in hills and forests terrain, but this slow-moving defensive unit is more likely to end its existence on the wrong end of an artillery barrage or a tactical bomber airstrike.
2. Heavy tanks: The heavy tank brigade is costly and slow to produce, it's slow-moving, and has the highest daily oil upkeep of any ground unit. It's great on defense, if you have air superiority, but it's bomber bait if you don't. I'm not completely against producing them, but I rarely am stuck in a defensive war against a major opponent ---- the scenario in which I imagine them being most useful. The heavy tank brigade consumes twice as much oil daily as a tactical bomber squadron, and it's far less versatile.
3. Tank destroyers: The tank destroyer brigade is a relatively slow-moving unit, and is far stronger defensively than offensively. In the end game in which oil consumption is usually a major factor, I would rather produce two or three non-oil-consuming anti-tank regiments rather than one oil-consuming tank destroyer brigade. For those reasons, I rarely produce them ---- see my comments above regarding heavy tanks.
4. Cruisers: Among the various naval units, cruiser squadrons are primarily an anti-aircraft niche unit for fleet defense. However, in competition for research time, production time, and resources, it's cheaper and easier to produce two destroyer squadrons instead of one cruiser squadron, especially since enemy submarines are usually a much greater threat than enemy naval bombers. My opinion might change quickly, however, if I were confronted with a major naval war with an opponent who had invested heavily in high-level naval bombers.
5. Strategic bombers: Another niche unit: good for destroying enemy industrial complexes and infrastructure, but mediocre against enemy ground units. In my worldview, I would rather quickly capture your industrial complexes and resource-producing provinces intact, rather than destroying them slowly ---- so I focus on destroying enemy ground units, and that implies a strong tactical air force, rather than a big strategic air force.
What units do you use the least, and why?
Please log in to post a reply.
Just thought I'd correct that. Lol. Nuclear carriers don't use oil.T-3PO wrote:
2) Nuclear Carriers-I've only ever produced one, and I hardly ever used it. It's rare material guzzling and I prefer to research aircraft carriers and build a few, rather than using the Nuclear Carrier.
Light tanks are what I feed my "Angry Birds" tactical bomber wing for breakfast. Lower fat, but higher iron content than feeding them infantry.T-3PO wrote:
A light tank is my best friend
One and two, I never produced.T-3PO wrote:
1) Heavy Tanks-A light tank is my best friend, and I only use medium tanks against a tank army. I rarely produce heavy tanks because they are slow and expensive, where light tanks can easily be mass produced.2) Nuclear Carriers-I've only ever produced one, and I hardly ever used it. It's oil guzzling and I prefer to research aircraft carriers and build a few, rather than using the Nuclear Carrier.
3)Rocket Fighters-I've never produced them and only researched them once, because I prefer to mass produce interceptors.
4)SP Anti Air-Useless, Anti-Air is mainly defensive, and fast enough for me on its own.
5)Railroad Gun-Too slow. It is vulnerable to Air and must be defended by ground troops.
Rocket Fighters are the kings in the air but only hard to use. But if you need to get the control over the air, against a good playing enemy, like you found in the PL, they are good to have.
SP Anti Air is a must have in the PL. Otherwise you have no chance to get a good air defense without loosing SBDE. If you combined 8 AA with 8 SP AA you have a good chance to stay alive against swarms of Tactical Bombers.
The Railroad Gun is a bunker breaker. If your enemy has a big stack in a heavy fortification it's the best way to wipe them out with a RR Gun.
The only thing I still missing with this Railroad Gun is that they are weak against Ships.
________________
So hear are my to five worse units in CoW:
1) Militia, to slow to expensive. For me the unit for the AI to build cannon fodder.
2) Heavy Tank, the coast to research and to build up industry to build heavy tanks is to late in game. The less cities you have with infrastructure level 3 is most time fare away from the front. So most games are over before the can use.
3) Mechanized Infantry, same as no. 2
4) Strategic Bombers, they are not bad - but the game is to fast and for the interceptors it's to easy to shot them down. I never had the situation that it's useful to bomb a city back to the stone age like it's happens in WW2. Rockets are easier do this job than the bombers.
5) All kinds of Atomic Units except the Atomic Rocket.
I'm not that worried about stacking sp with aa, cause you can split and march multiple stacks of reg aa together. but sp's are nice because they are armor class and more resistent to air damage.
In general, I don't use them because I don't have research time to upgrade them, while i'm trying to keep other stuff maxed.
Well, after listening to all your lovely lists, here's my own list (could've gone way past 5)(worst to least worst
1. Armored Cars. ABSOLUTELY NO. They lack in everything compared to LT, and they still need lv1 infrastructure. Like what someone said, they should increase speed and health (in the real world, armored cars replaced LT, but not in CoW).
2. Nukes. I find them really powerful, but they're really expensive. The use would basically be like dreadnoughts in WW1.
3. Destroyers. Their only use is to stop subs, and unless your enemy navy stacks are full of subs, otherwise they are useless.
4. Tank Destroyers. Like Roko said, they are extremely slow and more expensive than ATs. I found that out in a recent game.
5. Rocket fighters. Thanks to the guy who posted above, or else I would've forgot it. It's so insignificant, not versatile, and has very little range. Like I said before, it is easily forgotten.
"Honorable" mentions:
LTs. Honestly, I don't know how to use it, so you can disagree all you like.
SPAA/SP arti. They are expensive when my country doesn't have oil. I just use AA and arti.
HTs. I like using them as defense, but I don't research them right away.
RGs. This is actually one of my favorites, but simply because it's too slow and the not-so-good damage, I put it here.
Strat bombers. I don't like destroying buildings. I only research them for future nuke uses (sorry if I'm being a hypocrite).
Naval bombers. I never use it. Period.
Disagreements:
Cruisers are pretty good. They can attack coastal forces, and can defend against subs better than battleships. Anti air stuff, I don't need to say it.
Mech infantry: They have enough strength to stop rebellions in low morale places, and their fighting strength is pretty good.
Hope my view is logical 
For this quote, I have a question for it: So LTs are like pigs with helmets?MontanaBB wrote:
Light tanks are what I feed my "Angry Birds" tactical bomber wing for breakfast. Lower fat, but higher iron content than feeding them infantry.
I just want to correct that part. Light tanks are what replaced armored cars, not the other way around. But in recent times, with the distinct lack of conflict, light tanks have fallen out of use significantly, with armored cars filling in for them(APC/IFV's more or less replacing light tanks). And also because wheels are much cheaper than tracks. But really, armored cars and light tanks fill two different roles, IRL and in CoW. Light tanks are very good for combat operations, with well rounded mobility, firepower, and armor. Armored cars are good when the terrain is mild and you do not require the services of a light tank to get a certain job done, and so they are usually used for scouting, infantry support, or any number of other things besides intense combat.Little Racoon wrote:
(in the real world, armored cars replaced LT, but not in CoW).
Any attempt to play a naval game without destroyers is just suicide. Battleships and cruisers are practically defenceless against enemy submarines. If I have an opponent who does not use destroyers I just thank my lucky stars and proceed to spam a lot of subs.Little Racoon wrote:
3. Destroyers. Their only use is to stop subs, and unless your enemy navy stacks are full of subs, otherwise they are useless.
Yes, if you hit enemy battleships and cruisers with subs some of your subs will be killed as well, but the whole point of doing that is attrition. A sub costs only 500 Goods and 300 Oil. A battleship or a cruiser costs a heck of a lot more. If I can trade two subs for a cruiser or a battleship I consider that a major victory, and if you hit cruisers without a destroyer, you can probably kill it off without taking any losses at all.
Only a total noob will send his subs stacked with his surface ships, by the way. Experienced players will just spam subs, group them into wolf-packs and then send them out to wipe you out. Without destroyers, you will lose command of the sea in no time.
True, but think a bit more. Destroyers counter subs (which most players use), but when destroyers are found, subs can attack them and kill them (destroyers are not the best at health). However, this only works if the stack only has destroyers. Added with other ships, it's pretty hard to wipe them out. I do take your advice, but I'll only use it if someone is crazy on subs.MartinB wrote:
Any attempt to play a naval game without destroyers is just suicide. Battleships and cruisers are practically defenceless against enemy submarines. If I have an opponent who does not use destroyers I just thank my lucky stars and proceed to spam a lot of subs.Yes, if you hit enemy battleships and cruisers with subs some of your subs will be killed as well, but the whole point of doing that is attrition. A sub costs only 500 Goods and 300 Oil. A battleship or a cruiser costs a heck of a lot more. If I can trade two subs for a cruiser or a battleship I consider that a major victory, and if you hit cruisers without a destroyer, you can probably kill it off without taking any losses at all.
Only a total noob will send his subs stacked with his surface ships, by the way. Experienced players will just spam subs, group them into wolf-packs and then send them out to wipe you out. Without destroyers, you will lose command of the sea in no time.
Cough, Cough everyoneLittle Racoon wrote:
I'll only use it if someone is crazy on subs.
Little Racoon wrote:
Destroyers counter subs (which most players use), but when destroyers are found, subs can attack them and kill them (destroyers are not the best at health). However, this only works if the stack only has destroyers. Added with other ships, it's pretty hard to wipe them out. I do take your advice, but I'll only use it if someone is crazy on subs.
I think you have completely misread my point, which is that it is dumb to try and play a naval game without destroyers. At no point did I advocate playing using stacks of destroyers on their own, which is equally dumb, because destroyers are in fact extremely vulnerable to larger ships, and especially to battleships. You can have a stack of destroyers, but if they run into a battleship they will be massacred, unless you are lucky enough to have a newbie opponent who tries to close the range instead of wiping you out from a distance.
So, to reiterate my point, it is daft to try and play without destroyers. But that does not mean you build stacks of destroyers and send them out to kill subs. You need to get out of the mindset of building stacks of the same kind of unit, because this game is designed to give an advantage to players who build a balanced army or navy. Nothing warms my heart more than to run into an opponent who is an LT spammer, because it is such fun to beat them into the ground.
I have been meaning to write a post about the value of combined arms, but never got round to doing it.
naval bombers are one of the most underestimated units
If you have an enemy submarine problem, naval bombers are indispensable. You don't need a lot of them, but you need them to detect enemy sub units so you can find them before they attack you. Two or three naval bomber squadrons, combined with a couple of 6 to 8-unit stacks of destroyers can go a long way to clearing your coastal waters of the U-boat menace. Add an aircraft carrier, and you can go hunting for subs in the deep water.Pstomar wrote:
naval bombers are one of the most underestimated units
Contrary to some opinions expressed in the forum, high-level naval bombers are also very effective against surface naval units, especially when used en masse, employing the same 5-squadron wing tactics typically used with tactical bombers on land. The downside of using naval bombers for destroying enemy surface units is you are often going to suffer a higher casualty than you may be accustomed when using tactical bombers, because (1) naval units have more hit points than most ground units, and are therefore harder to destroy, and (2) high level surface naval units have much higher AA defense values than most ground units, and are therefore going to inflict more damage on attacking bombers.
MontanaBB wrote:
Contrary to some opinions expressed in the forum, high-level naval bombers are also very effective against surface naval units, especially when used en massePstomar wrote:
naval bombers are one of the most underestimated units
Yep I was surprised to find how effective they were, perhaps they have been beefed up a bit of late? I found them especially useful when I was defending against an enemy fleet with subs, because you can use your subs to damage the enemy fleet a bit, then hit the weakened fleet with your naval bombers. Yes, they did take damage, but overall, I got to sink some enemy surface ships (including a battleship), so it was a worthwhile exchange, and a victory of sorts if I counted the resources needed to build replacements against the resource cost of the destroyed enemy fleet.
Personally, I always try to stack at least one cruiser with my fleets, so that they have a decent air defence. Going out into tiger country without a cruiser is like going out without any destroyer escort, you're just begging for a buggering.MontanaBB wrote:
(2) high level surface naval units have much higher AA defense values than most ground units, and are therefore going to inflict more damage on attacking bombers...
I one hundred percent agree, but to me, naval bomber get damaged very easily, even when part of a stack of Interceptors. I therefor have to build more after a large naval confrontation, and in the bigger maps that means moving my ship back to my coastMontanaBB wrote:
Contrary to some opinions expressed in the forum, high-level naval bombers are also very effective against surface naval units, especially when used en masse, employing the same 5-squadron wing tactics typically used with tactical bombers on land. The downside of using naval bombers for destroying enemy surface units is you are often going to suffer a higher casualty than you may be accustomed when using tactical bombers, because (1) naval units have more hit points than most ground units, and are therefore harder to destroy, and (2) high level surface naval units have much higher AA defense values than most ground units, and are therefore going to inflict more damage on attacking bombers.
Yeah so my most unused units are probably the following, and in no particular order:
1. AA, just horribly slow and I never seem to need it, prefer int and SPAA
2. NB, why even bother, the range makes it useless, especially for me as I quite like playing as USSR
3. Motorised infantry, infantry is more or less as good and you can get mechinf almost the same time, so not worth it
4. Tank destroyers, TB do it's job just fine as do other tanks, and if I am ever in a situation where I need one I would rather an AT gun
5. Commandos, just not worth the hassle for them
I use commandos a lot, but I agree. I only use Motorized infantry as a home defense force. Much cheaper than mechanized, but faster than normal
Strongly disagree with this. Motorised infantry is very very useful. Mainly because you need to stack them with tanks to compensate for the weaknesses of tanks.Quasi-duck wrote:
3. Motorised infantry, infantry is more or less as good and you can get mechinf almost the same time, so not worth it
I use armoured 'divisions' of four units each, two tanks, an armoured car for recce and for speeding up the column in a breakthrough, and a motorised infantry regiment that is useful for when your armoured column encounters terrain that your tanks do badly in. If I am exploiting a breakthrough with more than one armoured division, I can stack two motorised infantry together to give them more punch when needed.
There is no comparison between Motorised infantry and normal, because they are much faster. You cannot exploit a breakthrough effectively using infantry, you need motorised infantry to back up your tanks.
Please log in to post a reply.
