My top 5 least used units

MartinB wrote:

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.

I do the same as you but with mechinf for the above reason. They are just not worth my time, infantry and LT fill the time gap.

..top 5 least used units..

absolute place one: paratroopers .. ; never had a situation where it would needed to have them..

Underwater Demolition Teams

Quasi-duck wrote:

MartinB wrote:

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.

Yeah that is what they are for, and how you should use them. My problem is they are not worth building because by the time the first units hit the frontlines, you'll probably already have mechinf ready to be built. Imo they have too short of a window of opportunity to be used before something better comes along and outclasses them.

I do the same as you but with mechinf for the above reason. They are just not worth my time, infantry and LT fill the time gap.

Frankly, while mech infantry can be useful, they do not dominate over motorized(they have more or less the same speed, pretty similar stats and mech infantry has 5 more HP. Motorized is researched on day 8, mech is researched on like day 20). If you are facing against a huge contingent of anti-tank, you do not want to be using mech infantry because it is armored class and does not do as well against armored as, say, TD's, heavy tanks or even medium tanks. Put simply, mech infantry is great versus infantry and better against aircraft, but besides that it can suffer when fighting other armored components, especially defensive anti-tank units. A mix of motorized and mechanized with the tanks is probably best when you get to the stage when mechanized can be used, if you ever get to the stage of building them at all, because mechanized has a lot of requirements and are not very easy to replace(seriously, who bothers to build level 3 barracks when you have more important things like infrastructure and industrial complex upgrades to be building?). Motorized are easier to replace, infantry the easiest.

Me personally, I've been using them a lot to great effect. And I do have incentive to use them with having the elite blueprint, but even then, I would still probably use them over mechanized. They have lower requirements, they have better performance than light tanks, they are faster, and I don't need to build to level 3 barracks to get them(or spend tons of materials).

Between mechanized and motorized, you need to pick one and stick to it

I usually go with motorized for the following reason :

- You can start motorized tech way earlier, when you have less things to develop. By the time Mechanized arrived (day 20), I have already a lot of motorized around,

- Motorized is weaker against almost everything than mechanized, BUT mechanized is crippled against anti-tank and there is no other units than motorized / regular infantry / commando to do the job, so motorized do the thing tanks can't do, mechanized do the same thing as tanks and can go in cities...

There is also a key-ressource constraint :

- Mechanized needs steel. Sometimes I am good on steel, quite often(naval games in particular) I am low on steel,

- Mechanized need more oil, something else you need a lot for, well, all your other units except commando, artillery and AA

- Finally, mechanized needs the same amount of wheat or more if you take into account that you need to build and maintain level 3 barracks around, barracks that you won't be able to "keep at level 2" if you used the province to build something simpler...

In a nutshell, mechanized use ressource you need, motorized don't use ressource you need, so you can get several times more motorized than you would mechanized. If you have infinite ressource, well who cares you have probably won already.

Finally, it makes sense to have motorized max level and mechanized level 1 for damage mitigation purpose, and level 1 mechanized is good in itself. It makes less sense (and is way harder) to have max mechanized and level 1 motorized, since a level 1 motorized is quite weak by the time you have mechanized.

In practice I would max motorized until day 20 research mechanized, and then depending on ressources, number of existing motorized fleet, existing level 3 barracks (in general = none) and how much anti-tank and similar I expect to meet I would focus on either mechanized or motorized from that point onward.

Mechanized infantry can defeat a motorized infantry even when low leveled and the mo. inf is lvl 5. Commandos on the other hand is OP and very effective, especially when you're a country like Tibet.

Have to agree with Nova Topaz and Chimere on this one.

I think the basic point is this. Yes, Mech Infantry is stronger than Mot Infantry, but that is hardly the point. Each unit has its advantages and disadvantages, but Mech Infantry is suited to a different role than Mot Infantry.

Motorised Infantry is designed to be stacked with tanks, and to do the things that tanks have problems with and go to the places where tanks will be weak. Their fundamental purpose is to provide infantry cover to your armoured columns, which your regular infantry cannot because they are far too slow and will not be able to keep up with your column (unless you give up with blitzkrieg tactics and stick to First World War tactics).

Mechanised Infantry is designed to stand alone, not to be stacked with tanks. They have some of the weaknesses that tanks have (e.g. vulnerability to AT units, and weakness in mountainous terrains as well, I think). So they are basically not actually a high-speed infantry, but an armoured infantry unit.

To argue that Motorised Infantry is no longer useful once Mech Infantry becomes available suggests that the person making the argument is not very clear on how to use Motorised Infantry in the first place, especially as it takes much longer before Mech Infantry becomes available.

Personally, I hardly ever go for Mech Infantry because by the time it becomes available I am already busy trying to build nuclear weapons and rockets. Plus, there is the enormous disadvantage of having to build Level 3 Barracks to recruit them. In practice, one is almost never going to have a large number of these available, so if you get into a big scrap and need to replace Mech Infantry very rapidly, it becomes a huge problem.

NovaTopaz wrote:

And yet infantry isn't disqualified for that reason? You get bigger and better things on day 8... Surprise, surprise, it's motorized infantry.

NovaTopaz wrote:

If you are facing against a huge contingent of anti-tank

NovaTopaz wrote:

(seriously, who bothers to build level 3 barracks when you have more important things like infrastructure and industrial complex upgrades to be building?).

NovaTopaz wrote:

And yet infantry isn't disqualified for that reason?

Chimere wrote:

There is also a key-ressource constraint :

- Mechanized needs steel. Sometimes I am good on steel, quite often(naval games in particular) I am low on steel,

- Mechanized need more oil, something else you need a lot for, well, all your other units except commando, artillery and AA

- Finally, mechanized needs the same amount of wheat or more if you take into account that you need to build and maintain level 3 barracks around, barracks that you won't be able to "keep at level 2" if you used the province to build something simpler...

Chimere wrote:

Finally, it makes sense to have motorized max level and mechanized level 1 for damage mitigation purpose, and level 1 mechanized is good in itself. It makes less sense (and is way harder) to have max mechanized and level 1 motorized, since a level 1 motorized is quite weak by the time you have mechanized.

MartinB wrote:

To argue that Motorised Infantry is no longer useful once Mech Infantry becomes available suggests that the person making the argument is not very clear on how to use Motorised Infantry in the first place, especially as it takes much longer before Mech Infantry becomes available.

MartinB wrote:

Plus, there is the enormous disadvantage of having to build Level 3 Barracks to recruit them. In practice, one is almost never going to have a large number of these available, so if you get into a big scrap and need to replace Mech Infantry very rapidly, it becomes a huge problem.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Yeah the rest of your post is addressed in my other 2 posts I think, this basically amounts to you not having a big enough airforce and navy if AT guns give you a problem.This is why you maintain a large army and have it very plane heavy, so you don't lose a load of units. Planes are the most powerful unit in the game, and then artillery/naval guns. Infantry and tanks of all kinds is just to clean up what is left.

How naive can you get.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Chimere wrote:

There is also a key-resource constraint :

- Mechanized needs steel. Sometimes I am good on steel, quite often(naval games in particular) I am low on steel,

- Mechanized need more oil, something else you need a lot for, well, all your other units except commando, artillery and AA

- Finally, mechanized needs the same amount of wheat or more if you take into account that you need to build and maintain level 3 barracks around, barracks that you won't be able to "keep at level 2" if you used the province to build something simpler...

Hate to sound mean but the solution to this is "get good", no other way to go about it. If you can't support mechinf, you can't support tanks, planes and ships either.

If you do not understand this point, then I would think that you have obviously only played against noobs so far, and have yet to come up against any half-decent player.

MartinB wrote:

Cough, cough

How noob can you get.

This is the result of these tactics, I was Italy, and France was an active player. I did not lose Libya even with UK and France attacking on two fronts, and my bombardment tactics worked perfectly. A good chunk of those casualties are from me sending useless units on suicide attacks behind enemy lines to destroy their production. The tactics I used worked perfectly on the front lines, and I had no need for moto inf.

MartinB wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, Chimere was not talking about not being able to support Mech Infantry, he is just pointing out that it is stupid to use up resources that can be used for other things to build it when you can use those resources for other things.

If you do not understand this point, then I would think that you have obviously only played against noobs so far, and have yet to come up against any half-decent player.

Quasi-duck wrote:

I don't understand....? Do you people actually send in your main forces without overwhelming air and artillery support? I don't know if you guys attack people way stronger than you or what but this tactic hasn't failed me yet...

This is the result of these tactics, I was Italy, and France was an active player. I did not lose Libya even with UK and France attacking on two fronts, and my bombardment tactics worked perfectly.

However, where you are mistaken is in assuming that these tactics will work against an experienced opponent (not necessarily a master of the game like MontanaBB or such types) but just a half-decent player. A good, experienced player will never allow you to blast his army into oblivion using tac bombers and artillery, because he or she will be constantly reacting to your every move. Trust me, I'm playing against a pretty half-assed player at the moment and even he comes up with ways to counter my air force.

Of course we people do not send in our main forces without air and artillery support, but how do you get to the point where you can attack with overwhelming air and artillery support? Against a noob this is easy, you build a stack of five tac bombers and blast him to bits and the poor bugger has no idea how to fight back. Try this against an experienced player and you have a bout on your hands. Because he or she will also be building an air force to counter yours.

This is the point the other two posters were making, and your snarky responses about them having to 'get good' were, in my humble opinion, uncalled for. In a battle against an equally experienced player, you cannot just rely on having air superiority or artillery support that is not countered. You build a tac bomber and he will build an interceptor to shoot it down. You build a gun and he will build one to shoot back at you.

So that is the point that Chimere, Nova and I were making. You use Motorised Infantry because it has a specific niche in the game, and if you have not yet figured out what that niche is, then this forum is the place to find out from other guys about it. Yes, the game would be easy if you are always up against an opponent who you can bombard from the air unopposed. But come up against a good player and you will find that you can't do it easily (and I have played against guys who are better than me and beat me in the air before). That is why you need ALL your units, and you need to use them all 'creatively and imaginatively'.

So in summary, the use of Motorised Infantry as I see it, is as an infantry support unit for my armoured columns. If I have total air superiority then of course I do not need to waste time building these units. But I build them because I know that I will not always have total air superiority (or even if I do, sometimes my armoured columns will go ahead of my air bases, and I do not want to wait for a few hours to build a new air base).

Quasi-duck wrote:

You missed my point, mechinf dominates any other infantry unit in the field, and gives some tanks a good run for their money. Any units that give mechinf trouble are easily taken out by other units.

Play against a noob and this is no problem, because you will never get into a situation where he will snook you and bugger half your army. Play against a good player, and this WILL happen at some point. That is when you need to be able to replace your losses in six different level 2 barracks, instead of building six new units in your two lvl 3 barracks.

MartinB wrote:

You build a tac bomber and he will build an interceptor to shoot it down.

MartinB wrote:

Play against a noob and this is no problem, because you will never get into a situation where he will snook you and bugger half your army. Play against a good player, and this WILL happen at some point. That is when you need to be able to replace your losses in six different level 2 barracks, instead of building six new units in your two lvl 3 barracks.

Thank you MartinB, indeed you understood what I meant.

At a meta level, the argument "if you can't support X then you cannot support Y" is not really good as it is binary, because the question is not about whether you can support X or Y or not, but how much firepower you can support (and how well mixed it is).

In general, this is optimized (ceteris paribus in terms of building management) by being in a situation where you are short on all ressources without using the market too much. If you are only short on a couple ressources (like say oil & steel), it is likely that there is something you could do better. There are exceptions (naval game => You are going to be short on steel and oil no matter what) but they are rare.

If all your provinces don't have max infrastructure and IC churning troops 24/24, then optimizing your ressources is critical.

By the way, the same logic applies to attack. Yes, you could blast everything if you had infinite bombers, but you don't have infinite bomber against a competent player, so if you could eliminate an enemy stack without bomber and without units for which the creation did not stop you from building more bombers, then you took an advantage.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Lol do you not have fighters with your TB? We all have the same units it just comes down who can build the most powerful units the quickest, in the largest numbers and with the most effectiveness.This seems to imply I focus my army around infantry, which is not the case, and that my grain production is not through the roof. Things like this is why I prefer to play maps where I am, say, the USSR.

Your comments make it apparent that you have only ever played against noobs, because you are assuming that you are going to be able to build the most powerful units the quickest, which is why you are completely missing the point that the other posters are making. This is not always the case in this game, and especially not on the 25 player map, (unless you are going to be really noob and only play as the USSR, as you seem to prefer). What you will find playing this game is that you will often be up against someone who is also experienced and able to counter your air force and your artillery. Often, they will start off with higher resources or higher technology (e.g. if you are France and they are Germany).

So it is really daft to argue that you don't need to worry about AT guns because your air force and navy will deal with them anyway, because when you do come up against a good player, that is not going to be a given.

Chimere wrote:

Thank you MartinB, indeed you understood what I meant...

Yes, you could blast everything if you had infinite bombers, but you don't have infinite bomber against a competent player...

The comment about how he does not need to worry about AT guns because he has an air force was rather telling, methinks.