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?
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
147 Replies
26 May 2018, 11:56
MartinB wrote:
I notice on that screen shot you posted that Germany was not played by an active player.
Lol I wasn't even fighting Germany. I've been playing with older users to make sure I'm not fighting AI the whole damn match. If I wanted to do that I would go play HoI.
MartinB wrote:
The conversations on this thread are by posters who are talking about how best to beat another active competent player. The points we make are not really relevant to players whose idea of the game is to wait for their neighbours to go inactive, or worse, make the match and choose the strongest country so that they can imagine that they have 'won' something.
Yeah maybe if you paid attention to who I was fighting in the screenshots I posted rather than going "oh X nation that you never even fought is inactive" you would understand why my opinion is valid.
26 May 2018, 11:58
MartinB wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
You say niche I say not worth it, what is the difference.
Triple facepalm.
'Niche' and 'not worth it' are quite different. You need a dictionary, amigo.
Niche is a certain specific use in this context, no? Rather than a little crevice in a wall or something. Meaning it has little use outside of certain battles. Once again, why would I build a unit I do not need all the time instead of one I do need all the time? What part do you not understand lol.
26 May 2018, 12:35
Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol I wasn't even fighting Germany. I've been playing with older users to make sure I'm not fighting AI the whole damn match.
Well the reason why you do not understand my point is because you have never really played against competent opponents.
If you play the USSR in the 25 player game, your biggest threat is Germany. It is the country that is most likely to attack and conquer you, and the country that is most capable of doing so. So, if you play the Soviet Union, and you have manipulated things so that Germany is inactive (as you do in your games), you obviously do not need to use your brains to play the game.
This is why you think that motorised infantry and AA guns are 'useless'. You do not need them because you never play against another competent player. So you do not need such units, because you are never under threat. AI Germany is not going to launch Barbarossa and destroy you, only a competent active player playing Germany will do that.
Personally, I think your kind of play is for losers. In fact, I have left games in which I am winning against total noob players simply because it is incredibly boring playing such a game. Much rather play a challenging game against an opponent who can threaten me with destruction than waste my time in such games (yes, I know I will probably be rapped on the knuckles for doing this by the game designers, but I just could not find the energy to log on and do my housekeeping in such a situation).
You should try playing against competent players, then you will begin to realise why these units are useful, and how silly you are making yourself look with your screenshots of yourself as the USSR and Germany with Adolf H... as its leader. Choose the USSR by all means, but if you do, make sure you get an active competent opponent playing Germany and see what it is like defending the Soviet Union against the German army. Then you will realise why AA guns are not 'useless'.
No point going on about how you always have massive air superiority, if all you do in your games is choose a strong country and make sure that your biggest threat is an AI.
26 May 2018, 12:40 (edited)
Quasi-duck wrote:
Niche is a certain specific use in this context, no? Rather than a little crevice in a wall or something. Meaning it has little use outside of certain battles. Once again, why would I build a unit I do not need all the time instead of one I do need all the time? What part do you not understand lol.
Already explained this to you but I will do it again. You only imagine that you do not need units like AA and Motorised Infantry because you never play against a competent opponent who will be strong enough to pose a serious threat. If you are the USSR and playing against noobs and inactives, then you do not need these units. You only need these units when playing against a good player, because a good player will never leave AT guns sitting around for your bombers to pick off at will, and will launch air attacks against you that you need those AA guns to defend against.
Amazes me that you do not understand such a simple point LOL
As I said, pick a game with you as the USSR and get an active competent opponent to play as Germany. Then watch as his high level tac bombers beat the crap out of your troops and you will realise why AA guns are not 'useless'. And watch as he uses his AT guns stacked with air defence units and with air cover, and you will realise why your point that your air force is all you need against them sounds so ridiculous to the rest of us.
26 May 2018, 12:48
Quasi-duck wrote:
That is what I originally said. Why would I build a unit I would only use sometimes when I could build a stronger unit I use all the time? It's prioritising resources instead of building stupid stuff I don't need, which is probably why you guys were complaining about not "wasting" resources building lvl 3 barracks, which speed up the production of manpower and all units built in that province, as well as building the strongest infantry unit in the game.
Errr, Barracks level 3 do not increase production speed more than a barrack level 1 (+25%) ; as for manpower except in the first week or so I hav rarely if ever been limited by manpower - unlike food.
"wasting" resources building lvl 3 barracks, which speed up the production of manpower and all units built in that province, as well as building the strongest infantry unit in the game.
... Manpower is pretty easy to accumulate. And that speed up production thing is NOT unique to level 3 barracks. Level 1, 2, and 3 barracks have a 25%, FLAT production speed bonus across all three levels. So yes, it is usually a waste of resources to upgrade to level 2 or even level 3 barracks unless you intend to build a certain infantry unit in a province or if you are spamming militia or something and are running low on manpower. Otherwise, you should NEVER upgrade above level 1 because it costs resources and it will cost even more resources to maintain the building. And lots of time. Time that could be used for adding fortifications or the like.
Niche means it fills a vital role, it is not a unique role, it is also fulfilled by normal infantry, and it goes FASTER than normal infantry, so it can keep up with tanks or mechanized infantry. And given that motorized are as fast as mechanized, the mechanized can essentially be the tank and the motorized are the regular infantry, when the two work together. They can both travel faster than mediums, lights or pretty much everything else in the armored tree except the armored car, which could also be combined with them. A battle group moving at 69 kph, the only thing faster being an armored car by itself.
It should also be noted that the 25 player map and any map with stuff already researched do not count for this discussion, because it is already on day 15 for research, which makes your point moot. You will not get to that point on other maps for 16 days. Motorized is still faster than mechanized for most days, and is actually regular infantry. Mechanized infantry is niche, and yet you say it is superior to all infantry. It is superior to infantry in a one on one fight against other infantry, but against armored it is arguably the worst at facing against TD's and anti-tank guns. That means the other infantry should be used to augment mechanized, for mechanized by itself is like a tank with the name infantry in it. It makes it good at some things and worse at other things.
26 May 2018, 13:26
Chimere wrote:
Errr, Barracks level 3 do not increase production speed more than a barrack level 1 (+25%) ; as for manpower except in the first week or so I have rarely if ever been limited by manpower - unlike food.
I suppose if you're playing the Soviet Union on the 25 player and every other country is either inactive or on the AI, then you might run out of manpower because you can start seven different wars and need to build a LOT of units to fight those wars
26 May 2018, 13:28
To be honest its not a waste of resources to build above lvl 1 barracks, it boosts manpower production allowing you to produce more units and if you start building up manpower you can toggle barracks off when you dont need it. Its surprising how many people don't toggle.
Forum Gang Divine Entity
Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.
26 May 2018, 13:37
Chimere wrote:
Errr, Barracks level 3 do not increase production speed more than a barrack level 1 (+25%)
Didn't actually know this, I always imagined that a higher level barracks would produce more manpower. I guess it's because manpower is hardly ever the limiting factor for unit production.
26 May 2018, 14:20
Barracks 3 does produce more manpower - you don't get any 'production' boost past level 1. You get 25% increase in all units produced in that province with a lvl 1 Barracks - but thats max.
"Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen" - There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. General Heinz Guderian(Schneller Heinz) Kenny says - You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away And know when to run
26 May 2018, 14:33
MartinB wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol you seem to like to assume a lot of things don't you.
What is there to assume?
You admit yourself that you win by making the match and choosing the strongest nation. So it is pretty obvious that you are in fact incapable of competing effectively if you have to resort to that kind of tactic to win.
OK - see if I get this correct.
1. you create a game - the 25 player Historic.
2. pick Russia - very strong country.
3. build resources and armies while many go Inactive
4. then brag about easy winning.
LOL - I've won that map as Australia and Brit India.
Challenge yourself for a change. You'll learn more.
"Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen" - There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. General Heinz Guderian(Schneller Heinz) Kenny says - You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away And know when to run
26 May 2018, 17:59
How can i stop receiving notifications from this thread?
26 May 2018, 19:02
MartinB wrote:
So, if you play the Soviet Union, and you have manipulated things so that Germany is inactive
Lmao how do I do that? I make sure that everyone can pick whatever nation they like lol. People chose not to be Germany, I can't do anything about that. Do you not know how joining a game works?
MartinB wrote:
Personally, I think your kind of play is for losers. In fact, I have left games in which I am winning against total noob players simply because it is incredibly boring playing such a game.
Lol, you're too smart for this so I guess, with your big powerful brain knowing how to defeat everyone. I'm so upset someone on the internet called me a loser for not playing a game the way they think I should.
MartinB wrote:
Well the reason why you do not understand my point is because you have never really played against competent opponents.
If you play the USSR in the 25 player game, your biggest threat is Germany. It is the country that is most likely to attack and conquer you, and the country that is most capable of doing so. So, if you play the Soviet Union, and you have manipulated things so that Germany is inactive (as you do in your games), you obviously do not need to use your brains to play the game.
This is why you think that motorised infantry and AA guns are 'useless'. You do not need them because you never play against another competent player. So you do not need such units, because you are never under threat. AI Germany is not going to launch Barbarossa and destroy you, only a competent active player playing Germany will do that.
Personally, I think your kind of play is for losers. In fact, I have left games in which I am winning against total noob players simply because it is incredibly boring playing such a game. Much rather play a challenging game against an opponent who can threaten me with destruction than waste my time in such games (yes, I know I will probably be rapped on the knuckles for doing this by the game designers, but I just could not find the energy to log on and do my housekeeping in such a situation).
You should try playing against competent players, then you will begin to realise why these units are useful, and how silly you are making yourself look with your screenshots of yourself as the USSR and Germany with Adolf H... as its leader. Choose the USSR by all means, but if you do, make sure you get an active competent opponent playing Germany and see what it is like defending the Soviet Union against the German army. Then you will realise why AA guns are not 'useless'.
No point going on about how you always have massive air superiority, if all you do in your games is choose a strong country and make sure that your biggest threat is an AI.
Do you have anything else to say other than "you're bad at the game and are not cool".
26 May 2018, 19:05
T-3PO wrote:
How can i stop receiving notifications from this thread?
Go up to what is underlined in the ss, and click into. You can find your way from there.
26 May 2018, 19:14
Quasi-duck wrote:
I'm so upset someone on the internet called me a loser for not playing a game the way they think I should.Do you have anything else to say other than "you're bad at the game and are not cool".
Actually I have said quite a lot other than that. I have explained in detail, and in a well-reasoned argument why your points are ridiculous, and also why your playing style is pretty sad. Other posters have also pointed out the fact that it is really quite pathetic to create a game so that you can choose to play the Soviet Union in order to 'win' on that thread, and added a comment that you should try to give yourself a challenge instead of bragging about 'winning' in that kind of game.
Players like signing up as Germany because it's fun to play at the start and a bit overpowered, so it is immediately obvious that you are manipulating the game system by limiting the number of players needed to start the round. Be grown-up about it and set it so that you need all 25 slots filled, that way you might have a challenge against an active German player, but then, I guess you do not want a challenge, do you, because you will obviously not be able to handle it.
26 May 2018, 19:16
dw98 wrote:
OK - see if I get this correct.
1. you create a game - the 25 player Historic.
2. pick Russia - very strong country.
3. build resources and armies while many go Inactive
4. then brag about easy winning.
LOL
26 May 2018, 19:25 (edited)
MartinB wrote:
Players like signing up as Germany because it's fun to play at the start and a bit overpowered, so it is immediately obvious that you are manipulating the game system by limiting the number of players needed to start the round. Be grown-up about it and set it so that you need all 25 slots filled, that way you might have a challenge against an active German player, but then, I guess you do not want a challenge, do you, because you will obviously not be able to handle it
Duck, all you have to do is replace the obnoxious posts with
"[comment deleted by original poster]"
Actually I have said quite a lot other than that. I have explained in detail, and in a well-reasoned argument why your points are ridiculous, and also why your playing style is pretty sad. Other posters have also pointed out the fact that it is really quite pathetic to create a game so that you can choose to play the Soviet Union in order to 'win' on that thread, and added a comment that you should try to give yourself a challenge instead of bragging about 'winning' in that kind of game.
[/quote]Duck, all you have to do is replace the obnoxious posts with
"[comment deleted by original poster]"
26 May 2018, 19:46 (edited)
MartinB wrote:
The point is that you are pretty pathetic to be boasting about winning as the Soviet Union. That would be true even if Germany was an active player, but when Germany is an AI and you are boasting about winning as the USSR, it is really pretty sad.
Duck, all you have to do is replace the obnoxious posts with
"[comment deleted by original poster]"
26 May 2018, 20:29 (edited)
MartinB wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol UK or US could easily have attacked me, nothing stopped them. No point in discussing anymore with you though, you cannot comprehend what I say.
Still missing the point. Boasting about winning as the USSR is like boasting about beating up a six year old child. Nothing to boast about. Doesn't mean you are a good fighter.
Duck, all you have to do is replace the obnoxious posts with
"[comment deleted by original poster]"
26 May 2018, 20:31
Can we end the arguments now, lol I mean its going beyond the point of just farming post points. We have been fighting all over the forum, overall we can agree to disagree. Its turned into a D**k measuring contest at this point, lets stop.
