What is the Most Useless CoW Unit?

BRDubbs wrote:

My justifications:

Militia - Have yet to figure out what they are good for.

Heavy tank - Just too slow to be useful, even for a slow player like myself.

Strategic bomber - All the others are useful, so I had to throw out the one I use the least.

Cruiser - Easily replaced with other units.

Secret - Wish there were no nuclear options!

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

The naval bomber, it sucks.

Unless you know how to use it effectively, but even still, it isnt the naval bomber that is the problem. Its the Naval AA

Iron Guard24 wrote:

Artillery is deficient in its anti-naval power, in real life Coastal Artillery was a key defense with I'm sure AP Shells to penetrate ship's hulls. In the game this is not reflected and in fact once Artillery goes past tech lvl 3 the naval damage drops to 0.2 from 0.3, this actually makes it better not to research high lvl artillery. I believe the early tech damage of 0.3 is acceptable only if at tech level 4 the damage is increased to 0.4.

Yea, just this bit spotted my eye

Art guns, often did have the precision to hit the naval battleships, $stand to be corrected$

The art should stay .3, but the railguns should be greatly improved against shipping, (5 or 6?) representing nearly immobile coastal defenses. Railguns are already very very slow, so this works out. Not a perfect fix, but close enough without unbalancing the rest of the game.

Redd Baron wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

The naval bomber, it sucks.

Unless you know how to use it effectively, but even still, it isnt the naval bomber that is the problem. Its the Naval AA

Iron Guard24 wrote:

Artillery is deficient in its anti-naval power, in real life Coastal Artillery was a key defense with I'm sure AP Shells to penetrate ship's hulls. In the game this is not reflected and in fact once Artillery goes past tech lvl 3 the naval damage drops to 0.2 from 0.3, this actually makes it better not to research high lvl artillery. I believe the early tech damage of 0.3 is acceptable only if at tech level 4 the damage is increased to 0.4.

Yea, just this bit spotted my eyeArt guns, often did have the precision to hit the naval battleships, $stand to be corrected$

Naval bombers are fine. What is lacking is as you say, the knowledge to use them correctly. I would even say that the naval AA is about right on everything but subs. The sub AA is ridiculously OP by an order of magnitude. Other ships did have significant AA and when grouped in a mixed fleet could eliminate entire squadrons of planes, and did frequently in WWII. I know of no cases where a sub or group of subs managed to eliminate an entire squadron of naval air. The way you fix this though is not by changing the sub AA, rather by dramatically lowering the subs hit points while increasing its attack against ships. AND give it an Xfactor random possibility of a critical hit large enough to sink a battleship with one or two shots. So yes the sub could battle fleets, but with the majority of naval fights, naval air wins and so do fleets. However, when the sub does manage a sneak attack on navies or convoys, they really do a lot of damages fast...but no staying power due to low hit points. I would also make sure subs did not lock fleets...they could leave the battle by submerging. If they stayed in battle, they die. This would dramatically improve all the different combinations of naval combat air convoy fleet and sub combinations. Give it an attack factor of say 10 +1 per level, but drop the hitpoints by 2/3rds and let it break from contact...if it survives the first round of combat.

The art should stay .3, but the railguns should be greatly improved against shipping, (5 or 6?) representing nearly immobile coastal defenses. Railguns are already very very slow, so this works out. Not a perfect fix, but close enough without unbalancing the rest of the game.

I was gonna type a whole long yolk, but I already just agree with this

Subs AA is too high,

BRDubbs wrote:

Militia - Have yet to figure out what they are good for.

Heavy tank - Just too slow to be useful, even for a slow player like myself.

Strategic bomber - All the others are useful, so I had to throw out the one I use the least.

Cruiser - Easily replaced with other units.

Secret - Wish there were no nuclear options!

Heavy tank -- they existed in substantial numbers, especially among German forces, needs to be an option for a more realistic game, but I agree with Dubbs' comment. Given their relative levels of mobility, I would much rather have two medium tank brigades than one heavy tank brigade.

Strategic bombers -- have limited tactical use against units, and destroying buildings/improvements with large numbers of them isn't really practical in the game as structured. The problem is that the game places heavy emphasis on regimental level tactical play, and it is unclear what role strategic bombing should play in the game.

Cruiser -- you can substitute more destroyers for fewer cruisers, but a battle group isn't really balanced without them. Cruisers provide twice the hit points (realistic), more than twice the firepower (realistic), and more than twice the AA (realistic). Needs to be an option.

Secret -- Everyone needs to keep in mind what it took to produce a working A-bomb in 1945, after 5 years of top-priority R&D. There was no bomb small enough to fit on a missile, and long-range missiles such as the V-2 were not accurate enough to use as tactical weapons against troops. Rockets and nukes, as a class, need to be critically reviewed. Compared to 1945 reality, nukes are too inexpensive, and rockets are far too accurate.

delete

The admins.

Oh wait misread the question thought it said the most useless thing in CoW my bad

#Banter

1. There isn't really a useless unit in the infantry tech tree, but militia is definitely the one that has the least uses.
2. The armored car is useless, but could be easily tweaked. Simply add a little bit more speed and a longer LOS.
3. In the air, it's the strategic bomber.
4. On the sea, most seem to agree it's the cruiser. Adding a a higher AA value for cruisers and lowering AA values for the rest of naval units would be a good start.
5. In the secret category, the rocket interceptor is by far the most useless. Adding more range and a lot more strength would help.

Pablo22510 wrote:

• In the air, it's the strategic bomber.

WayneBo wrote:

With just a few days left in this poll, it would appear that militia will be the biggest loser.

I have a few suggestions, based mostly on the approach of making militia weaker, but cheaper.

1. Militia are not issued uniforms, they remain indistinguishable from civilians unless attacking or an enemy unit stumbles across them (same game mechanic as for submarines.)
2. Militia are able to disburse and hide – invulnerable to air attack, unless actively engaged.
3. Militia are restricted to operate in their home province, and the civilian population feeds them > zero daily food consumption.
4. Militias are not bound by the Geneva Conventions. They may fire on parachuting troops while still in the air > attack and defense vs paratroops = 1.0 until the paratroops have landed, and spent one hour regrouping on the ground.

I suggested something like that a while ago,

this is what should be changed

Pablo22510 wrote:

There isn't really a useless unit in the infantry tech tree, but militia is definitely the one that has the least uses.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

There isn't really a useless unit in the infantry tech tree, but militia is definitely the one that has the least uses.

You were telling me about how you and some other guy won the Med map via spamming militia.

they must have been playing AI or the FC

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

There isn't really a useless unit in the infantry tech tree, but militia is definitely the one that has the least uses.

You were telling me about how you and some other guy won the Med map via spamming militia.

they must have been playing AI or the FC

Redd Baron wrote:

But why garrison with good troops when it is easy enough to build cheap militia to garrison what you already conquered with planes tanks and artillery?

Redd Baron wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

There isn't really a useless unit in the infantry tech tree, but militia is definitely the one that has the least uses.

You were telling me about how you and some other guy won the Med map via spamming militia.

they must have been playing AI or the FC

You maybe didn't pay attention to how I managed to win the PL game? Did you count the number of militia I built? Now I didn't attack with them. Didn't use them to invade new continents. But why garrison with good troops when it is easy enough to build cheap militia to garrison what you already conquered with planes tanks and artillery? If you use good troops for garrisons, then you slowly stall out after you grow so big.

They much better for Garrisons

oceanhawk wrote:

There are much better units to garrison with. AT or AA guns, are what I use to garrison with. They are faster, and you can actually use them, if you get snuck up upon . . . .

I found picking a ship hard (all useful) and naval/strategic bombers I picked naval, though strat bombers need a serious buff too. Either that, or solve airplane issues by nerfing tac bombers (my favorite pet peeve)...a lot.

In regard to the secret category...there are many units that could use a buff one way or another. Railguns (antiship), commandos (stealth in rough terrain, better anti tank qualities), rocket intercepter (really, does it need explanation? I have yet to see one in battle, on my own side or the opponents), nuke ships (who in their right mind researches ships so far?).

armored cars are useful in their own right, I just wished the higher levels could be researched way earlier, so they can be a viable alternative to LTs for all those speed players out there. I dont mind the slowness of the heavies for instance, they are fine as they are. I voted Tank destroyer, because in practice, they are underwhelming compared to their stats and high HP, in attack AND defense. Same goes for AT's - they should be able to kill an LT one-on-one, even on plain terrain.

Same goes for motor/mech infantry, im sure they would see a lot more play if they could be researched earlier, especially mech infs. Combine that with solving the problem in bigger games that grain becomes such an issue that nobody dares to build many of them.

Marat666 wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

• In the air, it's the strategic bomber.

The only good thing about strategic bombers is that you can use them to escort tactical bombers: of course in a squadron of 5 tactical bombers, 5 interceptors and 5 strategic bombers, your tactical bombers will suffer less losses. That's the only reason why I produce strategic bombers.

Nerfing the tac bomber, would ensure a lot of 'useless' units would see more play, more variety - not the borning old tac/fig + LT is autowin game. @Dr. Leprechaun

MontanaBB wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

There are much better units to garrison with. AT or AA guns, are what I use to garrison with. They are faster, and you can actually use them, if you get snuck up upon . . . .

And AA and AT regiments actually move faster than militia too.

but yea, AT and AA are actually considored fast in this sense haha

Plus, AT guns are actually useful, compared to miltia..

regardless of just for the garrison

Quasi-duck wrote:

You were telling me about how you and some other guy won the Med map via spamming militia.

miech wrote:

Marat666 wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

• In the air, it's the strategic bomber.

The only good thing about strategic bombers is that you can use them to escort tactical bombers: of course in a squadron of 5 tactical bombers, 5 interceptors and 5 strategic bombers, your tactical bombers will suffer less losses. That's the only reason why I produce strategic bombers.

You just gave a fine argument why the biggest problem in this entire game is the tac bomber. You forgot naval bombers, oh yes, ive seen 'tackies' use 5 5 5 5 or 6 6 6 6 air armadas of death. Near invincible, no matter how many AA units you use (unless you like to build ONLY AA's).

Nerfing the tac bomber, would ensure a lot of 'useless' units would see more play, more variety - not the borning old tac/fig + LT is autowin game. @Dr. Leprechaun