We would like to know what you think is the most useless unit in Call of War is? Let us know your thoughts.
The loser (most useless) will be improved by Bytro (Game Developers) to be more useful and most importantly help the unwanted unit to get a nice new home with lots of new friends.
Please take a few moments to vote in the below polls and even leave a comment naming the unit you do not like to use and why so
To make it easy wehave divided each of the 5 class’s in separate polls so you can vote from each.
This vote will close on August 31st 2016 at 11:59pm (September 1st)
[/img]
66 Replies
30 Aug 2016, 11:14
Redd Baron wrote:
The best way to make militia better is to reduce its manpower cost and food usage. In fact they shouldn't cost much at all in manpower, since for the most part are made up of people not qualifying for active duty. The military strength is irrelevant IMHO. Keep them weak. You could even make them weaker if you wanted and felt the need for balance. They are not for fighting real frontline military units. They are for garrison objectives. Keeping moral of behind the lines conquered countries up and putting down rebellions, spotting amphibious invasions before they land and those types of things.
Couldnt agree more. In fact, halve all their values (costs, upkeep, strength, I mean everything) and buff their production speed by 100% (so a lone barracks produces them in 1 day) and militia are excellent and viable units to use for said purposes...and probably nothing else (which is perfectly fine)
Oh, and stealth in forests/hills
30 Aug 2016, 19:56
MontanaBB wrote:
Armored cars were never intended to go toe-to-toe with tanks
The SdKfz 234/4 was an attempt to make the AT gun on it even more mobile. Think American TD with wheels.
30 Aug 2016, 21:51
Quasi-duck wrote:
The SdKfz 234/4 was an attempt to make the AT gun on it even more mobile.
I was unfamiliar with the 234/4 until I googled it. At the end of the war, the Germans were grinding out all kinds of odd stuff. Looks like they made fewer than 200 total of the 234/3 and 234/4; the 234/3 and 234/4 had different 75 mm gun variants. Most M1 Shermans had a 75 mm gun that had only so-so performance against the German Panther, and poor performance against the Tiger, leading to the up-gunned Sherman Firefly, which was equipped with a 76 mm/17-pounder that was actually more effective than either the German 75 or 88 mm tank guns. The 17-pounder, used as a stop gap, was probably the best tank gun of the war.
The problem with the 234/4, of course, was that it was armored as an armored car, not as a tank. Unlike American and German tank destroyers that could take a beating, when the 234/4 got hit, it was done.
Conceptually, the 234/4 was a bit like the tank equivalent of a battlecruiser, which was armored like a cruiser, but carried battleship guns. Ask HMS Hood how that concept worked in practice.
30 Aug 2016, 22:40
MontanaBB wrote:
Ask HMS Hood how that concept worked in practice.
Lol, I'll take my submarine.
The past is a foreign country.
30 Aug 2016, 22:42
MontanaBB wrote:
Ask HMS Hood how that concept worked in practice.
Unarmoured deck, you should know that The same thing happened with other ships with unarmoured decks.
MontanaBB wrote:
Looks like they made fewer than 200 total of the 234/3 and 234/4; the 234/3 and 234/4 had different 75 mm gun variants.
I was on about the /4 specifically, since the /3 had a short 75. The /4 had less than 100 made I think.
30 Aug 2016, 23:37
Armored cars are by far the most useless. They aren't useful for combat, and if you want a fast unit that can take territories it's just as easy to use LT, or mechanized infantry later on.
Forum Gang Premier you are a balls
🔒This thread is locked. No new replies can be posted.
[/img]
The same thing happened with other ships with unarmoured decks.
