You are right but this is the QnA Section.
Infrastructure is really underrated and kind of OP
Infrastructure is dirt cheap. If you want to make level 3 highways it cuts your travel time to a third of the original cost, but even level 2 reduces your travel time by more than half. Obviously that's great for getting reinforcements to the front lines, but there are other uses, too.
For example, level 1 infrastructure is insanely cheap; $1,000, 400 goods, 400 food, and 200 food. You can take a section of front line and easily give you units a speed advantage for very cheap. People always obsess over Pan-Asian speed buffs but infrastructure can work wonders as well! With level 1 infrastructure along an area of the front, your units will outpace the enemy and can react to enemy movements a lot quicker.
8 Replies
Question: Is infrastructure underrated?

Remember, building the trans-Siberian railway as the USSR in HWW is almost always a must!
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
In theory, you are right.Klusey wrote:
Infrastructure is dirt cheap. If you want to make level 3 highways it cuts your travel time to a third of the original cost, but even level 2 reduces your travel time by more than half. Obviously that's great for getting reinforcements to the front lines, but there are other uses, too.For example, level 1 infrastructure is insanely cheap; $1,000, 400 goods, 400 food, and 200 food. You can take a section of front line and easily give you units a speed advantage for very cheap. People always obsess over Pan-Asian speed buffs but infrastructure can work wonders as well! With level 1 infrastructure along an area of the front, your units will outpace the enemy and can react to enemy movements a lot quicker.
In practice, the front line usually has moved to make the old railhead become a remote place in occupied territory now.
I find Antarctica to be ideal for infrastructure. You can start building towards the PoIs immediately, and then get to your front line 3x faster than your opponents by day 10 when you should have 2-3 PoIs. Ideal.
In normal games, infrastructure is only worth in about half the time from my experience. Ask Roko pointed out, when you're advancing quickly the borders change too quickly for the infrastructure to be worth much. It's most useful when the border is becoming static as a buildup is starting. Usually around day 10, I'll consider building infrastructure from my core towards the front lines, or if your distance from capital morale penalty is adding up and capitals are staring to run dry, you can build infrastructure to reduce your morale penalty. I also see them used more in AvA games as the borders are static until the peace expires.
Piggy backing off that, they are generally only worth it in larger maps, as smaller ones with worse players will usually not last long enough for them to be important. Along with build up, getting your units made in cores close to the front line or across a continent that you’ve conquered becomes much easier with the use of infrastructure.6thDragon wrote:
In normal games, infrastructure is only worth in about half the time from my experience. Ask Roko pointed out, when you're advancing quickly the borders change too quickly for the infrastructure to be worth much. It's most useful when the border is becoming static as a buildup is starting. Usually around day 10, I'll consider building infrastructure from my core towards the front lines, or if your distance from capital morale penalty is adding up and capitals are staring to run dry, you can build infrastructure to reduce your morale penalty. I also see them used more in AvA games as the borders are static until the peace expires.
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.