Why do People Love Militia?

Rockets are most certainly not a bad unit, Commandos are good in some situations, Flying Bombs, yes, for the most part bad, but i guess they can be used in a pinch. And Heavy Tanks are just straight up garbage.

Being "good in some situations" isn't enough; a unit needs to be good in the majority of situations.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Being "good in some situations" isn't enough; a unit needs to be good in the majority of situations.

And its not like someone will go for Commandos only, every game, so they are a situational unit, only used when needed.

Can we talk about heavy tanks for a second though? What’s the point? Even in axis doctrine they just don’t justify the cost. Too slow, get pummeled by planes and artillery, while medium and light tanks just work better. It feels like they need some sort of boost in damage, though it does make sense they are slow and expensive. Real world armies basically use medium and sometimes light tables for a reason. They are more versatile, fitting a main battle tank role. Still doesn’t make heavy tanks suck less though.

I found it interesting that, to build per hit-point, heavy tanks use less manpower, iron, fuel and money than medium tanks, and only a little more rare earths.

I've played this game on and off for ten years (mostly off, which explains why I still suck at it, lol)... One day I'll go all-in on heavy tanks as part of economic/war strategy, to test whether they can be a viable strategy.

Perhaps someone else has already done this?

Kolonnos wrote:

I found it interesting that, to build per hit-point, heavy tanks use less manpower, iron, fuel and money than medium tanks, and only a little more rare earths.

I've played this game on and off for ten years (mostly off, which explains why I still suck at it, lol)... One day I'll go all-in on heavy tanks as part of economic/war strategy, to test whether they can be a viable strategy.

Perhaps someone else has already done this?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Oh yes there are bad units. Heavy tanks, commando's, and flying bombs/rockets spring to mind, but there are more.

Brando Dilla wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Oh yes there are bad units. Heavy tanks, commando's, and flying bombs/rockets spring to mind, but there are more.

You forgot Strategic Bombers.

Fox-Company wrote:

Brando Dilla wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Oh yes there are bad units. Heavy tanks, commando's, and flying bombs/rockets spring to mind, but there are more.

You forgot Strategic Bombers.

I hope you are joking, lol

Re: heavy tank strat, I've tried it a couple times for shits and giggles. Both times on the America map, I think once as Colombia and once as Venezuela. It's viable in the same way that any unit combination is viable in the hands of a good player. The advantages are obvious, basically being able to run over 99% of stacks if your opponents' aren't countering you. Unfortunately, the counters are obvious, which is why I don't think I'd do it on a WaW map. All in all, it was a lot of fun and made for a great set-it-and-forget it game that didn't require Fire Control, but it's generally inferior to strategies that focus on ranged units. I would absolutely do it again though.

jubjub bird wrote:

Re: heavy tank strat, I've tried it a couple times for shits and giggles. Both times on the America map, I think once as Colombia and once as Venezuela. It's viable in the same way that any unit combination is viable in the hands of a good player. The advantages are obvious, basically being able to run over 99% of stacks if your opponents' aren't countering you. Unfortunately, the counters are obvious, which is why I don't think I'd do it on a WaW map. All in all, it was a lot of fun and made for a great set-it-and-forget it game that didn't require Fire Control, but it's generally inferior to strategies that focus on ranged units. I would absolutely do it again though.

What unit are you talking about?

Militia or SB?

Heavy tanks, just making the point that they aren't terrible, they're usually just not the best option.

jubjub bird wrote:

Heavy tanks, just making the point that they aren't terrible, they're usually just not the best option.

Yes, I'm aware

Fox-Company wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Being "good in some situations" isn't enough; a unit needs to be good in the majority of situations.

It really depends on the situation, in some situations they can be really good, so you produce them then, i don't produce Commandos unless i need them, and when they ARE good, they are overwhelmingly good, so, yes, being good in some situations is enough.

And its not like someone will go for Commandos only, every game, so they are a situational unit, only used when needed.

Otherwise, I don't build them.

Just to spite K.Rossov's comment about Commandos being bad, i am going to play a round, with only Commandos and get a solo win, despite me knowing i have a 3% chance of winning, i am willing to risk it.

Fox-Company wrote:

Just to spite K.Rossov's comment about Commandos being bad, i am going to play a round, with only Commandos and get a solo win, despite me knowing i have a 3% chance of winning, i am willing to risk it.

Gotta get that achievement somehow

Fox-Company wrote:

Just to spite K.Rossov's comment about Commandos being bad, i am going to play a round, with only Commandos and get a solo win, despite me knowing i have a 3% chance of winning, i am willing to risk it.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Just to spite K.Rossov's comment about Commandos being bad, i am going to play a round, with only Commandos and get a solo win, despite me knowing i have a 3% chance of winning, i am willing to risk it.

Hey doesn’t mean we are gonna miss out on the next game eh?