Again, because it's very important: infantry

Hi @Chimere, thanks for your carefully thought-through and intelligent answer (somehow hadn't seen it so far)! On such a level, it's a good discussion.

Chimere wrote:

by mid-game manpower is not an issue any more, you have more than enough

in contrast to

lots of resources and money -> good equiment and lots of armoured vehicles, planes, ships etc.).

Accordingly, I had already left manpower out of my calculation when comparing infantry with AA/arty/AT. With that in mind, I hold my statement that AA/arty/AT are the better choice:

Chimere wrote:

I have found myself in many, many games where food was not an issue

Chimere wrote:

Your economy is perfectly managed when you lack of more or less everything at the same time [...]), and for that purpose building infantry is critical.

Chimere wrote:

Infantry is marginally faster

And as soon as you improved your AA/arty/AT to a speed of 25... well, then infantry isn't faster any more.

Chimere wrote:

3 infantries beats your 3-guns-stack without problem

Still you're right that in ground battle against unarmoured targets (like infantry or ordnance), infantry is a bit better. But the 3-guns-stack has way better defence against air, better denfence against tanks and most importantly is ultimately better at ranged battle. Having in mind that a good player should almost always avoid melee battles on the ground, that's a crucial difference.

Chimere wrote:

infantry can go up to level 6, while the other units go up to level 5

OK; bottom line: I have to admit that if your playstyle favours melee battle on the ground AND you are in a situation with extremely few steel, then infantry might be a reasonable choice. But isn't that waaay too seldom? To match reality, it should be the backbone of EVERY army. Should be the default choice as long as you don't have a resource surplus and rather low manpower reserves, which should then make you start building heavy weapons.

It's by now more than two years I first suggested this (in a different thread in German forum) and it's still not done... in spite of the numerous approval on the first page of this thread. Which obviously means I haven't been convincing enough.

So let me use other words:

As CoW1.0 is balanced, even in case manpower is abundant for you, the four infantry types (militia, reg./mot./mech. infantry) often aren't the best choice (I'd even say they almost never are the best choice, while Chimere says you should have a few in the mix... let's leave it to that). This is not only unrealistic, but also makes manpower worthless in most situations (for players with an economy-first strategy even in all situations).

Therefore I still propose the following change:

--------------------------------------------------------

Then increase research duration for every research level of militia and regular infantry except for level 1 by +4 hours.

Also slightly increase research costs for the higher levels of all 4 infantry types.

--------------------------------------------------------

After that change, if you're short on economic resources (food, goods, steel, oil, rares and money) but have spare manpower, the four infantry types would always be the best choice.

This would have the following positive effects:

* Manpower would then be valuable for all players and in all situations (because it allows to build more of that - in terms of economic resource costs - cheap infantry). This would open a new strategic dimension in the game, because you'd then have two layers of relevant resources (the economical, tradeable ones on the one hand and manpower on the other hand). So managing your resources would be more interesting and challenging. Also more satisfying - watching your manpower molding on a big pile without having a use clearly is not satisfying in any way.

* All provinces would thus have a value. Currently provinces without a resource far away from your capital you often don't want to have, because the bit of money you gain from them cannot compensate for the food+goods the population requires. This is also not realistic and also not satisfying. Having to conquer them in late game in order to gather the required victory points feels like a tedious duty. With manpower being valuable, this would change, since provinces far away from your capital give you the same manpower income as nearby ones.

* Manpower (speaking of the CoW1.0 interpretation as available soldiers) would have the role it really had in WW2. Countries with a large population but few steel, oil and/or money primarily had infantry. While countries with a small population but strong economy preferred heavy weapons / mechanized units. With above change, we would see the same in CoW. Which would improve authenticity very much and also open the opportunity to create great historic maps with clear distinction between industrialized and poorer countries.

* It would become an interesting decision whether to leave barracks activated even while not recruiting infantry. Currently this decision is too simple, because the correct answer always is no. This would also in some situations free players of the hassle of having to remember to deactivate their barracks each time after producing an infantry unit.

* Similarly, it would become an interesting decision in which provinces you want to build barracks in order to gain more manpower.

* Players would a bit more often decide to build infantry. This would be closer to WW2 reality, in which about 70% of all military units were from one of the 4 infantry types. Reflecting that 1-to-1 in CoW would harm playability a bit (although Supremacy1914 shows that even that would still be well playable), but getting a step closer to that reality would suit the game very well.

* Building barracks & infantry would no longer be newbie trap #1. I witnessed the frustration of new players who intuitively started with acting like a real leader would... i.e. with building primarily infantry, at least at the beginning. In CoW you first have to learn you're losing with that approach. Definitely not a fun learning experience.

* Cities would become more important, because they produce more manpower than rural provinces. Currently, their value is about the same as of rural provinces (yes, every city has a resource icon, but on the other hand, their food+goods consumption is higher). My proposal would help to give cities the significance they really had.

Negative effects:

None.

Well, I could imagine that with a bit more infantry in the game, you might fear the game to become a bit more static (since infantry is stronger on defense). Which I agree wouldn't be positive. If that is your concern, you could give light tanks and medium tanks offensive focus - a change that has proven to make sense in the CoW1.5 test events. Optionally you might also reduce or remove the defensive focus of mechanized infantry.

Bottom line: Since this is a very simple change (you only have to change a few values), why don't you at least give it a chance in front-pioneer games?

Thanks for the nice chart Hans ... I'm one of those guys that runs into a food shortage after day 20 ... May have to produce some militia (depending on terrain) and mechanized infantry if in a jam- though I often produce AA when really short on food ... By the way, are not commandoes considered infantry? ...

Had deliberately left Commandos out. They're a whole different story.

Sure, they're considered infantry, at least in CoW. But they were not those infantry units with big headcounts that were predominantly shaping WW2 frontlines. They're not at all underrepresented in CoW and they already have low food costs (in relation to their strength). So they just don't belong into this topic.

In a recent hotly competitive 22p match, the infantry at game start was sufficient. Because nobody was producing infantry, the manpower limitation mainly affected the ability to make artillery.

In 100p rounds, I rarely had need for producing infantry, motorized or militia. With a fully cranked economy, I'll make Mech but they are only a minor part of the action.

I support your proposal because it will encourage others to make more infantry for me to kill.

My dearest friend Hans,

I think you need to drop the subject... you're just not going to get it. No matter how much I agree with your general line of thinking ("infantry was the historical backbone of all armies and should be more dominant in the game"), it all boils down to the Bytro line and they don't agree. Presumably, because it is not a "sexy" unit. No point to keep posting about a world without Columbines when the NRA has the final say anyway either, right?

Yaahhh... [sigh], I've been really annoying. Hardly can believe it myself I've become such an enervating, obtrusive jerk repeating the same story 20 times. If there is a spam filter functionality for the forum, I'm sure Bytro put the combination of the keywords "infantry" and "Hans" on top of the blacklist.

But then, what else can you do while talking to a wall? Never heard a single word on why this should be kept as badly "balanced"... sorry: unbalanced as it is.

I mean, if I had had some affirmation it has been understood that my suggestion would not only help for making the ratio of infantry units compared to mechanized ones more realistic and give CoW some more WW2 atmosphere, but also improve these 7 other aspects that I listed in my terribly long --> post <-- above... then I might have stopped repeating it after one or two times.

That list of arguments for the change fills more than a screen, at least with my screen resolution. If I'm mistaken with that argumentation, I for sure am hallucinating. Should go back to playing with matchbox cars, then. Perhaps that will also cure me from not considering a steel hull on wheels (like a tank, in the broad sense) to be sexy.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Perhaps that will also cure me from not considering a steel hull on wheels (like a tank, in the broad sense) to be sexy.

I don’t really have the time to give a full account but I changed my stance on manpower. If you run a really tight economy, manpower is going to be your limiting factor even by late game - especially for low oil power. Check signature for example.

I rest my case for infantry being a worthwhile unit, but sadly don’t have the time to answer to Hans point by point today. Will do eventually

Chimere wrote:

If you run a really tight economy, manpower is going to be your limiting factor even by late game

But well, I know quite a lot of people do, so let's also take this strategy into account: If you're short on manpower, you should build even less units from the four infantry types. Because these have really high manpower requirements - as simple as that. So for such players, it's even more important that my suggested change is being done. Yes, it includes increasing manpower costs for infantry a bit. But the food you save from the reduced infantry food costs can be spent on running barracks in provinces that return a lot of manpower.

Anyhow my suggested change would make you want to produce infantry as long as you have spare manpower that you don't need for other units. That's the way it historically was and how it should be in CoW as well - for all those reasons I gave in my terrifyingly long post a week ago. After my suggested adjustment, you wouldn't ask yourself any more "Shall I produce one of the four infantry units with my spare manpower?", but "When shall I produce more of the four infantry types with my spare manpower? When do I do the call to arms?". You wouldn't want to do it too early, because my proposal also gave infantry high manpower upkeep costs. And you wouldn't want to do it too late, because then you don't have that much infantry produced the moment a serious war starts. In other words you'll have to anticipate when will be the best time to have all your men under arms. Which again would reflect perfectly well this very same decision that all real leaders were facing until around 1960. And which would make the game strategically more interesting. Partly because it would make the number of provinces in which you can produce the four infantry units relevant... since being able to do the "call to arms" quickly would put you in a strategical advantage. So will you invest some of your goods & food in building barracks to increase your ability for a quick call to arms? We currently don't have that question in CoW - would be a new strategical dimension. Which would improve the game a lot (probably also production speed-up bonus of barracks level 2 and 3 should then be increased to make this positive effect of my suggested change work out even better). Is the nineth reason why the change should be done (had forgotten it in my list).

To sum it up: I believe you that some players sometimes run out of manpower. My suggestion would be good for that constellation as well.

Chimere wrote:

Check signature for example.

Chimere wrote:

I rest my case for infantry being a worthwhile unit

Still not convinced, somebody? Ah yes, the NRA.