Militia and ROW are mostly useless, some ideas to improve

BMFox wrote:

And you will do that with which manpower?

Madly, as in produce as many as possible and partly speed march them to the destination; and well, you do that with all the manpower available ... from barracks built in every province...

Why decide to build barracks in every province? That's soooo nooob!!!

Because it was clear from the onset that manpower would be the biggest issue, since Army Group South is convicted to produce only inf-class troops for quite a while.

Costing too much grain?

Nope; not if you break off construction just before finishing the building. Then you still get 9,5% extra manpower at zero grain cost

Ofc, barracks at factory sites did get finished to speed up production of troops. Also, I decided to immediately level 2 barracks to level 2, at Salonica and Dubrovnik, for the dual purpose of manpower and Motorized Infantry production. This because I was initially unable to afford (because factories needed upgrading) more than to places for the construction of 2 Infra for future Artillery production. And I would need some fast units to replace the ACs.

Where did I get the goods then, to build all these barracks?

Well, you start with a lot of cash => My rule of thumb: Cash in the bank is dumb!

The first things to do are: start research and build what has to be build.

After that, I immediately spend 90% of my cash on buying mainly goods (always short in early game), some steel to match it, some oil to be safe and some rares to keep research going. When you do this at game start, the market is still full and prices not horrific. And should I run short of cash, I can always sell grain, because I (almost) never have grain issues.

Hence my manpower production reached some 200/hr within hours and only kept growing towards war start. With 5 or 6 factories, of which only 1 high level and several level 1, while only producing AA (750men) and AT (1000men) to provide a punch to the Militia, this was almost sufficient to keep continuous production going. (Note: I almost always have HC, so do have the build-wait-list at my disposal, which is a great asset, since production of new units is started while I sleep and the necessary manpower becomes available if it wasn't).

At war start, the 2 AC regiments speed marched for Marseille and Lyon - of which you can see that they are empty with these same AC regiments - if one did his (imo: obligatory) recon on the Western Border. By taking USA provinces on the way and taking both French cities, man power production again jumps within hours from war start. The 2 AC regiments continued speeding through empty France and kept adding provinces for quite a bit, adding manpower with every province taken. 1 AC even survived and returned to the Eastern Front where it kept stealing provinces up to Tblisi, with by then only 12% HP left.

By the time more infra became ready, after initially producing the regular artillery for the Italian front, I fully switched to SPA and manpower issues were over. So much over even, that I willingly built more mot-Inf and even militia.

That's how I did it I would be curious to know how other's survived as Army Group South, but that should be a different thread.

That's not how it works, barracks that are not finished are disabled. When the barracks are disabled you don't get the manpower advantages.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Nope; not if you break off construction just before finishing the building. Then you still get 9,5% extra manpower at zero grain cost

_Pontus_ wrote:

Where did I get the goods then, to build all these barracks?

Well, you start with a lot of cash => My rule of thumb: Cash in the bank is dumb!

The first things to do are: start research and build what has to be build.

After that, I immediately spend 90% of my cash on buying mainly goods (always short in early game), some steel to match it, some oil to be safe and some rares to keep research going. When you do this at game start, the market is still full and prices not horrific. And should I run short of cash, I can always sell grain, because I (almost) never have grain issues.

_Pontus_ wrote:

That's how I did it I would be curious to know how other's survived as Army Group South, but that should be a different thread.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Hence my manpower production reached some 200/hr within hours and only kept growing towards war start.

BMfox wrote:

That's not how it works, barracks that are not finished are disabled. When the barracks are disabled you don't get the manpower advantages.

Break of at 19 of 20 build points and you get the corresponding 95% of 10% (= 9,5%) extra manpower output

FYI: also damaged barracks, which you might find in conquered cities, give the extra manpower corresponding to the build points left.

BMFox wrote:

I do the same but i use it to build infrastructure and upgrade industrial complexes. This gives me a stronger economy and trains my troops faster.

But with gigantic, armored divisions parading the border, well before war start, the priority was to produce as many units as possible, with manpower being the limitation. Hence, barracks for manpower increase, as well as for faster production in factories were of the utmost importance. By buying whatever was available, I was able to and build the barracks and upgrade the low level factories, both resulting in faster unit production.

BMFox wrote:

Well it sound like a strategy but i'm sure the barracks thing at 95% isn't correct.

BMFox wrote:

I hence my manpower by attacking my neighbor.

BMFox wrote:

I alternate between units that cost a lot of manpower like infantry and thereafter cheap manpower units like subs and planes, thereafter something in between manpower cost like tanks. That works fine.

Infantry, however, with its very long production time, was definitely a no-go. In 24hrs I could have added max 5 to 6 units with only a limited AT power.

Militia were already plenty in numbers and there was no immediate need to produce them.

AT, however, was simply much needed, because of the enormous number of armor-class in the enemy's hands. But costing 1000 men and many hours.

The only other needed and available unit was AA, costing only 750men and less hours than AT.

Hence, the faster produced AA were ordered from the lower level factories, while the higher level factories produced AT. All early produced units were marched east, while units produced last were send to their closest by front line.

Some had to speed march for a while to reach their destinations in time. I do not consider that a problem, since the damage efficiency remains higher than the percentage lost on speeding. The point was to get the defensive power of as many AA and AT in place in time, protected by the already present Militia and Infantry.

Mind you, this event map put a lot of power in the hands of the Soviets, UK and USA. Ukraine even being very well equipped. The time pressure was on too. Army Group South could never just wait it out to build up a good army; not with 2 active enemies at the border and the 3rd joining in as soon as hostilities opened.

The only option was to produce max numbers of def power for the Inf-class groups.

Additionally, maxing out the Militia added maximum power, because of the large number of them. Where most research levels add 0,5 point, Militia however adds more points and through faster research.

The Devs are smart... I now understand they created this event map, featuring an especially ill-equipped Army Group South, solely to prove Militia is not useless and Inf-class armies can beat the hell out of armored opponents ))

The Devs must be very committed to their creations; in this case: militia ))

Nevertheless, the suggestion of Atreas was a good one: increase HP of Militia a little with research level increases, to make them different from just being cheaper, slower and slightly less appreciated Infantry.

didnt you drop out of this conversation? guess you couldnt let people complain about a unit with a sole use purpose.

geee im so surprised yet again you used the militia in the only way it can be used, dmg sponge for other units, and waited out for your alliance member to bail you out in an attrition war.... yes im surprised to see the miliita being the last man standing in CORE DEFENSE, while the enemy instead of bombing you from the distance therefor nullify this(beeing also him more mech heavy) smashed you head on therefor playing on your terms. [/sarcasm]

glad you havent figure out yet again that having a unit only used for sucking more dmg when in a stack with other more useful units(which you clearly stated AT and AA were the only one you produced in IC becasue were needed) is poorly planned out unit and not usefull.

i guess i should repent and from now on build barrack in all my regions(only till 95% tho, need to save up that grain bleeding for that little manpower advantage eve if isnt actually working like that by the game system) research max militia and use my manpower to create a unit only useful in defense meatshield, hope the enemy smash me head on instead of playing properly

dully noted, will get back at you with the results in the world cup in september

Spiffolo wrote:

...something...

- show once again that Militia is a far from useless defensive unit;

- are hopefully safeguarding players from being ill-advised by misguided players.

And if all that is totally useless to them, at least they learned:

- how to save grain and still get the manpower,

- as well as that impressive armored armies can be beaten with equal numbers of infantry-class only, even when they mainly consist of militia, i.e. by using terrain advantages.

Until now the only valuable point made by the advocates of removal of the Militia unit, has been that maybe it should not be the unit advised to build in the tutorial. Then again, this is not really a game for small kids and anyone slightly over that level should realize that they can read the stats of each unit and make better decisions.

As a side note for the persisting-on-removal-of-militia player:

Ukraine as well as France and the largest armies of USA and UK in Europe were beaten by Army Group South alone, while Central took care of Baltic and Belo-Russia and West was mostly defending only (not complaining, bc he was a lesser player who at least stood his ground). Nobody ever needed to bail Army Group South out, since it was simply not necessary, because its Militia saved the day.

Spiffolo wrote:

[barracks finsihed] only till 95% ..//.. eve if isnt actually working like that by the game system

Because BMFox expressed the thought that this does not work like that, does not necessarily mean it does not actually do work like that.

When in doubt, there are 2 options:

1. stick to ones stubborn opinion and don't even try it (and rest assured nothing will change for you, which may be comforting).

2. be stubbornly convinced of one's point of view, but still try it; just for the humor of it...

Since the resource boost by buildings is applied progressively, it is only normal to expect that the manpower boost is working in the described way.

Given the fact that it has been announced there will be a change to the way some things operate in the next update, and buildings will require 100% health to operate (infrastructure was mentioned), i am not sure this loophole will exist for long.

atreas1 wrote:

i am not sure this loophole will exist for long.

The game should not be over-simplified though. That would take out the spice and challenge.

As I said before, I would not be interested in a game where my game knowledge is no longer required and/or every outcome can be auto-computed except for the random x-factor.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Spiffolo wrote:

[barracks finsihed] only till 95% ..//.. eve if isnt actually working like that by the game system

Sigh ...There has yet to be invented a medicine against ignorance.

Because BMFox expressed the thought that this does not work like that, does not necessarily mean it does not actually do work like that.

When in doubt, there are 2 options:

1. stick to ones stubborn opinion and don't even try it (and rest assured nothing will change for you, which may be comforting).

2. be stubbornly convinced of one's point of view, but still try it; just for the humor of it...

_Pontus_ wrote:

Spiffolo wrote:

...something...

no comment, except that my comments made based on relevant-to-the-discussion events:- show once again that Militia is a far from useless defensive unit;

- are hopefully safeguarding players from being ill-advised by misguided players.

And if all that is totally useless to them, at least they learned:

- how to save grain and still get the manpower,

- as well as that impressive armored armies can be beaten with equal numbers of infantry-class only, even when they mainly consist of militia, i.e. by using terrain advantages.

Until now the only valuable point made by the advocates of removal of the Militia unit, has been that maybe it should not be the unit advised to build in the tutorial. Then again, this is not really a game for small kids and anyone slightly over that level should realize that they can read the stats of each unit and make better decisions.

As a side note for the persisting-on-removal-of-militia player:

Ukraine as well as France and the largest armies of USA and UK in Europe were beaten by Army Group South alone, while Central took care of Baltic and Belo-Russia and West was mostly defending only (not complaining, bc he was a lesser player who at least stood his ground). Nobody ever needed to bail Army Group South out, since it was simply not necessary, because its Militia saved the day.

again im gonna spell this out slowly cause you are brain flatted at this moment on this for no other purpose then sniff your own goodness farts on the game, THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS UNIT IS TO SUCK UP DMG. the militia is misleading in the tutorial (been proven in every game that its spammed by newplayers. the game have no age restriction for it, also little kid or dumb one can play therefor you cant purposly make a misleading statemant in the tutorial and expect them to figure out that it was wrong....) and its only there to suck dmg and poorly at that for the humongus amount of mech based mid-late game with a terrible increase of cost in grain.... the cons way over seed the pros(but hey, you figure out how to keep the grain in the positive all the game and always have a vault full with extra kudos for it )

when an unit is broken you either remove it and rework it or you remove it and be done with. it needs reworking as they did to planes, as they did to resaerch, as they will surely do with paras. but hey, no matter what i will point out in the defect of this unit, you are just gonna place a nice tale of how they single handly destroyed the army of the enemy and survived the fight as the last standing unit. all the data ive used to argue my points why they arent as usueful as they are shown were done by the calculator online made by dxter and anyone can check the stats and retest it to confirm this; all of your text above can be summed up to "im awesome when the enemy fight in my advantage, i was right and my dads work at nintendo bytro" because there are no data, neither there are proofs of how your economy kept you in the positive with all this militia and barracks and there is not even a slick of pic on the enemy force he was using to test how actually good it was

again do your game, i will do mine im aggressive you are defensive.... i will keep following the suggestion of players in the world cup/Player league and play using data at hand. im tired to argue with someone that pretend a unit badly optimized is perfect for whatever reason without accepting that it needs reworking

Spiffolo wrote:

the system doesnt work like that.

Spiffolo wrote:

again im gonna spell this out slowly cause you are brain flatted at this moment on this for no other purpose then sniff your own goodness farts on the game

Your point was: militia needs to be removed, because it is a useless unit.

My point is: militia does not need to be removed, because it is not a useless unit.

- Your point has been sufficiently disproven; and not just by me, but also by other (good&better) players, who are contradicting your unfounded opinion.

- My point has been sufficiently substantiated with factual information; and not just by me, but also by other (good&better) players, who are of the same opinion.

Details to this can be found hereinabove, in this very thread.

Spiffolo wrote:

and always have a vault full with extra kudos for it

And while you L2P you might even pick up how to read player stats. Not that I dont have a vault full of those 'kudos', but that is more because I practically never lose. You should try that some time after you L2P.

Spiffolo wrote:

all the data ive used to argue my points why they arent as usueful as they are shown were done by the calculator online made by dxter

Nevertheless, it is obviously too much of an effort to you to try out the 19/20 ready Barracks lvl.1 tale...

The 19/20 Barracks, however, work exactly as a 19/20 ready Harbour lvl.1. That 19/20 Harbour lvl.1 also gives you the extra output, but w/o costing daily oil.

The facts that you (the noob saving, self-proclaimed demi-God in CoW who knows best ... without doing a test

- don't know these things

and

- also refuse to test it it after being enlightened,

only further disqualify you to judge any aspects and/or units in this game on its merits.

Giving false information and vigorously defending that, is rather contrary to your stated aim of 'saving noobs'.

Spiffolo wrote:

again do your game, i will do mine im aggressive you are defensive

However, where you got the fact that I am playing defensively in-game is a mystery to me. How does one win as Netherlands or Brasil in the All-Countries-All-In event? How does one win almost continuously in almost all games one plays by defense? I wouldn't know... really not.

What I do know is that situations dictate the course of action, whatever this should be.

Please remain civil in the forum.

Once again please close this thread nothing good will come of it as I predicted about 20 or so posts ago...