Infantry vs. Milita

[Mudman]

A quick question concerning the production of infantry and militia units.

I believe it costs 1 point each of population, resources, and factory output to build a militia unit...but It only costs 1 resource and 1 factory point for an infantry unit. Why the difference?

BTW, how much better are infantry vs milita in both the offensive role and the defensive role?

Thanks a bunch. I think this game is everything that I always wanted in Axis and Allies when I was a kid. Good on ya Matrix. [:)]

[ratprince]

Mudman;

The cost of:

Militia: 1 resource, 1 factory point, 2 population points
Infantry: 2 resources, 2 factory points, 2 population points

Infantry are better in that they can be damaged, militia cannot. They are destroyed if hit. Besides that, compare their attack, evasion, etc...in the unit data section for a more detailed comparison.

My opinion -- only build militia if it is the only unit available for that nation (a la Rumania) or if you are in dire straights and NEED troops fast!

Hope that helps!

Later!

Mike

[5cats]

What mike m says!
Only I thought that Infantry and Militia had the same evasion/attack stats... hummmm
But getting Militia in 1 turn and Infantry in 2 is a big selling point

[PDiFolco]

To me the main incentive of building militia is to create anti-partisan garrisons. They cost half the res/prod and have the same effect than inf at reducing "unrest". As Japan you need lots of troops to keep China quiet and you can't afford to build stg better.

However don't count on them for any serious fighting, their only other interest is as cannon-fodder to make targets for armor, arty and air units[;)]

[carnifex]

Only I thought that Infantry and Militia had the same evasion/attack stats... hummmm

check the research summary screen there is a separate listing for infantry and militia, and also remember you can't research militia

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

To me the main incentive of building militia is to create anti-partisan garrisons. They cost half the res/prod and have the same effect than inf at reducing "unrest". As Japan you need lots of troops to keep China quiet and you can't afford to build stg better.

However don't count on them for any serious fighting, their only other interest is as cannon-fodder to make targets for armor, arty and air units[;)]

I agree that anti-partisan garrison is one area where militia is good because of the cheapness of producing it.

Here are some other situations in which I think militia is good.

If you want a garrison on some island, it is good to have at least one ground unit in addition to the artillery and air. Militia is good enough for this. It will force the enemy to bring a larger force if they actually want to dislodge you from the island.

The first turn at war, the Russians get a big surge of population. Most of this will disappear if not used immediately. Making militia out of this is a viable strategy. The Russians can use the large amount of militia stiffened by a few regular units to force the Germans back.

[carnifex]

The first turn at war, the Russians get a big surge of population

Only if the Axis opponent is inept

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

The first turn at war, the Russians get a big surge of population

Only if the Axis opponent is inept

Big is of course a relative term. There will be a one time surge of population that can be used to make extra militia if you choose. The actual size of the surge will depend on Axis success on the first turn. I would counter by saying it requires ineptitude on the part of the Russian to allow the Axis to do that much damage in one turn.

[carnifex]

If the Axis player is singlemindedly pursuing Barbarossa, I think the Soviet would be hard pressed to prevent anything but a total slaughter two provinces in on the first turn. It's true that the front can be reinforced through production, but I'm not sure that would be a judicious use of the Soviet forces which will need to be very aggressive in the coming winter turn.

It's a gamble which I have not played out enough to observe the effectivess of, but the risks involved are terrible. If the now-reinforced front forces are cut off and destroyed anyway, then the Soviets will be fighting with militia at the gates of Moscow.

However, if the front is not reinforced at all, I cannot see how the Soviet can prevent the encirclement and destruction of the two principal front regions. I guess it depends on exactly how much force Germany is allocating, and how much risk the Soviet player is willing to assume.

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

If the Axis player is singlemindedly pursuing Barbarossa, I think the Soviet would be hard pressed to prevent anything but a total slaughter two provinces in on the first turn. It's true that the front can be reinforced through production, but I'm not sure that would be a judicious use of the Soviet forces which will need to be very aggressive in the coming winter turn.

It's a gamble which I have not played out enough to observe the effectivess of, but the risks involved are terrible. If the now-reinforced front forces are cut off and destroyed anyway, then the Soviets will be fighting with militia at the gates of Moscow.

However, if the front is not reinforced at all, I cannot see how the Soviet can prevent the encirclement and destruction of the two principal front regions. I guess it depends on exactly how much force Germany is allocating, and how much risk the Soviet player is willing to assume.

The two main forces that start on the border are toast. The Soviet should consider them as already dead. If any live to retreat and fight again, you got lucky.

The areas that you reinforce and hope to hold at least two of if not all three are, Leningrad, Byellorussia and Kharkov (I think.) This reply is from memory and I do not have the map in front of me to check.

If you do manage to hold, there is less need to counterattack and retake ground. Just reinforcing the existing front may be enough. The German cannot afford to trade losses with you for long.