Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

The Invasion of Western France...note the large Heavy Fleet armada as they provide valuable off shore bombardment!

Just taking this screenshot from an AAR as example, it's seams to me that the effect of naval bombardment is way too powerful. Looking at the size of the area where combat took place and viewing each infantry and militia unit as having a corps size, i really don't think that the result has any form of logical explaination. 9 infantry corps with artillery support against 6 even of less quality and aviation support should lead to some sort of stalemate and equal losses. But losses are very far from that so i understand it that way : The naval support do the attrition for the defender rather than just denying any form of attrition on the attacker.

The German defence consisted of 5 militia and only 1 regular infantry...militia are not really combat effective units so I probably would have taken the region even without the off shore bombardment which is primarily used to eliminate any artillery if it is present.....when you invade, and you have fleets in the adjoining sea area, you will be asked whether or not you want to have the ships provide the bombardment which is what I was attempting to demonstrate.....perhaps using the word "valuable" in my AAR may have been misleading since no artillery was present.....

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

The German defence consisted of 5 militia and only 1 regular infantry...militia are not really combat effective units so I probably would have taken the region even without the off shore bombardment which is primarily used to eliminate any artillery if it is present.....when you invade, and you have fleets in the adjoining sea area, you will be asked whether or not you want to have the ships provide the bombardment which is what I was attempting to demonstrate.....perhaps using the word "valuable" in my AAR may have been misleading since no artillery was present.....

Ok, so the navy has no effect on the combat; if i remove the allied artillery and the german plane that can i consider equivalent (even if i will generally choose the plane against the tube but it's another story), that leave 9 attacking infantry units against 6 defending infantry ones.
I agree that militia is worst than regular infantry in a general use but probably less bad in a defense use (having in mind Stalingrad or other russian cities militia). A rifle is a rifle and when concealed and firing at point blank range, even if the volksturm's pants are wet, the enemy won't be in a good shape after.
So the odds are at best 3/2 at worst around 2/1 ... never see a result like 10/1 loses in any combat chart til now. It's look like a huge overkill without reason for me.

In this game militia, especially later in the war, cannot fight against infantry and expect to survive. It's really only good for anti-partisan warfare. Look at each militia as worth 1/4 of an infantry unit and you'd be about right. That makes the odds more like 6 to 1, although odds don't really tell the story.

Plus you have to remember that militia do not increase in tech levels, while regular infantry can - so by 1944 you might have militia at a 4/5 & being attacked by 7/7 or 7/8 infantry.

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Plus you have to remember that militia do not increase in tech levels, while regular infantry can - so by 1944 you might have militia at a 4/5 & being attacked by 7/7 or 7/8 infantry.

That's strange. Milita has the same equipments than infantry, they only lacked the training to use them properly. The panzerfaust was given equally to grenadier and volksturm.

Why don't they benefict from tech upgrade like infantry?

Think of it as hand-me-downs. They don't have front line equipment (many garrison troops in Normandy had old French & Czech weapons and even ammunition). Militia is good to tackle partisans, but if you are afraid of a real attack, you need to put your money where your mouth is & get some real units on the frontlines.