Troops that nobody Mobilizes

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Kalrakh wrote:

      1 towed need to be turned into low signature like all the other infantry units and to regain their ability to shoot while disembarking, than they might regain value. MRLS and MA both have their distinct benefits.
      also artillery officer with speed modifiers and air assault ability will be good.
      normal infantry general doesn't air assault nor have the range
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      1 towed need to be turned into low signature like all the other infantry units and to regain their ability to shoot while disembarking, than they might regain value. MRLS and MA both have their distinct benefits.
      also artillery officer with speed modifiers and air assault ability will be good.normal infantry general doesn't air assault nor have the range
      Airborne Officer.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      1 towed need to be turned into low signature like all the other infantry units and to regain their ability to shoot while disembarking, than they might regain value. MRLS and MA both have their distinct benefits.
      also artillery officer with speed modifiers and air assault ability will be good.normal infantry general doesn't air assault nor have the range
      Airborne Officer.
      yeah he is the most useless of all. too much cost to get him special forces and even then you could have build many squads with the same cost. and usually I'm not really interested on the extra damage for special forces. and more often they are used in suicide which doesn't suit officers.
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      what others have said on most.. and way off on NG. probably the most efficeint /cost effective units in the game
      Observations & counters to this thread on national Guards. some just a repeat.

      A. These are NOT necessarily the most cost effective depending on your goal. Factor a 3 or 7 day time span & time to build & cost to make = most expensive infantry available.
      B. BUT while being the most expensive (because your doing quantity over quality) it produces the MOST defense of infantry available in a 7 day time span over any other infantry unit (fact, do the math. )
      C. SO it is matter of perspective and your goal whether this is more efficient or not.
      D. You essentially create more in less time but at a higher price. If your goal is countering infantry then yea - this is a great option - like early game motor inf rushers.
      E. Defensively NG's are very good for city defense with the 50% bonus and entrenchment 25% add.
      F. a tactic of some good use, as said before - million man marches
      G. late game - easy and fast to make to close out game boards where enemies are all defeated

      The post was edited 1 time, last by edablo ().

    • edablo wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      what others have said on most.. and way off on NG. probably the most efficeint /cost effective units in the game
      Observations & counters to this thread on national Guards. some just a repeat.
      A. These are NOT necessarily the most cost effective depending on your goal. Factor a 3 or 7 day time span & time to build & cost to make = most expensive infantry available.
      B. BUT while being the most expensive (because your doing quantity over quality) it produces the MOST defense of infantry available in a 7 day time span over any other infantry unit (fact, do the math. )
      C. SO it is matter of perspective and your goal whether this is more efficient or not.
      D. You essentially create more in less time but at a higher price. If your goal is countering infantry then yea - this is a great option - like early game motor inf rushers.
      E. Defensively NG's are very good for city defense with the 50% bonus and entrenchment 25% add.
      F. a tactic of some good use, as said before - million man marches
      G. late game - easy and fast to make to close out game boards where enemies are all defeated
      Indeed. I believe this is the primary reason for avoidance of national guard production: a significant lack of freedom of action provided by such an investment, as they are virtually only capable of urban defense. As this restriction of scope renders them incapable of effective utilization in offensive operations, it is rarely worth the money to conduct the research and production of them unless intending to turtle, conquer territory, or spam them over the enemy.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      edablo wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      what others have said on most.. and way off on NG. probably the most efficeint /cost effective units in the game
      Observations & counters to this thread on national Guards. some just a repeat.A. These are NOT necessarily the most cost effective depending on your goal. Factor a 3 or 7 day time span & time to build & cost to make = most expensive infantry available.
      B. BUT while being the most expensive (because your doing quantity over quality) it produces the MOST defense of infantry available in a 7 day time span over any other infantry unit (fact, do the math. )
      C. SO it is matter of perspective and your goal whether this is more efficient or not.
      D. You essentially create more in less time but at a higher price. If your goal is countering infantry then yea - this is a great option - like early game motor inf rushers.
      E. Defensively NG's are very good for city defense with the 50% bonus and entrenchment 25% add.
      F. a tactic of some good use, as said before - million man marches
      G. late game - easy and fast to make to close out game boards where enemies are all defeated
      Indeed. I believe this is the primary reason for avoidance of national guard production: a significant lack of freedom of action provided by such an investment, as they are virtually only capable of urban defense. As this restriction of scope renders them incapable of effective utilization in offensive operations, it is rarely worth the money to conduct the research and production of them unless intending to turtle, conquer territory, or spam them over the enemy.
      Sometimes I use NG, sometimes I don't. I almost never level them up, and when I do, not very far. Mostly, I use them to bridge the gap if I'm planning on featuring a later infantry (Marines, Mechanized). Once I have them, though, I use them for urban security/defense. Strat said, "they are virtually only capable of urban defense", and I agree with that statement, but, to me, "urban defense" is a HUGE element. I never make NG the main unit of my entire game, but research and produce them for urban occupation/defense duties? You betcha.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      edablo wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      what others have said on most.. and way off on NG. probably the most efficeint /cost effective units in the game
      Observations & counters to this thread on national Guards. some just a repeat.A. These are NOT necessarily the most cost effective depending on your goal. Factor a 3 or 7 day time span & time to build & cost to make = most expensive infantry available.B. BUT while being the most expensive (because your doing quantity over quality) it produces the MOST defense of infantry available in a 7 day time span over any other infantry unit (fact, do the math. )
      C. SO it is matter of perspective and your goal whether this is more efficient or not.
      D. You essentially create more in less time but at a higher price. If your goal is countering infantry then yea - this is a great option - like early game motor inf rushers.
      E. Defensively NG's are very good for city defense with the 50% bonus and entrenchment 25% add.
      F. a tactic of some good use, as said before - million man marches
      G. late game - easy and fast to make to close out game boards where enemies are all defeated
      Indeed. I believe this is the primary reason for avoidance of national guard production: a significant lack of freedom of action provided by such an investment, as they are virtually only capable of urban defense. As this restriction of scope renders them incapable of effective utilization in offensive operations, it is rarely worth the money to conduct the research and production of them unless intending to turtle, conquer territory, or spam them over the enemy.
      Sometimes I use NG, sometimes I don't. I almost never level them up, and when I do, not very far. Mostly, I use them to bridge the gap if I'm planning on featuring a later infantry (Marines, Mechanized). Once I have them, though, I use them for urban security/defense. Strat said, "they are virtually only capable of urban defense", and I agree with that statement, but, to me, "urban defense" is a HUGE element. I never make NG the main unit of my entire game, but research and produce them for urban occupation/defense duties? You betcha.
      Indeed, and it ultimately comes down to playstyle and intended course of action. I definitely agree with not leveling up NGs and not using them primarily, and urban defense is certainly a critical element of gameplay for obvious reasons. However, I tend to find them an inferior investment for myself, as I generally operate more offensively with the philosophy that attack is the best form of defense. Therefore, I must have and utilize the ability to rapidly form, deploy, and reorganize maximum combat mass in high force concentration on the offense. Since I attack as much as or more than I defend, I need forces capable of flexibly shifting between those roles. Although motorized infantry are uniquely adapted to the defense of strategic territories, national guard are primarily focused on urban defense and, as mentioned, virtually incapable of attack, at least not in a way comparable to other infantry forces. Essentially, in my playstyle, I defend and attack in many situations and terrains, and in order to do that successfully, I require a force more capable of both attack and defense in multiple terrain types at a decent cost. Motorized Infantry fill this role excellently, while national guard don’t. I want any investment I make to have strong returns, and with the restricted role of national guard, they don’t have those returns for me in research, development, infrastructure, and maintenance costs.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Sometimes I use NG, sometimes I don't. I almost never level them up, and when I do, not very far. Mostly, I use them to bridge the gap if I'm planning on featuring a later infantry (Marines, Mechanized). Once I have them, though, I use them for urban security/defense. Strat said, "they are virtually only capable of urban defense", and I agree with that statement, but, to me, "urban defense" is a HUGE element. I never make NG the main unit of my entire game, but research and produce them for urban occupation/defense duties? You betcha.
      Indeed, and it ultimately comes down to playstyle and intended course of action. I definitely agree with not leveling up NGs and not using them primarily, and urban defense is certainly a critical element of gameplay for obvious reasons. However, I tend to find them an inferior investment for myself, as I generally operate more offensively with the philosophy that attack is the best form of defense. Therefore, I must have and utilize the ability to rapidly form, deploy, and reorganize maximum combat mass in high force concentration on the offense. Since I attack as much as or more than I defend, I need forces capable of flexibly shifting between those roles. Although motorized infantry are uniquely adapted to the defense of strategic territories, national guard are primarily focused on urban defense and, as mentioned, virtually incapable of attack, at least not in a way comparable to other infantry forces. Essentially, in my playstyle, I defend and attack in many situations and terrains, and in order to do that successfully, I require a force more capable of both attack and defense in multiple terrain types at a decent cost. Motorized Infantry fill this role excellently, while national guard don’t. I want any investment I make to have strong returns, and with the restricted role of national guard, they don’t have those returns for me in research, development, infrastructure, and maintenance costs.
      All good points. I think you've nailed it here with the consideration of playstyle. You say you tend to defend/attack in a variety of terrains, while I try to funnel as much combat as I can to my defense of cities. That being said, obviously I have to expand too. My attacking style (and my main infantry unit) often depend on my specific nation and its military doctrine. I like to specialize for offensive ambushes in certain terrain when I can. IF I am using NG at all, though (easily less than 40% of the time), they serve as my leave-behind troops. I'm never storming cities with them. Rather, NG troops that I have in aft cities and homeland cities are holding the place of main combat troops that I now don't need to leave behind.
    • On the contrary to popular opinion that TOWED arty and TD are trash units I usually build them.
      And regular INF too, some RECON. Ofc SF with some ASF. AA no need to mention.

      I think the best is to have defensive units that are mobile (can fly).

      That been said, TOWED are best to use as hit and run tactics and as force that can quickly respond in attack as well in defense. But ofc you need to protect them with some INF and AA especially. They are low radar units if not wrong so you can send them with INF near enemy and give first punch (or second, third...). They are very powerful in numbers.
      Once I was half an hour near enemy city with airfield. He had strong airforce in the air but that city was the base. One shot from my 6-7 TOWED arty stack and he was out of the game. He did not know what was coming.

      With TD it is another story. Cheap, quick to build and can fly very soon. You will have enough resources to develop your airforce. And you will deny enemy armor, really deny it. Like they don't have it. No threat anymore.
      The best is TD can successfully defend your cities.

      Regular INF before NG because NG can only defend in a city and has no aa capabilities. RECON because is cheap and can fly if needed. Will add bonus to soft attack for your stack and you will alwsys know what is in your opponent stack which is very important to plan ahead.

      This is much better than slow expensive armor like AFV or especially MBT. AFV is good all round unit but TD will deny it easely.
    • Teburu wrote:

      towed is trash because it can't even compete with other artillery
      the only redeeming quality is the extreme survivability/mobility with airassault
      and its free at beginning game... make decent use of a free asset early game .. dinging incoming attacks or taking out insurgents in cities ; etc. But wouldnt research and build but end up usually 10 - 15 kills per game with it
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Towed is not meant to compete with the other arty. You will not use towed to outgun enemy with arty. But you can build quicker, cheaper and move faster. You can even approach undetected as I explained in previous example.
      And in early to mid game you can possess more towed than other arty. More arty means more firepower, more kills and less losses for you. Latter you can switch to other arty.

      Also as said before towed is great for start because it is cheap. It needs only supply. So you can invest components in airforce for example. That is good combo when you are aggressor.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Without air assault it is extremely slow, so hard to outrun possible attackers. Also they need electronics, which limits your airforce, the advantage of mobile artillery is, it does not.
      yeah plus takes alot of baby settng to move in right position than make sure dont get caught by attackers
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Without air assault it is extremely slow, so hard to outrun possible attackers. Also they need electronics, which limits your airforce, the advantage of mobile artillery is, it does not.
      yeah plus takes alot of baby settng to move in right position than make sure dont get caught by attackers
      thats called micromanagement and is a thing for pretty much every aircraft/ranged unit
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • I STILL have NEVER mobilized (- and the reason why not:

      Naval AWACS - by the time you CAN, it's either superfluous, or you are losing and can't afford to

      ASW Helo - The Naval Patrol is better overall, and has way better range

      Airborne Officer - I am not lobotomized

      Tank Commander - I'm not a big armor guy so there's always something that's a better option
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD