Any use in Militas?

[General Failure]

I did some calculation yesterday just after my last post. I wanted to know how much more efficient one Inf(41) division is compared to a Mil(36) in absorbing damage. And as blue emu said, I realised it can´t be more than twice, no matter how high the defence values are. If attacked by one Inf(41) another Inf(41) will take 2.8 damage, compared to 4.0 if a Mil(36) is attacked. This means it would take ~43% more damage. If attacked by two Inf(41) this would change to 6.4 damage for one Inf(41) and 9.6 for the Mil(36) which are exactely 50% more of damage.
What does this mean?

• No matter an what cost basis (MP, IC-days) one calculates, Mil will be the better unit for absorbing damage. Which really surprised me. Until now I thought Mil would be just a 'I need units, fast!' solution. So I looked kind of this .

• Mil will hardly do damage to the enemy´s units. They just got 2 SoftAttack and 0 HardAttack, at least as '36 units.

• If you combine these both attributes, one can see, that at least in my opinion, Militia will help you expand the time a combat takes, but can hardly win the combat itself. You will need other units that make damage and you can protect these units by building hordes of militias. The time the militias give you can be used to bring in fast and hard hitting units like armour or mechs (as sovjets, for example). So I wouldn´t call Militias a good or even the best defensive unit of the game, but a great supporting unit. And this is exactely what theokrat says with his first post. Although I don´t think that his beginning formulas are correct, his point is. So right now I feel like uselessly running circles and ending where I began. Makes me look like this o now...

If these thoughts and conlusions should be wrong, please correct me. I´m always willing to learn new things or to realise I´ve forgotten some parameters or whatever...

Btw, what an honor, this is the first time I´ve been 'blue emued', not only because he taught me something, but because he posted something I wanted to post before I could.

 

[Borsook]

So I wouldn´t call Militias a good or even the best defensive unit of the game, but a great supporting unit

This statement comes from the fact that all the comparisons here are a bit unfair, i.e. Mil 36 vs Inf 41. If we compare Mil 43 vs Inf 43 the situation changes a lot.

 

[unmerged(79229)]

Not true.

This is because excess (unblocked) shots have double the normal chance of causing damage... so a unit with zero defense would only take twice the casualties as a unit with 1,000,000 defense. All realistic examples will give casualty ratios in between 1.0 and 2.0 (between +0% and +100%)

While we're on this topic, is the Soviet Union the only country with non-standard GDE?

 

[blue emu]

While we're on this topic, is the Soviet Union the only country with non-standard GDE?

Correct... although some players have argued that the early-war French really should be handicapped by inferior GDE rather than inferior Tech Teams... as currently implimented, only the USSR is subject to a GDE penalty.

 

[unmerged(65036)]

The catch being that there were some battles where the French defended quite effectively on the ground. They were good at designing fortifications and they had good doctrine for static defense; the problem was simply that their static defenses were brittle and that they didn't know how to carry an attack forward with combined arms (best modeled by doctrines, not by GDE).

 

[unmerged(56271)]

This things already point out for whom- if anyone- Militas can be usefull: a manpower rich, IC low nation with a strong defensive component

Doesn't really have to be "manpower rich" either IMO.

I'm currently playing as Czechoslovakia which is manpower poor, but the Czechs are limited more by the availability of supplies than manpower. Therefore I found it useful to build some MIL to supplement my INF because you get more a lot more bang for your buck in terms of supply costs.

 

[theokrat]

Doesn't really have to be "manpower rich" either IMO.

I'm currently playing as Czechoslovakia which is manpower poor, but the Czechs are limited more by the availability of supplies than manpower. Therefore I found it useful to build some MIL to supplement my INF because you get more a lot more bang for your buck in terms of supply costs.

It will last 9 years until a INF division has cost more in supplies than was used for producing it.

 

[unmerged(56271)]

It will last 9 years until a INF division has cost more in supplies than was used for producing it.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there, I'm just pointing out that playing a country where the limit of your capacity to supply troops will be quickly reached, you can maintain 5 militia divisions for the same supply cost as 1 infantry division.

 

[theokrat]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there, I'm just pointing out that playing a country where the limit of your capacity to supply troops will be quickly reached, you can maintain 5 militia divisions for the same supply cost as 1 infantry division.

To produce 5 Milita you need 1 k IC*d instead of 665 for a INF. That leaves you with 335*5=1675 supplies in difference- that suffiecent to supply a INf division for four years.

My point is that supply costs are low compared to production costs. Not the TC costs tough.

 

[unmerged(75111)]

To produce 5 Milita you need 1 k IC*d instead of 665 for a INF. That leaves you with 335*5=1675 supplies in difference- that suffiecent to supply a INf division for four years.

My point is that supply costs are low compared to production costs. Not the TC costs tough.

The TC is an issue for some nations.

I'm begining to wonder about trying a MTN + MIL based army as Nat.Chi. If I throw 5 MIL on a beach, will they perform better than one INF will on the defensive? Using the small number of MTN I can produce, coupled with the INF I inherit and get lent, I can take territory, and move MIL in behind to hold the territory. In term of SA per TC, the MIL becomes attractive if you can stack enough of them in the battle.

*wanders of to consider this as a serious army composition...*

 

[ulmont]

If I throw 5 MIL on a beach, will they perform better than one INF will on the defensive?

Almost certainly yes. In fact, if you can 1) get appropriate leaders + HQ together and 2) attack with overwhelming force (the equivalent of 3-1 odds if all participants were infantry), 5 MIL will always do better than 1 INF, even on the attack.

Brief analysis follows (and I have used Inf '41, even though if you're China, you're probably more concerned with Inf '36 or '39 at the most):

The baseline is 3 Inf '41 (30 MP, 1995 IC-days, 3 TC) attacking 1 Inf '41. It will be compared against 15 Mil '36 (75 MP, 3000 IC-days, 3 TC) attacking 1 Inf '41.

3 Inf '41 v. 1 Inf '41 generates 42 shots. The defensiveness of the single defending Inf is 24, so 18 of those shots will be doubled, for an effective 60 shots. Since there's only 1 target, there are 60 shots per target.
3 Inf '41 v. 1 Inf '41 receives 14 shots. Each Inf receives 4.67 shots on average, less than their toughness, so none are doubled. Since there are 3 targets, there are 4.67 shots per target.

The ratio of 3 Inf '41 attacking 1 Inf '41 is 60 shots sent to 4.67 taken per target, or 12.85:1.

Now, running the same numbers with 15 Mil '36 replacing 3 Inf '41 (constant TC load):

15 Mil '36 v. 1 Inf '41 generates 30 shots. The defensiveness of the single defending Inf is 24, so 6 of those shots will be doubled, for an effective 36 shots. Since there's only 1 target, there are 36 shots per target.
15 Mil '36 v. 1 Inf '41 receives 14 shots. Each Mil receives 0.93 shots on average, less than their toughness, so none are doubled. Since there are 15 targets, there are 0.93 shots per target.

The ratio of 15 Mil '36 attacking 1 Inf '41 is 36 shots sent to 0.93 taken per target, or 38.71:1.

So Mil '36, TC for TC, are over twice as good on attack against Inf than Inf '41....IF you can achieve superiority and not exceed your command limits.

On defense, I assume that the attacker will send 3 Inf '41 and determine how many Inf '41 you need to acheive parity (tip: 3), and then how many Mil '36 you need to acheive the same effect.

3 Inf '41 v. 3 Inf '41: 42 shots fired, 14 per target average, 14 effective shots. Works the same way in reverse (both toughness and defensiveness exceed soft attack), for a shot ratio of 1:1.

3 Inf '41 v. 6 Mil '36: 42 shots fired, 7 per target average, Mil's defensiveness is 8, so they absorb them all normally, for a total of 7 effective shots per target.
3 Inf '41 v. 6 Mil '36: 12 shots fired, 4 per target average, Inf's toughness is greater than 4, so 4 effective shots / target. 7:4. Not as good.

3 Inf '41 v. 8 Mil '36: 42 shots fired, 5.25 per target average, Mil's defensiveness is 8, so they absorb them all normally, for a total of 5.25 effective shots per target.
3 Inf '41 v. 8 Mil '36: 16 shots fired, 5.33 per target average, Inf's toughness is greater than 5.33, so 5.33 effective shots / target. 5.25:5.33.

So 8 Mil '36 can defend as effectively against 3 Inf '41 as 3 Inf '41 can.

3 Inf '41: 30 MP, 1995 IC-days, 3 TC
8 Mil '36: 40 MP, 1600 IC-days, 1.6 TC

*wanders of to consider this as a serious army composition...*

It could be fun. In fact, I think the next time I play China, I am going to use 8 Mil on the beaches.

 

[unmerged(75111)]

Almost certainly yes. In fact, if you can 1) get appropriate leaders + HQ together and 2) attack with overwhelming force (the equivalent of 3-1 odds if all participants were infantry), 5 MIL will always do better than 1 INF, even on the attack.

Brief analysis follows (and I have used Inf '41, even though if you're China, you're probably more concerned with Inf '36 or '39 at the most):

So Mil '36, TC for TC, are over twice as good on attack against Inf than Inf '41....IF you can achieve superiority and not exceed your command limits.

So 8 Mil '36 can defend as effectively against 3 Inf '41 as 3 Inf '41 can.

3 Inf '41: 30 MP, 1995 IC-days, 3 TC
8 Mil '36: 40 MP, 1600 IC-days, 1.6 TC
It could be fun. In fact, I think the next time I play China, I am going to use 8 Mil on the beaches.

Ok...

So for a TC limited nation, where MP is totally irrelevant, MIL actually BEAT INF?! I was slowly coming to think it wasn't as decisive as people thought, but I hadn't realized that it was in fact the opposite of the common wisdom.

The only major weakness I can find see is the fact that MIL will have problems breaking a 24 division stack, but I'm sure that can be overcome with a small number of INF (or MTN, which also beat INF on the TC front...)

 

[unmerged(28057)]

I still use militia (along with a vanilla in.) for beach defence.

 

[blue emu]

Brief analysis follows...

3 Inf '41 v. 1 Inf '41 generates 42 shots. The defensiveness of the single defending Inf is 24, so 18 of those shots will be doubled, for an effective 60 shots. Since there's only 1 target, there are 60 shots per target.

3 Inf '41 v. 1 Inf '41 receives 14 shots. Each Inf receives 4.67 shots on average, less than their toughness, so none are doubled. Since there are 3 targets, there are 4.67 shots per target.

The ratio of 3 Inf '41 attacking 1 Inf '41 is 60 shots sent to 4.67 taken per target, or 12.85:1.

Now, running the same numbers with 15 Mil '36 replacing 3 Inf '41 (constant TC load):

15 Mil '36 v. 1 Inf '41 generates 30 shots. The defensiveness of the single defending Inf is 24, so 6 of those shots will be doubled, for an effective 36 shots. Since there's only 1 target, there are 36 shots per target.

15 Mil '36 v. 1 Inf '41 receives 14 shots. Each Mil receives 0.93 shots on average, less than their toughness, so none are doubled. Since there are 15 targets, there are 0.93 shots per target.

The ratio of 15 Mil '36 attacking 1 Inf '41 is 36 shots sent to 0.93 taken per target, or 38.71:1.

So Mil '36, TC for TC, are over twice as good on attack against Inf than Inf '41...

The problem with this analysis is that targetting is not done by individual shots... it's done by units. The defending Inf-41 will always fire ALL of its shots at a single randomly chosen enemy target each hour.

This will not change the (3 Inf vs 1 Inf) analysis, since 14 shots per target will still not over-run the attacker's Toughness of 19... but it will dramatically change the (15 Militia vs 1 Inf) part of the analysis, since 13 shots out of every 14 will be doubled, rather than zero out of 14 as in your above analysis.

Your numbers should be adjusted sharply downward... each Militia receives an average of 1.8 shots (not 0.93)... for a total of 20-to-1, not 38.71-to-1

Another point to bear in mind is that the Militia-vs-Inf attack scores 40% fewer hits per hour than the Inf-vs-Inf attack... thus increasing the chance that the combat will last past sundown, when the attacker starts to suffer a -80% penalty, and his casualties increase while his ability to inflict damage decreases signifigantly. In reasonably close battles, this effect can turn a win into a loss.

 

[unmerged(75111)]

However, 20 to 1 still beats 13 to 1...

And this is a worst case match up MIL '36 vs INF '41. Presumably, MIL '36 vs INF '36, or INF '39 would yield a bigger ratio.

 

[blue emu]

However, 20 to 1 still beats 13 to 1...

And this is a worst case match up MIL '36 vs INF '41. Presumably, MIL '36 vs INF '36, or INF '39 would yield a bigger ratio.

Note that a mix of 1 Inf-41 + 10 Militia-36 (the same TC load as 15 Militia) has a ratio only 7% lower (18.75-to-1 instead of 20-to-1) and inflicts damage 22% faster (44 sph instead of 36 sph), thus making it less likely that the battle will last past sundown. A mix of Infantry and Militia (in some yet-to-be-determined ratio) may be the best force-mix.

Another trade-off using the same constant-TC constraints would be 2 Inf-41 + 5 Militia-36... which take damage 28% (15.6-to-1) faster but dish it out 44.4% faster (52 sph instead of 36).

 

[theokrat]

Note that a mix of 1 Inf-41 + 10 Militia-36 (the same TC load as 15 Militia) has a ratio only 7% lower (18.75-to-1 instead of 20-to-1) and inflicts damage 22% faster (44 sph instead of 36 sph), thus making it less likely that the battle will last past sundown. A mix of Infantry and Militia (in some yet-to-be-determined ratio) may be the best force-mix.

Another trade-off using the same constant-TC constraints would be 2 Inf-41 + 5 Militia-36... which take damage 28% (15.6-to-1) faster but dish it out 44.4% faster (52 sph instead of 36).

IF we neglect exceeded Defensiveness and Toughness it is very easy to determine the right mixining ratio for an "optimal" (in the sense of BWA) stack for any given year or constraint. If there is interest i can post the easy formula for that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

For instance in 41 and TC-constaint i would indeed see that 100% Mil are king. For Manpower we would see that a ratio of 2 INF and 1 MIL would be best (even in 41, when the milita is pretty outdated and manpower the constraint!). For IC the optimal ratio is 1 INF per 5 MIL. (always considering combat eff as 100%).

Now the question is obviously wheteher one can or should neglect exceeded Def. At first it looks like one cant, as blue emu showed above. However in mixed stacks the results is not that the whole stack looses his ORG faster, only the Militias will. This leads to a situation where the Militas at some point will run out of ORG while the INFs continue fighting. The Mil still provide a target for the enemy, which is good for winning the battle. So the BWA does not change much. However the Mil will losse more manpower, which might have an unfavourable effect, i do not know how much.

And the other thing- as always with BWA- is that it trades firepower and ORG equally, while "in reality" firepower is more important thatn ORG for the attacker and vise versa for the defender (->nights).

 

[unmerged(75111)]

A mix of Infantry and Militia (in some yet-to-be-determined ratio) may be the best force-mix.

Actually, I agree with this point, partly because there are also issues of force concentration, which means an all MIL army will struggle with large stacks. If working under TC limits, I would probably look at mixing MIL with a small number of MTN, as MTN beat INF on the TC side, just losing horribly on the MP issue (which is a non-issue for anyone trying all MIL.)

 

[unmerged(56271)]

MIL have a lower TC weight than INF? By how much exactly?

 

[theokrat]

MIL have a lower TC weight than INF? By how much exactly?

0.2 for MIL_36 and 0.5 for MIL_43
1 for INF_36 -41, later 1.1 or 1.2.