The introduction of TOW Infantry seems to me to somewhat change the late-game strategy. First, I think I read somewhere on these forums that actual defensive strength is now computed by adding a unit's defensive strength to the units defensive bombard strength. So an archer now effectively has 2 on defense. The TOW Infantry, with its defense of 14 and bombard of 6, now effectively has a defensive strength of 20! That's more than a mechanized infantry.
Even if I'm totally off-base with that "add-bombard" thing, I would say that the TOW Infantry is still the better defender, when used in stacks. A stack of TOW Inf can support each other with defensive bombards, while a stack of MIs cannot. (C3C didn't give MI defensive bombard, did it?) I recently encountered this issue when playing as Russia. The Chinese declared on me in the late game and moved stacks of MI and TOWs into my territory. My MAs killed off the MIs okay, but had a lot more trouble with the defensive-bombarding TOWs.
If TOWs really are better defenders, then it adds some strategic complexity to the late-game. Effectively, it seems like TOWs are not the Medieval Infantry of the Modern age, the consolation prize you build when you're missing a resource. As the better defenders, I would prefer to garrison my cities with TOW stacks than MI stacks. MI, meanwhile, retain a strategic value as the defenders to use during your invasions, as they can better keep pace with MAs to immediately garrison newly-captured cities. At last, there's not an "obvious" build choice in the Modern Age--we get some strategy!
But if TOWs are better stationary defenders, the question then becomes, shouldn't Infantry upgrade to TOW Infantry instead of Mech Infantry? TOWs seem like the better upgrade choice not only from a strategic perspective (the role of the TOW is more like how you use Infantry than is the role of the MechInf), but also from a commonsense perspective (it makes more sense to give riflemen TOWs than to give them vehicles or whatever).
Even if I'm totally off-base with that "add-bombard" thing, I would say that the TOW Infantry is still the better defender, when used in stacks. A stack of TOW Inf can support each other with defensive bombards, while a stack of MIs cannot. (C3C didn't give MI defensive bombard, did it?) I recently encountered this issue when playing as Russia. The Chinese declared on me in the late game and moved stacks of MI and TOWs into my territory. My MAs killed off the MIs okay, but had a lot more trouble with the defensive-bombarding TOWs.
If TOWs really are better defenders, then it adds some strategic complexity to the late-game. Effectively, it seems like TOWs are not the Medieval Infantry of the Modern age, the consolation prize you build when you're missing a resource. As the better defenders, I would prefer to garrison my cities with TOW stacks than MI stacks. MI, meanwhile, retain a strategic value as the defenders to use during your invasions, as they can better keep pace with MAs to immediately garrison newly-captured cities. At last, there's not an "obvious" build choice in the Modern Age--we get some strategy!
But if TOWs are better stationary defenders, the question then becomes, shouldn't Infantry upgrade to TOW Infantry instead of Mech Infantry? TOWs seem like the better upgrade choice not only from a strategic perspective (the role of the TOW is more like how you use Infantry than is the role of the MechInf), but also from a commonsense perspective (it makes more sense to give riflemen TOWs than to give them vehicles or whatever).
Comment