I cannot stress enough that colonial and militia troops were complete opposites any way you slice it. As I stated before they desrve their own unit type (maybe changing Paratroopers to Colonials) The British are a prime example to show you the difference between the two. After the Brits realised they were in for a long war the began recruiting what they called Kitchener's Army (named after Minister of War Kitchener) Many of these troops were fresh recruits or from existing militia units. They began forming battalions known as Pals battalions because they were all from the same town or city and were generally aquainted. But Colonial troops were different they were such as the British Sepoys,New Foundlanders, ANZAC (more of an army by themselves), and the had troops from Indochina, Africa, etc... These troops were gennerally recruited in the areas where they were intended to defend (remember no one expected such huge losses or even a war for that matter). These troops were primarily for that certain colonies defense and also so that good British troops would not be "wasted" on such a menial task as garrison duty. But since such huge losses were taken by the British in Ypres and other such battlefields they had no recourse but to bring these Colonial troops to Europe to fight. The Militia where in all intents and purposes mainly homeland defense units to be used as last ditch defenders to defend the British Isle. Well it is my belief that Colonial and Milita troops must be represented seperately.
