Day 1 guide

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

    • Opulon wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      On a day 30 a 5 city county could easily have 10+ squadrons of 4+1 (SF+ASF) and probably at least 1 helicopter squadron to deal with SAM if every SAM is stacked.
      All maxed ofc. With lvl 5 hospital.
      But the key is if that player is successful in expansion. Approximately 3 new cities per day.

      Those numbers of planes and helicopters are terrified and very hard to defend if you don't have a lot of ASF and SAM.
      6 SAM is a joke. You don't have your fancy "doom stack" or any production building in your cities anymore with 6 SAM.

      Ofc a smart player wouldn't neglect AA, missiles and some TD as well even if he is air focused. Or arty at that point.

      Also a player who is air focused would attack you way sooner than day 30.

      But hey, believe what you want, even that you can neglect arty and air completely.
      Many air players would indeed say that by day 30 the game is finished and it has been a week since the last active player is dead
      Totally agree. But there's a chance on a big map like WW3 that active enemies are far away and you have to engage in a late game conflict. Even if you expand in that direction it may be too far for mid game conflict. Sure you can farm AI to finish the game but where's the fun in that.
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      Many air players would indeed say that by day 30 the game is finished and it has been a week since the last active player is dead
      Totally agree. But there's a chance on a big map like WW3 that active enemies are far away and you have to engage in a late game conflict. Even if you expand in that direction it may be too far for mid game conflict. Sure you can farm AI to finish the game but where's the fun in that.
      Your last sentence contains two separate topics that should not be mistaken for one single topic.

      One topic is winning the game.
      The other topic is having fun.

      They often overlap, but they definitely aren't the same thing.

      I think that @Opulon was writing about wining.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Your last sentence contains two separate topics that should not be mistaken for one single topic.
      One topic is winning the game.
      The other topic is having fun.

      They often overlap, but they definitely aren't the same thing.

      I think that @Opulon was writing about wining.
      Good grief. What's the point in playing any game if you don't have fun in the process? Does anyone actually do that?
    • WalterChang wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Your last sentence contains two separate topics that should not be mistaken for one single topic.
      One topic is winning the game.
      The other topic is having fun.

      They often overlap, but they definitely aren't the same thing.

      I think that @Opulon was writing about wining.
      Good grief. What's the point in playing any game if you don't have fun in the process? Does anyone actually do that?
      Good grief - What's the point of writing something if readers are going to ignore it.

      I wrote that winning and fun OFTEN OVERLAP, but they definitely aren't the same thing.

      Some players have fun by screwing around, fighting endless skirmishes with opponents/friends, and doing other stuff - None of which is intended to "win. They avoid winning, because if anyone won, then they would have to start over in a new game doing the boring research etc. necessary to develop the cool units they like. You might remember that the CrimsonCommander guy (I dunno what he calls himself now) was one of these.

      Similarly some players play to win, but they don't play to win as quickly as they might. Instead, they think that a win is more "fun" if it's done/achieved using a bunch of different types of advanced units instead of a handful of lower-tech level unit-types.

      And other players like to speed-run to win as fast as possible by using whatever units can help them absorb live opponents and abandoned positions as quickly as they can; and for some of these players a typical game might not be much fun (the fun ones are atypical).

      The bottom line on all of this is that people constantly talk (write) past each other, or drag conversations off on tangents because the people writing posts mistakenly think that their idea of how to play is the way that every other player thinks.

      That was my point.

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

    • Zemunelo wrote:

      I really don't know what is the fun in playing against AI only. And what amount of endorphin you'll get from that kind of win.
      But I suppose there are some people who actually enjoy those games as well.
      Because we had proposals to make the game offline 8o
      Make an offline version so we can test our strategies??!!! Not everyone is a dude who can spend like every 20mins of their lives checking in on a 4x game.
      yes…20mins =1hr in game time.
    • Why would we want to test strategies on something that doesn't fight back. A country with only 1 city.

      It's called a "real time strategy game" for a reason @japan samurai, it defeats the purpose of calling the game that if its not true...
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      Why would we want to test strategies on something that doesn't fight back. A country with only 1 city.

      It's called a "real time strategy game" for a reason @japan samurai, it defeats the purpose of calling the game that if its not true...
      “For fans of realistic grand-strategy games, Conflict of Nations offers a gigantic playing field, a multitude of military units, and infinite paths to success. Jump into a match, plan your strategy, and lead your troops to victory in the days and weeks ahead.“

      Not so true is it huh?
    • japan samurai wrote:

      “For fans of realistic grand-strategy games, Conflict of Nations offers a gigantic playing field, a multitude of military units, and infinite paths to success. Jump into a match, plan your strategy, and lead your troops to victory in the days and weeks ahead.“
      Not so true is it huh?
      Aside from the "infinite paths" figure of speech, what is not true?
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      “For fans of realistic grand-strategy games, Conflict of Nations offers a gigantic playing field, a multitude of military units, and infinite paths to success. Jump into a match, plan your strategy, and lead your troops to victory in the days and weeks ahead.“
      Not so true is it huh?
      Aside from the "infinite paths" figure of speech, what is not true?
      If I don’t understand how each unit actually works, how else am I supposed to “Plan your strategy” and “lead my troops to victory”

      All I am doing is wasting my time trialling and erroring and this is why most people don’t play this game past the first day,
      1. They don’t understand mechanics and different units well enough
      2. The game is too hard because they can’t find a good strat to play (mainly because melee isn’t the way to go in the game)
      3. It wasn’t realistic/ what they prepared themselves for
    • japan samurai wrote:

      Telerik wrote:

      Expert Zozo001 joined 211 games and won solo 3 = 1,42% of games
      Aeneas of Troy joined 218 games and won solo 4 = 1,83% of games

      Telerik melee guy joined 99 games and won solo 16 = 16,16% of games

      shud uppFor f sake whats you’re problem

      If you’re so unhappy with them Then go and check my stats then? Like C’mon bro, you’ve joined like twice as many games as I have and yet you’re only like 2-4 ranks higher than me with worst KDR, sure you got more wins becaude you played more games but simply put…I’M MORE EFFICIENT AT FARMING POINTS AND ADVANCING THAN YOU.


      I did not know goal was advancing in rank. My goal was wining 100 games solo as many games as possible. As i mentioned in other topic i won in 12 days solo 100 map and i needed to take only one city in the process (Paris) . Obviously not advancing in rank here .
      Thank you by the way for advice , now i do not hurry but will get 10,000 victory points(joined 2 zombies in a coalition) for my current game and will advance in rank .
      So my new project is to get over 10 000 points in a game .
      So i played 100 games with 100 people each but never met real opponents this is 10 000 random people but all of them losers and not quality as the forum lions .
      Wish health to all of you .
    • japan samurai wrote:

      The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      Why would we want to test strategies on something that doesn't fight back. A country with only 1 city.

      It's called a "real time strategy game" for a reason @japan samurai, it defeats the purpose of calling the game that if its not true...
      “For fans of realistic grand-strategy games, Conflict of Nations offers a gigantic playing field, a multitude of military units, and infinite paths to success. Jump into a match, plan your strategy, and lead your troops to victory in the days and weeks ahead.“
      Not so true is it huh?
      Where do is say, 'single player strategy test' in it...?
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      Why would we want to test strategies on something that doesn't fight back. A country with only 1 city.

      It's called a "real time strategy game" for a reason @japan samurai, it defeats the purpose of calling the game that if its not true...
      “For fans of realistic grand-strategy games, Conflict of Nations offers a gigantic playing field, a multitude of military units, and infinite paths to success. Jump into a match, plan your strategy, and lead your troops to victory in the days and weeks ahead.“Not so true is it huh?
      Where do is say, 'single player strategy test' in it...?
      And where does it say otherwise?
    • japan samurai wrote:

      And where does it say otherwise?
      OBJECTION!

      Where does it say we can?...
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • Drony77 wrote:



      Okay, so you made your choices, set up research and your army is building up. Can you finally go and kick some ass ? No.

      At this point people rush forward to kill someone and get those precious resources. These people quit on day 5 or even earlier usually.
      Not sure id sign under this part of guide. You actually can and sometimes should go and kick ass.
      While its true motorized infantry is better at defense than at offense, heavy stack of 8-10 units (especially mixed with recon and national guard) can
      muster quite a punch. You attack neighbouring country city heavy stack can wipe defense in particular city quickly. Take over 2-3 cities and your neighbour is as good as done for. Which means extra resources and potentional threat eliminated.
    • I remember when I played as Russia, I attacked Poland.

      He let me take all his cities because he was building up a military... and he put them on the German border.

      He left like 2-3 units in a city, and my (mortar) motorized inf destroyed them!

      When I took all his cities, OMG he had like 4 troops and a tank. But it was lvl 2 tank, and lvl 2 inf.

      Omg my mortars destroyed like 3 troops before they go to the city for hand to hand.

      When he got to the city they got murdered in 2 attacks.

      This shows that motorized inf, can indeed be a formidable DEFENCE unit.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • Mot Infantry is indeed the best defensive unit (though there's a legitimate tactic with NG) but not because of the mortar ability.
      By the time you have mortar, your enemies will make arty, ships or aircrafts /helicopters so you will not be able to use that mortar. Missiles not to mention.
      Even if you encounter a player who likes armor you are dead if you rely on infantry only.
      The problem is that most players quit in 1st or 2nd day. It's easy to steam over them with any stack.