Before you get yourself all ruffled, I'm not saying that Saudi Arabia is objectively bad or that I couldn't/haven't won with them. So, *please* try to consider the context and scale of the discussion I am intending as you read the rest.

When *I* play as Saudi Arabia, I never feel like they are as *comparatively* strong as I assume they should be. Let's already rehash to try to avoid confusion. I am *NOT* saying, "Oh, Saudi Arabia is a garbage nation to play! They're the worst nation on the map. No one could ever be successful with them! This game stinks and needs fixed and I quit and also Saudi Arabia is a broken junk country!" I'm *NOT* saying that.

What I am saying is that they are a decent-sized, well-situated, 7-city nation bordered/surrounded by a number of smaller and resource-poor nations, and yet every time I play as Saudi Arabia, I think, "Wait, shouldn't I be stronger than I am?"

Now, it is entirely possible that is just because of the way that I play them. If you've ever read any of my posts, you know that I play according to Military Doctrines. However, SA's two ports make it difficult to both build a strong navy and rely on Marines (which I love) as the primary infantry unit. So, then I've considered Western Doctrine's other major strength - air superiority/air power. The planes are great, but Airborne Infantry is so frail it makes me want to peel my own skin off. So, maybe the answer is to play "outside-of-doctrine", which is reasonable and perfectly acceptable, but in my head that counts as at least a minor drawback when other countries could be benefitting from specializing within their own doctrines.

Aside from doctrines and infantry, though, it still seems (to me) like Saudi Arabia is just lacking something. I've not compared specific numbers, but maybe it feels like a base resource issue? That's the only other reason I can think of that they just don't feel strong enough to me.

For a long time now, I have played small nations probably 90% of the time. When I do play a larger nation, though, I'm generally like, "Whoa! This is crazy (powerful)!" Saudi Arabia is the exception. When I play as any of the 7-city European or Oceania/Pacific nations, I always feel like they are total powerhouses. When I play as Saudi Arabia, though, I always think, "What's this country's deal? Why won't it go?"

Is there some obvious/glaring thing that I am missing, or... is it just kind of a case of "it is what it is"?

ADDED: As I was thinking more about the very real possibility that it is just me, I was thinking about when other capable players are playing as Saudi Arabia, and I realized I feel the same way about them as an opposing country. When I see that a solid player (reasonably experienced, knowledgable, active) is playing as Indonesia or Japan or UK or Sweden or France or Poland or whatever other 7-city country, I'm often like, "Uh oh, that could end up being a challenge for me." I really (almost) never think, "Uh oh! Saudi Arabia could end up causing me some real trouble!" (Not that the best CoN player in the world couldn't beat me using Saudi Arabia; I'm just making a comparison under common circumstances.)

ALSO ADDED: You're completely welcome to tell me about the time that you played as Saudi Arabia, noticed no issues, and beat everyone else on the map by 1500VPs. That's great for you, and I'm duly impressed. However,... unless you can point out some specific strength of Saudi Arabia that I am overlooking, that story isn't going to be very helpful to clearing up this issue for me.

@GrandInquisitor

Thanks for taking the time to reply and illustrate. I do enjoy that fatal funnel.

I also don't always mind having a small number of ports (I sometimes enjoy landlocked nations too); I just mentioned it in this case because it limits my ability to simultaneously produce ships and Marines. If I decided Marines were my primary infantry, I'd only ever (prior to Annexing) have AT MOST two ports to mobilize them and then my entire navy also has to share those two ports for mobilization. So, what I meant when I referred to that was that Marines (which are a Western Doctrine specialty) just don't feel practical to use as your my infantry unit in Saudi Arabia. Other than that, sure, two ports or less is fine (and sometimes a benefit) to have.

Your point about the resources is a good one. Perhaps I am getting too excited because I don't normally play larger countries anymore and overtaxing the resource supply/production. That doesn't explain why I wouldn't feel the same way in any other 7-city nation, though, unless Saudi Arabia has significantly fewer resources than the other 7-city nations (which it very well may). I've never played Sweden or Indonesia or whatever and thought, "Man, I just don't have enough resources!"

All correct.

I mean, I do build National Guard as Saudi Arabia, but aren't my main fighting infantry. They would just be an early substitute to get me to a better infantry unit.

Obviously, I COULD build Motorized Infantry, but on a WWIII map, they are often going to be behind Eastern Doctrine maxed out Motorized Infantry in development. That's not catastrophic, but it is a bit of a drawback. You mentioned Mortars. That isn't even available for research under Western Doctrine until like, what? Day 24? By then, most of my games are already decided, and a good Eastern Doctrine country would have already had Mortars for 4 days before I even got them (plus they could be researching Personal Armor while I'm researching mortars).

If I play for a Euro Doc country (like Sweden or Indonesia), I use Mechanized Infantry as my primary infantry, and I use Tank Destroyers and Strikers. While there's a difference in Supplies cost, I wouldn't exactly call those "less expensive" than Marines, etc.

Also, I do use Marines, etc. when I play as Philippines, Japan, etc. (so I'm not unfamliar with the cost).

LIke you said (and I agree), I may just be expecting more than the Saudi Arabian economy/resources can provide. I think I would call that Saudi Arabia's fault, then, because I don't have that feeling when I play other 6- or 7-city Western Doctrine nations (like Japan, Australia, etc.).

Thanks, @GrandInquisitor. I am going to give it some thought and give Saudi Arabia another try again soon. I'm interested to see if I can find a way to make it feel less... hobbled?

I absolutely understand what you're saying about infantry, and that's an interesting conversation. You're certainly correct that Mortar MotorInf has the ranged advantage over Marines and Mechs. I guess I just don't give much thought to remote Inf-versus-Inf battles that late in the game.

P1: "My ranged Mortar MotorInf Is going to beat your stationary Marine in Anchorage on Day 27!"
Me: "Meh. Okay."

So why do I ever choose MotorInf over NG, if not for Mortar? Well, I choose them when I play Eastern Doc, because for most of the game I'll have the r&d advantage over non-Eastern MotorInf, which most players use.

I think you and I may focus (or may be focusing in this conversation) on different stages of the game.

Very early, Motorized Infantry have the advantage over Marines/Mech in that they cost less, mobilize faster, and research faster/cheaper. You'll have your MotorInf up and running nicely long before I have my first Marines/Mechs (that's why I have to start with NG) functional (and WAY long before I can fly them). In fact, since they added harbors to almost every island, I would probably use MotorInf every game if Eastern didn't have an advantage. Plus, I started the game with MotorInf troops just like everyone else, so I *do* always have some, I'm just not always mobilizing more or upgrading them.

Mid-game, I like the power of Marines/MechInf. Around like Day 13, they just work better for what I'm doing with them (offensive with Marines, defensive with MechInf). Do they individually have the same cost/value ratio as MotorInf 1-for-1? Probably not, I admit that. But in Mid-game, I'm in the thick of things, I'm already not having just Inf-vs-Inf fights anymore. Those days are over. It might also be worth noting that I don't build Army Bases in every city at the beginning of the game, so I'm not relying on having high Infantry numbers to win battles anyway.

Late in the game, MotorInf gets Mortar, and that's an advantage for Infantry-vs-Melee, but how much does it even matter anymore at that point? The game is days away from ending. There isn't still some other good player on a public map at that point - they already killed me or I already killed them. Plus, If I'm not Eastern, someone else already got Mortar MotorInf days before I did. I never seem to end up in these games people talk about where it is like: "There it was, Day 27, and this other good player and I were neck-and-neck. We were equal in every other way, but I had Mortar MotorInf, and he had Marines/Mech, so I won the game because Mortar MotorInf are ranged."

I guess what I'm saying is, that non-Eastern MotorInf get Mortar so late in the game, that it's just not worth it to me to be like, "I don't care if Eastern does get a MotorInf advantage, I'll still get a ranged Infantry unit a few days before the game ends, and that's what really matters to me."

KFG, can you clarify this a little? This is interesting, but I'm not sure I'm completely following you.

To me, Saudi Arabia seems VERY defensible. The Arabian Peninsula has water on three sides. That feels to me like an advantage. What makes it feel so vulnerable to you? (Unless you're counting the peripheral small nations on the Arabian Peninsula as viable threats, then I get it.)

Now, "well-positioned to expand" is a different story. I'm with you there. I don't feel like it is (again, unless we're counting the small peripheral nations on the Arabian Peninsula as target areas for expansion).

When you say the fight-or-flight part of my brain may be influencing my outlook, how do you mean? I don't disagree yet, I'm just not clear on your inference.

For all of us, I know that Saudi Arabia kind of feels like it is "in the middle" and that we tend to treat it as such, but on a globe or continuous digital map, that's just an illusion of orientation. In fact, eastern nations (like China) traditionally tend to have China in the middle of their world maps. The Chinese characters for "China" actually mean "Middle Kingdom/Nation". So, I don't know that I'm very/as affected by the idea that Saudi Arabia is "in the middle".

@GrandInquisitor

You have me considering the fact that I am possibly too rigid when it comes to Doctrines, and I thank you for that. I'm realizing that I tend to just concede general ground power to Eastern Doctrine and air superiority/air power to Western Doctrine (European seems more well-rounded but less specialized in one facet). Even if that is generally true (certainly debatable), I may be overly inflexible in applying it to every single case.

GrandInquisitor wrote:

I agree with everything you said but only for 1x games, and that's probably why our views are different on this. Motorized infantry is S-Tier on 4x which I exclusively play so the pacing and incorporation of the mortars are much different than it would be on a 1x server and that's most likely why I ignore the 4-day difference that Eastern doc has. You know 4 days is basically nothing on 4x lol.

Lol, I play 4x exclusively too.

I never developed a 1x pacing/routine, and I am probably hot garbage at it.

@KFGauss

I see; thank you!

Oh, see, I LIKE playing as Italy. It sounds like many of you guys don't like shorelines. I love them. I much prefer water to land borders. Is this a solo versus coalition thing, though? Do you guys prefer land borders because you can (either initially or eventually) share them with coalition mates? To me, lots of land border is a lot harder to defend than lots of coastline.

Interesting. See, the way I see it is that manned combat outposts are often avoidable (but not always), but port cities are chokepoints that are not avoidable (unless the opponent is using amphib units, and that doesn't happen very often in public games). If you can get past the naval, ground, and air units to get into my port cities, then I guess you've got me beat, but if that's the case, you would have had me beat pretty much anywhere.

I do understand that being at a naval disadvantage or at an online/offline disadvantage makes defending a port city a tougher proposition, but those are both similarly true for other apects of combat. An extreme air disadvantage can be devastating, and an online air guy can tear up an offline air guy in a pretty similar way to naval hit and runs. Even artillery has a version of that. That's not necessarily unique to navy.

I admit that, at times, navy definitely is a "sink or swim" (hahahaha) proposition. But I think people resist the logic of coastal nations a little too much. If you don't want to build a competitive navy, then you're right, you're not going to do very well with an island/largely coastal nation. But again, that same logic applies basically the same way to the reciprocal aspects in other countries: It's not going to be super easy to win with Austria if you decide not to build hardly any ground units and you're not online very often.