Do you prefer taking time or rushing early game ?

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

    • Do you prefer taking time or rushing early game ?

      Hey guys,

      I'm always in the top 5-15 however i'd like to always be top 1, for obvious reasons (scaring ennemi, ressources etc etc)
      However i'm making the argument is it worth going fast ? Like sending separated troops fast to take ennemi's land, i usually attack with 7-8 troops minimum per city on the first days
      and i stay until (with 1 troops only obviously) i reach 35% (end of risk with rogue state) also i pause to prepare, i move my troops tothe next country accordingly to circle him and i do turnover of troop for those who are almost dead.

      The good thing is i keep more troops, the downside is people pass after me in the ranking since im pausing to restructurate.
      And more points means more city more ressources.

      So i'm wondering what about you, how do you go about this dillema ?

      I'm in a party with an Ally who rush rush rush (he's lucky around him they don't play by the way, like zero built not even mil base LVL 1) he has 100 points more than i and im second to him
      However he lost a lot of units, i have almost double and i'm planning to take big countries to make up for the gap of 100. i'm preparing my next attack to go as fast as possible (send lots of troops around the country and conquer it fast by attacking every city at the same time).

      I hope i get some nice insight

      Thx

    • 1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      2) ---> Don't use melee combat (ground-vs-ground at the same spot) to defeat enemy ground troops.
      3) ---> Use Artillery or air to defeat enemy ground troops.
      4) ---> Expand rapidly for the economic benefits and to create a buffer zone around your home country
      5) Using troops to prevent rebellions makes a lot of sense, but isn't absolutely necessary in every location and time.
      6) Attacking and defeating an enemy country in the first 5 days is something I try to do, but if a player abandons a country next to me, I go there first (take the easy path) before fighting the active players.
      7) Defeating an NPC country or two near me is also something I try to do (carefully)
      8a) I personally do these things by mobilizing fast, agile Airplanes (ASF & SF) and some NG infantry for defense and for capturing empty cities and provinces, not by mobilizing strong ground troops.
      8b)Other people use Artillery (plus some ASF and NG).

      If you do 2, 3, and 4, I suspect that you will quickly get bigger than your friend.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      2) ---> Don't use melee combat (ground-vs-ground at the same spot) to defeat enemy ground troops.
      3) ---> Use Artillery or air to defeat enemy ground troops.
      4) ---> Expand rapidly for the economic benefits and to create a buffer zone around your home country
      5) Using troops to prevent rebellions makes a lot of sense, but isn't absolutely necessary in every location and time.
      6) Attacking and defeating an enemy country in the first 5 days is something I try to do, but if a player abandons a country next to me, I go there first (take the easy path) before fighting the active players.
      7) Defeating an NPC country or two near me is also something I try to do (carefully)
      8a) I personally do these things by mobilizing fast, agile Airplanes (ASF & SF) and some NG infantry for defense and for capturing empty cities and provinces, not by mobilizing strong ground troops.
      8b)Other people use Artillery (plus some ASF and NG).

      If you do 2, 3, and 4, I suspect that you will quickly get bigger than your friend.
      Thank you for you reply

      I want to ask, what artillery do you use early game ? MLRS is quite expensive so i can't really avoid the #2

      i usually research plane and built airplane lvl 2 on first days + boat i don't think i can fit it artillery (or not sure) depending on country and for mlrs i have to build also the "gps" mobile radar + sam's / AA

      I use aircraft to avoid melee btw but i know artillery might be better except for distance (i can move everywhere with my planes and arti support i have to bring it there, and if i remember tracted arti is pretty slow...

    • I typically don't use artillery (except for the ones I sometimes get for free) - I'll let someone else describe how to mobilize a good artillery army.

      I start mobilizing 1 or 2 ASF immediately. and begin mobilizing SF (and EAA) as soon as I can.

      If you look through the many posts in this thread, What's your ACTUAL Day 5, 10, 15, 20, ... Order of Battle (OOB) , you'll see what I and other players built in real games.

      By doing some google-searching of the Forum site you can dig up several more threads describing what people mobilized in specific games or describing their general mobilization plans.

    • Research CRV, build Army Bases (4-6, depending on resources), build 2 rounds of CRV, rush all enemies till you need bigger guns or ran out of CRVs.

      CRVs are fast, fast to mobilize, cheap (just like their research) and very strong early. At the start everyone just has infantries, and they suck against armor. On the other hand CRVs are very strong against Infantry. This allows you to easily stomp smaller armies (wouldn't run head first into another stack of 10 ground units). Typical enemy early builds don't counter armor, ASF and NG are both very bad against Armor, Infantry still not ideal.

      Later on I transition into a ground build using the army bases I already built, towed artillery and mobile AA usually.

      KFGauss wrote:

      1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      2) ---> Don't use melee combat (ground-vs-ground at the same spot) to defeat enemy ground troops.
      Sacrifices must be made for rapid early expansion :)
      Healing units takes too long without a dedicated hospital and shouldn't be done if it hampers your expansion imo.

    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      Research CRV, build Army Bases (4-6, depending on resources), build 2 rounds of CRV, rush all enemies till you need bigger guns or ran out of CRVs.

      CRVs are fast, fast to mobilize, cheap (just like their research) and very strong early. At the start everyone just has infantries, and they suck against armor. On the other hand CRVs are very strong against Infantry. This allows you to easily stomp smaller armies (wouldn't run head first into another stack of 10 ground units). Typical enemy early builds don't counter armor, ASF and NG are both very bad against Armor, Infantry still not ideal.

      Later on I transition [sic] into a ground build using the army bases I already built, towed artillery and mobile AA usually.

      KFGauss wrote:

      1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      2) ---> Don't use melee combat (ground-vs-ground at the same spot) to defeat enemy ground troops.
      Sacrifices must be made for rapid early expansion :) Healing units takes too long without a dedicated hospital and shouldn't be done if it hampers your expansion imo.
      Have you ever kept track of your progress by writing it down, so that you could compare it with other players' results?

      The thread at the link I supplied earlier, plus a little judicious Googling should supply a decent set of results to compare with yours.

      I'm tempted to simply disagree with you, because I've tried and defended (here in the forum) the early CRVs approach, and I found that while it was successful if you want to fight on the ground, it wasn't the best approach (for me) for early expansion.

      How do your results stack up with what's been recorded here?

      PS: If you haven't written down any records in the past, maybe you could do it for your next game or two and add your results to what's here in the forum?

    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      Research CRV, build Army Bases (4-6, depending on resources), build 2 rounds of CRV, rush all enemies till you need bigger guns or ran out of CRVs.

      CRVs are fast, fast to mobilize, cheap (just like their research) and very strong early. At the start everyone just has infantries, and they suck against armor. On the other hand CRVs are very strong against Infantry. This allows you to easily stomp smaller armies (wouldn't run head first into another stack of 10 ground units). Typical enemy early builds don't counter armor, ASF and NG are both very bad against Armor, Infantry still not ideal.

      Later on I transition into a ground build using the army bases I already built, towed artillery and mobile AA usually.

      KFGauss wrote:

      1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      2) ---> Don't use melee combat (ground-vs-ground at the same spot) to defeat enemy ground troops.
      Sacrifices must be made for rapid early expansion :) Healing units takes too long without a dedicated hospital and shouldn't be done if it hampers your expansion imo.
      It comes down to very simple math. Are the resources gained by capturing a few cities a day or two earlier greater than the resources lost in units that were lost doing so. Generally, it's almost always better to wait that extra day or two to avoid losing those units from an economic standpoint.

    • Diippi wrote:

      It comes down to very simple math. Are the resources gained by capturing a few cities a day or two earlier greater than the resources lost in units that were lost doing so. Generally, it's almost always better to wait that extra day or two to avoid losing those units from an economic standpoint.
      And - What's lost is more than simply the resources used to produce the unit. You also lose everything that that unit would have done for you in the future if it hadn't been lost.

      That now-missing unit could have defeated enemies, it could have captured more territory, including a few cities, if it hadn't been lost. Economists call these lost opportunities part of the "opportunity cost" of whatever action(s) resulted in the unit dying.

      And - Usually later in games - When you want to mobilize units from a city faster than that city can produce them, you'll never recover the time spent mobilizing a unit that gets destroyed.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      Research CRV, build Army Bases (4-6, depending on resources), build 2 rounds of CRV, rush all enemies till you need bigger guns or ran out of CRVs.

      CRVs are fast, fast to mobilize, cheap (just like their research) and very strong early. At the start everyone just has infantries, and they suck against armor. On the other hand CRVs are very strong against Infantry. This allows you to easily stomp smaller armies (wouldn't run head first into another stack of 10 ground units). Typical enemy early builds don't counter armor, ASF and NG are both very bad against Armor, Infantry still not ideal.

      Later on I transition into a ground build using the army bases I already built, towed artillery and mobile AA usually.

      KFGauss wrote:

      1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      2) ---> Don't use melee combat (ground-vs-ground at the same spot) to defeat enemy ground troops.
      Sacrifices must be made for rapid early expansion :) Healing units takes too long without a dedicated hospital and shouldn't be done if it hampers your expansion imo.
      I generally think rapid expansion is a bad technique. It usually doesn’t end well, at least for me.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Diippi wrote:

      It comes down to very simple math. Are the resources gained by capturing a few cities a day or two earlier greater than the resources lost in units that were lost doing so. Generally, it's almost always better to wait that extra day or two to avoid losing those units from an economic standpoint.
      And - Usually later in games - When you want to mobilize units from a city faster than that city can produce them, you'll never recover the time spent mobilizing a unit that gets destroyed.
      Yes, and the only way to speed up the mobilization is by upgrading recruiting offices or annexing cities, which is very expensive. So the cost of losing a unit and making up for it becomes even higher in the long run.

    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      Sacrifices must be made for rapid early expansion
      Healing units takes too long without a dedicated hospital and shouldn't be done if it hampers your expansion imo.
      This strategy is bound to collapse, once you encounter an enemy that developed soundly (including the building of hospital as needed to maintain troop strength), instead of carelessly expanding. In general, best results are achieved by avoiding unnecessary sacrifices. Also note that expansion is only worth anything if you can hold onto it later.

      Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      This allows you to easily stomp smaller armies
      But of course if you sacrifice proper troop development for the sake of unsupported expansion, you are likely to encounter stronger armies and be stomped by them.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • KFGauss wrote:

      1) Never be happy to lose a unit - Avoid it at (almost) all costs - Heal wounded units.
      I can't emphasize 1) enough.

      Your army is what you use to conquer and hold. Your army size = army you have + army you produce - your losses. If you take the last part of the equation as close as possible to 0, your ability to conquer constantly increases.

      My measure for expansion is 'how many cities can i take and keep during a day'. My target is to constantly increase the number of cities i hold in a day throughout the game. You constraints are: how many can you clean (cleaning is the role of arty / air), and how many can you keep (role of infantry / NG). Interestingly on the latter there was an article some time ago that the best unit to 'keep' a city is SAMs :).


      On your question on artillery, to me (as always in this game) it depends on what you want:

      Option 1: TA. They jump. Oh, i love jumping artillery.
      Option 2: MA: the good thing about MA is that they don't use electronics. Supplies & comps arty? which beats both TA and Railguns in range? goes well when you are building anything that is electronics-intensive? Yes, please
      Option 3: Railguns. I just love RGs. Does not excel at anything, but it's fair at everything. And, they jump. Love that they jump.
      Option 4: Well, needless to say, MRLs. Arty is about range. And MRLs are range. Need i say more?

      So, no 'right' choice. if you try them all over multiple games, you will build your own style. And, once you have your style, you will learn to change it depending on the country you play, your allies, your enemies, etc. And you'll use the different options, without excluding any.

      My general choice of what i produce is 'what makes sense with the resources that i produce'. Try and get a good balance of Air, Sea and Ranged - particularly if you are in pub games and you can barely rely on your allies. And you have a game.

      hope this helps,
      Sgniappo

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

    • Ace75i wrote:

      Hey guys,

      I'm always in the top 5-15 however i'd like to always be top 1, for obvious reasons (scaring ennemi, ressources etc etc)
      However i'm making the argument is it worth going fast ? Like sending separated troops fast to take ennemi's land, i usually attack with 7-8 troops minimum per city on the first days
      and i stay until (with 1 troops only obviously) i reach 35% (end of risk with rogue state) also i pause to prepare, i move my troops tothe next country accordingly to circle him and i do turnover of troop for those who are almost dead.

      The good thing is i keep more troops, the downside is people pass after me in the ranking since im pausing to restructurate.
      And more points means more city more ressources.

      So i'm wondering what about you, how do you go about this dillema ?

      I'm in a party with an Ally who rush rush rush (he's lucky around him they don't play by the way, like zero built not even mil base LVL 1) he has 100 points more than i and im second to him
      However he lost a lot of units, i have almost double and i'm planning to take big countries to make up for the gap of 100. i'm preparing my next attack to go as fast as possible (send lots of troops around the country and conquer it fast by attacking every city at the same time).

      I hope i get some nice insight

      Thx
      Consider this:

      If a country is close enough to me and I see tell tale signs they are hazardously rushing another country, I will strongly consider ambushing their homeland cities. Often those cities are empty or minimally defended.

      Ideally, two for the price of one. I attack the aggressive rusher's homeland cities then go towards the country they attacked which is weakened.

    • Ace75i wrote:

      Hey guys,

      I'm always in the top 5-15 however i'd like to always be top 1, for obvious reasons (scaring ennemi, ressources etc etc)
      However i'm making the argument is it worth going fast ? Like sending separated troops fast to take ennemi's land, i usually attack with 7-8 troops minimum per city on the first days
      and i stay until cubes 2048 (with 1 troops only obviously) i reach 35% (end of risk with rogue state) also i pause to prepare, i move my troops tothe next country accordingly to circle him and i do turnover of troop for those who are almost dead.

      The good thing is i keep more troops, the downside is people pass after me in the ranking since im pausing to restructurate.
      And more points means more city more ressources.

      So i'm wondering what about you, how do you go about this dillema ?

      I'm in a party with an Ally who rush rush rush (he's lucky around him they don't play by the way, like zero built not even mil base LVL 1) he has 100 points more than i and im second to him
      However he lost a lot of units, i have almost double and i'm planning to take big countries to make up for the gap of 100. i'm preparing my next attack to go as fast as possible (send lots of troops around the country and conquer it fast by attacking every city at the same time).

      I hope i get some nice insight

      Thx
      I also want to be top 1, but it is hard.

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      What's lost is more than simply the resources used to produce the unit. You also lose everything that that unit would have done for you in the future if it hadn't been lost.
      Very true. Also very much is NOT a simple math (contrary what the prior comment suggested), as lots of unknown variables are involved...
      maybe not simple math,
      but we can use math to pretty easily model various scenarios and draw conclusions as to what is a more effective strategy.

    • Im On Smoko wrote:

      Consider this:
      If a country is close enough to me and I see tell tale signs they are hazardously rushing another country, I will strongly consider ambushing their homeland cities. Often those cities are empty or minimally defended.

      Ideally, two for the price of one. I attack the aggressive rusher's homeland cities then go towards the country they attacked which is weakened.
      this seems like basic Risk game observation(s) :)