How do you guys prepare to invade another country?

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      . . .
      If you're attacking, then you don't know the enemy's stack compositions unless you've got special forces. So you've generally got to guess a lot more - and that can cost you, especially if you're using a lot of Strike Fighters. Which of those radar blips is the SAM stack? How many SAMs has he got there and at what level? Does he have ASFs nearby?
      . . .
      In the typical public 1X game, especially during a rapidly snowballing player's make-or-break rapid-growth phase of Days 5 through 20 or 35 (depending on the map size), I think the answers are almost always this:
      • Probably none of the radar blips represent SAM stacks - If you are unlucky and you do run into some (probably weak) AA, use Patrol attacks deal with it.
      • There might be one ASF floating around somewhere - So that you don't have to worry about it, the advice above told you to clear the skies (kill that one ASF) before going after ground stacks.


      For those reasons, If I'm your opponent, me employing a hunker-down tactic instead of a blitz will be something I'm forced into, not something I choose; because I think the blitz advantages far outweigh its disadvantages.

      I want to be the one determining the pace of the action. I don't want to cede "the initiative" to my opponent.

      PS: I like using a UAV (not Special Forces) to determine stack compositions (right before starting a war and/or once the skies are mine) - I know all of the arguments for and against doing that, so we don't need to dive into those bushes.

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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      In the typical public 1X game, especially during a rapidly snowballing player's make-or-break rapid-growth phase of Days 5 through 20 or 35 (depending on the map size), I think the answers are almost always this:
      • Probably none of the radar blips represent SAM stacks - If you are unlucky and you do run into some (probably weak) AA, use Patrol attacks deal with it.
      • There might be one ASF floating around somewhere - So that you don't have to worry about it, the advice above told you to clear the skies (kill that one ASF) before going after ground stacks.


      For those reasons, If I'm your opponent, me employing a hunker-down tactic instead of a blitz will be something I'm forced into, not something I choose; because I think the blitz advantages far outweigh its disadvantages.

      I want to be the one determining the pace of the action. I don't want to cede "the initiative" to my opponent.

      PS: I like using a UAV (not Special Forces) to determine stack compositions (right before starting a war and/or once the skies are mine) - I know all of the arguments for and against doing that, so we don't need to dive into those bushes.
      Typical 1x speed public WW3 is all I play, so that's where my experiences come from.

      I'm a little surprised that you don't come up against anyone with SAMs and ASFs in the later part of the game very often - because I usually do! Sometimes it's SAMs + SFs, or SFs and ASFs, but usually people do contest the airspace to some degree once you get near day 20 or so and beyond. It might only be one or two players per map, but there's usually somebody.

      I guess you can just overwhelm them with vast enough numbers of Strikers?

      Out of interest, do you gather any intel at all on your opponent's unit composition and locations before launching your blitz attacks? Or do you just rely on the balance of probability being in your favour in terms of their (un)likely air defence, and just attack whatever's in front of you regardless?


    • Teburu wrote:

      T8.0 wrote:

      I usually send one or two intelligence agents before I attack, so I see exactly what he's looking for and know exactly what to expect (with this way most of the time I don't have to worry about anti air)
      Just look at buildings and newspaper?
      I do it, but the anti-aircraft needs buildings that you can found in many cities and it's rarely used in direct combat, so in the newspapers you will seldom find that anyone has lost an anti-aircraft unit

    • T8.0 wrote:

      I usually send one or two intelligence agents before I attack, so I see exactly what he's looking for and know exactly what to expect (with this way most of the time I don't have to worry about anti air)
      Agents cost quite a bit of cash that is scarce during the crucial early period of a win-quickly strategy.

      That leads me to ask, "When you do you start attacking other players?", "When do you start paying for agents?", and "How long does it typically take for you to know if you're going to win a game?"

      I'm asking for the same situation(s) I described in earlier posts: Public, 1X, WW3 sorts of maps,

    • KFGauss wrote:

      T8.0 wrote:

      I usually send one or two intelligence agents before I attack, so I see exactly what he's looking for and know exactly what to expect (with this way most of the time I don't have to worry about anti air)
      Agents cost quite a bit of cash that is scarce during the crucial early period of a win-quickly strategy.
      That leads me to ask, "When you do you start attacking other players?", "When do you start paying for agents?", and "How long does it typically take for you to know if you're going to win a game?"

      I'm asking for the same situation(s) I described in earlier posts: Public, 1X, WW3 sorts of maps,
      Obviously I don't use agents for players in the early days and for those with low ranks, but only for those 2 or 3 against which there is uncertainty about victory because their stats

    • T8.0 wrote:

      Obviously I don't use agents for players in the early days and for those with low ranks, but only for those 2 or 3 against which there is uncertainty about victory because their stats
      OK - That's part of what made me curious.

      It wasn't obvious to me that you were describing a tactic that you use only part of the time.

      The players with good stats are the ones I attack first. Apparently you attack high-stats players after you attack low-stats players.

      If the high-stats players are good players I need to get them out of the game before they try to get me out of the game.

      If they are bad players, I need to help them adjust their stats so that those stats match their actual skills.

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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      T8.0 wrote:

      Obviously I don't use agents for players in the early days and for those with low ranks, but only for those 2 or 3 against which there is uncertainty about victory because their stats
      OK - That's part of what made me curious.
      It wasn't obvious to me that you were describing a tactic that you use only part of the time.

      The players with good stats are the ones I attack first. Apparently you attack high-stats players after you attack low-stats players.

      If the high-stats players are good players I need to get them out of the game before they try to get me out of the game.

      If they are bad players, I need to help them adjust their stats so that those stats match their actual skills.
      So you attack enemies that may be very far away from you first and then those attached to you?

    • T8.0 wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      T8.0 wrote:

      Obviously I don't use agents for players in the early days and for those with low ranks, but only for those 2 or 3 against which there is uncertainty about victory because their stats
      OK - That's part of what made me curious.It wasn't obvious to me that you were describing a tactic that you use only part of the time.

      The players with good stats are the ones I attack first. Apparently you attack high-stats players after you attack low-stats players.

      If the high-stats players are good players I need to get them out of the game before they try to get me out of the game.

      If they are bad players, I need to help them adjust their stats so that those stats match their actual skills.
      So you attack enemies that may be very far away from you first and then those attached to you?
      Distance is another criterion. You didn't mention distance, so I didn't mention distance (or any of the other criteria that are important).

      Given two or more potential targets (players) that are otherwise equal - I attack the one with the better stats first.

      CoN stats are a terrible way to judge an opponent's skills (barely better than a coin flip), but they are all we have when everything else is more or less equal.

    • WalterChang wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:


      Well, I was responding to a specific bit of the OP, where he said he would often rush an invasion before he was ready, due to anxiety over whether he would be invaded first.
      My view is that being invaded first is often an advantage. You can see the enemy's stack composition when it enters your territory; you can predict its likely route; you can put up a defence somewhere along that route where terrain is to your advantage. You can move your own units around much more quickly than he can, to get them concentrated in the right places. Because you can see the other guy's stack composition, you can make informed decisions over whether to engage it (and if so, what to engage it with), or whether to just allow it to advance while you reposition or bombard it at distance - either by air or artillery or both.

      If you're attacking, then you don't know the enemy's stack compositions unless you've got special forces. So you've generally got to guess a lot more - and that can cost you, especially if you're using a lot of Strike Fighters. Which of those radar blips is the SAM stack? How many SAMs has he got there and at what level? Does he have ASFs nearby?

      If you're fighting on territory that you control, you can see all this stuff. If you're fighting on enemy territory, they can see all your stuff. In an even battle, the defender holds most of the cards. You've got to attack at some point, but if you can waste a good portion of the other guy's forces by making him attack first, then your counter-attack is going to be a lot more straight-forward.

      Unless the OP is worried about being swarmed in a co-ordinated attack by multiple opponents at once, you don’t typically need to be anxious early game as you have the advantage in defence. That advantage can become negligible as the game progresses but is especially effective early game. A bit of situational awareness and diplomacy and the OP can narrow down where the real threat is on their borders. The threat isn't usually equal everywhere. You just have to rank order, position accordingly and accept some risk when you move out.

      I agree tho, that the way enemies typically attack, gives you further advantages. But I don't bait players into war. It can be a sort of efficient way to dispense with them if they don't concentrate force too much. Some decent bunkers & big defending stacks can really put the hurt on them and if you cycle out damaged units & rotate in reinforcements you can slim down losses etc. But, half the time, you'd be waiting for ever and I don't think the majority of pub players are cognizant enough to be drawn in. And if they bite, there's typically such a slow, haphazard follow through that it all becomes a gigantic waste of time. I'd retreat, entrench & counter only if forced to, otherwise I'm pushing the initiative. Unless someone really commits to an attack and crashes on you quickly, most times it's quicker for me to spearhead the advance & just delete them.

      The free intel thing can be solved by using air power hidden from within your own advancing border & sending singular infantry to capture land ahead of your forces. Makes it a bit more slow going but serves to conceal an easy reveal of composition. Also has a duel role of serving as bait. Most the time, (and unless they have shared intel with someone you also want to conceal from) none of this matters anyway because I find it's hardly ever an even battle. You can break cover & they can look all they want. It's typically too late by then for them to do anything to save themselves. If you're using strikers, ye it can be more problematic if you encounter SAM's, tho I find their appearance rare. Which blip are they? Could sacrifice a unit to find out. How many? With arty, I don't care. Their level? Use spies. Does he have asf nearby? Radar raises the possibility. My SAM's will find out soon enough. What I tend to worry about more than anything, is saturation attacks on my airfields.

      In terms of knowing enemy composition, most the time, I don't really care tbh. I always go MRL's, heavy on SAM's and a minimum of 50 ASF and some tag along recons to spot ground stealth, so unless they do the same (rare), it doesn't typically matter what they have. I'm more interested in how their troops are dispersed, in order to plan the attack & to avoid being cornered/ambushed/counter attacked. For me, the priority is always targeting their army first, their cores second. If the OP can't find their army, even with radar, most times, just getting to their cores will entail them recalling them all back. You don't know where they are? They'll be here soon. And intercepting reinforcements is always fun.

      In terms of concealing my mrl's from them prior to battle, sometimes stick a recon in the stack as it takes naming priority. "Radar divisions" are bait af. And to supress suspicion from the continual kills these OP recon divisions seem to be doing, just break and reform the stacks to rename the divisions. Makes you seem larger than you are too.

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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      T8.0 wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      T8.0 wrote:

      Obviously I don't use agents for players in the early days and for those with low ranks, but only for those 2 or 3 against which there is uncertainty about victory because their stats
      OK - That's part of what made me curious.It wasn't obvious to me that you were describing a tactic that you use only part of the time.
      The players with good stats are the ones I attack first. Apparently you attack high-stats players after you attack low-stats players.

      If the high-stats players are good players I need to get them out of the game before they try to get me out of the game.

      If they are bad players, I need to help them adjust their stats so that those stats match their actual skills.
      So you attack enemies that may be very far away from you first and then those attached to you?
      Distance is another criterion. You didn't mention distance, so I didn't mention distance (or any of the other criteria that are important).
      Given two or more potential targets (players) that are otherwise equal - I attack the one with the better stats first.

      CoN stats are a terrible way to judge an opponent's skills (barely better than a coin flip), but they are all we have when everything else is more or less equal.
      Ahhh, there has been a misunderstanding, if I have two opponents near me I attack the one with the best stats like you

    • xovault wrote:

      . . .
      In terms of knowing enemy composition, most the time, I don't really care tbh. I always go MRL's, heavy on SAM's and a minimum of 50 ASF and some tag along recons to spot ground stealth, . . .
      . . .
      Correct me if I'm wrong but (unless you're pouring gold onto your cities) you aren't going to have 50 ASF and all that other stuff on Day 5 (or Day 10, or 15, or 20, or 25, or . . .).

      It's interesting to hear about it, but you skipped over enough game-time for many (if not most) public WW3/FP/Sen/BG/etc. games to already be finished.

      What do you do on Day 5 or Day 10?

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

    • You're not going to have all that on day 5. Ye, I wasn't being specific. 50 ASF is by day 25-30. My games end by day 30ish. No gold.

      Day 1-5:

      2 CRV + 5 mot (starting units) + 3NG = 10 stack. All other starting units stay back. Towed whittles down city stacks until their defensive damage is about 8 or so. 10 stack grabs the kill so the NG can absorb 25% of incoming damage & then auto heal. 1 NG then stays to garrison, 2 go off to land grab and 3 new NG spawns are timed to cycle in to repeat the process as the 10 stack moves onto the next city. The number of NG in a stack (considering their low spawned hp) & the defensive damage the stack is expected to take will take influence how many NG should be in the stack. Generally, 3 is the max. Putting 4 typically means 1 dies. The starting ASF is never duelled and only used for scouting enemy movement if it's safe to do so. Those 7 starting units + the NG's & towed get me through the first 4-5 days, and the CRV's/mot are a bit busted by then but all still alive. Then on day 4-5, do a full transition off melee and those 7 units go to garrison/land grab duties after healing. All new NG spawns from that point, go to the coast to heal.

      Generally, I'm moving that 10 stack into position on day 1 and war is day 2. I build no other units for defence, which is left to whatever is left of the starting units. When I attack with the 10 stack, I move forward in a way that cuts off as many routes to a counter attack as possible. Not leaving exposed flanks etc. Regardless, it can be hard to deal with a premature counter early on due to being spread thin with limited forces & if your offensive stack is bypassed. Typically I'm not attacked early on, hence my cavalier approach, but I think I read the game well enough to anticipate a threat and know how to muster and reinforce a defence if it materialises. The quality and activity of neighbouring opposition does affect my aggression levels & defensive posture tho but it's rarely anything to worry about.

      What makes it typically easier, is that opponents usually target some stray infantry with their sole ASF. What I normally see others do, is engage it with their own and both their ASF's just die. Simply moving that inf back into the larger stack (preferably entrenched) means the enemy ASF retargets the larger stack, receives far more retaliatory defensive damage and just dies. Then I have free reign to scout unimpeded which helps the initial invasion.

      Initial build is just a few lvl 1 AI's & 4 cities with 4 rec offices pumping out 3 rounds of NG continuously that are directed to the front lines to mitigate dmg, heal then support. And 2 airport cities, pumping out ASF nonstop. 1 switches to EAA production when it's available, hits the quota, then goes back to non stop ASF production.

      By day 5 have 5x ASF and an EAA. Mileage varies a bit based on starting country but market orders help to push over the line if needed. Will sometimes prioritise EAA over ASF depending on the type of threat around me. Those ASF and the growing EAA stack + the towed art (to an ever diminishing extent) get me through the first few weeks. Those first few weeks is just mass producing NG & ASF. The former allows me to operate numerous fronts, the ASF gives early air domination and EAA takes care of ground. During those 2 weeks I'll get an army base to lvl 4, one to lvl 3 and one to lvl 2. MRL's. SAM's. Radar then plough through the rec offices on them. When ready, those cities shift off NG and to those support units. Typically aim to have 1.5 - 2 support stacks ready to deploy by around day 14 or so. Composition being 3 SAM's/7 MRL's with the 2nd one swapping out an MRL for a TO. Radar on mass production too for mass coverage.

      So from day 14 onwards it's support stacks & EAA doing the work. From then it's just a case of upgrading the other two army bases to lvl 4 because I can usually manage 3 bases on full time MRL production & the stacks skew in their favour. Don't usually bother past 4 or 5 stacks of them tho. Also gradually adding airfields to all cities so eventually all can switch to constant ASF production. All cities with max rec offices and lvl 4 bunkers & 100% morale, the max ASF number I got to was 85 ASF by day 33 or so. You never need that much but was testing. NG numbers usually hover at 50-100. I find 100 to be excessive to the point I can't make use of them all. Upkeep is never a problem tho.

      In terms of where all the resources for all this are coming from, this is based on having 50-60 cities by day 10 if I'm in Europe (less elsewhere) and ending the game with 150-200 cities.

    • WalterChang wrote:

      xovault wrote:

      worry about.


      What
      If you didn't have EAAs, would you just sub in ASFs and do the same thing?And do you always do the same thing as that in every game?
      Before EAA's were a thing, I would start getting MRL's out around day 4. Could have used the other arty types to mobilise quicker & then transition to MRL's later but could never bring myself to spend rares on a tech line I would eventually abandon.

      Would also use gunships for the early phase but got tired of the amount of damage they take and also seeing as late game you mostly face armour, it felt like another tech line I'd abandon.

      So ye, prior to EAA, I'd sub their role for mass produced ASF's & support from early MRL's. I'd get to 20 ASF exceptionally fast & that would wipe any striker invasions and help clear early tank rushes. There was never any need to build strikers myself which I despise as a unit anyway.

      Do I do the same every game? On my real account, ye pretty much. It's just too effective & I can't bring myself to gimp myself by building anything else. Late game, when it's map painting boredom, I can just set the arty on aggressive and let it do its thing. I can't be assed to set continual manual orders on jets/helo's at that point. I do experiment with other units on a dummy account tho.

    • xovault wrote:

      You're not going to have all that on day 5. Ye, I wasn't being specific.


      . . .

      In terms of where all the resources for all this are coming from, this is based on having 50-60 cities by day 10 if I'm in Europe (less elsewhere) and ending the game with 150-200 cities.
      Dang it - This is one of those times when I wish my CoN time was getting put into my morale/production simulator instead of into accumulating Season Points.

      I want to run some comparisons using 2 or 3 different OOBs in a couple of hours, instead of a couple of months - Maybe some day.

      And - When I play, I haven't been paying attention to the NG auto-healing quirk - I should start factoring it into my early fights.

      For many starting countries on various maps, my gut would tell me that my early-game units couldn't move around enough to completely take down 10 countries (50 to 60 cities) in the first 10 days, especially if some of them (let's say 3?) put up any sort of a fight.

      My gut has been known to be wrong - Which map(s) and/or starting-countries is this scenario playing out in? WW3 or something else?

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