Island nations the worst countries to play?

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

japan samurai wrote:

Well...this is what I am trying to find out about, why is everyone talking about attacking a island nation yet saying that its hard to defend , "being hard to defend "== easy to defeat, unless everyone is asking how to do so because they've never done so , i still would like to find out what makes island nations so hard to defend/ hard to invade/ best nations to play

I meant that the people who like islands might have written about how easy it is to expand from an Island to take over the world, not how easy is to attack/defeat an opponent who started in an island. If you are always the one expanding from an island starting location and killing threats (instead of the one defending an island from threats) you worry less about defending yourself.

That's a fantastic way to lose your HQ and rogue pops everywhere you conquered the past 20 days. Island nations are just all F-tier and anyone that disagrees is coping

This is the silliest opinion I have ever read on the Forum, it would actually be funny if not for the fact it is the exact opposite of reality.Landlocked countries are clearly the worst.

Cope harder if you can old fart, you have fewer wins than me and yet you joined in years earlier lol sit down.

You should sit down and shut up hiding behind a different in game name no doubt to conceal all of your losses.

Dracula wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dracula wrote:

LOL
I have defeated entired coalitions single handedly by playing as an Island. Being an island mean you can focus only on navy and become a naval superpower while your enemies will have to focus on ground/airforce troops too and you can easily wipe out their entire navies and all port cities. Any attacking aircrafts will fell like flies too by anti air of your ships.

I discussed my strategy to defeat coalitions as an Island nations in this thread

How can I win against an entire coalition while i'm solo?

How will this work against Afghanistan/Belarus/Austria/Kazakhstan/Mongolia/Chad/Bolivia/Congo? A naval superpower can't do a single thing against an in-land nation that has 2000vp from taking Eurasia-Middle East. Ships can't take any VP, and no one cares how many noobs you farmed off of in WW3 lol try that out in a real map and see how that goes "dracula" xD

You are clearly a foul-mouthed idiot who utters nonsense without thinking. If you read the thread I mentioned , I clearly mentioned in replies that I defeated the no 2 ranked player at that time (not now) twice by this strategy, not noobs. You have mentioned few landlocked nations out of 64 , even these nations can be destroyed by launched missiles. Even in real life naval powers have dominated the world for last few centuries.

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

japan samurai wrote:

Well...this is what I am trying to find out about, why is everyone talking about attacking a island nation yet saying that its hard to defend , "being hard to defend "== easy to defeat, unless everyone is asking how to do so because they've never done so , i still would like to find out what makes island nations so hard to defend/ hard to invade/ best nations to play

I meant that the people who like islands might have written about how easy it is to expand from an Island to take over the world, not how easy is to attack/defeat an opponent who started in an island. If you are always the one expanding from an island starting location and killing threats (instead of the one defending an island from threats) you worry less about defending yourself.

That's a fantastic way to lose your HQ and rogue pops everywhere you conquered the past 20 days. Island nations are just all F-tier and anyone that disagrees is coping

This is the silliest opinion I have ever read on the Forum, it would actually be funny if not for the fact it is the exact opposite of reality.Landlocked countries are clearly the worst.

Cope harder if you can old fart, you have fewer wins than me and yet you joined in years earlier lol sit down.

You should sit down and shut up hiding behind a different in game name no doubt to conceal all of your losses.

Imagine spending hours of your life with 3k posts on a forum the devs are throwing away like a candy bar wrapper. Pft you lost at life

LOL, I was a success in life long before those 2 mentally challenged siblings exchanged underwear and begat you.

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Dealer of Death wrote:

This is the silliest opinion I have ever read on the Forum, it would actually be funny if not for the fact it is the exact opposite of reality.Landlocked countries are clearly the worst.

Cope harder if you can old fart, you have fewer wins than me and yet you joined in years earlier lol sit down.

You should sit down and shut up hiding behind a different in game name no doubt to conceal all of your losses.

Imagine spending hours of your life with 3k posts on a forum the devs are throwing away like a candy bar wrapper. Pft you lost at life

LOL, I was a success in life long before those 2 mentally challenged siblings exchanged underwear and begat you.

"Was" a success at life? So you lost ahahahah better not edit that out I have it screenshotted of your self-inflicted roast. How embarrassing

Yes, quite embarrassing to you. The only roasting here is you self immolating from being unable to comprehend the sentence.

xovault wrote:

The smaller islands are not so bad, but for say Australia, (with longer reinforcement time) the issue of people directing concentrated force against your dispersed defence is a problem. While you can encounter concentration of force in landlocked countries, I feel like it’s much quicker in general to reinforce a land defence. If you mitigate this somewhat, by having a network of AWACS or singular ships acting as buoys, it’s just adding to the cost of a naval defence which is already higher than a land based one. On the other hand, the land player need only grab a free buffer zone around him & his vision isn't manned by units able to be shot down. With a higher defence budget and a wider research tree, it just seems you’ll be left behind by a tech focused landlocked country. To my mind, from day 1 he can be putting more resources, units and effort into expansion & growing the econ quicker whereas the island guy has more to worry about at home first and when you engage him in on land where the majority vp is, he'll outnumber and out-tech you. In return tho, you get to play with navy, which to me is the most ineffective way of going about winning a map. Navy does have some tactical purposes, but nothing I could find useful enough to build it, nor anything I couldn't figure a way round it when faced against it.

Others seem to deem it essential if not outright necessary to win a map. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm missing something?

Kaiservar wrote:

xovault wrote:

i one game, my partners and me was confronting China. He expand very quickly and aggresively, even over his allies. One of my allies was Japan and he build a fleet of cruisers and frigates. The cruisers destroys all chinese coastal cities and that was the end for him. Notice that China was playing with ASF very advanced and Cruise missiles and this combo was very effective for him to go from Asia to Syria in about 20 days.
In a recent play against a Golden player, he send a fleet of 15 ASF lv4 3 Carriers and 25 NSF lv2. I was able to take down their ASF with a fleet of 3 frigates, of course, i was able to locate them idle using my AWACS. This help me a lot to balance the overwhelming force, because i only had 15 ASF to counter all that power. Without frigates it never had happened.

So, navy is very useful.

xovault wrote:

The smaller islands are not so bad, but for say Australia, (with longer reinforcement time) the issue of people directing concentrated force against your dispersed defence is a problem. While you can encounter concentration of force in landlocked countries, I feel like it’s much quicker in general to reinforce a land defence. If you mitigate this somewhat, by having a network of AWACS or singular ships acting as buoys, it’s just adding to the cost of a naval defence which is already higher than a land based one. On the other hand, the land player need only grab a free buffer zone around him & his vision isn't manned by units able to be shot down. With a higher defence budget and a wider research tree, it just seems you’ll be left behind by a tech focused landlocked country. To my mind, from day 1 he can be putting more resources, units and effort into expansion & growing the econ quicker whereas the island guy has more to worry about at home first and when you engage him in on land where the majority vp is, he'll outnumber and out-tech you. In return tho, you get to play with navy, which to me is the most ineffective way of going about winning a map. Navy does have some tactical purposes, but nothing I could find useful enough to build it, nor anything I couldn't figure a way round it when faced against it.

Others seem to deem it essential if not outright necessary to win a map. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm missing something?

xovault wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

xovault wrote:

i one game, my partners and me was confronting China. He expand very quickly and aggresively, even over his allies. One of my allies was Japan and he build a fleet of cruisers and frigates. The cruisers destroys all chinese coastal cities and that was the end for him. Notice that China was playing with ASF very advanced and Cruise missiles and this combo was very effective for him to go from Asia to Syria in about 20 days.In a recent play against a Golden player, he send a fleet of 15 ASF lv4 3 Carriers and 25 NSF lv2. I was able to take down their ASF with a fleet of 3 frigates, of course, i was able to locate them idle using my AWACS. This help me a lot to balance the overwhelming force, because i only had 15 ASF to counter all that power. Without frigates it never had happened.

So, navy is very useful.

I meant useful in a tactical sense; navy blockades, controlling ocean checkpoints, air control over the seas, guarding a beachhead, guarding a carrier used as a mobile airfield, shore bombardment to halt production etc. There's nothing from this aspect of naval play that I've ever found useful enough to my goal of blitzing a map nor ever hindered me when facing it. When I look at the options navy gives me, it just feel like a waste of time and that there's more efficient ways to go about business. If you have non trivial coastal exposure you need navy for protection, but since I find little value in it offensively and have wider structural issues with its use, I just ignore it & prefer landlocked'ish countries.
That you could shell Chinese cities, sure, but I guess my point is, is it worth the investment in ships to be able to do that vs some other means to achieve the same ends? Your second example; SAM's could also have done the job right? And safer I think (if positioned beyond naval reach) because if he had brought along an actual fleet, he could have wiped your frigates & now you're dogfighting with ASF's after which he has free reign over your skies.

xovault wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

xovault wrote:

i one game, my partners and me was confronting China. He expand very quickly and aggresively, even over his allies. One of my allies was Japan and he build a fleet of cruisers and frigates. The cruisers destroys all chinese coastal cities and that was the end for him. Notice that China was playing with ASF very advanced and Cruise missiles and this combo was very effective for him to go from Asia to Syria in about 20 days.In a recent play against a Golden player, he send a fleet of 15 ASF lv4 3 Carriers and 25 NSF lv2. I was able to take down their ASF with a fleet of 3 frigates, of course, i was able to locate them idle using my AWACS. This help me a lot to balance the overwhelming force, because i only had 15 ASF to counter all that power. Without frigates it never had happened.

So, navy is very useful.

I meant useful in a tactical sense; navy blockades, controlling ocean checkpoints, air control over the seas, guarding a beachhead, guarding a carrier used as a mobile airfield, shore bombardment to halt production etc. There's nothing from this aspect of naval play that I've ever found useful enough to my goal of blitzing a map nor ever hindered me when facing it. When I look at the options navy gives me, it just feel like a waste of time and that there's more efficient ways to go about business. If you have non trivial coastal exposure you need navy for protection, but since I find little value in it offensively and have wider structural issues with its use, I just ignore it & prefer landlocked'ish countries.
That you could shell Chinese cities, sure, but I guess my point is, is it worth the investment in ships to be able to do that vs some other means to achieve the same ends? Your second example; SAM's could also have done the job right? And safer I think (if positioned beyond naval reach) because if he had brought along an actual fleet, he could have wiped your frigates & now you're dogfighting with ASF's after which he has free reign over your skies.

KFGauss wrote:

Guys,

Your predictions and descriptions leave out so much that easily dominates the outcome of most contests - You don't tell us how often you and your enemies are able to give orders to your units, or how often you are able to look to see what units are within your radar/sonar/sight range.

If you opponents are collecting more intell than you, and if they are giving oders faster than you, your best predictions about what will make a good defense or offense will frequently turn into useless mush.

On the other hand if you're the one moving/reacting faster than your opponent, mediocre or even poor strategies might appear to work well because of your activity level, even though they aren't the best choices.

My advice is to first ask about (or describe) that one factor, before paying attention to anything more basic than what Teburu and others recommend:

• You need a unit that can kill enemy ships.
  
• You need a unit that can kill enemy planes.
  
• You need a unit that can kill enemy ground units.
  
• You need intell.
  
• You need to build a smart mixture of your unit types.
  
• You need to use your units intelligently, including minimizing your losses.
  
• Always attempt to gain and hold "the initiative".
  

Kaiservar wrote:

Activity levels are an excuse, . . .

KFGauss wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

Activity levels are an excuse, . . .

Nope - Not an excuse.
Being very active wins games.

In typical public games I (like @Xovault) blitz through other players while their units are sitting ducks.

When they are online and fighting back (rarely), I do need to be more careful, but usually they are already crippled by my initial attacks and their counterattacks are weak.

I am very successful (so far) in public 1X WW3 games without creating all of the complications many players describe.

I rarely build Naval units. I rarely build Armor 9CRVs). I never build SAMs, TDS or Radars. I don't build Artillery. The only reason I upgrade my Nat Guard and Infantry is to make them move faster. I don't build Stealth units. I don't build Officers. I don't build Spec Ops. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why am I successful (so far)? Is it because I'm super-smart and I know all of the tricks good alliances use? No.

So far I win because I'm very active, because public opponents are almost all either clueless or far less active than I am, and because I mobilize a simple set of units that work well when you're very active.

Being very active isn't the only way to win a game, and being very active with the wrong units doesn't work well, but a high activity-level is a big advantage over less-active opponents.