Island nations the worst countries to play?

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

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.

100% You cannot take a single ounce of land with naval ships that cost 3-4k comps a piece and countless rares/electronics that could go to MRLS/SAMs/MAA/officers, stealth aircraft, spec forces, etc. Real units that actually pave the way for you to get thousands of VP before day 30. There's a serious case of the tisms for island chuds who seem to ignore the fact that more in-land nations will absolutely shred their weak armies that they lacked funds for since they wasted all of them on toyboats.

Did you played FP? Maybe in your experience you never found a decent player using US. I don't know how people without navy could cross the Atlantic and invade America without navy if american players has the dominion of the sea nodes to the continent.
This is only an example.

WW3/Apocalypse... the same.

I think that the big matter here is that many people don't know how to play this game. And in the land of blinds, the man with only an eye is the king. In maps with several new players or bad players, with only a bunch of NG and some CRV you can win many battles! this circunstance don't do useless the rest of the units.

KFGauss wrote:

. . .

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.

Kaiservar wrote:

. . .
So, i don't believe that activity is key yo victory, it help a lot, but you can be quite active but if another less active player has a good management of combined arms, has sufficient units to do air superiority or worst, air supremacy, no matter how active you are, he will defeat you because he have the tools to do heavy damage to you in his active time.

KFGauss wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

. . .

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.

Kaiservar wrote:

. . .
So, i don't believe that activity is key yo victory, it help a lot, but you can be quite active but if another less active player has a good management of combined arms, has sufficient units to do air superiority or worst, air supremacy, no matter how active you are, he will defeat you because he have the tools to do heavy damage to you in his active time.

I wrote that being more much active than your opponent is a big advantage, especially if you have built units that match your activity level.
And I wrote that if you are highly active you can typically win public games (often easily) using only a few units types.

Are we disagreeing?

Kaiservar wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

I wrote that being more much active than your opponent is a big advantage, especially if you have built units that match your activity level.And I wrote that if you are highly active you can typically win public games (often easily) using only a few units types.

Are we disagreeing?

In some deep points. Look, we are in the same line about activity helps a lot, that's true, but where i'm not with you is in the fact that fewer unit types matching high activity could win a game.
. . .

KFGauss wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

I wrote that being more much active than your opponent is a big advantage, especially if you have built units that match your activity level.And I wrote that if you are highly active you can typically win public games (often easily) using only a few units types.

Are we disagreeing?

In some deep points. Look, we are in the same line about activity helps a lot, that's true, but where i'm not with you is in the fact that fewer unit types matching high activity could win a game.. . .

Xovault (and Pale Rider Rider and . . . ) and I are proof that you can consistently win (not always, but far more often than not) aggressively using only a handful of unit types.How do you guys prepare to invade another country?
In the thread at that ^ link Xovalut reports how he successfully pushes the simple-units, aggressive-expansion style as hard as he can when he starts in 1X WW3 Germany.

He and I and the others aren't speculating about what might happen - We are reporting what did/does happen.

While other players are preparing to fight, we are outgrowing them by so much that their preparations are usually futile (not always, but usually).

What we do might be less fun for you than your typical game, but that is a different subject.

I don't think everyone should play the way that I or Xovault or . . . play, but I do think that every player should be aware that it's possible to play (very successfully) that way, if they want to do it.

Returning to how this connects to playing an island nation - If you can start a "snowball" in your island and can keep it rolling, you can frequently do two things

• Destroy threats before they attack you (they never attack you.
  
• Essentially win the game before less-threatening (slower) players can get big enough to stop you.
  

When you are doing that, you don't have to spend much on defending your island.

The trick is keeping track of who is a threat and who isn't. If you have to build a big Navy, do it; but if you don't have to build a big Navy, don't build one just because you think an island MUST build a big Navy.

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

xovault wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

xovault wrote:

jajajajaja obviously that you don't need to take América, but if you want to do, you need a navy.
But i put you in another point of view: the americans goes to Europe with a fleet of full stack frigates (Anti air). What will you do? Leave your homeland coastal cities to be bombarded?

Ah yes, landlocked... Well, i suppose that by the time, you Will have occupated coastal cities and you will want to avoid any invasion there that could menace your landlocked homeland. How do you confront a fleet that is almost invulnerable to airstrikes and, cruisers (?) bombarding your possible MRLS as a defense? That without taking in mind that CM could destroy any stack of arty with ease. And ships, as destroyers, cruisers or even submarines could launch CM.

Obviously, using a navy is not mandatory, but when is needed, nothing is better than them. The fact that you look for fights that avoid naval combat don't do navy useless.




Ye, you don't need to take the U.S to win. I make it a point not to. In terms of getting to the Americas without a navy, honestly it's never been problematic. I leave that horrible continent till last, and by the time my sights are set on it, there's some number of nations that have gone inactive and I can just beachhead some unguarded spot and fly in. Or I just leverage strength & use diplo to get someone there to grant me ROW. I've never encountered a coalition that has a proper unified command over that continent, where all the chokepoints are properly monitored and guarded & they're all on the same page. Active & competent. There's always some vulnerability & an alternate route in. A virus always finds a way. From there you can route north to the US if you insist on visiting. Game is done by then, & they're typically exhausted and not even guarding the Panama Canal at that point. If the US themselves are a problem & must be targeted early/mid game? I'll give you a £1m if you ever find a competent US player. And I don't play flashpoint. And there's always an alternative. And If we ever do need a navy to breach, there's always someone else in the coalition with ships. I outsource that job so I don't have to waste resources on ships. Saying that, one game, lateish game, I had so many excess resources, I just annexed 5 coastal cities, plonked down rec offices and in short order, spammed 10 cruisers, 10 frigs. So if I need them to get to the Americas last, I can just insta produce them with a huge econ.

In terms of your point above about occupied coastals being shelled, honestly I don't care. They can waste their time doing that while I continue scooping a country a day and hold enormous swathes of territory. That is more a nuisance to me than a problem. Just dispatch a small re-capture team, stay out of naval range & if they want to play the back & forth game, let them. They do me a favour by tying up their assets that way. I don't get the point about us wanting to "avoid any invasion that threatens the landlocked homeland". We are already always expecting land invasions. That your invasion gets to land via an occupied coastal city is irrelevant. And if the nation is landlocked, then it doesn't matter how invulnerable your fleet is, we ignore them, they are irrelevant. That you can send over missiles and planes from your fleet, again those aren't exclusive assets to the navy. We already expect those from land invasions and prepare accordingly.

As I said before, if you play with coastal exposure, you need a navy. I would build it too under those conditions. But I play the game to speedrun the map as efficiently as possible - I get my kicks that way. A navy detracts from that specific goal, for me anyway. Ergo I avoid coastal/island nations. If there is someone that can get 200 cities in 30 days or less using navy, I'd like to see that playthrough or play with them.

Mother Hen wrote:

Yabba Blabba Gabble

KFGauss wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

I wrote that being more much active than your opponent is a big advantage, especially if you have built units that match your activity level.And I wrote that if you are highly active you can typically win public games (often easily) using only a few units types.

Are we disagreeing?

In some deep points. Look, we are in the same line about activity helps a lot, that's true, but where i'm not with you is in the fact that fewer unit types matching high activity could win a game.. . .

Xovault (and Pale Rider Rider and . . . ) and I are proof that you can consistently win (not always, but far more often than not) aggressively using only a handful of unit types.How do you guys prepare to invade another country?
In the thread at that ^ link Xovalut reports how he successfully pushes the simple-units, aggressive-expansion style as hard as he can when he starts in 1X WW3 Germany.

He and I and the others aren't speculating about what might happen - We are reporting what did/does happen.

While other players are preparing to fight, we are outgrowing them by so much that their preparations are usually futile (not always, but usually).

What we do might be less fun for you than your typical game, but that is a different subject.

I don't think everyone should play the way that I or Xovault or . . . play, but I do think that every player should be aware that it's possible to play (very successfully) that way, if they want to do it.

Returning to how this connects to playing an island nation - If you can start a "snowball" in your island and can keep it rolling, you can frequently do two things

• Destroy threats before they attack you (. . . they never attack you).
  
• Essentially win the game before less-threatening (slower) players can get big enough to stop you.
  

When you are doing that, you don't have to spend much on defending your island.

The trick is keeping track of who is a threat and who isn't. If you have to build a big Navy, do it; but if you don't have to build a big Navy, don't build one just because you think an island MUST build a big Navy.

xovault wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

xovault wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

xovault wrote:

jajajajaja obviously that you don't need to take América, but if you want to do, you need a navy.But i put you in another point of view: the americans goes to Europe with a fleet of full stack frigates (Anti air). What will you do? Leave your homeland coastal cities to be bombarded?

Ah yes, landlocked... Well, i suppose that by the time, you Will have occupated coastal cities and you will want to avoid any invasion there that could menace your landlocked homeland. How do you confront a fleet that is almost invulnerable to airstrikes and, cruisers (?) bombarding your possible MRLS as a defense? That without taking in mind that CM could destroy any stack of arty with ease. And ships, as destroyers, cruisers or even submarines could launch CM.

Obviously, using a navy is not mandatory, but when is needed, nothing is better than them. The fact that you look for fights that avoid naval combat don't do navy useless.




Ye, you don't need to take the U.S to win. I make it a point not to. In terms of getting to the Americas without a navy, honestly it's never been problematic. I leave that horrible continent till last, and by the time my sights are set on it, there's some number of nations that have gone inactive and I can just beachhead some unguarded spot and fly in. Or I just leverage strength & use diplo to get someone there to grant me ROW. I've never encountered a coalition that has a proper unified command over that continent, where all the chokepoints are properly monitored and guarded & they're all on the same page. Active & competent. There's always some vulnerability & an alternate route in. A virus always finds a way. From there you can route north to the US if you insist on visiting. Game is done by then, & they're typically exhausted and not even guarding the Panama Canal at that point. If the US themselves are a problem & must be targeted early/mid game? I'll give you a £1m if you ever find a competent US player. And I don't play flashpoint. And there's always an alternative. And If we ever do need a navy to breach, there's always someone else in the coalition with ships. I outsource that job so I don't have to waste resources on ships. Saying that, one game, lateish game, I had so many excess resources, I just annexed 5 coastal cities, plonked down rec offices and in short order, spammed 10 cruisers, 10 frigs. So if I need them to get to the Americas last, I can just insta produce them with a huge econ.

In terms of your point above about occupied coastals being shelled, honestly I don't care. They can waste their time doing that while I continue scooping a country a day and hold enormous swathes of territory. That is more a nuisance to me than a problem. Just dispatch a small re-capture team, stay out of naval range & if they want to play the back & forth game, let them. They do me a favour by tying up their assets that way. I don't get the point about us wanting to "avoid any invasion that threatens the landlocked homeland". We are already always expecting land invasions. That your invasion gets to land via an occupied coastal city is irrelevant. And if the nation is landlocked, then it doesn't matter how invulnerable your fleet is, we ignore them, they are irrelevant. That you can send over missiles and planes from your fleet, again those aren't exclusive assets to the navy. We already expect those from land invasions and prepare accordingly.

As I said before, if you play with coastal exposure, you need a navy. I would build it too under those conditions. But I play the game to speedrun the map as efficiently as possible - I get my kicks that way. A navy detracts from that specific goal, for me anyway. Ergo I avoid coastal/island nations. If there is someone that can get 200 cities in 30 days or less using navy, I'd like to see that playthrough or play with them.

xovault wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

I wrote that being more much active than your opponent is a big advantage, especially if you have built units that match your activity level.And I wrote that if you are highly active you can typically win public games (often easily) using only a few units types.

Are we disagreeing?

In some deep points. Look, we are in the same line about activity helps a lot, that's true, but where i'm not with you is in the fact that fewer unit types matching high activity could win a game.. . .

Xovault (and Pale Rider Rider and . . . ) and I are proof that you can consistently win (not always, but far more often than not) aggressively using only a handful of unit types.How do you guys prepare to invade another country?In the thread at that ^ link Xovalut reports how he successfully pushes the simple-units, aggressive-expansion style as hard as he can when he starts in 1X WW3 Germany.

He and I and the others aren't speculating about what might happen - We are reporting what did/does happen.

While other players are preparing to fight, we are outgrowing them by so much that their preparations are usually futile (not always, but usually).

What we do might be less fun for you than your typical game, but that is a different subject.

I don't think everyone should play the way that I or Xovault or . . . play, but I do think that every player should be aware that it's possible to play (very successfully) that way, if they want to do it.

Returning to how this connects to playing an island nation - If you can start a "snowball" in your island and can keep it rolling, you can frequently do two things

• Destroy threats before they attack you (. . . they never attack you).
  
• Essentially win the game before less-threatening (slower) players can get big enough to stop you.
  

When you are doing that, you don't have to spend much on defending your island.

The trick is keeping track of who is a threat and who isn't. If you have to build a big Navy, do it; but if you don't have to build a big Navy, don't build one just because you think an island MUST build a big Navy.

I'm currently doing another Germany WW3 1x run, and will finish day 9 with 62 cities. Would have been 75 if I hadn't been as lazy this game. A couple days later when i hit israel/syria that would have jumped to close to 100. And I'm currently being set upon by the Nordics & others combined. They just left it to late & now each one gets capitulated in 1/2 a day which is the sentiment you share above. It's a joke man. My next attempt will actually be trying to hit 100+ cities in under 10 days. An econ boost this big just becomes insurmountable & the game is over before it starts and I don't think it's at all doable while faffing around with ships. And if you bring ships to me later on & blow my 2 homeland coastals Hamburg and Kiel into rogueyn'ess, I just don't even care - it just doesn't matter past a certain point.

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

Kaiservar wrote:

Toooooop wrote:

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.

100% You cannot take a single ounce of land with naval ships that cost 3-4k comps a piece and countless rares/electronics that could go to MRLS/SAMs/MAA/officers, stealth aircraft, spec forces, etc. Real units that actually pave the way for you to get thousands of VP before day 30. There's a serious case of the tisms for island chuds who seem to ignore the fact that more in-land nations will absolutely shred their weak armies that they lacked funds for since they wasted all of them on toyboats.

Did you played FP? Maybe in your experience you never found a decent player using US. I don't know how people without navy could cross the Atlantic and invade America without navy if american players has the dominion of the sea nodes to the continent.This is only an example.
WW3/Apocalypse... the same.

I think that the big matter here is that many people don't know how to play this game. And in the land of blinds, the man with only an eye is the king. In maps with several new players or bad players, with only a bunch of NG and some CRV you can win many battles! this circunstance don't do useless the rest of the units.

What is your point here? That every player has to take North America? Lol, the max VP of that continent is at best 300? Why would a Eurasian or African power waste time with that? Afghanistan? Belarus? Chad? Kazakhstan? All 6 city nations (2 sup) can easily make extremely large and quality ground forces that can make both navies and airforces obsolete with arty/aa combos.You fail to understand that every map is about VP (Victory Points) and that you only need 1850vp to win solo.

You bring coalitions into the fray and landlocked nations can simply team up with somebody that can go 100% navy as the landlocked player takes all the land in this situation, been there and done that multiple times, against some very good players not noobs like most of these retards on the dead forum. (KFGauss being the most brilliant example of having 100% bot maps {self-admitted}, Id sweep the fucking floor with him I hope i run into him sometime for a free win)

The only modes where navy is essential are Rising Tides & Overkill, where some of the victory sites are far out in the ocean. WW3/Apocalypse/BGUSA/Flashpoint/BloodOil/Zombies etc can all be won without touching ships.

If you can't understand this, then send your IGN and I'll show you for yourself, DoD is too scared to be beaten twice in a row.

jajajajaja obviously that you don't need to take América, but if you want to do, you need a navy.
But i put you in another point of view: the americans goes to Europe with a fleet of full stack frigates (Anti air). What will you do? Leave your homeland coastal cities to be bombarded?

Ah yes, landlocked... Well, i suppose that by the time, you Will have occupated coastal cities and you will want to avoid any invasion there that could menace your landlocked homeland. How do you confront a fleet that is almost invulnerable to airstrikes and, cruisers (?) bombarding your possible MRLS as a defense? That without taking in mind that CM could destroy any stack of arty with ease. And ships, as destroyers, cruisers or even submarines could launch CM.

Obviously, using a navy is not mandatory, but when is needed, nothing is better than them. The fact that you look for fights that avoid naval combat don't do navy useless.