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

    • It simply works like this: some doctrinal units are available earlier for research, others later - in comparison to the other two doctrines.

      We also have differences in the actual unit stats depending on doctrine. Attack, HP, Movement may vary a bit.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • @DeadCaptain when you choose your country at the beginning of a game, knowing the doctrines helps you choose better. Like airborne being available day 1 for Western, if you take Turkey with all those mountains in the region, you might want to build an airborne division or might be jumping into Greece, the Middle East or towards Russia. Taking European, you might get the TD's rolling early to stop the CRV recon divisions trying to cap your cities quicker. Taking Eastern, you get the tanks and SpecOps going, specops to scout and protect the mbt's while the motorized inf come in behind and hold/capture provinces/cities that have been cleared.
      "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some @$$holes in the world that just need to be shot." - Gen. James Mattis USMC
    • I was just about to ask this same question. Any sort of way to make it easier than click on every item of the research tree and every unit in all 3 doctrines to see which ones have different stats and research costs, would be really helpful. It would make it easier for new players to get up to speed on strategy, but maybe this way rewards repeated playing and that's the idea? You lose some games because you don't know what units to build but if you get through 2 or 3 games with each doctrine you figure it out so it rewards experienced players and that's good for retention?
    • None of the doctrinal units are balanced in such a way that they would result in a lost game due to the units not performing. That would be highly unrealistic as well, just think of the real life implications.
      Here is a list of them
      Of these most have slightly modified stats: We generally do not print those as they are often outdated within weeks due to the ever ongoing balancing.

      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Doctrines problem now is EU doctrine has advantage.
      Games strategy/balance at this moment is build air units & missiles then destroy all/any land units and take empty lands. Best unit for this strategy is strike fighter and exactly EU strike fighter has advantage. This is not only doctrines but also overall gameplay's problem, in fact all other units and their characteristics arent important at all. All you need for victory good developed strike fighters (naval or stealth variants even better).
      Main problem here is all anti air/anti missiles units are late available, are too hard to manufacture, have very low mobility and are too expensive to build if mean their very low efficiency. Also all support units like anti air shall not be involved in land battles until any general land units (like tanks, infantry and etc) is alive in stack and stack isnt attacked from 2 sides (rear or flank attack).
    • Situation may needs to be rebalanced, but i'd like to point that the situation in terms of "air-missile" bias has drastically improved.

      Nowadays, being unilaterally crushed by missiles requires to blatantely ignore that the missiles are powerful.

      Other, more knowledgable players, manage to protect "somewhat" against them, even if there are many "cheesy" actions you can make to trick the game and make your missiles go through.

      This is a topic that will never be solved, sadly. Whatever the rebalancing done, you will ALWAYS have, at the same moment

      1°) The large horde of people whining that air and missiles are op. ---> "I don't have anti-air or bad anti-air, or bad positioning, why is he destroying me baaaah REFUND BAD GAME"
      2°) The large horde of people whining that air and missiles are useless. --> "I send 15 missiles on him why are they all dead ? why is he destroying me baaaaah REFUND BAD GAME"

      My own opinion on the topic is that "generally speaking", one individual has more chances to be pitted against clueless opponents, and that missiles are, in this context, a very good choice. At a higher skill-level, missiles are still useful, but need to be planned efficiently due to the cost and the industrial congestion they cause (when no gold, obviously), and they are not a guarantee of domination. In a solid team/coalition, i guess that at least one guy should always "go for missiles" for the support.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • AquariusRisin85 wrote:

      If you research AA and SAMs far enough they are air assault capable. Very easy to move after that
      People ... strike fighter is available for research at 1st games day for EU doctrine (in second day for others). On 4-5th day I have 2 strikers wings i.e. 10 strikers and may crush any nearby opponents. For one country crushing I need several hours only if I have few paratroopers to take core cities so on 6-7th day all my nearby countries are crushed if I have enough time for online gaming... about what research you are talking ?? air transportability is available for SAM from 16th day for research only, air mobility on day 20.
      Effective air defence should be available from 1st gaming day and shall be mobile at once, shall be easy to produce and cheaper then aircrafts.
      I myself like air tactic to use in fact, just it becomes boring without alternatives.
    • Mobile AA is another - it's got 4 strength vs Airplanes whereas the strike has 4 vs armored. Taking into account the range and the mechanics the AA will most probably win.
      In a nutshell your argument isn't very valid - yes strikes are powerful - yes they are commonly used - but no: they are not overpowered end all weapons against someone who knows how to defend.
      This said we are currently working on the mechanics of air combat to ensure that air-sup-fighters get the upper hand more commonly.

      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Sure, air-sup-fighters is really best way to stop air invasion, just here are 2 weak points now:
      1) As we discussed A2A isnt work now properly, attacking by sup-fighters you lost 3-4 times more resources then enemy. Probably I personally isnt lucky :) , but today again using 5 fighters against 3 enemies I lost 1 fighter and destroyed nothing (and my fighters were highly developed then enemies, enemies stack summary attack was 22 points against main 55 attack, my stack received in fact 28 damage and enemies stack 18 only ... so magically). So currently interceptors are just resources and time wasting. Also here is online time problem, you shall be online exactly in time when opponent attack to make interceptors effective , no any from us can be online 24 hours each day and we all play in different time periods.
      2) If you produce sup-fighters you minimize your expansion abilities and temp, cose sups arent effective in land/naval attacks.

      Probably good way here may be air fighters unification in single technology to have one universal unit?

      Mobile AA are worst unit to stop air invasion:
      1)They arent mobile too long time.
      2) 1-2 AA is nothing against strikers wing, but you sure cant have 5 AA in each city and in each land army :)
      3) They lost HP in land battles faster then land units in case you try defend your land stacks with AA.

      Probably here may return to stationary AA, which have not mobility at all , but is available at the start of game and are very cheap to manufacture. At least they may be effective to defend core cities. Or increase land units AA point deffence.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Raf ().

    • I do agree that Air to Air combat seems to have some flaws, but they look like more as "doesn't work as it is designed" than an intended outcome.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.