The "Puncher" and The "Boxer": Power is Not the Only Approach

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

    • The "Puncher" and The "Boxer": Power is Not the Only Approach

      They call the sport of boxing “the sweet science”, and there’s a reason for that. You see, although punching power and durability are admirable and valuable qualities in boxing, as one might guess, there’s a little more to it than that. If you’ve ever seen a bar brawl, a street fight, or an attempted boxing match by two untrained people, you can quickly see the difference between just being a tough guy and being a boxer. Even trained boxers are often theoretically divided into two different categories: punchers and boxers. “Puncher” is a label given to those who tend to rely more on raw power rather than technique and complex strategy; “Boxer” is the label given to those who tend to specialize in the opposite fashion.

      Sometimes a puncher is so devastating that boxers with less power have trouble beating them even with superior technique and strategy. Similarly, sometimes a boxer’s technique and strategy are so superior that a much stronger puncher has trouble beating them. So, a high enough level of either power or technique can definitely be a viable option.

      In CoN, though, there appears to be a severe imbalance in the number of people trying to be “punchers” and the number of people trying to “boxers”, with the former being much, much higher. Perhaps because it’s simpler to conceptualize, and perhaps also to employ, a much greater number of CoN players opt to try to become “punchers” in a given game. They stick to a small number of basic units that they level up as far as they can, increasing sheer “power per unit”. They then mass produce these powerful units to create the effect of “combined power”. The rationale is that if their stacks can hit harder and take more punishment than their opponent’s, they’ll win.

      That’s a perfectly valid approach, and it works a portion of the time. If you and your opponent are both just standing toe-to-toe trading blows, and you can hit harder and take a harder hit, then you’ll come out on top. One immediate and obvious problem with that, though, is that in order for that approach to ultimately work, you have to have the single most powerful military in your game. This, I think, is part of the frustration experienced by many players in the game. There’s always a good chance that someone may come along who punches harder, and when that’s all you have to rely on, there’s not really much you can do about that.

      Punching the hardest isn’t the only viable approach, though. You could choose to be a “boxer”; you could choose to learn and use technique and strategy to overcome power. What’s the advantage of choosing that over trying to be the hardest puncher? Well, for one thing, we don’t all start out with the same amount of power. Some nations are starting out with a power disadvantage, which is going to make it harder for them to ever hit harder than the bigger folks. Technique and strategy are abilities possessed by the player rather than the chosen nation, so they can be used with any nation of any size. In fact, the smaller a nation you start out with, the more you can probably benefit from superior technique and strategy.

      The other benefit is that very few CoN players choose to be “boxers” rather than “punchers”, so it’s statistically easier to be the best “boxer” in a game than it is to be the hardest “puncher”. Not coincidentally, your opponents are less familiar with, and less prepared to defend against, good “boxers”, because they spend most of their time facing other “punchers”, and that’s what they’ve prepared all game to face.

      I’m not telling anyone or everyone to stop trying to be the best puncher. If you’re a very good puncher and it works for you all or even most of the time, go right on ahead and keep training primarily for power. However, if you’re getting frustrated with always training for power only to get knocked out by stronger “punchers”, consider switching it up and learning to “box” more. It doesn’t mean you can’t still make an attempt to hit hard (after all, a hard-hitting “boxer” who can take a punch is very difficult to beat), but try focusing a little more on the technique and strategy side of things, and see if that works for you.
    • Overall, balance is a good general principle, especially in CoN. Of course, there will be the main combat forces specializing in various areas, but there will also be the other units providing additional support services essential to the success of a nation's campaign. Overall, it's good to focus on a few areas with those other support services in order to maximize effectiveness. A great attack is nothing without being focused. Indeed, being a punching boxer is the best approach; a decent amount of power combined with solid application enables maximal force concentration at the decisive point, and that is what matters most. Striking in the Center of Gravity in order to decapitate the enemy war machine.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      I somehow find this comparison quite lacking. In your definition I would be a punching boxer? I like to keep my main combat forces to be always at their max tech level, but I also research a lot of other units like radar, awac, special forces or SAM have better oversight and fix my weak spots.
      Apparently I didn't do a good job of explaining it. The point wasn't to argue against "I do the best of everything, though!". I'm not saying don't level your units. I'm saying, don't ONLY level your units, roll across the screen without any planning or thought, and then get angry that you don't win.

      Yes, OBVIOUSLY, if you have tons of maxed units AND you're the best at strategy AND... blah, blah, blah, you're going to do well. No one was suggesting that wasn't true. Some great "boxers" have knockout punching ability - that doesn't mean that a regular tough guy who walks into a gym off the street can't benefit from learning some technique.

      If YOU are a championship boxer with great technique AND a knockout punch, then that's great, but that's not indicative of most of the players I see in the game. I see a lot of people swinging with all their might, but without any real technique.

      The post was edited 9 times, last by PerigeeNil ().

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      I somehow find this comparison quite lacking. In your definition I would be a punching boxer? I like to keep my main combat forces to be always at their max tech level, but I also research a lot of other units like radar, awac, special forces or SAM have better oversight and fix my weak spots.
      Apparently I didn't do a good job of explaining it. The point wasn't to be like "I max my units, though!". I'm not saying don't level your units. I'm saying, don't JUST level your units, roll across the screen without any planning or thought, and then get angry that you don't win.
      Agreed indeed. It is the fusion of the management elements of production and warfare. Well managed research and unit production combined with good strategy is a force to be reckoned with.
    • Perhaps a basketball analogy would have worked better.

      I'm watching the game, and I'm seeing everyone jammed up down low underneath the hoop, and I'm seeing some people struggling down there. So I suggest, "Hey, some of you could learn to shoot 3-pointers."

      Hint: It's not very helpful to reply to this post by saying, "I find this post lacking. I'm 7'2"; I'm a dunking, rebounding, and blocking machine; AND I'm lights out from behind the three point line."
    • Here's an "in game" example that maybe illustrates what I was talking about. This morning I had an opponent who had apparently... "gone to great lengths" to ensure that their early game units were max level and that there were a large number of them. They then ran the units, unaccompanied by any type of complementary support, directly across the screen in a very preditable pattern that far outreached their ability to protect them. I'm saying, THAT might not be the best approach. Yes, that particular stack is strong, but it's not really accomplishing any long-term benefit. I sent a single infantry unit right behind it to reclaim all the land it claimed until I was able to spring a trap to defeat it.

      Now, obviously that player intended (because they made the investment) to be superior through the strength of their units, and in that way they were, but that ALONE was not enough to earn them ultimate success.
    • What you describe, is probably more like 'betting on the wrong horse'. Many players just level up their infantry and armor units and try to 'zerg' they neighbours.

      It is a plan, that works, until the meet somebody with a huge air force or artillery.

      Most units in CoN are like 'rock-paper-scissor', just relying on 'rock' will not make you last long.
    • Take into account this is a online game. The person with the most ontime has a big advantage...

      Compare this to your boxing or basketball and all you examples lack:

      On boxer constantly runs around and ducks and hits and scores. While the other one walks into the direction of his opponent and and the moment of his hit he is finding out that the opponent has changed the corner of the ring 4 hours ago and is right behind him...

      A player with long range weapons or Airforce and enough free time is deadly....
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Take into account this is a online game. The person with the most ontime has a big advantage...

      Compare this to your boxing or basketball and all you examples lack:

      On boxer constantly runs around and ducks and hits and scores. While the other one walks into the direction of his opponent and and the moment of his hit he is finding out that the opponent has changed the corner of the ring 4 hours ago and is right behind him...

      A player with long range weapons or Airforce and enough free time is deadly....
      Absolutely. I think that consideration for timing and availability is a big part of technique and strategy.
    • I get the analogy ... and yeah I defiantly a boxer over a puncher. I also boxed in younger years so object is to hit and not get hit or rather first not get hit than hit on the counter. see puncher players all the time just stacking up a single purpose "punch" and works till someone knows how to counter that punch. But Kurts points are valid too. And most punchers do the offline thing but I never or rarely attack in the dark on long runs (unless advanced scouting and confidence the enemy isnt going to move by time of attack) so yes my advantage is I can react/dodge/ change strategy to win. But you do need power when you get to bigger punchers or will get knocked out as cant avoid all the hits later in game.

      "You might fight great...but I'm a great Fighter!" ;)
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Right, it was never my intention to suggest that power isn't useful/necessary, and I don't think the original post does suggest that. My concern was rather that I think some players begin playing, get beaten by someone, and then automatically jump directly to "I need stronger units and more of them" (which is probably true), but then they don't attempt anything beyond that. Well, yeah, sure, more units and stronger units might be a part of the solution, but better tactics, better matchups, and better planning might also be a part of the solution. There's nothing I love better than sinking a naval transport with a huge stack of max level units onboard.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      What you describe, is probably more like 'betting on the wrong horse'. Many players just level up their infantry and armor units and try to 'zerg' they neighbours.

      It is a plan, that works, until the meet somebody with a huge air force or artillery.

      Most units in CoN are like 'rock-paper-scissor', just relying on 'rock' will not make you last long.
      yeah that's why ngs are best early units doesn't delay other research.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Here's an "in game" example that maybe illustrates what I was talking about. This morning I had an opponent who had apparently... "gone to great lengths" to ensure that their early game units were max level and that there were a large number of them. They then ran the units, unaccompanied by any type of complementary support, directly across the screen in a very preditable pattern that far outreached their ability to protect them. I'm saying, THAT might not be the best approach. Yes, that particular stack is strong, but it's not really accomplishing any long-term benefit. I sent a single infantry unit right behind it to reclaim all the land it claimed until I was able to spring a trap to defeat it.

      Now, obviously that player intended (because they made the investment) to be superior through the strength of their units, and in that way they were, but that ALONE was not enough to earn them ultimate success.
      This is the concept of unifying tactical superiority with strategic capability in a manner that maximizes the advantages of each.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Right, it was never my intention to suggest that power isn't useful/necessary, and I don't think the original post does suggest that. My concern was rather that I think some players begin playing, get beaten by someone, and then automatically jump directly to "I need stronger units and more of them" (which is probably true), but then they don't attempt anything beyond that. Well, yeah, sure, more units and stronger units might be a part of the solution, but better tactics, better matchups, and better planning might also be a part of the solution. There's nothing I love better than sinking a naval transport with a huge stack of max level units onboard.
      You dont get a second chance. If you are a puncher as soon as your punch is wasted you dont get a second try...especially when you have to research new troops...When you offense strategy has failed...how should you defense strategie work?
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • I really like the analogy in this article. It was fun to read :)

      An addition. It depends on the online times, what is best. If you have really little time to play the game, be a puncher. You must kill your opponent in the first round immediately.
      On the other hand if you have more time and you can go all rounds, then be a boxer. It is not advisable to play with airforce e or artillery if you are hardly on. Every puncher could kill you, by rushing you in your off time, every boxer anyway ^^