Strategy 101

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

    • see i am a combination of both . yes pushing the battle frontto the opponents teritory .. but let him come to me ON HIS TERRITORY. im not storming cities. But when you roll across his prov 90 pct are going to come and try to stop you. then you stop setup def stack in his prov .. build a outpost and same strategy as yours.

      In real life military would you rather fight on someone else territory or in your home cities? Ask Berlin how that felt when they were on the back end of bunker in place. So I basically fight like D-Day invasion and taking of europe ... yes you have to take a beachhead... but I take out first with Navy... then get troops in and defens with ships from shore. get some planes over or maintain air supperiority (aka from London)... then slowly walk a front pushing enemy back .

      Allies didnt send some mad super stack directly at berlin until the air power dominated the skies and devestated cities and at the end walked in. And yes you have your major battles along the way.

      But if Allies just reienforced Great Britian and waited .. Germany would have gotten more adavanced weapons and continued to spread.
      "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
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Okay, so, before this gets too confusing for @Sickel101, we should restate/clarify something:

      Different players play differently, and there is more than one successful philosophy for playing the (public) game.

      Right now, I think you're getting advice from two opposing, but equally valid, philophies.

      You've got your "Build 10-stacks and attack!" philosophy. It's effective and definitely the more favored philosophy among players game-wide.

      Then you've also got your "Let my enemy's waves crash against my rocks" philosophy.

      Personally, even though it's less popular, I tend to prefer the second one, and here's why: Motorized Infantry (and NG, especially) defend better than they attack just using base numbers. When you add entrenchment bonuses and bunker defensive bonuses to that, it creates a huge swing in the numbers in favor of the defender.

      Some people believe that pushing forward in a steady wave is the best approach. I'm a counter-puncher. I WANT the enemy to exhaust themselves on my defenses and to open themselves to vulnerability BEFORE I move forward. I do a lot of kiting and luring. I'll poke my enemy a couple of times to entice them to follow me back into the teeth of my defenses, then I'll cover up while they punch themselves out. Once they've exhausted themselves, I start moving forward and taking their land/cities. To me, the numbers just make more sense that way.

      Not everyone enjoys themselves doing it the way I do it, but it sounds like you've already begun trying that and having some good success with it.
      but splitting up your troops like he did seems like a bad move either way :D
      if you have too many neighbours you wanna reduce the amount that directly threatens your homeland^^

      and tbh
      im more shocked by the appearent lack of anything that's not starting units at day 4
      you can build all the fortifications you want, but i think we can both agree that you need troops to man them ^^
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • absolutely....on no troops. heck 4 days I could have spun up 12 NG units per city if wanted to. But very least should have 4 units of some sort per city so missing 24 units at this stage at very least.
      "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
    • Teburu wrote:

      but splitting up your troops like he did seems like a bad move either way
      if you have too many neighbours you wanna reduce the amount that directly threatens your homeland^^

      and tbh
      im more shocked by the appearent lack of anything that's not starting units at day 4
      you can build all the fortifications you want, but i think we can both agree that you need troops to man them
      Right. So, yeah, I agree with Teburu for sure on these points. You do need infantry to defend those cities. That's why I (earlier) suggested creating more military bases to mobilize more units. Also, I know that I have mentioned bunkers a lot and I'm always a huge fan of them, but Level 2-3 bunkers in multiple cities by Day 4 IS a bit of overkill no matter how defensive of a player one is.

      In short, we (Teburu [who has always seemed to me like a very smart player] and I) both agree that you should dial the balance between troops and bunkers significantly back toward troops at this point (and probably should have earlier). I apologize if I led you astray with my overzealous bunker-love.
    • Here's an immediate suggestion on which I bet we can all agree right now:

      Take Baghdad.

      It has a bunker in it that you'll inherit (it will be damaged by the time you get it, but you can repair it), and it sits in a nice defensive position straddling the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers intersection. Taking Baghdad will cripple Iraq for good; it will be a positive offensive move forward; and it will have simultaneously improved your defensive gameplan as well.
    • Thanks for the feedback guys.

      I really appreciate it.

      I'm a player that hates to lose any unit, as that's wasted resources, so I'd rather fight a war in a mitigating way, with lures and small favorable skirmishes.

      I might as well be dragging the war, I probably am TBH.

      As I said, I'm learning the game, so I didn't have anything to compare myself to, now I know I'm behind in Units.

      I should've built more production facilities, I now realize that resources are not that much of a problem in that matter.

      Planes and Heli are now being mass produced, and my navy is on the way. I constructed 3 more army camps to build infantry and 1 Arms industry in a city with an army camp, to build radars and anything that needs industry.

      Thanks a lot for your feedback guys, really. Strategy games are amazing because there is no right way of playing it, but at the same time there are common mistakes (Like not producing enough units hahahha :) )
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      see i am a combination of both . yes pushing the battle frontto the opponents teritory .. but let him come to me ON HIS TERRITORY. im not storming cities. But when you roll across his prov 90 pct are going to come and try to stop you. then you stop setup def stack in his prov .. build a outpost and same strategy as yours.

      In real life military would you rather fight on someone else territory or in your home cities? Ask Berlin how that felt when they were on the back end of bunker in place. So I basically fight like D-Day invasion and taking of europe ... yes you have to take a beachhead... but I take out first with Navy... then get troops in and defens with ships from shore. get some planes over or maintain air supperiority (aka from London)... then slowly walk a front pushing enemy back .

      Allies didnt send some mad super stack directly at berlin until the air power dominated the skies and devestated cities and at the end walked in. And yes you have your major battles along the way.

      But if Allies just reienforced Great Britian and waited .. Germany would have gotten more adavanced weapons and continued to spread.
      Right, so I think it makes a difference what point of the game we're discussing here. We're talking about very, very early defense. I'm not talking about trying to draw India back to Chile so that I can have a defensive fight on home turf.

      I agree that it's best to have a defensive fight in occupied (instead of homeland) territory, but there's also the matter of cities versus open territories here. If we're talking about choosing to defend Baghdad (once you've already conquered it) rather than defending Deir ez Zor, then yes, obviously you're going to want to have the fight in Baghdad. But, if we're talking about having the fight in Al Badi (open non-homeland territory east of Deir ez Zor) or having it in Deir ez Zor, then I say walk it back a little and have the fight in Deir ez Zor.

      Actually, more specifically, if we're talking about a situation like first attacking in Qa'im or defending in Deir ez Zor, I say defend in Deir ez Zor first, and THEN attack Qa'im.

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

    • Teburu wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Okay, so, before this gets too confusing for @Sickel101, we should restate/clarify something:

      Different players play differently, and there is more than one successful philosophy for playing the (public) game.

      Right now, I think you're getting advice from two opposing, but equally valid, philophies.

      You've got your "Build 10-stacks and attack!" philosophy. It's effective and definitely the more favored philosophy among players game-wide.

      Then you've also got your "Let my enemy's waves crash against my rocks" philosophy.

      Personally, even though it's less popular, I tend to prefer the second one, and here's why: Motorized Infantry (and NG, especially) defend better than they attack just using base numbers. When you add entrenchment bonuses and bunker defensive bonuses to that, it creates a huge swing in the numbers in favor of the defender.

      Some people believe that pushing forward in a steady wave is the best approach. I'm a counter-puncher. I WANT the enemy to exhaust themselves on my defenses and to open themselves to vulnerability BEFORE I move forward. I do a lot of kiting and luring. I'll poke my enemy a couple of times to entice them to follow me back into the teeth of my defenses, then I'll cover up while they punch themselves out. Once they've exhausted themselves, I start moving forward and taking their land/cities. To me, the numbers just make more sense that way.

      Not everyone enjoys themselves doing it the way I do it, but it sounds like you've already begun trying that and having some good success with it.
      but splitting up your troops like he did seems like a bad move either way :D if you have too many neighbours you wanna reduce the amount that directly threatens your homeland^^

      and tbh
      im more shocked by the appearent lack of anything that's not starting units at day 4
      you can build all the fortifications you want, but i think we can both agree that you need troops to man them ^^
      I agree with you friend, not building as many units was a mistake by my part.

      The thing I would like to discuss is the "Split troops". I'm splitting my armies in a way I can cover all my fronts, with a strong defensive position now established I'm going for Baghdad.
    • I think we need a common game... but not play together. we all pick a country in seperate region nd we each get our region and coalitions in line. see whos stratgies win in the end.

      The battle of Forum strategies (too bad games fill up so fast). I call Asia ;)
      "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
    • rising tide too much about victory sites... can not apply normal tactics. I won only rising tide game in about 25 days. 70 pct of world was following your build up strategies and I blitzed the victory sites. ;) well I held like 3 -4 and my partner had 2. getting that one up in siberia was the final piece and a bit tricky coming from central america. only cover I had was cruise missiles from my officer and a sub.

      there was 70 pct of world still un conquered and sure most thought wtf just happened I had a great army ready to start the game.

      But you do have to adapt startegies to the maps. I love navy and air so Rising tides is my wheel house. doesnt favor large land based only armies.
      "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
    • Alright, well, just let me know the above information, and I'll join. I only ask that I be informed in a timely manner. I don't want to be joining a map 18 hours after someone else grabbed the nation they wanted and started building.

      Probably the best way to do that would be to say something like, "We'll join the first new [x map] that starts after [x time]."
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      rising tide too much about victory sites... can not apply normal tactics. I won only rising tide game in about 25 days. 70 pct of world was following your build up strategies and I blitzed the victory sites. ;) well I held like 3 -4 and my partner had 2. getting that one up in siberia was the final piece and a bit tricky coming from central america. only cover I had was cruise missiles from my officer and a sub.

      there was 70 pct of world still un conquered and sure most thought wtf just happened I had a great army ready to start the game.

      But you do have to adapt startegies to the maps. I love navy and air so Rising tides is my wheel house. doesnt favor large land based only armies.
      :D my fastest rising tides was 11 days

      but they changed it so now there are more victory sites^^
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Alright, well, just let me know the above information, and I'll join. I only ask that I be informed in a timely manner. I don't want to be joining a map 18 hours after someone else grabbed the nation they wanted and started building.

      Probably the best way to do that would be to say something like, "We'll join the first new [x map] that starts after [x time]."
      Let’s take a start on the weekend; I want to just grab a 4X RT and get to playing in a solid cos, then we can competition some other weekend in WW3s.
    • it didnt dawn on me for first 2 weeks how weeks it would be to end the game. so was "slow in my 25 days getting marines and ships in plavce... heck it ended up taking me like 3 days to sail to that last artic site. and that guy certainly didnt expect some fool from central america would sail that far to finish the game. He had no ground troops but had strike fighters and airfields in like the 4 prov surrounding the Victory site and all i had was like 3 marines (and marines really suck in artic as speed and attack like 50 pct) and a few CM from sea to hit any land troops ... so I put 3 spies in each prov and destroyed all his airfields and his planes where grounded and he was defensless... he just always assumed someone would attack through land and not via sea (as no ports of entry) ;) probably trickiest move ever pulled off.
      "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