Call of War: Field Manual - General Strategy and Tactics - Operational Manual

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

  • CzarHellios wrote:


    In regards to battles on the sea, the reason I recommended submarines is due to the fact that at the time, they could easily kill anything else. One on one. They were also the cheapest naval unit to build. Naturally, this allowed you to put more resources into building a Airforce/(And producing Land mechs, even more to throw into a airforce).

    As of recent updates, they are still solid. Convoys have a odd tendency to be able to take Submarines on on one and win, though not against other naval units.(Recent update by the Developers). Destroyers aren't bad either, and if you have to do a stack, then a Dessie/Sub stack wouldn't be that bad.

    Cruisers of course are still essentially worthless - Being a less efficient Battleship/Destroyer mix - And failing at both. Battleships are still floating debris piles, and their job is more easily done with Tactical Bombers/Submarines/Etc.

    Naturally, just having more than your opponent is a good thing. In most maps, such as the ten player and twenty two, naval matters are of a secondary concern mostly.

    Granted, their have been quite a few recent updates to the naval aspect of the game. Such as Submarines now have a small oil upkeep, which is relatively new. But all in all, I still see Submarines taking on Destroyers, Battleships, Cruisers, every other naval unit in the game one on one, and winning.



    -------
    I agree with subs dominating early, but I noticed the destroyers getting fairly strong lategame and wrecking my subs now. Subs still provide a great meatshield vs other units (subs have low hp, but only the destroyer does decent damage vs subs) so your destroyers can do some damage. The oil upkeep doesn't hurt me thb. If you have lots of land it really is no problem. Both world maps I have like 50 subs = 2.5k oil upkeep/day. Compared to 50 tanks or 50 planes this is very acceptable.

    The kruiser and battleship are indeed still fairly useless. I tried some experimenting with the kruiser on both of my world maps, but I don't get them to pay off ( I know your manual isn't written for the worldmap and it was before some changes were made). I was thinking they could provide airdefense to my convoys and some defense vs destroyers. However the kruisers can't protect your men wenn they disembark. Kinda dissapointing, because that moment you might need them the most. And they just don't do so well in battle, since most people use destroyer/subs/battleship.

  • Cruisers are way faster than battleships and a small group with their max ranged guns can very well defend a landing or attack coastal installations.

    But, I favor subs too.... Once you grabbed a foothold on enemy land, any fleet becomes utterly useless, whereas the cheap subs can do all the protecting required for convoys.

  • _Pontus_ wrote:

    Cruisers are way faster than battleships and a small group with their max ranged guns can very well defend a landing or attack coastal installations.

    But, I favor subs too.... Once you grabbed a foothold on enemy land, any fleet becomes utterly useless, whereas the cheap subs can do all the protecting required for convoys.

    Of course, however:

    Submarines at key intersecting points can accomplish that.
    Tactical Bombers/Etc can accomplish that - They are also more versatile.
    Having 1-7 tanks to rush the coastline and engage disembarking troops.


    Multiple ways to deal with that problem, and each one has multiple other values besides one specific. Hence part of the reason why I do not recommend cruisers.

  • Akulla3D wrote:

    Nice write up. I have to agree with most of it.
    I agree on that point! I have to mention that he has stated my strategies even before I read the Manual. Money not spent is money wasted has always been a big part of what I theorise, I agree that cruisers are useless, and air forces of the imperative.

    However, even with all of the accuracy and long-sightedness of the summary guide, I do find that he places aside the ability to betray your allies in the long run: everyone knows Call of War requires some Machiavellian tactics, so betraying an ally or friend when he has built your trust in him is not that far off from what Call of War inherently is supposed to be. I also think he does a poor job of showing deceiving tactics in diplomacy in the long run, for the reasons above. @CzarHellios says, and I quote directly from the Guide, "Naturally, you may ask the question: Can I ally two people?One is free to ally as many people as they wish. However, an alliance of four players on the ten player map, five, or even three is completely and utterly unnecessary, and will hinder all attempts to win the game. The more roads to expansion that you close, the more you box yourself in." True enough, but to "ally" yourself to others can do the opposite of boxing you in: rather, it can mean that you have essentially a vassal that will follow what you say and then you can forcefully annex him and break the alliance later.

    Yes, I agree on about everything he says except diplomatic tactics when it comes to allies. Overall he did a great job, at the time things were different (at least, for commandos and submarines) so no hard feelings there. Thank you for this read.
    It's been a while

  • There is no reward when you don't need to. I never-ever back-stab an active player I allied with, because:

    - I don't need it

    - I don't need it ever

    Not to progress, not to win, simply because an alliance can also be un-forged and correctly cancelled by giving a fair warning to shape up, come into action or face the consequence of the alliance being cancelled with a 24 to 48 hr warning, depending on the map size.

    An alliance is build on mutual trust and there is no such thing as partial trust.
    Betraying allies (even if just once in a while) means you cannot be trusted.

  • Right after being online 24/7 with a black-card with limited credit, diplomacy is the single biggest factor in success. To be honest, it is beyond the scope of an introductory field manual, it is a matter of careful judgment that only repeated harsh lessons can impart. :)

    The focus of the guide is in understanding resource management, general strategy, and particular unit strengths. The last bit is really the key accelerator to getting into the game, following his build-outs gets you an excellent playing experience.

    To butcher by paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, amateurs study strategy, masters study diplomacy. :)

  • kyrie626 wrote:

    The original quote is:
    "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
    - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

    And that inspired my paraphrase ;)
    Is he trying to say that Rommel was an amateur. Because the desert fox was a great tactician but terrible with logistics.
    He's still known though as one of the greatest commanders/generals of WW2
    "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - George S. Patton

    "In a man to man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine" - Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel

  • Real world concepts can be useful when understanding a game. General concepts especially. However, not everything applies to this game.

    Logistics: We do not have supply trains, or really, anything. Units are self-sufficient. They heal on your own territory, and not on your opponents.
    Strategy: We have the overall strategy. Your country position, unit position, what you have researched, what you will have researched, the disposition of your units, etc.
    Tactics: The battles themselves. X Factor, Terrain effects attacker / Defender. Fortresses. Etc. Which do figure into the overall strategy.
    The in between grey operational areas.

    However, real world constants cannot be applied absolutely. Especially some specific ones.

    The amateurs study X and Masters do X arguments are silly. Knowing how to manage your country is very important. Knowing how to work with people (Diplomacy. Aka a bit of psychology, abnormal psychology, manipulating people...Etc) is also very important. Once you have the basic core game mechanics down, you are good to go. Basics are everything. Everything builds off of them.

    In regards to Mr.Rommel, he was a excellent tank commander, though a meh Field Marshal. He had common sense, and he was excellent in regards to tactics. He sometimes simply did not look at the bigger picture(Strategy). He led from the front. And sometimes being behind the lines, actually working out things, he did not do much of.



    --------------
    However, the game is still in a constant state of change. More units will be released. More things will change. And things are even being changed behind the scenes on a weekly basis(In regards to game mechanics).


    On a final note, this is a off hand comment to those who claim "Realism", or anything of the sort. This is not a realistic game. It is not a WW2 game. And the reason things are in this game are not due to realism. It is a general strategy game with the theme of WW2, and with some semblances to realism in general, specific areas.

  • I see it's been a while since this article was last updated. Now that many game updates have passed, I think it's time to overhaul the existing field manual and modernize it. Now that we have aircraft carriers, a world map, and many additional units and game features, I think it's time for the manual to get a makeover.