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.

  • Very good work!
    Reading this I have often thought that the author a German. Or a lover of German military history. His style of play has a clear taste of old Europe (Perhaps it is too much time spent in the s1914). Of course the experience is good, European military "school" (eg German) is based on extensive experience and has many strengths. But it works well only in the European theater of operations and under certain conditions, which are typical of Europe. If you carefully consider the military customs of the Slavs or ancient Chinese doctrine, we can see a completely different priorities and ways of organizing military operations. I will not say which school is better, I want to say that there is an alternative. Many of the author's allegations are an ultimatum: "It is useless" "never do not do it," "the army should be ..." "you need to do ..." I think the author should not restrict the readers of his style of the game, because there are also other styles. It is better to avoid radical formulations. Instead, the phrase "it is useless" better use "if you are playing in Europe, if you attacking style, and if it is the middle stage of the game - it is useless. But in other cases it may be useful, for example if ..."
  • Some things *are* useless, though. Take Militia, for example. A level 6 Militia is roughly equivalent to a level 1 Infantry. They cost more to make, more in upkeep, have weaker stats, and move slower. The only advantages are less time to build and no need for an Industrial Complex.

    Another example is the Railroad Gun, as powerful as three artillery for more than the cost of the same at less than half the speed. Sure, the range is outstanding, but that's all it has going for it.

    Granted, the user is free to try that which works for them, and Czar is only giving the reader the benefit of his extensive experience. If one is to follow this guide, they would be emulating his tactics and therefore should follow them exactly. It's like cooking: you can't change the recipe much without expecting different results.
  • The player is free to accept or reject Czar's method at will. The point I was trying to make regarding the tactics laid out in this source, to resurrect my cooking analogy, is if you have a recipe for meatloaf and use chicken instead of beef and barbeque sauce instead of ketchup, you have a different meal entirely. Better? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's up the user to decide and go with what works for them.

    In my experience, I've noticed that some people are lost in playing this game. They try to research everything instead of specializing, fail to build Infrastructures, spam Barracks, or worse, build Militia. Maybe by reading Czar's way they can see how the game works and stay alive long enough to not get frustrated with the game and give up. Once they have the fundamentals down, they can modify it to suit themselves.
  • Phoenix King wrote:

    Some things *are* useless, though. Take Militia, for example. A level 6 Militia is roughly equivalent to a level 1 Infantry. They cost more to make, more in upkeep, have weaker stats, and move slower. The only advantages are less time to build and no need for an Industrial Complex.

    Another example is the Railroad Gun, as powerful as three artillery for more than the cost of the same at less than half the speed. Sure, the range is outstanding, but that's all it has going for it.

    Granted, the user is free to try that which works for them, and Czar is only giving the reader the benefit of his extensive experience. If one is to follow this guide, they would be emulating his tactics and therefore should follow them exactly. It's like cooking: you can't change the recipe much without expecting different results.

    "If you do not like the food, maybe it was not cooked properly."
    If you do not use the police, perhaps you just do not know yet how to use it properly. I have long experimented and found a way in which the police is most effective. We have already discussed this in the subject of the police. Railway Artillery I use very rarely, but also use it when I need it.

    Talks about the many weapons somehow speak only about the attack. You like to attack and choose the weapon that is well suited for the attack. Ok. I love the Defense I pick a weapon which is well suited for defense. And the whole world turns - good weapon becomes bad, bad becomes good weapon.
    This applies to the tactics. You like to play quick games in the European compact countries with a large number of neighbors. You choose a strategy that is well suited for this. Ok. I like to play long games on large expanses of the East. And the whole world once again turns - much of what is written in the manual is not suitable for this purpose.
  • Excellent detailed guide! Credits to czar for putting alot into it


    As you would expect it mainly targets the new players , who might think militia are a good candidate for 1v1 against infantry etc .

    Certainly, every unit in the game can shine when given the opportunity/situation for example a couple artillery behind your army is a hazard for the enemy , provided the enemy has no air prescence , his only hope to kill artillery would be to rapidly crush your army and advance to the arty or to build his own arty which he might still have to research : in this case the artillery will have many hours of free bombardment on enemy troops

    There are so many possible scenarios where militia , artillery, etc can shine and be the key to victory, but yeah a general assessment of the units would be is that " tanks/bombers etc " have a higher build priority
  • The reason I do not advocate Artillery, AT, and MT early game is for the following reasons:

    The "Hit with Artillery", slowly advance is quite easily outmaneuvered. It is furthermore slow, and highly, highly inefficient.
    The reason I am not advocating A.A early game is due to the facts:
    Stacks in high number have a decent A.A rating.
    The A.A you have is enough for early game.
    You should have plenty of Interceptors to negate enemy bombers.

    The reason I do not advocate Militia is due to the fact it has a higher upkeep, greater cost, and it is the weakest unit in the game.

    Now, I do not advocate using any of the above for any sort of "Flank" attack. Now granted, we are discussing not a tactical flank per say, but more of a overall strategic one. When you "Flank", you want to be as fast as possible, taking the initiative, and building upon momentum. Using the slowest units in the game to do such a thing is just simply inefficient. Granted, there are games a person may point to and say X worked, but was the other player skilled in the game at all, and so forth and so on. - AT, AA, and MT "Flanks" leave yourself quite vulnerable as well, since they can easily be cut off - Due to lack of speed.

    Furthermore, simply capturing provinces mean quite little. What is most important are the key Urban Industrial Centers, followed by the more important resource provinces. Now, in regards to MT/AT, one could simply pair up infantry and light tanks (Since slower units are more likely to take damage, and faster units not), and simply hit the MT/AT stack hard. Or bomb it away. Or simply ignore it for the time being, and focus on the enemy main force while letting it grab territory, slowly.


    Now, I'll go back to artillery. I have seen quite a few players favor it here, due to experiences in Supremacy 1914, or due to believing it would be inherently a fine strategy.

    Artillery behind army, slowly advance, etc:

    *The Artillery behind infantry, Etc ---

    Generally, your army would be extremely, extremely slow. Besides being vulnerable to bomber attacks/Etc(In which case you would have to pair A.A with them, leaving your main army slightly weakened), --- Slow, cannot maneuver, cannot disperse as easily. You generally will not be able to induce any shock onto the opponent. At the best, I can liken it to a very slow sledgehammer going down on the opponent. Granted, such a thing as the above would be incredibly, incredibly inefficient days 1-15ish. I suppose other reasons include giving the opponent alot of time to regroup, produce more units, and sacrifice territory for time. Your main army would be restricted by your artillery. Besides that, the Artillery would have to be in high, high numbers to be anywhere near effective - Meaning less tanks, Aircraft, and other units. A swift Counterattack upon any front would require you to divide your units as well in most early game scenarios.



    A common misconception is that if you approach with artillery behind, the only thing I have to do is rush. You do not always need to meet the opponent head on.


    I am going by right now what is most "Efficient".


    Of course, Flow with what is. Adapt accordingly to the situation.

    ---Apply maximum firepow