6 simple mistakes even decent player make

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

    • Komandant_Stane wrote:

      I am just playing for about 3 weeks actively and I gotten to like the game. Figured out most of the things by playing some "trail runs" and I would add one thing.

      Jeeps are fast and if you want to expand the territory fast to create a buffer zone and to conquer small countries at the start of the game it is great to use them in the combination with those few planes you got. You bomb the shit out of the enemy and follow up with jeeps. This way you can get small countries in matter of hours.

      I use jeeps to encircle the enemy with the support of air cover.

      I use Heavy bomber in combination with mobile Tank divisions which all have at least 5 regiments of heavy artillery to advance the line.

      I use Infantry to pacify the conquered areas and to protect AA Units.

      I use Heavy Ships, cruisers and battleships as coastal artillery when I am taking over coastal regions.

      Destroyers I use for anti submarine warfare and Submarines to hunt down enemy ships.

      (Economy is the key and to have airports all over the place. Dominion of the air will give you eventually dominion of the ground).

      I think each player finds their own combination that works for them. I am still testing tactics and seeing what it works. The only gripe I have is the inhumanely long game play.
      Jeeps are motorized infantry.
    • As usual, the better plan is somewhere in the middle. I build 1 additional air in my core so I can build 1 bomber and 1 fighter at all times. Because most players ignore their air having just a fist full of bombers and fighters early is of great advantage. Yes the hardest part is anticipating where to build the next airfields and of course you have to wait 9 hours before you can get AF into the distant fight. Another advantage is since tanks suck in cities, bomber with tanks help the tanks. Disadvantage is you hurt the infrastructure you are going to need by using bombers, therefore IN attacking cities is the way to go.
    • m1tanker632 wrote:

      Yes the hardest part is anticipating where to build the next airfields and of course you have to wait 9 hours before you can get AF into the distant fight
      I prefer to alphabetise the province list and then select the first 15 or so at a time
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
    • NukeRaider33 wrote:

      m1tanker632 wrote:

      Yes the hardest part is anticipating where to build the next airfields and of course you have to wait 9 hours before you can get AF into the distant fight
      I prefer to alphabetise the province list and then select the first 15 or so at a time
      Yet more useless wasting of resources! I personally have no idea why they put alphabetical order into the selection of search queries.
    • NukeRaider33 wrote:

      m1tanker632 wrote:

      They are crushing formations with out AA, and in sufficient numbers, with fighters as HP takers, can heavily influence both players and AI.
      Yes, but they have the Achilles heel of any air unit, which is cruiser and AA. While AA is commonly under used, cruisers are commonly entirely used for the wrong purpose, For ship to ship defence, Thus creating an issue for all aircraft (even naval bombers).
      Noob here, why in the world would building cruisers for ship to ship be a bad thing when its 10 attack 10 defence?
      Im only just starting to build a navy, no fights yet. But my thoughts from looking at the units is that subs are pretty dumb against a competent opponent, anything in the ocean should have at least a destroyer escort. Destroyers are pretty fast too. Subs seem like an invisible militia wheras destroyers are infantry. However destroyers have a pretty bad defense.. 1.5? If its destroyer vs destroyer then whoever is fortunate enough to be the attacker they win...
      So the cruisers are just obviously the best mid tier ship right? Damn good at ship vs ship with 10 attack 10 defense, and utility with good anti air, and as much bombardment power as an arty vs armor and just .5 less against inf, while being on the ocean. That screams to me as a pretty powerful unit.. no? Please tell me how Im wrong before I build my planned fleet of them :')
    • MonsieurIvan wrote:

      would building cruisers for ship to ship be a bad thing when its 10 attack 10 defence?
      Cruisers are ok, but they are not a Battleship. One detail that doesn't jump out at you is the range of fire.


      So lets say you have a cruiser fleet sitting still while you are sleeping. Someone with a battleship fleet can park just out of your range and send your fleet to the bottom of the ocean, without you even getting a chance to return fire.


      A mixed stack is always the best when you are planning for the unknown. For a navy group I typically do: 2 Carriers, 3 battleships, 3 cruisers, 4 or 5 destroyers, and a few subs. Now there is something to keep in mind when you are attacking with a mixed stack like that: If you tell the group to attack a target it will move to where the battleship can start firing, and the cruisers and destroyers will be back out of range. When attacking submarines especially your two longer range units are fairly useless on subs, so you can either split the destroyers out of the stack and send them ahead, or march your entire navy to the close range that the destroyers need.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • MonsieurIvan wrote:

      Noob here, why in the world would building cruisers for ship to ship be a bad thing when its 10 attack 10 defence?
      No, you're not wrong. Cruisers are not bad for ship-to-ship combat at all. In fact, they not only add intermediate-range naval gunfire, but their 50 added hit points are effective "damage-soakers" for larger capital ships (i.e. battleships, aircraft carriers). That said, the in-game cruiser squadron was clearly designed to be an anti-aircraft fleet defense unit, and in this regard they parallel their real world WW2 counterparts of the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy.

      The problems for the in-game cruisers, like so many specialized "niche" units, are (a) deciding whether you really need them in a particular game, and (b) working them into your 24/7 unit research schedule in which they must compete with other optional units for research time. Of course, you can always solved the second problem by spending a little gold to accelerate other research to make room for that of cruisers. It's a matter of prioritizing the research of units that are important in a given game, and also prioritizing those units that are necessary for your own game strategy.