Comitern doctrine overpowered

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

    • Or just build AT guns and arty to stop the Axis tanks, and rocket arty to wipe out the infantry (including motorized). Using cheaper, more basic units (those available earlier in the game) like AT guns gives you the option to research those units to higher levels, and upgrade them in the field, where they are needed. Just because you build an AT gun doesn't mean you have to use a level 1 unit all game long. When you bump that AT gun to level 3 and put it in a city, it can stop an Axis MT without the help of fancier, more expensive units like tank destroyers and attack bombers.

      One of the biggest mistakes players make is to look at the research tree as a path to fancier units. Foot infantry leads to motorized infantry which leads to mechanized infantry. This leads to unfocused, ineffective research, always using level 1 units. But that's not how you win in this game. You win by making more effective use of manpower, which you can only do with higher level units, since manpower usage grows less sharply by research level compared to fighting strength.

    • I can agree with that, although personally I prefer tank destroyers over anti-tanks despite the buffs. The mobility of TDs allows me to meet armour on the battlefield and they even deal more attack damage to heavy armour than medium tanks do.

      With ATs it feels like I can only set up road blocks and hope that the enemy does not go around.

    • Klusey wrote:

      I can agree with that, although personally I prefer tank destroyers over anti-tanks despite the buffs. The mobility of TDs allows me to meet armour on the battlefield and they even deal more attack damage to heavy armour than medium tanks do.

      With ATs it feels like I can only set up road blocks and hope that the enemy does not go around.

      Most of my alliance mates agree with this take, and heavily prefer TD's.

      I stubbornly maintain that the AT gun (or the MT/HT) is a better unit, for most doctrines.

      1. AT is available sooner. If you need to stop tanks, then you probably can't wait for the TD. Especially if you're playing Pan Asian, where TD arrives later.
      2. AT matches other urban defenders in terms of speed. If you're defending a city, and you need a balance of unarmored+armored defense, AT guns pair nicely with infantry and AA. All move at the same speed, all get a city bonus. You can replace AT with MT, and your stack will continue moving at the same speed. Why bother?
      3. AT moves at maximum speed in its favored fighting terrain (urban + forest). TD moves at a degraded speed in the same terrain, robbing you of most of the speed benefit that you're paying for. TD moves quickly in plains, where it doesn't want to fight, so you have to choose between moving quickly and moving through safe, defensible terrain. Other tanks don't have this problem. They move and fight better in plains. This makes them easier to use effectively compared to TD.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Klusey wrote:

      I can agree with that, although personally I prefer tank destroyers over anti-tanks despite the buffs. The mobility of TDs allows me to meet armour on the battlefield and they even deal more attack damage to heavy armour than medium tanks do.

      With ATs it feels like I can only set up road blocks and hope that the enemy does not go around.
      Most of my alliance mates agree with this take, and heavily prefer TD's.

      I stubbornly maintain that the AT gun (or the MT/HT) is a better unit, for most doctrines.

      1. AT is available sooner. If you need to stop tanks, then you probably can't wait for the TD. Especially if you're playing Pan Asian, where TD arrives later.
      2. AT matches other urban defenders in terms of speed. If you're defending a city, and you need a balance of unarmored+armored defense, AT guns pair nicely with infantry and AA. All move at the same speed, all get a city bonus. You can replace AT with MT, and your stack will continue moving at the same speed. Why bother?
      3. AT moves at maximum speed in its favored fighting terrain (urban + forest). TD moves at a degraded speed in the same terrain, robbing you of most of the speed benefit that you're paying for. TD moves quickly in plains, where it doesn't want to fight, so you have to choose between moving quickly and moving through safe, defensible terrain. Other tanks don't have this problem. They move and fight better in plains. This makes them easier to use effectively compared to TD.

      That's exactly aligned with what I wrote above.

      With TD, they have to be in certain provinces to take advantage of their (stealth + strength) bonuses, and is a Heavy Armour unit, which HTs will crush. Contrarily, AT is unarmoured, which MT and HT do the least damage to, and are cheaper, quicker to make, and unlock earlier.
      “A battle fought without determination is a battle lost.” - Josip Broz Tito

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Most of my alliance mates agree with this take, and heavily prefer TD's.

      I stubbornly maintain that the AT gun (or the MT/HT) is a better unit, for most doctrines.

      1. AT is available sooner. If you need to stop tanks, then you probably can't wait for the TD. Especially if you're playing Pan Asian, where TD arrives later.
      2. AT matches other urban defenders in terms of speed. If you're defending a city, and you need a balance of unarmored+armored defense, AT guns pair nicely with infantry and AA. All move at the same speed, all get a city bonus. You can replace AT with MT, and your stack will continue moving at the same speed. Why bother?
      3. AT moves at maximum speed in its favored fighting terrain (urban + forest). TD moves at a degraded speed in the same terrain, robbing you of most of the speed benefit that you're paying for. TD moves quickly in plains, where it doesn't want to fight, so you have to choose between moving quickly and moving through safe, defensible terrain. Other tanks don't have this problem. They move and fight better in plains. This makes them easier to use effectively compared to TD.

      Before I begin, I want to ask you about the MT/HT combo "for most doctrines." I'm not trying to be rude but that is genuinely a terrible idea and I'd like to talk to you about it to see why you like it. Whether you want to chat about it here or elsewhere is up to you. Anyways:


      I can agree that for Pan-Asia that ATs are better than TDs. For the Allies the obvious choice is tank destroyers. I don't really have an opinion on the Axis, to be honest, because I don't really play as the Axis very often lol. For the Comintern both are great options but I still prefer tank destroyers.

      Concerning 1., research for Commie TDs is available on Day 2 so if I can't fend off light armour until then, I'm having a bad round and ATs aren't going to save me haha.

      For 2., I have two points to dissect from this.

      2 A) I agree that AT guns pair nicely with infantry and AA but the issue is that I also use armoured cars, artillery, interceptors, and naval bombers in my Comintern build, and can't use them in conjunction with AA, infantry, and ATs. I cannot afford all the goods for research, production, and building upgrades for all of these units. ATs are the easiest to replace with TDs since I don't build any other form of heavy armour. Artillery is irreplaceable in my opinion (except by RRGs) because no form of rocket artillery does nearly enough damage to heavy armour. In a way, artillery *is* my anti-tank because of the threat it carries. And obviously AA can never be replaced lol.

      2 B) Sure, putting an MT or TD in a stack with AA will not change the speed of the stack, but the TD has the ability to detach move up ahead of the artillery and AA when I go on the offensive, and TDs are way more capable on the offensive. ATs cannot move up and are much less capable on the offensive. TDs just offer way more options.

      3) A) I find your concept of movement speed in ideal battle terrain to be a moot point. The fact of the matter is that TDs are by far more mobile than ATs are, regardless of who gets terrain bonuses and speed bonuses. I don't see how this affects anything.

      B) In fact, I prefer TDs for their speed on plains because you are correct in saying other tanks love fighting on plains, but you act like TDs can't fight on plains. Truth be told, it is ATs that absolutely cannot fight on plains because they get slaughtered as an unarmoured unit. TDs are heavy armour and can tank the blows without much issue, because medium and light tanks do very little damage to heavy armour, unlike TDs; they don't need the terrain bonuses to beat a medium tank because they're designed to beat that unit. And heavy tanks will never catch me on plains lol so that's not a concern.

      But if ever I am overwhelmed on plains, I have the luxury of being able to retreat with TDs. ATs cannot retreat on plains because the other tanks will chase them down.

    • Brando Dilla wrote:

      That's exactly aligned with what I wrote above.
      With TD, they have to be in certain provinces to take advantage of their (stealth + strength) bonuses, and is a Heavy Armour unit, which HTs will crush. Contrarily, AT is unarmoured, which MT and HT do the least damage to, and are cheaper, quicker to make, and unlock earlier.
      I made an above post detailing why I prefer Commie TDs over ATs and you can read if you please, but I have to pick apart a few bits of your reply, too.

      1) ATs have to be in certain provinces to use stealth too. The only difference is ATs are stealth in cities while TDs are not. Not that it matters, because any Call of War player worth his neckbeard uses scouts and will not be surprised by stealth units.

      2) You are wrong about medium tanks dealing the least amount of damage to unarmoured units; medium tanks deal poor damage to heavy armour units while dealing a generous amount of damage to unarmoured units. Combine this with the fact TDs have way more HP than ATs and the result is that TDs perform way better against MTs, which are a far more common and legitimate threat than heavy tanks would ever be.

      3) Heavy tanks are not a real threat. Not only can TDs put up way more damage per resource cost, but HTs are just too slow to ever be taken seriously. Artillery has no issue shooting and scooting away from heavy tanks, crippling them long before they ever arrive to the battlefield. Heck, even rocket artillery could do a number. Not to mention RRGs, which is a really popular choice amongst the expert players right now.

    • You make some good points. By the way, I'm not advocating a combo of MT/HT, that was an either/or suggestion for units that enjoy fighting armor in plains :)

      The speed issue is not absolute but relative. TD will always be faster than AT, for the same level unit. The point is that the TD is faster in terrain it should be trying to avoid.

      Of course, your can have AT guns at level 2 or 3 while the TD is still at 1, given research availability, research time, and upgrade costs. Comparing everything at level 1 is silly.

      You want to send TD ahead of your infantry and AA? See how long until a good opponent wrecks them. Their AA defense is pitiful. And lurking AT guns say hello. The TD isn't going anywhere on its own, if you want to keep it.

      Good points on resource usage. If you're building a lot of AA and arty, then goods will be a problem, and TD is a good way to save on goods. If you're skipping the air force, even better, because you'll have extra oil and rares to throw around. You're also right that Comintern TD arrives early, so it's a very good match for an ordnance heavy, no air force build.

      I should play around with TD more. The honest truth is that I rarely build any kind of tank defense, because I'm on the offensive practically all the time, fighting inside the enemy's core, retreating as needed to give my arty more time to shoot.

    • I mean when I mean low level units I mean by moderately only mostly I reach lvl3 infantry and stop there, since my units are crazy cheap and have fast production times at that moment. It’s mostly great against axis units since they can’t combat cheaper,stronger and moderately nice and well rounded enemies.
      I normally use cheap units and when I mean cheap j mean just enough Comintern is like cooking steak, you do it too much it gets burnt, you cook it too little: it’s still raw.
      So when playing Comintern you just have to get the right amount of what you need already I normally suggest lvl 2 armored cars/light tanks and lvl3 infantry and for sp arty I tend to use lvl1 since they are cheap and you just need a lvl2 secret lab to get things going well only (mass production) by the end you’ll have 100+ units pitted against the puny 50 or less german nations army.

      note: this is just my reccomendation I’m still pretty much a Novice at this (not very well) so please if you see anything wrong I’m free to any criticism! :)

    • Sharmie wrote:

      I mean when I mean low level units I mean by moderately only mostly I reach lvl3 infantry and stop there, since my units are crazy cheap and have fast production times at that moment. It’s mostly great against axis units since they can’t combat cheaper,stronger and moderately nice and well rounded enemies.
      I normally use cheap units and when I mean cheap j mean just enough Comintern is like cooking steak, you do it too much it gets burnt, you cook it too little: it’s still raw.
      So when playing Comintern you just have to get the right amount of what you need already I normally suggest lvl 2 armored cars/light tanks and lvl3 infantry and for sp arty I tend to use lvl1 since they are cheap and you just need a lvl2 secret lab to get things going well only (mass production) by the end you’ll have 100+ units pitted against the puny 50 or less german nations army.

      note: this is just my reccomendation I’m still pretty much a Novice at this (not very well) so please if you see anything wrong I’m free to any criticism! :)
      I have some thoughts, opinions, and facts to discuss if you don't mind constructive criticism. Being open to criticism is how you improve so you're already leaps and bounds ahead of the average armchair general who insists he's always right

      On the topic of higher levels vs lower levels, let's do a comparison of level 3 infantry and level 6 infantry from the Comintern research tree. Level 3 infantry will have 25 HP and its defensive damage vs unarmoured targets is 7.5, but let's say we have two of these infantry. Together they will have:
      -50 HP
      -15 defensive damaged to unarmoured units
      -42 speed
      And will cost:
      -1,880 food, 56 daily upkeep
      -880 goods, 26 daily upkeep
      -1,860 manpower, 56 daily upkeep
      -$1,320, $40 daily upkeep
      -5 hours and 30 minutes of production time.

      Now let's compare that to a single level 6 infantry unit, also from the Comintern research tree:
      -50 HP
      -16.2 defensive damage to unarmoured units
      -51 speed
      And will cost:
      -1,500 food, 54 daily upkeep
      -720 goods, 22 daily upkeep
      -1,300 manpower, 39 daily upkeep
      -$1,100, $32 daily upkeep
      -4 hours and 30 minutes of production time

      What this shows is that a single level 6 infantry unit makes a stronger stack than two level 3 infantry do, while the level 6 infantry is cheaper and takes less time to build. It should also be noted that the level 6 infantry is significantly cheaper in manpower.

      You may think that the differences are not that bad, but since when do we ever build just one or two infantry units? What if we compared sixty level 3 infantry units to thirty level 6 units? Multiply both these figures by 10 or 20 or 30 and have a look for yourself what happens to the numbers.

      The other major issue with staying at low levels is it limits the effectiveness of every stack you possess. Even if you can build 20 low level anti-air units, you can't put 20 in an artillery stack; you can only effectively use 10 of any single unit type in a stack. If a strong air wing comes up against your stack, you don't stand much of a chance. The same can be said about your weaker infantry going up against 10 Axis motorized infantry, or your artillery going up against 10 Axis artillery. By making more stacks you are essentially relying on one stack being destroyed so that the enemy is weak enough that your second stack *might* be able to defeat it.

      Other smaller issues with making a larger army with lower research include slower speeds causing the enemy to outrun you and the fact that since you are researching higher levels less, you will have research slots open more often and are significantly more likely to research new unit types that are not necessary. It is considerably better to have high level armoured cars and tank destroyers instead of low level medium tanks, tank destroyers, armoured cars, and mechanized infantry. The high level armoured cars and tank destroyers will win every engagement, hands down.


      I hope this wasn't too much of a read and I hope you find it useful! If you have any questions please feel free to ask away :)

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      You make some good points. By the way, I'm not advocating a combo of MT/HT, that was an either/or suggestion for units that enjoy fighting armor in plains :)

      The speed issue is not absolute but relative. TD will always be faster than AT, for the same level unit. The point is that the TD is faster in terrain it should be trying to avoid.

      Of course, your can have AT guns at level 2 or 3 while the TD is still at 1, given research availability, research time, and upgrade costs. Comparing everything at level 1 is silly.

      You want to send TD ahead of your infantry and AA? See how long until a good opponent wrecks them. Their AA defense is pitiful. And lurking AT guns say hello. The TD isn't going anywhere on its own, if you want to keep it.

      Good points on resource usage. If you're building a lot of AA and arty, then goods will be a problem, and TD is a good way to save on goods. If you're skipping the air force, even better, because you'll have extra oil and rares to throw around. You're also right that Comintern TD arrives early, so it's a very good match for an ordnance heavy, no air force build.

      I should play around with TD more. The honest truth is that I rarely build any kind of tank defense, because I'm on the offensive practically all the time, fighting inside the enemy's core, retreating as needed to give my arty more time to shoot.
      I understand your clarification of you suggesting medium tanks or heavy tanks, not combining both. I am glad that I misunderstood you and that you did not suggest a poor combination :)

      But now I need to clarify something that I said; you never send tank destroyers ahead un-escorted, much like you never rush medium tanks un-escorted. The tank destroyers would either be paired with armoured cars or else be following behind armoured cars, while both would be advancing underneath interceptor escorts! That way you get the speedy advance that ant-air cannot keep up with, without the worry about air attacks.

      My last point is that tank defence is a good investment because a surprising number of players love being on the offensive with their own tanks. If I build tank destroyers, even as the Comintern, I will beat any medium or heavy tank spammer with ease. Another thing that is often forgotten about tank destroyers is that even though they are defensive units, they attack heavy armour much stronger than medium tanks ever could. This means tank destroyers can double as attacking units.

    • Good points.

      My preference is to use upgraded AC to reveal and capture enemy territory at speed.
      TD's are too slow for my taste, and the attack power doesn't interest me.
      I'm not rushing ahead to fight, unless my AC are grouped 5+ and I spot single infantry.
      I'm going around enemy formations, scouting and flipping provinces.
      The real firepower is driving slowly behind... or flying behind.

      Besides speed, the other advantage of AC is their air defense.
      A stack of AC has air defenses strong enough to make the enemy question if it's worth attacking.
      Allied tacs do OK, but most other bomber types aren't great against light armor.
      Upgraded AC, stacked together, on plains, are a serious nuisance to an enemy air force.
      Mixing them with TD just makes for slower, juicier targets that are worth attacking.
      Especially since they don't like the same terrain... TD like forests, AC like plains.
      Whatever protects one, exposes the other to more damage.

      For these reasons, I rush ahead with AC, and the speed advantage of TD over AT becomes irrelevant.

    • Well I usually don't build either AT or TD; I find there are much better ways to deal with enemy tanks (in particular, arty and planes). But recently I still did, and I picked AT's. Here's the scenario:
      I started in Yakutia, and I mostly expanded West (an ally to the South), but I also had a small army (some initial infantry upgraded to L3 and a few RA and arty) going East through Kamchatka; then they crossed Bering and took Alaska, invaded inactive BC, NWUSA, and Alberta.

      At that point the other Americans woke up and declared on me. Several of them were tank players, and my force was hopelessly small; I would be kicked out soon. Morale was still low at that point; and they were pushing me so I needed effective troops FAST. Deploying air there (as I would usually do) was not an option due to the long distance and inefficiency of air strips in Kamchatka and Alaska.

      At that point, I created a bunch of AT paired with militia. They were L1, so they're both easy to produce; and when I had about 10-15 AT and two dozen militia, I researched both to L3 and skip-upgraded them. The rest was history; they didn't play very well, I did some other stuff (produce AB's and AC's locally, and sent more land troops and navy from core; but they came much later), and the main players were knocled out and I later took half of NA.

      All that was done with two L1 ordinances and one barracks. A day later (actually about six hours, it was a speed game; but for reference) I had a force that could deny them access to the heavy terrain in the region.

      I could never have done that with TD's. They build way too slow, so they require a much larger investment in production facilities (especially at low morale); an investment which is lost when you DO lose the war in the end. And even then, MINIMUM production time for TD's is about 2.5 time that of AT.

      TD's also don't have stealth in cities, a feature which is actually much more valuable than the forest stealth they BOTH have. I ambushed and massacred several stacks when they marched into cities they thought were empty (they sure weren't op players and didn't scout very well), they're always popular targets. Sure you need a lot of goods, but at that point you're still upgrading industry so oil/steel/rare are also scarce resources. There's also the fact that L1 -> L3 research time is about twice as long for TD's.

      So yes, like I said, I hardly ever use either of them; but when I do, it is in a situation like this, where I'm suddenly pressurized and need an army FAST. And for that purpose, AT's are BY FAR superior to TD's.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.