Important Lessons for New Players (That I Learned The Hard Way)

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

    • Important Lessons for New Players (That I Learned The Hard Way)

      Now this doesn't and shouldn't apply to all of us, but a lot of us veteran players have made some major mistakes in games. In a way, we veterans exist to tell new players what we did wrong, and how to overcome those mistakes. I've been playing Call of War for just over 3 years, and in that time, I watched this game change a great deal - and my playstyle with it.

      So today, instead of writing a guide for one specific country, here instead is a universal guide for new players, who desperately need at least some semblance of direction. I didn't learn any of this from guides: I learned the old fashioned way, trial and error.

      Never, ever underestimate the cost. Especially now, there is no such thing as a "cheap" unit or a throwaway army. Every single unit counts. Every resource is precious. In 1.0, I would struggle to have less than 100k steel on hand in almost any of my games. Now, in 1.5, I can barely keep any of my resources - to include money - above 10k. Your resources will rapidly go down the drain, and you need to understand that early on. Every decision counts. You need to decide right away what kind of strategy you want to take, and build according to that strategy, not somebody else's.

      Slow and steady almost always beats blitzkrieg. I say almost, because there's exceptions to every rule. Yes, you may find that sweeping through one's territory and gobbling up resources is satisfying at the very least, but it leaves you very, very exposed. Some units can be conjured up faster than others, but those units may not be enough to curb the oncoming assault of another nation exploiting your vulnerability. If you simply must use lightning warfare, you need to take AND HOLD every single province of that nation in 1 day, 2 at the very most. You can't afford to waste your precious military units. Remember: defending armies always have the advantage.

      Diplomacy is crucial. This isn't just a sentiment: it's fact. Like it or not, you are never going to win a game on your own. Yes, you might clutch a "single" victory by dropping out of a coalition, but in larger maps, especially 100 player maps, winning on your own is virtually impossible. Diplomacy, basically, comes in two forms: long term and short term. Short term diplomacy lasts for days, or sometimes even hours. Long term diplomacy lasts the entire game, or rather, as long as you do. Long term diplomacy is debatable, but without short term diplomacy, you are never going to win. Even if you plan to backstab them in the near future, you need allies, especially in the beginning.

      Keep tabs on your neighbors. This doesn't even mean setting up a spy network (although you definitely should), it just means watch their movements. If you can, station something to keep an eye on the border. If you see a unit there, you'll be glad you paid attention. Those few extra hours of knowledge can mean the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful invasion.

      And finally, if nothing else, please listen to this last tip:

      There is no shame in defeat. Yes, I know it sounds like a cat poster, but it's a simple fact too many of us ignore. You are going to lose games. You may even lose a lot of games. Winning isn't important: learning from your defeats very much is. If you can learn something from the defeat, you can improve. Failure is just one step on the path to success. If you start underestimating yourself, you've already lost. It's gimmicky, but "Never give up!"

      Thank you for bearing with my ranty nature for a moment. Hopefully at least one of these tips helps you!
    • I love when veteran players share their experience.
      TBH, in strategy games Ive had the most fun on the losing end, but boy did I take down the "winner"
      He won over me but lost over all. lol

      Your experience is based on 1.0 or 1.5 though? since the game seemingly changed a lot.
    • Oh and every tip helps.
      But I sure wish they would clean up the forum for 1.0 and 1.5

      I know its a tedious task. lol
      i have high hopes for CoW. DR1 said something about gold users that CoW (Bytro) needs those revenues. Which is fair enough. So now you have me brainstorming ideas for Bytro to generate cash and to make it less costly for the average joe. Hahaha
      Im weird like that, but I enjoy these kind of challenges. I will only take 5% of any revenue idea I get
      joking hahgaha
    • JesterTheSheep wrote:





      Slow and steady almost always beats blitzkrieg. I say almost, because there's exceptions to every rule. Yes, you may find that sweeping through one's territory and gobbling up resources is satisfying at the very least, but it leaves you very, very exposed. Some units can be conjured up faster than others, but those units may not be enough to curb the oncoming assault of another nation exploiting your vulnerability. If you simply must use lightning warfare, you need to take AND HOLD every single province of that nation in 1 day, 2 at the very most. You can't afford to waste your precious military units. Remember: defending armies always have the advantage.
      the only point i disagree, blitzkrieg are very useful, its comes with their ups and down, its true that is very hard to master, not everyone can do it correctly but if you do it at their maxium it can become the best strategy, however in 1.5 only axis and panasian can do it efficiently but in very different ways
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • have to agree with Daniel there. About 5 years of experience here, and players who "slowly build up their economies and militaries" tend to lose, in general. Victory in the game usually goes to the aggressive players, invading and conquering their neighbors (well, one at a time, but still) right when the peace period flag is down.

      I'd also like to stress that solo victories are VERY possible indeed; though maybe not as a newbie player. In fact, I have more solo- than team victories on my profile, even while I enjoy playing in a balanced team.
      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.
    • i agree with @K.Rokossovski and @Danieliyoverde123
      i've seen people not invade a single AI then lose to people who did when they invaded after peace ended
      Quick army mobilization and the occupation of Key-strategic points as soon as possible is essential, these key-points are almost always AI nations in Clash of Nations. Blitzkrieging a nation so that the least amount of time is wasted is very important in Clash of Nations so as to quickly focus on much more important threats, but saving time, yet losing armies due to rash decisions? It is unacceptable
      "In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass

      "The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"

      Secretary of Nova0213
    • hi guys! Im a fan of blitzkrieg as well. It comes with a cost, it s true. But if u establish fast some good diplomatic relationships in the beggining of the game, that can help u to not expose ur troops that much. For those who like to build nice and steady their army, I recomend playing USA in the maps with less countries.
    • Adrian Dragomir wrote:

      hi guys! Im a fan of blitzkrieg as well. It comes with a cost, it s true. But if u establish fast some good diplomatic relationships in the beggining of the game, that can help u to not expose ur troops that much. For those who like to build nice and steady their army, I recomend playing USA in the maps with less countries.
      Blitzkrieg is a bad idea. Some random player attempted to try to blitz me on day 1. I crushed his armies without losing a single unit.
    • well, u have to coordinate ur invasion. Blitzkrieg doesent mean just to take some troops and launch them in the 1st day in war. I usualy wait until day 2 or 3 to start attacking active players. And any Blitzkrieg invasion should be ended by conquering all the provinces of the country u attack. Most of the time, for me it pays to gamble on it. But u have to stay active as much as u can. Im not saying that blitzkrieg its the key of succes, otherwisemy winning rate would be 100% :) Every map have different dynamic and u have to adapt ur strategy.
    • Day one attack is doomed to fail as infantry is 50% stronger in defense. The attacker will always lose. Better to wait till day 2 or 3 and build some stacks of artillery and rocket artillery. Those will do all the work for you and you can take over an entire country without losing a single unit.

      I'm currently testing Pan Asian on a 100 map. It's day 9 and I have 390 victory points, I killed 3 live players and one AI player and I only lost 4 units. I still have all my starting units and they are barely damaged.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!
    • BMfox wrote:

      Day one attack is doomed to fail as infantry is 50% stronger in defense. The attacker will always lose.
      I have no idea where you got that idea. Good strategy is about concentration; when you group even only TWO infantry against every single enemy one, you'll win. When you use bigger stacks than two, you won't lose much either. When I played, I grouped the infantry in two or three stacks, the enemy usually tries to defend ALL his borders (including the ones to different players at the other end of his empire) so you can take out some border stacks and provinces before those can even get to the battlefield, by which time the battle will be almost done (losing like 5 infantry is deadly at this time). You also have the advantage of picking the fight time; he might be sleeping or working when you attack which is even more deadly for him.

      One way this does NOT work is when he happens to use the same concentration and grouped his army in two or three stacks and has the activity and competence to fight you in the same way as you do, but this is pretty rare. A stalemate arises which can best be broken by setting the differences aside and win the map together )))

      The other way is when he finds allies on YOUR weak borders, but in a 2:1 fight in the first days you're usually f*cked anyway. This is rare as well, as most people dislike attacking active and aggressive players (they don't realize they'll have much less chance when they will be your next target AFTER taking out the first). Instead they'll offer you share maps which you can just ignore and stall until it is their turn.
      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.
    • I won't blitz unless I have stacks of 4 per unit. Which means if I have 4 stacks of 4 unit army I may attack the enemy. 1 AC to 3 infantry or 2 AC to 2 infantry. If I get two stacks of 4 units of light tanks then I will begin attacking especially if my nation is landlocked and surrounded by non threatening neighbors (A.I. nations). If I am surrounded by active players then forget about blitzkrieg. I'd rather go turtle with that scenario.
      "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

      - Sun Tzu

      "Diplomacy works with leverage!"

      -Krieg Maker

      "We can wage an attrition war forever with no goal, if one is found otherwise!"

      -Krieg Maker

      "The difference between flirting and diplomacy is that the former requires flattery, the latter requires assurance. Be sure to be in the position of power when trying to win through diplomacy!"

      -Krieg Maker
    • JesterTheSheep wrote:

      Slow and steady almost always beats blitzkrieg. I say almost, because there's exceptions to every rule. Yes, you may find that sweeping through one's territory and gobbling up resources is satisfying at the very least, but it leaves you very, very exposed. Some units can be conjured up faster than others, but those units may not be enough to curb the oncoming assault of another nation exploiting your vulnerability. If you simply must use lightning warfare, you need to take AND HOLD every single province of that nation in 1 day, 2 at the very most. You can't afford to waste your precious military units. Remember: defending armies always have the advantage.
      On noob maps, that is. In high-level play between active and skilled players, I wouldn't be so sure. Take an example of a slow and steady build - Ally bombers, SP Artillery and some commandos and HT in front, along with AA. All that can be easily beaten if you attack at the right moment. You disable the airports with your bombers and then attack with high level mot infantry. That can quickly eliminate the AA and then the tanks and SP Arty get destroyed by attack bombers. The rest of the mot infantry can move forward to capture important cities (you have likely used spies to tell all the buildings). It's easy to argument that blitzkrieg leaves you vulnerable, but how does a slow steady force take advantage of that? By the time slow and steady can do serious damage all its territory is likely captured.
      Also, artillery can get rid of slow steady force quite well, just have enough of it. Attack bombers, some strategic (rocket fighters optional), (SP) artillery and mot infantry or AC. If you focus on few units you get higher levels up. The problem with slow steady force is it needs every counter to not be easily beatable, which requires a lot of research so none of your units will be really high level. So a force of just one or two unit types, but high levelled will obliterate your slow force, even if the blitzkrieg one is supposed to actually be weaker.

      But I will say it largely depends on the circumstances - skill level, geography, in-game day, doctrines etc. Slow force is a good strategy. I just can't say it's "better" than blitzkrieg as both can be very strong if used correctly and it depends on too many factors. Playing strategy games should teach you that you can't just use one strategy or unit to win like in a shooter;)
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper
    • BMfox wrote:

      Day one attack is doomed to fail as infantry is 50% stronger in defense. The attacker will always lose. Better to wait till day 2 or 3 and build some stacks of artillery and rocket artillery. Those will do all the work for you and you can take over an entire country without losing a single unit.
      Sorry, I will have to say this is nonsense. You're forgetting a factor that every newbie should learn before literally anything else, called numbers advantage (Lanchester's square law for the nerds).
      As so many people go inactive, even on WaW, I would say your claim here is just completely misleading. You know how many people just leave infantry on their starting positions... That means all the infantry regiments are single.

      Say, if I have infantry with 1 attack and 2 defence, and 8 hp: If I merge my infantry into a stack of 10 I will have 80 health and 10 attack. So everytime I meet an enemy infantry I kill it in the first shot, so only receiving 2 damage from it. I can continue that way till I fall below 80% damage efficiency, which will be at 60 hp. So before I even get below 60 hp, I have already destroyed 10 of the enemy infantry with 10 of mine, even though they were defending.
      Then I can still two-shot the enemy infantry. I will be doing over 4 damage till I get to 20 health; based on that, the first attack I'll receive 2 damage back, the second attack I will receive 1.2 (The enemy received 4+ damage already so he's at 60% efficiency). So I will receive 3.2 per infantry, meaning I can still kill 12 (!) of the enemy infantry. That means, my 10 infantry have gone to 25% health, but I killed 22 enemy infantry while they were defending.

      Of course such an example is pretty crazy and we haven't taken RNG into consideration. But it shows how numbers advantage can change the game. We were using an example with twice the defence than attack, which is not even true for infantry.
      I have conquered a country on day 1 with just 10 units like that. I know those inactive countries are easy and no one finds it fun conquering them, but it's so common to encounter them, so saying that "the attacker will always lose" is almost the opposite of the truth. Sorry, I can't stand random misleading claims;)
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper
    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      If someone attacked me on day 1 it's something called free territory
      Same. But a good player also uses planes to scout (can do with the Int even at day 1) and checks stats carefully. That way you can VERY accurately tell which players are likely inactive or not going to defend. I don't actually remember my day 1 attack not working. It always has worked even on WaW.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper