Doctrines

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

    • Last Warrior wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      I was ahead of him in levels. Comintern doctrine is just straight up terrible. In late game when you have a large economy it won't matter if troops are more expensive. You will have the capability to produce them. The Comintern doctrine is only good in mid game. In late game and early game it's terrible.
      In late game it is only matter of large economy, and with comintern you can have 20% more troops, while they only 10% less power, but same HP's with allies, while nearby 20% less power, but only 10% less HP as axis, while 10% less power, but 10% more HP's as asian.
      So late game is comintern time...

      The clue is: other doctrin mostly kill comintern before it can dominate.
      Comintern does not dominate at all. I don't know why they created such a terrible doctrine in the first place.

    • I'm a bit late for commenting but I'm still gonna say some things


      BrutusTrump wrote:

      If one Allies heavy tank fought a Axis heavy tank, the Allied one would lose.
      Nice work Einstein!

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Comintern doctrine is just straight up terrible
      I couldn't agree more. Why would you want your units to be worse than normal?

      Hornetkeeper wrote:

      The arty player just gets destroyed
      While this is true, Brutus Trump has a fair point that it is a bad move to not include arties in stacks intended for fighting.

    • I'll say Pan-Asian is better, as long as you know what you're doing. They can outrun Axis units (most cases) and have range bonus of arty and planes, so they can destroy Axis arty in bunker if same level and type of unit. However, in a direct same unit vs same unit, pan asian loses the clash.
      If you say there are no limits in the world, why do you say to keep trying until you get something right? There is no limit of wrong answers, you're wasting your life away for a goal you can never reach. :00002178:

      -Alexandera Nevsky

    • Alexandera Nevsky wrote:

      I'll say Pan-Asian is better, as long as you know what you're doing. They can outrun Axis units (most cases) and have range bonus of arty and planes, so they can destroy Axis arty in bunker if same level and type of unit. However, in a direct same unit vs same unit, pan asian loses the clash.
      Hi! I thought you quit Ash...
      Yes, I agree:) Pan-Asian suits my playstyle way better than any other, though all doctrines are situational. It depends on how active you are, on your playstyle and the situation.

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Comintern does not dominate at all. I don't know why they created such a terrible doctrine in the first place.
      Yes, they lose 1v1. But imagine fighting 1v1 as Comintern. You always have the numbers advantage. Even just 10 Comintern units against 9 generic, and the Comintern player is already 11% stronger.
      Pan-Asian/Comintern vs Axis, you need to be 10v8 to win.
      8 Axis units have the health and damage of 9.2 generic (that's the +15%) compared to the 10 Pan-Asian/Comintern units having the health of 9 and damage of 10.
      9 * 10 = 90 (Pan) vs 9.2 * 9.2 = 84.64 (Axis).

      10v6 it gets cost-effective for Pan against Axis.

      9 * 10 = 90 (Pan) vs 6.9 * 6.9 = 47.61 (Axis).

      Axis units cost 10% more so they have the cost of 6.6 generic, Pan 10 generic.
      Dividing their strength by how much they cost, we see Pan is better at it: 90:10=9 > 47.61:6.6=7.21

      Not speaking of Comintern which have -15% costs. There you'd be cost-effective with 10 Comintern vs 7 Axis units.
      9 * 10 = 90 (Comintern) vs 8.05 * 8.05 = 64.8 (Axis)
      The Comintern units have the cost of 8.5 generic, Axis the cost of 7.7 generic.
      90:8.5=10.6 (Comintern) > 64.8:7.7=8.42 (Axis).

      I have said this before, and I shall say it again and again: Doctrines are NOT unbalanced. In one of my previous posts you can see how Comintern wins against Axis decisively with equal resources. That doesn't mean Axis is weak either though, as Axis have buffs on useful units with high manoeuvrability, allowing an active player to more than offset the Comintern advantage. Pan-Asian then have even higher speed, making them outrun Axis, but don't have the discount on costs. Different doctrines are just good in different situations. Depends on how active the players are, their playstyle and the situation. You can't just say Comintern are bad because they have weaker units. Sorry for this surprising statement, but this is not a shooter game...
      "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:

      Doesn't matter I Comintern is bad. My army is always top 5 in the mightiest armies list when I play in allied doctrine.
      Deficiencies in the player can lead the player into duping themselves into believing the doctrine is deficuent in it's capabilities.

      I believe you are not playing the doctrine correctly. Also i protest against the First sentence, i dont need to state the reason.
      "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

    • Firstable, the Comintern doctrine is supposed to give you quantity. In reality it doesn't give you quantity at all. Although, it might be cheap to produce troops, they are extremely weak. When used against Axis troops they melt. Also, there are barely any separate buffs for the Comintern unit, even if they're buffed they cannot compare to the Axis units. One time I was playing as Iran as Axis. My ally the Soviet Union had a level 3 interceptor, while I had a level 2 interceptor. However, my level 2 interceptor was actually more powerful. The cheap prices only help you in mid game. However, in early game your troops are weak. In late game production times begin to stretch out and it takes a long time to produce high tech weapons. Meanwhile, the Comintern research is also pretty expensive. The doctrine doesn't really serve a purpose. If you want quantity play as allied doctrine instead, it produces much faster and the economy won't matter in late game. Also, the research prices are much better than the Comintern.

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      Firstable, the Comintern doctrine is supposed to give you quantity. In reality it doesn't give you quantity at all. Although, it might be cheap to produce troops, they are extremely weak. When used against Axis troops they melt. Also, there are barely any separate buffs for the Comintern unit, even if they're buffed they cannot compare to the Axis units. One time I was playing as Iran as Axis. My ally the Soviet Union had a level 3 interceptor, while I had a level 2 interceptor. However, my level 2 interceptor was actually more powerful. The cheap prices only help you in mid game. However, in early game your troops are weak. In late game production times begin to stretch out and it takes a long time to produce high tech weapons. Meanwhile, the Comintern research is also pretty expensive. The doctrine doesn't really serve a purpose. If you want quantity play as allied doctrine instead, it produces much faster and the economy won't matter in late game. Also, the research prices are much better than the Comintern.
      Comintern IS quantity and it works. I have done tests earlier and am sure Comintern are cost-effective against Axis straight-up with equal resources, which is what often happens in the real game. You dislike Comintern because you don't play it all that well, not because it's bad. How long does it take for you to admit it?
      Of course, you were in a 1v1 fight so you lost. Comintern are not for 1v1 fights. You need fights with equal resources spent, NOT equal amount of units. The Lanchester's square law says that X units in a single army are X^2 stronger than 1 unit of the same kind. So having 17.6% more units (which is what the discount gives you) does NOT mean being just 17.6% stronger. It means being 38.3% stronger. Remember that, one of the key points of knowledge you need for Comintern.
      "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:

      The cost efficiency with resources doesn't matter if your troops are all crushed. I've almost never seen a Comintern nation win the game before unless its historical.
      At day 1-2, you can simply take advantage from defending if someone attacks you. The attack and defence difference for infantry, AC and AA is large. As long as you're a good player who knows to scout enemies and prepare a good defence for all cases, I can't see you losing. At day 2-4 you needn't build as much economy as other doctrines so you actually get the strongest. So I don't see your argument.
      Your efficiency truly does not matter if you have no troops. What do you do? You'll call me Einstein if I say, you have to fight effectively so you don't lose them.;)
      "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

    • Karl von Krass wrote:

      Deficiencies in the player can lead the player into duping themselves into believing the doctrine is deficuent in it's capabilities.
      Karl means that players blame the doctrine to justify their incompetence.

      Nice sentence Karl, you'd make a good politican.
      "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