Hello. The post is long, so for those of you who do not have the time or desire to read all the details, I highlighted the main points at the end. But what I detailed throughout the post can be useful to understand more specifically the discussion I am proposing and having difficulties with. Thank you in advance to everyone who took the time to contribute to this question.
First, I believe that the doctrines are satisfactorily well balanced and diverse. Bytro staff did a spectacular job in this regard.
But I'm struggling in understanding the specific goals of Axis Doctrine. I believe I have reached a satisfactory level of dominance with the other 3 doctrines. So I want to comprehend how to make better/adequate use of Axis characteristics.
Look, I understand that in a game of such strategic diversity is hard to make guides/tips suitable for every situation. There are adverse factors that influence a lot in each case: personal preferences, specific circumstances of each match and the type of opponents, etc. So it is not possible to create a perfect manual to follow in all cases. But that is not the goal here. What I'm looking for is an exchange of ideas and general guidelines as detailed as possible.
With that said, I will still list my preferences for better analysis's sake. But keep in mind that at a certain point in the game you just are up to new things. So I am open to simply change strategies and adopt different preferences when playing Axis if necessary, in order to better understand and use the doctrine (and its badass units).
I tend to use air force and artillery as the main deterrent forces since they usually bring the best kill/loss outcome, which is crucial for preserving armies and, thus, to long-term survival. I play defensively or aggressively depending on the context. I used to play more defensively, but since 1.5 version I realized playing aggressive was being more rewarded, so I adapted, and nowadays I even prefer the fast expansion and more aggressive gameplay.
---------------------------------------------
Now let's get into the discussion.
The Pan-Asian Doctrine - as some players have already pointed out here on the forum, and I agree - is the one that has the most potential in the hands of a capable player. It is about mobility, maneuverability, vision and about denying aerial superiority and provides a rapid expansion with stylish units. Particularly it is my favorite and the one I had the most fun using, although I still have a lot to master.
Allies, on the other hand, have a capacity for optimization that makes them a formidable doctrine as the game develops. And even from the beginning, they can make good use of their technological and tactical versatility. Plus, they have the bonus of being able to research tactical bombers from day one. Enabling to pressure inexperienced neighbors for quick expansion despite their low overall mobility.
Comintern, in my opinion, is the most underestimated doctrine here in the forum. For it is simply formidable. As stated, it is important to maximize efficiency, in the sense of having maximum kills with minimum losses. And in this regard, this doctrine is criticized. But for me, this is not a doctrine about "throwing units in front of the bus", though it may seem like that at first glance. I believe the more appropriate use of this doctrine focuses on its economic resilience, which allows them to create balanced and vast armies. For example, the composition that I consider the most balanced and efficient at the beginning (against experienced players) is composed of infantry, regular art. and rocket artillery, AA, anti-tanks, armored cars, and air force only if possible.
Because against more knowledgeable players, airplanes can disappoint. Therefore, a composition like the one described above is safer to assemble in a dangerous neighborhood and in general. Comintern doctrine makes it possible to achieve these diverse compositions without major economic problems. Not to mention that their economic vigor ensures a comfortable mid-game and a safer late game if good use is made of that economical abundance in the mid-game. In addition, in late-game, they have very powerful self-propelled rocket artillery and heavy tanks.
Now, my puzzle: Axis. The doctrine seemed the strong one when version 1.5 was first released. Currently, however, for me, is the one that I have less competence using. I believe I have not yet understood the specific purpose of this doctrine. The advantage and strength they have are clear: 15% power and life bonus is something that in itself gives a lot of strength.
However, units are very expensive for Axis. Someone once said that if you try to make a lot of artillery, in the beginning, your economy will fail when using Axis nations. And it is true, I tested this in practice. On the other hand, few artillery rarely have a compensatory effect. And there are no tactical bombers on the first day, also is good to remind that planes are not always helpful.
And while attacking on the first day is not the best option against active players, being able to research certain units on that day certainly provides an advantage in the battles to come
And again, they have a very expensive economy (due to the high cost of units) which may mean that they need to expand early and play aggressively too (even the units that they have bonuses are usually more offensive ones). How can I hurt the opponent with maximum efficiency then? Considering that this seems to be an aggressive-like doctrine, that cannot afford armies very well-balanced and diverse in the beginning.
I mean, they have excellent motorized infantry and good armored units in general. Axis' medium tank is very powerful. But such units only work in frontal attacks, and you will necessarily injure your troops when doing so. However, if you find an enemy who knows how to mount a defense on the appropriate ground, with artillery and anti-tank, you will lose the advantage and be in a complicated situation where you either act and severely hurt your armies risking losing, or you stay still, probably jeopardizing your development.
Of course, when diplomacy fails - against competent opponents - heavy losses may be unavoidable no matter the doctrine. But I think that Axis is particularly harmed against good defenders, and I just have this feeling that something is off about my line of thinking in general regarding this doctrine.
Another thought that came into my mind was the possibility of Axis just being a doctrine with the purpose of overall balancement. Something like "give 15% of attributes so they will generally be good in every branch and general strategy but with heavy economical costs and lack of specialization except for the frontal offensive one". But this "overall ok function" seems a role more suitable for the allies(which in addition are very adaptable) . Then, I believe I'm just not seeing something important about Axis doctrine.
So what is the catch here? Axis is indeed meant to excel in the hurtful and risky frontal offensives?
Any thoughts? Strategies? How can we make the best use of Axis capabilities against experienced players? And against inexperienced ones? Or in general?
The "frontal offensive" is really the major and perhaps the only triumph of this doctrine when it comes to specialization?
* I thought about posting this in the "Questions" section, but as I said I wanted to propose a more detailed discussion. I have seen many topics discussing various doctrines, but not many on the Axis and I believe that there is potential for a good debate here. But if this thread is not appropriate for this section I apologize.
First, I believe that the doctrines are satisfactorily well balanced and diverse. Bytro staff did a spectacular job in this regard.
But I'm struggling in understanding the specific goals of Axis Doctrine. I believe I have reached a satisfactory level of dominance with the other 3 doctrines. So I want to comprehend how to make better/adequate use of Axis characteristics.
Look, I understand that in a game of such strategic diversity is hard to make guides/tips suitable for every situation. There are adverse factors that influence a lot in each case: personal preferences, specific circumstances of each match and the type of opponents, etc. So it is not possible to create a perfect manual to follow in all cases. But that is not the goal here. What I'm looking for is an exchange of ideas and general guidelines as detailed as possible.
With that said, I will still list my preferences for better analysis's sake. But keep in mind that at a certain point in the game you just are up to new things. So I am open to simply change strategies and adopt different preferences when playing Axis if necessary, in order to better understand and use the doctrine (and its badass units).
I tend to use air force and artillery as the main deterrent forces since they usually bring the best kill/loss outcome, which is crucial for preserving armies and, thus, to long-term survival. I play defensively or aggressively depending on the context. I used to play more defensively, but since 1.5 version I realized playing aggressive was being more rewarded, so I adapted, and nowadays I even prefer the fast expansion and more aggressive gameplay.
---------------------------------------------
Now let's get into the discussion.
The Pan-Asian Doctrine - as some players have already pointed out here on the forum, and I agree - is the one that has the most potential in the hands of a capable player. It is about mobility, maneuverability, vision and about denying aerial superiority and provides a rapid expansion with stylish units. Particularly it is my favorite and the one I had the most fun using, although I still have a lot to master.
Allies, on the other hand, have a capacity for optimization that makes them a formidable doctrine as the game develops. And even from the beginning, they can make good use of their technological and tactical versatility. Plus, they have the bonus of being able to research tactical bombers from day one. Enabling to pressure inexperienced neighbors for quick expansion despite their low overall mobility.
Comintern, in my opinion, is the most underestimated doctrine here in the forum. For it is simply formidable. As stated, it is important to maximize efficiency, in the sense of having maximum kills with minimum losses. And in this regard, this doctrine is criticized. But for me, this is not a doctrine about "throwing units in front of the bus", though it may seem like that at first glance. I believe the more appropriate use of this doctrine focuses on its economic resilience, which allows them to create balanced and vast armies. For example, the composition that I consider the most balanced and efficient at the beginning (against experienced players) is composed of infantry, regular art. and rocket artillery, AA, anti-tanks, armored cars, and air force only if possible.
Because against more knowledgeable players, airplanes can disappoint. Therefore, a composition like the one described above is safer to assemble in a dangerous neighborhood and in general. Comintern doctrine makes it possible to achieve these diverse compositions without major economic problems. Not to mention that their economic vigor ensures a comfortable mid-game and a safer late game if good use is made of that economical abundance in the mid-game. In addition, in late-game, they have very powerful self-propelled rocket artillery and heavy tanks.
Now, my puzzle: Axis. The doctrine seemed the strong one when version 1.5 was first released. Currently, however, for me, is the one that I have less competence using. I believe I have not yet understood the specific purpose of this doctrine. The advantage and strength they have are clear: 15% power and life bonus is something that in itself gives a lot of strength.
However, units are very expensive for Axis. Someone once said that if you try to make a lot of artillery, in the beginning, your economy will fail when using Axis nations. And it is true, I tested this in practice. On the other hand, few artillery rarely have a compensatory effect. And there are no tactical bombers on the first day, also is good to remind that planes are not always helpful.
And while attacking on the first day is not the best option against active players, being able to research certain units on that day certainly provides an advantage in the battles to come
And again, they have a very expensive economy (due to the high cost of units) which may mean that they need to expand early and play aggressively too (even the units that they have bonuses are usually more offensive ones). How can I hurt the opponent with maximum efficiency then? Considering that this seems to be an aggressive-like doctrine, that cannot afford armies very well-balanced and diverse in the beginning.
I mean, they have excellent motorized infantry and good armored units in general. Axis' medium tank is very powerful. But such units only work in frontal attacks, and you will necessarily injure your troops when doing so. However, if you find an enemy who knows how to mount a defense on the appropriate ground, with artillery and anti-tank, you will lose the advantage and be in a complicated situation where you either act and severely hurt your armies risking losing, or you stay still, probably jeopardizing your development.
Of course, when diplomacy fails - against competent opponents - heavy losses may be unavoidable no matter the doctrine. But I think that Axis is particularly harmed against good defenders, and I just have this feeling that something is off about my line of thinking in general regarding this doctrine.
Another thought that came into my mind was the possibility of Axis just being a doctrine with the purpose of overall balancement. Something like "give 15% of attributes so they will generally be good in every branch and general strategy but with heavy economical costs and lack of specialization except for the frontal offensive one". But this "overall ok function" seems a role more suitable for the allies(which in addition are very adaptable) . Then, I believe I'm just not seeing something important about Axis doctrine.
So what is the catch here? Axis is indeed meant to excel in the hurtful and risky frontal offensives?
Any thoughts? Strategies? How can we make the best use of Axis capabilities against experienced players? And against inexperienced ones? Or in general?
The "frontal offensive" is really the major and perhaps the only triumph of this doctrine when it comes to specialization?
* I thought about posting this in the "Questions" section, but as I said I wanted to propose a more detailed discussion. I have seen many topics discussing various doctrines, but not many on the Axis and I believe that there is potential for a good debate here. But if this thread is not appropriate for this section I apologize.
