The Best Units for Allies Doctrine?

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

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Gen. Smit wrote:

      BlackStormz wrote:

      A lot of you suggested using a lot of Artillery. Despite having produced a two dozen level 3 SP Artillery. I have found that they really slow you down as you have to wait for them to slowly disintegrate the enemy. The combo Mechanized Infantry and light tank work fine without them. The only advantage I can see of them is if you are attacking a large stack, but in these situations, I found that tactical bombers can easily do the job (and they are much quicker to move around).
      The advantage of artillery and bombarding ships is obvious, deal damage without taking damage.Further, the interceptors are essential when your bomberstacks need protection, against AA as extra HP, or in counterstrikes against enemy interceptors. start a bomb raid with bombers, when you see the interceptors coming you retreat the bombers and assault with your interceptors, then you are attacking and thus stronger than the enemy interceptors.

      Only battleships does not work, you need protections against subs and planes, and you must either use carriers with interceptors or cruiser, i.c.w. destroyers.
      As a semi-committed proponent of the battleship and the Tsushima-style pitched battle, aren't aircraft carriers best suited to long-range power projection? They're faster. Battleships are excellent as long as they're protected, and if you don't have them and fight somebody who does, you're gonna have a bad time (see Yalu River)
      battleships BOMBARD, carriers dont, thus planes must do the damage and planes are vulnerable to AA and interceptors.

      Carriers need to be well reserached before they become useful due capacity limits.Or you need to build numerous, not a cheap solution, and carriers need to be protected too.

      I think they have their place on big maps with longer playing spans. But anything under 15-20 days it is probably not extremely convenient.

      But I certainly acknowledge that the "reach" of an Aircraft Carrier is much better.
    • Gen. Smit wrote:

      battleships BOMBARD, carriers dont, thus planes must do the damage and planes are vulnerable to AA and interceptors.
      Carriers need to be well reserached before they become useful due capacity limits.Or you need to build numerous, not a cheap solution, and carriers need to be protected too.

      I think they have their place on big maps with longer playing spans. But anything under 15-20 days it is probably not extremely convenient.

      But I certainly acknowledge that the "reach" of an Aircraft Carrier is much better.
      Yes, and this is why I tend to use carriers alongside high-level cruisers as part of the long-range part of the navy in World at War maps, especially in the Pacific. Battleships are much slower (makes sense as many carriers were repurposed battlecruisers) and better used to wait for battle within 400km of home shore where their advantages can be better used.
      I find that 2 lvl.1 or 1 lvl.2 carriers can carry enough planes to more than counter a battleship of roughly similar level, if planes are viewed as more expendable than ships. Same goes for levels 3 & 4, but these not usually bothered with.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh
    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Gen. Smit wrote:

      battleships BOMBARD, carriers dont, thus planes must do the damage and planes are vulnerable to AA and interceptors.
      Carriers need to be well reserached before they become useful due capacity limits.Or you need to build numerous, not a cheap solution, and carriers need to be protected too.

      I think they have their place on big maps with longer playing spans. But anything under 15-20 days it is probably not extremely convenient.

      But I certainly acknowledge that the "reach" of an Aircraft Carrier is much better.
      Yes, and this is why I tend to use carriers alongside high-level cruisers as part of the long-range part of the navy in World at War maps, especially in the Pacific. Battleships are much slower (makes sense as many carriers were repurposed battlecruisers) and better used to wait for battle within 400km of home shore where their advantages can be better used.I find that 2 lvl.1 or 1 lvl.2 carriers can carry enough planes to more than counter a battleship of roughly similar level, if planes are viewed as more expendable than ships. Same goes for levels 3 & 4, but these not usually bothered with.
      they are slow but you’ll need some high damage high range meat shields
      知己知彼,百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:
    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Yes, and this is why I tend to use carriers alongside high-level cruisers as part of the long-range part of the navy in World at War maps, especially in the Pacific. Battleships are much slower (makes sense as many carriers were repurposed battlecruisers) and better used to wait for battle within 400km of home shore where their advantages can be better used.I find that 2 lvl.1 or 1 lvl.2 carriers can carry enough planes to more than counter a battleship of roughly similar level, if planes are viewed as more expendable than ships. Same goes for levels 3 & 4, but these not usually bothered with.
      There is one other option is to "chain" carriers in order to bridge watermasses fast with planes, planes can fly from carrier to carrier, there are some limitations, but its really the fastest way to move planes across big watermasses.

      The interference being once a plane took of from a carrier it still uses the capacity untill landed on another carrier, thus one needs sufficient capacity
    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      they are slow but you’ll need some high damage high range meat shields
      I literally have an entire well-worked-out doctrine saved as PDF for how to use carriers, battleships, and cruisers together synergistically. In my opinion all naval units (including naval bombers) are useful for their respective roles, and all can and should be used depending on situation and capabilities.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Lord Crayfish ().

    • Sewur wrote:

      And what about artillery? I feel like SP artillery is too expensive and has almost the same power as normal one. So i wonder if the buff makes it worth to produce? Especially because heavy armor is not that common and Allies have strong Tank Destroyers anyway.
      there's a curse in plane gameplay called "plane attrition" which is plane will damaged overtime in long run campaign

      unlike artilery that can absolutely shot any troops without getting damage in return (except for getting shot back by battleship or RRG)slow regular artilery is even slower in allies so the SP artilery is best option for sure
      ꦮꦺꦱ꧀ꦲꦺꦴꦫꦲꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴꦱꦺꦁꦲꦶꦱꦺꦴꦢꦶꦭꦏꦺꦴꦤꦶ

      Normal Day in Call of War

      World at War Playthrough
    • Tolol_aja wrote:

      there's a curse in plane gameplay called "plane attrition" which is plane will damaged overtime in long run campaign
      unlike artilery that can absolutely shot any troops without getting damage in return (except for getting shot back by battleship or RRG)slow regular artilery is even slower in allies so the SP artilery is best option for sure
      I like Self-Propelled gun Artillery in allied, in Pan-Asian I use regular gun artillery. It has buffs, uses no oil, and is fast enough.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh
    • But SP artillery takes 50% more boxes and manpower. So instead of 3 normal artillery you will get 2 SP.

      If you look at rocket artillery difference between SP and normal one it's 12,5% more manpower and 25% more rare materials.

      I agree SP artillery is good against tanks but it gets trashed by normal artillery and that's the problem. Allies can deal with tanks using Tank Destroyers but what about artillery fights. If you can't touch them with aircrafts then you can only run.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sewur ().

    • Yeah, but if not artillery duels then how you stop enemy artillery? With tanks? They are slow af. Force air strikes even when they have anti air? Or trade bases?

      I understand that under right circumstances that might not be a problem but theoritically you can't really stop artillery producing core Allies units other than tactical bombers.

      'They need motorized units more than other doctrines.' Hence normal artillery trash all their units.
    • Yes, the counter to artillery are tactical bombers. Players rarely have enough AA to make a difference. If they do, then you can find a new tactical solution. Build rocket artillery. Use terrain to your advantage. Build forts. Ambush artillery with stacks of militia, similar to how you can engage battleships with subs and then move your own gun ships into range for the kill.