Strategys

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

    • Depends on the doctrine.

      Axis: Motorized Infantry, Medium Tanks (Light Tanks in a pinch but rarely, sometimes to capture provinces occupied by ACs), and SP Anti-Air, arranged into 3 battlegroups, usually with 5 Mot Inf, 5 MT, and 2-3 SPAA. Up till late-game, Attack Bombers, but they get outclassed by Tac Bombers after that. Ints obviously, depending on the enemy either 5/5/5 stacks or just 10/10 stacks (of Attacks/Tacs and Ints). SP Artillery, Rocket Artillery, and RRGs as ranged units, very rarely tho since Axis ground units are enough to get the job done. Battlefleets consist of wolfpacks (8-10 subs per group), and 3/4/3 stacks of Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships. Rarely Carriers, but sometimes it is necessary. Rockets galore, Rocket Fighters to defend the homeland, and nukes...never :P .

      Comintern: Mixture of Infantry, Motorized Infantry (depends), Armoured Cars, Medium Tanks, any type of anti-air, and Heavy Tanks (limited use, useful for the sheer amount of HP). Very artillery heavy doctrine, Rocket Artillery overload, Artillery limited except to use against armour (which the R-Arty can deal with for the most part.) SP R-Arty in the late game, takes hella long to make though so use is limited. Aircraft use is limited, since reduced damage and no air buffs don't really make them easy to use. Any planes work in the right situation (except maybe Strats, which the use is questionable). Battlefleets are usually 7 Cruisers and 3 Destroyers, maybe some subs, again it really depends. Battleships only for coastal bombardment, nothing else. A strat to use is to get level 4 transports, produce level 1 Militia, and combine them with fleets to give a HP advantage.

      Allies: Any infantry type really, the research cost is affordable. Commandos are advised. Tank Destroyers and Armoured Cars are the only tanks that are fast enough to keep up with invasions. SP Artillery heavily advised, SP-AA to keep with invasion stacks. For planes, use Tacs and Strats, and keep Ints to ward off enemy Ints. Naval Bombers to deal with coast, and don't bother with Attacks. For navy, I use 4/3/3 (DD/CR/BB), and subs rarely. Carriers have a little more of a use, but not by much. Only secret research bonus you get are nukes, so...

      Pan-Asian: Infantry, Armoured Cars, and Light Tanks. Coupled with regular Artillery, overpowered. Militia can be used in a pinch, since it is nearly as fast as other doctrines Infantry. Don't bother with anti-air, just use Ints, they are extremely strong for Pan-Asian. You can use pretty much any other planes as well, doesn't really affect the strategy much. For navy you can go overboard. You get Day 1 research for all ships, and Battleships are good. You don't have to use Cruisers if you are active, just keep Carriers with Ints instead. Good fleet combinations are a 4/3/5/3 of DD/CR/BB/AC. Subs are good as well, they are fast and have better sight so are good scouts.

      All in all, just remember that there is no one strategy, mix and match under the right circumstances.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • I invest heavy in industry on day one. I'll pick one resource and build industry in a rural, non-boarder providence and in the city with that resource, I'll get the recruiting center up to level 2 on day one and then up to level three on day three. I'll build industry in the remainder of my cities day one. Then I'll typically focus on upgrading two industry a day and one or two recruiting centers. I'll get one up to level three before building another recruiting center and starting on another one. For recruiting centers, build them in cities first, then start on providences without resources. For industry there really is no rush, it won't have any impact until day change, so sometimes it's worth waiting to time constructions so it finishes just before day change. This way you have the resources on hand in the event you get rushed by other players.

      If I'm starting a map by myself, I'll start slow focusing on having cruisers bombard a coastal AI neighbor and send a single infantry to occupy while I mass the remainder of my starting units defensively. Day two is often either more AI, an inactive player, or planning a massive day three offensive. If I'm starting with partners, I'll be more aggressive with other players. However, I have a strong preference to wait for offensive units before going on offense. I try to expand without taking casualties. If you need to pause to rebuild, that's time you could be expanding; slow and steady wins the race.

      My naval strategy is the same, regardless of doctrine. I focus on cruisers, keep them upgraded and build as many as possible with destroyer escorts; typically about a 5/2 ratio. Subs and aircraft carriers are situational. I ignore battleships altogether.

      I really only play Pan Asia and Comintern. For land units, I focus on scouts, arty and defensive units to protect it. For Pan Asian, I just focus on the starting/early units, arty, rocket arty, infantry, and AT; I'll also use ACs to scout and grab undefended terrain. I'll give arty and AT research priority so I can hit hard and move fast. I'll also use bombers to clear small stacks out of my ACs way and provide air cover and direct ground stacks at larger stacks. I'll rely on interceptors for air superiority and regular infantry have some AA, especially with the right terrain. For Comintern, I'll build mobile units focusing on SP rocket arty, SP arty, TDs, ACs, and SPAA. I'm recently experimenting with skipping building air altogether with Comintern and it works rather well. However, there is a weak spot around day 6-7 since you don't get SPAA until day six, you really have to be careful not to engage an air player in this window.

      With both doctrines, I find a niche for militia as well. I like to use them as slow scouts. I move them into place leading up to an invasion into boarder providences. Once I declare war, I take any undefended providences before sending my main unit through; this way they move that much faster. The militia can then be moved into place just off a providence center so if you need to bombard and retreat you can use the militia to retake the providence after the enemy has passed. This will allow you to keep the favorable movement rate of owning the providence. It doesn't work on plains, but otherwise is a very effective strategy.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by 6thDragon ().

    • Wow. For 90%, I could have written that.
      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.

    • Yeah, that's not bad.

      One thing I would disagree with is the exclusion of battleships. If you're active during your naval battles or fight players who are active, then a battleship group can shoot-and-scoot out of range of a cruiser group. The cruisers will eventually get worn down. It's like railroad guns versus regular artillery. Same tactics, same results. Range is king.

      The use of militia is spot on. I never thought of doing that (step aside, let the enemy pass, retake the province). That works as long as the enemy is not using armored cars or motorized infantry. Their scouting powers will reveal the militia and other hidden units.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Yeah, that's not bad.

      One thing I would disagree with is the exclusion of battleships. If you're active during your naval battles or fight players who are active, then a battleship group can shoot-and-scoot out of range of a cruiser group. The cruisers will eventually get worn down. It's like railroad guns versus regular artillery. Same tactics, same results. Range is king.

      The use of militia is spot on. I never thought of doing that (step aside, let the enemy pass, retake the province). That works as long as the enemy is not using armored cars or motorized infantry. Their scouting powers will reveal the militia and other hidden units.
      Honestly my fear of battleships is more getting caught when I'm offline...I do sleep occasionally. In that situation battleships could do considerable damage to me. To your point, range is king...or can be.

      Your ability to shoot-and-scoot with battleships will be very situational. Remember cruisers are significantly faster. You would have a better chance of pulling this off with Pan Asian due to their speed advantage. I wouldn't try that with Allied because of their speed penalty. Comintern may be tricky because of the delayed battleship upgrades. You would also have the best success with this in the early game. When I focus on cruisers, it's easy to keep them upgraded because of the research time and resources I save by ignoring battleships. When I'm playing as Pan Asian, you wouldn't have a prayer. Upgraded Pan Asian cruisers are incredibly fast.

      I did have a player try this shoot-and-scoot tactic against me once. I had a memorable encounter around day three/four, me as Pakistan (Comintern) against Burma (Pan Asian). What I did was separate my cruisers from my destroyers and forced march. He responded with a forced march of his own, but my destroyers were able to catch him and lock him in melee for long enough for my cruisers to do the same. I didn't win that fight, he had other partners join the fight was well. I had four members of an alliance coming at me in the early game, each of them had win rates over 50%...you can't win that. I consider locking him in combat enough of a success, but I'd like to test that response again under better circumstances.

      My favorite naval tactic when taking cruiser/destroyer fleets up against fleets that are a broader mix of ships is to let them bombard me in battleship range, close to cruiser range and bombard them. As it's time for them to bombard again, retreat to battleship range, then repeat. That way only their battleships hit you. Unless they are very active and micromanage their stacks to separate the cruisers before the battleships fire, the cruisers won't be able to fire on their own for 30 minutes because they were part of the stack that already fired. It's a very effective tactic. It turns their other ships into little more than extra HP.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      I do sleep occasionally.
      This strikes fear into the soul of all decent human beings. 6thDragon has ascended the pillars of humanity and become superhuman, only needing to sleep "occasionally", which most likely means that he only sleeps once a week. He will never rest, until all of his enemies lay defeated on the battlefield. The name "6thDragon" will forever be seen in the history books.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Depends on the doctrine.

      [...]

      Pan-Asian: [...] For navy you can go overboard. You get Day 1 research for all ships, and Battleships are good. You don't have to use Cruisers if you are active, just keep Carriers with Ints instead. Good fleet combinations are a 4/3/5/3 of DD/CR/BB/AC. Subs are good as well, they are fast and have better sight so are good scouts.
      Bit of an old thread but why are you putting battleships and carriers in the same fleet? I mean, carriers are much faster than battleships, and engage from distances of hundreds of kilometres. This optimises them for the spearhead of the fleet and for transoceanic power projection. Battleships are a lot slower, and engage far closer in, making them useful closer to home, within shortish distance of coasts (e.g. in the Med or west of the Island Chains; if playing as Japan, they'd be best in the Philippines, Japan Sea, or off Kamchatka), preferably semi-defensively or for offensive short-range attacks, where carriers can't usefully operate. Russia found this out the hard way at Tsushima, America at Pearl Harbour, and Japan in Leyte Gulf.
      Do you have experience of this actually working well? I have doubts as to the viability but if it works an explanation might be useful :D
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

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

    • I don't think battleships are particularly suited to be defensive ships; in fact I think they are like the bombers in your air force. They excel at shore bombardment of buildings and ground troops; when you're ONLY interested in fighting naval battles, there are much better options available. They are the units which cash in your prize AFTER you have secured naval superiority, when you can terrorize the industries of coastal cities or destroy defending armies in a landing zone. Those are offensive role, and when you hold them back for defensive duties against enemy fleets I think you are waisting their potential.
      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.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I don't think battleships are particularly suited to be defensive ships; in fact I think they are like the bombers in your air force. They excel at shore bombardment of buildings and ground troops; when you're ONLY interested in fighting naval battles, there are much better options available. They are the units which cash in your prize AFTER you have secured naval superiority, when you can terrorize the industries of coastal cities or destroy defending armies in a landing zone. Those are offensive role, and when you hold them back for defensive duties against enemy fleets I think you are waisting their potential.
      I think I would agree that bat leships are best used offensively, or at least aggressively, but I don't agree that their primary use is for bombardment in already-controlled waters.

      Using them purely defensively is wasteful; what I meant was that because of their slow speed and short attack range, battleships seem put to better use near land. This is where the enemy battlefleet, other ships, and shore targets will usually be, and where the carrier's great advantage is negated. Shorter range is not necessarily defensive; e.g. the Grand Fleet aggressively hunting down the Hochseeflotte in confinement of the North Sea. On the other hand, battleships are also well used to intercept such a force of opposing ships, which is defensive but aggressive in that it aims to gain sea power.
      On the other hand, carriers make a better vanguard to the fleet and are excellent far out into the ocean, away from land-based planes (except during amphibious ops).

      While they excel at it, coastal bombardment is only the BB's secondary function. I think especially if they're decent battleships this is a bit wasteful. I'd say battleships' (and carriers') primary role is to gain command of the sea through the incapacitation of all the enemy's battleships or carriers. Once they've done this, they can be used to exploit command, e.g. by bombarding coastline or picking out smaller vessels. Same goes for carriers. Navy-wise, this is not an offensive role so much as a clean-up. If you can do it, you've clearly done all the offensive work you need.

      But anyway, my point was — carriers and battleships should not be stacked. They have different strengths that aren't very compatible.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Depends on the doctrine.

      [...]

      Pan-Asian: [...] For navy you can go overboard. You get Day 1 research for all ships, and Battleships are good. You don't have to use Cruisers if you are active, just keep Carriers with Ints instead. Good fleet combinations are a 4/3/5/3 of DD/CR/BB/AC. Subs are good as well, they are fast and have better sight so are good scouts.
      Bit of an old thread but why are you putting battleships and carriers in the same fleet? I mean, carriers are much faster than battleships, and engage from distances of hundreds of kilometres. This optimises them for the spearhead of the fleet and for transoceanic power projection. Battleships are a lot slower, and engage far closer in, making them useful closer to home, within shortish distance of coasts (e.g. in the Med or west of the Island Chains; if playing as Japan, they'd be best in the Philippines, Japan Sea, or off Kamchatka), preferably semi-defensively or for offensive short-range attacks, where carriers can't usefully operate. Russia found this out the hard way at Tsushima, America at Pearl Harbour, and Japan in Leyte Gulf.Do you have experience of this actually working well? I have doubts as to the viability but if it works an explanation might be useful :D
      I think sipped is same
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Yeah, that's not bad.

      One thing I would disagree with is the exclusion of battleships. If you're active during your naval battles or fight players who are active, then a battleship group can shoot-and-scoot out of range of a cruiser group. The cruisers will eventually get worn down. It's like railroad guns versus regular artillery. Same tactics, same results. Range is king.

      The use of militia is spot on. I never thought of doing that (step aside, let the enemy pass, retake the province). That works as long as the enemy is not using armored cars or motorized infantry. Their scouting powers will reveal the militia and other hidden units.
      yes and militia is capped at level 4 so endgame it will always be detected, but for comitern the militia are extremely strong and cheap powerhouse which can be build quickly in places of need

    • Gen. Smit wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      Yeah, that's not bad.

      One thing I would disagree with is the exclusion of battleships. If you're active during your naval battles or fight players who are active, then a battleship group can shoot-and-scoot out of range of a cruiser group. The cruisers will eventually get worn down. It's like railroad guns versus regular artillery. Same tactics, same results. Range is king.

      The use of militia is spot on. I never thought of doing that (step aside, let the enemy pass, retake the province). That works as long as the enemy is not using armored cars or motorized infantry. Their scouting powers will reveal the militia and other hidden units.
      yes and militia is capped at level 4 so endgame it will always be detected, but for comitern the militia are extremely strong and cheap powerhouse which can be build quickly in places of need
      Militia is still far ahead of commandos for stealth. For Comintern for example, you can have lvl 4 militia on day 12, but need to wait until day 20 for lvl 4 commandos. Odd how commandos are not as advanced at stealth compared to militia. I'll concede that commandos have stealth on planes and militia does not, but other than that from a stealth perspective, militia are better.

    • In terms of stealth, yes. The thing about commandos is they are good at attacking light armor. Militia are good at defending against infantry. It's a bit like comparing an LT (for attacking light armor) to an AC (for defending against infantry).

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      In terms of stealth, yes. The thing about commandos is they are good at attacking light armor. Militia are good at defending against infantry. It's a bit like comparing an LT (for attacking light armor) to an AC (for defending against infantry).
      A stack of 10 lvl4 militia is cheap stealthy up to a certain time, and formidable in power, the last tier is really golden. Sure, not similar to 10 commando's but the price is different, and although used primarily for defense in mountains forest and eventually hills and cities, they can in case of need deliver a final blow "swiftly". They could beat a tank from the same timestamp in 1-2 turns coming out of the "blue". to put them in fortified places with some AA and AT as company, only (rocket) artillery can beat that, and with that as a backup among your stack it becomes difficult for the enemy to beat such a place, you better find a way around it.

      But yeah I prefer to use them for defense ofcourse.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Gen. Smit ().

    • I just love how all of you have different strategies/ Now thats fun.

      I have favorites stacks as well, but I like to innovate and try different combos. Some with surprising results, sometimes duds lol
      One definitely should adapt any formations and builds to obviously terrain, objectives and comfort with unit knowledge.
      Ive seen players use certain units very well, and if they are very comfortable with a certain unit, can sometimes be a masterful challenge.
      Definitely control of the skies plays a part, as well as the sea.
      I have also played a game of mostly defense for giggles, and I actually REALLY enjoyed that.
      Will be looking into doing that again. Try it, its really fun haha

      I had made Fortress Italy. With Naval defense and air, long range artillery (railroad). What a great game.

      Cheers all

    • Turtle strategy :)

      That can work, but if the enemy knows how to use strategic bombers, they can cripple your economy and take out your airfields. Then the turtle is in trouble.

      The best defense is space. Distance buys time and neutralizes many weapons.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      I invest heavy in industry on day one. I'll pick one resource and build industry in a rural, non-boarder providence and in the city with that resource, I'll get the recruiting center up to level 2 on day one and then up to level three on day three. I'll build industry in the remainder of my cities day one. Then I'll typically focus on upgrading two industry a day and one or two recruiting centers. I'll get one up to level three before building another recruiting center and starting on another one. For recruiting centers, build them in cities first, then start on providences without resources. For industry there really is no rush, it won't have any impact until day change, so sometimes it's worth waiting to time constructions so it finishes just before day change. This way you have the resources on hand in the event you get rushed by other players.

      If I'm starting a map by myself, I'll start slow focusing on having cruisers bombard a coastal AI neighbor and send a single infantry to occupy while I mass the remainder of my starting units defensively. Day two is often either more AI, an inactive player, or planning a massive day three offensive. If I'm starting with partners, I'll be more aggressive with other players. However, I have a strong preference to wait for offensive units before going on offense. I try to expand without taking casualties. If you need to pause to rebuild, that's time you could be expanding; slow and steady wins the race.

      My naval strategy is the same, regardless of doctrine. I focus on cruisers, keep them upgraded and build as many as possible with destroyer escorts; typically about a 5/2 ratio. Subs and aircraft carriers are situational. I ignore battleships altogether.

      I really only play Pan Asia and Comintern. For land units, I focus on scouts, arty and defensive units to protect it. For Pan Asian, I just focus on the starting/early units, arty, rocket arty, infantry, and AT; I'll also use ACs to scout and grab undefended terrain. I'll give arty and AT research priority so I can hit hard and move fast. I'll also use bombers to clear small stacks out of my ACs way and provide air cover and direct ground stacks at larger stacks. I'll rely on interceptors for air superiority and regular infantry have some AA, especially with the right terrain. For Comintern, I'll build mobile units focusing on SP rocket arty, SP arty, TDs, ACs, and SPAA. I'm recently experimenting with skipping building air altogether with Comintern and it works rather well. However, there is a weak spot around day 6-7 since you don't get SPAA until day six, you really have to be careful not to engage an air player in this window.

      With both doctrines, I find a niche for militia as well. I like to use them as slow scouts. I move them into place leading up to an invasion into boarder providences. Once I declare war, I take any undefended providences before sending my main unit through; this way they move that much faster. The militia can then be moved into place just off a providence center so if you need to bombard and retreat you can use the militia to retake the providence after the enemy has passed. This will allow you to keep the favorable movement rate of owning the providence. It doesn't work on plains, but otherwise is a very effective strategy.
      A decent defensive tactic set.

      But its a good job you dont start next to me you'd get rolled before you even got your Industry to level 2. Whist I agree that building your industry is key long term its something that should be done gradually. The best players are those who are ultra aggressive and kill at least one human player every 24 hours. The best way to grow is to conquer. and as thats how you win any other strategy doesnt work for me.

      Cruisers are defo the way to go. Militia are nuisance troops that have little value, if you are going forward they are irrelevant.