I have a big land I thought firstly I should research Railguns to support my defenders while they are fighting in fortress I can escort with air guns to railgun but after this I have a problem If enemy has rockets and If I cant shot down them what will be ? then can we say railguns useless ??
I thought them cos I use planes always but I need 5-6 hours to transport them BİG BİG LAND about 1200 points railguns can defend my important areas while my planes are fighting for another region
what is the idea for players about railguns ??
Please log in to post a reply.
Or not having a navy when you launch a naval invasion.RBoi200 wrote:
or not having planeswhowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
Then it isn't a naval invasion!!!vietcong2005 wrote:
Or not having a navy when you launch a naval invasion.RBoi200 wrote:
or not having planeswhowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
my last game where i test the new strat bomber make me realised ppl without interceptor are now very very vulnerable,Chimere wrote:
Not having planes is very viable if you load up on AA and are disciplined with putting them in all their stacks.
i basically destroy my enemy economy and he was unable to raise more troops to fight me.
1. Don't use Strat bombers
2. Use tactical and attack bombers more.
Trust me, after the last update they are monsters, the only reason for not use them it's bcuz it's More important capture the buildings rather than destroy them.vietcong2005 wrote:
1. Don't use Strat bombers2. Use tactical and attack bombers more.
Exactly. That's why I don't use them. I want to keep my buildings intact. Especially in 1.0 where you have to build an industrial complex.
I find once my empire gets to a certain size, I can't defend my borders without planes.Chimere wrote:
Not having planes is very viable if you load up on AA and are disciplined with putting them in all their stacks.
You are right and I had exaggerated my point ; let me qualify. You can grow and beat your opponent up to mid-game without planes. You can win in smaller maps (European maps) without planes too. For end game, indeed, their capacity to move from one part of your empire to another is absolutely critical.OldPotatoes wrote:
I find once my empire gets to a certain size, I can't defend my borders without planes.Chimere wrote:
Not having planes is very viable if you load up on AA and are disciplined with putting them in all their stacks.
What I find interesting is that while plains aren't necessary here, their power can be overwhelming in many ways.Chimere wrote:
You can win in smaller maps (European maps) without planes too
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?
Planes are 100 times better than arty, arty is uselessPablo22510 wrote:
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?
Planes are weaker than they used to be, and their counter (AA) more efficient.Pablo22510 wrote:
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?
I don't think artillery was ever useless though.
It is useless, people just rush them over before they do any considerable damage.Chimere wrote:
Planed are weaker than they used to be, and their counter (AA) more efficient.I don't think artillery was ever useless though.Pablo22510 wrote:
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
Comrade genz wrote:
Planes are 100 times better than arty, arty is uselessPablo22510 wrote:
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
Lmao, seems like you guys disagree. But I will agree to a certain degree with Chimere here: it does seem like people are producing more and more AA, whereas before nobody would do that. Tac bombers were OP back in the day. Guess they've been nerfed.Chimere wrote:
Planed are weaker than they used to be, and their counter (AA) more efficient.I don't think artillery was ever useless though.Pablo22510 wrote:
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
On the other hand, I don't know how long you've been playing, Chimere, but let me assure you that back in 2016/2017 nobody produced artillery. It was useless.
@Pablo22510 : I actually started in 2017, and indeed back then tactical bombers killed everything (there was a nerf done within 1.0, before the 1.0 => 1.5 nerf) ; I don't quite remember if I used artillery back then - maybe against AI which was particularly static by then too.
You are not exactly a player with a reputation for knowing how to play or actually winning stuff thoughComrade genz wrote:
It is useless, people just rush them over before they do any considerable damage.Chimere wrote:
Planed are weaker than they used to be, and their counter (AA) more efficient.I don't think artillery was ever useless though.Pablo22510 wrote:
Given that we've revived a 5 year old post, I thought I'd ask about this, which really shocked me. Is having artillery now considered crucial?I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?whowh wrote:
I'm just laughing at the posts of everyone above. Nowadays not having arties is like posting in the newspaper "Everyone plz attack me!!!!!!!"
. You can't rush them if there are troops in front of the arty, and SP-Arty can evade too.Yeah i didnt read any of that.
But Railguns for me are useful! They were the MAIN factor in my first solo win. Crushed the Chinese 3rd offensive with em.
On 1.5 matches every Unit could be useful.
The diferent armor types and units being a hard counter of specific armor makes every Unit useful in the right situation.
But 1.0 Is still the same after all these years, just go for Tac bombers lol
This post is so full of noobs claiming bullshits.. now i understand why my K/D skyrocket from 3.5 to 5.. nowdays i meet ppl like you with no artillery and just a bunch of stupid units and same tacs. they loose all their troops without dealing a single damage on me. so yeah artillery is useless keep the bad play up
The way in which arties are used is also different from what you would think. Arties are more attached to stacks as assistance as opposed to the main purpose. You don't order a stack to bombard you order it to move somewhere and the arties provide support. By combining SParties and HC fire control, huge stacks of SPARTIES can be moved around the map and bombard anything they encounter.Pablo22510 wrote:
I started playing this game again now after years of not doing so, and in one of my games everybody seems to have artillery. Yet back in the day artillery was useless, as far as I can recall. Isn't it just better to have planes?
Please log in to post a reply.
