The Best Units for Allies Doctrine?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Crayfish can i have a copy of that pdf or is it confidential

TheZhukov wrote:

Crayfish can i have a copy of that pdf or is it confidential

I must warn you though, it is based entirely on my fighting style and may not suit yours. It is optimised for pan-asian but may work for others.

pdf? Interesting………

ok great

would you mind letting me have a copy

i like to analyse doctrines

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.

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

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

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.

Don't get into artillery duels. That's a misuse of the unit.

Allies are painfully slow. They need motorized units more than other doctrines. SP Arty lets you wage war on large maps without losing your sanity in the process.

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.

Sewur wrote:

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?