Call of War: Field Manual - General Strategy and Tactics - Operational Manual

I twas poked.

IISpikeII wrote:

StrangeTalent wrote:

I believe Czar has left the game.

That's too bad to hear. Hate to see him go. Nevertheless someone should create a new manual, someone who's very knowledgeable of the game like @Pablo22510 and others. I've always stared in awe how some players accumulate 200+ units by Day 20, when I can't even make it past 100 without fully exhausting my resources and having all core provinces upgraded fully.

Careful resource management and committing yourself to a partial buildup helps a bit.

A mixture between:

*Hitting AI/Player capitals

*Buying up the Stock Market when the game starts, and checking after each day change/Etc when the AI dumps resources.

*Trading with other players(Optional).

*Not wasting existing units in suicidal attacks.

*Do not build additional infantry in most situations(Except for the first day build for the extra units. Sometimes.). Focus unit production into:

-Land: Armored Cars, Light Tanks. If you feel like it, Commandoes. Those units pack a bigger punch than the statistics show - When used properly.

-Naval: Destroyer spam. Cruisers are to be avoided. Submarines from all accounts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are going to recieve further nerfs. Battleships are still giant debris piles. Carriers, as mobile airbases, are theoretically worthless on all maps save for world. You have enough time/space to build and utilize airbases on the smaller maps. No need to build debris piles. Cruisers are still jack of two trades, crap at both.

-Air: Tactical/Interceptor.

The rough guidelines are still the same as since when the game first came out. Submarines have simply been traded out for Destroyers due to nerfs and bug reasons. A lot of new land units, but most competitive games will be over before you actually get to build them, or need them. In certain situations A.A or A.T may apply. (A.T can make fun offensive weapons, provided you have other units.). Focus on speed, chaos, and concentrated firepower. Tacs will do a lot of the heavy work before your land units move in, and though they have been nerfed, they are still strong. Arty are to meh.

As stated above, the rough guidelines / The triangle is still the same as when the game first came out.

*You still have the triangle presented above.

*You simply have more useless, worthless units.

*You have roughly the same amount of situational units(Build only in certain situations.) (Such as carriers. As far as I see, they would only be useful on the World Map - Later on in the game. or isle hop and build airbases. They aren't exactly as great as they look.)

The next competitie aspect of the game that people are ignoring are spy bombing, as well as building forts. I have looked into some competitive games where the sides built forts, spy bombed each other to try to avoid, and then to a light AC rush / Try to spam arty fast and end the game early. Or settle into the long game of Tanks/Massive blobs/Etc.

Naturally, the formula of what works and doesn't work in the game is still the same. You simply have the illusion of more choices. Their are also a lot of exploits/Bugs, but naturally, those are best left to be figured out by yourself. In regards to other things, their have been a lot of small Micro-Adjustments...Some things relating to morale/The X-Factor, but since they are in a constant flux, the best you can do is use the basics/What you know + Intuition and experience.

-Czar

Lol, @CzarHellios. Been so long since I last saw you, I was starting to think you were no longer a mod.

CzarHellios wrote:

-Naval: Destroyer spam. Cruisers are to be avoided. Submarines from all accounts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are going to recieve further nerfs. Battleships are still giant debris piles.

Paramunac wrote:

That doesn't seem smart. If you propose destroyer spam, what will stop enemies to do submarine spam with support consitiong of battleships? Subs will hold destroyers while battleship kill them from distance. Easy victory for sub spammer, especially if he positions himself good.

-The last time I played, Submarines were nerfed to the point where they could not kill Convoys even in small numbers, or Destroyers. And they have been nerfed even more since then, and they are going to be nerfed even more.

-Battleships are floating debris piles.

The more resources you put into Battleships, means the less you can put into other units. Naval units are a means to a end - Your goal is to obtain Victory Points. Which only comes if you have land control. Which naval units do not contribute to gaining by themselves.

A person building Subs/Battleships from game start will either have a weaker airforce, less of a land force, or along those lines. Which removes his ability to expand as fast against AI or players, defend, or even win the game. He will furthermore be unable to build enough to counter a massive spam of Destroyers. Every Battleship lost early game will be a grave blow, compared to easily spammable, easily replaceable units. Which furthermore, by building more Battleships, drains more resources away from building Air units, tanks, or anything for that matter. The Destroyers can easily be replaced. The Submarines will not serve as a meatshield towards the Battleships.

You simply proposed to send Submarines, which have been nerfed to kingdom come against Destroyers, the unit built to kill them. - With limited Battleship support, which will easily be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of Destroyers. If we take into account a big stack of Destroyers and how much damage they will do per hour of combat, the Battleships will simply die. Fast.

Furthermore, you also have to look at this another way: For the majority of all the maps(22, 10, etc), once naval control has been achieved(And it does not even have to be achieved - Merely enough land units in reserve to defend the coastline, or submarines, or tactical bombers) - Those Naval units by themselves are no longer useable. Battleships can be used for limited costal bombardment at best, but their are many, many other units which do a better job than Battleships at bombardment - And use a lot less resources(While giving you the chance to even build more of them - Aka, Tactical Bombers.)

In the competitive matches I have been in, even in the past, those that tried the reverse: Dessie/Battleship spam against Submarines, were easily killed by me. As well as by those that followed this rule of advice. Because we produced more Subs than they could spam BBs/Dessies. We produced more land units. And more air units. And we were capable of holding up a larger force as well.

It all comes together. The Naval portion of the game is quite, horrible and is of secondary concerns. In relation to the World Map, this same Doctrine can still be applied - Especially early game. Then while you expand, you can simply spam more units and overwhelm your opponents. Or if you want to, build some other stuff and have fun. I am chiefly concerned with what is most efficient, cost effective, and gives one the greatest chance of winning.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Lol, @CzarHellios. Been so long since I last saw you, I was starting to think you were no longer a mod.

Sort of. I just pop in every now and then whenever someone pokes me on Skype.

Well, subs are so weak as you say. They can still do fair ammount of damage do destroyers if better positioned. And as much destroyers enemy spams, more subs can be made against him. If you say that person who builds submarines from the start will have other types of army weaker, then same will apply for person who builds destroyers which are more expensive. Even now when subs are weaker than earlier, I think that they are still viable for early to mid game strategy and should be supported in later game with bigger ships and that would be a good navy composition.

As I stated before, the naval aspect of this game is of secondary concerns. Cost-effective/How efficient is the way to go. As it stands, and as I have seen, and been informed last week, Submarines are no longer/Are soon going to be no longer viable. If the Submarines are made out of cardboard, they have been nerfed, and are going up against a unit that very easily kills them. Their you go. By better position, as it stands:

*Destroyers can go over Submarines and not engage in combat.

*Submarines can be set on a path to attack Destroyers, but go right through them.

*Destroyers can easily kill Submarines from a range, or in combat.

By position, their isn't much "Positioning" besides Destroyers bombarding them from a distance, or being in direct combat with them. In either, submarines die. Fast. In regards to Battleships(On the two main European maps, which most competitive games are held on), building them is simply not done. Ever. In a team game. Nor in a F.F.A. It seriously detracts from what land forces you can build. Forts, Tanks, Airbases, Industrial Complexes. Neither does this game exactly favour a "Mixed Naval approach." - Not with Core/Non-Cores, the Victory Points system, or any of that. Even if one loses Naval control on these maps, it isn't exactly that important unless that person is Britain or America.

Nor will it apply to both. One will be simply building a limited number of Destroyers while focusing everything else into ICS/Infrastructure/Army. Bigger army. Faster expansion. More resources gained. Repeat the cycle. The person building Battleships AND Submarines will either have to produce a extremely small amount in order to still build ICS/Infra/Build up his army, which will be completely and utterly ineffective...Or go all in, and not build up his infrastructure/Army. Which will kill that person later on. As he will be unable to replace lost units, maintain current production, and deal with the increasing amount of enemy units.

(And even in this situation, his navy, even if it could become bigger in the short term, is still at a severe disadvantage due to the weakness of Submarines. They are not guard units. They are not meatshields.)

Moving on, we must remember that the goal of the game is to win. To win, one must use the existing resources to increase your military potential, and actual military power. As the game is coded, Naval units will not actually, genuinely increase your military power - For that is reserved for Land/Air units, which have a actual effect on obtaining Victory Points, save in some situations. In which case, they are regulated to the status of potential: They can potentially become for durations of time elements of military power, usually in the early to middle game.

Granted, take into consideration the majority of competitive matches (Alliance matches), among the top alliances last for less than two weeks, sometimes more. Even in a F.F.A, time is of the utmost essense. You simply cannot replace the time it took to gain resources, to research a X unit, and then build X unit. It is spent time. Which you will never reclaim. And if you focus on having the biggest, most expensive navy in the game, well, congratulations. If you are a European power, you are going to die. Fast. If America or British, you'll last until a European power cleans up Europe, and then overwhelms you with sheer numbers. In which case, you have already lost by that point in time.

It simply is that naval power isn't that important in this game. It is glitchy, buggy, and it favours one unit spam. And it is just how the game was designed, like the game it was based on, SP1914. You do have slightly more unit variety, but Cruiesers are crap, Carriers are situational...Submarines have been nerfed and are getting more nerfs(+ the bugs and exploits), and Destroyers have been buffed, and are going to recieve even more buffs...While Battleships are just extremely expensive with to little to gain. If you are thinking about a "Mixed role force", remember that your force will be smaller, more limited, and utterly useless unless you can actually get troops on the land. Which naval units are not gurantee of.

We must also turn and look at what you said before, about "Positioning". Some is left to chance. Some to manuver, controlling the center of your opponent, feints. But do not say "Well I have Subs. This means I can hold him down while my Battleships kill him!" - Can your Battleships kill him fast enough? Will your Subs hold out long enough? Will spies interrupt your production? Can you replace your lost units? Can you withstand building these expensive units, and then get hit with spy attacks? Can you maintain land production and air unit production, while maintaining naval production long term? Will your submarines always hold the enemy down(Remember, their are a couple glitches - and exploits. And if one isn't exploiting to get past your Subs, the glitch will get them through most of the time.)

Worst of all, with the nerfs/Buffs, coming Nerfs/Buffs, multi Naval taskforces are simply not viable on the ten player, 22 player, or other maps. On the world map, perhaps a carrier or two, perhaps some once you are big enough to just build anything with at no real cost to you...But it simply is not viable as the most cost effective, most efficient game, method.

The multi-"Taskforce arguement" was the same when the game came out ,and I advocated for submarine spam. I was replied with, "I'll build Destroyers and Battleships!", which at the time, Destroyers were utter crap, and Battleships debris piles that died fast. "I'll build nothing but destroyers" - In which case, my submarines killed you.

In this case, since Destroyer spam is where the game is going right now, the replies are " Battleships! - They die. Easily. Nor are they as powerful as people think. - Submarine/BB spam! - Submarines are nerfed and die easily to Destroyers. Nor will they hold out long enough. Your Battleships won't kill the Dessies fast enough. And I'll have a bigger land and air army than you. So if your anybody else than Britain or America, you are one hundred percent screwed.

---

Looking at this a different way, anything other spam Submarine spam in the past was not viable. This was proven not only in theory, and in testing, but in actual competitive matches between the top alliances. And is currently being validated again with Destroyers. The theory is sound. The mathematics behind what I am saying, from what I understand and know presently, from the Developers themselves, is sound. And in actual testing and practice, it is sound.

CzarHellios wrote:

-The last time I played, Submarines were nerfed to the point where they could not kill Convoys even in small numbers, or Destroyers. And they have been nerfed even more since then, and they are going to be nerfed even more.

Pablo22510 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

-The last time I played, Submarines were nerfed to the point where they could not kill Convoys even in small numbers, or Destroyers. And they have been nerfed even more since then, and they are going to be nerfed even more.

Well, one of my convoys that had 18 troops in it just got wiped out by a sub, and the sub took no damage whatsoever.

That is a bit of a weird hit and miss. I recall in the last game I played, that submarines could actually die to Convoys. And I had quite a few people teling me on Skype that convoys looked as if they were buffed, while the Developers weakened Subs against Convoys. So eh. I find that interesting.

CzarHellios wrote:

That is a bit of a weird hit and miss. I recall in the last game I played, that submarines could actually die to Convoys. And I had quite a few people teling me on Skype that convoys looked as if they were buffed, while the Developers weakened Subs against Convoys. So eh. I find that interesting.

A topic Im looking foward too..

I was working on a small guide for tactics..

but yes I think we should update the guide..

I also would like to to see the wiki up and running again..

on that naval issue.. subs were nerfed too much..

and destroyers are not the only good naval unit.. I tend to just use BB and destroyers..

the range on the battleship can be useful, and destroyers and BB work well together..

you dont need cruisers as much..

Pablo22510 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

That is a bit of a weird hit and miss. I recall in the last game I played, that submarines could actually die to Convoys. And I had quite a few people teling me on Skype that convoys looked as if they were buffed, while the Developers weakened Subs against Convoys. So eh. I find that interesting.

What I find ridiculous is the infantry and tanks AA values. No sense having an air force.

miech wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

That is a bit of a weird hit and miss. I recall in the last game I played, that submarines could actually die to Convoys. And I had quite a few people teling me on Skype that convoys looked as if they were buffed, while the Developers weakened Subs against Convoys. So eh. I find that interesting.

What I find ridiculous is the infantry and tanks AA values. No sense having an air force.

You are kidding right? AP, especially tacs, are huge OP instruments of destruction. Army with 50 armor vs army with 10 tacs and say 10 armor? My money is on the second army still standing (limping though) after the fight.

all units AA power is too much, besides the units made for AA..

like pablo said..

oceanhawk wrote:

A topic Im looking foward too..

I was working on a small guide for tactics..

but yes I think we should update the guide..

I also would like to to see the wiki up and running again..

on that naval issue.. subs were nerfed too much..

and destroyers are not the only good naval unit.. I tend to just use BB and destroyers..

the range on the battleship can be useful, and destroyers and BB work well together..

you dont need cruisers as much..

miech wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

That is a bit of a weird hit and miss. I recall in the last game I played, that submarines could actually die to Convoys. And I had quite a few people teling me on Skype that convoys looked as if they were buffed, while the Developers weakened Subs against Convoys. So eh. I find that interesting.

What I find ridiculous is the infantry and tanks AA values. No sense having an air force.

You are kidding right? AP, especially tacs, are huge OP instruments of destruction. Army with 50 armor vs army with 10 tacs and say 10 armor? My money is on the second army still standing (limping though) after the fight.

To Mr.Miech:

All of my money is on the second stack. As well as everything I own. And everything everyone else owns.

To Mr.Pablo:

I recall stating not only in this Field Manual, but throughout the forums that for Tactical Bombers to be efficient, you require more than four. Seven to nine at bare minimum. Anything to small will be ripped apart. You have to have enough so that they can soak up damage/Distribute damage throughout the entire stack, and enough to deal a great amount of damage per hour. The A.A values of infantry are practically nonexistent, and A.A is itself completely useless unless it is in extremely high numbers.

The natural counter to Tacical Stacks is a extremely big blob. Not only made up of A.A, but of every unit together. Plus even your own Interceptors. Hence why I have recommended the build up strategy mentioned in this Field Manual. - Enough so you can spam Tacs, produce cheap light land units, and a cheap navy.

In Supremacy 1914, the two main units of combat are: Artillery and Armored Cars. (Armored Car spam as far as I have seen, have become a norm of competitive Alliance play.) For CoW, it is usually Light Tanks, and Tactical Bombers. Their range is massive, and even though they have been nerfed multiple times, they can still easily kill most units on the map. Including A.A. If you are only sending four Tacs, that is your problem. You do not have enough. Anything of 3-4 will die if sent out. The only reason you would send them out in small numbers are to pick off lone infantry/AC units rampaging.

Now, it also depends on how you are sending out the Tacs. Patrol or direct attack? Are you manually clicking attack before every combat hour? Are they in a group, or lone packs? Interceptor meatshieldsHorribily inefficent/Worthless though.) - Are the enemy infantry in a fort, or alone? Moving, or in combat?

The interesting thing is, once you get up to Ten Tacs in a stack - Whatever statistics you would think apply, don't. Tacs become instant death from above (DFA's).

Pro Anti Air defense usually involves massive blobs of your own, your own Air-Force, and or even Forts. Though Tacts can do fun fort busting things.

Moving on, to Mr.Ocean:

Cruisers are absolute and utter garbage. Simply because they can attack on land does not mean they are efficient or good for the job. Cruisers will fail against any other unit in the game, and I have, as of the last time I played, scene even a convoy kill a Cruiser. AS well as air spam. And Submarines. And Destroyers. And Battleships. If at all you do believe Cruisers can somehow be good against Submarines(Though Cruisers are a Dessie/Battleship mix, and good at neither, but can do somewhat of both), then naturally Destroyers would be the better...Since they actually can kill them. And any bonus by hitting land is meaningless due to actual statistics, and what even the role of a Navy is. Which is to protect coastlines, negate American/British involvement, etc.

CzarHellios wrote:

I recall stating not only in this Field Manual, but throughout the forums that for Tactical Bombers to be efficient, you require more than four. Seven to nine at bare minimum. Anything to small will be ripped apart. You have to have enough so that they can soak up damage/Distribute damage throughout the entire stack, and enough to deal a great amount of damage per hour. The A.A values of infantry are practically nonexistent, and A.A is itself completely useless unless it is in extremely high numbers.

CzarHellios wrote:

To Mr.Miech:

All of my money is on the second stack. As well as everything I own. And everything everyone else owns.

To Mr.Pablo:

I recall stating not only in this Field Manual, but throughout the forums that for Tactical Bombers to be efficient, you require more than four. Seven to nine at bare minimum. Anything to small will be ripped apart. You have to have enough so that they can soak up damage/Distribute damage throughout the entire stack, and enough to deal a great amount of damage per hour. The A.A values of infantry are practically nonexistent, and A.A is itself completely useless unless it is in extremely high numbers.

The natural counter to Tacical Stacks is a extremely big blob. Not only made up of A.A, but of every unit together. Plus even your own Interceptors. Hence why I have recommended the build up strategy mentioned in this Field Manual. - Enough so you can spam Tacs, produce cheap light land units, and a cheap navy.

In Supremacy 1914, the two main units of combat are: Artillery and Armored Cars. (Armored Car spam as far as I have seen, have become a norm of competitive Alliance play.) For CoW, it is usually Light Tanks, and Tactical Bombers. Their range is massive, and even though they have been nerfed multiple times, they can still easily kill most units on the map. Including A.A. If you are only sending four Tacs, that is your problem. You do not have enough. Anything of 3-4 will die if sent out. The only reason you would send them out in small numbers are to pick off lone infantry/AC units rampaging.

Now, it also depends on how you are sending out the Tacs. Patrol or direct attack? Are you manually clicking attack before every combat hour? Are they in a group, or lone packs? Interceptor meatshieldsHorribily inefficent/Worthless though.) - Are the enemy infantry in a fort, or alone? Moving, or in combat?

The interesting thing is, once you get up to Ten Tacs in a stack - Whatever statistics you would think apply, don't. Tacs become instant death from above (DFA's).

Pro Anti Air defense usually involves massive blobs of your own, your own Air-Force, and or even Forts. Though Tacts can do fun fort busting things.

Moving on, to Mr.Ocean:

Cruisers are absolute and utter garbage. Simply because they can attack on land does not mean they are efficient or good for the job. Cruisers will fail against any other unit in the game, and I have, as of the last time I played, scene even a convoy kill a Cruiser. AS well as air spam. And Submarines. And Destroyers. And Battleships. If at all you do believe Cruisers can somehow be good against Submarines(Though Cruisers are a Dessie/Battleship mix, and good at neither, but can do somewhat of both), then naturally Destroyers would be the better...Since they actually can kill them. And any bonus by hitting land is meaningless due to actual statistics, and what even the role of a Navy is. Which is to protect coastlines, negate American/British involvement, etc.

I never said they were good cos they can attack land..

that was mr wilson...

Farewell.

@CzarHellios:

What is better? Manual attack or patrol? How can you tell when a "combat hour" has passed?

IISpikeII wrote:

@CzarHellios:

What is better? Manual attack or patrol? How can you tell when a "combat hour" has passed?

with the new tic toc measurement, it will tell you when the next attack is..

my view, I know you asked Czar, but just thought I might be some help