Unbalanced game

I'd hope so.

nope

_Pontus_ wrote:

getting back to the complaint this started with: that battle defending the level 5 fort cannot ever - under no circumstance - have been lost, unless:

- significant differences in weaponry level development existed in advantage of the attacker

- significant moral differences existed in advantage of the attacker

And probably both would have to be the case simultaneously....

If that was not the case, the defender must have missed artillery support and/or air support to the attack.

But as the story was written, it simply cannot have happened.

The only one missleading here is you

Btw the problems the topis is about is still in the game , until it has been fixed the topic is viable and discussion should continue .

Dng. One of my favourite and most knowledgeable posters; Vigor555 has left this lively and i found very informative chat on the differences and usages of AT versus LT.

Indeed the technical contributions of some real good players were very helpful. (my special thanks to Azazel!)

Ofc, my post before this one was nothing but an obvious 'tongue in cheek' provocation, to see if it was still alive

However useful this thread has been, would it be a good idea to start a 'Game-play' thread, specifically to address game-play, use of units and exchange other info?

I have tons of things I would like to discuss, i.e. optimal group sizes, mixes of units, the infamous 'distance to capital' and solutions (I see no effect whatsoever of placing airfields, for instance) etc.

I do suspect the real pro's will not divulge their deep secrets, but that would also not be the aim. If together we can improve the level of play of ourselves and others, likely more people will enjoy the game more and thus stay in the game and their maps.

I agree Pontus. I am an Olde War Gamer of 40 yrs from the pencil and paper days at Texas A&M in the mid 70's. As a wargamer i have always enjoyed learning and mastering new genres and wargames. Many War Gamers actively recruited and taught new comers the games we played so that we would have more war gamers to play against and have a better class of player by teaching them how to play the game well. I have several threads i have endeavoured to share what little i have learned in this game so far. One is ; "How to play on 6 or more maps & the other one is: What i have learned in my 24 days. A wikipedia site could be set up perhaps for all to visit and contribute. What you think? Would need someone with your lvl of expertise in CoW to week out the bad comments or tips. It could be useful. Another option is for the mods; to use their text control skills to collect all the useful threads together from actual CoW players in one place; like the Manual.

As a point in case to how effective AT can be:

My major game at the moment I'm playing as South West Africa on a world map. Someone who has an obsessive fetish for Light Tanks has decided to invade me, hoping for a weak target. I pumped out some bombers, to pick off stragglers, and slow down their advance. I pumped out some Tank Destroyers to be able to meet some of their larger stacks head on and to force a halt to their advance in key positions.

Having slowed down, even started to turn back their advance, I've been mass producing AT's at a nice and healthily rapid pace whilst I hold them off and push back in certain areas. This player at the start of this war had just over 190 units. About 140 of them were all light tanks. They had about 15 fighters, and a scattering of AT and Infantry. But Light Tanks for days and days.

How did they invade? A wall of light tanks. Almost every single province stretching the width of africa (only a few to one side not controlled by either myself or him), streaming down, with a wave that are force marching, with a second wave behind them, and reinforcement Light Tanks coming from behind them. So three waves of almost nothing but Light Tanks. It was quite a sight I'll admit. However, because Anti-Tanks produce faster than Light Tanks, and on the defensive are considerably superior, all I have to do is hold him off, pick his tanks off with bombers one at a time as he uses them to scout, and produce AT.

By doing so, I can create my own wall of units, and gradually, point by point, step by step, simply push back. All I have to do is take it nice and slow, forcing him to either have to retreat or attack my stacks. I don't need to attack, because so long as I bring my AT into range of sight, because he has almost no air-force, I can simply use bombers to run his tanks into the ground, then push my AT forward a little further. He can't pull his stacks to the ocean and invade me from the side, because I've got a navy and he doesn't. I've already got his ports covered, so there's no point in him trying to produce a navy now, because they'll just be chewed up. Any transports he sends will get sunk.

It's AT's that allow this gradual wearing down of his army. Any other unit, Infantry, Light Tanks, Armoured Cars, whatever, would either take too long to produce, or would not have what it takes to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Light Tanks. This is why in their role, used appropriately to counter the appropriate unit, AT's are actually incredibly effective. Especially against Light Tank spammers. Better yet, if I didn't have Bombers or couldn't afford to produce them, I could produce Artillery in tandem with the AT's, use a duel-stack of AT's and Artillery, and simply slowly march my way forward, firing on his stacks from a defensive range position. Which again, would wear them down until either he chose to retreat, or attack. Either way, despite his Blitzkrieg, despite his overwhelming numbers, despite his much larger initial force (by that I mean he had over 4 times the starting military in this war that I did, his near 200, my roughly 50), his lost this war before he even began it, purely and simply because of his drastic reliance on a single unit.

This war will simply reinforce my belief in Anti-Tank units, and will reinforce my opinion that anyone who says that Light Tanks are OP or that AT is weak and useless, have absolutely no clue about what they're talking about.

So Orkhepaj, you're entitled to your opinion, however I will state that in my opinion and experience, your opinion is based upon a bias dislike of one unit, and a bias over estimation of another unit, with a great deal of missing or overlooked information to support said opinion. By extension, I'm afraid that this makes your opinion, whilst your own, and whilst you're entitled to it, misleading towards anyone looking for a deeper understanding of the games mechanics and of stratagy.

By the way, thanks Pontus.

One of the best strategy guides involving tanks and AT's that i have seen. Very erudite and well thought out strategy and your explanation of your tactics and strategy were crystal clear. Thanks for sharing. I learned alot from this post....*bows*...

~Azazel~ wrote:

As a point in case to how effective AT can be:

My major game at the moment I'm playing as South West Africa on a world map. Someone who has an obsessive fetish for Light Tanks has decided to invade me, hoping for a weak target. I pumped out some bombers, to pick off stragglers, and slow down their advance. I pumped out some Tank Destroyers to be able to meet some of their larger stacks head on and to force a halt to their advance in key positions.

Having slowed down, even started to turn back their advance, I've been mass producing AT's at a nice and healthily rapid pace whilst I hold them off and push back in certain areas. This player at the start of this war had just over 190 units. About 140 of them were all light tanks. They had about 15 fighters, and a scattering of AT and Infantry. But Light Tanks for days and days.

How did they invade? A wall of light tanks. Almost every single province stretching the width of africa (only a few to one side not controlled by either myself or him), streaming down, with a wave that are force marching, with a second wave behind them, and reinforcement Light Tanks coming from behind them. So three waves of almost nothing but Light Tanks. It was quite a sight I'll admit. However, because Anti-Tanks produce faster than Light Tanks, and on the defensive are considerably superior, all I have to do is hold him off, pick his tanks off with bombers one at a time as he uses them to scout, and produce AT.

By doing so, I can create my own wall of units, and gradually, point by point, step by step, simply push back. All I have to do is take it nice and slow, forcing him to either have to retreat or attack my stacks. I don't need to attack, because so long as I bring my AT into range of sight, because he has almost no air-force, I can simply use bombers to run his tanks into the ground, then push my AT forward a little further. He can't pull his stacks to the ocean and invade me from the side, because I've got a navy and he doesn't. I've already got his ports covered, so there's no point in him trying to produce a navy now, because they'll just be chewed up. Any transports he sends will get sunk.

It's AT's that allow this gradual wearing down of his army. Any other unit, Infantry, Light Tanks, Armoured Cars, whatever, would either take too long to produce, or would not have what it takes to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Light Tanks. This is why in their role, used appropriately to counter the appropriate unit, AT's are actually incredibly effective. Especially against Light Tank spammers. Better yet, if I didn't have Bombers or couldn't afford to produce them, I could produce Artillery in tandem with the AT's, use a duel-stack of AT's and Artillery, and simply slowly march my way forward, firing on his stacks from a defensive range position. Which again, would wear them down until either he chose to retreat, or attack. Either way, despite his Blitzkrieg, despite his overwhelming numbers, despite his much larger initial force (by that I mean he had over 4 times the starting military in this war that I did, his near 200, my roughly 50), his lost this war before he even began it, purely and simply because of his drastic reliance on a single unit.

This war will simply reinforce my belief in Anti-Tank units, and will reinforce my opinion that anyone who says that Light Tanks are OP or that AT is weak and useless, have absolutely no clue about what they're talking about.

So Orkhepaj, you're entitled to your opinion, however I will state that in my opinion and experience, your opinion is based upon a bias dislike of one unit, and a bias over estimation of another unit, with a great deal of missing or overlooked information to support said opinion. By extension, I'm afraid that this makes your opinion, whilst your own, and whilst you're entitled to it, misleading towards anyone looking for a deeper understanding of the games mechanics and of stratagy.

By the way, thanks Pontus.

So basically your air superiority won the war , and his stubbordness of producing only 1 tpye of unit. It has very little to do with AT-s .

Actually, it's an on-going war. It's happening right now. And no, the fact I have a few bombers is just softening him up. My Tank Destroyers and now my AT's have stopped him from advancing, and because he keeps making mistakes, it's letting me push him back. My bombers are just handling scouts and annoying pests.

Pizza, yeah, I'd like to flank this guy, but his overwhelming numbers are keeping me too preoccupied. I'm going to start softening his coast up with my navy, but thats about the most I can muster for now, whilst I mount a more solid defence. I need another 80 AT's or so before that happens. But then, he's researching MIlitia to a high level and producing that to back up his tanks at the moment, so iunno if I'll even need to bother flanking lol.

Orkhepaj wrote:

So basically your air superiority won the war , and his stubbordness of producing only 1 tpye of unit. It has very little to do with AT-s .

AIR alone wouldn't have done the job. ATs alone wouldn't have done the job. ATs vs attacking INF wouldn't have done the job. AAs, for example, defending vs LTs wouldn't have done the job. That's the point, using the right units; in combination with different types that offer a complimentary, supporting role leads to a greater chance of success.

I Patton wrote:

That's the point, using the right units; in combination with different types that offer a complimentary, supporting role leads to a greater chance of success.

Very nice write-up by Azazel.

I Patton wrote:

That's the point, using the right units; in combination with different types that offer a complimentary, supporting role leads to a greater chance of success.

Orkhepaj wrote:

So basically your air superiority won the war

The crucial role of the AT in this cannot be denied and for sure the credit cannot go to the air forces. The depiction of what went on shows beyond doubt, that AT, if used right, is very effective and LT, if used wrong, is very ineffective.

Hence, the conclusion still stands that AT is not UP and LT not OP.

Now that the enemy is producing militia to support the LTs (!!??), the enemy will lose the single most important advantages of his LT-army: speed & agility.

~Azazel~ wrote:

Pizza, yeah, I'd like to flank this guy, but his overwhelming numbers are keeping me too preoccupied. I'm going to start softening his coast up with my navy, but thats about the most I can muster for now, whilst I mount a more solid defence. I need another 80 AT's or so before that happens. But then, he's researching MIlitia to a high level and producing that to back up his tanks at the moment, so iunno if I'll even need to bother flanking lol.

May I see a picture of this amazing war? I want to see where he attacked from and where you defended from. Then send the picture of the casualties, if you can.

purplepizza117 wrote:

~Azazel~ wrote:

Pizza, yeah, I'd like to flank this guy, but his overwhelming numbers are keeping me too preoccupied. I'm going to start softening his coast up with my navy, but thats about the most I can muster for now, whilst I mount a more solid defence. I need another 80 AT's or so before that happens. But then, he's researching MIlitia to a high level and producing that to back up his tanks at the moment, so iunno if I'll even need to bother flanking lol.

Haha, well, all you need is a decisive breakthrough victory in one spot in order to advance north rapidly: but, as you said, that will require many more AT's and a great deal of airbases.

May I see a picture of this amazing war? I want to see where he attacked from and where you defended from. Then send the picture of the casualties, if you can.

I'll start taking a few screenshots. But for obvious reasons, I can't afford to have them posted up just yet. Thanks to this maintenance, I'll have successfully flanked his capital once my game loads, so I'll drop his moral, boost my moral, and take some of his resources, all because he's so focused on the front lines, and because he has no navy, I've been able to easily sneak an AT stack to the side over sea to his lightly defended but fortified capital lol.

We've had a fresh military report in the news paper. According to it, I've done enough damage to him, and produced enough troops since his initial assault that I'm now only 2 ranks lower than him, but both with 5%. From 4:1 ratio, i'm not complaining lol.

~Azazel~ wrote:

I'll start taking a few screenshots. But for obvious reasons, I can't afford to have them posted up just yet.