|31/07/2008 23:08:13 Re:Optimal strategy|
|Don't be silly. If Starcraft has taught me anything it's that Zerging always gets the job done!|
|25/11/2008 06:27:04 Re:Optimal strategy|
But can't a battleship with two destroys in front of it be way more destructive than 4 destroyers?
In Wee war everything is about placement of troops (foot soldiers + heavy artillery etc)
|31/07/2009 17:39:23 Re:Optimal strategy|
I'm not so sure. The two destroyers can heal at 4 points per turn (when you count both of them), and are more manoeuvrable, can be split up, aren't so vulnerable against bombers or submarines. To me, they're almost the ultimate weapon.
I'd be happy taking four destroyers against two+Battleship any day.
|31/07/2009 19:58:16 Re:Optimal strategy|
|It all depends on your enemy's deployment. Sometimes you need the range of the battleship, other times you need the air attack power of the destroyer. Plus, DFAs can take out destroyers, but Battleships > DFAs most of the time.|
|01/08/2009 05:52:46 Re:Optimal strategy|
|Unfortunately subs are useless and destroyers are over powered. I find myself only building hovercraft and destroyers if I want to to rule the seas.|
|01/08/2009 08:09:52 Re:Optimal strategy|
|maybe the cruiser will come... like we´ve seen it on testserver|
|01/08/2009 20:06:59 Re:Optimal strategy|
|Subs are good for controling the sea while avoiding attacks by the enemy planes and artillery. Also, subs make extremely good blockers for choke points and harbours.|
|02/08/2009 15:07:09 Re:Optimal strategy|
|i find there usually arent enough ports to zerg the seas so unit selection matters a bit more.|
|17/09/2009 03:25:40 Re:Optimal strategy|
@Ecko, ask GD how effective subs can be
@MrPanther, Definitely. Sub = Armor.
@Ecko, suppose you have 1 destroyer and it is your turn and your opponent has 3 destroyers that can't get close enough to kill a new build or your destroyer if you place it far enough away but you can't afford the battleship. Should you save for the battleship? You and this person with 3 destroyers are winning wars on their other fronts. The way i figure it, the player with the 3 destroyers must build a sub and should build a second sub as a back up plan (maybe the next turn). That kind of move should prevent the player with 1 destroyer from building a battleship which means that the player with 3 destroyers and a sub gets a lock and can fight with destroyers. The subs can be used to pin destroyers without firing preventing a late rush and even a damaged sub can block a battleship and if the battleship can't move freely, then it might not be able to get to a 4 range from a single destroyer.
Or a player in the above situation with 3 destroyers can just keep building destroyers and potentially get into a very destructive destroyer war. It may be simple and easy, but the losses in material are higher for an all destroyer navy.
|17/09/2009 03:50:03 Re:Optimal strategy|
Optimal strategy #1: The opponent behaves like an immune system. If you threaten or poke or attack, then the opponent responds. That response is most typically the best counter to what is poking it. In this fashion, you can poke an opponent and trigger the right builds now which will be the wrong builds in a couple turns or late in the game.
Optimal strategy #2: The opponent behaves like an immune system. If you do not threaten or poke or attack, then the opponent is likely to respond to another player that is threatening or poking or attacking them. This strategy can even be used to retreat from a front to be able to deploy more resource to other fronts, but it won't work on someone who is out to get you or one of your bases or that has no one else to attack. In the early game, being non threatening is tough because you want to use it to shape conflict away from yourself and let others get into their massive draining war, but it can backfire if you end up too weak or unprepared for a blitz.
Optimal strategy #3: If using #2, then you can build an early material advantage above what players who fight early will have. That added strength can further deter attacks, which leads to more relative material gains. Of if you are attacked, then you have a slight edge in fighting power and should be able to not lose as much, which might mean you don't grow as fast as you used too, but the player fighting you might soon become the weakest target in the game.
Optimal strategy #4: The above leads to the situation where you have better builds for later in the game than your opponent and more overall strength. It doesn't mean that you will win because the leader tends to get ganged up on. With a material advantage you are unlikely to be eliminated first, unless it is a three player game.
Optimal tactic #1: Don't get hit.
Optimal tactic #2: Free damage: Artillery strikes that don't hurt yourself because you have superior range. Heavy tanks on infantry, aircraft on tanks, units that don't fight back or have very high armor related to the back attack.
Optimal tactic #3: Hit harder than you get hit.
Optimal tactic #4: Using a nearly dead cheap unit to gain a bonus can result in killing that one extra unit. This is most effective when the one extra unit is a big ticket item.
Optimal tactic #5: Some territorial positions are worth losing more units than your opponent in order to gain them. Others are not.
...just off the top of my head. I may have forgotten something.
If there is a rule to live by it comes from the Karate Kid part?? -> Don't get hit. "Best way to block punch is no be there." quote might be wrong
|29/03/2010 13:14:10 Re:Optimal strategy|
|i like to box in my enemy foecing them to flee|
|29/03/2010 15:16:04 Re:Optimal strategy|
|You bumped a dead thread to add that? It doesn't even make sense! The point of a box is to keep things IN IT! Still, it might be a good strategy in life - no one will ask you to help them move for fear that you'll empty their packed boxes all over the lawn. And you don't gave to worry about someone asking you to take their animal to the Vet, or pick up food - talk about an unhappy meal! Burger, fries, and toy covering the highway as they are allowed to flee the confines of their box. Think of the children!|