What is the best or top Strategies?

Just like the title states "What is the best or top strategies?". Seriously, what do you think is the most superior strategy and why? Try to be very brief and maybe provide some examples on how it would be used in the battle grounds.

Thank you!

IronFist on a small map (anything smaller than Eurasia) is the most powerful starting strat, the reason I believe this is that starting units are very limited, however, Ironfist effectively gives you +50% units, cause they are 50% stronger. The only way you can lose is if the other player creates 50% more units than you, as he needs to use 50% more units than he normally would in every battle. So as long as you stay on par with your enemies expansion, and don't do anything wrong like leave your cap open to a free attack, the odds are extremely in your favor. The enemy on the other hand only has to out expand you by 50% production wise and have enough money to purchase 50% more units than you, and he will defeat you in the end. So best strategy to defeat Ironfist is to expand quickly, if someone rushes you , they will lose.

For me its definately Guerrilla Warefare small map or not. I keep it Guerrilla dawg................................




Young G We Da Best

Ironfist is, today, the best strategy for the default europe and europe+ games, the most played maps. Apart from that we have a good balanced strategy system, with a few improvements needed to Master of Stealth and Lucky Bastard.

Napisano przez the99percent, 13.10.2011 at 11:49

The only way you can lose is if the other player creates 50% more units than you, as he needs to use 50% more units than he normally would in every battle. So as long as you stay on par with your enemies expansion, and don't do anything wrong like leave your cap open to a free attack, the odds are extremely in your favor.

Thing is, while other strategies can easily protect every single city with militias, the IF players needs to "sacrifice" infantries to protect important cities.

Another point is that IF is very dependent on transports and air transports, if you focus on killing those troops your job gets easier.

Last, but not least, if you manage to capture a IF player capital, like Berlin, Ankara, Paris or London, it will be harder to recover, since he won't be able to use his nearby militias (in his own country) and it will probably be unable to bring a good number of troops to recover it in one turn.

So, no, playing against IF doesn't mean you need 50% more troops. It means you need to play wisely, focus on capitals, kills transports, keep breaking walls and avoid concentrating stacks in one frontier.

I agree with Pin on this. The key for IF players is their transports and air transports

GW is the best all around strat. You can play it in small maps, large maps, low funded games etc. Thing is with GW, because of the marines which are stealth units, there's so many different options and principles when it come down to setting up your sneak attacks, frontal powers and prioritizing your mixed forces. GW is cheap, you can put walls around every city, you can micro produce large masses of marines and it is playable in every type of game. Many players think they've mastered GW but that is false because there is such a large variety of strategic input involved in this strategy. A good GW player learns to play it without any use of air transports. (Unless you're loaded with cash and you simply wanna make the game end quicker) So yes, in my opinion GW is the best strat overall

GW(for smaller maps or higher maps with low funds) or Sky Menace (with higher funds)

THeir the best

In my opinion these are good strategies (starting with best):
1. IF (strongest strategy, needs a nerf)
2. GW (very strong on small maps)
3. SM (works good if you have money)
4. PD (if you are able to play with it, it can beat SM)
5. GC (although i rarely play it myself, i've seen other players do well with it)
6. Imperealist (works good on big maps)
7. Blitz (works good if you have money)

Useless strategy's:
- Naval warfare (maybe only usefull on mediterianian or oceana game)
- LB (i've never understand the use in this strategy)
- MoS (it needs a boost, at this moment GW is a better alternative)
- No strategy (because you have no advantages)

There is no "top" strategy, everyone is different. It just matters how you utilize it- my favorite strategy's are Blitzkrieg and Great combinator, because I use Tanks' to crush my enemies defenses instead of sneaking around, like MoS or GW would be good for.

I don't agree with you there Gardevoir. If you are playing a game, look at what the opponent is using for strategy. You will notice it's harder to beat a IF player then a Imperalist player for example. Even if it's the same player who uses it.

I think Sky Menace bombers are still too cheap for what they can do. They have by far the most stat points with 67 points given on attack, defense, range and so on.
Compare that to the 50 points of MoS marines, which still cost more, or the even less 48 points of tank general. They should either be more expensive, or have less defense. I can't see the point in their defense rating anyways. Amok or Ivan once said they have such high defense for that they can protect the transports that carry their ground units. But those they only use to overtake a city, after their massive bomber attacks. I know you wanted to make units diffrent, but the range of bombers and their ability to go over sea already makes them diffrent enough for me. And I don't see the point in nerfing the other attack units defenses, but keeping it high for bombers. Why?

Other than that I don't see why everyone seems to think MoS is weak. I still play it and am very satisfied. Just can't play it on smaller maps, but that is something I already accepted long ago. It's speed and good attack rating make it perfect for bigger maps.

MoS is not a useless strat, It could use a buff but It is still usable

Napisano przez learster, 18.10.2011 at 05:30

I think Sky Menace bombers are still too cheap for what they can do. They have by far the most stat points with 67 points given on attack, defense, range and so on.
Compare that to the 50 points of MoS marines, which still cost more, or the even less 48 points of tank general. They should either be more expensive, or have less defense. I can't see the point in their defense rating anyways. Amok or Ivan once said they have such high defense for that they can protect the transports that carry their ground units. But those they only use to overtake a city, after their massive bomber attacks. I know you wanted to make units diffrent, but the range of bombers and their ability to go over sea already makes them diffrent enough for me. And I don't see the point in nerfing the other attack units defenses, but keeping it high for bombers. Why?

Other than that I don't see why everyone seems to think MoS is weak. I still play it and am very satisfied. Just can't play it on smaller maps, but that is something I already accepted long ago. It's speed and good attack rating make it perfect for bigger maps.

Yes, you make a good point. I play SM at times. It has a lot of firepower and range... Used properly to get the early Money generating hubs you can become almost indestructible. In hands of a good aggressive player it's a flying IF almost.

I tried Mos ages ago and found it overly expensive... I guess I just didn't have the skill...

I like blitzkrieg as long as it is not a 3k game.

I can play blitz very well on a 5k game and above.

Naval Commander has proven very good in several places.

GW Is the best for 3k games.

IF, in my opinion, sucks. I dont like to use IF anywhere.

SM works well in games 15k and above, mainly only if you are alone.

I dont know how to use PD, so Idk.

Imperialist is good in things like Africa games.


This is just my opinion though

Napisano przez Hugosch, 16.10.2011 at 15:19

I don't agree with you there Gardevoir. If you are playing a game, look at what the opponent is using for strategy. You will notice it's harder to beat a IF player then a Imperalist player for example. Even if it's the same player who uses it.

Sorry for late quote (you didnt quote me so didnt know you did) but it can be extremely difficult to beat anyone who's good with their strat. IF players are easier to beat than imperialist players if they use it differently. If I were to use IF I would lose, i'm not good at it. It's all about the player, not the strat.

Napisano przez the equalizer, 19.10.2011 at 18:15

Naval Commander has proven very good in several places.

Imperialist is good in things like Africa games.

The remainder is true.

Different Players do well with different strats. For instance I enjoy marines so I don't find mos to be underpowered like a lot of people do. I like the doubled up upgrades for marines and subs. It allows for so much range and larger invasion fleets. The key is to use infantry for early expansion so as to not break the bank. Plus the subs are decent for defending cities after u land say in china south or london.

I also like tanks n infantry too so I'll roll with gc in bigger money games or iron fist on a smaller map.

Calling MoS a useless strategy. You clearly aren't using it right. Some changes can be made but it's deadly.

Invisible, fast and heavy offense combined with the quick heavy infantry. It's an expensive strat. It can be mixed with an SM style play Stealths being the offense and subs with Marines. Tale the enemy by complete surprise. infantry can be massed and quickly focused in one key area to prevent the enemy passing. Marines in subs are harder, subs hit first.

MoS is one of the best strats when used right. It's MUCH better when going up against SM than GW. MOS is superior to GW in every way except income.

Ironfist is OK in Europe but in bigger maps, it's pretty useless. It's simply not fast enough.

The best strat is SM. It beats every stratedgy and nothing can really go up against it.

Flower Power
Speed
Offense
No land/sea retrictions
Super Stacks are built quickly and with ease
The enemy can sit pretty and build up or just spam bombers

Nothing can beat a good SM player. If they have a super stack, surrounded by bombers. Nothing will stop it. AA is useless. The most useless unit in the game. I built 80 of those things with 120 infantry up against 250 bombers. More than 100 bombers lived.

Anti Air has the same defense as an offensive bomber yet AA costs far more and moves far slower. How is it Anti Air when it is equal to an SM bomber?

Anti Aircraft needs to be cheaper or more effective. Or Both.

Napisano przez tophat, 16.10.2011 at 09:44

GW is the best all around strat. You can play it in small maps, large maps, low funded games etc. Thing is with GW, because of the marines which are stealth units, there's so many different options and principles when it come down to setting up your sneak attacks, frontal powers and prioritizing your mixed forces. GW is cheap, you can put walls around every city, you can micro produce large masses of marines and it is playable in every type of game. Many players think they've mastered GW but that is false because there is such a large variety of strategic input involved in this strategy. A good GW player learns to play it without any use of air transports. (Unless you're loaded with cash and you simply wanna make the game end quicker) So yes, in my opinion GW is the best strat overall

Overall, maybe... but up against MoS or SM... The GW player will lose.

What about TG?

TG is very potent for low-levels like us.

My favorite strategy is blitzkrieg. I also prefer large maps.

If you are a person like me who prefers to always be on the offensive, always expanding, and always attacking people before they can attack you, you might like blitzkrieg.

Blitzkrieg allows new land each turn:
Air Transport + Tanks; A person can reach about halfway across the US in a single turn.

With each new land and city, your profit increase. Therefore, money is not often a problem.

Blitzkrieg has a longer reach then sky menace:
Air Transport + Tanks; +3 movement to all units allowing you to expand rapidly.

To use this strategy effectively, a person should always be on the offensive. If you fall into a defensive position, you probably won't survive the assault due to -2 defense to all units. To counter the -2 defense, put up those triangles: those 1 spare turn saves lives.

To show why I think it is a top notch strategy what i personally feel is best:
Speed > Strength > Stealth > Defense

UPDATE:
I no longer endorse blitzkrieg. Perfect Defense all the way.

Napisano przez Cthulhu, 23.12.2011 at 07:59

UPDATE:
I no longer endorse blitzkrieg. Perfect Defense all the way.

Why PD as opposed to TG?
Wouldn't PD players usually find themselves out-expanded by other strategies?

I would say MoS, granted you have a good sum of money. The only real downsides to MoS is the fact that it eats up your income, takes a lot of money to make large masses of marines, and if they get detected by sentries, you can wave goodbye to your marines.
The upsides though, for me at least, balance out the downsides.

You can basically strike anywhere and they won't even see it coming, this introduces several techniques you can use.

You can send a small diversion of marines to somewhat major countries so that the enemy sends all their armies that way, and then you move in with your main attacking force to destroy their high income/high recruitment countries so they can't recover. Just be ready to face the army they'll have coming back at you.
Another thing I like is that granted the right conditions, you can take an entire continent in one turn. (this only really works for the Americas and Europe. The other places are just too big for it to be worthwhile in my opinion.) Granted they don't have sentry planes, all you need to do is send about 10 marines to each capital on the week before the reinforcement week, then attack them all the week before reinforcements come so you can withstand the enemy.

:u there's so much I could say about MoS, but you wanted it brief, so that's the best I could do.

Not to mention for them to effectively set up their sentries like this they'll spend much more then you would on marines.

Thank you to Houdini for the picture.

Napisano przez PonyBatman, 10.06.2012 at 11:44

Not to mention for them to effectively set up their sentries like this they'll spend much more then you would on marines.

Thank you to Houdini for the picture.

well it's much more cost effective to be attacking marines, than defending against them, so it pays for itself in the long run.

Thered is no best strategy. there is SM

Napisano przez DURRHUNTER, 13.06.2012 at 17:11

Thered is no best strategy. there is SM

IKR?
no matter how smart will you be,as long as you don't have a SM ally,the enemy will wipe you off with a stack of over 9000 OP bombers with a cheap air transport

Napisano przez Pointlesfield, 15.06.2012 at 06:17

Napisano przez DURRHUNTER, 13.06.2012 at 17:11

Thered is no best strategy. there is SM

IKR?
no matter how smart will you be,as long as you don't have a SM ally,the enemy will wipe you off with a stack of over 9000 OP bombers with a cheap air transport

SM all the Way. Why? Here is some comparisons against other higher tier strategies.

SM vs PD - Offence is the best defense, PD's major reduction to a s***load of firepower will severely hurt early expansion. Thus SM will out-expand and overpower PD eventually.
SM vs GW/MoS - Comparable offence but they lack the speed/defense that SM has, with a couple sentry planes you can nullify all the marines he can throw at you. Besides marines have a pathetic 3defense compared to a 8attack/6defense bomber.
SM vs Biltz - Biltz has no attack bonuses, no cheap unit bonus and a significant reduction to defense. SM has an amazing attack bonus, much cheaper air-units and no reduction in defense. Go figure.
SM vs SM - The only strategy that can beat SM, is SM.
SM vs IF - Hm... perhaps the only other strategy that can match SM. IF strategy is a moving tank with the +HP. However lacks 1 thing. Speed. IF is probably dependent on air transports to send his units. Turnblock the air transports, out-expand and crush IF.