|
|
Post by Joseph Gallieni on Jan 26, 2023 3:42:47 GMT
I've managed to clear 1950 Cuba, so I'll leave a guide here.
Used General:
- Goering. He is a must. At least you will need him (or good Air general alternative) even if you can't afford any good tank general. He will stop Mexico with the help of ion Cannon.
- Guderian. Place him on Heavy Tank and stom the USA from south ASAP.
- Mannerheim. He will storm Columbia as Paratroop and be in charge of eating Brazil with Konev.
- Konev. He will be also sent south to aid Mannerheim.
Used Tech:
- AA missiles. You don't want to see your Goering be cleansed by the Atomic Hellfire. For some reason, my air general hasn't faced any missile or nuclear attack but just in case.
- Ion cannon. Ideally has to be upgraded enough to be able to cooperate with Mannerheim or Goering.
- Air Tech. Splurge some of your supplies into it. You will need them.
- Rest. Upgrade enough to be able to fend off annoying Aliens in the Campaign.
Walkthrough:
Initial advance: Place your best tank general in Heavy Tank, best artillery general in Field Artillery, and your best air general in Tank. Attack Bogota with Ion Cannon and para-drop. Place your infantry general to him. If you can't finish Bogota off in One turn, attack Bogota. This will help you economically and enable you to withstand the upcoming pandemonium. Send Field Artillery south to aid Infantry and send your Heavy Tank to Florida to steamroll the USA from North ASAP before they'll be ready to unleash their full strength at you. Your air general should be placed in thentank and moved to Havana. Use your AA missiles to protect him. For some reason, incompetent NATOs never nuked Havana in my playthrough, but just in case.
Early game(Around 1-9 turn-ish): Keep beating Brazil. Grab some help from the Ion Cannon if necessary. If you couldn't one-shot Columbia, finish them off by 2 turns. In the north, deal with the Eisenhower-on-Supertank by building a bunker next to Miami and Ion Cannon. Don't forget to protect your Miami with light infantry. When Mexico start to become annoying, again, Air-raid and Ion Cannon on Mexico-city and strike them off at Island with the 1-leveled city on the south.
Middle game(10-15 turns): At this point, you must have conquered Brazil, or at least it's on the last leg. Eisenhower is dead and your tank may attack Washington. Supertank will stand in your way, but you could easily take them off with the help of your air general. Iberian troops may start recolonizing you, but your air general is capable to fend them off with some attacks or two. Battleships and Carriers are annoying, but once again, sink them. Build up your Mexican troops to take California, but just be quick before American Pacific Fleet shall destroy and make your Mexico vulnerable. Once you have grabbed Washington and New York on the west and California on the east, you should be alright from then. You may easily take out Canada, the Westerns are too concentrated on Cuba that they left their home unguarded for USSR and friends. Maybe the UK might just spawn Monty or Alexander to defend London which stops WTOs from advancing on the island for some but it's not a big deal. You can help your Asian friends destroy Japan and America's last remnants or take out Iberians under the Cuban banner!
TL;DR: This campaign is not for the beginner and it is recommended for those who have already slain some Aliens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Just One Bite on Feb 10, 2023 19:18:16 GMT
I always thought that invading the USA early on is a mistake because it's not worth the effort. You only gain like extra 500 gold per turn while NATO basically steamrolls your allies in Europe. And gaining a foothold in Europe is important as that's where most of the cities are located at.
|
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Feb 12, 2023 12:43:27 GMT
I always thought that invading the USA early on is a mistake because it's not worth the effort. You only gain like extra 500 gold per turn while NATO basically steamrolls your allies in Europe. And gaining a foothold in Europe is important as that's where most of the cities are located at. I would say unless you are speedrunning, attacking USA first makes sense because it gives you access to Ottawa and Alaska, which in turn allow you to springboard into UK and Japan without being cut off from air support for too long. |
|
|
|
Post by Just One Bite on Feb 15, 2023 0:01:02 GMT
I always thought that invading the USA early on is a mistake because it's not worth the effort. You only gain like extra 500 gold per turn while NATO basically steamrolls your allies in Europe. And gaining a foothold in Europe is important as that's where most of the cities are located at. I would say unless you are speedrunning, attacking USA first makes sense because it gives you access to Ottawa and Alaska, which in turn allow you to springboard into UK and Japan without being cut off from air support for too long.  (image is from WC3 Reddit) And then you get hit with something like this? Most first triers will attack USA because it's very close, but then they take a long time to take even Washington which has an Eisenhower sitting in it since turn 3. They also have to face a giant siege from multiple countries while having an economy of just one capital city (Florida isn't a guarantee). And after you take all cities surrounding Washington (including it), NATO is just winning from all sides. You will spend so much time conquering USA that you're too slow to land on other continents, and the enemies would have saved up enough money to slaughter your army with missiles and airstrikes. So where is the sense to that? |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Feb 15, 2023 2:39:28 GMT
I would say unless you are speedrunning, attacking USA first makes sense because it gives you access to Ottawa and Alaska, which in turn allow you to springboard into UK and Japan without being cut off from air support for too long. (image is from WC3 Reddit) And then you get hit with something like this? Most first triers will attack USA because it's very close, but then they take a long time to take even Washington which has an Eisenhower sitting in it since turn 3. They also have to face a giant siege from multiple countries while having an economy of just one capital city (Florida isn't a guarantee). And after you take all cities surrounding Washington (including it), NATO is just winning from all sides. You will spend so much time conquering USA that you're too slow to land on other continents, and the enemies would have saved up enough money to slaughter your army with missiles and airstrikes. So where is the sense to that? The only sense is nuke, but I don't see that as a huge plus either since Lyon is within Madrid and Barcelona's air raid range. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Feb 15, 2023 2:51:14 GMT
I always thought that invading the USA early on is a mistake because it's not worth the effort. You only gain like extra 500 gold per turn while NATO basically steamrolls your allies in Europe. And gaining a foothold in Europe is important as that's where most of the cities are located at. I would say unless you are speedrunning, attacking USA first makes sense because it gives you access to Ottawa and Alaska, which in turn allow you to springboard into UK and Japan without being cut off from air support for too long. You can only reach Spain and Portugal from Washington's missile silo. It true that conquering US and Canada will give you more income than Iberia, but the west coast will take you a while to reach and North America without the west coast is just Iberia income wise. It should be the exact opposite. Go for Iberia in a regular run because Europe means everything. In speedrunning you need to force your way into NA to get quick access to Asia and the islands. |
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Feb 15, 2023 17:50:49 GMT
I would say unless you are speedrunning, attacking USA first makes sense because it gives you access to Ottawa and Alaska, which in turn allow you to springboard into UK and Japan without being cut off from air support for too long. (image is from WC3 Reddit) And then you get hit with something like this? Most first triers will attack USA because it's very close, but then they take a long time to take even Washington which has an Eisenhower sitting in it since turn 3. They also have to face a giant siege from multiple countries while having an economy of just one capital city (Florida isn't a guarantee). And after you take all cities surrounding Washington (including it), NATO is just winning from all sides. You will spend so much time conquering USA that you're too slow to land on other continents, and the enemies would have saved up enough money to slaughter your army with missiles and airstrikes. So where is the sense to that? All I can say is you can’t doesn’t mean it’s impossible. PS: Florida can occasionally fish Eisenhower out of Washington and a max tech player should be able to raze him down in 2-3 turns, even without using ion cannon lol |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Feb 15, 2023 20:36:41 GMT
(image is from WC3 Reddit) And then you get hit with something like this? Most first triers will attack USA because it's very close, but then they take a long time to take even Washington which has an Eisenhower sitting in it since turn 3. They also have to face a giant siege from multiple countries while having an economy of just one capital city (Florida isn't a guarantee). And after you take all cities surrounding Washington (including it), NATO is just winning from all sides. You will spend so much time conquering USA that you're too slow to land on other continents, and the enemies would have saved up enough money to slaughter your army with missiles and airstrikes. So where is the sense to that? All I can say is you can’t doesn’t mean it’s impossible. PS: Florida can occasionally fish Eisenhower out of Washington and a max tech player should be able to raze him down in 2-3 turns, even without using ion cannon lol Possible doesn't imply optimal. |
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Feb 15, 2023 21:42:13 GMT
All I can say is you can’t doesn’t mean it’s impossible. PS: Florida can occasionally fish Eisenhower out of Washington and a max tech player should be able to raze him down in 2-3 turns, even without using ion cannon lol Possible doesn't imply optimal. And neither I nor op was talking about speedrunning Cuba 1950, just clearing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Feb 16, 2023 17:37:50 GMT
Possible doesn't imply optimal. And neither I nor op was talking about speedrunning Cuba 1950, just clearing it. Then what's the point of having the guide? There's a million ways to do it if we are happy with getting it done within 300 turns, regardless of time and difficulty. But in guides we want to show them the easiest and quickest way to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Feb 17, 2023 2:22:15 GMT
And neither I nor op was talking about speedrunning Cuba 1950, just clearing it. Then what's the point of having the guide? There's a million ways to do it if we are happy with getting it done within 300 turns, regardless of time and difficulty. But in guides we want to show them the easiest and quickest way to do it. But not everyone seeking a guide is for speedrun, some of them merely want to clear a run, so unless you can prove this guide is deficient enough to exceed even the objective acceptable margin of casual run, otherwise no need to nitpick. Also, what you think optimal doesn’t mean it is in deed optimal in reality, and sometimes there could be more than one optimal way to get a thing done. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Feb 18, 2023 0:54:53 GMT
Then what's the point of having the guide? There's a million ways to do it if we are happy with getting it done within 300 turns, regardless of time and difficulty. But in guides we want to show them the easiest and quickest way to do it. But not everyone seeking a guide is for speedrun, some of them merely want to clear a run, so unless you can prove this guide is deficient enough to exceed even the objective acceptable margin of casual run, otherwise no need to nitpick. Also, what you think optimal doesn’t mean it is in deed optimal in reality, and sometimes there could be more than one optimal way to get a thing done. Of course the definition of optimal varies by a player's lineup and style, and there can be more than 1 optimal way. One example is STILETT0's and my opinions on 1950 UK. Both would work out and while there is a difference, it's not huge enough to call his infeasible. However I don't think that's the case for this one mainly because I think he is relying too heavily on ion cannon. Apparently he assumes the player's ion cannon level is high enough to one-shot capital cities and a super tank marshal or almost there, which is too high for me to consider acceptable, in addition to high AA and supply tech. |
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Feb 18, 2023 3:24:46 GMT
But not everyone seeking a guide is for speedrun, some of them merely want to clear a run, so unless you can prove this guide is deficient enough to exceed even the objective acceptable margin of casual run, otherwise no need to nitpick. Also, what you think optimal doesn’t mean it is in deed optimal in reality, and sometimes there could be more than one optimal way to get a thing done. Of course the definition of optimal varies by a player's lineup and style, and there can be more than 1 optimal way. One example is STILETT0's and my opinions on 1950 UK. Both would work out and while there is a difference, it's not huge enough to call his infeasible. However I don't think that's the case for this one mainly because I think he is relying too heavily on ion cannon. Apparently he assumes the player's ion cannon level is high enough to one-shot capital cities and a super tank marshal or almost there, which is too high for me to consider acceptable, in addition to high AA and supply tech. The problem I have with you is that you tunnel visioned on the “starting with attacking USA first” I agreed, which I see as the least problem in the op’s guide. Apart from the ion cannon level matter, the composition of his general selection is suboptimal: He used only 4 gens despite 6 can be deployed without buying Eisenhower, and both Konev and Mannheim are trash (I did an imitation run with Weidling and Sansonetti with Lv3 Inf medal but Sikorski will work even better than Weidling), Guderian is good but handicapped against beefy garrison units in cities, so I would opted to replace him with Patton and 2 artillery gen (Govorov and Leeb with movement medals, or 2 art ECs with 3-5 movement, Lv4 explosives and plain fighting). Also, his guide has vague wordings and is very rough for what to do beyond turn 15, I had to rely on my suboptimal competence to get my imitation run cleared within 60 turns (ion cannon is one hell expensive to upgrade, so I just threw a lot of planes to make up for the firepower difference). |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Feb 18, 2023 22:18:54 GMT
Of course the definition of optimal varies by a player's lineup and style, and there can be more than 1 optimal way. One example is STILETT0's and my opinions on 1950 UK. Both would work out and while there is a difference, it's not huge enough to call his infeasible. However I don't think that's the case for this one mainly because I think he is relying too heavily on ion cannon. Apparently he assumes the player's ion cannon level is high enough to one-shot capital cities and a super tank marshal or almost there, which is too high for me to consider acceptable, in addition to high AA and supply tech. The problem I have with you is that you tunnel visioned on the “starting with attacking USA first” I agreed, which I see as the least problem in the op’s guide. Apart from the ion cannon level matter, the composition of his general selection is suboptimal: He used only 4 gens despite 6 can be deployed without buying Eisenhower, and both Konev and Mannheim are trash (I did an imitation run with Weidling and Sansonetti with Lv3 Inf medal but Sikorski will work even better than Weidling), Guderian is good but handicapped against beefy garrison units in cities, so I would opted to replace him with Patton and 2 artillery gen (Govorov and Leeb with movement medals, or 2 art ECs with 3-5 movement, Lv4 explosives and plain fighting). Also, his guide has vague wordings and is very rough for what to do beyond turn 15, I had to rely on my suboptimal competence to get my imitation run cleared within 60 turns (ion cannon is one hell expensive to upgrade, so I just threw a lot of planes to make up for the firepower difference). I'm more worried about lineup too good than not good enough. A weaker set of generals used is a plus for me in guides because that means the guide is more robust given the players will likely have more and better generals. However, in this guide he is making up for the general's lack of quantity and quality with tech levels beyond my standard instead of tactical choices. No player will have high level AA and supply until very late game, let alone that ion cannon. Compared to this, his decision to attack NA is indeed less problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Feb 19, 2023 7:22:42 GMT
The problem I have with you is that you tunnel visioned on the “starting with attacking USA first” I agreed, which I see as the least problem in the op’s guide. Apart from the ion cannon level matter, the composition of his general selection is suboptimal: He used only 4 gens despite 6 can be deployed without buying Eisenhower, and both Konev and Mannheim are trash (I did an imitation run with Weidling and Sansonetti with Lv3 Inf medal but Sikorski will work even better than Weidling), Guderian is good but handicapped against beefy garrison units in cities, so I would opted to replace him with Patton and 2 artillery gen (Govorov and Leeb with movement medals, or 2 art ECs with 3-5 movement, Lv4 explosives and plain fighting). Also, his guide has vague wordings and is very rough for what to do beyond turn 15, I had to rely on my suboptimal competence to get my imitation run cleared within 60 turns (ion cannon is one hell expensive to upgrade, so I just threw a lot of planes to make up for the firepower difference). I'm more worried about lineup too good than not good enough. A weaker set of generals used is a plus for me in guides because that means the guide is more robust given the players will likely have more and better generals. However, in this guide he is making up for the general's lack of quantity and quality with tech levels beyond my standard instead of tactical choices. No player will have high level AA and supply until very late game, let alone that ion cannon. Compared to this, his decision to attack NA is indeed less problematic. Well, he specified the try should be attempted post alien so I think the tech level except for ion cannon is relatively realistic for a player progress that far, but the generals of choice is bad even for self-imposed handicap: too expensive compared to a combination of Sansonetti (with Lv1 AF medal, replacing Goring), Weygand (promote to Lt Gen (cost +940) and maybe with tank medals with total Lv up to 5, replacing Guderian, Vatutin will do if low movement ability is acceptable), Weidling or art EC (replacing Konev, Govorov will do if low movement ability is acceptable) and Zhu De (with Lv1 inf medal, replacing Mannerheim), which is way cheaper for that purpose. |
|
