|
|
Post by wollesu on Jul 24, 2017 18:14:30 GMT
In the terms of "speedrun" I mean completing as many missions as quickly as possible and leveling up as quickly as possible.
I can do missions quickly, but I want advice on how to oevel up more quickly to unlock more missions
|
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Jul 24, 2017 18:54:19 GMT
I think firstly complate conquerors (USSR)
Can be fast win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 20:06:37 GMT
Well to completely complete the game you will still hAve to have a higher leveled HQ due to levels unlocking with HQ levels, and beating aliens is no quick matter, Axis and allies is easy, NATO WTO is not that hard (depends on generals) and alien missions are rather difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Jul 24, 2017 20:34:06 GMT
Well to completely complete the game you will still hAve to have a higher leveled HQ due to levels unlocking with HQ levels, and beating aliens is no quick matter, Axis and allies is easy, NATO WTO is not that hard (depends on generals) and alien missions are rather difficult. Yes you right |
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Jul 24, 2017 20:43:00 GMT
I think WTO better than Nato.
My favorite is USSR
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 22:30:56 GMT
Depends in 1950 apparently NATO has the advantage(personally I think it is even) but in 1960 WTO has a clear advantage in Africa, Egypt and Strong soviet forces while europe adds germany and Italy to nato and Romania to WTO I think it is even, soviet union is stronger than 1950, Asia is clear WTO advantAge india joins WTO and only Countries in Asia that are NATO are South Korea and Japan, very weak countries(i guess Australia could be counted but it is far away from main battle in Asia USA has hard time grabbing land in Asia due to china(Philippines and Midway are serious issues for china
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 22:31:38 GMT
But AI might be better for NATO in 1950 and 1960 for WTO
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 22:35:25 GMT
One thing I like about NATO is their carriers they look great, and I know looks have no difference
|
|
Zayder
First Lieutenant
Eating Burger King
Posts: 45 
|
Post by Zayder on Jul 25, 2017 4:24:17 GMT
Cold war conquests:
You put in a general, enemy nukes the crap out of it
You play as NATO, you do good, but your allies on the other side of the globe fail
You play as WTO, you do good, but your bros die and fail and get overrun
|
|
Zayder
First Lieutenant
Eating Burger King
Posts: 45
|
Post by Zayder on Jul 25, 2017 4:25:38 GMT
One thing I like about NATO is their carriers they look great, and I know looks have no difference They're modern aircraft carriers, thats why. |
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Jul 25, 2017 5:28:34 GMT
Yes you right
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 14:47:21 GMT
The communist carriers are just bad looking SO bad looking they switch to NATO carriers in 1975
|
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Jul 25, 2017 15:07:54 GMT
Realy you are very right
.org/image/c7orylhd1/]  [/url] |
|
|
|
Post by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim on Aug 1, 2017 21:24:44 GMT
Cold war conquests: You put in a general, enemy nukes the crap out of it You play as NATO, you do good, but your allies on the other side of the globe fail You play as WTO, you do good, but your bros die and fail and get overrun This is why I like WWII conquests more. There isn't an gazillion nukes waiting to get launched. Also no matter what side you pick Japan is 95% guaranteed to rekt everything if left alone so you can plan ahead to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 21:55:51 GMT
In 1943 there is a very good chance USA Mexico and Canada can take mainland Japan but yes japan is very powerful in WW2 cannot say the same for cold war (I won as Japan in 1960)
|
|
