Nah I dont think so, the only issue you have is to clear MT and other units with heavy armor, TD is fine, but they need to attack you, and that is not always possible to force them. so arty stacks arty stacks are welcome there, and luckily they are pretty good for PA.
@@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant infantry counter unarmoured targets and need to engage in melee battle. However they have less speed and damage compared to armoured cars. B is a pretty good rating for a basic early game unit like infantry.
@@BMfoxgaming Axis cant kite other doctrines' Cruisers though. Which in combination with air control with Panasian stronger interceptors makes it unplayable for players trying to optimize their navy with Cruisers/Destroyer stacks, Axis cannot do that.
@sewur5034 Axis navy has 15% more damage and 15% extra HP. It makes their navy one of the best. Axis Interceptors have 25% more HP compared to Pan Asian. For all the advantage that pan Asian interceptors have, in a dogfight with axis they will get shredded.
@@BMfoxgaming Agreed but since they dont border each other and are always far away it comes to how optimal is each build. Axis could counter specifically Panasians but then would lose to other doctrines. Meanwhile Panasians can utilze all their buffs to wreck their neighbors navies without any sacrifices.
@@sewur5034 all doctrines meet at any given point time. Each doctrine has strengths and weaknesses. In the end it all comes down to the players activity and strategy.
I main Comintern but I know pan Asian is definitely the best. I just am not the best with it because I am not a fan of navy in general I find it annoying but I’m sure I should try
You are too nice with some of these rankings. 1.) pa medium tanks and heavy tanks have the lowest hp in the game. I don’t think terrain boosts make this worth it as it’s a terrible nerf for a unit that is supposed to be powerful in melee combat. Economically, heavy tanks are a terrible choice and should be F tier as they are draining on your resources. If you look at them simply from a damage standpoint, then MAYBE they are C tier. But a speed bonus, in my opinion, does not make these units even a bit viable. Heavy tanks are still slow as all hell, no doctrine bonus can change this. 2.) same goes for tactical bombers, attack bombers, and strategic bombers. Because of the hp nerf, these units are entirely useless early game. Starting Armies will have more then enough AA value to make bombers not worth it pre-day 3, and pa tacs/attacks are even weaker because they have less HP then other doctrines. Again, I think you are too biased and you ignore that a HP nerf is VERY debilitating nerf. The only planes you should make as pan Asian are fighters and naval bombers.
@@govenormayor87 I've ranked MT and HT C which is "can be a good choice but have downsides". You have clearly pointed out the downside. D ranking is only good for niche uses. The metrics for the rankings of all doctrines unit tier videos are doctrine, unit and terrain bonuses, speed, HP and damage output. HT already have a lot of HP so the -10% HP nerf is less impactful compared with other unit types. I wouldn't make MT and HT with Pan Asian but you could. Thanks to your extra speed and larger view range you can retreat and give battle in the plains where you have a 70% terrain bonus. The enemy stack will die much faster than in any other terrain. You'll get less counter damage so the HP nerf is less of a hindrance. Of course the Pan Asian doctrine is only a good choice for players who had sufficient activity and understanding of the game mechanics. Personally I've never made HT in my entire call of war career as they have the speed of artillery which is very slow. However with a 20% speed buff the could be a viable option. I agree you shouldn't use bombers in the early game and that counts for all the doctrines. The only exception is maybe tactical bombers for Allies but even then you'll lose HP too fast. Bombers are only effective in larger numbers like 5 but ideally 10 and you don't have enough resources in the early game to pull that off. For Pan Asian interceptors and naval bombers are indeed the best options as they get ridiculous bonuses. For planes the HP nerf really hurts as planes don't get terrain bonuses. Hence why they are ranked C However bombers are still good for Pan Asian as you can switch between targets faster. With PA interceptors you should have air dominance so why not use bombers. Yes they will lose HP a bit faster compared to other doctrines but with War Bonds you can easily counter that.
@@BMfoxgaming maybe I got distracted and I put forth my rebuttal not based off of your ranking terms. I ranked them based on their viability in the meta build, their effect on economy, and their viability, not purely based off of the unit itself relative to its doctrine and it’s bonuses. By your standards and terms, you are correct. I don’t know if, by my standards and terms, I am objectively correct, but I do believe I am. As for your point on the HT hp nerf, I still think it is pretty significant. Enemy units (especially allied units with no nerfs/buffs to hp and damage and axis with a health and hp buff) will have a slightly easier time and take less damage to kill your heavy tanks as opposed to those of another doctrine. This amounts to your enemy saving more resources, loosing less health, and overall doing better then they would have, should they have encountered an axis, Comintern, or allied heavy tank in battle. Over time this can amount to the enemy potentially saving thousands in resources should they have managed to kill your heavy tanks. If not, you still have taken more damage then any other doctrine would have in that fight, which amounts to you being less efficient in the battlefield and you loosing more resources then necessary. Plus, your points on the view range can be moot in certain situations. I am purely talking hypothetically now, but especially it won’t matter if your heavy tanks are caught by allied SP artillery, for example, which can definitely still be faster in certain terrain types. Your point for the usability of bombers is one I agree with. With the superiority of pan Asian interceptors you can certainly keep your bombers safe in the skies. You can escape danger due to speed as well. However, the goods and rare materials spent on this would be better be invested in light tanks or rocket artillery, which in my opinion, as the former especially, has more viability in the meta due to its superior bonuses. Side note, your point on war bonds in the end is what is wrong with this game nowadays as a whole
@@govenormayor87 With my guides I try to transfer knowledge about the game mechanics. I prefer to offer the tools for players to choose their own strategy. This is why I've used the metrics that I did to objectively compare different units compared to other doctrines. I should have explained my metrics used in each video though. I've also made a Pan Asian series and a build order where I share my favourite build. Obviously it doesn't include MT, HT or bombers 😅
Is there a specific naval fleet. For example, for Pan Asian I use 10 units in total, 2 cv, 4 BB ane 4 DD with 5 intercptors and 5 naval bombers. Is there better fleet that consist of the best ships that pan Asian uses like subs are not worth it for pan asian since we got DD. things like that.
@@yumdoot007 Axis battleships have 15% more HP, and deal 5% more damage. That puts Pan Asian battleships with 20% at the disadvantage. Axis units cost 10% more so with equal resources, axis will still outgun you with 10%.
@BMfoxCallofWar it's wrong way to calculate it. Axis battleship and pan asian battleship has edge to edge fight. It should be approx (15+5)/2=10 which is similar to their additional cost of 10%
@@yumdoot007 you can't change math just like that 😅 axis have 20% advantage over pan Asian battle ships for only 10% of the cost so that's still a 10% advantage for Axis.
With right the last one in a "tier"-series, cheerry on the pie, what a doctrine, makes me want to jump to action directly
@@patricksmit8887 I'm glad it's over. This was more work than expected.
So many S-tier units 😱
BMFox has Pan-Asian bias
@@vladimir-uz3dq or maybe the doctrine is that good!
Nah I dont think so, the only issue you have is to clear MT and other units with heavy armor, TD is fine, but they need to attack you, and that is not always possible to force them. so arty stacks arty stacks are welcome there, and luckily they are pretty good for PA.
@@BMfoxgaming Tthe Soviet doctrine shall prevail above all others in the end🗿🗿
@@patricksmit8887I have TD in reinforcements, I use AC and LT to take province centers then move my TD up.
@@BMfoxgaming "nothing will stop a AC and LT stack"
*Axis main basement guy with medium tanks*
Thank you for this!
@@AquilaGER My pleasure 😊
Thank mate. Good info as always
Thanks.That helps me a lot❤
AWESOME THANK YOU
@@syedzuberahmed8913 my pleasure 😊
Thank you! i dont usually play Pan Asian country but its still fun when i play on the pacific map :)
pan asian infantry is too good.
Challenge accepted.
I disagree about infantry though. Pan-Asian infantry is damned good. In terms of usefulness I'd put it in A tier myself.
@@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant infantry counter unarmoured targets and need to engage in melee battle. However they have less speed and damage compared to armoured cars. B is a pretty good rating for a basic early game unit like infantry.
The navy in the pan asian is significanty the strongest which gives it an upper hand in most pacific maps
@@watchpredator Pan Asian navy is better than Allies for sure but the best navy still is Axis in general.
@@BMfoxgaming Axis cant kite other doctrines' Cruisers though. Which in combination with air control with Panasian stronger interceptors makes it unplayable for players trying to optimize their navy with Cruisers/Destroyer stacks, Axis cannot do that.
@sewur5034 Axis navy has 15% more damage and 15% extra HP. It makes their navy one of the best. Axis Interceptors have 25% more HP compared to Pan Asian. For all the advantage that pan Asian interceptors have, in a dogfight with axis they will get shredded.
@@BMfoxgaming Agreed but since they dont border each other and are always far away it comes to how optimal is each build.
Axis could counter specifically Panasians but then would lose to other doctrines.
Meanwhile Panasians can utilze all their buffs to wreck their neighbors navies without any sacrifices.
@@sewur5034 all doctrines meet at any given point time. Each doctrine has strengths and weaknesses. In the end it all comes down to the players activity and strategy.
I main Comintern but I know pan Asian is definitely the best. I just am not the best with it because I am not a fan of navy in general I find it annoying but I’m sure I should try
i from indonesia but i like this you video ....♥️♥️
@@rozynugroho2838 I 'm in Bali right now
When you make a stack of armored cars and light tanks, do you do 5 ac and 5 Lt or 10 ac and 10 Lt.
@@OOOOOOOOOOOO1 5/5 as 10 in a stack is maximum efficiency.
You are too nice with some of these rankings.
1.) pa medium tanks and heavy tanks have the lowest hp in the game. I don’t think terrain boosts make this worth it as it’s a terrible nerf for a unit that is supposed to be powerful in melee combat. Economically, heavy tanks are a terrible choice and should be F tier as they are draining on your resources. If you look at them simply from a damage standpoint, then MAYBE they are C tier. But a speed bonus, in my opinion, does not make these units even a bit viable. Heavy tanks are still slow as all hell, no doctrine bonus can change this.
2.) same goes for tactical bombers, attack bombers, and strategic bombers. Because of the hp nerf, these units are entirely useless early game. Starting Armies will have more then enough AA value to make bombers not worth it pre-day 3, and pa tacs/attacks are even weaker because they have less HP then other doctrines. Again, I think you are too biased and you ignore that a HP nerf is VERY debilitating nerf. The only planes you should make as pan Asian are fighters and naval bombers.
@@govenormayor87 I've ranked MT and HT C which is "can be a good choice but have downsides". You have clearly pointed out the downside. D ranking is only good for niche uses. The metrics for the rankings of all doctrines unit tier videos are doctrine, unit and terrain bonuses, speed, HP and damage output.
HT already have a lot of HP so the -10% HP nerf is less impactful compared with other unit types. I wouldn't make MT and HT with Pan Asian but you could. Thanks to your extra speed and larger view range you can retreat and give battle in the plains where you have a 70% terrain bonus. The enemy stack will die much faster than in any other terrain. You'll get less counter damage so the HP nerf is less of a hindrance. Of course the Pan Asian doctrine is only a good choice for players who had sufficient activity and understanding of the game mechanics. Personally I've never made HT in my entire call of war career as they have the speed of artillery which is very slow. However with a 20% speed buff the could be a viable option.
I agree you shouldn't use bombers in the early game and that counts for all the doctrines. The only exception is maybe tactical bombers for Allies but even then you'll lose HP too fast. Bombers are only effective in larger numbers like 5 but ideally 10 and you don't have enough resources in the early game to pull that off. For Pan Asian interceptors and naval bombers are indeed the best options as they get ridiculous bonuses. For planes the HP nerf really hurts as planes don't get terrain bonuses. Hence why they are ranked C However bombers are still good for Pan Asian as you can switch between targets faster. With PA interceptors you should have air dominance so why not use bombers. Yes they will lose HP a bit faster compared to other doctrines but with War Bonds you can easily counter that.
@@BMfoxgaming maybe I got distracted and I put forth my rebuttal not based off of your ranking terms. I ranked them based on their viability in the meta build, their effect on economy, and their viability, not purely based off of the unit itself relative to its doctrine and it’s bonuses. By your standards and terms, you are correct. I don’t know if, by my standards and terms, I am objectively correct, but I do believe I am.
As for your point on the HT hp nerf, I still think it is pretty significant. Enemy units (especially allied units with no nerfs/buffs to hp and damage and axis with a health and hp buff) will have a slightly easier time and take less damage to kill your heavy tanks as opposed to those of another doctrine. This amounts to your enemy saving more resources, loosing less health, and overall doing better then they would have, should they have encountered an axis, Comintern, or allied heavy tank in battle. Over time this can amount to the enemy potentially saving thousands in resources should they have managed to kill your heavy tanks. If not, you still have taken more damage then any other doctrine would have in that fight, which amounts to you being less efficient in the battlefield and you loosing more resources then necessary.
Plus, your points on the view range can be moot in certain situations. I am purely talking hypothetically now, but especially it won’t matter if your heavy tanks are caught by allied SP artillery, for example, which can definitely still be faster in certain terrain types.
Your point for the usability of bombers is one I agree with. With the superiority of pan Asian interceptors you can certainly keep your bombers safe in the skies. You can escape danger due to speed as well. However, the goods and rare materials spent on this would be better be invested in light tanks or rocket artillery, which in my opinion, as the former especially, has more viability in the meta due to its superior bonuses.
Side note, your point on war bonds in the end is what is wrong with this game nowadays as a whole
@@govenormayor87 With my guides I try to transfer knowledge about the game mechanics. I prefer to offer the tools for players to choose their own strategy. This is why I've used the metrics that I did to objectively compare different units compared to other doctrines. I should have explained my metrics used in each video though. I've also made a Pan Asian series and a build order where I share my favourite build. Obviously it doesn't include MT, HT or bombers 😅
@@BMfoxgaming yes I have watched those videos, quite interesting. You confused Borneo and Burma haha
@@govenormayor87 It happens, especially when I'm tired 😴
will you ever play a historic map?
@@parthibanilango5568 No, it's notoriously inactive and unfair.
@@BMfoxgaming but it would be fun tho for like a video concept or an RP game
Is there a specific naval fleet. For example, for Pan Asian I use 10 units in total, 2 cv, 4 BB ane 4 DD with 5 intercptors and 5 naval bombers. Is there better fleet that consist of the best ships that pan Asian uses like subs are not worth it for pan asian since we got DD. things like that.
@@brandonthebest2412 Watch the Pan Asian build order.
Bro a question:
If i see 10 interceptors in an airfield, but not flying, should i attack them with a nuclear bomber or an assault bomber?
@@alex-lm9wy parked interceptors will still deal defensive damage. Ideally you take out the airstrip with rockets or strategic bombers.
even if axis battleship is slightly stronger, pan asian battleship are cheaper so they can have more.
This.
@@yumdoot007 Axis battleships have 15% more HP, and deal 5% more damage. That puts Pan Asian battleships with 20% at the disadvantage. Axis units cost 10% more so with equal resources, axis will still outgun you with 10%.
@BMfoxCallofWar it's wrong way to calculate it.
Axis battleship and pan asian battleship has edge to edge fight.
It should be approx (15+5)/2=10 which is similar to their additional cost of 10%
@@yumdoot007 you can't change math just like that 😅 axis have 20% advantage over pan Asian battle ships for only 10% of the cost so that's still a 10% advantage for Axis.
God bless yall
Is this reupload?
@@YouryappingPIE No, I've never made a Pan Asian doctrine unit tear list before.
👍