Strategies Discussion 2015.
Berichten: 245
Bezocht door: 236 users
There are still some strategies that need some work, but theres been a fair deal of improvement since the last round of changes.
We have 3 tiers of strategies atm. The competitive strategies, the middle ground strats and the almost useless strats.
Competitive Strats(competitive in that they all have a niche in which they are powerful):
Guerilla Warfare
Perfect Defense
Sky Menace
Iron Fist
Imperialist
Master of Stealth
Naval Commander
Desert Storm(almost in the next category)
Blitzkrieg
Middle Ground strats(not bad but not quite competent):
Great Combinator
Relentless attack
Almost useless:
Hybrid Warfare
Lucky bastard.
Ideally all of the strats should be in the first category. Lucky bastard was originally created as a troll strat, perhaps it is to stay that way if the community wishes. Some of the strats in the competitive category could use some tweaks, but the majority are widely considered perfect within the current meta.
I'll go through a quick breakdown of the strats.
Guerilla Warfare - Powerful in low/medium income areas with a medium/high city density(due to short range). Assuming cities are in range of its militia and marines it expands faster than any other strat due to the militia's attack and the acquiring of these buffed militia in every neutral taken. A powerful lategame strat.
Perfect Defense: A well rounded strat that can be used almost anywhere due to the low cost of its primary units and their high stats, Particularly powerful in the low-mid tier starting fund settings. However it can be dominated by the other strats in their specific niches.
Sky Menace - Powerful in medium-high income areas with low - high city densities. Can expand and travel fast and possesses great offensive power.
Iron Fist - Powerful in high income areas with a high city density. The most powerful offensive and defensive strat in the game, however it is limited by its short range. The recent change to its' transport range has seen it become a more popular pick competitively.
Imperialist - Powerful in low to medium income areas particularly with lots of spawn points. Possesses standard range on its units so is usable almost everywhere.
Master of Stealth - Powerful in medium to high income areas, particularly on big maps where it can make full use of its range and its stealth. Very mobile due to the range of its' marines and is arguably the most powerful lategame strat dominating even gw due to its meaneuvreability and powerful offense. Also possesses a decent naval presense.
Naval commander - Powerful on maps with medium to high income and lots of water and ports for it to make use of its naval transport range and powerful destroyers. Possesses the most powerful naval presense in the game.
Desert Storm: Powerful with lots of money, specifically against infantry based strats in countries with high starting funds. one of the competitive strategies which could arguably use some tweaks.
Blitzkrieg: Dangerous for surprise attacks and early game agression however it will fail vs most strats if the other has time and room to expand and grow strong. Has recently become a controversial strat due to its recently discovered power in europe+ 10k duels.
Great Combinator: Can be strong in medium to high income areas with lots of money. An attrition strat however currently in almost every situation you can use gc in a map with the default units theres a better strat choice.
Relentless Attack: A strat unique in that it has a singular boosted unit, however in function ra is the same as ds. You can pick a country with high starting funds, spam tanks and expand rapidly then go agressive. However it lacks any defensive capabilities and is dominated by pd and more powerful/versatile offensive strats like sm and mos.
Hybrid Warfare: Can be strong with lots of money, however currently it is too expensive to compete vs the competitive strats.
Lucky bastard: Is ok on high income maps, however in every situation you can use lb, theres a better strat choice. If i was to try and find a niche for lb it would be perhaps on some custom map with all "other" units with high stats and huge income.
Boosts nerfs to strats like pd/ds are controversial, so i am going to focus on the least used and widely acknowleged as weak strats, Particularly those that keep cropping up in general discussion and the ideas and suggestions section.
Boosts:
All boosts/nerfs have received support by the majority.
Great Combinator:
-10 cost to infantry.
Hybrid Warfare:
-20 to inf
Lucky Bastard:
+2 crit to all units.
Nerfs:
Blitzkrieg:
-1 defense to militia
We have 3 tiers of strategies atm. The competitive strategies, the middle ground strats and the almost useless strats.
Competitive Strats(competitive in that they all have a niche in which they are powerful):
Guerilla Warfare
Perfect Defense
Sky Menace
Iron Fist
Imperialist
Master of Stealth
Naval Commander
Desert Storm(almost in the next category)
Blitzkrieg
Middle Ground strats(not bad but not quite competent):
Great Combinator
Relentless attack
Almost useless:
Hybrid Warfare
Lucky bastard.
Ideally all of the strats should be in the first category. Lucky bastard was originally created as a troll strat, perhaps it is to stay that way if the community wishes. Some of the strats in the competitive category could use some tweaks, but the majority are widely considered perfect within the current meta.
I'll go through a quick breakdown of the strats.
Guerilla Warfare - Powerful in low/medium income areas with a medium/high city density(due to short range). Assuming cities are in range of its militia and marines it expands faster than any other strat due to the militia's attack and the acquiring of these buffed militia in every neutral taken. A powerful lategame strat.
Perfect Defense: A well rounded strat that can be used almost anywhere due to the low cost of its primary units and their high stats, Particularly powerful in the low-mid tier starting fund settings. However it can be dominated by the other strats in their specific niches.
Sky Menace - Powerful in medium-high income areas with low - high city densities. Can expand and travel fast and possesses great offensive power.
Iron Fist - Powerful in high income areas with a high city density. The most powerful offensive and defensive strat in the game, however it is limited by its short range. The recent change to its' transport range has seen it become a more popular pick competitively.
Imperialist - Powerful in low to medium income areas particularly with lots of spawn points. Possesses standard range on its units so is usable almost everywhere.
Master of Stealth - Powerful in medium to high income areas, particularly on big maps where it can make full use of its range and its stealth. Very mobile due to the range of its' marines and is arguably the most powerful lategame strat dominating even gw due to its meaneuvreability and powerful offense. Also possesses a decent naval presense.
Naval commander - Powerful on maps with medium to high income and lots of water and ports for it to make use of its naval transport range and powerful destroyers. Possesses the most powerful naval presense in the game.
Desert Storm: Powerful with lots of money, specifically against infantry based strats in countries with high starting funds. one of the competitive strategies which could arguably use some tweaks.
Blitzkrieg: Dangerous for surprise attacks and early game agression however it will fail vs most strats if the other has time and room to expand and grow strong. Has recently become a controversial strat due to its recently discovered power in europe+ 10k duels.
Great Combinator: Can be strong in medium to high income areas with lots of money. An attrition strat however currently in almost every situation you can use gc in a map with the default units theres a better strat choice.
Relentless Attack: A strat unique in that it has a singular boosted unit, however in function ra is the same as ds. You can pick a country with high starting funds, spam tanks and expand rapidly then go agressive. However it lacks any defensive capabilities and is dominated by pd and more powerful/versatile offensive strats like sm and mos.
Hybrid Warfare: Can be strong with lots of money, however currently it is too expensive to compete vs the competitive strats.
Lucky bastard: Is ok on high income maps, however in every situation you can use lb, theres a better strat choice. If i was to try and find a niche for lb it would be perhaps on some custom map with all "other" units with high stats and huge income.
Boosts nerfs to strats like pd/ds are controversial, so i am going to focus on the least used and widely acknowleged as weak strats, Particularly those that keep cropping up in general discussion and the ideas and suggestions section.
Boosts:
All boosts/nerfs have received support by the majority.
Great Combinator:
-10 cost to infantry.
Hybrid Warfare:
-20 to inf
Lucky Bastard:
+2 crit to all units.
Nerfs:
Blitzkrieg:
-1 defense to militia
yeah but since the inf upgrades help nearly every strat, once your r7+ it's less useful using RA since you got the ups that help other strats more, so RA would need some sorta boost to be able to be played in things like 3v3 since EU+ is considered one the most balanced maps it only makes sense for every strat to at least be playable somewhere and at the moment there is nearly always a better option then RA
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Ra 50k europe is op it have better range then pd
---- Hi
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
this.blitz needed a buff but now its being abused, you created a monster.blitz should be dealt with.
----      
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Blitz is a defensive strategy - with gen upgrade your defense in cities is actually +1, that added with the +1 defense city bonus. If you then talk about recap capabilities then you have an inverted defense also. remove the plus 1 def to inf in cities (like RA has) don't touch the range, after all that is the point of the strategy. As for RA I would add 1 to attack of infantry and take away the def buff to tanks, this might go some way to making it more than a 1 unit strategy. And really force the attack attack attack idea. Support the cost reduction to inf for Hybrid DS I would like to see the marine capacity increased (2 or 3)
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
we should also nerf PD
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
PD has its limitations, I was an advocate for nerfing it before but really bringing other strats up to its level is better. The only 'nerf' I think viable now for PD is increasing its transport costs.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Infantry for blitz will be too weak i suggest -1 defence to to militia because blitz liek to use free militia as a defensive unit. that means turk have a chance to take the balkan from blitz ukraine and blitz ukraine need infantry to defend kiev.
---- Hi
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
I disagree the -1 in cities, 1/7 of its defense is offset by the sheer numbers you can get back, RA has the city bonus removed, it would not devalue the defensive capabilites of blitz in a major way whereas -1 to militia would.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
these days blitz owns europe, with players breaking into the 1500s in elo off the strength of their op blitz ukraines. Blitz uk italy and spain seeing popularity too. Its actually in close quarters where blitz excels, expansion stealing and surprise attacks. It generally loses to other strats on the slowroll unless it blocks them from money like we see with the op ukraine blitz slowroll vs turk. They dont even have to play agressively vs turk, they just expand rapidly outproduce and play defensive. Defensive blitz, a year ago many of us would have laughed at the thought, but its a reality now. And frankly we shouldnt be encouraging such gameplay in the new generations by making it so powerful. Bonkers nerf proposal is ok, but as he stated it is a lesser nerf than -1 def to the militia which many seem to feel is necessary, and i would agree. All that range and maneuverability for just -1 defense to its units is just too much.
---- 
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Agree, nerfing the militia deffense would be good. But I think to not make PD op as it was before, to nerf PD together with blitz.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
But then if you gonna nerf pd, you must nerf sm too.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
I think SM should be nerfed anyways like -1 range for bombers. But you make a point though.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Ukraine has always been the strongest 1v1 country imo. You know that is because it is the only country in EU+ that has the flexibility of early surplus cash and access to high spawn areas. The thing about blitz atm being controversial is because it is popular, these things go in swings and roundabouts, next month LB Ukraine will be the 'OP' strat (haha). This is why we should nerf things very cautiously, otherwise you will end up with a GC situation.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
I got to say i don't like the way you guys talking about people breaking 1500's elos " Because " of Blitz. That clearly is pointing me. Moreover it's saying. Okk this guy is noob but thx to blitz he breaks 1500 + elos. Remember i'm not doing even the third of my duels as Blitz ukraine. That more sounds like a hater sayings... Also don't think once you picked ukr blitz, the game already is won. Depends a lot on the way you play it. Okk i won many duels with blitz ukr and so did other but it's funny you guys keep blaming it only on the strat. Anyway i'm for a little nerf too of the strat. But i think the main point is about Ukr vs Turk. Ukr is really better than turk in duels no matter strat you pick. Behind all your nerfing ideas of blitz. the only reason i see is that you think Blitz UKRAINE is too op and not BLITZ alone. That's why i think main thing is about ukraine vs turk. I agree that at equal level of players blitz ukraine has more chance of win vs turk but again that goes the same for other strats. I also agree the slowroll blitz ukr so op if played right ! But plz just mind your words when blaming only BLITZ and not thinking about UKRAINE. And i would propose less reinfs in duel for ukraine.
---- Only the Braves
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Remember when everybody wanted to nerf SM because it was "op" ?
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Soldier001 Account verwijderd |
Soldier001 Account verwijderd
they were afraid of sm ukraine like they are afraid of blitz ukraine now  tommorow they will be afraid of hw ukraine i guess 
Laden...
Laden...
|
three paragraphs of paranoia, nothing of value added to the conversation. As a blitz player what is your nerf reccomendation that won't break the strategy?
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Sm is easier to beat then blitzkrieg ukraine
---- Hi
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Ukraine is not the problem, as ive just explained to zone, especially with new expansion innovations by lynchski with turk. Its now possible to cap hungary and austria turn 1 with all main lower balkan capitals with only 2 nts and an at. If you just take hungary you dont even need the at. honestly precious few players play imp turk to its' full potential anyway. Using the right amount of tanks to inf vs neutrals up to turn 5 to conserve units without crippling yourself financially or leaving yourself vulnerable, and responding appropriately to your opponents strat and turn 1 and 2 expands. But if you nerf ukraine youll destroy the teamgame balance, where funded pd turks are already very powerful. And this blitz issue isnt simply a passing fad which we will learn to deal with. ive played it myself and optimised 1v1 expands, with turk vs ukr for example you dont even need to go agressive on turk, you just expand and defend yourself with large stacks of militia and inf which can defend through sheer numbers. by turn 5 even if turk plays passively and simply expands itself, blitz will significantly outproduce it. it also can dominate west picks as clovis saw in our ukr vs germ duel. i have employed many of my best turks against it only to be outproduced and crushed. even players who have been unable to beat me with sm or pd succeed with blitz. ive tried agreesive play, passive play, latemoves, pd rushes, all fail unless im lucky or they play badly. All the same though i agree about cautious nerfs and boosts.
already discussed in pr.
those same people still want sm nerfed but more out of dislike rather than them having a valid argument, hence theres been no changes.
there will always be controversy about some strat with players coming to the forums to complain about it, but rarely do they build a good case for their argument.
----
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
nerf your east xaxa
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
after all game you didnt realize i was actually pd? xD
----
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
here Account verwijderd |
|
That because you are not pro enough, and upgrade makes blitz op, since blitz like imp affect all unit
---- Hi
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
People are saying about nerfing blitz cause of how well it is with ukr, but how well can it be played everywhere else? personally I find blitz ukr fine in 3v3 and in 1v1 well blitz ukr has advantage but ukr (any strat) has an advantage over nrly any country in 1v1
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
here Account verwijderd |
|
*correction: Desu is the creator of that innovative Turk Expansion. Is like 6 months old already.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
First of I think you have got confused between middle ground strats and almost useless ones. LB almost useless ?  Also Hw is the only other strat in which infs give same amount of defence as pd infs. yes they are more expensive. and hw is rather hard to play. I agree with the boosts and nerfs proposed though.
---- 
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
But but 46 > 51 
---- 
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
----
Laden...
Laden...
|
