Review of the current strategies / default units.
Berichten: 56
Bezocht door: 110 users
Review of the current strategies / default units.
A resume of this topic:
Current suggested changes:
- revert the last change made to Imperialist (+1 defense to militias)
- revert the last change made to Naval Commander (+1 capacity to destroyers)
- Change the current Hybrid Warfare militia boost from (+1 att, -1 def, +1 range) to (+1 def, +2 range).
- Reduce the cost of Anti-Air units by 20.
Possibility need a change (open for suggestions):
- Relentless Attack.
- Guerrilla Warfare
- Blitzkrieg
Pretty much balanced and shouldn't be bothered with:
- Desert Storm.
- Great Combinator
- Lucky Bastard
- Rest of the strategies.
- Rest of the units.
Sup guys,
with the discovery of the in-cities bonus bug there have been some changes to balance out the strategies. However, theses changes also made room for some disbalance while not addressing the rest of the problems at all. Personally not a huge fan of changing the strategies often, but I believe theses issues need to be taken care of.
I will make some suggestions and leave room for discussion to see what would'be the best way to balance them out. I will also comment about the improvement of the current strategies.
Improved
Desert Storm.
An strategy often underused and considered weak now have it's own defensive unit. The current boost to DS militias makes them the 2nd best militias by defense, just below GW Militias. This had certainly proven to be useful specially in 5K games for DS. Although I wouldn't say this change makes being capable of holding a Rush (for example), the good point is that you get free militias by expanding - which is what DS is best at!
The strategy seems very balanced so far.
Current DS militias. They now have the same defense as DS infantries, but a lot cheaper...
Imperialist
- Wait, what?
- Yep.
One of the first strategies and long though as balanced also received a boost this year. IMP militias also saw their defense growing up to 5 while in cities, being the 2nd militia by defense along with PD and DS. The catch is, of course, that Imperialist militias were already the most cost-efficient unit of the game. Now offering 5 defense for 10 cost seems quite an outrage, isn't it?
The logic behind this boost is still unknown for the community.
The suggestion here is simply to remove the change back. There are several reasons such as going against the strategy's theme, allowing Imp to defend a lot better with the already highly efficient unit, crossing the field of other strategies (such as PD), etc.
Uhhh.... something seems wrong here.
Great Combinator
Finally!
Being a premium strategy as well as one of the most changed, Great Combinator hit up the 2016 with a cost reduction to the infantries, making it easier to defend with. In overall the strategy seems to be doing very, very well as stated in Dbacks's stats. Currently GC infantries are the strongest infantries, followed by PD and HW (+1 HP vs +1 Def). They also have a weaker Nerf with a -2 attack/defense for Tanks/Infs in contrast to the previous -3 defense.
After a long time, GC finally seems to be pushing forward!
Lucky Bastard
- Are you kidding me?
- No, not at all.
If your expression was just as the above then you've probably never played scenarios. As the days pass Lucky Bastard is becoming more and more popular with the grown of Trench-based scenarios and the usage of high stats units. By following simple logic it's well know that a Critical hit from an unit with high stats hurts more than one with low stats. The current boost (-10 cost to infantries and militias) didn't affected the outcome at all.
The usage doesn't limit to players who uses trenches, but also to players who are against trenches as you will typically hit having the battle stacking bonus advantage. Since most of the trenches have HP between 9 and 30 (WW2) or 50 (Endsieg) you might want to deliver theses units out ASAP. This goes very well with AlexMeza's research about Lucky Bastard some time ago.
Despite being overlooked in the default map due to the rather low stats units (infantries) except for some rare opportunities (LB Rush), this strategy is gaining adepts in the other maps and should'be kept as it is.
225 damage in one hit? Imagine this being 10% more likely to happen...
Naval Commander
Naturally a weak strategy due to it's lack of in-land fights. Took quite much of time before finally turning the strategy competitive with the +5 capacity to the sea transport. Now it has been awaken from the graves to give it an ultimate boost... +1 capacity to destroyers.
Although it makes it easier to take theses island with 1 unit (namely Malta, Las Palmas, Cagliary) the truth is that it can be used for other purposes. Transporting units for a NC Rush became a lot easier, giving Taiwan a slight advantage in Asia 5k. But the biggest harm was taken by the scenarios, specifically those who implemented a Trench system and disabled Sea Transports from being build to some countries. With this new capacity and without ways to prevent it, many MapMakers have been forced to change the destroyer to another type of unit, completely making NC as weak as SM without bombers.
This obviously need to be fixed ASAP.
WW1 - Tyrol trenches. Austria would typically have to capture either of the "trench cities" in Tyrol or Isonzo before being able to pass to Italy. The NC boost made this one of the principal places to exploit by carrying units from Carniola (Austria) to Italy mainland with destroyers.
Guerrilla Warfare
Being the first strategy suggested (that was implemented) by the community and one of the most loved of all. Offering a completely different style for the stealth units, Guerrilla Warfare was actually one of the (if not the only one) unaffected strategies by the country bonus fix. The GW militias became the best militias (imp still better at cost, but GW by far better with reinforcements) unit of the game. Not only this, but also the 2nd strongest unit in General Stack just after NC destroyers. I've personally see an increase in players that uses this strategy in games.
I wouldn't rush for a Nerf for it just yet. But suggestions are more than welcome.
GW militias in general stack (ignore the inacurate cost). The +1 HP in general stack can be used very, very well.
Declined
Hybrid Warfare
- Wait wasn't it boosted?
- No, actually Nerfed....
The current enigma of our generation. Hybrid Warfare is long considered as one of the weakest strategy. Firstly came from the hand of tophat, HW was designed to be a strategy capable of adapt to different scenarios with it's four boosted units (Marines, Infantries, Tanks and Militias). But apparently the idea was better in paper than in practice.
For the surprise of everybody - HW Marines now have -1 defense in cities (pretty much like Blitz infantries) making them actually just as weak as HW Tanks (1 defense). This of course doesn't help the strategy that despite a cost reduction and even a reduction in the Nerfs on transports, didn't made it to competitive gameplay.
I've made a good suggestion before that received a good amount of support: turning the HW militias into a defensive unit. It would make it easier to defend with HW and reduce the problem of reusing troops. Although this boost might not be enough, it for sure will help HW to improve. We can see how it works and give the appropriated tweaks after it.
Suggested boost: Changing the current militia boosts from (+1 att, -1 def, +1 range) to (+1 def, +2 range).
A common opinion about Hybrid Warfare. The amount of upvotes talks for itself.
Relentless Attack
Once though extremely weak, had it's golden ages after the implementation of Cthulhu's suggestion. Now sent back to the deepest ground of the game and the 2nd weakest strategy just after HW. To quote Desu: "Sure you can attack, but you can't hold anything".
RA features not only weak but also expensive defense. The maximal defense you can get from one unit is actually 5 (7, when in port) at 130 cost (200 in port). It's only efficient unit are Tanks with 8 attack and 90 cost. You're supposed to use only tanks as the rest of boosted units(bombers,destroyers) aren't efficient enough. In comparison with it's old status, RA Tanks earned -10 cost for -1 attack. With Imperialist you get -30 cost for -1 attack. See the difference.
There isn't a clear suggestion for this strategy, although suggestions are more than welcome here.
Weaker attack, weaker defense. RA became even weaker than before.
Blitzkrieg
Currently one of the easiest to play and most hated strategy among the active community. the previous comment about RA still stands for this strategy with the exception that the range boost makes it easier to defend. Currently 3rd worst strategy after HW and RA being the range it's only advantage.
Taken from the 3vs3 guide by Desu. With the time the description of Blitz didn't became less but more accurate.
Units:
Anti-Air
I'll take a time to talk about this unit. Honestly don't know why it haven't been boosted yet as it is one of the units with the most specifics niches ever. Only probably used when you have lots of money, few reinfs, and your opponent is using bombers. I've been searching and a -20 cost suggestion by Mathdinho actually sounds very good. I'll leave the quotes here.
Geschreven door Mathdino, 04.03.2013 at 03:19
On your AA point, it's clear you've thought out the Math, but unfortunately, 28 offence doesn't work like you may think it does. Fact is, when you pack that much offence into a single unit, it will behave extremely unpredictably due to the 7 HP. Consider what would happen if the AA happened to roll less than a 7 (the bomber stays alive), and the bomber on offence rolls a 7 or 8. The AA would be practically useless. I've done some tests on way overbuffed attack/defence, and it's just too unpredictable to be feasible. It may look great on paper, but it's very different in practice.
Rather than trying to buff the AA to oblivion, I think it'd be simpler to just decrease the cost by 10 or 20. You said you wanted cost effectiveness, so the easiest solution is to decrease cost.
Geschreven door Pinheiro, 06.03.2013 at 07:15
Ok, I think we've reached a consensus that AA's need to be rethinked, that's a good step.
Geschreven door Mathdino, 04.03.2013 at 03:19Rather than trying to buff the AA to oblivion, I think it'd be simpler to just decrease the cost by 10 or 20. You said you wanted cost effectiveness, so the easiest solution is to decrease cost.
I agree with this idea.
Feel free to post and discuss your ideas. Suggestions are welcome as well.
I think your missing the point. Like you admitted it is possible to balance/change unit stats in custom map to suit your needs or to meet map balance, but this is not possible in default map. Its only logical to balance a game based on a modal that serves as a default. Map makers can just as easily make changes to their map to suit the balance and/or preserve an already existing balance. The rest of your message just seems redundant to me. The point of a custom map is to in cooperate the current strategies while maintaining a strategic balance in reinforcement and income(something most maps are no longer based on).
Your mistaken. Negative range is something that already exists. If you read my post you can see it is used for one default rare unit already in the game, Coastal Battery(click for image). All the admins need to do is make it possible to make more stats negative something that should not be too hard to do as it has already been done. I am almost in favour of giving map makers more access to edit their units stats accordingly to fit their needs, allowing for greater access to unit customization while allowing us to work with strategies.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
I never denied negative range existed. I just said that the most optimal solution that the MapMakers currently have is to make the unit naval in a port that is land-blocked. Until admins implement what you've wrote here, my previous sentence remains as true.
I will just hope that with "modal" you're referring only and only to the standard unit. The default map can in no way be used as reference to balance all the strategies as it doesn't holds the best zone niches for all the strategies. LB is a clear example of this. I'd also say IF is another one. You can't balance neither of them based in their performance in the "possible" niches that both have in the default map as they are not probably the better ones. Boosts comes when the strategy is weak on it's own niche(s), by using standard units. This is the current case for HW (Weaker than other strategies in all it's possible niches), RA (lack of defense, can't hold income cities) and in less degree Blitzkrieg (Lack of defense, can't hold income cities). Nerfing comes when the strategy not only perform good on it's own niche but also outside of it's niche, which is what tact and lao wants with Imperialist (Recent mil buff). This is the case for GW( strong mil defense) and NC (allows to transport units).
Until that happens the boost to destroyers need to go, firstly because the strategy was already balanced and secondly because it breaks the balance in any map that implements trench system. The benefits for the default maps are very few compared to the loss of balance in the other maps and scenarios. It is simply not worth it.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
RA make it have 9 attack again,its COMPLETELY useless now cause of 2 players bitching.Its called Rentless Attack and has a tank for an icon yet it gives DESTROYERS(LOL) +1 attack and tanks? none bonus.Name it Naval Commander 2 lol.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
RA make it have 9 attack again,its COMPLETELY useless now cause of 2 players bitching.Its called Rentless Attack and has a tank for an icon yet it gives DESTROYERS(LOL) +1 attack and tanks? none bonus.Name it Naval Commander 2 lol.RA was nerfed because of bitching of ukr players vs spain.Also,I think other strategies are balanced already except HW which is indeed useless.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Can you honestly say you can play any strategy on any setting to 100% efficiency and effectiveness getting the best out of it in and outside its' niche? Let me answer that for you, no you can not. I've played you and seen you play. Furthermore it would reflect more on your elo and cw win/loss ratios. Bearing this in mind how can you possibly provide an informed opinion on the strategy dynamic? It reflects in your posts. No phoenix ds is not op and neither is ra and blitz weak. I see low level players(not you specifically) coming into threads like this proclaiming blitz and ra weak simply because they are not enjoying the same success with it previously. It's not the strat thats weak, its the players. The strat balance is the best its' ever been. Players can play anything they enjoy and it will be competitive(except hw). Sadly however, the number of top tier players on atwar is declining. Only 3 or 4 left and very little new talent coming in to replace them.
---- 
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Since I was one of the original if not the first person to propose this exact change on forums and PM'd to admin, I'll take the liberty of answering you. The idea was to make it a multiple unit strat as opposed to a one-unit strat (only strategy in the game that boosted one unit...). It's called relentless attack not relentless tanks, or the old tank general, so to fit the theme and nerf it slightly because it was OP I proposed boosting destroyers and bombers to fit the theme. Name it NC2? Do you into logic? It boosts tanks mainly, and secondary boosts to bombers and destroyers. It's name fits. So what if it's picture is a tank? Mos's pic is a marine, does that mean we boost only marines and not subs and stealth planes? GW's pic is a militia, does that mean we don't boost marines? SM's pic is a bomber, does that mean we don't boost air transports? Blitz's icon is a tank, does that mean we don't boost anything else?? You are blinded by your urge to be stronk again with your OP RA
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation? 
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
how does it boost tanks? they just cheaper thats all.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Cheaper, faster, luckier, and can see farther. You get 8 attack for 90 cost, which is pretty good in comparison to other strats. About RA though, I'd be for removing the added militia cost.
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
since the nerf RA is useless cant win anything thats what i know.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Try to think while playing, should show some improve in play style. Especially with RA.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
says the one who makes always same moves
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
I dont need to be able to memorise an expansion for every strategy in every country to know the changes that have been made are incomplete. I've seen it in how others play, knowing what strategies they use and what their style of play is. I suppose you can say you can "play any strategy on any setting to 100% efficiency and effectiveness"... because you're amazing Laochra, you're the best, no one else should be allowed to touch the strats but you because that would be so reckless. 99% of the players in this game don't play the game the way you do, they don't know every nitty detail of how to get the best out of a strategy and they aren't satisfied with some of the current strategy standings. Get over yourself and recognize that. (Just to be clear, I've used every strategy at least a dozen times, the one I use the least is SM, its just not my style, therefore I don't demand any changes for that strategy although i'd say it is fairly well balanced. However I know it well enough to understand how it performs when pitched against other strategies, Xeno has kicked my ass with it, in 1v1 at least twice. Lucky Bastard is an awkward one that i haven't used much either, but then who the fuck does? It's not over powered, it's very niche, theres no point in claiming I require an in depth knowledge of it, because I doubt even you do.) Edit: I'm 23 years old and have an IQ in the 120's and you're talking to me like I'm a fucking vegetable. Look in the mirror... and if RA and Blitz aren't underpowered why don't you play me with them and I'll be something standard like PD. If I win you'll either have to take back what you say about "how I play" or recognize that they're weak
---- 
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
You see? Thats the part of you not using brain. Thinking i am always using the same moves. I always rush. There's the difference.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
>memorise Memorising players are so easy to spot and so easy to beat. Its a pathetic argument used by bad players. Youd need the memory of a supercomputer to memorise the uncountable situations that can be landed on you in a teamgame a few months ago me and chess were playing 2v3s against the community. In 1 of them chess left t3 because he had to go. I killed all 3 players myself(r9-11) and you were one of them. Yea i memorised that. Your little jibe would be great if i was the only one involved in the strategy changes. look phoenix i give up, i'm not going to waste any more time on you. Yes ds is op, blitz and ra weak. Im a raving egotist who doesnt know what hes talking about and who has single handedly strongarmed changes to the strategies. Move priorities affects who defends and who attacks. And number of moves affects tb %. Disclaimer for the impressionable: none of these things are true.
----
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Lol nc is absolutely fine, the capacity is not game breaking and gives it a little extra on land-regarding different maps there's been complaints but the solution here I think is to allow map makers to change/make strats for their maps, which would be a good thing regardless. RA with premium is still pretty strong and almost as so without, as pointed out before 90 cost is still well below what it's been most of the time, and with general you get 9 attack for 90 cost, that efficiency and raw power as well as some strong range despite its defence is not at all in need of a revamp. You've said it yourself as well attack hits harder than defence of the same stat. It has it's own niches also. Imperialist change doesn't need to fit in with a theme, the aim here is to provide a balanced and usable strat that has it's own niche, spamming lots of good efficiency units even with better defence is still not that powerful when it has 2 attack and little range. LB is a troll strat and needs to be removed stat. In almost all situations lb is worse than some other strat, even if it can work in some very few situations. Desert storm was made better by this change, not sure if you're for or against it. Those changes to hw won't do anything, im doubtful much could be done without making it a entirely new strat, either way still needs to be not paid for with sp. The strength of blitz still stands, you just need to find the right situations, a nerf was needed. Please no, AA does not need a boost at all, they are already strong and we don't need to make sm worse, it's been pretty much the most balanced strat there was, though that may not be the case anymore. Your quotes are from ages ago and are outdated.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Laochra stop referring to games that happened months ago that were meant to be fun and play me with Blitz or RA
----
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Man it's so annoying to see people saying that RA isn't weak even after providing theses facts. When RA was though as "weak" the tanks costed +10 more, but they also had +1 att/def stats and infantries were a lot (A LOT) more affordable than now. I just can't take anyone serious that still thinks that RA is stronger than before. Several of the comments here as well seems only to be made based in the default map. Only meester and Laochra have actually picked up an argument in regards of how theses changes affects the custom maps / scenarios. Naval commander affects theses maps greatly, but this seems to be rather underestimated by the players here. They claim NC was weak and needed this change, but in fact not a single complain was made since the last +5 capacity update to the strategy. It was working just fine. I am not taking comments about LB being a troll strat either. Theses players obviously have never played a scenario. There also seems to be a wrong ideology about balancing being more important than theme... but even if that was the case there is absolutely nothing to back up the recent Imperialist change. The strategy was from long ago and still remains as a rather strong one in it's niche. To quote Kraigg: "IMP motto is quantity over quality". But apparently the people wants the units to have quality as well. Hopefully it doesn't end up disbalancing one of the first strategies in the game, and long though balanced. Just like NC, or even longer, there wasn't a single complain about it being weak. So far it seems like we can only agree with GC and DS being fairly balanced and HW being still weak. If anyone have a proposal for HW that is better than mine, please do post it here. Looking forward to hear more opinions about the Anti-Air unit as well.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
anti air needs a price drop and ability to take cities as it is almost useless.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
rush is a move
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
..completely outsmarted by that argument. I'm done.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
Not sure if I've missed anything but so far as I know MoS haven't become powerful. No offensive strategy beside GC and GW (?) had become any strong over the year.
I've been trained in Cthulhu's gauntlet to use HW as MoS with better defense for the infantries. Basically to learster'd my opponent cities then fill them up with strong infantries to make him harder to retake. This boost would help HW to hold his lands better trust reinforcing this style of game-play. If anything, more suggestions in regards of this are welcome as well. I'd rather support any change that could help the strategy than leaving it under-powered as it currently is now.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Reminder to give MoS a slight boost to pull it up to the GW/DS/SM/GC level. I suggest cost reductions to subs and stealth planes. It's fine now though, but a little weaker than the aforementioned strats. Can you just finally make HW cheaper so people can actually have experience with it which would result in useful input...
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
i dont discuss with retards.Learn what a move is,then come back.And stop getting upvotes from other europe fags it is getting frustating.
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
"move" is a vague word, don't nit pick over meanings, you know a rush can be interpreted as a "move"... I'm from the UK, thats how English works, so, stfu and argue over something else
----
Laden...
Laden...
|
|
|
Laden...
Laden...
|
- 1
- 2
