Strategies: Boosts and Nerfs II

Written by Meester, 05.06.2013 at 00:26

Yes don't nerf PD. It might be good for Europe+ but not in world games. You try getting 100 infantry to Europe from America.

Written by tophat, 05.06.2013 at 14:45

Written by Meester, 05.06.2013 at 00:26

Yes don't nerf PD. It might be good for Europe+ but not in world games. You try getting 100 infantry to Europe from America.

I disagree, pd is simply not a world game strategy, nerfing it will barely harm this. However, along with the current nerf, I could add a boost to naval transports. (like HP or defense etc) to balance it world games.

PD is too popular to simply say "that if we boost other strategies it'll settle" It won't, we need a slight nerf.

Written by SuperiorCacaocow, 05.06.2013 at 15:36

i played mos very much and i can say, that i never bought militia but i need infantry for expand in the early game

Written by Desu, 04.06.2013 at 13:40

I don't believe Master of Stealth needs a huge change to its stats. It really is balanced as it is, if slightly underpowered in a competitive setting. Before you had +1 atk/def for marines on there, and now I see it has changed to -1 attack to inf and -20 cost to militia thinking this would help bring it forth. I disagree. -1 attack to the infantry is not a smart idea, when you join a game you are automatically given infantry no matter what. And if you're short on cash, at any point in the game, you need infantry to expand.

Written by Desu, 04.06.2013 at 13:40

I don't believe Master of Stealth needs a huge change to its stats. It really is balanced as it is, if slightly underpowered in a competitive setting. Before you had +1 atk/def for marines on there, and now I see it has changed to -1 attack to inf and -20 cost to militia thinking this would help bring it forth. I disagree. -1 attack to the infantry is not a smart idea, when you join a game you are automatically given infantry no matter what. And if you're short on cash, at any point in the game, you need infantry to expand.

Keeping MoS as it is wouldn't be that bad. If others fully agree that it needs a change, instead of a massive change, why not just give -10 cost to its militia(not -20, and with no nerf), and be done with it? Changing the militia would indeed bring it closer to GW, but it doesn't have a defence or range boost so this would not change it too much closer to GW/PD, but just make it slightly more manageable.

That or give it -10 cost to infantry and make infantry critical chance 0 as the nerf. But I still support not changing it a lot. A slight cost reduction somewhere would help it though.

Written by tophat, 05.06.2013 at 16:35

Written by Desu, 04.06.2013 at 13:40

I don't believe Master of Stealth needs a huge change to its stats. It really is balanced as it is, if slightly underpowered in a competitive setting. Before you had +1 atk/def for marines on there, and now I see it has changed to -1 attack to inf and -20 cost to militia thinking this would help bring it forth. I disagree. -1 attack to the infantry is not a smart idea, when you join a game you are automatically given infantry no matter what. And if you're short on cash, at any point in the game, you need infantry to expand.

Keeping MoS as it is wouldn't be that bad. If others fully agree that it needs a change, instead of a massive change, why not just give -10 cost to its militia(not -20, and with no nerf), and be done with it? Changing the militia would indeed bring it closer to GW, but it doesn't have a defence or range boost so this would not change it too much closer to GW/PD, but just make it slightly more manageable.

That or give it -10 cost to infantry and make infantry critical chance 0 as the nerf. But I still support not changing it a lot. A slight cost reduction somewhere would help it though.

sorry for glossing over i was focused too much on gc.

I agree with you for the infantry part; they will not be nerfed. I wouldn't mess with the critical hits however, so for now it should stick with a slight cost reduction like you said.

-10 militia cost for now.

Written by learster, 05.06.2013 at 18:08

I don't see how that would affect anything. Who uses milita as MoS anyways? I hope you don't aim for the upkeep, lol. If you want to make MoS suitable for Europe you can only do so by reducing the cost of marines. MoS can't expand reasonably because it's crippled by it's high cost early game.
Everything else won't work in my opinion, try to work around it as you may. Since such a change would be too drastic though, I can't really see a way to make it suitable for Europe. -10 to milita cost certainly isn't one. Keep it as it is, there's no need for such an alibi move.

Written by tophat, 05.06.2013 at 19:18

Written by learster, 05.06.2013 at 18:08

I don't see how that would affect anything. Who uses milita as MoS anyways? I hope you don't aim for the upkeep, lol. If you want to make MoS suitable for Europe you can only do so by reducing the cost of marines. MoS can't expand reasonably because it's crippled by it's high cost early game.
Everything else won't work in my opinion, try to work around it as you may. Since such a change would be too drastic though, I can't really see a way to make it suitable for Europe. -10 to milita cost certainly isn't one. Keep it as it is, there's no need for such an alibi move.

I don't see how it would be useless, it would be a great alternative for defense, a more expendable one at that. And it's not at all permanent, it's only temporary. You do bring up a good point that mos is weak early because of it's high cost.

I wouldn't consider this an alibi move, mos is more or less the most mediocre strategy in the game. I don't mean this as a good thing. I mean it is out-classed in virtually all fields of play. Not counting continental warfare that is.

Lowering the cost of marines could help this. I prefer a -10 cost for marines then to militia, actually. Anyone else agree?

Written by Commander, 06.06.2013 at 08:24

And I hope they will change RA and TG is a better name than RA because they made the infantry and militia very weak and expensive so TG is a better name because you only use tanks, and adding +1 HP for tanks or -10 Cost is a lot better from +1 attack to infantry, making an infantry cost 80 with 4 attack it is not a good to make TG better, giving tanks +1 HP or -10 Cost will make them strong, but why not they are very weak now, and this change wont make it the best strategy, just a little more stronger.


Blitzkrieg, I don't think i have the best idea for it but what about giving the units defence back and take 1 HP, blitz with -2 defence very weak and -1 HP is more important than defence because it take the HP from the attack and defend and look to IF slow and more HP, blitz fast and low HP what do you guys think ?

Written by Guest, 06.06.2013 at 10:19

Written by Commander, 06.06.2013 at 08:24

And I hope they will change RA and TG is a better name than RA because they made the infantry and militia very weak and expensive so TG is a better name because you only use tanks, and adding +1 HP for tanks or -10 Cost is a lot better from +1 attack to infantry, making an infantry cost 80 with 4 attack it is not a good to make TG better, giving tanks +1 HP or -10 Cost will make them strong, but why not they are very weak now, and this change wont make it the best strategy, just a little more stronger.


Blitzkrieg, I don't think i have the best idea for it but what about giving the units defence back and take 1 HP, blitz with -2 defence very weak and -1 HP is more important than defence because it take the HP from the attack and defend and look to IF slow and more HP, blitz fast and low HP what do you guys think ?

if you add +1HP to the RA, it will be op. [GC was " op" with +1 hp and the tank was weaker than the RA tank]
if you remove -1 hp of blitz you kill the strategy.

Written by tophat, 05.06.2013 at 19:18

I don't see how it would be useless, it would be a great alternative for defense, a more expendable one at that

Written by Commander, 06.06.2013 at 08:24

I don't know why you guys don't want to change PD it is strong in all the maps Asia, Europe, and America even in world games it is not the best for it but you can take Europe then start making all what you want because you will be rich, PD don't work with 25k and 50k maps but this games are not the best and only few players (low ranks) play with it and some high ranks maybe for farming SP and all what top saying is +10 for militia and -1 bonus for defending because 9 defend for each infantry that is a lot it is same as tank attack that cost 110 in RA (that is good with tanks only) and don't forget if tanks attacking the defence is 10 and if you have a general it make it 10, 11 on tanks.

Written by Commander, 06.06.2013 at 08:24

And I hope they will change RA and TG is a better name than RA because they made the infantry and militia very weak and expensive so TG is a better name because you only use tanks, and adding +1 HP for tanks or -10 Cost is a lot better from +1 attack to infantry, making an infantry cost 80 with 4 attack it is not a good to make TG better, giving tanks +1 HP or -10 Cost will make them strong, but why not they are very weak now, and this change wont make it the best strategy, just a little more stronger.

Written by Commander, 06.06.2013 at 08:24

Blitzkrieg, I don't think i have the best idea for it but what about giving the units defence back and take 1 HP, blitz with -2 defence very weak and -1 HP is more important than defence because it take the HP from the attack and defend and look to IF slow and more HP, blitz fast and low HP what do you guys think ?

Written by learster, 06.06.2013 at 14:59

Written by tophat, 05.06.2013 at 19:18

I don't see how it would be useless, it would be a great alternative for defense, a more expendable one at that

Again, how would you defend with mos militia? You don't have any extra defense on them, nor the extra movement range. It's a waste of reinforcements, really.

Written by tophat, 06.06.2013 at 16:58

Yeah, you're right, in most cases would be useless to buy militias.

I'm still waiting for more to support your +1 attack on marines. I promise, I'll try my best to satisfy.

Written by learster, 08.06.2013 at 10:44

Written by tophat, 06.06.2013 at 16:58

Yeah, you're right, in most cases would be useless to buy militias.

I'm still waiting for more to support your +1 attack on marines. I promise, I'll try my best to satisfy.

I never suggested anything like that. You suggested to lower their price by 10, but that's it then.

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 14:32

The following suggestion will not serve to make PD unplayable, but to make it so that we don't have 3v3s where EVERYONE IS PD.

Written by Thunderballs, 11.06.2013 at 15:19

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 14:32

The following suggestion will not serve to make PD unplayable, but to make it so that we don't have 3v3s where EVERYONE IS PD.

Part of PD's popularity is due to the available countries for on the 3 v 3 map. England/Germany/France/Italy are almost always PD. Turkey is almost always IMP. Spain can play PD and so can Ukraine, but they are the only one's with the flexibility to support other strats.

I don't see a PD nerf changing this :/ (Not to say that it shouldn't be nerfed.)


The way to get more diversity would be to boost IF and Blitz or make the starting $$ amount 5k?

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 14:32

Perfect Defense:
Boost: Naval transports get 8 defense instead of 2.

Written by Desu, 18.06.2013 at 15:17

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 14:32

Perfect Defense:
Boost: Naval transports get 8 defense instead of 2.

This doesn't work. You cannot raise the defence of transports for basically every strategy on atWar. Both air transports and transports are 2 defence for a reason.

If you raise it to 8, that means that in a city, a transport will defend before everything else besides infantry. Outside a city, transports that are docked on land(and if left, should normally have the units inside it protecting it) would defend first before all the land units. Even if you said make it 6 instead of 8, transports would defend before militia, tanks, and marines. In fact, anything higher than the current set 2 defence breaks it. You need to add something that doesn't change the defending priorities. Like adding HP or Critical chance. But both of these mean that the transport would have higher attacking power as well, so none of the changes to the transport are viable for Perfect Defence.


I would agree to a PD nerf, but I would much rather bringing other underpowered strategies up to par. So as long as we can empower the other strategies, PD should be fine as it is.

Written by tophat, 18.06.2013 at 15:27

ahah wow I'm a noob. But thanks for clarifying.

I disagree a slight nerf won't hurt. and also, what about boosting transport HP? Like +3hp or something?

Written by Desu, 18.06.2013 at 15:17

Like adding HP or Critical chance. But both of these mean that the transport would have higher attacking power as well, so none of the changes to the transport are viable for Perfect Defence.

Written by Desu, 18.06.2013 at 16:25

Written by tophat, 18.06.2013 at 15:27

ahah wow I'm a noob. But thanks for clarifying.

I disagree a slight nerf won't hurt. and also, what about boosting transport HP? Like +3hp or something?

Written by Desu, 18.06.2013 at 15:17

Like adding HP or Critical chance. But both of these mean that the transport would have higher attacking power as well, so none of the changes to the transport are viable for Perfect Defence.

I have already said the reason. I didn't feel like mixing the strategies.

You could go around with 1 militia and a transport capping 1 militia coastal cities. With +3hp I already do that with Iron Fist. A transport with the "safer transportation" upgrade and +3hp from a strategy(currently IF) basically counts as a whole militia/infantry by itself in attack power.


The suggestions throughout the thread for PD and MoS have been unconventional(a good thing), but flawed. We should just cement the agreed changes to RA, Blitz, and GC and hope the administrators are able to agree with them.

Written by clovis1122, 19.06.2013 at 09:54

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 14:32

Relentless Attack:

In the description it says exactly this: "Powerful main attack units at the cost of weaker defence units." So why are infantries' attack reduced to 3? It goes against the description.

Boost: +1 attack to infantry. (making it 4)

The strategy goes against the description by itself. the first thing I tryed to buy went the merge was DESTROYER (Main attack [NAVAL] unit ) and BOMBERS ( Main attack [AIR] unit) also in the upgrade it said thad strategys like RA thad only affect one generic unit, now will be for more units. This tricked me a lot ;_;. eitle boost destroyer and bombers or specific in the description: "Powerful main attack [LAND] units at the cost of weaker defence units."

Weaker defence unit is mean to nerf infantry, militia and others defensives unit, not to nerf the defense or all unit. ^_^ thad is winth the description yes, since infantry and militia are defensive unit, so they are weak. if it was your point them they should nerf bombers and others unit winth -1 def O_O

Written by clovis1122, 19.06.2013 at 11:35

Written by tophat, 19.06.2013 at 10:56

Written by clovis1122, 19.06.2013 at 09:54

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 14:32

Relentless Attack:

In the description it says exactly this: "Powerful main attack units at the cost of weaker defence units." So why are infantries' attack reduced to 3? It goes against the description.

Boost: +1 attack to infantry. (making it 4)

The strategy goes against the description by itself. the first thing I tryed to buy went the merge was DESTROYER (Main attack [NAVAL] unit ) and BOMBERS ( Main attack [AIR] unit) also in the upgrade it said thad strategys like RA thad only affect one generic unit, now will be for more units. This tricked me a lot ;_;. eitle boost destroyer and bombers or specific in the description: "Powerful main attack [LAND] units at the cost of weaker defence units."

Weaker defence unit is mean to nerf infantry, militia and others defensives unit, not to nerf the defense or all unit. ^_^ thad is winth the description yes, since infantry and militia are defensive unit, so they are weak. if it was your point them they should nerf bombers and others unit winth -1 def O_O

In this case I would like for the description to be modified not the actual strategy.

but is unfail, GC have inf and tanks, LB/IF/None have all unit, NC have subs and destroyer, PD have inf and militia, Mos have stealt sub and marines, GW have militia and marines, HW have some unit as well, but what RA have? tanks! tanks! tanks!. I support they to boost bombers and destroyer, rathery thad leave the tank alone as the description said ,_,