Strategies: Boosts and Nerfs II

There are still some strategies that need boosts. However, progress has been made, significant progress actually. Relentless attack is much more useful (still needs a slight boost) , naval commander is now very balanced. But some other strategies are in need to be boosted. Here are the boosts that need to be implemented:



Boosts



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)


Blitzkrieg:

The weakest strategy, literally. Mainly because of its atrocious defense.

Boost: Make it -1 defense to all units, not -2.

Some will say that it should receive an offensive boost, because it is in fact, "lightning attack". However, I disagree, -2 defense to all units is just unplayable. Even -1 defense to all units is bad, but let's at least start there and see what needs to be improved or reduced later.



Boosts/Nerfs



Master of Stealth:

Some will say it is one of the strongest World map strategies. Yes, it is. But, in Europe+ games such as 3v3s or 1v1s, and even Eurasia games, MOS is too mediocre. Despite it being decent all around, there's always at least one strategy that is better to choose than MOS in every possible scenario.

Boost: -10 cost to marines. (making them 110 cost)


In this case, the boost overpowers the nerf, which is what we want, MOS needs to be stronger in Europe. I've never seen anyone use it Europe+ games, literally. It's not a huge boost but I think we should at least start here and see what we can adjust later on.


Great Combinator:

GC was nerfed for being overpowered a while back. Currently, tanks are 9 attack and 1 defense and infantry are 1 attack and 7 defense.

Boost/nerf: -10 cost to tanks

re-implement the +1 HP, except let's make tanks 8 attack and 1 defense. Additionally, let's make infantry 1 attack and 6 defense with +1 HP.

Here, we are removing an attack from the tank and a defense from the infantry, except adding the +1 HP back again. Attack and hit points are about the same worth, (ish) but the HP will be a more significant boost because the act of combining will be much stronger. Essentially, I'm cutting in the middle of both GC statuses. It was op before, now it is underpowered. My suggestion for GC will make it stronger than it is now, but also weaker than it was before. Agree?



Nerfs



Perfect Defense:

Undetermined

Sounds reasonable.

Not sure about mos though. It would be nice if it was played more in europe. But i doubt the suggested changes have that effect.
Its not played because of the high unit base cost. And while infantry is its cheapest usable base unit I dont think a nerf there is
helpful.

How about 10 cost militas with -1def as a cheap alternative unit to spam. You may buy some time with them to slowly build up and expand.

Written by VRIL, 02.06.2013 at 15:45

Sounds reasonable.

Not sure about mos though. It would be nice if it was played more in europe. But i doubt the suggested changes have that effect.
Its not played because of the high unit base cost. And while infantry is its cheapest usable base unit I dont think a nerf there is
helpful.

How about 10 cost militas with -1def as a cheap alternative unit to spam. You may buy some time with them to slowly build up and expand.

-1 def is a big nerf. I like the 10 cost militia idea though, that would actually solve this issue.

How about -20 cost to militia (making them 10 cost) as the boost

and -1 attack to infantry as the nerf?

I don't know if Blitz needs a buff. It seems fair enough to me.

The Relentless Attack, Blitzkrieg, and Perfect Defence adjustments seem fine.

On the MoS and GC points though;

Master of Stealth already has attack upgrades for its stealth units, and increasing the marine attack would make it equal to stealth bomber and submarine attack, thus the problem that marines would attack a city first is presented. The reason why stealths and subs have 9 attack, above the Marines, is the prevent this. Normally they all have the same attack anyway, 7-7-7, but this is fine because they aren't the main unit for most strategies except GW. MoS is centred around this point as it needs the none-city capturing units(stealths/subs) to attack first so it has a 100% chance to capture a city when it wins a battle. If you want to increase the marine attack, I do think we need to have the admins clarify that the subs/stealths will attack first in all battles before the marines. (I've had cases where marines attacked before stealths in other strategies because of the same attack, the defending units would kill all my marines and there would be stealth bombers left over outside, with 0 in the city.)

I think I'm fine with the rest. I'd have to talk to a few others before arguing the other points of MoS. I am doubtful that giving marines attack/defence as a trade for -1 infantry attack is helpful though. It kind of needs the infantry attack.


Great Combinator was pretty OP with both hp and attack/def upgrades, and really weak without the hp. You present a good slight fix to the strategy, but the cost vs other strategies is still too high. Soul had a complete thread about it [ -here- ]. I have noticed while trying to play it that the cost is just too much since we cannot use the cheaper infantry to expand, we have to use militia which don't reach or high cost units. In addition to your suggestion I believe we should have -10 cost to GC's tanks[or infantry, one or the other] to make it more adaptable.

Support

Written by Desu, 02.06.2013 at 16:55

The Relentless Attack, Blitzkrieg, and Perfect Defence adjustments seem fine.

On the MoS and GC points though;

Master of Stealth already has attack upgrades for its stealth units, and increasing the marine attack would make it equal to stealth bomber and submarine attack, thus the problem that marines would attack a city first is presented. The reason why stealths and subs have 9 attack, above the Marines, is the prevent this. Normally they all have the same attack anyway, 7-7-7, but this is fine because they aren't the main unit for most strategies except GW. MoS is centred around this point as it needs the none-city capturing units(stealths/subs) to attack first so it has a 100% chance to capture a city when it wins a battle. If you want to increase the marine attack, I do think we need to have the admins clarify that the subs/stealths will attack first in all battles before the marines. (I've had cases where marines attacked before stealths in other strategies because of the same attack, the defending units would kill all my marines and there would be stealth bombers left over outside, with 0 in the city.)

I think I'm fine with the rest. I'd have to talk to a few others before arguing the other points of MoS. I am doubtful that giving marines attack/defence as a trade for -1 infantry attack is helpful though. It kind of needs the infantry attack.


Great Combinator was pretty OP with both hp and attack/def upgrades, and really weak without the hp. You present a good slight fix to the strategy, but the cost vs other strategies is still too high. Soul had a complete thread about it [ -here- ]. I have noticed while trying to play it that the cost is just too much since we cannot use the cheaper infantry to expand, we have to use militia which don't reach or high cost units. In addition to your suggestion I believe we should have -10 cost to GC's tanks[or infantry, one or the other] to make it more adaptable.

Thanks man, really helpful. I wasn't thinking about the stealths and subs while suggesting the +1 attack to marines. Thanks for bringing this is up, or else it wouldn't have worked. What do you think Vril's suggestion, making militias for MOS 10 cost?

As for GC, I will make infantry -10 cost along with what I already proposed. We'll let others discuss these changes as well in order to make this as balanced as possible.

I'll edit the GC boost in the original post- I'll wait for MOS but for now I added vril's suggestion since it is better than mine.

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 17:38

Thanks man, really helpful. I wasn't thinking about the stealths and subs while suggesting the +1 attack to marines. Thanks for bringing this is up, or else it wouldn't have worked. What do you think Vril's suggestion, making militias for MOS 10 cost?

As for GC, I will make infantry -10 cost along with what I already proposed. We'll let others discuss these changes as well in order to make this as balanced as possible.

I'll edit the GC boost in the original post- I'll wait for MOS but for now I added vril's suggestion since it is better than mine.

Wouldn't that be making MoS too similar to GW?

MOS - Advanced Stealth units at the cost of slower and less powerful Main Attack units.

you say relentless attack is not following the description. changing militia would break MOS' description. simple.

I think MoS and PD are good the way they are now.

Written by nonames, 02.06.2013 at 19:54

MOS - Advanced Stealth units at the cost of slower and less powerful Main Attack units.

you say relentless attack is not following the description. changing militia would break MOS' description. simple.

Very true.

Any suggestions? MOS is way too mediocre atm.

Written by Meester, 02.06.2013 at 20:59

I think MoS and PD are good the way they are now.

I disagree, PD is literally the most used strategy in competitive 3v3s, 2v2s and 1v1s by far. It needs a nerf.

You might be correct about MOS however. But like I said, MOS is rarely used, it needs to be more popular for the sake of variety. Atm pd and imp are the only strats that are used competitively really, along with the occasion of sm and gw.

Written by Leaf, 02.06.2013 at 19:14

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 17:38

Thanks man, really helpful. I wasn't thinking about the stealths and subs while suggesting the +1 attack to marines. Thanks for bringing this is up, or else it wouldn't have worked. What do you think Vril's suggestion, making militias for MOS 10 cost?

As for GC, I will make infantry -10 cost along with what I already proposed. We'll let others discuss these changes as well in order to make this as balanced as possible.

I'll edit the GC boost in the original post- I'll wait for MOS but for now I added vril's suggestion since it is better than mine.

Wouldn't that be making MoS too similar to GW?

True, good point you make. It'll be considered for sure, atm vril's suggestion is just temporary until someone suggests a better one.

I really like the idea about making PD weaker but -1 bonus will make GC infantry same as PD infantry then why PD named (Perfect Defence) maybe - 1 attack or - 1 range (that will make it -2 range) or + 20 cost (that will make it 80) is better, even taking the +1 bonus against tanks out is good too because GC tank attack 9 PD infantry defence 7 + 2 in country + 1 on tanks = 10 so infantry that cost 60 strongest than tank that cost 120


and NC +2 capacity is better with - 30 cost to marines (-1 attack or - 2 for not making them strong) just make sub more usable ;_;

A change to GC has been asked for time and time again, even I made a thread specifically for it, because all the other threads before it died, and mine ended up following suit lmao, maybe because it's Tophats posting finally something will change, in any case here's my old ass post.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7162

Written by Guest, 03.06.2013 at 00:26

I still want NC to have +1 sub capacity xD but yeah it is over all very balanced and its weak points on land make sense

i believe i have suggested that before, lol.

Written by Soul, 03.06.2013 at 11:02

A change to GC has been asked for time and time again, even I made a thread specifically for it, because all the other threads before it died, and mine ended up following suit lmao, maybe because it's Tophats posting finally something will change, in any case here's my old ass post.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7162

Thanks, re-ups on old threads are very helpful. The more we bring the matter up the better the chances of implementation.

Written by nonames, 03.06.2013 at 12:14

Written by Guest, 03.06.2013 at 00:26

I still want NC to have +1 sub capacity xD but yeah it is over all very balanced and its weak points on land make sense

i believe i have suggested that before, lol.

Sounds good, but it would have to come with a slight nerf.

I agree with the alteration to blitzkrieg, the defense nerf mainly on infantry is too weak.

I talked to a few people and read through the posts here a couple of times but held my tongue on the conversations till I could solidify my opinion.

As I said before, the RA/Blitz/PD adjustments seem fine. And on the other two, again;

Written by tophat, 02.06.2013 at 21:06

Written by Leaf, 02.06.2013 at 19:14

Wouldn't that be making MoS too similar to GW?

True, good point you make. It'll be considered for sure, atm vril's suggestion is just temporary until someone suggests a better one.

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 Commander, 03.06.2013 at 10:13

I really like the idea about making PD weaker but -1 bonus will make GC infantry same as PD infantry then why PD named (Perfect Defence) maybe - 1 attack or - 1 range (that will make it -2 range) or + 20 cost (that will make it 80) is better, even taking the +1 bonus against tanks out is good too because GC tank attack 9 PD infantry defence 7 + 2 in country + 1 on tanks = 10 so infantry that cost 60 strongest than tank that cost 120

Indeed, so instead of giving the cost reduction to GC infantry, give it to the tanks. This lets it expand more easily and doesn't bring it that close to PD because of cost reduction and defence boost at the same time. Coupled with your adding the HP back to GC units(and taking away bonus atk/def), I think it would be a bit better, and if it still isn't playable we adjust other units instead. A -50 cost reduction to GC transports and air transports would certainly help its economy. But I shouldn't add more until we see the result of -10 cost/hp <-> atk/def switch that was initially proposed.

-10 cost to tanks instead of infantry with your stated adjustments in the OP.

Written by Desu, 02.06.2013 at 16:55

Indeed, so instead of giving the cost reduction to GC infantry, give it to the tanks. This lets it expand more easily and doesn't bring it that close to PD because of cost reduction and defence boost at the same time. Coupled with your adding the HP back to GC units(and taking away bonus atk/def), I think it would be a bit better, and if it still isn't playable we adjust other units instead. A -50 cost reduction to GC transports and air transports would certainly help its economy. But I shouldn't add more until we see the result of -10 cost/hp <-> atk/def switch that was initially proposed.

-10 cost to tanks instead of infantry with your stated adjustments in the OP.

You're right.

*Edited.

Well Chess is right lets make GW a little bit better i like GW but using it in 3v3 is very bad idea because PD is always better in 3v3 and that why PD must get a nerf and GW a boost

Written by tophat, 04.06.2013 at 15:04

Written by Desu, 02.06.2013 at 16:55

Indeed, so instead of giving the cost reduction to GC infantry, give it to the tanks. This lets it expand more easily and doesn't bring it that close to PD because of cost reduction and defence boost at the same time. Coupled with your adding the HP back to GC units(and taking away bonus atk/def), I think it would be a bit better, and if it still isn't playable we adjust other units instead. A -50 cost reduction to GC transports and air transports would certainly help its economy. But I shouldn't add more until we see the result of -10 cost/hp <-> atk/def switch that was initially proposed.

-10 cost to tanks instead of infantry with your stated adjustments in the OP.

You're right.

*Edited.

I am sure you forgot about RA it is a bad strategy but making GC with - 10 cost to tanks it is like you almost making the same tanks as RA i don't think there is any need to keep RA in the game if that happend


Maybe making RA a little bit stronger (+1 HP for tanks) and (-10 cost) tanks = 100 is better it still bad because of the infantry that have -1 defence and -1 bonus in country but it is an attack strategy

Written by Commander, 04.06.2013 at 17:18

Written by tophat, 04.06.2013 at 15:04

Written by Desu, 02.06.2013 at 16:55

Indeed, so instead of giving the cost reduction to GC infantry, give it to the tanks. This lets it expand more easily and doesn't bring it that close to PD because of cost reduction and defence boost at the same time. Coupled with your adding the HP back to GC units(and taking away bonus atk/def), I think it would be a bit better, and if it still isn't playable we adjust other units instead. A -50 cost reduction to GC transports and air transports would certainly help its economy. But I shouldn't add more until we see the result of -10 cost/hp <-> atk/def switch that was initially proposed.

-10 cost to tanks instead of infantry with your stated adjustments in the OP.

You're right.

*Edited.

I am sure you forgot about RA it is a bad strategy but making GC with - 10 cost to tanks it is like you almost making the same tanks as RA i don't think there is any need to keep RA in the game if that happend


Maybe making RA a little bit stronger (+1 HP for tanks) and (-10 cost) tanks = 100 is better it still bad because of the infantry that have -1 defence and -1 bonus in country but it is an attack strategy

ra tanks are 9 attack 5 defense with extra range, they are strong enough. making them 100 cost would be op.

I don't support nerf for PD. PD has remain the same, it is not OP. Everyone might be PD in 3v3, but in world game and scenarios, this is not true.

Don't change PD.

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 Guest, 05.06.2013 at 01:51

No nerfs. Only boosts. This way there is much more room for finetuning.

I agree. And beside, maybe the reason PD is popular is because we have a lot of information and strategy guides for PD.

Written by Cthulhu, 05.06.2013 at 02:13

Written by Guest, 05.06.2013 at 01:51

No nerfs. Only boosts. This way there is much more room for finetuning.

I agree. And beside, maybe the reason PD is popular is because we have a lot of information and strategy guides for PD.

Its because is easy to use.
Spam infantry!

PD hasn't changed.

PD became stronger because of the lack of single unit turnblocks, and huge stacks can't be shut down with one unit anymore.

To tweak PD, tweak TB.

Written by notserral, 05.06.2013 at 13:08

PD hasn't changed.

PD became stronger because of the lack of single unit turnblocks, and huge stacks can't be shut down with one unit anymore.

To tweak PD, tweak TB.

Well, back in the day, huge stacks couldn't be block either If the player was clever enough.