Modifications to GW and MOS

Sigh, using "ad hominem" instead of saying "personal" doesn't make you smarter.

Written by Aristosseur, 09.11.2011 at 06:23

>write all this in detail
>check visited by
>no ivan

Umm... I don't know if I have time to go through this entire monster thread. Can someone please summarize the consensus (if there is one?)

Written by Ivan, 11.11.2011 at 01:36

Umm... I don't know if I have time to go through this entire monster thread. Can someone please summarize the consensus (if there is one?)

There is no consensus, but this sums it up pretty good:

Quote:

Which means that for 140 cost GW gets 35 attack with less range and no stealth while MoS gets 8 attack with stealth and more range...
In same attack terms (40) it's 8 GW militia and 5 MoS marines, in cost it's 160 GW and 700 for MoS, lol. MoS saves 3 reinforcements for more range and stealth while GW saves 540 gold (wastes 3 reinforcements? not really since some of them GW militia are free when you capture any city) which can be used to buy 6 marines (480 gold) and 3 militia (60).

Quote:

Now it is obvious GW needs a nerf on militia (caulerpa's -1 attack +10 cost or stats unchanged but with a drastic HP nerf to show in battles ) and possibly though not necesarily a small cost increase on marines, while MoS needs a buff either of less cost or +1/2 HP or +1 attack.

Also read Pinheiros top post on page two. I myself have no opinion on GW, as I don't play it. But I know that a cost reduction for MoS marines by 10 would make them alot more playable early game. +1 HP sounds good too, as I tend to lose close to as many marines as I kill infantry/bombers in an even battle that I win. It's not like that the other way around. If I had to chose between those two I'd take the HP. But that could be overdone, -10 cost is fine too.

Yes, there is no consensus, specially because of me.

Anyway, since it seems that the majority agrees on a nerf to GW, I think it has to be something small (to begin with) and then we can put it into tests.

People suggested a few kinds of nerfs to GW. In my opinion, the one that would be "better" is the economical one related with militias. In a close war with plenty of money GW has no advantage against other strategies, so raising militias cost by 10 could avoid a further spam on militias, not only because of the initial cost, but also the total amount of money to upkeep them.

Now with MoS, things are a little more complex in my opinion. I'm sure that it can't receive a bonus to HP and a decrease on prices. As Learster suggested, - 10 cost to Marines (and maybe to submarines also) would be more than enough for now.

OK, here's what I've done:

GW Militias: attack -1, cost +10.
MoS Marines: cost -10.

Let's see how it goes - better to do it with baby steps

Heh, the one test game I just had with +1 HP to MoS marines felt so good. I defeated 8 neutral infantry with only 7 marines. Usually I can't even do that with 8. But yea, let's go with baby steps.

Written by Ivan, 11.11.2011 at 05:02

OK, here's what I've done:

GW Militias: attack -1, cost +10.
MoS Marines: cost -10.

Let's see how it goes - better to do it with baby steps

I was doing some tests for the attack, It would sometimes fail using the same amount of militia vs normal militia, (I even did 4v4 militia and 2 remained of the normal)

I think a better nerf than an attack nerf would be to raise the upkeep, if you spam a unit in the hundreds and it has a higher upkeep you will surely go bankrupt; and it makes sense as someone who uses militia or simple citizens as their primary soldiers would surely equip them better than an army that does not. btw the times I lost with the same number of militia vs normal militia was almost at 50/50, It was quite noticeable and not a product of ARB I don't believe - this kind of hurts GW expansion a lot since it relies on this early game.

as for MoS I don't believe cost was really the problem but rather that the units were just so weak (1 MoS marine would lose to 1 militia a lot of the time, and I use MoS primarily so I can assure you this happens) making the unit not even warrant more than 100 gold when you could simply buy an infantry or tank that does the same damage(killing 1 militia) almost and is more durable. That being said submarines are powerful enough to make up for the very fragile marines, and it's good they die first or MoS would be unusable almost.

You know PD infantry has equal attack as GW militia now and you don't get it free and they always use the number of militia+1 to surely cap (and they got no other offensive units etc), using equal amount of militia to cap+ free ones was the problem.
What learster says is good, this is almost equivalent to tanks in other strategies, but they didn't receive +1 hp?
With the -10 the MoS marines are same cost effectiveness as SM bombers.

NUUU. The price of my cheap ass militia has increased by 50%!

Mmmm Ivan... GW's main thing was that it was cheap to use, the -1 attack is excellent but making it more expensive would make the strategy too under powered compared to Sky Menace (which can't modified because any buffs will make it way too OP and any nerfs much useless...) and others.

maybe you meant +10 cost to marines. Taking the attack from militia and making it more expensive will make it only a defensive unit, unlike real guerrillas.

And yes, I hated GW superspam but having their militias attack reduced by 1 is really all we to balance.

Balancing the game can be a bit tricky.

Written by Aristosseur, 11.11.2011 at 08:13

What learster says is good, this is almost equivalent to tanks in other strategies, but they didn't receive +1 hp?

He put it on +1 HP for a brief period of time, but seems to have changed his mind about it and then edited his post.

Shame, back to the old 8 marines losing to 8 infantry.

I dont know why we are messing with guerrilla warfare it was perfect I already hated playing in Europe against blitz tank gen or sky menace but with my beloved guerrillas altered for the worst i will never 1v1 in Europe again

Written by MerckSaint, 13.11.2011 at 12:21

I dont know why we are messing with guerrilla warfare it was perfect I already hated playing in Europe against blitz tank gen or sky menace but with my beloved guerrillas altered for the worst i will never 1v1 in Europe again

it was op as fuck bro

I think the -1attack should go to +1 infantry attack then infantry are just horrible in GW and i always get them at the start but they are pretty useless and costly if 10k an under and +1 movement for plane and boat transports it does not make sense that they are so costly and they suck.

Written by MerckSaint, 14.11.2011 at 10:37

I think the -1attack should go to +1 infantry attack then infantry are just horrible in GW and i always get them at the start but they are pretty useless and costly if 10k an under and +1 movement for plane and boat transports it does not make sense that they are so costly and they suck.

Pretty weak argumentation. A strategy increase the stats of special unit types, while it make other units weaker up to useless. This is also why you don't use tanks as main attack unit when playing SM (maybe you do it, but I can't help you then).
Pro tip: Use the 'no sense' infantry for defence lines or stack it in your cap and see what happens if you get attacked.

Written by Guest, 14.11.2011 at 11:08

Written by MerckSaint, 14.11.2011 at 10:37

I think the -1attack should go to +1 infantry attack then infantry are just horrible in GW and i always get them at the start but they are pretty useless and costly if 10k an under and +1 movement for plane and boat transports it does not make sense that they are so costly and they suck.

Pretty weak argumentation. A strategy increase the stats of special unit types, while it make other units weaker up to useless. This is also why you don't use tanks as main attack unit when playing SM (maybe you do it, but I can't help you then).
Pro tip: Use the 'no sense' infantry for defence lines or stack it in your cap and see what happens if you get attacked.

while it may be pointless to add +1attack to infantry it was also pointless to -1 attack from militia GW is lacking attack already i realized this when i first started playing. Also you never get tanks when you first start a game you almost always have infantry so better fodder for expansion in the start of a game is not a weak argument. Pro tip: every dollar adds up front line fodder semi useless units

Written by MerckSaint, 14.11.2011 at 12:27

Written by Guest, 14.11.2011 at 11:08

Written by MerckSaint, 14.11.2011 at 10:37

I think the -1attack should go to +1 infantry attack then infantry are just horrible in GW and i always get them at the start but they are pretty useless and costly if 10k an under and +1 movement for plane and boat transports it does not make sense that they are so costly and they suck.

Pretty weak argumentation. A strategy increase the stats of special unit types, while it make other units weaker up to useless. This is also why you don't use tanks as main attack unit when playing SM (maybe you do it, but I can't help you then).
Pro tip: Use the 'no sense' infantry for defence lines or stack it in your cap and see what happens if you get attacked.

while it may be pointless to add +1attack to infantry it was also pointless to -1 attack from militia GW is lacking attack already i realized this when i first started playing. Also you never get tanks when you first start a game you almost always have infantry so better fodder for expansion in the start of a game is not a weak argument. Pro tip: every dollar adds up front line fodder semi useless units

It's not that infantry is a defensive unit in the first line i guess.

No this was a bad change to GW. Ivan my post was one of the most important. You just increased the cost of GW not by 50% but more like 80%

trying to kill 12 militia on defense will require 14 militia with -1 attack
new cost 14 x 30 = $420
original cost 12 x 20 = $240

too much of a nerf imho.

kill 6 militia will require 7 militia

new cost 7 x 30 = $210

old cost 6 x 20 = $120

This is a HUGE nerf.

I said either -1 attack or +10 cost. me and pinheiro both stated that it was TOO much of a nerf to have both adjustments...

Written by the99percent, 14.11.2011 at 16:33

I said either -1 attack or +10 cost. me and pinheiro both stated that it was TOO much of a nerf to have both adjustments...

THIS. So much this.
In a world game the degradation of the militia is ok, but in small maps and 1vs1-situations GW is nearly impossible to play now. It always was the strategy of the underdog, of the weaker person or country, but it isn't anymore. Militia is no longer an unit, that could easily be built and used for attacks where your enemy didn't expect them. Militia is now the new infantry, condemned to stay in a city and protect it. Long gone the glorious times of militia attacks on neutral cities! Long gone the glorious times of militia attacks on enemy cities! The old veterans have tears in their eyes, when they tell their grandchildren about this good old times...
The hate campaign of the Iron Fisters seemed to have worked well, "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"-style.

Please remove the -1 attack, it is too much. All who agree please post. I know Top hats mentioned he agreed, and Pinheiro, and Fruit.

Keep atk nerf, remove cost nerf. militia come free with every country/city cap, so an atk nerf OR a defense nerf is pretty necessary

Too many opinions.

I think I would prefer removing the cost nerf rather than attack.