IF is OP

It is very, very easy.

Written by iStompy, 23.11.2011 at 21:53

It is very, very easy.

no it's not. pls prove it to me

Sorry guys, but Osiris is right. I beat Germany IF on a regular basis and also Vag agreed with me that it is the best counter strat (I don't know why he claims that it's impossible to beat here). If you think I can not beat your Germany IF, then feel free to ask me for an 1vs1 game.
However, except for UK i don't think there is another good way to beat Germany IF at the moment.
But just to add: It's not IF that is too strong, it's the combination of Germany and IF. So what I would like is a form of IF like we had it in the 1vs1 tournament. Caused by the low starting funds it was necessary to think WHAT you do, while Germany can easily expand in the balkans and attack at the western front at the same time. So instead of reducing the HP the units should just be more expensive. Add 10 cost to bombers, tanks and infantry and let's see what happens.

So... you want to nerf a strategy based on one strong pick it has in a very specific situation?

This "balancement" will never end...

Pinheiro against because he uses said strategy, nothingnewhere.jpeg

Favorite strategies: Guerrilla Warfare, Sky Menace, Perfect Defence

Let's keep the subject.

My opinion is to nerf HP to 2 and LEssens the transport nerfs, but not remove them.

I don't think removing the transport nerf is worth -1 hp... maybe -2hp, but then the strat is pointless.

The Transport nerf NEEDs to stay, in some form. Or something must replace it, like Cost increase.

Written by the99percent, 25.11.2011 at 12:42

My opinion is to nerf HP to 2 and LEssens the transport nerfs, but not remove them.

I don't think removing the transport nerf is worth -1 hp... maybe -2hp, but then the strat is pointless.

The Transport nerf NEEDs to stay, in some form. Or something must replace it, like Cost increase.

Absolutely disagree. HP affects all countries but only Germany is too strong. So add 10 cost to PD, Tanks and Bombers and only expensive countries expanding will be affected.

" So add 10 cost to PD, Tanks and Bombers and only expensive countries expanding will be affected."

Adding cost will not affect all countries? what? That makes no sense cow, it will ALSO affect all countries.

If only germany is the problem then nerf germany.

The point is -1hp is not worth giving IF Fast expansion.

I think that the easiest solution will be to split germany between west and est. It will also help to make scenario of the cold war and scenario of the 1700 and 1800 where prussia wasnt holdign all of germany. West will have an income similar to france and uk and the rest will go to east germany

Written by the99percent, 25.11.2011 at 14:37

" So add 10 cost to PD, Tanks and Bombers and only expensive countries expanding will be affected."

Adding cost will not affect all countries? what? That makes no sense cow, it will ALSO affect all countries.

If only germany is the problem then nerf germany.

The point is -1hp is not worth giving IF Fast expansion.

It doesnt affect the first turns expansion of cheaper countries. But this is the main problem about Germany IF: It can expand in balkans while fighting a enemy in the west since the first turn, or the other way around. Thats why a cost nerf makes more sense, it weakens expensive countries like germany, but not the others, in the first turns.

Ah i see what you are saying, but this is only if you are playing a 10k game, do you think this is how the game should be balanced?

Written by the99percent, 25.11.2011 at 22:22

Ah i see what you are saying, but this is only if you are playing a 10k game, do you think this is how the game should be balanced?

Well in 5k you have less resources in the beginning as well. I really think increasing the cost would be the best way, if +10 is not enough there is still margin fore more.
When PD was overpowered everybody thought -1 range wouldn't be enough, but nobody complained since the nerf, so testing will show it.

In my opinion, IF is already where it needs to be. While it's troops might be a bit powerful, the movement reduction as well as the fact that it's nearly impossible to spot stealths with IF makes it fair enough.

Written by goodnames679, 26.11.2011 at 10:42

In my opinion, IF is already where it needs to be. While it's troops might be a bit powerful, the movement reduction as well as the fact that it's nearly impossible to spot stealths with IF makes it fair enough.

lolol, try playing against IF anywhere with good income, you will lose badly. Today, when playing cow to try to find a counter, I had over 45 units in his cap from an SM rush. FORTY FIVE. He took it with 16 tanks and 3 infantry and 2 bombers (just checked with him)...and he was LEFT WITH 9 TANKS AND 3 INFANTRY. This is a problem bros

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 12:18

Written by goodnames679, 26.11.2011 at 10:42

In my opinion, IF is already where it needs to be. While it's troops might be a bit powerful, the movement reduction as well as the fact that it's nearly impossible to spot stealths with IF makes it fair enough.

lolol, try playing against IF anywhere with good income, you will lose badly. Today, when playing cow to try to find a counter, I had over 45 units in his cap from an SM rush. FORTY FIVE. He took it with 16 tanks and 3 infantry...and he was LEFT WITH 9 TANKS AND 3 INFANTRY. This is a problem bros

Also, a cost nerf won't work. It will only 'nerf' the first turn, however the problem here is that all "standard" countries to be taken first turn can ALL be taken using the starting infantry.

Sry bro, but your argument is invalid. If you have a expensive strategy, why shouldn't its units be more powerful? If the +10cost to the units is not enough it could still be +30 or +50. But there is no need to destroy the nature of IF. It is slow, and should be a bit more expensive, but there is no need to remove HP at all.
As I said: Everyone complained that -1 range to PDs infantry wouldnt be enough but it worked fine. So before you all keep qqing, lets see what a cost nerf would change.

... that is ridiculous if true. we should do some testing.

Ok. After playing more enemies and setups i would recommend +30 cost to infantry, bombers and tanks.

Written by the99percent, 26.11.2011 at 12:49

... that is ridiculous if true. we should do some testing.

It is 100% true. Just played another game, 19 bombers + general killed 13 infantry. Held cap with almost 10 extra units. idk why they won't listen, everyone (except for them) who has played IF frequently knows well that it is TOO OP

also you will not destroy the nature of IF. you will have transports back to normal, and units will still be pretty strong but will be BEATABLE

also, look at my fav strats: Favorite strategies: Iron Fist, Perfect Defence, Great Combinator

I am not biased, I have played IF for a bit, and I know that it is too OP and needs a nerf. it's just a bitch in general

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 13:01

Written by the99percent, 26.11.2011 at 12:49

... that is ridiculous if true. we should do some testing.

It is 100% true. Just played another game, 19 bombers + general killed 13 infantry. Held cap with almost 10 extra units. idk why they won't listen, everyone (except for them) who has played IF frequently knows well that it is TOO OP

also you will not destroy the nature of IF. you will have transports back to normal, and units will still be pretty strong but will be BEATABLE

IF Units are OP nobody denies this.
But units can be OP if they are slow and have a appropriate strength/cost ratio. This is what IF is about and there is no need to destroy its nature. Just adding cost until it is balanced is way better.

Written by Guest, 26.11.2011 at 13:03

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 13:01

Written by the99percent, 26.11.2011 at 12:49

... that is ridiculous if true. we should do some testing.

It is 100% true. Just played another game, 19 bombers + general killed 13 infantry. Held cap with almost 10 extra units. idk why they won't listen, everyone (except for them) who has played IF frequently knows well that it is TOO OP

also you will not destroy the nature of IF. you will have transports back to normal, and units will still be pretty strong but will be BEATABLE

IF Units are OP nobody denies this.
But units can be OP if they are slow and have a appropriate strength/cost ratio. This is what IF is about and there is no need to destroy its nature. Just adding cost until it is balanced is way better.

+2 HP would still keep the nature of IF but it wouldn't be as OP. It would actually take brains to use, not just mindless facerolling wherever you have the most units. Sure a cost nerf would be semi-effective, but you're only taking germany into context. A cost nerf would give give neg monies in 5k, which we don't want -- the point is to nerf it appropriately, not to kill the strat in general.

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 13:05

Written by Guest, 26.11.2011 at 13:03

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 13:01

Written by the99percent, 26.11.2011 at 12:49

... that is ridiculous if true. we should do some testing.

It is 100% true. Just played another game, 19 bombers + general killed 13 infantry. Held cap with almost 10 extra units. idk why they won't listen, everyone (except for them) who has played IF frequently knows well that it is TOO OP

also you will not destroy the nature of IF. you will have transports back to normal, and units will still be pretty strong but will be BEATABLE

IF Units are OP nobody denies this.
But units can be OP if they are slow and have a appropriate strength/cost ratio. This is what IF is about and there is no need to destroy its nature. Just adding cost until it is balanced is way better.

If only rushka was still around, +2 HP would still keep the nature of IF but it wouldn't be as OP. It would actually take brains to use, not just mindless facerolling wherever you have the most units. Sure a cost nerf would be semi-effective, but you're only taking germany into context. A cost nerf would give give neg monies in 5k, which we don't want -- the point is to nerf it appropriately, not to kill the strat in general.

But this is pretty much what you would do by reducing its HP because it still has the transport nerf so it would even suck more than now on big maps.
Also no negative monies since +cost and not +weekly cost.

Written by Guest, 26.11.2011 at 13:08

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 13:05

Written by Guest, 26.11.2011 at 13:03

Written by VAGlNEER 2.0, 26.11.2011 at 13:01

Written by the99percent, 26.11.2011 at 12:49

... that is ridiculous if true. we should do some testing.

It is 100% true. Just played another game, 19 bombers + general killed 13 infantry. Held cap with almost 10 extra units. idk why they won't listen, everyone (except for them) who has played IF frequently knows well that it is TOO OP

also you will not destroy the nature of IF. you will have transports back to normal, and units will still be pretty strong but will be BEATABLE

IF Units are OP nobody denies this.
But units can be OP if they are slow and have a appropriate strength/cost ratio. This is what IF is about and there is no need to destroy its nature. Just adding cost until it is balanced is way better.

If only rushka was still around, +2 HP would still keep the nature of IF but it wouldn't be as OP. It would actually take brains to use, not just mindless facerolling wherever you have the most units. Sure a cost nerf would be semi-effective, but you're only taking germany into context. A cost nerf would give give neg monies in 5k, which we don't want -- the point is to nerf it appropriately, not to kill the strat in general.

But this is pretty much what you would do by reducing its HP because it still has the transport nerf so it would even suck more than now on big maps.
Also no negative monies since +cost and not +weekly cost.

no, part of me/fruit's nerf was to remove the transport nerf so you wouldn't completely kill IF and it'd still be fair. yes, it definitely would not be as OP and I guess it would kind of lose the 'nature' of IF (which is just plain OP), but at least it would still be very good close range, and hard to win long range (since you would have less leftover units every time you get a neutral country, which would cut some expansion, and would make it harder to get units to the frontline), which is exactly how the strat is supposed to work

EDIT:

instead of arguing, why can't we have some sort of test server in which we test these nerfs...or test both nerfs separately, something needs to be done (either cost nerf or this nerf quickly... one way or another)

19 bombers plus general vs 13 inf , that's not too bad, you say he had 10 left but did he reinforce? watch the actual battle to see how many units he had total please.

Written by the99percent, 26.11.2011 at 14:33

19 bombers plus general vs 13 inf , that's not too bad, you say he had 10 left but did he reinforce? watch the actual battle to see how many units he had total please.

I had 23 in my cap, only lost 13 inf in an att vs 19 SM bombers + general (w/ bomber att)

The 45 units vs 20 units is the worst though, something needs to be done. test out both nerfs

Bumping this thread because it's relevant and IF is still OP.

I agree with the -1HP nerf to IF proposed in this thread. I recently got a months worth of premium and when I finally got to play IF I found it to be ridiculously easy to use against other players. The units are durable to the point which they almost never die, which is the problem. When playing against players that are using IF you have to send nearly if not more than double the regular amount of units required. This causes the unit distribution to be grossly uneven and IF to win simply by withstanding attacks. I believe the strategy is supposed to be strong but +3 HP makes it too strong compared to other strategies.

I don't think that the cost reduction cow talks about is a good solution to this. Mainly because how important cost is really depends on the country you start with. The cost reduction is trying to aim at reducing the overall amount of units for IF. But increased cost just makes you factor that in to the country selection. All this would do is force IF users out of expensive situations and make them pick cheaper countries to have more money. It wouldn't actually fix the units, you'd just see IF less in certain countries like Germany.

By having it at +2HP the IF units would be a more balanced opponent for the other strategies in the game. I believe this is the best solution because the units would not be as OP with 2 HP, yet it wouldn't change how you play IF like a cost reduction would.

Done. It's +2HP now, let's see how it goes.

Nerf is perfect. Been playing IF all day and it feels much more balanced now. I just barely lost a 1v1 just now, but have been doing very well with it in other games. feels great, thanks

Yes, good nerf. Just what do you think of reducing nerf on transports (now it's -4 and -5) to -3 and -3. So that can be a little more usable in bigger maps, and not only europe.

Written by Caulerpa, 15.12.2011 at 02:53

Yes, good nerf. Just what do you think of reducing nerf on transports (now it's -4 and -5) to -3 and -3. So that can be a little more usable in bigger maps, and not only europe.

-3 and -4 to norm and air transports respectively should do it, transports should gain 1 range each so they don't become too good like they were before