Get Premium to hide all ads
Posts: 21   Visited by: 64 users
01.06.2020 - 15:23
+ 1 def to bombers or - 20 cost for militia.

Sm is expensive so let it have "imper" militia.

Or make sm bombers a little stronger.

Pick 1... Buff isnt that big but its needed.

Also trophy for "game lord" looks boring and ugly it need to be changed.

Like this haha :



Edit :

Thx to croat for making new trophy.
----



http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=14714&topicsearch=&page=
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 15:25
Message deleted by clovis1122. Reason: Toxic and not productive.
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 15:26
What about +1 capacity for At's
----
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 15:30
 clovis1122 (Admin)
Sounds like ok changes, but why does SM require a buff?
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 15:37
Written by clovis1122, 01.06.2020 at 15:30

Sounds like ok changes, but why does SM require a buff?


It does... Ra and mos got buffed, and sm got nothing. Sm is more expensive then mos and mos def is much better now + mos marines are invisible. Do we need more reasons? D

Also why mos stealth planes att before marines now? In the past was the opposite
----



http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=14714&topicsearch=&page=
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 15:38
Written by clovis1122, 01.06.2020 at 15:30

Sounds like ok changes, but why does SM require a buff?

Right now I feel like SM can be played more as a support strategy rather than an offensive strategy because of it's cheap AT's and decent capacity I don't see it as a high offensive strat anymore, considering that LB, RA, Blitz and MOS are all stronger at both attacking and recapping or rushing. We could lean back on the bombers damage and focus more on air superiority with cheap air trans, capacity and cheaper bombers. I think SM can be good in certain situations but it lacks that strong 'feel' that other strategies have.
----
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 15:58
This is what really needs to be changed:

Remove self-sabotage from SM

You remove -1 attack/defence/range, -2 critical and the Tanks turns into instant garbage while you have Bombers with 8 attack, 7 critical and 17 range at the same price. You use the Tanks to capture cities while the Bombers are there to aid, but why would you even consider spend 130 cash when you can spend 70 to recruit Infantry who have the same range as Tanks but with perfect 6 defence value.

The price of Tanks should remain 120 as usual, I see no reason for leaving it 130. Or maybe keep it 130 but leave his range 7.

Recruiting Tanks playing SM is nonsense with those buffs on air units, but giving it +10 cost is just kicking a dead dog.

1) Induces player to error:
As I said above, the strategy ethos is based on building tons of Bombers/air units because they are extremely powerful. You have no need to build tanks, because you can capture cities with the aid of Bombers using only Infantry or even Militia. Great! But why are Tanks expensive? Why does the price of those terrible SM Tanks are equal to the Bombers? The Tanks are bad and you'll never buy it because you know that, but what's up with the price? atWar's engine was built upon the economy of each World Map's countries and the cost of each unit, it works in harmony with that, so making a unit weaker and increasing its price, just doesn't make sense. It's a lazy solution and a redundant nerf.

2) Self-sabotage problem:
As SM, you just have to buy 5 Tanks while playing Europe 5K and I'm pretty sure you will throw the game away. If building Tanks as SM is so bad, why does this option even exists? I know that deleting a unit from a strategy was never an option for atWar and is totally counterproductive. So if you can't delete it, and must make it a bad choice for the player by removing its most important traits, why increase the price? If the reason for the "130" cost is to discourage the players who picks SM from building it, then why not make it cost "900" or "1000"? That makes more sense... but its ridiculous. Where i want to get is: leaving those shitty Tanks by the cost of "130" is a dangerous "masked" obstacle that can ruin a player's game because its disproportionately bad.

3) Unfriendly to new players:
Experienced players may realize that the option for building Tanks as SM is terrible, because they can see those two things I listed above very clearly: it is an error and it will sabotage his game. But a new player would be able to notice that? No. I used to play SM myself and build a few Tanks every time back when I was like Rank 3-4 simply because I didn't realized that building Infantry was better while attacking to take a city.
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 16:04
Written by Estus, 01.06.2020 at 15:58

You remove -1 attack/defence/range, -2 critical and the Tanks turns into instant garbage while you have Bombers with 8 attack, 7 critical and 17 range at the same price. You use the Tanks to capture cities while the Bombers are there to aid, but why would you even consider spend 130 cash when you can spend 70 to recruit Infantry who have the same range as Tanks but with perfect 6 defence value.

The price of Tanks should remain 120 as usual, I see no reason for leaving it 130. Or maybe keep it 130 but leave his range 7.

Recruiting Tanks playing SM is nonsense with those buffs on air units, but giving it +10 cost is just kicking a dead dog.

1) Induces player to error:
As I said above, the strategy ethos is based on building tons of Bombers/air units because they are extremely powerful. You have no need to build tanks, because you can capture cities with the aid of Bombers using only Infantry or even Militia. Great! But why are Tanks expensive? Why does the price of those terrible SM Tanks are equal to the Bombers? The Tanks are bad and you'll never buy it because you know that, but what's up with the price? atWar's engine was built upon the economy of each World Map's countries and the cost of each unit, it works in harmony with that, so making a unit weaker and increasing its price, just doesn't make sense. It's a lazy solution and a redundant nerf.

2) Self-sabotage problem:
As SM, you just have to buy 5 Tanks while playing Europe 5K and I'm pretty sure you will throw the game away. If building Tanks as SM is so bad, why does this option even exists? I know that deleting a unit from a strategy was never an option for atWar and is totally counterproductive. So if you can't delete it, and must make it a bad choice for the player by removing its most important traits, why increase the price? If the reason for the "130" cost is to discourage the players who picks SM from building it, then why not make it cost "900" or "1000"? That makes more sense... but its ridiculous. Where i want to get is: leaving those shitty Tanks by the cost of "130" is a dangerous "masked" obstacle that can ruin a player's game because its disproportionately bad.

3) Unfriendly to new players:
Experienced players may realize that the option for building Tanks as SM is terrible, because they can see those two things I listed above very clearly: it is an error and it will sabotage his game. But a new player would be able to notice that? No. I used to play SM myself and build a few Tanks every time back when I was like Rank 3-4 simply because I didn't realized that building Infantry was better while attacking to take a city.

im so confused did you copy and paste this from somewhere? Why do you keep talking about tanks?
----
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 16:07
Written by PleaseMe, 01.06.2020 at 16:04

im so confused did you copy and paste this from somewhere? Why do you keep talking about tanks?


Maybe he never used sm...
----



http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=14714&topicsearch=&page=
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 16:08
Written by PleaseMe, 01.06.2020 at 16:04

im so confused did you copy and paste this from somewhere? Why do you keep talking about tanks?

Yes, it was a discussion I started months ago on Supporter forums but nobody gave credit to it. I'm bringing this up here because it is a thread meant to talk about buffing SM.
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 16:58
 clovis1122 (Admin)
Written by Mauzer Panteri, 01.06.2020 at 15:37

Also why mos stealth planes att before marines now? In the past was the opposite


Are you 100% sure about this? Should not be... my first thought is that if you have gen then marines have 9 attack, like Stealth. So the game will randomly pick who attacks.

Written by PleaseMe, 01.06.2020 at 15:38

Written by clovis1122, 01.06.2020 at 15:30

Sounds like ok changes, but why does SM require a buff?

Right now I feel like SM can be played more as a support strategy rather than an offensive strategy because of it's cheap AT's and decent capacity I don't see it as a high offensive strat anymore, considering that LB, RA, Blitz and MOS are all stronger at both attacking and recapping or rushing. We could lean back on the bombers damage and focus more on air superiority with cheap air trans, capacity and cheaper bombers. I think SM can be good in certain situations but it lacks that strong 'feel' that other strategies have.


SM is great for offensive gameplay, and IMO the best strat when Germ is enemy. It is so much more flexible than GC (when rushing and then full stacking cap for example). Pavle/Goden/I have been using it in CWs and it worked great. I've seen Acq/Eagle/Lao playing it and going offensive too.

I think you guys should give it a shot D.
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 17:14
 clovis1122 (Admin)
Written by Estus, 01.06.2020 at 15:58

If the reason for the "130" cost is to discourage the players who picks SM from building it, then why not make it cost "900" or "1000"? That makes more sense... but its ridiculous. Where i want to get is: leaving those shitty Tanks by the cost of "130" is a dangerous "masked" obstacle that can ruin a player's game because it's disproportionately bad.


Overall great reasoning, +1 upvote.

One idea is to make them harder to use to balance with the bombers' boost. Being discouraged to use them is like a side effect here.

Regarding the high cost, consider the following: you're playing WWII as Germany and decide to go SM. Things are going great until you get an event (for historical reasons). 30 Tiger I tanks. Imagine if SM raises tank cost by +880...
Loading...
Loading...
01.06.2020 - 17:50
Written by clovis1122, 01.06.2020 at 17:14

Regarding the high cost, consider the following: you're playing WWII as Germany and decide to go SM. Things are going great until you get an event (for historical reasons). 30 Tiger I tanks. Imagine if SM raises tank cost by +880...


I cannot advocate for SM use in scenarios, but regarding events, its responsibility of the mapmaker to prevent event units from destroying the player's game/strategy. Balancing events in scenarios is one of the hardest things to do in historical maps like WWII. The best option, for all cases, is to create a special unit only to spawn on the event with a cost that relates to the overall context.
Loading...
Loading...
06.06.2020 - 09:52
Written by Estus, 01.06.2020 at 15:58

3) Unfriendly to new players:
Experienced players may realize that the option for building Tanks as SM is terrible, because they can see those two things I listed above very clearly: it is an error and it will sabotage his game. But a new player would be able to notice that? No. I used to play SM myself and build a few Tanks every time back when I was like Rank 3-4 simply because I didn't realized that building Infantry was better while attacking to take a city.

I really don't understand this point, if I apply your logic to everything it would tell me that nerfing any unit with any strat is bad
----



Loading...
Loading...
06.06.2020 - 10:05
Written by LukeTan, 06.06.2020 at 09:52

Written by Estus, 01.06.2020 at 15:58

3) Unfriendly to new players:
Experienced players may realize that the option for building Tanks as SM is terrible, because they can see those two things I listed above very clearly: it is an error and it will sabotage his game. But a new player would be able to notice that? No. I used to play SM myself and build a few Tanks every time back when I was like Rank 3-4 simply because I didn't realized that building Infantry was better while attacking to take a city.

I really don't understand this point, if I apply your logic to everything it would tell me that nerfing any unit with any strat is bad

My argument is that a disproportionate disadvantage will be most likely affecting new players. And yes, there are many mistakes like this in the current AtWar strategy balancing. I already sent a PM to Eagle regarding issues involving not only SM, but also GW, IF, DS, MoS and NC.
Loading...
Loading...
06.06.2020 - 10:59
GW NEEDS BUFF! Y'all forgot about GW!!!!
Loading...
Loading...
06.06.2020 - 15:24
Make bombers able to take cities alone.

----
...још сте ту...
Loading...
Loading...
07.06.2020 - 02:27
Haha troll mauza

but yes sm buff but it is so hard 2 buff since almost perfect balance strat just a little shitter than other strats

just give back normal inf atk
Loading...
Loading...
07.06.2020 - 05:51
Who asked for 2 buffs?

I said pick one from 2 suggested.

-20 cost for militia would be more fun buf then +1 def for bombers, but one of that two is needed.
----



http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=14714&topicsearch=&page=
Loading...
Loading...
10.06.2020 - 11:51
Why are people obsessed with updates revolving around militia? Is a boring unit that makes for boring gameplay.
Loading...
Loading...
11.06.2020 - 00:59
SM needs buff. But I think buffing militia has nothing to do with sm. I would say increase attack of bombers or maybe decrease their cost by 10 or 20
Loading...
Loading...