Fixing Strategies

The title is a direct quote and it came out of a long discussion, I saw it as a thoughtful and wise way to describe my thread.

edit: The original title was: <Fruitcommando>fix these shitty strats nigga
But no fun allowed around here ok.



These have been discussed for a while and seem reasonable. Though I believe the idea for blitzkrieg is my best.


Blitzkrieg

As blitz is known for letting noob players expand fast, I thought it fitting we kept to that model. Blitzkrieg eventually loses its luster as a strategy when you continue playing, and learn new strategies. My suggestions are:

• Ignore enemy defence bonus'
• Ignore the enemy general bonus'

Instead of adding +1 attack to blitzkrieg as other threads have proposed, just allow it to ignore the city defence bonus that infantry get, and that militia get in pd/gw. This means blitz will have the same attack when attacking stacks that aren't in a city, but when attacking cities allows it to move and expand against enemies more freely. Also I'd like it to ignore the general defence bonus.





Iron Fist

Everyone seems to have forgotten that IF was in fact nerfed twice for the same reasons, and one nerf was not taken away when the other was added.

• Transport range returned
• Air Transport range returned

If you look at the transports of IF, you'll notice -4 for transports, and -5 for air transports on their range. This was an attempt to stop IF from being OP because of its old +3 hp, but since they took IF's hp down to only +2hp, I don't see this range nerf as needed anymore. Bring the range back up to only the standard -2 range all Iron Fist units get.





Naval Commander

This has always been an under appreciated strategy, when some of the better players get bored we do play this. We think it's a gem that needs to be shined, let's bring it forth in a glorious fashion.

• Add +5 to the sea transport capacity

This doesn't add to the statistical power of NC in terms of unit to unit. However will allow for the coasts to be controlled more easily, and doesn't affect anything too far inland.





Lucky Bastard

Now this is the strategy to challenge yourself with - but that's it. It cannot be played vs the better players, but only to fool around 'cause you know, you're LB n u stron.

• +12 instead of +5 Crit. chance

Now I know some of you went through some testing and came up with the answer "OGMDSMF OP" when we had merged into atWar. LB had a far higher critical chance, and now you've not only nerfed it, but pushed it back into its previous state. Even with +12 this still won't be playable as a competitive strategy, but it's a start.





Desert Storm

This strategy is pretty strong as it is. It does use its own powerful unique unit--the helicopter. It gives +1 range to its marines, allowing for some added expansion. However, it still isn't unique in its playstyle, let's change that.

• 1 Marine Capacity to Helicopters

Compromises:
• -1 Attack to Infantry, with
• -1 Defence to Infantry, or
• +10 to Infantry cost, or
• -1 to Infantry range


Now before you say "what? why teh attack? Wty add nerfs?" I did say DS was strong in its own right. Make DS more geared toward using the helicopter and marines combined than other units. This does in fact make the strategy much stronger than before, and even I am hesitant to add this in my post.

With an initial nerf, or nerfs, this brings the probability of further nerfs later down. If you gave it -1 defence, the attack of DS matters more. If you put -1 range, this makes it harder to expand with only infantry, and harder to defend cities and capitals. +10 cost would make up for not having to create air transports, even if only just a bit. -1 Attack, like SM, would be a small compromise and should be mixed with the other ideas.

Overall the strategy becomes stronger and more unique. If ever implemented it would probably go over another hurdle of testing and discussion.










Oh, and discussion is welcome. Pls rate/hate/support or whatever you do when posting on a thread ok.

Good idea's, all of them. The only one i'm unsure about is your IF boost, as i know it has been OP before the last nerf. But i'm not a IF player, so i'd like to hear others thoughts

The taking back of IF nerfs was agreed upon on a thread or two earlier but it never happened, I could find it if needed.
On blitz you put someting very interesting into play, you widen the effects a strategy can have and this is very interesting, however I cannot tell whether this will fix the strategy, I have pondered on the thought that it is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed, however I will think about that suggestion as it is completely new and I will post later about it.
I played desert storm for a bit while it was hot, I am not convinced it needs a buff at present, however I haven't trialed it enough so an answer is reserved.
My problem with naval commander is that there aren't enough cities on the water, however it could use that small boost since it is not as terrible as the others. One I didn't see mentioned is relentless attack, it should get the infantry defence bonus in the cities at least.
edit with thread 1
I believe there is another one because I remember caulerpa agreeing too

Watch your language please. How do you want to be taken seriously if you start a discussion like that. Edited thread title and post for appropriate language.

OT
I could agree on Lucky Bastard and Naval Commander suggestion.

IF would be better with just -3 for both transports. It would be too strong again if there was no penalty.

For Blitzkrieg: This will never be a useful strat without any proper way to defend.

Only the extra HP made IF op, you can use GC as an example of how much +1 hp makes a difference. I think a full revert of the transport nerf would be fine, honestly.

Everything else I support 100%, was present in the discussion after all -)

Written by VRIL, 10.01.2013 at 04:28

Watch your language please. How do you want to be taken seriously if you start a discussion like that. Edited thread title and post for appropriate language.

OT
I could agree on Lucky Bastard and Naval Commander suggestion.

IF would be better with just -3 for both transports. It would be too strong again if there was no penalty.

For Blitzkrieg: This will never be a useful strat without any proper way to defend.

Honestly, take into consideration the content of the post, which is laid out and organized before you call someone out for their language. I tried to make a light post with a eye catching title, and you could of just edited it to "<Fruitcommando>fix these ****** strats ***** " and I'd be fine. But of course nobody likes fun around here. The post was well done, with straight answers and the information laid out with explanations, and you go and call me out for my language. Congratulations.

"How do you want to be taken seriously if you start a discussion like that." Obviously because I made a serious post with serious content. That's how I want to be taken seriously.

Oh and at least type out the entire word if you're going to edit the title. "Fixing Strategies" at least.

OT: I edited the DS part with new compromises with new explanations.

For Blitzkrieg, if you want it to keep relation to the actual strategy used by Nazi Germany.... they came unstuck in sieges (partly due to weather but still). Also I've asked Ivan / Amok about bonuses vs cities and defence lines before, which is kinda what you're suggesting, and was told it's not possible at the moment. Why not just make the defence nerf -1 instead of -2? There's no good reason the defence should be that low. Also your idea complicates things.

Lucky Bastard I agree, and I think now that the mechanic is changed the name could change to something more appealing too. But with +12 it will be very playable with enough money.

Because I think it'd be cool to see more Naval units used anyway, I think that the cost of them should come down regardless of NC. say 180 subs 200 destroyers. Then if anything the stats to NC should be slightly nerfed so that all the naval units only have -50 instead of Destroyers being -80.

I do like the DS nerf as long as it gives the + 1 marine capacity. I personally use mainly inf in my DS expansions, and rarely use marines, so it hardly feels like "Desert Storm" it feels more like send a couple inf with 3 or so helis and you take the city.

Agreed on all propositions. Very good thread. I was actually planning on making one like this.

blitz and iron fist need a boost badly. while nc needs more power since its a one dimensional strategy for the most part.

admins agreed to add the +1 capacity to marines about 8 months ago, and still not implemented......

for LB however, I'd say +10 is good enough. might still be op with +10.

Just a general comment:

Now that we have crit, it can be used to slightly tweak strategies that are considered OP or UP. For instance, PD is perhaps slightly OP now, so you can maybe subtract 2 crit from infantry, making it slightly weaker in both offense and defense (but it still has that amazing overall +2 in cities). Or in other strats.

Just saying that crit can used to tweak things when the higher powers say they need to be tweaked.

I agree with IF and NC suggestions.

Blitz could be tested with -1 def instead of -2 as suggested by Mr Hilter, while DS and LB need to be discussed a little deeper in my opinion.

EDIT: Blitz may be strong enough with such boost, however, the reason I suggested earlier it may be weak is because when expanding vs neutrals things can get tough and it is expensive, so both boosts may be added without fear that the strategy will be OP (yes, the strategy is this weak at this moment)

Iron Fist: As soon as it was nerfed many players instantly agreed the transport nerfs were out of place. They need to be attenuated.

>Add +5 to the sea transport capacity
kind of nig to be honest, we don't want more nig strategies remember old IF with 3hp without transport nerfs.

Remove 10 cost for marines. If it sounds like too little remember how insanely OP it is on the coasts.

>Lucky Bastard
baleet strat

Desert Storm
-1 defense to infantry sounds about right.

If anyone else thinks GW transports should be a little less expensive...
The strategy suffers from a serious lack of mobility as is.

Outside of Naval Commander, destroyer unit is useless. If it's given NC attacking power it may change, NC keeping the edge with cost and defence.

I agree with everything, very well explained.
but we should add the +1 marine capacity before discussing a nerf for infantry

I like the NC boost very mucho :3

Good ideas, good ideas. My thoughts:

Blitzkrieg: Interesting idea, but it might be a little difficult to program. I can't think of an alternative though.

Iron Fist: Support. No idea why this didn't happen.

Naval Commander: Definite support, this crossed my mind one or two times. Perhaps to counter the transport capacity, you could nerf bombers and air transports? Range, cost, or attack for bombers.

Lucky Bastard: I kinda do have to say "OGMDSMF OP" on your suggestion. I'm not going to run another analysis on it, I just want to say that adding just 10 crits to an infantry increases its defence to 8.4. Adding 12, with lucky infs, and the existing 5, will push it past the defence of both a PD and a IF infantry. Crits were nerfed for a reason. All I have to say is that making crits too high makes it too predictable, removing the 'lucky aspect'. I'd be willing to change to 8-10 extra crits for all units, or higher if we can find another nerf.

Desert Storm: Mfw this still isn't added. Someone could seriously just go in the map editor and do it himself, haha. Support.

I'm not sure why DS helicopters would need marine capacity, aside from wanting more realism. The helicopter in AW is primarily an attacking unit and there are already air transports. I've been getting more familiar with DS lately and the only reason I have atm for not using Marines as often is that they cost as much as helicopters and helicopters are all around better units. I've never really cared much for stealth units tho so I guess I'm a bit biased there. Maybe lowering the cost of marines would be OP or might bring another (cheaper) dimension to DS. Again I'm not really sure, but I feel DS is alright as it is. I clearly need to discuss this further before I have a stronger opinion tho.

Btw I use a 24 inch monitor to play AW and I still don't know what the image for the marine is supposed to be.. I suggest a change to the Eagle, Globe and Anchor maybe?
And as I'm leaving for Marine boot camp in April if you wanted to make Marines super units better than anything else in the game (like they obviously should be ) I'd support you completely!

I notice Guerilla Warfare isn't on the list as I feel it should be, I have whined about this in the past before to no avail. The extra cost for transports and air transports and their lower range make them very unusable and really puts GW players at a disadvanatage with expanding. Now I had proposed that if those nerfs were to remain on the transports that the marines should be tweaked alittle mostly getting +1 hell maybe even +2 to movment, but nerfing their defence equally aswell to that. Becuase that marines are supposed to represent the partisans/insurgents that acutally carry out guerilla wars and being unconventional units they don't have the logisitial burdens of a conventional unit. I feel that would balance the expanison issue a lot and also make the strategy alittle more fitting to it's name.

Written by Wildchild92, 11.01.2013 at 04:31

Guerilla Warfare

I think most people think GW is strong enough as it is... and guerillas may not have the logistical burdens but they probably don't have the same vehicles either. If anything the transports should cost more.

Written by Mathdino, 11.01.2013 at 00:17

My thoughts

For once I've got to disagree with you on like everything. For the lucky bastard, it's an expensive strategy, so why not have it have better units than everything else? Just get rid of the cost reduction, even put it the other way, then let it be OP.

Other than that, I agree naval units should be stronger for all strategies. Even if the NC boost was lower in itself, if Naval units were more common, the advantage becomes that much more useful.

That is the point, they do cost quite a bit more and have less range then regular. I am fine with that BUT I feel that what I proposed wouldn't make it even stronger, it would balance it out becuase it does make it harder to expand which puts you at a disadvantage. I did propose for any extra range given to the marines they should get less defence to keep it balanced, that being said that would still better represent insurgents like I said with the less defence. Now I could sit here and argue about how they would be more fluid then a conventional unit without vehicles but simply put they travel light.

Written by Cherse, 11.01.2013 at 05:02

Written by Wildchild92, 11.01.2013 at 04:31

Guerilla Warfare

I think most people think GW is strong enough as it is... and guerillas may not have the logistical burdens but they probably don't have the same vehicles either. If anything the transports should cost more.

Written by Wildchild92, 11.01.2013 at 13:40

That is the point, they do cost quite a bit more and have less range then regular. I am fine with that BUT I feel that what I proposed wouldn't make it even stronger, it would balance it out becuase it does make it harder to expand which puts you at a disadvantage. I did propose for any extra range given to the marines they should get less defence to keep it balanced, that being said that would still better represent insurgents like I said with the less defence. Now I could sit here and argue about how they would be more fluid then a conventional unit without vehicles but simply put they travel light.

Written by Cherse, 11.01.2013 at 05:02

Written by Wildchild92, 11.01.2013 at 04:31

Guerilla Warfare

I think most people think GW is strong enough as it is... and guerillas may not have the logistical burdens but they probably don't have the same vehicles either. If anything the transports should cost more.

you don't know how to play with GW, do you?

i think GW is ok as it is.
why you want to use air transports at all? it will remove your stealth advantage
guerrillas are slow and cheap for a reason.
if you wanna use strong OP marines with normal air unit range, go a head and use MoS.

You guys are clearly missing the point.

I support Desu's original suggestions. Especially the ones concerning Iron Fist and Desert Storm.
As for IF it has been discussed earlier that it was overnerfed, and with earlier i mean like eight or more months ago. Giving it back the original transport and airtransport range will make it playable again, while it won't be OP due to the lower HP.
Desert Storm: I don't know why there is still no marine-capacity, Amok's poll is older than six months now and everyone agreed with it.

Support. I'll keep bumping until implemented. This is a MUST.

Bump

I wonder why Amok/Ivan haven't post anything in this post yet :/

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump