PD is op in comparison to RA

PD:

Inf. cost. 60. Average attack dmg. 2.5. Average (def. in city against tanks) dmg. 5.5.

RA:

Tank cost 110. Average attack dmg. 5. Average def. dmg. 3.

If RA attacks and PD defends, it takes RA user 11 tanks to kill 10 PD user infantries. RA user loss in comparison to PD user is 610 and one more unit.

If PD attacks and RA defends, it takes PD user 6 inf. to kill 5 RA user tanks. RA user loss is 190, but one unit less.

Conclusion: RA user can't neither attack PD user, nor can defend without losing. This leads to RA player constantly losing money and a game. It's even more unbalanced with a general and inf. bonus.

This needs a fix, imho, to make RA a viable strategy against PD.

Yes, plz nerf PD, its op, lmao

Holy Inkisidor: favorite strategies - PD, very unsubjective opinion

So any comments on that or does anyone agree that RA has no chance against PD?

PD is designed to be a counter to RA so in theory RA shouldn't be selected vs a PD player. PD is limited in range and is basic spam infantry. Nerfed Destroyers nerfed tanks etc. RA advantage in range and firepower.

However saying this I agree the financial side of things helps the PD player. I would make RA tanks 100 or bring in an upgrade for expendable tanks as well as restoring the infantry city bonus to give the strategy a boost. Really you don't want to be nerfing strats too much and with PD I cant see a way of nerfing it and keeping it balanced.

Written by b0nker2, 10.05.2013 at 09:58

PD is designed to be a counter to RA so in theory RA shouldn't be selected vs a PD player. PD is limited in range and is basic spam infantry. Nerfed Destroyers nerfed tanks etc. RA advantage in range and firepower.

However saying this I agree the financial side of things helps the PD player. I would make RA tanks 100 or bring in an upgrade for expendable tanks as well as restoring the infantry city bonus to give the strategy a boost. Really you don't want to be nerfing strats too much and with PD I cant see a way of nerfing it and keeping it balanced.

I simply don't like playing PD so that i could have a chance to win (talking about Europe+). I usually can stand against MoS with RA (that is if i catch enemy marines), but versus PD I almost never win. What strats do counter PD well? I suppose GW should cause you can spam militias which are even cheaper but are there are any viable non spamming strategies (I never liked zerging in SC). How about DS? GC should not be selected too as it is similar to RA, yes? I tried NC on PD China but it didn't work for me either.

Agreed, but i'd say that RA needs a boost rather than PD a nerf. Also, PD can be beaten with DS, but you either need to be rich for this to work or playing as Ukraine, you have to be quick enough to finish the game and turn the tides to your cause.

Yeah, but the same works with RA from Poland in 3k-5k game when your opponent can't be Germany (and hopefully does not take Turkey, Ukraine is too slow to expand into the west imho, while Turkey takes Italy and Greece on turn 1). You need to be quick to take highest income countries and hope your big stack of tanks and huge income will be enough. This basically means that game is won/lost on turn 4 whether you are fortunate enough to cap him, which usually is NO with any decent PD player.

RA boost would be a way to defend (like tanks getting a boost defending against infantry like marines get).

But still this game balance is conceptually wrong. High cost strategies should be more powerful unit wise than low cost ones cause these units are more costly to build and therefore maintain. If we all start on 3k, we can choose how to play beforehand: going for cheap countries and massing infantries or spending your resources conquering high income countries and building high tech units. This all goes to the same basic principle of high-tech vs mass employed in any rts (prots vs zergs, allies vs soviet countries). Currently it's rather unbalanced from a high-tech player POV cause low tech inf > high tech tank (even bomber/stealth).

What does RA stand for?

Written by Guest, 20.05.2013 at 12:08

What does RA stand for?

Relentless attack.

Boost RA. It's simple. (Actually, ra, blitz, gc, need a boost)

RA boost

+ Make infantry 4 attack. Why? Because in the description it says powerful tanks at the cost of weak defense. Therefore, making infantry 3 attack goes against this description.

+ Make militia 30 cost. Why 30 cost? Because 40 is a massive nerf, especially when it's more cost-effective to build militia rather than infantry.

However, by all means, pd does need a nerf, but not a big one. Maybe making militia 30 cost instead of 20 would do it. But we should start by boosting gc, blitz and ra.

Written by Guest, 20.05.2013 at 15:25

Written by Guest, 20.05.2013 at 14:49

Written by Guest, 20.05.2013 at 12:08

What does RA stand for?

Relentless attack.

LDK knows a lot about relentless attacks

Yes. Relentlessly attacking Unicorns <3

I concur with TopHat's suggestions here.

Written by Guest, 20.05.2013 at 15:42

Tanks should be replaced with unicorns

Written by Dr Lecter, 22.05.2013 at 17:47

I concur with TopHat's suggestions here.

dam u y u no want terminal's idea

I definitely disagree. PD is a DEFENSIVE strategy, therefore it must be powerful in defense. It will be op having real financial advantage, wich is not - because for PD is not easy to get income as it is for OFFENSIVE strategies. So, the problem for a RA player (as for PD player) is his strategy imntended as a "science", not as aW "strategy".
As I said many times, the only aW strategy that is op is SM, precisely because his long-range attack power and cheap expenses.

Learn from a cowgod?

First of all, Nostromo - Cow is a god. Secondly - PD Ukraine for example can expand maybe even better than SM Ukraine, so don't come telling me that PD can't expand. Yes, they have to use more infantry (or just tank help) to beat infantry-based countries (France, UK, Germany etc), but they are NOT worse in expansion. At all. And PD doesn't even need that much income to be able to expand and fight. PD UK/Germany for example usually doesn't need many countries to have a decent income and it can even share cash with his allies during CW's. If RA Germany/UK or SM UK/Germany is ever able to do that in a 10k CW or even gets chosen in such a CW, call me.

First of all every one has the god he preferes or deserves, just in case.
Secondly, what are you talking about?
Towns that give greatest income AND reinforcements are defended by infantry, this obviously slows down a PD player. And this is fair, because PD is a DEFENSIVE, low range, strat that can expand in medium-long run: cheap AND effectual only with infantry. SM is cheap and effectual with all-destructive bombers AND long range air transports, while its infantry defense IS NOT affected. The balance costs-benefits is clearly, too much in favour of SM. Try a 10K duel between PD an SM and come back to tell me.
I think PD-RA are far more balanced, and RA players should be more concerned about the costs-benefits comparisonm with SM.
By the way, three: you are supporting you GENERAL idea with PARTICULAR examples. You'd better to read and compare the strat. features under FAQ. For every example you give, we can find at least 5 counter-examples.

Uhm. PD atm is probably the most favoured strat in every CW. And also in a 10k duel. If you're Turkey, then your strategy is usually IMP. Those, who know the magic of SM Ukraine, can also be beasts with that one. But it's easy to run out of cash. I do agree that RA does need a boost of some sort, but don't ever try to tell me that PD isn't good in expansion and let's get back to topic, please?

Written by Brandreas, 27.05.2013 at 17:14

And also in a 10k duel. If you're Turkey, then your strategy is usually IMP.

I know you said "usually" but I want to point out that PD turkey is actually really really good in 1v1 duels (10k ofc). I won 1.8k sp in a world game with the "No allies" settings. The game had 2 rank 9s, a rank 6 and 7, and 2 rank 5s. I was PD Turkey and I won the game in the end. It's good but for you to fulfill the best out of PD, you must have all the infantry upgrades (or at least most of them).

Edit - Game was called: "THERE CAN B ONLY 1 (33)". Just in case you think I'm lying.

Written by Brandreas, 27.05.2013 at 17:14

Uhm. PD atm is probably the most favoured strat in every CW. And also in a 10k duel. If you're Turkey, then your strategy is usually IMP. Those, who know the magic of SM Ukraine, can also be beasts with that one. But it's easy to run out of cash. I do agree that RA does need a boost of some sort, but don't ever try to tell me that PD isn't good in expansion and let's get back to topic, please?

Wtf your talking about, Sm will always be Op in world maps and weak in europe maps.
And yes, PD = expands like a boss.

Written by Tundy, 28.05.2013 at 08:04

Written by Brandreas, 27.05.2013 at 17:14

Uhm. PD atm is probably the most favoured strat in every CW. And also in a 10k duel. If you're Turkey, then your strategy is usually IMP. Those, who know the magic of SM Ukraine, can also be beasts with that one. But it's easy to run out of cash. I do agree that RA does need a boost of some sort, but don't ever try to tell me that PD isn't good in expansion and let's get back to topic, please?

Wtf your talking about, Sm will always be Op in world maps and weak in europe maps.
And yes, PD = expands like a boss.

I wasn't thinking about world maps, but Eu+ mainly

I support strengthening ra, this will allow that ra can be used more.

RA > DS
PD > RA
IF > PD

There are just different strategies, and one will work better against a other. Its like: rock > scissor > Paper > rock. Lots of strategies have been nerfed and boosted before, as far as i know: PD had only nerfs so far, while RA have got a hell lot of boosts. Even if PD is better then RA (which is a probability), then there are other strategies better then PD, and RA is better then those strategies.

Its always good to check the balancement of the game, but i woudn't say PD is a powerhouse, since you will probably lose against a IF or DS player.

All in all, the thing is, even though PD is a defensive strategy, it can still be used for attacking.
On the other hand, RA, as an offensive strategy is so week in defence it's almost impossible to stop enemy attacks.
The same goes with Blitzkrieg.

The inability to defend makes a strategy too weak. It may be used in certain situations, (like rushing enemy cities and destroying his stacks, but in the long run you need a strategy to rely on; during a long game where you will find yourself in different positions there is little to do with those expensive tanks if all you can do about defence is walling and retaking what the enemy captures from you.

What I want to say is that the handicap of a PD player in attack is not so hard to overcome, as the handicap of a blitz or RA player in defence is.

Maybe making the defensive units a bit better (don't know how much 1 HP or 1 crit. change the balance, I am only saying, others can do the math), like +1 HP to militia, or +1 crit to Infantry, lower cost for them, or any other boost that will make this units slightly more usefull than they are now.

But still, at the early phase of the game you will be limited by the reinforcements you can buy. Even having enough money to buy as many tanks as your reinforcements allow you, the weak defence will give you a hard time. There are times when you should be able to defend, because against RA all you have to do is to attack enemy cities, even, or especially, in the reinforcement turn, killing his offensive units with ease due to the low defence of both tanks and militia/infantry.
Making, let's say, militia better in RA, like it is in GW but without the range increase will make RA players capable of defending in those cases when it is extremely important (like the capital or a strategic point on the map).

Maybe simple +1 def against infantry for RA tanks would work too. Tanks will still be vulnerable to marines and bombers, but at least you can kill marines and bombers easily if you attack them first.

Or add new special unit to upgrade list like motorized brigade, which would autowall your stack of tanks or would have same speed as tanks and could be used to defend them.

It's not the expansion problem, it's the money. There is no point with RA to expand into poor countries unless you have money. And if you have 50k, you can play SM or MoS instead.

I can pick serbia in 3k and use GW.