Comparing MoS and GW vs Hybrid

How percentages are calculated: With my upgrades, Cost/Attack/Range/Other strategies Cost/Attack/Range.

Mos vs Hybrid:
Mos is 41% more efficient on sea (MoS subs attack before marines, Hybrid you do not, therefore it's usefulness is severely diminished and I only consider them wall breakers/transports while with MoS I consider them both transport and super marine when attacking port. Therefore I did not add Hybrid sub attack into the figure.)

Mos is 6% more efficient with defense. (Both using infantry)

Hybrid is 12.5% more efficient on land and 100% more efficient low cost expansion. So on land... Hybrid overcomes it's sea going issues much like GW vs MoS though at a lessor efficiency than GW with the same range as GW...




GW vs Hybrid

GW is 21% more efficient on defense when GW using militia and Hybrid using Infantry. It should be noted though that Hybrid does have the advantage of +3 range on its infantry vs militia 4 so it can defend things GW wouldn't be able too... Good thing is GW you can use those same militia to attack as well... while with Hybrid you have >>>>1<<<< attack unit to go with... therefore... I still believe GW wins this. Although it can be said that given unlimited money Hybrid can defend better... I can't get around having 1 attack unit to mess around with if your defense fails...

GW 14 % more efficient on land when using marines, 33% more efficient low cost expansion using militia.

Hybrid is 2% more efficient on sea. Although GW you can more easily divide your units which means more potential targets. Range is same so these 2 strategy's are nearly identical in this area.


In a nutshell... I believe GW is more efficient on land in both attack and defense while equal in sea capability vs Hybrid with Hybrid offering nothing really substantial to offer. So okay... let's say we aren't talking ultra efficiency and you are playing in 50k room... What choices do we have for Hybrid to spend that extra money... We have basically just tanks as the ONLY option other than militia/marines for attacking... Your tanks have 1 def and cost 17.77 cost per attack point. With GW you can use bombers along with other units which have 26.66 cost per attack point but travel 2x farther and have 6 def each. GW wins on high income pretty easily. I don't consider subs to be anything but transports really with either strategy as they don't attack before marines and can't take cities and don't offer substantial attack points. Especially in the case of Hybrid.

So... to further reduce this GW vs Hybrid comparison down... GW Marines are more efficient/travel same range. On sea they are identical minus you need more subs to marines ratio for GW. On land low cost expansion GW militia win with increased range (+ bonus of increased Defense). On high cost expansion GW wins with bombers kicking tanks butt hardcore. The only area that is really disputed is in defense, Hybrid offers infantry while GW offers militia for defense. GW is 21% more efficient while Hybrid can still send infantry around faster. Hybrid infantry have 1 attack, GW has 4. When you take a city you get militia... not Infantry.

In relation to MoS vs Hybrid the stats are very similar to GW vs MoS. MoS you get better efficiency on sea while GW gets better efficiency on land. The old argument is that MoS provides range, which leads to a host of variables that can't be explained as simply in economics. Some believe that MoS is better because it allows you to attack targets GW can't in one turn and sneak by faster to allow deep strike targets in a amount of turns that some players wouldn't defend against thinking you couldn't go that fast. The MoS vs GW comparison is out of scope of this topic and thus I will end here with that with only to say MoS vs Hybrid is very comparable to the argument of MoS vs GW.

So with GW vs Hybrid being the main argument it appears that Hybrid is basically a watered down GW strategy that allows you to use 85 cost infantry with 1 attack to defend with instead of slower 30 cost GW militia with 4 attack even though GW militia are still more efficient even without attack being considered. If your capital is hit... those militia come in handy. 45 militia attacking next round will still do some damage . 45 infantry attacking next round will just increase SP pool. It should be noted that with most units the range is identical with GW vs Hybrid.

So my question is ... What is the point of Hybrid Strategy? Is Hybrid Strategy meant to be a test strategy with the overall objective of eliminating GW with this watered down version? While MoS vs Hybrid is debatable, I can't find a single thing about Hybrid Strategy that I find superior to GW other than the infantry vs militia argument? MoS offers range in exchange for reduced efficiency. Hybrid offers less unit options and the same range as GW with less efficient units in exchange for ability to use infantry that I would consider questionable to use. While I am believing Hybrid is supposed to be a marine/infantry combo strategy like the Great Combination Tank/infantry strategy I still firmly believe if that's your route your better off with GW still...

Am I missing something?

Man, your asuming HW expands with Infantry lmao.
don't underestimate this strategy,it will be your doom.

if you know how to use it, you will have PD Infantry, RA Tanks, GW militia, Imperialist Marines at the cost of GW transports.

Infantry
Hybrid - 1 attack, 7 def (+1 in city/wall), 6 range, 95 cost.
PD - 4 attack, 7 def (+2 in city/wall), 5 range, 60 cost.
Hybrid is 35% more cost with -3 attack, -1 def, +1 range on PD infantry. *Early expansion is very useful, could compare tanks + infantry to GC except that the much needed defense for the tanks now costs 30% more and the tanks cost 8% more*

Tanks
Hybrid - 9 attack, 1 def, 5 critical, 7 range, 130 cost
RA - 9 attack, 5 def, 7 critical, 8 range, 110 cost
Hybrid is 18% more cost for -4 def, -2 critical, -1 range on RA. *These are not stealth units*

Militia
Hybrid - 4 attack, 3 def, 3 range, 30 cost
GW - 4 attack, 5 def (+1 in city/wall), 2 critical, 4 range, 30 cost
Hybrid is same cost with -2 def (also -1 def in city/wall aka 50% less def), -2 critical, -1 range on GW militia. *I consider range and defense to be the hallmarks of GW militia. Many a thread has been written asking for a nerf on GW militia for these reasons. GW militia cost 112% less per defense point than Hybrid infantry and provide 6 def each which is provided every time you take a city compared to hybrid 8 def with the negative of -3 range. Can't emphasis the free militia when taking a city enough*

Marines
Hybrid - 6 attack, 2 def, 80 cost
GW - 7 attack, 3 def (+1 in city/wall), 80 cost
Hybrid is same cost with -1 attack, -1 def (also -1 in city/wall aka 50% less def) on GW marines. *comparable enough since defense on stealth units isn't awfully as important although 16% less attack still*

Subs
Hybrid - 4 marines + sub = 455 for 24 attack (sub attack not included) = 18.95 cost per attack unit delivered.
GW - 3 marines + sub = 410 cost for 21 attack (sub attack not included) = 19.52 cost per attack unit delivered.
Hybrid delivers 3% more attack.
To put into perspective MoS - 640 cost for 41 attack (sub included because it attacks first) = 15.61 cost per attack unit delivered.
MoS delivers 21.4% more attack than Hybrid.

I still don't see where it excels at? Seems like a jack of all trades, master of none strategy. One example I find interesting is the PD vs Hybrid comparison in which Hybrid cost about 35% more to provide the same defense with the bonus of +1 range. In Hybrid vs Blitzkrieg, Blitz costs 30% more to provide the same defense with the bonus of +3 range on Hybrid and also providing the utility to have +3 attack which makes Blitz infantry attack the same amount as they defend. Utility does have value when options run low, I don't think the attack should be ignored.

Personally I consider blitz to be horrible at defending... yet it's only 30% more cost than Hybrid which oddly is about the same ratio as PD vs Hybrid... Also Hybrid has to burn reinforcements/money to make these infantry since it's militia are sub par at defending while GW gets militia free at every city expansion.

Hopefully I did my calculations right, correct me if I'm wrong.

Man, u are overeacting with the down sides, its like saying: oh no, PD is better than RA cuz i can defend and RA's Defense sucks and i can expand better with cheap infantry than with cheap tansk.

you are not supose to look at the down sides, look at the adventages, u get a good overall strategy if u use the adventages at your favor.

Yes, but I just don't see a advantage? Okay... let me explain better...

GW - I get to use cheap militia and marines to overcome enemy's by numbers and stealth
MoS - I get to use more expensive marines than GW but I get to use Infantry instead and my marines/subs go farther, and hit harder by sea. Great for storming the ports
Naval Commander - I get to use advanced ships
Blitzkrieg - I expand insanely fast
PD - Infantry become even more bad ass
Relentless attack - my tanks hit harder
GC - I get to have advanced tanks and advanced infantry with a balancing point
DS - I get to have advanced helicopters and can even hold a marine in one
Imperialist - I get to have units that cost less and I can basically go any direction with this strategy
Iron Fist - My units are hard to kill
Sky Menace - I get to have advanced bombers

Strategy's that I have no idea what it excels at...
Lucky Bastard - I rather play with none strategy
Hybrid Strategy - What is it's hallmark? What does it do better than any of the above strategy's? There are 18 negatives and 7 positives... In terms of marines/defensive units... GW kicks it's ass on land, MoS kicks its ass on sea. In terms of tanks, GC kicks it's ass as well as RA. In terms of being able to use infantry PD kicks it's ass all day long. In terms of being a hybrid between GW and MoS GW still kicks it's ass on land and hybrid only comes out 3% better at sea?

In what kind of situation would you go "Oh man I wish I had Hybrid Strategy on!"?

In my opinion the ONLY thing Hybrid offers the ability to be adaptable between GW (Sub capacity only makes it 3% better than GW at sea) and GC with the cost of being I estimate 15-25% less efficient than either strategy (less overall defense + higher cost per attack). Problem is there is already 2 strategy's that allow for unlimited adaptability... None strategy and Imperialist.

Desert Storm is a good example of a more recent strategy introduced which got a boost later on. The reason being is that SM utterly destroyed DS in every way... DS offered little to nothing that SM couldn't do as well and it's helis get slaughtered by bombers, and it had nothing on MoS. Later on it got the +1 marine upgrade which although it is still not a great strategy compared to SM and other options it still allowed it to provide variety. Its the only strategy that lets you put ground units in air attack units...


What does Hybrid allow us to do? In what kind of situation does Hybrid allow a player to excel compared to other strategy's?

It's almost as good as GW at expansion, has a better attack unit (though less efficient than GW marines money wise, reinforcement count is a factor you must consider) and It has a real defensive unit against rushes. Militia is more cost effective but when someone is rushing your cap you really need that extra range to defend quickly, which GW lacks. You can also cause more havoc by using the marines to take countries by stealth and make some tanks, which ties exactly into what I was saying with better attack per reinforcement. Money is a less important factor late game, you're lucky if you can use all your money in a turn most of the time.

Rofl.

Written by Guest, 01.07.2013 at 11:58

Written by Enosia, 30.06.2013 at 16:02

I am really confused.
What's the point in getting the Stealth Plane with 20,000 SP points when you can get it with the strategy MoS for MUCH less, although you have to use the strategy in order to access the plane but its better than paying 20,000 SP points...

Its so we can use it with other strategies... not everyone is a MoS player... and that unit can be very useful for other strats...

why do I even have to say this???

Because he is a rank 4! And you a rank 9 with most if the upgrades?

Personally, I think you're treading knee deep in numbers.

In game, things change. Do you have a formula to calculate how efficiently the PLAYER chooses to use their strategy?

GW is a fun strategy. But if your capital is being attacked (learned this the hard way) it's unrealistic to think you can even get all your militia within intercepting distance. Not to mention how grossly you would affect defensive measures on your other countries. If I had to send 50 marines that were defending the entire Balkans just to recapture Berlin, let's say Ukraine then send his militia-bomber stacks into Austria, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, etc. Now the problem has multiplied.

So with that, we should then consider how people use their skills in accordance to their strategy, not just how the strategy has it's own ups and downs.

Though this is a very solid argument. HW does seem like a very washed down version of GW, with a few exceptions involving it's range.