RA Tanks were changed to 90 Cost

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 12.06.2015 at 06:47

लिखा द्वारा International, 12.06.2015 at 06:42

When you're playing RA, turnblock is death.How do you prevent turnblocks? By walling everything! Never mind that the 3-militia-wall now costs $120 apiece...

Tb is actually crucial for any strategy. But if I had to chose the most vulnerable to tbs, that would be SM, not RA.
You usually get militias when conquering a city, so that's no problem at all lol

Sm is not played in close range

लिखा द्वारा Htin, 15.06.2015 at 12:35

Sm is not played in close range

True, true, but an opponent will always try to take the fight closer. Or you'll eventually have to get closer to him. The point is that RA isn't the most affected strat by tbs, in my opinion.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 15.06.2015 at 12:37

लिखा द्वारा Htin, 15.06.2015 at 12:35

Sm is not played in close range

True, true, but an opponent will always try to take the fight closer. Or you'll eventually have to get closer to him. The point is that RA isn't the most affected strat by tbs, in my opinion.

you can't defend with ra and imp tank cost around 90 as well.

लिखा द्वारा Htin, 15.06.2015 at 15:44

you can't defend with ra and imp tank cost around 90 as well.

When playing RA you can actually trust on your tanks for anything, even for defending cause it's the only efficient unit you'll have XD meanwhile for imp you have inf which are much cheaper and have higher defense while you barely use tanks unless you have a lot of spare money, not easy to happen since you're using imp just because you don't have that much money. With SM, you have much more expensive bombers, with more or less the same stats and that can be more easily tbed and can result in a much bigger catastrophe if your inf continue their flight and suicide XDD

लिखा द्वारा Goblin, 15.06.2015 at 08:34

Prove people considered it weak, don't generalize

You are actually right there.

I'll correct myself: "Many players considered it as weak".

Everything else are just either personal attack or words without any meaning.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 15.06.2015 at 17:38

लिखा द्वारा Htin, 15.06.2015 at 15:44

you can't defend with ra and imp tank cost around 90 as well.

When playing RA you can actually trust on your tanks for anything, even for defending cause it's the only efficient unit you'll have

Can I hit you with the NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE bar? Because a wise man told me once "Many people think RA is weak on europe, but they don't know how to use their militias".

If you are talking about reinforcement-efficiency, then RA destroyers have 7 defense compared to RA Tanks who have 5.
If you are talking about cost-efficiency, then RA militias have 4 defense and cost 40, compared to RA Tanks that cost more than double for 5 defense.

Checkmate in both ways, your choice

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 14.06.2015 at 13:45

लिखा द्वारा International, 14.06.2015 at 11:59

After crunching numbers for thirty minutes, I change my mind.

Kudos for changing your mind but if you just tried playing a couple games using RA you wouldn't have to do math for 30 minutes. You'd also know that your suggestions don't really make sense. No one will ever use militia offensively with RA because they have negligible range. As for the -1 def on tanks, sounds a little too much like blitz to my ear. Just make tanks fairly expensive again. That way tank spamming is possible only once you've built the economy for it (same as marines for MoS, bombers for SM, or any other high cost strategy).

What I'm thinking is that if militia cost $5 per turn, then you'll want to desperately get rid of it. Even if that means having to buy an air transport or two to ship them from deep inside your territory to the front-lines.

Similarly, giving tanks 9 attack, 4 defense instead of the current 9 attack, 5 defense means that turn-blocks are that much more crippling. So you have to wall things. With militia that cost you $4 ($5, with the above change) a turn each.

Either change will make RA more in line with everything else.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 15.06.2015 at 20:09

Can I hit you with the NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE bar? Because a wise man told me once "Many people think RA is weak on europe, but they don't know how to use their militias".

If you are talking about reinforcement-efficiency, then RA destroyers have 7 defense compared to RA Tanks who have 5.
If you are talking about cost-efficiency, then RA militias have 4 defense and cost 40, compared to RA Tanks that cost more than double for 5 defense.

Checkmate in both ways, your choice

Okey, waste all your reinforcements in milita if you wish I'm sure you'll win like that!
Not all cities are ports and not always you'll have enough money to waste on destroyers. And militia's basic role when playing RA is walling, that's most of it. When you play RA, go offensive, wall everything behind, and that's pretty much all you need to do.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 08:33

But if, let's say we are talking about which unit is best for defend as RA, in:

Just wall. Even tanks can be used to wall if the circumstances demand it. And they have enough range to wall anywhere you like. Why "defeding" a city with 100 tanks / militias or whatever number it is when you can just simply wall at any given distance? And yeah, it's not that easy to guess a big wall from an opponent. That's why I say even tanks can be useful defending (unless you're so broke you can't afford anything else except militias, in which case you shouldn't have picked RA and you're wasting your time). In my opinion the most viable way to defend with RA is walling and retaking. And RA is extremely good at it. Why should it even risk its units and money on actually defeding? Wall or retake, your choice.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 08:33

If you want to change the question, maybe you want to ask "Why should I defend as RA" then I put you the case in which you cap someone, and he have 3/4 of Europe, all capitals walled, under his power... And your only chance of winning is to hold that capital.

Then you've obviously done something wrong. Either played more defensive than you should or weren't quick enough to stop him from growing that much. In any case, in that situation, even a PD player would be in a really huge risk of losing his cap. That's a really extreme scenario. 3/4 of Eu means enough reinforcements and income to be able to sink his own cap.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 09:33

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 08:33

If you want to change the question, maybe you want to ask "Why should I defend as RA" then I put you the case in which you cap someone, and he have 3/4 of Europe, all capitals walled, under his power... And your only chance of winning is to hold that capital.

Then you've obviously done something wrong. Either played more defensive than you should or weren't quick enough to stop him from growing that much. In any case, in that situation, even a PD player would be in a really huge risk of losing his cap. That's a really extreme scenario. 3/4 of Eu means enough reinforcements and income to be able to sink his own cap.

Yes, I admit 3/4 is an extreme scenario. Let's just say that for some reasons, your enemy only have 2 transports and he owes a lot of countries compared to yours.

Deal Raul, you've got much to learn... how can I explain it... sometimes, stuff happens, if everybody would knew in which situation they would be, then of course they would pick an strat according, but this is not always the case... I am sorry for not being able to give you a proper example. maybe when I play, if I find a situation that adapts to my words, then I screenshot it and give it to you...

The only example I can really think about is, for example, if you cap London with 36 tanks, and your enemy have a bunch of countries including France, Benelux, and your own capital, Madrid. but there are some neutral countries in France and... He can only recap by using 2 sea transports or ats... reinforcements, that he have on Netherlands.... Everything else either he already made troops or was to noob... whatever, let just say he choose to do it on this way. So, Netherlands is walled and you cannot TB it (not like you know he will use it for recap anyway) and Paris is also walled... his troops comes from far Germany and you cannot really TB them.

How did this happened? well lets say you had full Spain and also had Paris, full italy, some German cities and he just failed a rush at your Benelux... then you had 60 tanks, from which for not clear reasons 15 of them got sunken, and all the rest failed at trying to take UK cities. He latemoved at your cap and some Spain cities like Bilbao, Barcelona, with 10 units coming from an ATS he managed somehow to take all that. He also attacked Italy and took Milan, Turin, Naples and Bari. He also attacked Benelux and for some reason you didn't used Netherlands reinforcements, maybe you just didn't had enough money or forgot to use it.

So, your only hope is to hold his capital. You went for UK cities and got all of them, and also he emptied your capital and you managed to recap... but now he is just too strong, have around 60 more units than you or so, reinforcements and money from Balkans and Scandinavia, full German economy and Russia nw and Moscow... How did he got them? well there were two guys on Turkey and Ukraine fighting, ukraine was his ally so he emptied all and killed turkey and turkey had all with few troops so you couldn't take it before Uk does, for unknown reasons, maybe you didn't had enough money for or was not paying attention or something like this. The point is that, he got strong and you couldn't really stop it, but you've capped him as RA, and you know if you don't hold his capital then he will be able to use all those reinforcements and you will have very few chances of winning. So what will you do? You gonna get every single unit on his capital and hope that he doesn't manage to recap, in other words, that you hold the capital. If you have a lot of money then you will buy destroyers, if you don't have a lot of money then you will buy militias...

Once again, I repeat this is hard to explain... recreating a situation by words is certainly hard to imagine and to explain according... .. So I suggest you to play more, is the only way in which you can figure out what to really do in those type of situations.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 10:13

OMFG ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?! So many words just to say nothing at all???? Learn to summarize!!
As an answer I'll just quote your own words:

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 07:57

Or will you tell me that RA is only op in some specific conditions? If so, then I must tell you that every strategy is op under specific conditions.

Defending isn't its op condition. Adapt, narb. Or learn to play so that this condition doesn't have to arrive. Your problem.

Dear Clovis, you still have a lot to learn, learn to defend with walls, play more, thanks.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 11:04

Defending isn't it's op condition. Adapt, narb. Or learn to play so that this condition doesn't have to arrive. Your problem.
Dear Clovis, you still have a lot to learn, learn to defend with walls, play more, thanks.

Irony, as I said, if everybody would be able to know in which condition they will be, then they would pick the correct strategy, but sadly nobody is able to predict the future. Doesn't matters how much you try to avoid it. This is why I told you that this type of problems can only be learned by playing... it was not an insult but it seems like you took it as one.

Anyway, I would really love to play your RA not-defend style Duel?

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 11:09

Irony, as I said, if everybody would be able to know in which condition they will be, then they would pick the correct strategy, but sadly nobody is able to predict the future. Doesn't matters how much you try to avoid it. This is why I told you that this type of problems can only be learned by playing... it was not an insult but it seems like you took it as one.

Anyway, I would really love to play your RA not-defend style Duel?

Look, bro, I love you. But you're contradicting your own freaking words. Go back to sleep, think about it with your pillow and then come back and try to explain your point better.
You still owe me a greece 5k duel, remember?????? Or did you chicken out??? after I beat your Greece we'll talk about that RA duel.

लिखा द्वारा International, 16.06.2015 at 01:53

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 14.06.2015 at 13:45

लिखा द्वारा International, 14.06.2015 at 11:59

After crunching numbers for thirty minutes, I change my mind.

Kudos for changing your mind but if you just tried playing a couple games using RA you wouldn't have to do math for 30 minutes. You'd also know that your suggestions don't really make sense. No one will ever use militia offensively with RA because they have negligible range. As for the -1 def on tanks, sounds a little too much like blitz to my ear. Just make tanks fairly expensive again. That way tank spamming is possible only once you've built the economy for it (same as marines for MoS, bombers for SM, or any other high cost strategy).

What I'm thinking is that if militia cost $5 per turn, then you'll want to desperately get rid of it. Even if that means having to buy an air transport or two to ship them from deep inside your territory to the front-lines.

Similarly, giving tanks 9 attack, 4 defense instead of the current 9 attack, 5 defense means that turn-blocks are that much more crippling. So you have to wall things. With militia that cost you $4 ($5, with the above change) a turn each.

Either change will make RA more in line with everything else.

buy air trans makes it worst 80 weekly maintenences

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 09:33

why would I defend Benelux? I rather wall it!

Do you know if I didn't had defend those places I would had thrown away more than 400 income

Turns ago I wouldn't had been able to defend my capital if I didn't used the troops for wall Benelux.

With 600 income I wouldn't had been able to win the game if I didn't had defend my cap (which was like ten times cheaper than recapping it).