Review of the current strategies / default units.

Review of the current strategies / default units.

A resume of this topic:

Current suggested changes:
- revert the last change made to Imperialist (+1 defense to militias)
- revert the last change made to Naval Commander (+1 capacity to destroyers)
- Change the current Hybrid Warfare militia boost from (+1 att, -1 def, +1 range) to (+1 def, +2 range).
- Reduce the cost of Anti-Air units by 20.

Possibility need a change (open for suggestions):
- Relentless Attack.
- Guerrilla Warfare
- Blitzkrieg

Pretty much balanced and shouldn't be bothered with:
- Desert Storm.
- Great Combinator
- Lucky Bastard
- Rest of the strategies.
- Rest of the units.

---

Sup guys,

with the discovery of the in-cities bonus bug there have been some changes to balance out the strategies. However, theses changes also made room for some disbalance while not addressing the rest of the problems at all. Personally not a huge fan of changing the strategies often, but I believe theses issues need to be taken care of.

I will make some suggestions and leave room for discussion to see what would'be the best way to balance them out. I will also comment about the improvement of the current strategies.

Improved

Desert Storm.
An strategy often underused and considered weak now have it's own defensive unit. The current boost to DS militias makes them the 2nd best militias by defense, just below GW Militias. This had certainly proven to be useful specially in 5K games for DS. Although I wouldn't say this change makes being capable of holding a Rush (for example), the good point is that you get free militias by expanding - which is what DS is best at!

The strategy seems very balanced so far.

---

Imperialist
- Wait, what?

- Yep.

One of the first strategies and long though as balanced also received a boost this year. IMP militias also saw their defense growing up to 5 while in cities, being the 2nd militia by defense along with PD and DS. The catch is, of course, that Imperialist militias were already the most cost-efficient unit of the game. Now offering 5 defense for 10 cost seems quite an outrage, isn't it?

The logic behind this boost is still unknown for the community.

The suggestion here is simply to remove the change back. There are several reasons such as going against the strategy's theme, allowing Imp to defend a lot better with the already highly efficient unit, crossing the field of other strategies (such as PD), etc.

---

Great Combinator
Finally!

Being a premium strategy as well as one of the most changed, Great Combinator hit up the 2016 with a cost reduction to the infantries, making it easier to defend with. In overall the strategy seems to be doing very, very well as stated in Dbacks's stats. Currently GC infantries are the strongest infantries, followed by PD and HW (+1 HP vs +1 Def). They also have a weaker Nerf with a -2 attack/defense for Tanks/Infs in contrast to the previous -3 defense.

---

Lucky Bastard
- Are you kidding me?

- No, not at all.

If your expression was just as the above then you've probably never played scenarios. As the days pass Lucky Bastard is becoming more and more popular with the grown of Trench-based scenarios and the usage of high stats units. By following simple logic it's well know that a Critical hit from an unit with high stats hurts more than one with low stats. The current boost (-10 cost to infantries and militias) didn't affected the outcome at all.

The usage doesn't limit to players who uses trenches, but also to players who are against trenches as you will typically hit having the battle stacking bonus advantage. Since most of the trenches have HP between 9 and 30 (WW2) or 50 (Endsieg) you might want to deliver theses units out ASAP. This goes very well with AlexMeza's research about Lucky Bastard some time ago.

Despite being overlooked in the default map due to the rather low stats units (infantries) except for some rare opportunities (LB Rush), this strategy is gaining adepts in the other maps and should'be kept as it is.

---

Naval Commander

Naturally a weak strategy due to it's lack of in-land fights. Took quite much of time before finally turning the strategy competitive with the +5 capacity to the sea transport. Now it has been awaken from the graves to give it an ultimate boost... +1 capacity to destroyers.

Although it makes it easier to take theses island with 1 unit (namely Malta, Las Palmas, Cagliary) the truth is that it can be used for other purposes. Transporting units for a NC Rush became a lot easier, giving Taiwan a slight advantage in Asia 5k. But the biggest harm was taken by the scenarios, specifically those who implemented a Trench system and disabled Sea Transports from being build to some countries. With this new capacity and without ways to prevent it, many MapMakers have been forced to change the destroyer to another type of unit, completely making NC as weak as SM without bombers.

This obviously need to be fixed ASAP.

---

Guerrilla Warfare

Being the first strategy suggested (that was implemented) by the community and one of the most loved of all. Offering a completely different style for the stealth units, Guerrilla Warfare was actually one of the (if not the only one) unaffected strategies by the country bonus fix. The GW militias became the best militias (imp still better at cost, but GW by far better with reinforcements) unit of the game. Not only this, but also the 2nd strongest unit in General Stack just after NC destroyers. I've personally see an increase in players that uses this strategy in games.

I wouldn't rush for a Nerf for it just yet. But suggestions are more than welcome.

---

Declined

Hybrid Warfare

- Wait wasn't it boosted?

- No, actually Nerfed....

The current enigma of our generation. Hybrid Warfare is long considered as one of the weakest strategy. Firstly came from the hand of tophat, HW was designed to be a strategy capable of adapt to different scenarios with it's four boosted units (Marines, Infantries, Tanks and Militias). But apparently the idea was better in paper than in practice.

For the surprise of everybody - HW Marines now have -1 defense in cities (pretty much like Blitz infantries) making them actually just as weak as HW Tanks (1 defense). This of course doesn't help the strategy that despite a cost reduction and even a reduction in the Nerfs on transports, didn't made it to competitive gameplay.

I've made a good suggestion before that received a good amount of support: turning the HW militias into a defensive unit. It would make it easier to defend with HW and reduce the problem of reusing troops. Although this boost might not be enough, it for sure will help HW to improve. We can see how it works and give the appropriated tweaks after it.

Suggested boost: Changing the current militia boosts from (+1 att, -1 def, +1 range) to (+1 def, +2 range).

---

Relentless Attack

Once though extremely weak, had it's golden ages after the implementation of Cthulhu's suggestion. Now sent back to the deepest ground of the game and the 2nd weakest strategy just after HW. To quote Desu: "Sure you can attack, but you can't hold anything".

RA features not only weak but also expensive defense. The maximal defense you can get from one unit is actually 5 (7, when in port) at 130 cost (200 in port). It's only efficient unit are Tanks with 8 attack and 90 cost. You're supposed to use only tanks as the rest of boosted units(bombers,destroyers) aren't efficient enough. In comparison with it's old status, RA Tanks earned -10 cost for -1 attack. With Imperialist you get -30 cost for -1 attack. See the difference.

There isn't a clear suggestion for this strategy, although suggestions are more than welcome here.

---

Blitzkrieg

Currently one of the easiest to play and most hated strategy among the active community. the previous comment about RA still stands for this strategy with the exception that the range boost makes it easier to defend. Currently 3rd worst strategy after HW and RA being the range it's only advantage.

---

Units:

Anti-Air
I'll take a time to talk about this unit. Honestly don't know why it haven't been boosted yet as it is one of the units with the most specifics niches ever. Only probably used when you have lots of money, few reinfs, and your opponent is using bombers. I've been searching and a -20 cost suggestion by Mathdinho actually sounds very good. I'll leave the quotes here.

लिखा द्वारा Mathdino, 04.03.2013 at 03:19

On your AA point, it's clear you've thought out the Math, but unfortunately, 28 offence doesn't work like you may think it does. Fact is, when you pack that much offence into a single unit, it will behave extremely unpredictably due to the 7 HP. Consider what would happen if the AA happened to roll less than a 7 (the bomber stays alive), and the bomber on offence rolls a 7 or 8. The AA would be practically useless. I've done some tests on way overbuffed attack/defence, and it's just too unpredictable to be feasible. It may look great on paper, but it's very different in practice.

Rather than trying to buff the AA to oblivion, I think it'd be simpler to just decrease the cost by 10 or 20. You said you wanted cost effectiveness, so the easiest solution is to decrease cost.

लिखा द्वारा Pinheiro, 06.03.2013 at 07:15

Ok, I think we've reached a consensus that AA's need to be rethinked, that's a good step.

लिखा द्वारा Mathdino, 04.03.2013 at 03:19

Rather than trying to buff the AA to oblivion, I think it'd be simpler to just decrease the cost by 10 or 20. You said you wanted cost effectiveness, so the easiest solution is to decrease cost.

I agree with this idea.

Feel free to post and discuss your ideas. Suggestions are welcome as well.

1. NC needs to boost the naval defence as the attack (making buildable in default games some kind of deffensive naval unit).
2. To counterattack PD and the inf-spam based strats, we need a kind of unit buildable by default to have defence vs them (maybe with a buff in RA and a nerf in PD, LB and IF)
3. PD needs a plane and shp deffensive units to counteratack OP NC and SM. Like the planes(fighters) used in the WWII scenarios that have bonus defence vs another planes.

लिखा द्वारा I_Hate_You_All, 05.01.2016 at 14:12

1. NC needs to boost the naval defence as the attack (making buildable in default games some kind of deffensive naval unit).

I completely support this but that is exactly the problem. First of all, admins already announced that there won't be new units into the game.But let's say that they do. So if we want to boost Naval: Defense a NC then...


Which stats are the "default" for Naval: Defense units?
Which Nerf or Boost should it acquire?

लिखा द्वारा I_Hate_You_All, 05.01.2016 at 14:12

2. To counterattack PD and the inf-spam based strats, we need a kind of unit buildable by default to have defence vs them (maybe with a buff in RA and a nerf in PD, LB and IF)
3. PD needs a plane and shp deffensive units to counteratack OP NC and SM. Like the planes(fighters) used in the WWII scenarios that have bonus defence vs another planes.

(Yes, I won the fight. PD is horrendously weak actually. I believe the bonus in cities was somewhat working or something as I've never experienced such rolls...)

Imperialist militia are not better than inf at defending with a gen so that breaks down that argument. Theyre also immobile and poor for expanding. Gw competes with it at its niche and is in most cases the more powerful option. Do you even play imperialist? It definitely needed this boost. Allows imp to hold better given the whole city defence bonus not working revelation(not that it wasnt a blatant weakness before already) and improves attrition warfare with the strat.

Your argument that the nc change needs to be reverted is a poor one, it was added to add another dimension to the strat. Can you list out the scenarios that have been affected by this to me? you are being rather vague. Furthermore if the destroyers were changed to "other" type units then why not just give them nc's stats and be done with it? Also it probably would be np asking ivan to make it so that mapmakers can edit unit capacities. I'm surprised they don't already have that ability.

Also asia 5k. Can you explain to me how helpful destroyer capacity is to a country with 2k starting funds with 170 cost destroyers? Furthermore why should we make strat changes based on such a unique setting? Taiwans power is in its' starting funds, starting reins and positioning. NC isnt even the optimal strat choice for it. Thats like making changes to imp/sm purely based off the turk/ukraine dynamic which contrary to lie that you spread around we do not do.

Also blitz is fine, i used it to wreck one of your high elo clanmates ina duel the other day. Same with ra, syrian force told me it sucks now, then i 1v1d him and wrecked his germany with ra italy.

लिखा द्वारा I_Hate_You_All, 05.01.2016 at 14:12

3. PD needs a plane and shp deffensive units to counteratack OP NC and SM. Like the planes(fighters) used in the WWII scenarios that have bonus defence vs another planes.

This ^^, only thing of worth ive seen in this thread so far. I do feel theres an argument to pd getting a marine/bomber defence boost like the tank defence bonus. Bargain and trollface are pushing for it. Desu thinks its crazy. I'm on the fence. Havent really discussed it with others tho.

I feel like clovis makes a thread about something like this every other week. I think a forum ban is imminent.

Thank you clovis

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Do you even play imperialist? It definitely needed this boost. Allows imp to hold better given the whole city defence bonus not working revelation(not that it wasnt a blatant weakness before already) and improves attrition warfare with the strat.

Do you still doubt that I don't play imperalist? You must be trying to troll hard here.

IMP didn't needed that boost.

Providing that imp perform better at lategame after the bost doesn't proves that IMP needed it. Saying that militias were inmobile is rather an understatement as you could pretty much boost almost all the strategies with that justification. Furthermore, you didn't address the ridiculous efficiency or the mere lack of threme.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Your argument that the nc change needs to be reverted is a poor one, it was added to add another dimension to the strat.

Doesn't makes it less right.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Can you list out the scenarios that have been affected by this to me? you are being rather vague.

I've listed a couple of scenarios in other threads. Here I just posted WW1 as an example.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Furthermore if the destroyers were changed to "other" type units then why not just give them nc's stats and be done with it?

Then you say my arguments are poor...

I would rather go LB or IF and earn more bonuses. This is very easy to see throught.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Also it probably would be np asking ivan to make it so that mapmakers can edit unit capacities. I'm surprised they don't already have that ability.

First of all, you aren't even defending the capacity bonus at this step but trying to guess a solution to the problems that it causes. It is a lot easier for admins to remove the capacity rather than implement a new feature.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Also asia 5k. Can you explain to me how helpful destroyer capacity is to a country with 2k starting funds with 170 cost destroyers?

11 attack, 9 defense and the most important cities are in sea. Pretty much straight eh?

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Furthermore why should we make strat changes based on such a unique setting?

Any map that have similarities with the gameplay there will be affected. If anything, the change is not limited to an unique setting.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Taiwans power is in its' starting funds, starting reins and positioning. NC isnt even the optimal strat choice for it.

NC can pretty much threat all the important cities in the zone from Shangai. Additionally with huge power and better defense than Blitz.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Also blitz is fine, i used it to wreck one of your high elo clanmates ina duel the other day. Same with ra, syrian force told me it sucks now, then i 1v1d him and wrecked his germany with ra italy.

Pffff... Trashtalk. You didn't addressed the points. None of then can defend.

I've removed the comparison for now.

I'm going to spell everything out for you and correct misinterpretations with this post. then im moving on.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 16:38

Do you still doubt that I don't play imperalist? You must be trying to troll hard here.

IMP didn't needed that boost.

Providing that imp perform better at lategame after the bost doesn't proves that IMP needed it. Saying that militias were inmobile is rather an understatement as you could pretty much boost almost all the strategies with that justification. Furthermore, you didn't address the ridiculous efficiency or the mere lack of threme.

I know you play imperialist, it was a rhetorical question used to highlight my disbelief that you didnt think this was necessary boost for imp. Go onto destoria or dreamworld with any funds and attempt to play imp against another player using another strat. Or not even those maps, good old eu with germ or uk. Know what happens when youre found out? the enemy goes agressive. Know how hard it is to hold your territory with imp? and worse if the enemy is gw or pd, recap taken territory? Are you starting to understand why this boost was added? A quality boost was needed for imp to bring it up to the other strats.

i didnt make the immobile point to prove imp needed a boost, it was to highlight how minor a boost this is. Same with the attack values. producing imp militia to defend is a last resort when youre poor, youll never use them to attack, so its not that significant a change.

balance > theme. Theme was moved away from when the 0 cost militia was removed(there was talk of restoring this but we went in favour of the miltitia defence boost). Theme is not important. Most strats have ventured slightly away from theme.

Ridiculous efficiency? why is this an issue. Imp is meant to be a cheap efficient strat.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 16:38

Doesn't makes it less right.

indeed, doesnt make it less wrong either. The agreement was that nc needed something. This was just a beta, a unique boost for an underused strat. It can be reversed if it is really gamebreaking. I'm yet to see decent evidence that it is. It only appears to have inconvenienced some mapmakers.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 16:38

I've listed a couple of scenarios in other threads. Here I just posted WW1 as an example.

I have repeatedly seen you mention ww1 in other threads, you are still being vague. Post other examples.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 16:38

Then you say my arguments are poor...

I would rather go LB or IF and earn more bonuses. This is very easy to see throught.

Indeed it was a poorly thought through point. But the amount of mapmakers who consider the strats when producing maps is extemely low. I could name 2, maybe 3 mapmakers that do? It is why maps with unique features like the ww1 trenches wouldnt be considered in strat balances.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 16:38

First of all, you aren't even defending the capacity bonus at this step but trying to guess a solution to the problems that it causes. It is a lot easier for admins to remove the capacity rather than implement a new feature.

The new feature would have far more uses than simply avoiding having to reverse the nc boost. I am not so shortsighted. It would give mapmakers lots of other options with gameplay.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

I've listed a couple of scenarios in other threads. Here I just posted WW1 as an example.

Can you list out the scenarios that have been affected by this to me? you are being rather vague.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

11 attack, 9 defense and the most important cities are in sea. Pretty much straight eh?

Yes i am aware of the stats of nc destroyers and where they are useful. But you made the point of nc taiwan being op as 1 of your 2 reasons for reversing the change to nc. NC destroyers still have those stats without the change. So what exactly does the added capacity bring to the table? Are you telling us that nc taiwan was already op?

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Any map that have similarities with the gameplay there will be affected. If anything, the change is not limited to an unique setting.

Not at all. taiwan is an 11 unit 11 rein island with 2k starting funds with no nearby equivalent peer. and surrounded by high income capitals. This is a pretty unique situation.

It is like ukraine and turk in 1v1s. ukraine is op because of its ability to take and block turk from the high income in the north. It is has little to do with the strats. If turk had similarly higher income areas around it, it would be a much more universal example of a strats capabilities.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

NC can pretty much threat all the important cities in the zone from Shangai. Additionally with huge power and better defense than Blitz.

indeed, but pd can make a more powerful rush for shanghai. and it can hold better and still reach korea the next turn. And its cheaper. Go figure.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 14:50

Pffff... Trashtalk. You didn't addressed the points. None of then can defend.

I've removed the comparison for now.

i addressed all the points. But im glad you removed that comparison.

Ps please dont delete this thread, i've taken the time to post a response and have found it irritating in the past when youve deleted threads where you lost arguments.

लिखा द्वारा EndsOfInvention, 05.01.2016 at 17:47

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Pls fix your quotes, I can't tell who wrote what when

yea i just did, lol that was annoying, needle in a haystack situation.

Pd: +def against bombers
ra: ever unit gets +1 attack (except infatries)
therefore all units get -1 def
hw: you destroy tophats strat...

लिखा द्वारा Lemonade, 05.01.2016 at 17:49

Pd: +def against bombers
ra: ever unit gets +1 attack (except infatries)
therefore all units get -1 def
hw: you destroy tophats strat...

we tried to improve tophats strat, it was terrible to begin with. Now it just looks like itll be deleted. Great concept but competitively useless. Well it might just be left there for fun.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:53

we tried to improve tophats strat, it was terrible to begin with. Now it just looks like itll be deleted. Great concept but competitively useless. Well it might just be left there for fun.

tophats created his strat for worldgames. Picking high income countries, where you can expand with +1attack/range militia very fast (when you remember him; he throw everything into front and let his homearea unprotected - because there were no additional militias)
In midgame, he needs good attack and def units (like gc), so he could handle asia or eu in middle east. also, he needed stealth units to take unprotected countries from lowbobs (like in every worldgame) or interrupting(breaking a few walls with marines and the enemy spends 10 times more for def and their maintenance.
tl,dr
Tophats needed a good early -> miliia attack/range +1
...was a litte bit lazy (havnt used chaintransports) -> strong units near the front inf/tanks
...he played for week 51 -> started trouble everwhere, that he could hold easy

-> its a worldgame strat and you should learn to play it

लिखा द्वारा Lemonade, 05.01.2016 at 18:21

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:53

we tried to improve tophats strat, it was terrible to begin with. Now it just looks like itll be deleted. Great concept but competitively useless. Well it might just be left there for fun.

tophats created his strat for worldgames. Picking high income countries, where you can expand with +1attack/range militia very fast (when you remember him; he throw everything into front and let his homearea unprotected - because there were no additional militias)
In midgame, he needs good attack and def units (like gc), so he could handle asia or eu in middle east. also, he needed stealth units to take unprotected countries from lowbobs (like in every worldgame) or interrupting(breaking a few walls with marines and the enemy spends 10 times more for def and their maintenance.
tl,dr
Tophats needed a good early -> miliia attack/range +1
...was a litte bit lazy (havnt used chaintransports) -> strong units near the front inf/tanks
...he played for week 51 -> started trouble everwhere, that he could hold easy

-> its a worldgame strat and you should learn to play it

its shit even on worldgames. You should play it and learn this

Blitz is weak,and only reason its not worse as lb and ra is range,but its easy beatable,you wrecked some idiot in that duel laochra.
You just cant accept that el creyente fucks you with blitz

लिखा द्वारा Kromn, 05.01.2016 at 19:18

Blitz is weak,and only reason its not worse as lb and ra is range,but its easy beatable,you wrecked some idiot in that duel laochra.
You just cant accept that el creyente fucks you with blitz

never played him. the one time i did he used the wonderful 9 attack ra. He'll always be the guy who farmed 1500 elo with ra ukraine and refused to play turk because "it cant beat ukraine".

GW get rid of the marine's +1 defense against infantry. GW militias have insanely good defense already.
Gw really needs to be toned down slightly.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Or not even those maps, good old eu with germ or uk. Know what happens when youre found out? the enemy goes agressive. Know how hard it is to hold your territory with imp? and worse if the enemy is gw or pd, recap taken territory?

I am rather going to answer you this with another question. Is a zone with HIGH funds, HIGH reinforcements a niche for IMP?

(hint: no).

If you want to win (as Germany, not as UK) you would minimally need to have whole Balkans, Poland and the east to supply you with the reinforcements needed. If you were talking about Africa, or even Turkey and Balkans I would understand you better. But theses zones that you're pointing out definitively doesn't have to be a Niche for Imperialist.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Go onto destoria or dreamworld with any funds and attempt to play imp against another player using another strat.

IMP Silverdrake in 5k is pretty decent though, I don't remember (I though it was you) the one who pointed that out. If anything I'm willing to duel there. As for Dreamworld, I will rather take Chess's words that the Center is a zone with both high reinfs and income and repeat the previous reply.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Are you starting to understand why this boost was added? A quality boost was needed for imp to bring it up to the other strats.

Every strategy have it's Niche. Imperialist can compete in zones with high reinforcements and low income. Boosting it outside not only breaks the theme (will speak below) but also makes it overpowered. There is clearly a problem when a strategy is capable of playing in a huge range of niches just as RA was before (hence why I supported a light Nerf).

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

i didnt make the immobile point to prove imp needed a boost, it was to highlight how minor a boost this is. Same with the attack values. producing imp militia to defend is a last resort when youre poor, youll never use them to attack, so its not that significant a change.

Ridiculous efficiency? why is this an issue. Imp is meant to be a cheap efficient strat.

I do use them to attack... I am actually glad that I remembered my old Turkey style, back in syndicate. It improved my Turkey greatly and consist mostly in using the militias to expand to lower Balkans (countries that doesn't wort sending infantries at for example). They are very cost-efficient and allowed me to produce more tanks than before. However the current boost makes it so I can always stack them for defense if needed. I remember doing this against Sultan in CW. 5 Militias won against 3 tanks 2 infantries. Was awesome indeed, but in term of cost I lost around 40 gold compared to him who lost 460. Almost 10 times less. You can't really say this isn't crazy enough.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

balance > theme. Theme was moved away from when the 0 cost militia was removed(there was talk of restoring this but we went in favour of the miltitia defence boost). Theme is not important. Most strats have ventured slightly away from theme.

Ok, this is one of the main topic. First of all I won't denied that balancing is important indeed.

However, above everything possible, the simplicity of the game is what matter the most. This is probably why both Blitz and RA will being among the most popular strategies despite having such horrendous disadvantages. They are just too simple to play with, and not so hard to master it.

The theme serves as indicator for the player about what he should expect by playing a strategy. If you tell them what the strategy is about it is most likely that they will understand and play it better. PD's Theme is the defense. RA's Theme is the attack. Naval commander's theme is the naval supremacy. Imperialist's theme was supposed to be the lower cost.

If a strategy doesn't fit it's theme then there is indeed something going wrong and it should'be changed. I of course disagree with most of the strategies being moved out of their supposed Theme and GC / DS are probably the only clear example that you could find before (because after the boost, admins forgot to change the description of the strategy. Should'be changed accordingly).

Theme > Balance and if there is a serious balancing issue with one strategy then you might as well change it's theme. The 0 cost militias could'be very well explained as "the minimal cost of an unit is 10" in the FAQ, or the description of Imperialist changed accordingly.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

indeed, doesnt make it less wrong either. The agreement was that nc needed something.

The +5 capacity was just fine. You never saw anyone in the community but probably specifics persons claiming for another boost. Even tophat stopped bothering with it after the boost. That is a clear indicator that NC was fine before.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

This was just a beta, a unique boost for an underused strat.

This statement is inaccurate. Not as used as PD but definitively not less used than GC or HW.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

It can be reversed if it is really gamebreaking. I'm yet to see decent evidence that it is. It only appears to have inconvenienced some mapmakers.

I have repeatedly seen you mention ww1 in other threads, you are still being vague. Post other examples.

Can you list out the scenarios that have been affected by this to me? you are being rather vague.

WW2 map made by Pyrrhus. The big income of USA is not only for carry on against japaneses but also to fund their allies. As a counter the naval transports only have 6 range (9 with NC, which taking into account how big is the map this is relatively not enough). The cruisers (destroyers) can be easy countered plus they can't take cities. Of course, the +1 capacity changed the mechanics there.

I don't indeed have played or have enough map to post every single one in which the new capacity boost ruined the existing balance. You should assume that there are more than two single maps though, as the trench system and WW1/WW2 scenarios are rather popular (while not being the only ones who uses trenches to restrict player movement anyway).

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Indeed it was a poorly thought through point. But the amount of mapmakers who consider the strats when producing maps is extemely low.

That is a big understatement though, one of the most important characteristic of a map is the balance. No unbalanced map or scenario would'be played if it is unbalanced. There are some exception such as RP where rather than the country, a strong diplomacy is what defines the game. Even Avatar and Talos marked their units correctly.

You are fully aware about how a change in the strategies could make them overpowered in theses maps. This have no problem as long as the maps affected are few ones. But something such as the capacity affected all the maps with the trench system.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

The new feature would have far more uses than simply avoiding having to reverse the nc boost. I am not so shortsighted. It would give mapmakers lots of other options with gameplay.

Not so true at all. If you're talking about submarines they can already make them carry other type of units (making capacity useless). What MapMakers can't deal with are those units that start with 0 capacity but earn capacities with strategies. There are only two examples of this (NC and DS). But no map with limited movement would allow helicopters anyway (kind of unrealistic). We can safely conclude that NC is the only problem here.

If you can prove more uses than simply reversing NC capacity (and maybe DS, if a MapMaker is enough crazy for that) then I will be inclined toward your suggestion. Otherwise it is just useless.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Yes i am aware of the stats of nc destroyers and where they are useful. But you made the point of nc taiwan being op as 1 of your 2 reasons for reversing the change to nc. NC destroyers still have those stats without the change. So what exactly does the added capacity bring to the table?

Never said that NC taiwan became overpowered but slighly stronger. You can perform new type of maneuvers and pretty easy such as:



Most of the times I send 5 destroyers loading 5 militias to Bursan. 3 to wall, 2 and 5 destroyers for attack. The best is, that I don't have to buy one whole sea transport for theses type of moves anymore. The main difference from using destroyers carrying units and a sea transport is the cost difference, which NC destroyers mitigates by not only having more range (wall further) but also being able to be re-used as an offensive unit.

This is of course more useful in scenarios such as WW2 where you have an economy to spam destroyers since the start. Constructing two layers of walls is relatively easy with destroyers.



This type of maneuvers were the reason about why I perceived the NC capacity as a good change. But now I can see it's flaws.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

indeed, but pd can make a more powerful rush for shanghai. and it can hold better and still reach korea the next turn. And its cheaper. Go figure.

There is no way PD can beat 11 destroyers, 11 infantries and gen (8 infs and gen if walled). Pd also can't threat China North or Northeast, or even Shangai nor can transport 20 units by sea transport as NC can. I've played lots of Asia 5k games to know this.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

i addressed all the points. But im glad you removed that comparison.

Saying that you beat two individual players doesn't proves that blitz and RA aren't weak.

Imo GW militias shouldnt get +1 def in cities, neither shoild the imp ones. GW militias in gen stack end up having 7 def and 8 HP for 30 cost:OP strat

I think we can all agree that DS, GC, and SM are wonderful and IF is very OP in some situations and underpowered in others, so leave that too.

Now, if anyone has played IMP enough there comes circumstances where you'd want to just pull your hair at how fragile IMP units are. It has its strengths, but attacking or defending against any strategy that boosts offense or defense is very difficult. The militia boost was very much needed, and it doesn't harm gameplay in any way, just brings IMP closer to the top tier strats.

As for blitz, I agree it needs a boost. It's absolutely horrible for slowrolling, can't hold anything it takes. I play blitz a fair amount actually, but when I end up being blitz Volga in 5k 3v1ing some newbs using RA I don't stand a chance even though I have full Russia. It's really fun to play, but has no value in the default map, or most maps for that matter. However you should be very very careful boosting blitz, because before the -1 defense in cities was active it was a stacking powerhouse. I'd suggest a defense boost to infantry against tanks, bombers, and helis.

When it comes to RA I'm not a fan, but it seems rather weak atm. Maybe lighten the militia nerfs.

GW is op, that's no secret. It's great, and I wouldn't mind it not getting nerfed, but a slight one is in order. It was always near unstoppable lategame, and now it's strong early game too. You have to expand through and passed it to beat it, which is a difficult task. I'd say remove that +2 militia crit. Doesn't sound very strong, but it should do for now.

I'm impartial towards LB.

MoS is lovely, but with the recent boosts to other strategies it's fallen rather behind. Still OP on world, but a cost reduction to stealth planes and subs would be great.

HW needs to be for free or for less SP; it's fanatically overpriced.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 04:13

I think we can all agree that DS, GC, and SM are wonderful and IF is very OP in some situations and underpowered in others, so leave that too.

GW is op, that's no secret. I'd say remove that +2 militia crit. Doesn't sound very strong, but it should do for now.

As for blitz, I agree it needs a boost. It's absolutely horrible for slowrolling, can't hold anything it takes.

HW needs to be for free or for less SP; it's fanatically overpriced.

When it comes to RA I'm not a fan, but it seems rather weak atm. Maybe lighten the militia nerfs.

I agree with theses.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 04:13

MoS is lovely, but with the recent boosts to other strategies it's fallen rather behind. Still OP on world, but a cost reduction to stealth planes and subs would be great.

I would rather support a general boost for stealth. The biggest problem to take into account here is that stealth were already very powerful and cheap before. People used to spam them on 50k and that made admins to Nerf it hard at the early stages of the game. If we're making them cheaper (affordable), then a reduction in their capabilities should come in hand as well. Giving them such boosts in MoS are dangerous as well.

My currently analogy goes as follows:

Tanks have 8 attack, 120 cost. Bombers have 6 attack, 160 cost.
Marines have 7 attack, 160 cost. Stealth have X attack, Y cost.

Then stealth should cost 200 and have 5 attack (-2 attack, -100 cost). The problem with this relation is that it doesn't takes into account the fact that both units are stealth (having stealth air is better than stealth land for reasons) and that stealth bombers nowadays are typical better than marines (I think). So I'm not too sure about it just yet.

As for the blitz proposal it looks good and would certainly help blitzkrieg against offensive strategies but would make the strategy harder to understand (out of theme). Rather make a more visible change (-1 range?).

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 04:13

Now, if anyone has played IMP enough there comes circumstances where you'd want to just pull your hair at how fragile IMP units are. It has its strengths, but attacking or defending against any strategy that boosts offense or defense is very difficult. The militia boost was very much needed, and it doesn't harm gameplay in any way, just brings IMP closer to the top tier strats.

I still don't get why you and Laochra wants Imperialist to compete against expensive strategies on their own Niche. At some degree that is pretty much like making GW effective in 50k games.

I am yet to witness Imperialist losing while in his own niches and with his own advantages, which is higher units count. Taking UK vs Germ as example doesn't works as both sides if well-expanded have nearby the same reinforcements with ~10 or ~15 troops differences. In Ukr vs Turkey there are several 1vs1 Ukr expansions that are able to match or outnumber Turkey's reinforcements.

But ok, let's say that imperialist should work there. How does this boost exactly accomplish that? If you have enough crash you won't spam militias. This boost can only be used greatly in Imperialist niche which are the low funds games.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 20:05

I remember doing this against Sultan in CW. 5 Militias won against 3 tanks 2 infantries. Was awesome indeed, but in term of cost I lost around 40 gold compared to him who lost 460. Almost 10 times less. You can't really say this isn't crazy enough.

EDIT: If you really need a reference to Imp in his niche vs Quality strategies on their niche, I'd suggest you to try out Germany vs Turkey. So far I've see Turkey have the troop advantage at least until turn 12 or so, after that it depends on expansions.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 19:23

लिखा द्वारा Kromn, 05.01.2016 at 19:18

Blitz is weak,and only reason its not worse as lb and ra is range,but its easy beatable,you wrecked some idiot in that duel laochra.
You just cant accept that el creyente fucks you with blitz

never played him. the one time i did he used the wonderful 9 attack ra. He'll always be the guy who farmed 1500 elo with ra ukraine and refused to play turk because "it cant beat ukraine".

blitz ukraine he always played blitz ukraine :d

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 06.01.2016 at 07:54

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 04:13

MoS is lovely, but with the recent boosts to other strategies it's fallen rather behind. Still OP on world, but a cost reduction to stealth planes and subs would be great.

I would rather support a general boost for stealth. The biggest problem to take into account here is that stealth were already very powerful and cheap before. People used to spam them on 50k and that made admins to Nerf it hard at the early stages of the game. If we're making them cheaper (affordable), then a reduction in their capabilities should come in hand as well. Giving them such boosts in MoS are dangerous as well.

My currently analogy goes as follows:

Tanks have 8 attack, 120 cost. Bombers have 6 attack, 160 cost.
Marines have 7 attack, 160 cost. Stealth have X attack, Y cost.

Then stealth should cost 200 and have 5 attack (-2 attack, -100 cost). The problem with this relation is that it doesn't takes into account the fact that both units are stealth (having stealth air is better than stealth land for reasons) and that stealth bombers nowadays are typical better than marines (I think). So I'm not too sure about it just yet.

As for the blitz proposal it looks good and would certainly help blitzkrieg against offensive strategies but would make the strategy harder to understand (out of theme). Rather make a more visible change (-1 range?).

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 04:13

Now, if anyone has played IMP enough there comes circumstances where you'd want to just pull your hair at how fragile IMP units are. It has its strengths, but attacking or defending against any strategy that boosts offense or defense is very difficult. The militia boost was very much needed, and it doesn't harm gameplay in any way, just brings IMP closer to the top tier strats.

I still don't get why you and Laochra wants Imperialist to compete against expensive strategies on their own Niche. At some degree that is pretty much like making GW effective in 50k games.

I am yet to witness Imperialist losing while in his own niches and with his own advantages, which is higher units count. Taking UK vs Germ as example doesn't works as both sides if well-expanded have nearby the same reinforcements with ~10 or ~15 troops differences. In Ukr vs Turkey there are several 1vs1 Ukr expansions that are able to match or outnumber Turkey's reinforcements.

But ok, let's say that imperialist should work there. How does this boost exactly accomplish that? If you have enough crash you won't spam militias. This boost can only be used greatly in Imperialist niche which are the low funds games.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 05.01.2016 at 20:05

I remember doing this against Sultan in CW. 5 Militias won against 3 tanks 2 infantries. Was awesome indeed, but in term of cost I lost around 40 gold compared to him who lost 460. Almost 10 times less. You can't really say this isn't crazy enough.

The relation between stealth air and stealth land is the same as normal air and normal land. Marines and stealth planes have different uses, but I'd be for reducing cost and attack as you proposed, but making them 8 attack 170 cost or smthn for MoS would be in order, as it needs a slight boost.

About blitz: Slightly out of theme yes, but a good counter for strategies that melt through them. I don't want a general infantry or militia boost as that makes it a lot stronger.

will finish later for now gtg

ok picking up where I left off and will re-post

The boost to IMP isn't really to boost it in it's niche or outside, but boosting IMP in general. A militia boost to any strategy will affect said strategy in any area whatsoever. Maybe in more in some than others (high density, low density), but that's not the point. This militia boost is helping IMP all round by strengthening it's ability to hold the land it takes. Yes it will be more useful in high density areas, but this boost also helps outside it's niche greatly, such as in the case of North America or UK vs Germ. The money is there and it's still weak, but it's stronger. That's the point, making it stronger; bringing it closer to the top.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 10:17

Yes it will be more useful in high density areas, but this boost also helps outside it's niche greatly, such as in the case of North America or UK vs Germ. The money is there and it's still weak, but it's stronger. That's the point, making it stronger; bringing it closer to the top.

Just though I'd let you know since you've pointed NA. IMP Mexico is the strongest pick of North America 10k. Last USA Midwest that tried to slow roll me got a bump of 60 units in his cap T3.

Talk to me about Turkey vs Germany, or México vs midwest or northeast. Places where IMP have it's niche. Don't talk to me about UK vs Germany. That is not IMP niche.

We can indeed, agree that even though small the boost does help imperialist all around. But this is rather a very minimal boost. we can all agree that outside of it's niche imperialist would never buy or use militias other than the ones that you adquire (This is a fact). Use infantries instead.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 19:23

लिखा द्वारा Kromn, 05.01.2016 at 19:18

Blitz is weak,and only reason its not worse as lb and ra is range,but its easy beatable,you wrecked some idiot in that duel laochra.
You just cant accept that el creyente fucks you with blitz

never played him. the one time i did he used the wonderful 9 attack ra. He'll always be the guy who farmed 1500 elo with ra ukraine and refused to play turk because "it cant beat ukraine".

Cant you just stop pissing around with the strategies and let someone else do it?
You can say they're balanced as much as you like, but they don't make sense. All the strategies you've changed have been made to suit your style of play which is basically an abuse of moderation- telling Clovis "have you even played imp" nerfing RA, Blitzkrieg and openly haying on HW which is as Clovis has stated and zi'm sure many players would agree, are the 3 weakest strategies thanks to you

Just stop dicking around with them, make a committee of 7 most active mods, listen to the community, then make changes. Personally I think you should just be barred from making any changes to strats altogether.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 07.01.2016 at 15:43

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 06.01.2016 at 10:17

Yes it will be more useful in high density areas, but this boost also helps outside it's niche greatly, such as in the case of North America or UK vs Germ. The money is there and it's still weak, but it's stronger. That's the point, making it stronger; bringing it closer to the top.

We can indeed, agree that even though small the boost does help imperialist all around. But this is rather a very minimal boost. we can all agree that outside of it's niche imperialist would never buy or use militias other than the ones that you adquire (This is a fact). Use infantries instead.

That's the thing, it's meant to boost the ones you acquire. The point is to hold what you have, and even though this boost is indeed minimal it's something. Boosted more in its niche, but slightly stronger all round.

Oh and about PD: Nobody dare think of boosting it till you bring everything else up (MoS, blitz, HW)

About IMP militia, why would u boost a unit that costs 10$?? It s already dirt cheap defence, I dont see any reason whatsoever to boost it. IMP motto is quantity over quality, keep it like that

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 08.01.2016 at 01:25

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 19:23

लिखा द्वारा Kromn, 05.01.2016 at 19:18

Blitz is weak,and only reason its not worse as lb and ra is range,but its easy beatable,you wrecked some idiot in that duel laochra.
You just cant accept that el creyente fucks you with blitz

never played him. the one time i did he used the wonderful 9 attack ra. He'll always be the guy who farmed 1500 elo with ra ukraine and refused to play turk because "it cant beat ukraine".

Cant you just stop pissing around with the strategies and let someone else do it?
You can say they're balanced as much as you like, but they don't make sense. All the strategies you've changed have been made to suit your style of play which is basically an abuse of moderation- telling Clovis "have you even played imp" nerfing RA, Blitzkrieg and openly haying on HW which is as Clovis has stated and zi'm sure many players would agree, are the 3 weakest strategies thanks to you

Just stop dicking around with them, make a committee of 7 most active mods, listen to the community, then make changes. Personally I think you should just be barred from making any changes to strats altogether.

if i wanted the strats to suit my style of play, i would've left the city defence bonus intact and not pushed to have it reversed. That made me almost invincible, anyone familiar with my lategame skills will understand why. You've no idea what you are talking about. You lack the ability at a higher level to truly understand the strat dynamic and this is revealed in your every post. You would think you would hold more respect for a player you've literally never beaten. You should also take that accusation, look at your top strat, think it through again and then look in the mirror.

Another fun fact, the only strat change thats been implemented since i began pushing the changes that was my idea was the gc boost making inf 2 att and tanks 2 defence. All the other suggestions came from various members of the community and were agreed upon by the mods. I can source them all. I am the one who has pushed for the changes, but the ideas did not come from me.

Oh and hw is the weakest strategy, before me it was miles by far the weakest strategy.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 08.01.2016 at 02:03

लिखा द्वारा Phoenix, 08.01.2016 at 01:25

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 19:23

लिखा द्वारा Kromn, 05.01.2016 at 19:18

Blitz is weak,and only reason its not worse as lb and ra is range,but its easy beatable,you wrecked some idiot in that duel laochra.
You just cant accept that el creyente fucks you with blitz

never played him. the one time i did he used the wonderful 9 attack ra. He'll always be the guy who farmed 1500 elo with ra ukraine and refused to play turk because "it cant beat ukraine".

Cant you just stop pissing around with the strategies and let someone else do it?
You can say they're balanced as much as you like, but they don't make sense. All the strategies you've changed have been made to suit your style of play which is basically an abuse of moderation- telling Clovis "have you even played imp" nerfing RA, Blitzkrieg and openly haying on HW which is as Clovis has stated and zi'm sure many players would agree, are the 3 weakest strategies thanks to you

Just stop dicking around with them, make a committee of 7 most active mods, listen to the community, then make changes. Personally I think you should just be barred from making any changes to strats altogether.

if i wanted the strats to suit my style of play, i would've left the city defence bonus intact and not pushed to have it reversed. That made me almost invincible, anyone familiar with my lategame skills will understand why. You've no idea what you are talking about. You lack the ability at a higher level to truly understand the strat dynamic and this is revealed in your every post. You would think you would hold more respect for a player you've literally never beaten. You should also take that accusation, look at your top strat, think it through again and then look in the mirror.

Another fun fact, the only strat change thats been implemented since i began pushing the changes that was my idea was the gc boost making inf 2 att and tanks 2 defence. All the other suggestions came from various members of the community and were agreed upon by the mods. I can source them all. I am the one who has pushed for the changes, but the ideas did not come from me.

Oh and hw is the weakest strategy, before me it was miles by far the weakest strategy.

You talk so much BS. I've used all strategies, I understand perfectly well how they effect one another "strat dynamic".. Explain to me wtf you're talking about exactly because I und er stand perfectly well how one change will have a knock on effect on all other strategies. There's like 9 different strategies, which means something like 36 different relationships that need to be considered when making changes on a head to head basis. I've considered them all

I guess its time I put my 2 cent into this discussion, I do not think "it altered custom maps or it affected custom maps" is a legit argument when it comes to changes made to strategies. Unlike default map you can active change the stats of units in a custom map where as you can't in default map.

Since the introduction of custom maps(till now yes it isn't fixed) you can move bunker/forts (high defense, immobile units) if you pick blitzkrieg as your strategy making for monstrous high defense units that can move. The easy fix that was not implement you ask? Negative range. That's right if map makers are given the ability to give negative range to units the units would be immobile regardless of strategy. And this isn't a new concept either the default rare unit, coastal batteries, a ready uses this fix to avoid movement when blitzkrieg is the players strategy. The negative range concept can be adapted to negative capacity to fix the destroyer problem.

In short greater access to unit stats could easily fix the "problems" strategy changes cause to custom maps.

लिखा द्वारा Meester, 08.01.2016 at 04:42

I guess its time I put my 2 cent into this discussion, I do not think "it altered custom maps or it affected custom maps" is a legit argument when it comes to changes made to strategies. Unlike default map you can active change the stats of units in a custom map where as you can't in default map.

The idea is to create a standard of units with preset stats and balance the strategies around those units. It is a quality from a good map to be balanced so you can safety assume that a good map is balanced with it's units.

Most of the good maps uses either the same units or a variation of the stats of the units in the default map. Sure you can change the stats, but they aren't any far from the standard. The difference is most of the times minimal.

लिखा द्वारा Meester, 08.01.2016 at 04:42

[...] The negative range concept can be adapted to negative capacity to fix the destroyer problem.

In short greater access to unit stats could easily fix the "problems" strategy changes cause to custom maps.

Pretty much like:

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

It can be reversed if it is really gamebreaking. I'm yet to see decent evidence that it is. It only appears to have inconvenienced some mapmakers.

I have repeatedly seen you mention ww1 in other threads, you are still being vague. Post other examples.

Can you list out the scenarios that have been affected by this to me? you are being rather vague.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

Indeed it was a poorly thought through point. But the amount of mapmakers who consider the strats when producing maps is extemely low.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 05.01.2016 at 17:42

The new feature would have far more uses than simply avoiding having to reverse the nc boost. I am not so shortsighted. It would give mapmakers lots of other options with gameplay.

The problem with the high mobility unit have an optimal solution in the hands of MapMakers which is making the unit a naval unit on land-blocked cities. The destroyer capacity doesn't have any other solution but completely removing destroyers, which damages NC in all the custom maps / scenarios where this exploit happens.

Implementing a whole new feature that only serves for one specific purpose would indeed, solve the issue. But just taking the whole change back would solve the whole issue as well. The difference is only in the implementation.

There isn't any argument in flavor of boosting NC as well. The strategy was balanced with the +5 capacity change long ago. I bet you've never see anyone in the public forums claiming for NC being weak.

Messing around strategies that are already balanced is always a bad idea.