Very Slight PD Nerf

लिखा द्वारा Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 09:18

I believe your maths. Still this game is not all about money+attack strength. With PD you need a lot more units to have the same effect. Yes, they are cheaper so you have a advantage when you are in low money. But you will run out reinforcements. Especially in early game.

Most other strategies however run out of money to produce all the reinforcements they gain, whereas PD never will. And wheras other strategies need to keep taking territory and trying to push the other person back, PD can simply settle down, prevent any futile attacks against it and wait until the next reinforcement turn.

लिखा द्वारा Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 09:18

At that time, PD was much stronger then it is today, and it has been nerfed a few times since then.

In which ways?

लिखा द्वारा Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 09:18

Philipho proved that GW also worked very good against PD.

But GW was also much stronger than it is today, was it not?

लिखा द्वारा Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 09:18

I do believe that PD is a strong strategy (even after all the nerfs). And its cheap + easy to play (just build infantry); which makes it populair. But it is not OP imo.

The problem being that PD does not look op from the statistics. But because it is cheap people build more, and with more the boosts multiply. This is the same reason that people do not consider Imp op, despite it being very cheap, the nerfs multiply and people accept this. However, seeminly for PD they cannot. It is popular because if you can play it, it is the best.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 09:40

Well Ends, yes but no. The recap I'm talking about is already planned, you use all your spawn to recap+gen. Lets say you use all scandies/germany/austria/czech/slovenia/croatia and whatever else you own to make marines to recap berlin. Lets say a UK send 40 inf which you defend with only 8 militia or something. With a clever wall, or a kill of trans UK is immobilized in only germany reinforcements.

Taking this scenario, let's say it takes 10 inf to kill the 8 militia. Then, reinforcement turn rolls around, and the PD player constructs 8 more inf. This leaves 38 inf with 10 defence, or 380, and 8 militia with approximately 55 effective defence (assuming the capper has both general defence, and general militia hp upgrades). This is a total of 435 defence. Using marines, to take this kind of defence, one would need 63 marines to match it, and a few more to ensure a take, say 65-70. Good luck getting that many marines.

लिखा द्वारा EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 09:54

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 09:40

Well Ends, yes but no. The recap I'm talking about is already planned, you use all your spawn to recap+gen. Lets say you use all scandies/germany/austria/czech/slovenia/croatia and whatever else you own to make marines to recap berlin. Lets say a UK send 40 inf which you defend with only 8 militia or something. With a clever wall, or a kill of trans UK is immobilized in only germany reinforcements.

Taking this scenario, let's say it takes 10 inf to kill the 8 militia. Then, reinforcement turn rolls around, and the PD player constructs 8 more inf. This leaves 38 inf with 10 defence, or 380, and 8 militia with approximately 55 effective defence (assuming the capper has both general defence, and general militia hp upgrades). This is a total of 435 defence. Using marines, to take this kind of defence, one would need 63 marines to match it, and a few more to ensure a take, say 65-70. Good luck getting that many marines.

See the thing is, you do. You do get that amount of marines in multiple spawn turns planning for this decisive recap. You also have not calculated all the free militia everywhere. Maybe not those exact numbers but something similar. This is the beauty of GW, the power in cheap attack and weaker yet much cheaper defense. Where you don't spend all on defending, and use the extras to make marines from far away just gaining attack as you go.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 10:04

See the thing is, you do. You do get that amount of marines in multiple spawn turns planning for this decisive recap. You also have not calculated all the free militia everywhere. Maybe not those exact numbers but something similar. This is the beauty of GW, the power in cheap attack and weaker yet much cheaper defense. Where you don't spend all on defending, and use the extras to make marines from far away just gaining attack as you go.

but a PD player will not wait for many turns. The attack will come as soon as the PD player maneuvers into position, because he knows GW will increase in strength as time goes on. The attack will come probably before turn 5, and it is the battle to prevent the PD player attacking that will decide. But PD will win this battle, as unlike every other strategy they know they can always resist the power of GW because just a couple inf in every city + the militia will hold it against anything early on. No other strategy has this luxury. And PD will then win.

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 24.12.2013 at 09:19

we shouldn't nerf other strats because you tend to lose to it.

When "you" is the entire community, then yes you should.

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 24.12.2013 at 09:19

PD has went on many seasons without changing, and now all sudden people want to nerf it because its popular?

A thread about nerfing PD pops up every couple months. Every time I get excited that fairness and reason may triumph. Every time I am dissapointed. I know nothing will happen despite this thread, and so many others like it. Why? Because of vested interest.

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 24.12.2013 at 09:19

Also, PD and Me have a love affair, I can't let it get hurt :/
It saved my life many times before, and so its my duty to protect her from the nerfs

This is called vested interest.

Of course I have the annoying problem of being unable to fight PD or play it, and therefore I have a vested interest in nerfing it. But I am not the only one. There are many people who I have met who have struggled with PD, like me. Many of them could match me or beat me, and could have been great new players. All of them have since realised that PD reigns supreme, and have now left AW. I am still here because I am annoyingly persistent.

If you look at all the "good" players which have risen in the 12 months I have been playing atwar, PD is on the favorite strats list for all of them. It is not because they use PD because they are good players. They are good players because they are good at PD.

Players may be good or be bad at other strategies, and it won't matter, because if they are good at PD this is all they will ever need.

I have not included personal opinion in this statement. Everything I have said is deductions produced from facts.

लिखा द्वारा EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 10:12

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 10:04

See the thing is, you do. You do get that amount of marines in multiple spawn turns planning for this decisive recap. You also have not calculated all the free militia everywhere. Maybe not those exact numbers but something similar. This is the beauty of GW, the power in cheap attack and weaker yet much cheaper defense. Where you don't spend all on defending, and use the extras to make marines from far away just gaining attack as you go.

but a PD player will not wait for many turns. The attack will come as soon as the PD player maneuvers into position, because he knows GW will increase in strength as time goes on. The attack will come probably before turn 5, and it is the battle to prevent the PD player attacking that will decide. But PD will win this battle, as unlike every other strategy they know they can always resist the power of GW because just a couple inf in every city + the militia will hold it against anything early on. No other strategy has this luxury. And PD will then win.

i am talking about something planned in many turns, that is why i said its THE late game strategy in my very first post about GW. Early game GW is weak, while late game it is the strongest. I guess we can agree on that.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 10:51

i am talking about something planned in many turns, that is why i said its THE late game strategy in my very first post about GW. Early game GW is weak, while late game it is the strongest. I guess we can agree on that.

Indeed, but how do you then stop yourself loosing early game. If you never get to late game why is being strong late game useful?

Support

लिखा द्वारा EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 10:54

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 10:51

i am talking about something planned in many turns, that is why i said its THE late game strategy in my very first post about GW. Early game GW is weak, while late game it is the strongest. I guess we can agree on that.

Indeed, but how do you then stop yourself loosing early game. If you never get to late game why is being strong late game useful?

Thats the balance in it, its weak early game but strong late game. Very simple . So yes to get to that great late game state you have to survive early game. You gotta play it smart and don't get to crazy early on. After that, you make your epic late game comeback!

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 11:19

लिखा द्वारा EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 10:54

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 10:51

i am talking about something planned in many turns, that is why i said its THE late game strategy in my very first post about GW. Early game GW is weak, while late game it is the strongest. I guess we can agree on that.

Indeed, but how do you then stop yourself loosing early game. If you never get to late game why is being strong late game useful?

Thats the balance in it, its weak early game but strong late game. Very simple . So yes to get to that great late game state you have to survive early game. You gotta play it smart and don't get to crazy early on. After that, you make your epic late game comeback!

Indeed. Now let's get back to the topic.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 24.12.2013 at 12:36

No support, pd is very well balanced as it is.

Read all the arguments I have put forth and then justify why you think it is balanced.

Its look like, that 2-3 players cant handle pd.
you guys should play gw

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 24.12.2013 at 13:56

Because ppl fare just fine against it in EU and eurasia maps with other strats. if pd was so overpowered then every CW would have 6 pd players

They can and I have seen one which has. Just generally other strategies are easier to play in the east.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 24.12.2013 at 13:56

strats such as guerilla warfare, sky menace, imperialist stand up quite well to it. if you dont know how to fend off a pd rush with GW, then thats your problem. tact is right, you need to be smart and prepare for such attempts in your initial expansion

Then how come these strategies aren't nearly as prevalent? PD may be seen to be the easiest but this does not explain why it is always used in every 3v3, with about 50% prevalence throughout.
Try using other strategies against it instead of using PD almost constantly.

I play GW Germany a lot in Europe games (1v1 or 3v3s) and I must say it is a good strategy to use. I've found that with PD without the faster infantry upgrade, PD is pretty much useless. I've had a better chance of winning using GW Germany than PD Germany mainly because the attacking unit, Marines, have more range and therefore my expansion will be better. The main problem of PD complaining comes from high ranks because they have the faster infantry upgrade which is what makes PD "OP".

I don't need to write anything more because The Tactician has done that already. I agree with everything he's said in this thread.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 24.12.2013 at 13:56

Because ppl fare just fine against it in EU and eurasia maps with other strats. if pd was so overpowered then every CW would have 6 pd players

Just the 4/5 out of 6 then.

I think I know this already, thanks for the info . The reason it is chosen most is because it is the best for attrition warfare which to be fair is normally what a match between equally skilled players turn into.

the nerf spart proposed is minor imo and still leaves it as a very good choice, will actually increase the liklehood of seeing more strats being played.

And sure play 15k then have a op turkey.

लिखा द्वारा EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 08:10

लिखा द्वारा Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 06:55

they are total fail in attack (unlike you suggested).

Let's do the maths. Still working where cost is a limiting factor (as it always is in competitive play) the max attack per 10 cost should be considered. The higher this value, the more cost effective the attack. (All figures rounded to 2 d.p.)
RA tanks - 0.82
PD inf - 0.8
GW marines - 1
imp infantry - 1
IF tanks/ IF inf - 0.86
MoS marines - 0.73
SM bombers - 0.61
Blitz tanks/inf - 0.67
DS helicopters - 0.61
GC tanks - 0.83
normal inf - 0.67
As you can see, the PD inf cost effectiveness is not far off some of the strategies one would consider to have a powerful attack. Additionally, All the units with more cost effective attacks have additional incurred disadvantages from their strategies compared to PD. GW marines have bad defence, and are virtually untransportable in early game. Imp inf so many are required that it becomes problematic to attack anything without killing so many units none are left. IF is horrendously slow, easily outpaced by PD. GC tanks come with no defence and a massive limitation of terrible expansion because no starting inf are available for attack.

Reinfs bro. You just can't spam infantries like a jerk against other infantries, in late games, it's impossible to beat stacked cities, I would say the only way would be attacking as late moves and breaking walls every turn, I mean pushing, dunno. If you just spam infantries and ATs you would still have some money left, so yeah..

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 22.01.2014 at 16:58

A better nerf for pd, as tops suggested and i agree with him

+10 cost to militia.

Militias stronk pls no nerf.

I don't think +10 is going to make a great difference.

No dont hurt my baby

How about we boost imp instead, so people stop complaining about PD

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 22.01.2014 at 23:51

How about we boost imp instead, so people stop complaining about PD

Cthulhu Imperialist is already very OP, no need to make it an even bigger menace than it already is.

Since we're talking about slight changes and the GW vs PD situation, I suggest GW Marines earn another +1 def against infantries, making PD and IMP counter attacks less powerful.

I support Pinheiro's idea

I support Fruit's support for Pinheiro's idea

Or maybe -1 attack for militia might work in this case because you're keeping the "perfect defence" with a slight disadvantage in attacking which should be logical...

I support time's support for Fruit's support for Pinheiro's idea.

But seriously; +1 defence for GW Marines against inf. i do think this is the best solution.

Support Pinheiro's idea seems balanced and support the support chain that comes with it.

Anything's an improvement, so yes, support this as well.

I support Hugo's support for time's support for Fruit's support for Pinheiro's idea.

I basically support anything Fruit, time, and Pulse support. I don't even need to read this thread to find out what.