Guerrilla Warfare

What made GW formerly OP?

Was it the +2 attack (now +1)
or the -10 cost? (to militia obviously)

Maybe a combination of both.

The strategy's weaknesses used to be: Low mobility (slow range militia) combined with very expensive IF-tier transports. Its mobility weakness was offset by the fact it could attack long range using the extremely cheap marines.

Nowadays the strategy lacks both close range firepower and mobility, while still usable it is slightly under-powered.

You may address one of these issues:

1. Mobility
2. Cost
3. Power

Mobility: The cost of transports may be slightly alleviated, the militia may be given extra range or both if you can prove it's balanced.
Cost: One must take into account the cost of the transports, but more importantly the militia cost. The huge stack of militia with 5 attack that needed $2 maintenance is not nearly as much of a threat as the same stack with only 4 attack. Though difficult, a stack of the same side would be controllable. It is a dangerous buff nevertheless and cannot be combined with increased range.

Then there is the marine cost that allowed them to spam marines to distant places. This resulted in long difficult battles in one's own territory that allowed GW players to build their death stack of militia. Now it is not possible since the player cannot expand with militia like before.

Power: With 4 attack and 30 cost, militia isn't really a source of power. It is even more weakened now that population casualties drain a city of reinforcements. Marines, on the other hand, have always been a strong source of power in GW since they can be spammed like infantry. The downside is they can't be relied on for expansion on poor zones... In fact, why would you want to use marines at all on your expansion zone? The cost of sending them out for extended expansion in sea or air transports is too high, so one can barely afford to use them in close quarters too...

There are currently several ways to balance the strategy and give the offensive back to it:

Removing the cost nerf for militia, but it would still be hindered by the lack of mobility.
Removing the cost nerf and adding +1 range, but with 4 attack it probably won't have the power it needs.

Adding +1 attack and decreasing the transport cost a bit, but this would bring old GW back in more expensive lands... too powerful.
Adding + attack to militia; increasing the marine cost by 20 or even 30, it depends on how much they can spam. This would make the strategy too powerful in rich places. Also we don't want GW to be used in rich places, we want it in poor places hue.

Bringing the old militia back; increasing marine cost by 20, 25 or 30 (depending on what you judge as reasonable) and giving them -1 attack.
This way they still have the characteristic lack of mobility but they cannot spam marines to harass when they have not yet amassed their militia spam.

For me this was the true power of GW, that it could mount strong stealth attacks by the numbers before overwhelming with the militia, thus heavily disrupting the expansion of the opponent. With marines that cost 100 (90 with cost upgrade) and have just 6 attack, they will have to choose wisely where to send them and how to spend their money. If you think marines are being overnerfed, remember how GW militia overran Europe in a much more solid way than current Turkey imperialist. However, if you still think they're being overnerfed, you may want to advocate for slightly cheaper sea transports.

This is how strategies are balanced in ZOGland. Discuss.

1) air transports should be 700 cost instead of 750.

2) naval transports should be regular cost and regular range.

everything else should stay the same.

Kirjoittanut tophat, 13.01.2013 at 12:30

1) air transports should be 700 cost instead 750.

2) naval transports should be regular cost and regular range.

I'm interested in making it usable for poor countries too, so I would like to create the conditions for the return of the militia without being overpowered.

Regular range naval transports may be ok for current militia but too OP for previous GW and the proposed next generation GW.

Kirjoittanut The ZOG, 13.01.2013 at 12:34

Kirjoittanut tophat, 13.01.2013 at 12:30

1) air transports should be 700 cost instead 750.

2) naval transports should be regular cost and regular range.

I'm interested in making it usable for poor countries too, so I would like to create the conditions for the return of the militia without being overpowered.

Regular range naval transports may be ok for current militia but too OP for previous GW and the proposed next generation GW.

Agreed. In that case, making militia 20 cost, and giving the regular range to air and naval transports should be perfect, I would think. Although, keeping the transports at their currently nerfed costs.

EDIT:

1) make militia 20 cost

2) give range back to air and naval transports.

Don't forget that GW is (was) characterized by long battles for cities in which they would eventually overpower and win with their free militia and cheap reinforcements. Population casualties hurts this aspect of the strategy significantly.

For this reason, 4 attack won't be enough nowadays. It needs the 5 attack points back. However, marine nerf is mandatory for this. We should rather be discussing by how much marine cost should be nerfed if they are nerfed to 6 attack points.

Gw is op, so nerf it please

Kirjoittanut Lemonade, 13.01.2013 at 12:54

Gw is op, so nerf it please

*sigh*

Kirjoittanut Brazillian Reich, 06.10.2013 at 15:38

Kirjoittanut Lemonade, 13.01.2013 at 12:54

Gw is op, so nerf it please

*sigh*

Don't you think this should be discussed it idea's and suggestions. Support GW might need a slight tweak, the transport cost is ridiculous

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 07.10.2013 at 09:02

Don't you think this should be discussed it idea's and suggestions. Support GW might need a slight tweak, the transport cost is ridiculous

Transport cost is what makes GW what it is - It is characterised by being slow, otherwise we would just have something similar to MoS.
GW's weakness at the moment is primarily against PD, but this is more because PD is op than because of anything particularly wrong with GW.

Yeah I don't think we should be trying to fix something that isn't broken.

There have been a lot of changes since January, fellas...
In case you hadn't notice this thread is long old and cob-web dominated.


GW is probably the most stable strategy out there at this time. I play it enough to know it's not broken and it is not at all 'under powered'.