Planning for Strategy Update 2019 #2

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:44

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:43

You know what, reading this thread. Sometimes i wish Unleashed bought atwar and banned everyone like he said he would.


Dave once again, dont listen to the majority about strat decisions, even when they get upvoted, most of the time the upvotes are also by noobs (the hard majorty of atwar players) instead listen to the few elite highrank players who have done the walk AND the talk. The majority have no idea what theyre talking about.

Here ill name who they are so we can make all of this easier.

Well, gee, I'm sure Dave is just elated to have The Anointed One tell him the handful of players whose OPINIONS are relevant in a game that has hundreds of users that have helped keep the game alive for many years with daily playing and premium accounts, like myself. I'm so happy to be put in my place! I guess I should resign from my Supporter role right away and start playing RPs, since I have no value here. Thank you so much for making me see the error of my ways!!

Being a supporter means nothing.Sorry.

It seems RatWar likes to push the whole ''EU players ruin the strategies for everyone narrative.'' Chess as well, idk why he does it, he knows its not true.

w/e Laochra could change your mind about that. think he made a thread about it a while ago.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 22.01.2019 at 06:59

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:48

Kirjoittanut Ghostface, 20.01.2019 at 10:29

I'm 100% full with Laochra on this one , the tactician ratwar and anyone else who thinks MoS is decent make dozen duels with him , me or any decent player.
I can pick RA in some random world game vs noobs and win too , then claim in forums RA is op ... nonsense

The point is that atWar is not limited to the sandbox (EU+). It's a whole universe of cleverly created maps, many of which are pretty well balanced, including large (Lunatis, Strangereal), very large (Song of Ice and Fire), and small (Dreamworld, Destoria, Symmetric Europe). What works in one setting might not work in another, no matter the skill of the player.

IDGAF if MoS is not the choice of EU+ CWs. It doesn't have to be. There is more to atWar than EU+.

Mr cantankerous chess and attempting to patronise players far more experienced than you.

Lao I don't think you know what patronizing means.

What about a strategy based on revolution ( who buff only militia ), something like that:

Militia:
+4 range
+3 attack
+1 defense
+10 cost

Air trans/trans/sub:
+30 cost

Others units:
-2 attack

It would maybe be similar to others strategy like gw and imp for the nerf and also the opposite of pd, but not exactly the same. More based on attack ( slightly more interesting ratio than pd inf ), but at the cost of more expensive trans and useless attack for all the others units. It would have the same range than pd inf and could be a counter to perfect defense in west for eu map or usefull for low income area for world map etc.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 22.01.2019 at 06:59

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:48

Kirjoittanut Ghostface, 20.01.2019 at 10:29

I'm 100% full with Laochra on this one , the tactician ratwar and anyone else who thinks MoS is decent make dozen duels with him , me or any decent player.
I can pick RA in some random world game vs noobs and win too , then claim in forums RA is op ... nonsense

The point is that atWar is not limited to the sandbox (EU+). It's a whole universe of cleverly created maps, many of which are pretty well balanced, including large (Lunatis, Strangereal), very large (Song of Ice and Fire), and small (Dreamworld, Destoria, Symmetric Europe). What works in one setting might not work in another, no matter the skill of the player.

IDGAF if MoS is not the choice of EU+ CWs. It doesn't have to be. There is more to atWar than EU+.

Ah the old eu+ meme. Fun fact mos sucks on all the maps you just mentioned particularly asoiaf.youd know this if you actually played them rather than echoing Mr cantankerous chess and attempting to patronise players far more experienced than you. The only way mos will be good on a random map/scen is if there's high income and Marines are buffed in some way on the map.

I'm not aware of any such "EU+ meme" - It's just common sense. I did not say that I use MoS on all of those maps. In fact, I don't use it for Lunatis, Song of Ice and Fire, and Dreamworld; sometimes on Strangereal. Furthermore, I'm not patronizing other players. My opinions are like everyone else's - from personal experience, discussions with other players, experimentation, paying attention to strats the opponents are using, and how they are using them. I've learned alot, and will continue to do so, just like everyone else here.

I'm not saying that MoS is necessarily a champion strat - none are supposed to be, of course. The issue is that all of the mainstream suggestions for MoS makes it something else, not MoS, anymore. Buffing Infantry (just a mediocre GC, as pointed out elsewhere), buffing Militia at the expense of Infantry (just another GW or DS variant), etc. Any changes need to be consistent with the purpose and theme of the strat, not turning it into something else that already exists.

Kirjoittanut Nations, 22.01.2019 at 07:17

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:44

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:43

You know what, reading this thread. Sometimes i wish Unleashed bought atwar and banned everyone like he said he would.


Dave once again, dont listen to the majority about strat decisions, even when they get upvoted, most of the time the upvotes are also by noobs (the hard majorty of atwar players) instead listen to the few elite highrank players who have done the walk AND the talk. The majority have no idea what theyre talking about.

Here ill name who they are so we can make all of this easier.

Well, gee, I'm sure Dave is just elated to have The Anointed One tell him the handful of players whose OPINIONS are relevant in a game that has hundreds of users that have helped keep the game alive for many years with daily playing and premium accounts, like myself. I'm so happy to be put in my place! I guess I should resign from my Supporter role right away and start playing RPs, since I have no value here. Thank you so much for making me see the error of my ways!!

Being a supporter means nothing.Sorry.

I'm not lending my opinions on this thread because of that. It's just icing on the cake. Besides, Supporter means I help others learn about the game. So, if you pompous asses insist that I have no right to make a comment here, then you need to let the Mods know so that they can strip away my Supporter title so that nobody comes to me for help. Clearly, I would only be leading them astray.

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 22.01.2019 at 22:37

Kirjoittanut Nations, 22.01.2019 at 07:17

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:44

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:43

You know what, reading this thread. Sometimes i wish Unleashed bought atwar and banned everyone like he said he would.


Dave once again, dont listen to the majority about strat decisions, even when they get upvoted, most of the time the upvotes are also by noobs (the hard majorty of atwar players) instead listen to the few elite highrank players who have done the walk AND the talk. The majority have no idea what theyre talking about.

Here ill name who they are so we can make all of this easier.

Well, gee, I'm sure Dave is just elated to have The Anointed One tell him the handful of players whose OPINIONS are relevant in a game that has hundreds of users that have helped keep the game alive for many years with daily playing and premium accounts, like myself. I'm so happy to be put in my place! I guess I should resign from my Supporter role right away and start playing RPs, since I have no value here. Thank you so much for making me see the error of my ways!!

Being a supporter means nothing.Sorry.

I'm not lending my opinions on this thread because of that. It's just icing on the cake. Besides, Supporter means I help others learn about the game. So, if you pompous asses insist that I have no right to make a comment here, then you need to let the Mods know so that they can strip away my Supporter title so that nobody comes to me for help. Clearly, I would only be leading them astray.

Ratwar, nobody knows you, you have no qualifications to talk about strategies. No competitive player knows who you are, no scenario players know who you are. Why should we listen to you when it comes to changing strategies? Your understanding of the game is incomplete so your judgement on the balance of strats will be wrong.

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 22.01.2019 at 17:11

What about a strategy based on revolution ( who buff only militia ), something like that:

Militia:
+4 range
+3 attack
+1 defense
+10 cost

Air trans/trans/sub:
+30 cost

Others units:
-2 attack

It would maybe be similar to others strategy like gw and imp for the nerf and also the opposite of pd, but not exactly the same. More based on attack ( slightly more interesting ratio than pd inf ), but at the cost of more expensive trans and useless attack for all the others units. It would have the same range than pd inf and could be a counter to perfect defense in west for eu map or usefull for low income area for world map etc.

Strat with a militia focus is bound to be really OP imo.

Just nerf most played strategies and buff least played every now and then and problem is solved.

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 22.01.2019 at 17:11

What about a strategy based on revolution ( who buff only militia ), something like that:

Militia:
+4 range
+3 attack
+1 defense
+10 cost

Air trans/trans/sub:
+30 cost

Others units:
-2 attack

It would maybe be similar to others strategy like gw and imp for the nerf and also the opposite of pd, but not exactly the same. More based on attack ( slightly more interesting ratio than pd inf ), but at the cost of more expensive trans and useless attack for all the others units. It would have the same range than pd inf and could be a counter to perfect defense in west for eu map or usefull for low income area for world map etc.

If strats can be disabled then sure
Feels like this would be a bit op on certain maps
also seems a bit op tbh since your looking at 6 att milita (which you gain just from taking lands)

Kirjoittanut ITSGG1122, 23.01.2019 at 04:45

Just nerf most played strategies and buff least played every now and then and problem is solved.

Mos is pretty bad in scenarios tbh
out of all scenarios ive played it feels like mos is a very niche strat and is usually weaker than gw or hw in the spots where mos is playable
+1 def seems a bit too much for certain scenarios
Maybe a small buff like +1 range +1 crit for marines?
Any massive sudden changes could hurt certain maps
Maybe also put all nerfs into stages so that scenarios can be played to find out if a nerf is going to be too big idk though just a thought

Kirjoittanut triangle., 24.01.2019 at 16:56

Maybe also put all nerfs into stages so that scenarios can be played to find out if a nerf is going to be too big idk though just a thought

It's my understanding that Dave's goal is to be cautious, though you'll find plenty of disagreement on whether the changes made in round #1 were incremental or monumental.

I don't know how popular scenarios are, but one problem I see with making strat changes w/r/t scenarios is that scenarios are highly specific and customized based on the goals of the creator. Oftentimes, the creator even has certain strats in mind. Scenarios can also be changed (which is sometimes a pain, I know - I've made a few to experiment with, and the planning and testing are very time-consuming).

Is it accurate to say that the driving force behind strat changes are primarily based on the open competitiveness of a strat in public games, duels, and CWs? Particularly since scenarios can be adjusted in a variety of ways to compensate (starting income, events)?

After this roll I would say to never boost submarines any further D


Might actually be modhacks tho..

Kirjoittanut triangle., 23.01.2019 at 14:12

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 22.01.2019 at 17:11

What about a strategy based on revolution ( who buff only militia ), something like that:

Militia:
+4 range
+3 attack
+1 defense
+10 cost

Air trans/trans/sub:
+30 cost

Others units:
-2 attack

It would maybe be similar to others strategy like gw and imp for the nerf and also the opposite of pd, but not exactly the same. More based on attack ( slightly more interesting ratio than pd inf ), but at the cost of more expensive trans and useless attack for all the others units. It would have the same range than pd inf and could be a counter to perfect defense in west for eu map or usefull for low income area for world map etc.

If strats can be disabled then sure
Feels like this would be a bit op on certain maps
also seems a bit op tbh since your looking at 6 att milita (which you gain just from taking lands)

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 22.01.2019 at 17:11

Yes, I agree that a strat focused on Militia runs the risk of being very op very easily. Perhaps +10 cost isn't enough - maybe +20? That would provide a primary unit with 6A, 5D, 2CC, 7HP, 6R, Cost=50 (w/upgrade), with no special defense bonuses or nerfs, other than the standard -1D vs. Helis. With the low critical, these are not particularly strong units. Their only true strength would be in large numbers. Since it's Militia we are talking about, then the large numbers could come easily due to gaining more with every conquered city.

The next-best Ground attack unit would be Tanks with 6A, 4D, 6CC, 7HP, 7R, Cost=120 (w/upgrade) - one more range, less one defense, and significantly more critical, for more than double the cost.

I think it's very intriguing, but testing would be needed - it could be overwhelmingly strong, but DS could be an overwhelming Achilles' Heel, as well (the DS weakness could be reasonably accommodated by removing the -1D defense bonus).

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:15

Kirjoittanut triangle., 23.01.2019 at 14:12

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 22.01.2019 at 17:11

What about a strategy based on revolution ( who buff only militia ), something like that:

Militia:
+4 range
+3 attack
+1 defense
+10 cost

Air trans/trans/sub:
+30 cost

Others units:
-2 attack

It would maybe be similar to others strategy like gw and imp for the nerf and also the opposite of pd, but not exactly the same. More based on attack ( slightly more interesting ratio than pd inf ), but at the cost of more expensive trans and useless attack for all the others units. It would have the same range than pd inf and could be a counter to perfect defense in west for eu map or usefull for low income area for world map etc.

If strats can be disabled then sure
Feels like this would be a bit op on certain maps
also seems a bit op tbh since your looking at 6 att milita (which you gain just from taking lands)

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 22.01.2019 at 17:11

Yes, I agree that a strat focused on Militia runs the risk of being very op very easily. Perhaps +10 cost isn't enough - maybe +20? That would provide a primary unit with 6A, 5D, 2CC, 7HP, 6R, Cost=50 (w/upgrade), with no special defense bonuses or nerfs, other than the standard -1D vs. Helis. With the low critical, these are not particularly strong units. Their only true strength would be in large numbers. Since it's Militia we are talking about, then the large numbers could come easily due to gaining more with every conquered city.

The next-best Ground attack unit would be Tanks with 6A, 4D, 6CC, 7HP, 7R, Cost=120 (w/upgrade) - one more range, less one defense, and significantly more critical, for more than double the cost.

I think it's very intriguing, but testing would be needed - it could be overwhelmingly strong, but DS could be an overwhelming Achilles' Heel, as well (the DS weakness could be reasonably accommodated by removing the -1D defense bonus).

this wont ever work tbh it feels like imp but you only make 1 unit type

Kirjoittanut triangle., 28.01.2019 at 12:24

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:15

Maybe it looks op yes, but in fact, if you compare it to perfect defense, who have 4A, 7D and normal CC, those militia would be weaker than inf for the same cost, and as Hypercube mentionned it there is only 1 unit who isn't nerfed so it's predictable and not so good. And since the game is mostely based on defense ( you have to defend 2 turns when you captured your opponent's country ) gw, imp and pd would be better than my idea for the same spot.

It would need test but i think if it's need more nerf, we should make trans much more expensive like +50 or +100 instead of +30, maybe. Nerf the strength of the strat will make it irrelevant, it's better to increase the weaknesses. Or only +2A, it would be 5A and 5D then.

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 28.01.2019 at 13:21

Kirjoittanut triangle., 28.01.2019 at 12:24

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:15

Maybe it looks op yes, but in fact, if you compare it to perfect defense, who have 4A, 7D and normal CC, those militia would be weaker than inf for the same cost, and as Hypercube mentionned it there is only 1 unit who isn't nerfed so it's predictable and not so good. And since the game is mostely based on defense ( you have to defend 2 turns when you captured your opponent's country ) gw, imp and pd would be better than my idea for the same spot.

It would need test but i think if it's need more nerf, we should make trans much more expensive like +50 or +100 instead of +30, maybe. Nerf the strength of the strat will make it irrelevant, it's better to increase the weaknesses. Or only +2A, it would be 5A and 5D then.

Unfortunately it would be broken on certain scenario maps
-> instead of making carefully balanced scenario troops suddenly random militia spam

Kirjoittanut triangle., 28.01.2019 at 13:32

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 28.01.2019 at 13:21

Kirjoittanut triangle., 28.01.2019 at 12:24

Kirjoittanut RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:15

Maybe it looks op yes, but in fact, if you compare it to perfect defense, who have 4A, 7D and normal CC, those militia would be weaker than inf for the same cost, and as Hypercube mentionned it there is only 1 unit who isn't nerfed so it's predictable and not so good. And since the game is mostely based on defense ( you have to defend 2 turns when you captured your opponent's country ) gw, imp and pd would be better than my idea for the same spot.

It would need test but i think if it's need more nerf, we should make trans much more expensive like +50 or +100 instead of +30, maybe. Nerf the strength of the strat will make it irrelevant, it's better to increase the weaknesses. Or only +2A, it would be 5A and 5D then.

Unfortunately it would be broken on certain scenario maps
-> instead of making carefully balanced scenario troops suddenly random militia spam

Ah maybe yes, i don't really know scenario's maps, for what i saw it could be broken on ww1 against those who spam machine gun inf since it have +8D against cav and inf but not mil. Depend about what maps you talk about but anyway for what i saw it's rarely balanced, some units are broken and imp would still be better in defense for less cost, and much more versatile.