What makes GW so good compared to other strategies?

Also, how does one fight against GW?

Think GW as IMP but for Marines and Militia.

IMP
- Spam Infantry for Defense
- Spam Tanks (or sometimes Infantry) for Offense

GW
- Spam Militia for Defense
- Spam marines (or sometimes Militia) for Offense

The difference is the units, both the GW units some worse than IMP main units but they are much more cost effective, and militia with GW have the same defense as infantry + you can get militia from taking cities where you are forced to produce infantry with IMP. And marines are like tanks, but hidden and cheaper (cost-effective), so why wouldn't someone use GW marines over IMP tanks.

That's why GW is good, to counter GW surprisingly IMP or PD are the best strategies. Spam defense (infantry or militia) in all your vulnerable cities and wall them to make it impossible for a GW player to make a move on one of them. Or go all out with a massive stack and flank the front line using SM (going down the land/front line of GW will get you killed by overwhelming marines).

A long post, but I play GW and IMP quite a bit (I'm not a GW or IMP pro by any means), and I know I make GW out to be OP than IMP in the first paragraph,that's not true both are great in their own ways.

Hope this helped.

Thanks a lot!

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 08.01.2017 at 09:43

Think GW as IMP but for Marines and Militia.

IMP
- Spam Infantry for Defense
- Spam Tanks (or sometimes Infantry) for Offense

GW
- Spam Militia for Defense
- Spam GW (or sometimes Militia) for Offense

The difference is the units, both the GW units some worse than IMP main units but they are much more cost effective, and militia with GW have the same defense as infantry + you can get militia from taking cities where you are forced to produce infantry with IMP. And marines are like tanks, but hidden and cheaper (cost-effective), so why wouldn't someone use GW marines over IMP tanks.

That's why GW is good, to counter GW surprisingly IMP or PD are the best strategies. Spam defense (infantry or militia) in all your vulnerable cities and wall them to make it impossible for a GW player to make a move on one of them. Or go all out with a massive stack and flank the front line using SM (going down the land/front line of GW will get you killed by overwhelming marines).

A long post, but I play GW and IMP quite a bit (I'm not a GW or IMP pro by any means), and I know I make GW out to be OP than IMP in the first paragraph,that's not true both are great in their own ways.

Hope this helped.

i thought gw was the pd counter?

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 08.01.2017 at 09:43

That's why GW is good, to counter GW surprisingly IMP or PD are the best strategies. Spam defense (infantry or militia) in all your vulnerable cities and wall them to make it impossible for a GW player to make a move on one of them.

No pressure all defence? Cue crazy gw expansion.

Gw is strong since the price of its buffed units are much cheaper than those of many other strategies and the fact that you get more of those units for free when you take cities. This outweighs the downsides, making it a great strategy for good players. Not is all good for gw as it experiences many range nerfs and price increases on units that you would normaly feel comfortable with using with other strategies like tanks and infantry. The fact that Marines DO NOT get a ranged buff with this strat means you will be working with quite low mobility the whole game. This is made worse by the fact that Air and Sea transports are increased in price and made worse. If you play gw you will be forced to micro manage your low range units on a limited number of transports if you want to be effective. Since you get free militia as you take more cities, as previously said, you can create a snowball effect. In other words, after taking a city, you can use those free units to take more cities and got more free militia and take more cities etc. Coupled with the fact that Marines are stealth units you have a very interesting combination of units for attack and defense.

To counteract gw, there are a couple different approaches, one is rushing early and hoping to take them out before they build up the economy to spam marines in every city or create a militia snowball.
Pro: Takes them out early when they are weak
Con: Militia are pretty good in defense, and marines are good at retaking lost cities. This might be hard to pull off against good players.

Another would be trying to fight them in a similar game as they try to fight you: by slowly taking each of their cities and out maneuvering them. To properly employ this method you must understand the game at a really high level. Fighting gw this way is very hard but can be done. As long as you can predict where the marines are going and keep your cities protected all the while expanding outwards, you will be doing great.

Kirjoittanut Xenosapien, 09.01.2017 at 06:44

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 08.01.2017 at 09:43

That's why GW is good, to counter GW surprisingly IMP or PD are the best strategies. Spam defense (infantry or militia) in all your vulnerable cities and wall them to make it impossible for a GW player to make a move on one of them.

No pressure all defence? Cue crazy gw expansion.

I think you miss understood, it depends at the point in the game. By no means am I saying 100% do what I said. With any play style/strategy you have to adapt to the situation.
ie. With GW you may not only spam marines, but also submarines to get them from USA to EU (thought I wouldn't have to be this specific).

Kirjoittanut LukeTan, 09.01.2017 at 06:09

i thought gw was the pd counter?

It can be in some cases I guess in being more offensive than PD, but depending on situation PD can usually overwhelm GW marines by holding major cities and playing a slow defensive game.

Invisible troops

Kirjoittanut Checkmate., 09.01.2017 at 10:19

The fact that Marines DO NOT get a ranged buff with this strat means you will be working with quite low mobility the whole game.

The transports Nerf is a thing but this statement has nothing to do with it, not to say that it's completely wrong.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.01.2017 at 13:41

Kirjoittanut Checkmate., 09.01.2017 at 10:19

The fact that Marines DO NOT get a ranged buff with this strat means you will be working with quite low mobility the whole game.

The transports Nerf is a thing but this statement has nothing to do with it, not to say that it's completely wrong.

It does actually imo, the fact that for defense you must use militia which have less range than infantry, and marines are at their normal speed, then it can be concluded that with the transport nerf that this strategy has very low mobility.

Kirjoittanut Checkmate., 10.01.2017 at 13:44

-

Oh young grasshopper, back at your times I didn't stand a chance against the greatest master of GWquiesce. Then Cthulhu illuminated me with the apparently random idea of defending with marines.

Then I saw the light...

I do agree that GW isn't as fast as other strategies, specially at defense (good point). I do still think that you underestimate the marines though, as they can fit the defensive role handy. With a speed of 7 (after upgr) they're faster than PD and just as fast as IMP. So yeah wouldn't say it have 'very low mobility'. Rather it just requires a lot of skills to play.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.01.2017 at 20:37

Kirjoittanut Checkmate., 10.01.2017 at 13:44

-

BUT THAT WASNT THE POINT AAAAAA

Kirjoittanut Checkmate., 10.01.2017 at 20:49

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.01.2017 at 20:37

Kirjoittanut Checkmate., 10.01.2017 at 13:44

-

BUT THAT WASNT THE POINT AAAAAA

-"Then sir, you got no point. gg no re"

- But clovis, we can't say that!

- ok then how about "Apart of being difficult to defend due to militia's inferior range, and the transports issues there isn't any other concern as for GW. I believe I already explained why marines aren't that bad at mobility. "

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.01.2017 at 21:04

I was going to tell you the story about the broken pencil....

Invisible cheap (marines) tanks,and cheap but not so good infantry (miltia)

Militias as broken as pd infantry.

Cheap marines that hit as hard as tanks, can be transported in submarines, and have the same defense versus infantry as normal militia. Stupidly cheap for such advantages

Kirjoittanut Brsjak, 13.01.2017 at 07:22

Invisible cheap (marines) tanks,and cheap but not so good infantry (miltia)

Tanks....? Infantry =/= Militia. Militia are powerful but have less range. Still though, the Militia are more powerful than PD Militia and people use those without a problem even with limited range. Infantry have same attack as GC infantry so it's not so much of a problem in those first few turns. And your main offensive unit the marines are cheaper than SM Bombers, DS helis, GC tanks etc. GW is OP frankly, but needs a skilled player and upgrades to play.

Kirjoittanut Darth., 13.01.2017 at 10:24

Kirjoittanut Brsjak, 13.01.2017 at 07:22

Invisible cheap (marines) tanks,and cheap but not so good infantry (miltia)

Tanks....? Infantry =/= Militia. Militia are powerful but have less range. Still though, the Militia are more powerful than PD Militia and people use those without a problem even with limited range. Infantry have same attack as GC infantry so it's not so much of a problem in those first few turns. And your main offensive unit the marines are cheaper than SM Bombers, DS helps, GC tanks etc. GW is OP frankly, but needs a skilled player and upgrades to play.

i mean that marines are like tanks but invisible and cheap and gw miltia slower then inf

GW is one of the best strategies, hands down, and after last uppgrade, 70 per marine, its laughable how good it is.
Just learn to defend against early rush in EU map and always wall ur shit.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 13.01.2017 at 12:26

GW is one of the best strategies, hands down, and after last uppgrade, 70 per marine, its laughable how good it is.
Just learn to defend against early rush in EU map and always wall ur shit.

at his(or my) rank we don't have expendable ground main stealth, it's 80 cost but still...