RA

Make mil 30 cost.

Why?

I think is fine as is

edit 22/2/2015: yea that sounds nice... nice changing opinions tact :/

Revive exo's idea. Makes ra economy viable, as right now when you expand you get mili, which sap down your economy

Support

No it's so op. To strong it need nerf

Making infantries underrated, even worse than blitz ones, removing tank extra defense and making militia more expensive makes you not able to defend at all. With blitz your advantage is unit count that comes faster than enemy's units do, but what to do with RA? That's why I support this idea.

Infs 90, militia 40......
Rename it to Relentless Luxury

Kirjoittanut Croat, 22.02.2016 at 16:49

Infs 90, militia 40......
Rename it to Relentless Luxury

It's like RA Infs are fed on bordeaux and caviar.

Seriously is there even a point to using RA over blitz? As far as defense is concerned, RA militia is slightly better than blitz militia by 1 def. This is worthless though due to low range and high cost. Seriously, blitz is better at defending than RA. Blitz is better at expanding than RA. The only thing RA has is cheap tanks. I rather use imp for "cheap tanks" than use RA and have defense worse than blitz.

Kirjoittanut ROYAL, 23.02.2016 at 07:22

Seriously is there even a point to using RA over blitz? As far as defense is concerned, RA militia is slightly better than blitz militia by 1 def. This is worthless though due to low range and high cost. Seriously, blitz is better at defending than RA. Blitz is better at expanding than RA. The only thing RA has is cheap tanks. I rather use imp for "cheap tanks" than use RA and have defense worse than blitz.

debating about RA means as much to me as debating over labor laws in Ouganda...
seriously I never play it and I never face it...

Kirjoittanut International, 23.02.2016 at 02:11

Kirjoittanut Croat, 22.02.2016 at 16:49

Infs 90, militia 40......
Rename it to Relentless Luxury

It's like RA Infs are fed on bordeaux and caviar.

and surrender at any sign of battle.... typical french

Why was RA nerfed to the shitter in the 1st place? never had issue with it in it's state it was 2yrs ago I think it was? although it shoulda been called Tank General still

What I wanted was cheap strong tank with bad defense..

It would force the player to be on constant offense using tanks. A unique playstyle. I grow weary of having similar gameplay. We need radical different strategies that forces the players to have a different gameplay style.

Kirjoittanut Cthulhu, 23.02.2016 at 23:40

What I wanted was cheap strong tank with bad defense..

Well we saw how cheap strong tanks worked out, eliminating the defence to make expansion competition weaker would not stop it being op.

Kirjoittanut Cthulhu, 23.02.2016 at 23:40

It would force the player to be on constant offense using tanks. A unique playstyle. I grow weary of having similar gameplay. We need radical different strategies that forces the players to have a different gameplay style.

Unique doesn't necessarily mean good, constant offence is a low skill play.

Kirjoittanut Exo-K, 23.02.2016 at 19:50

Why was RA nerfed to the shitter in the 1st place? never had issue with it in it's state it was 2yrs ago I think it was? although it shoulda been called Tank General still

It was a low skill high power strat. Rewarding mindless attack which no strat could counter.

I feel this community fails often to work off of simple tiny nerfs to eventually find a common ground instead people like to rush into something and don't think twice about what changes can happen...