Desert Storm Improvements

@The Tact, my account is played by 3 brothers I am the owner of it and I don't remember I have ever matched you but who cares anyways this is the IDEAS forum again just to remind you to stop going off track. I wish there was an ignore button in forums just like in game but anyways you will be ignored unless you say something useful to the community, period.

Edit: I found an ignore button, I LOVE atwar

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:15

@The Tact, my account is played by 3 brothers I am the owner of it and I don't remember I have ever matched you but who cares anyways this is the IDEAS forum again just to remind you to stop going off track. I wish there was an ignore button in forums just like in game but anyways you will be ignored unless you say something useful to the community, period.

Of course you dont, you only remember your wins and never learn from your losses and just forget they ever happened. Honestly you are not worth the work of pressing the ignore button. Maybe if you actually check forums not for your personal need you will know that i am trying to help. You bragged about rank but you say 3 brothers play your account, so you have triple the time and a third of the skill. You will be ignored for eternity because your logic is sky high.


My last words is just take 10 off the cost.

Oh wow I found the ignore button awesome, bye bye kid grow up some balls

For others who commented I will look and come back to you in few mins.

Kirjoittanut Soul, 19.11.2013 at 11:43

If you do want to remove all inf nerfs DS has then it'd become OP and you have to do something else like nerf it's transports similiar to GW or IF. Just imo. Or something along those lines. I stand by just the -10 marine cost will help, anything more makes me think unbalanced.

I respect what you say but did you take into consideration that helis do have capacity in DS ? Anyways, the problem is really in cost and defense of either inf/heli what do you think?

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:30

Kirjoittanut Soul, 19.11.2013 at 11:43

If you do want to remove all inf nerfs DS has then it'd become OP and you have to do something else like nerf it's transports similiar to GW or IF. Just imo. Or something along those lines. I stand by just the -10 marine cost will help, anything more makes me think unbalanced.

I respect what you say but did you take into consideration that helis do have capacity in DS ? Anyways, the problem is really in cost and defense of either inf/heli what do you think?

Yeah helis' have marine capacity exactly why if your gonna buff it up taking away it's abilities to use other traditional transports can negate that. So something like + cost or - range to it's transports make up for the fact you make it's infantry on par with other strategies and the fact that unlike any other strat it can carry marines via heli.

>wolfestein calls the tactician a kid
>shares account with his 10 year old brothers
>still is lower rank than Tunder3
>can't provide any argument and trys to ignore people that actually care about balance.

i will keep my argument that DS needs the infantry defense nerf removed, until tophats says something about it.

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 12:20

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:15

@The Tact, my account is played by 3 brothers I am the owner of it and I don't remember I have ever matched you but who cares anyways this is the IDEAS forum again just to remind you to stop going off track. I wish there was an ignore button in forums just like in game but anyways you will be ignored unless you say something useful to the community, period.

Of course you dont, you only remember your wins and never learn from your losses and just forget they ever happened. Honestly you are not worth the work of pressing the ignore button. Maybe if you actually check forums not for your personal need you will know that i am trying to help. You bragged about rank but you say 3 brothers play your account, so you have triple the time and a third of the skill. You will be ignored for eternity because your logic is sky high.


My last words is just take 10 off the cost.

I wish I could give you another rep, sadly, I can't. Anyway a guy can't be this dense he must be a troll.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:49

>wolfestein calls the tactician a kid
>shares account with his 10 year old brothers
>still is lower rank than Tunder3
>can't provide any argument and trys to ignore people that actually care about balance.

i will keep my argument that DS needs the infantry defense nerf removed, until tophats says something about it.

What about both SM and DS have -1 defense to inf and no additional nerf to them? Cost definitely needs to be improved however.

Kirjoittanut Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 12:52

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:49

>wolfestein calls the tactician a kid
>shares account with his 10 year old brothers
>still is lower rank than Tunder3
>can't provide any argument and trys to ignore people that actually care about balance.

i will keep my argument that DS needs the infantry defense nerf removed, until tophats says something about it.

What about both SM and DS have -1 defense to inf and no additional nerf to them? Cost definitely needs to be improved however.

would make things pretty even just different styles. Good idea!

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:49

>wolfestein calls the tactician a kid
>shares account with his 10 year old brothers
>still is lower rank than Tunder3
>can't provide any argument and trys to ignore people that actually care about balance.

i will keep my argument that DS needs the infantry defense nerf removed, until tophats says something about it.

Again kids always try to ruin the post, you guys can't even state argument without using words that perfectly describe yourselves, yes I do agree to the inf defense nerf removed but again I will always ignore morons it's as simple as this and I don't care about arguments that kids start live with it.

Speaking from personal experience, playing SM does not necessarily mean victory against DS. It depends on the prowess of the two players on the ability to force the opponent onto the defensive, which appears to be the key skill required to play DS effectively. SM cannot defend for very long against the devastating offensive capacity of the DS helicopters, and one has to be careful not to leave any bombers in positions of risk, as they will suffer massively if turnblocked.

What I think DS needs is a significant defense boost to marines, maybe +2 with an extra +1 in cities. What DS suffers from is a lack of transportable defensive units, which is how SM holds the advantage through it's airtransports. DS can only provide marines as ground troops, which are next to useless at defending, whereas SM can provide defensive units to back up it's offensive bombers. Furthermore, helicopters are used in real life to perform offensives before landing ground troops to hold positions. The only troops deplyable through helicopters in atwar are terrible at holding anything.

Alternatively, there is the possibility that DS helicopters could carry both inf and marines, which would solve the poor defense problem, but is likely to make DS op without an additional nerf.

Kirjoittanut Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 12:52

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:49

>wolfestein calls the tactician a kid
>shares account with his 10 year old brothers
>still is lower rank than Tunder3
>can't provide any argument and trys to ignore people that actually care about balance.

i will keep my argument that DS needs the infantry defense nerf removed, until tophats says something about it.

What about both SM and DS have -1 defense to inf and no additional nerf to them? Cost definitely needs to be improved however.

No do you want SM ruined ? SM is good the way it is, DS isn't.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 13:06

Kirjoittanut Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 12:52

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 12:49

>wolfestein calls the tactician a kid
>shares account with his 10 year old brothers
>still is lower rank than Tunder3
>can't provide any argument and trys to ignore people that actually care about balance.

i will keep my argument that DS needs the infantry defense nerf removed, until tophats says something about it.

What about both SM and DS have -1 defense to inf and no additional nerf to them? Cost definitely needs to be improved however.

No do you want SM ruined ? SM is good the way it is, DS isn't.

Tunder raises a valid point, you can get around -1 attack to inf too easily even if it does have SOME effect which he is wrong about, SM and PD are still OP imo. DS is only slightly UP and a -cost and maybe this would balance that just fine (and knock down SM to balanced at the same time)

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 13:05

Speaking from personal experience, playing SM does not necessarily mean victory against DS. It depends on the prowess of the two players on the ability to force the opponent onto the defensive, which appears to be the key skill required to play DS effectively. SM cannot defend for very long against the devastating offensive capacity of the DS helicopters, and one has to be careful not to leave any bombers in positions of risk, as they will suffer massively if turnblocked.

What I think DS needs is a significant defense boost to marines, maybe +2 with an extra +1 in cities. What DS suffers from is a lack of transportable defensive units, which is how SM holds the advantage through it's airtransports. DS can only provide marines as ground troops, which are next to useless at defending, whereas SM can provide defensive units to back up it's offensive bombers. Furthermore, helicopters are used in real life to perform offensives before landing ground troops to hold positions. The only troops deplyable through helicopters in atwar are terrible at holding anything.

Alternatively, there is the possibility that DS helicopters could carry both inf and marines, which would solve the poor defense problem, but is likely to make DS op without an additional nerf.

Some very good points in your post, I only disagree to the marines defense thing it doesn't matter much in my opinion.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 13:05

Alternatively, there is the possibility that DS helicopters could carry both inf and marines, which would solve the poor defense problem, but is likely to make DS op without an additional nerf.

OP OP OP OP, you just made an AT cost 130. What you said above is right, in your and mine sm vs ds battles you usually win because the -2 bomber defense to helis. Thats why sm is ds's natural counter, and it should stay that way.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 13:05

Speaking from personal experience, playing SM does not necessarily mean victory against DS.............

I completely agree that DS and SM can play equally up to a certain point, in prolonged battles. But marines defense is what make them balanced, what about we put some unconventionality in there and make marines attack & defence reversed? Also It is still kinda OP as TT said, but you did say that it needs nerf after that.

I'd support a +1 defense to marines. Maybe a -10 cost to helis...

Kirjoittanut Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 13:14

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 13:05

Speaking from personal experience, playing SM does not necessarily mean victory against DS.............

I completely agree that DS and SM can play equally up to a certain point, in prolonged battles. But marines defense is what make them balanced, what about we put some unconventionality in there and make marines attack & defence reversed? Also It is still kinda OP as TT said, but you did say that it needs nerf after that.

I don't really think making marines have a too strong defense is sensible, because no-one would know how much extra defense is stored in any particular city. Despite what I said earlier, I would suggest maybe only a 1 boost to marine defense now as a maximum. Also, you have to consider that this would mean marines would defend first when competing for expansion, and therefore die first, leaving DS unable to take cities using the marines.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 13:12

Some very good points in your post, I only disagree to the marines defense thing it doesn't matter much in my opinion.

It matters immensely that DS has poor defense in newly captured territory, because strategies like SM can easily reinforce newly conquered territory with large amounts of militia and inf. Blitz can reinforce also, to prevent immediate counterattack, and even the striking range of RA is not so much that inf cannot travel behind to the new territories to partially protect them. DS is unique in that the inf travel slowly behind, and may not be able to catch up because of the ability of DS helicopters to travel over water. This is the weakest point of DS, as it is therefore alone in the attacking strats in being able to put really any defense in newly taken territory without using expensive units. Because of this, cities can be retaken, and the momentum that DS requires to keep on the offensive crumbles.

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 13:12

OP OP OP OP, you just made an AT cost 130. What you said above is right, in your and mine sm vs ds battles you usually win because the -2 bomber defense to helis. Thats why sm is ds's natural counter, and it should stay that way.

If only 1 unit can be transported at a time by helis, you would need 5, or a cost of 650, so techincally the equivilent cost of the transportation is 650. However I would agree with you in saying this is still too strong, because the helis come with large amounts of offensive power. Therefore, only a weak unit could be transported to have minimum effect.

Because of the points stated above, I propose the following:
Helicopters being extended to be able to transport militia as well as helicopters (but only 1 marine or 1 militia)
However, militia have a nerf of -2 attack
The effect of this would be militia that could only defend, but could be transported by Helicopters to provide a small amount of defense where the helicopters have landed, and absorb the effect of the attacks, therefore allowing DS to continue it's offensive.
However (and this is the clever bit) The militia have a lower defense than the Helicopters, and therefore the Helicopters will still defend first, if they remain in the same city. Therefore they would have to leave the city or stay outside it in order to have any effect, and otherwise the helicopters would still defend first, and therefore die.
This would counterbalance the advantages of not requiring building a more expensive marine to take cities, and the fact it costs nothing to transport militia on helicopters to the front lines from captured cites.
This suggestion is a slight boost, allowing DS some free extra defense in captured cities, but with the penalty, that if the helicopters are turnblocked in the city, they will die first.

So, to sum it up:

• -2 attack to militia
  
• militia can be transported by helicopters as well as infantry (but capacity still at one)

That is the best I can offer on this subject

Support militia also being transportable but not inf, even just inf would be OP imo. Also militia only -1 attack.

Yea -2 is too much,-1 is good. All round you have balanced it ends, well done.

Could you guys stop making huge quote trees? Just quote what you are responding to, delete the rest inside your post.

OT:

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 14:03

Helicopters being extended to be able to transport militia as well as helicopters (but only 1 marine or 1 militia)
However, militia have a nerf of -2 attack
The effect of this would be militia that could only defend, but could be transported by Helicopters to provide a small amount of defense where the helicopters have landed, and absorb the effect of the attacks, therefore allowing DS to continue it's offensive.
However (and this is the clever bit) The militia have a lower defense than the Helicopters, and therefore the Helicopters will still defend first, if they remain in the same city. Therefore they would have to leave the city or stay outside it in order to have any effect, and otherwise the helicopters would still defend first, and therefore die.
This would counterbalance the advantages of not requiring building a more expensive marine to take cities, and the fact it costs nothing to transport militia on helicopters to the front lines from captured cites.
This suggestion is a slight boost, allowing DS some free extra defense in captured cities, but with the penalty, that if the helicopters are turnblocked in the city, they will die first.

So, to sum it up:

• -2 attack to militia
  
• militia can be transported by helicopters as well as infantry (but capacity still at one)

That is the best I can offer on this subject

This is actually very clever, it fixes the problem without moving Infantry defence up. If anything is to be changed in DS, this would be the best solution.

To the other comments, DS is actually very powerful and can move with speed across world games and bigger games very easily. On a lower rank alt I've quickly moved across and destroyed high ranks with barely any effort at all. Many will tell you that strategies like MoS, Blitz, and NC work very well in world and other types of maps, DS does as well. An expensive strategy isn't such a bad thing. However in a smaller area like EU/EU+ where you are forced to defend early, that's where a few problems come from.

Some very good ideas have been discussed here, so I will wait to see how far this goes then will edit my first post with a summary of all your ideas to make it easier for admins. I'll keep reading your comments.

Why so angry???

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 14:22

Yea -2 is too much,-1 is good. All round you have balanced it ends, well done.

I mean, how does a general have one attack whilst militia have 3 In fact any stats apart from bonuses. They are definitely not individual units or troops whilst you only have one general which does not even have an 1/8 of the attack power of a tank.

Original thread updated with your ideas. Please let me know if I have missed something.

I don't think helicopters should get better defence, it's ok. But infantry defence nerf should be removed, just like SM.

Another point is that maximum helicopter attack is 10, and maximum PD infantry defence is 10 too, but infantries are much cheaper. Against IMP, infantries cost 30 and have 8 defence, but they're MUCH cheaper.

And BY THE WAY, helicopters should be cheaper and make the DS cost buff a little slighter. I mean, if you go turkey imp/pd, against ukraine PD, it's almost impossible to cap him, even with all those op reinfs. Tanks would be even better than helis in this case, much cheaper and same attack (+1 with gen).

Kirjoittanut Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:17

I don't think helicopters should get better defence, it's ok. But infantry defence nerf should be removed, just like SM.

Another point is that maximum helicopter attack is 10, and maximum PD infantry defence is 10 too, but infantries are much cheaper. Against IMP, infantries cost 30 and have 8 defence, but they're MUCH cheaper.

And BY THE WAY, helicopters should be cheaper and make the DS cost buff a little slighter. I mean, if you go turkey imp/pd, against ukraine PD, it's almost impossible to cap him, even with all those op reinfs. Tanks would be even better than helis in this case, much cheaper and same attack (+1 with gen).

Oh alex where have you been this is the real shit totally agree bro <3

Just what you think about helis defense against bombers, especially in case of SM ?

Honestly the best idea is end's idea, make heli's carry militia and nerf their attack, would fit with the theme too. That would be more than enough i dont see why you propose extra boosts. yes alex rescue him from the wormwhole he got himself in to. SM is DS's natural counter, dont change that.

Kirjoittanut Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 15:27

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 14:22

Yea -2 is too much,-1 is good. All round you have balanced it ends, well done.

I mean, how does a general have one attack whilst militia have 3 In fact any stats apart from bonuses. They are definitely not individual units or troops whilst you only have one general which does not even have an 1/8 of the attack power of a tank.

Because of game mechanics. If a General had a higher attack, he would attack first and would die. It makes perfect sen to have 1 attack and 1 defense so that the General survives and is the last survivor.

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 23:34

SM is DS's natural counter, dont change that.

strats shouldnt have counters, in an ideal utopian atwar world all the strats would have their strengths and weakness yet not one would be op to another.

thats the whole point of the constant strategy tweaks and changes, to strive to achieve this balance.