Changing the game units and strategies

There's a pretty high support for the changes, so we'll look at some of the older proposals and discuss about them. If you guys have any change in particular please do suggest it.

Thanks!

Buff Blitz

Kirjoittanut Apocalypse, 03.11.2018 at 15:18

Buff Blitz

Range +4, Get rid of the -1 DEF on select units (Tanks and Infantry?), Cost+15

Looking back at some older threads, dont buff sm.

Last thing we need is another bs strategy cuzz couple of people dont know how to play it.

I'll remake the strat thread tomorrow, haven't time tonight. A few more interesting suggestions have been made since then.

Changing game units and strategies completely cause to lose players add new different functional units

In my humble opinion:

MoS and HW need some buff.I see great potential in HW.

DS and LB need some nerf without making them useless.

GW needs some rebalancing if not a buff since your main defense unit has 5 defense.Same with IF it is usefull in very few occasions.Maybe 1range to militia?

Rest are fine.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 04.11.2018 at 01:35

So how about letting us discuss other issues within the game instead of locking my threads or moving them to mod forum.

but ur so fun to pick on

Kirjoittanut Nations, 05.11.2018 at 07:15

In my humble opinion:

MoS and HW need some buff.I see great potential in HW.

DS and LB need some nerf without making them useless.

GW needs some rebalancing if not a buff since your main defense unit has 5 defense.Same with IF it is usefull in very few occasions.Maybe 1range to militia?

Rest are fine.

SNEAKY SNEAKY TRYNA BOOST GW FROM UNDER OUR FEET EH???? HEHEHEHE GW WILL NEVER BE BUFFED HEHEHEHEHE EVER

Kirjoittanut boywind2, 06.11.2018 at 23:39

Kirjoittanut Nations, 05.11.2018 at 07:15

In my humble opinion:

MoS and HW need some buff.I see great potential in HW.

DS and LB need some nerf without making them useless.

GW needs some rebalancing if not a buff since your main defense unit has 5 defense.Same with IF it is usefull in very few occasions.Maybe 1range to militia?

Rest are fine.

SNEAKY SNEAKY TRYNA BOOST GW FROM UNDER OUR FEET EH???? HEHEHEHE GW WILL NEVER BE BUFFED HEHEHEHEHE EVER

HEHE NO NEED AS I DO SAME WITH DS

I think the meta should be, that defending > attacking, since knowing where to defend is more difficult than simply attacking whatever your enemy has.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 07.11.2018 at 00:59

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 06.11.2018 at 17:15

Kirjoittanut Guest, 04.11.2018 at 01:35

So how about letting us discuss other issues within the game instead of locking my threads or moving them to mod forum.

but ur so fun to pick on

Almost as fun as when we kicked your asses in ww1, bye bye ottoman empire

who hasent rapedt he ottoman empire in ww1 xd death to kebabs!

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 10:58

I think the meta should be, that defending > attacking, since knowing where to defend is more difficult than simply attacking whatever your enemy has.

but unit are already better at defending than attacking

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 13:44

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 10:58

I think the meta should be, that defending > attacking, since knowing where to defend is more difficult than simply attacking whatever your enemy has.

but unit are already better at defending than attacking

PD is stronger than what it's equivalent should be which is RA- that is virtually useless.

Agree with tirp but no1 will support a defensive meta shift. At best clovis will let us take 1 crit from lb.

Kirjoittanut lsilorien, 09.11.2018 at 13:51

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 13:44

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 10:58

I think the meta should be, that defending > attacking, since knowing where to defend is more difficult than simply attacking whatever your enemy has.

but unit are already better at defending than attacking

PD is stronger than what it's equivalent should be which is RA- that is virtually useless.

Wrong their values are equal. You go some pd west pick and ill go an ra counter. See how useless it is.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 09.11.2018 at 14:30

Agree with tirp but no1 will support a defensive meta shift. At best clovis will let us take 1 crit from lb.

Kirjoittanut lsilorien, 09.11.2018 at 13:51

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 13:44

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 10:58

I think the meta should be, that defending > attacking, since knowing where to defend is more difficult than simply attacking whatever your enemy has.

but unit are already better at defending than attacking

PD is stronger than what it's equivalent should be which is RA- that is virtually useless.

Wrong their values are equal. You go some pd west pick and ill go an ra counter. See how useless it is.

you can't prove that in a game, you need the equivalent of PD infantry defend against its money equivalent of RA tanks, which should be 150 PD infantry against 100 RA tanks

Kirjoittanut lsilorien, 09.11.2018 at 13:51

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 13:44

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 10:58

I think the meta should be, that defending > attacking, since knowing where to defend is more difficult than simply attacking whatever your enemy has.

but unit are already better at defending than attacking

PD is stronger than what it's equivalent should be which is RA- that is virtually useless.

ra super strong late game lol

Kirjoittanut IHavok, 09.11.2018 at 16:27

you can't prove that in a game, you need the equivalent of PD infantry defend against its money equivalent of RA tanks, which should be 150 PD infantry against 100 RA tanks

of course you dumbfucks don't get it.

Attacking is intrinsically more powerful than defending. When attacking and taking a city, you take a city, you get some militia, and perhaps some reinf, plus you killed your enemies troops. Why do you think, people attack with infantry at all, even though they are better at defending? Additionally, units that are better at attacking, can simply be bought and be used to take some city you want, and they will die doing what they are best at (attacking) or take a vital city (think of UK spamming tanks at berlin, either you get what you wanted, which is attacking your enemies units and destroying them, or you get the city, or both).

Now with defending you get none of that. You don't get militia, you don't get new reinforcements, or income. All you get is some dead units for your opponent. And this is only even an advantage as long as defending units are more powerful for their cost than attacking units. Additionally, you can't simply choose to defend, you cant just move your units to some vital city and know your enemy is going to attack it. You have to try your luck and predict what your enemy will do, where he might attack, and that is the only situation in which you even can defend, which makes defensive units even more useless. So not only do you not get anything from defending in itself, without a defender's advantage, but you also need prediction skill, and a bit of luck to get to use any defenders advantage that might exist. This means, that defending is skill based, while attacking, simply moving tanks to Berlin, isn't, and it's also simply worse, than attacking, because you don't get cities from it, quite the contrary, you lose population from it.

All of this is currently being compensated by a fair and decent defenders advantage. I liked the PD days, because back then, the defenders advantage was lager, which made the game more skill based in my opinion, but if you want to shrink the defenders advantage further, be my guest to play some shitty game of thrones RP, that doesn't have one, but I like my Atwar, especially competitive Atwar, skill based.

GW is especially cancerous in this regard by the way. You get op Militia, that are 4 atk, 5 def, iirc, and you get cheap Marines, that are purely offensive.
Basically, doesn't have a defenders advantage at all. But what makes it even worse, when attacking you get these crazy op militia, so the advantage attacking simply has is boosted to even more ridiculess levels.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 20:30

Kirjoittanut IHavok, 09.11.2018 at 16:27

you can't prove that in a game, you need the equivalent of PD infantry defend against its money equivalent of RA tanks, which should be 150 PD infantry against 100 RA tanks

of course you dumbfucks don't get it.

Attacking is intrinsically more powerful than defending. When attacking and taking a city, you take a city, you get some militia, and perhaps some reinf, plus you killed your enemies troops. Why do you think, people attack with infantry at all, even though they are better at defending? Additionally, units that are better at attacking, can simply be bought and be used to take some city you want, and they will die doing what they are best at (attacking) or take a vital city (think of UK spamming tanks at berlin, either you get what you wanted, which is attacking your enemies units and destroying them, or you get the city, or both).

Now with defending you get none of that. You don't get militia, you don't get new reinforcements, or income. All you get is some dead units for your opponent. And this is only even an advantage as long as defending units are more powerful for their cost than attacking units. Additionally, you can't simply choose to defend, you cant just move your units to some vital city and know your enemy is going to attack it. You have to try your luck and predict what your enemy will do, where he might attack, and that is the only situation in which you even can defend, which makes defensive units even more useless. So not only do you not get anything from defending in itself, without a defender's advantage, but you also need prediction skill, and a bit of luck to get to use any defenders advantage that might exist. This means, that defending is skill based, while attacking, simply moving tanks to Berlin, isn't, and it's also simply worse, than attacking, because you don't get cities from it, quite the contrary, you lose population from it.

All of this is currently being compensated by a fair and decent defenders advantage. I liked the PD days, because back then, the defenders advantage was lager, which made the game more skill based in my opinion, but if you want to shrink the defenders advantage further, be my guest to play some shitty game of thrones RP, that doesn't have one, but I like my Atwar, especially competitive Atwar, skill based.

Elo rating
1304

tell us more

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 20:38

Elo rating
1304

tell us more

Nigger, I've played this game for 6 years, I've seen a shitton of metas rise and fall, and you faggot, whom I actually beat in the only duel we two played, try to talk shit about my elo, on a post that was strictly about the fucking meta?

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 20:42

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 20:38

Elo rating
1304

tell us more

Nigger, I've played this game for 6 years, I've seen a shitton of metas rise and fall, and you faggot, whom I actually beat in the only duel we two played, try to talk shit about my elo, on a post that was strictly about the fucking meta?

Guys he beat me once it's over. Time to suicide because i'm no longer qualified to talk about game balance compared to him.

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 20:48

Yea, unless you have anything to contribute to the discussion on the fucking meta, you better go fucking hang yourself, because nobody cares about your elo, that you jerk off to on a daily basis.

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 20:42

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 20:38

Elo rating
1304

tell us more

Nigger, I've played this game for 6 years, I've seen a shitton of metas rise and fall, and you faggot, whom I actually beat in the only duel we two played, try to talk shit about my elo, on a post that was strictly about the fucking meta?

hes got 42k turns played compared to your 20k
basically he invested more time into atwar so his opinion matters more, especially discussing meta strat changes

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 09.11.2018 at 20:51

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 20:42

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 09.11.2018 at 20:38

Elo rating
1304

tell us more

Nigger, I've played this game for 6 years, I've seen a shitton of metas rise and fall, and you faggot, whom I actually beat in the only duel we two played, try to talk shit about my elo, on a post that was strictly about the fucking meta?

hes got 42k turns played compared to your 20k
basically he invested more time into atwar so his opinion matters more, especially discussing meta strat changes

4nic it's over. I already lost. He beat me once in a duel, that means he's the superior player. I'm sorry I let you down sensei.

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 09.11.2018 at 20:51

hes got 42k turns played compared to your 20k
basically he invested more time into atwar so his opinion matters more, especially discussing meta strat changes

No matter how much time you spent on atwar, you still can be retarded. Just ask some rank 13 RP fag who probably spent twice as much time playing as you did, what changes we should bring to the meta.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 09.11.2018 at 20:54

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 09.11.2018 at 20:51

hes got 42k turns played compared to your 20k
basically he invested more time into atwar so his opinion matters more, especially discussing meta strat changes

No matter how much time you spent on atwar, you still can be retarded. Just ask some rank 13 RP fag who probably spent twice as much time playing as you did, what changes we should bring to the meta.

Bro you need to stop drinking the koolaid. You're irrelevant as far as the competitive community is concerned.

This has clearly gone way off topic. I think this thread has served its purpose