If Hybrid Warfare was given a buff, what would you prefer?

It's the least played strategy in the game. It has very little value because strategies like Perfect Defense, Great Combinator, and even Relentless Attack are a lot better when it comes to rushing, and when it comes to late game.

Hybrid Warfare has great potential but it lacks the edge compared to some other strategies. So what needs to be changed?

Is it currently too expensive?
Is the defense not that great?
Is the attack not as good as other strategies?

What exactly would you like to see out of this strategy?

Post your thoughts so below so we can gauge what the community might like from this.

Thanks,
-PleaseMe

I still haven't bought the strat lol.

Doesnt need a buff. Also RA is definitely not as strong as HW.

I was forced to comment on this thread. This comment is powered by AtWar

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:42

Doesnt need a buff. Also RA is definitely not as strong as HW.

Buff, rework, same thing. Cant deny that it's the least played strategy though.

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 17:45

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:42

Doesnt need a buff. Also RA is definitely not as strong as HW.

Buff, rework, same thing. Cant deny that it's the least played strategy though.

That means absolutely nothing. NC doesn't get played nearly as often as pd or imp, but it is still a good strat. You should not force all strats to fit where they don't belong. Strats satisfy a niche and should not always be useful everywhere.

The fact that you need to buy it and it costs so much makes people not feeling comfortable playing with it. I personally just aren't used to use so many different unit types and prefer the use of 3-4 units only.

I don't think it needs a change

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:48

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 17:45

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:42

Doesnt need a buff. Also RA is definitely not as strong as HW.

Buff, rework, same thing. Cant deny that it's the least played strategy though.

That means absolutely nothing. NC doesn't get played nearly as often as pd or imp, but it is still a good strat. You should not force all strats to fit where they don't belong. Strats satisfy a niche and should not always be useful everywhere.

I agree. It should satisfy a niche. But unfortunately it's a puzzle piece that does not fit anywhere on the board. You could play it, but I assure you that there are better strategies that fit the niche you're saying. With this small rework it's to get it played more in that specific niche. So it makes presence in more games. Right now it's not as useless as NC because at least NC is free. People don't buy HW because of how expensive it is. And how niche it is. Low ranks can make use of Naval commander because they use the utility as a crutch. HW isn't meant for low ranks. And us high ranks know its strong, but it's not worth it.

Kirjoittanut JUGERS2, 24.11.2020 at 17:50

The fact that you need to buy it and it costs so much makes people not feeling comfortable playing with it. I personally just aren't used to use so many different unit types and prefer the use of 3-4 units only.

I don't think it needs a change

Agreed, I think it isn't played now is because it could only be purchased by r9+, and by the time those players got around to buying HW they already got use to playing different ukr strat. Why play hw when you mainly play blitz or GC? why switch to HW now and relearn to play ukr?

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 17:54

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:48

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 17:45

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:42

Doesnt need a buff. Also RA is definitely not as strong as HW.

Buff, rework, same thing. Cant deny that it's the least played strategy though.

That means absolutely nothing. NC doesn't get played nearly as often as pd or imp, but it is still a good strat. You should not force all strats to fit where they don't belong. Strats satisfy a niche and should not always be useful everywhere.

I agree. It should satisfy a niche. But unfortunately it's a puzzle piece that does not fit anywhere on the board. You could play it, but I assure you that there are better strategies that fit the niche you're saying. With this small rework it's to get it played more in that specific niche. So it makes presence in more games. Right now it's not as useless as NC because at least NC is free. People don't buy HW because of how expensive it is. And how niche it is. Low ranks can make use of Naval commander because they use the utility as a crutch. HW isn't meant for low ranks. And us high ranks know its strong, but it's not worth it.

There is a niche for HW. It's good for situations where you start with a lot of money and and then have to transition into low-medium income mid-games. It works where GW is too low ranged to work because HW transports don't get nerfed in any way.

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:57

There is a niche for HW. It's good for situations where you start with a lot of money and and then have to transition into low-medium income mid-games. It works where GW is too low ranged to work because HW transports don't get nerfed in any way.

I understand that. I know where it belongs. Problem is that strategies like GC, PD and even IMP trump HW because of its more flexible infantry. I want more people to play HW ukraine instead of GC. Because I am assuming you think Ukraine is probably one of the best situations for HW. Although people feel more comfortable playing strats they already know like GC. It's more a matter of getting people to play the strategy.

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 18:02

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 17:57

There is a niche for HW. It's good for situations where you start with a lot of money and and then have to transition into low-medium income mid-games. It works where GW is too low ranged to work because HW transports don't get nerfed in any way.

I understand that. I know where it belongs. Problem is that strategies like GC, PD and even IMP trump HW because of its more flexible infantry. I want more people to play HW ukraine instead of GC. Because I am assuming you think Ukraine is probably one of the best situations for HW. Although people feel more comfortable playing strats they already know like GC. It's more a matter of getting people to play the strategy.

Not at all, I think Italy is the best situation for HW. The fact that you can't think past ukr shows you never really tried playing HW.

Which dad do I side with? Mecoy or Wd?

I would probably rework the militia ever so slightly and maybe the transports too as I feel thatd have the greatest effect while still remaining HW and not becoming some new strategy entirely.

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 18:04

Not at all, I think Italy is the best situation for HW. The fact that you can't think past ukr shows you never really tried playing HW.

I assumed you couldn't think past Europe+. So I had to bring myself to your level. Hybrid Warfare is the least played strategy in the game. That is a fact. Whether it is a world game, a NA, Eurasia, Africa, or any other area, Other strategies perform much better. And I have a feeling you are playing devils advocate. If it were popular then it would be seen more often even in certain niche countries, but still it's not. Which is why it needs to be slightly reworked.

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 18:10

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 18:04

Not at all, I think Italy is the best situation for HW. The fact that you can't think past ukr shows you never really tried playing HW.

I assumed you couldn't think past Europe+. So I had to bring myself to your level. Hybrid Warfare is the least played strategy in the game. That is a fact. Whether it is a world game, a NA, Eurasia, Africa, or any other area, Other strategies perform much better. And I have a feeling you are playing devils advocate. If it were popular then it would be seen more often even in certain niche countries, but still it's not. Which is why it needs to be slightly reworked.

You should balance a strat based on how good it is. Not how often it gets played.

Lainaa:

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 18:30

You should balance a strat based on how good it is. Not how often it gets played.

You make a good point. But we would much rather have a strategy played more often than not. So we keep the strategy good, and we try to get it played more often.
2 birds with 1 stone.

Lainaa:

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut PleaseMe, 24.11.2020 at 18:32

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 24.11.2020 at 18:30

You should balance a strat based on how good it is. Not how often it gets played.

You make a good point. But we would much rather have a strategy played more often than not. So we keep the strategy good, and we try to get it played more often.
2 birds with 1 stone.

There are 13 strategies in this game. There will ALWAYS be a "least used strat" whether or not you like it. HW even though it isnt common is strong and needs no buff.

Yes please, HW is a terrible strat and its worse then RA, GC is basically the same thing but better in most situations.

Kirjoittanut Fatcheek, 24.11.2020 at 19:13

Yes please, HW is a terrible strat and its worse then RA, GC is basically the same thing but better in most situations.

Well maybe there are better strats than hw, but it's not terrible

Hw isn't bad
just pretty shitty inf
i don't see why it needs changes lol

I feel like HW gets overshaowed by GC in east and in scenarios too because of how weak the attack of the inf is and how much the main att costs, i feel like some rebalancing in either the tank cost or the infantry units should happen, maybe one good change would be to remove the +10 cost on tanks so hw has more money for attack and it becomes more viable in other maps too. Militia and stealths are fine in my opinion as they are right now. (this is more from a scenario point of view than competitive but its still not used a lot in competitive either)

I just think we should decrease the cost of the upgrade. The strat is decently strong in some settings outside of Europe where income is much lower than in Europe+. And you can still make it work in Europe+ in some situations.

Kirjoittanut Alex, 25.11.2020 at 04:54

I feel like HW gets overshaowed by GC in east and in scenarios too because of how weak the attack of the inf is and how much the main att costs, i feel like some rebalancing in either the tank cost or the infantry units should happen, maybe one good change would be to remove the +10 cost on tanks so hw has more money for attack and it becomes more viable in other maps too. Militia and stealths are fine in my opinion as they are right now. (this is more from a scenario point of view than competitive but its still not used a lot in competitive either)

i don't see how it is overshadowed when hw plays differently than gc in east

I would say plus one range on marines and tanks. -1 range +10 cost inf. even it out