Treatise: Strategy Changes

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

To those that fear it will mess up scenario balances, for a long time, we played the game in the same manner, we have played a game of attrition. I say it is time we think about adding more complexities, more variation. You mapmakers are dedicated and smart individual, and I do not doubt your skills to re-balance any changes. I believe in your abilities to keep your scenario and maps interesting in the face of changes.

I present the community with my ideas:

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

I do not have time to address everyone individually, but do note I am reading every post and taking into account what people are saying!

Are you fucking kidding me, you will make IF, GC, HW and LB very op...

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

To those that fear it will mess up scenario balances, for a long time, we played the game in the same manner, we have played a game of attrition. I say it is time we think about adding more complexities, more variation. You mapmakers are dedicated and smart individual, and I do not doubt your skills to re-balance any changes. I believe in your abilities to keep your scenario and maps interesting in the face of changes.

I present the community with my ideas:

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

I do not have time to address everyone individually, but do note I am reading every post and taking into account what people are saying!

you drunk? This doesnt add more complexity and variation. You just made each of the strats stronger at what they already do. Bar NC which you just nerfed for some unfathomable reason.

As someone returning to AW after a year+ away, a couple of thoughts:

1) I'm all for refining the strats to help distinguish them. Each will show themselves after extensive gameplay, so I'm hoping if something gets too meta/OP you'll dial it back. This happens in Clash of Clans all the time - people complain then players and Softcell adjust accordingly, but they keep trying to improve the overall gameplay.

2) There are 3 levels of play here - beginner, mid-rank, and experienced. I'd be concerned if any of the changes make some maps unplayable for mid-ranks in particular - for example doesn't -30 cost to helicopters makes every Rank 9+ with the stealth upgrades unstoppable to anyone except other Rank 9+. Also NC was just looking more useful for a beginner/mid-ranker, but now is "why bother? unless you're New Zealand" or "if you like getting steamrolled" as it was before except in rare instances...

3) CW and 3v3 should be like Chess - very static where the differences are in creativity, luck, timing... not necessarily where you have more upgrades here to max out a particular strat or where a particular strat with a particular country is just OP. Of course it is up to folks creating a game/CW/duel as well as the players agreeing to play it, but something to consider to preserve that part of the game.

Dragnach

Stop messing with strategies already. It gets annoying having to learn all the new buffs and nerfs to strategies...


and dont add +1 range to IF mil... come on
and NC Inf are weak enough as it is, you want to weaken them more?
and GC will be too OP

later

I think NC would be nerfed too much and it would make it unplayable in 3v3/2v2 for inf are a main unit for the stratagy

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

To those that fear it will mess up scenario balances, for a long time, we played the game in the same manner, we have played a game of attrition. I say it is time we think about adding more complexities, more variation. You mapmakers are dedicated and smart individual, and I do not doubt your skills to re-balance any changes. I believe in your abilities to keep your scenario and maps interesting in the face of changes.

It's fine, but don't forget that it's admins the one who need to provide the tools to MapMakers. There are certain mechanics (capacity, collateral, negative range, etc) which can't be edited otherwise.

Alright I'm gonna comment on the changes, with what I believe is the importance of the issue and my reasoning.

---

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

Somewhat important.

This was already implemented. The Heli change was needed(I'm not gonna make a call on it, as it is too soon), but as was already discussed the Anti-Air change is not only unrealistic but also fails to address the issue which is about the AA's lacking of efficiency (for the same cost you can buy 3 None infantries which are better at the job).

Regardless, AA's are still used by the majority of the players, although we wished it to be (a bit) more viable to use, that's not a concern. A cost reduction (to increase the efficiently) must be deal with caution because it could cripple the air-related strategies.

An interesting proposal would'be to raise the cost up to 220 (+40 cost), but also to increase the base defense by +4 (making it 8 base defense after buying the upgrade). The catch here is that the AA's will have 16 defense against airplanes. This number is magical - because due to the game mechanics, the lowest possible roll for the AA will be 8. Therefore, an AA would kill at least 1 aircraft guaranteed! Furthermore, 8 base defense is rather good as it matched the power of the common offensive units, giving some utility to the AA's.


To put the things in perspective, I made the following calculations:

4 SM bombers vs 4 None infantries -> ~30% chances that the infantries win.
4 SM bombers vs 1 modified AA -> ~25% chances that the AA win.

So for +20 cost, the infantries are slight more efficient but at a deadly 4:1 reinfs ratio. This sounds reasonable to me, considering that the AA is a quality-over-quantity unit which shouldn't be mass produced.

---

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Very, very important.

Wow, a blazing change. I like it but:

A) Consider removing the cost reduction. As many people have stated here, having a 9-attack-80-cost-tank would'be pretty OP. It would beat GW Marines / IMP Infantries at cost-efficiently (which is bad) being only below the militias. Now, 5 attack infantry is something that I'd really love to see, but along with a cost reduction I think that would'be rather pretty strong.

I can get the point of RA having a solid and efficient attack power at the cost of a pretty bad defense, but I believe that this can be exploited, specially in 3k games. You could expand for max reinf and just thrown tanks at whatever country your enemy might have. Since your attacking power is bigger, you should overexpand him trust outnumbering him.

B) The Marine Boost / Nerf, as well as the Militia boost are pointless. Theses units are unlikely to be used offensively (marines still too costly, militias lack of range) while also being out of theme. Do note that I do support the Militia Nerf as a counter balance.

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Not important at all.

I'm myself a big fan of the IF boost, but...

The strategies are alright, long though balanced. There was a poll to pick the weakest strategy and theses two also ranked among the less weak. GC is pretty good at the moment with GC Ukr being rampant, while IF is still a lot popular in custom maps and scenarios.

There's no issue with either of the strategies - why ever touch them?

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Not important

Reason:

The destroyer cap is a must, but most of the maps had banished destroyers from the existence by now. I don't consider it to be a priority.

Also the other changes looks bad - let's not forget that NC is a naval-oriented strategy (duh) but the major of the battles happens in-land (not duh). The today's NC player is used to chain and move big amounts of infantries across the map, and I don't think that Nerfing that particular unit will make anygood. The transport tweaks looks rather radical, too.

The strategy [Apart of the capacity boost] is pretty decent. Why ever touch it?

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Somewhat important I guess.

Alright, I know that LB is considered the 2nd weakest strategy of the game, but if you ask any competitive player or if you filter the polls [Check: Universali's poll results ] you'll find otherwise. It is pretty OP in scenarios, the strongest strategies for a dozen of rushes atm, and quite cheap for it's firepower considering the [not really needed] cost reduction tweaks applied previously.

So my stance is a big no here. But other people may disagree...

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Very important.

I don't myself understand how this change is going to help HW. Could use some explanation.

Quota:

Scritto da Permamuted, 17.02.2017 at 08:55

you drunk? This doesnt add more complexity and variation. You just made each of the strats stronger at what they already do. Bar NC which you just nerfed for some unfathomable reason.

You are not mod anymore! Your opinion doesn't matter!!!

xaxaxax

Scritto da Dragnach, 17.02.2017 at 10:16

As someone returning to AW after a year+ away, a couple of thoughts:

1) I'm all for refining the strats to help distinguish them. Each will show themselves after extensive gameplay, so I'm hoping if something gets too meta/OP you'll dial it back. This happens in Clash of Clans all the time - people complain then players and Softcell adjust accordingly, but they keep trying to improve the overall gameplay.

2) There are 3 levels of play here - beginner, mid-rank, and experienced. I'd be concerned if any of the changes make some maps unplayable for mid-ranks in particular - for example doesn't -30 cost to helicopters makes every Rank 9+ with the stealth upgrades unstoppable to anyone except other Rank 9+. Also NC was just looking more useful for a beginner/mid-ranker, but now is "why bother? unless you're New Zealand" or "if you like getting steamrolled" as it was before except in rare instances...

3) CW and 3v3 should be like Chess - very static where the differences are in creativity, luck, timing... not necessarily where you have more upgrades here to max out a particular strat or where a particular strat with a particular country is just OP. Of course it is up to folks creating a game/CW/duel as well as the players agreeing to play it, but something to consider to preserve that part of the game.

Dragnach

Welcome back my friend <3

Please try to get Silent One online too :$

I geuss 22 upvotes is enough to change the entire game lol.

IF:
The main reason why I want that +1 mov, and I always have been pushing for it, you can't wall with militia efficiently. This would make it suck anywhere other than a small map, and even in a small map still so annoying. I believe walling should be a universal thing for all militias, because walling makes the game more complex and with the amount of militias you get, its a lot.

RA:
The cost reduction for the marines is meant to give it more variety when playing larger maps.
We can trial run it without the cost reduction if the community wants to take smaller steps.

HW:
The theory behind this is that an opponent can easily crush any marines that cap a city. So, if we make HW marines slightly better at defense in cities, this would lower the attrition and give the strategy a better fighting chance. The current AW is attrition warfare, so the cost reduction help alleviate the gap in quality & quantity. To counteract the buff, -1 cap on air tran.

Overall:
Who uses helicopters anywhere? beside DS players.
I think clovis ideas for buffing AA sounds better. Another idea would be increasing the critical.

^ crazy bad ideas

Scritto da Cthulhu, 18.02.2017 at 15:49

IF:
The main reason why I want that +1 mov, and I always have been pushing for it, you can't wall with militia efficiently. This would make it suck anywhere other than a small map, and even in a small map still so annoying. I believe walling should be a universal thing for all militias, because walling makes the game more complex and with the amount of militias you get, its a lot.

Zenith: Im mostly ok with the other stuff, I just want to protect IF...

One of the factors that makes IF fun to play is the fact that militias cant move without general. The strategy forces the player to build infantry to wall and attack, increasing the need for micromanagement. Walling is important like you said, but the strat forces you to use inf instead of mil, shouldn't be a problem. And you haven't been playing for 261 days, you shouldn't even be considered to make changes to a game you aren't playing.

Scritto da Cthulhu, 18.02.2017 at 15:49

IF:
The main reason why I want that +1 mov, and I always have been pushing for it, you can't wall with militia efficiently. This would make it suck anywhere other than a small map, and even in a small map still so annoying. I believe walling should be a universal thing for all militias, because walling makes the game more complex and with the amount of militias you get, its a lot.

RA:
The cost reduction for the marines is meant to give it more variety when playing larger maps.
We can trial run it without the cost reduction if the community wants to take smaller steps.

HW:
The theory behind this is that an opponent can easily crush any marines that cap a city. So, if we make HW marines slightly better at defense in cities, this would lower the attrition and give the strategy a better fighting chance. The current AW is attrition warfare, so the cost reduction help alleviate the gap in quality & quantity. To counteract the buff, -1 cap on air tran.

Overall:
Who uses helicopters anywhere? beside DS players.
I think clovis ideas for buffing AA sounds better. Another idea would be increasing the critical.

Here is my take:

I can support the IF change, but if you make IF militia move, don't give them a cost reduction.

RA does not need more cost reductions on tanks, much less inf. The range and the capability to concentrate so much attack (and tank def) is very powerful and unique to RA. I am not a fan of the marines change, but I can see a case for it. The only time I have seen an RA player use marines is whenever I am gw (The cost reduction would make this a naive move).

HW changes, I think they are lovely, but I think marines should still be weaker when compared to your standard gw marines. -1 AT cap? I can see the case for it, but in the end its kind of meaningless nerf, imo. Personally, I would prefer to have +1 range to mils to suit their role a bit better, but your change does address the fact that HW marines leave something to desire.

NC changes are a total no-no, having the capability to transport massive amounts of units using transports or destroyers is what made the strategy fun to play (especially in 3/5k). NC is fine where it is.

LB changes seem a bit crazy since it would result in essentially a crit buff for a 10 cost tax, lb is also fine where it is. Enhanced units without range nerfs like pd at a cost, this is what LB is about.

Buffing AA is alright, even if it is just buffing their range, although a price buff does have a case. -30 cost on helis, will probably go overlooked.

I dont understand why u guys want to buff aa, why would u give aa 9 range?????

it is fine as it is...

and why would marines get +3 def that would literally make them stealth super soldiers that are better than gw marines...

a lot of these buffs and nerfs make no sense...

Scritto da Helly, 18.02.2017 at 13:15

I geuss 22 upvotes is enough to change the entire game lol.

laochra changes it with zero you hypocrites

Scritto da Universali, 18.02.2017 at 16:17

Scritto da Cthulhu, 18.02.2017 at 15:49

IF:
The main reason why I want that +1 mov, and I always have been pushing for it, you can't wall with militia efficiently. This would make it suck anywhere other than a small map, and even in a small map still so annoying. I believe walling should be a universal thing for all militias, because walling makes the game more complex and with the amount of militias you get, its a lot.

RA:
The cost reduction for the marines is meant to give it more variety when playing larger maps.
We can trial run it without the cost reduction if the community wants to take smaller steps.

HW:
The theory behind this is that an opponent can easily crush any marines that cap a city. So, if we make HW marines slightly better at defense in cities, this would lower the attrition and give the strategy a better fighting chance. The current AW is attrition warfare, so the cost reduction help alleviate the gap in quality & quantity. To counteract the buff, -1 cap on air tran.

Overall:
Who uses helicopters anywhere? beside DS players.
I think clovis ideas for buffing AA sounds better. Another idea would be increasing the critical.

I can support the IF change, but if you make IF militia move, don't give them a cost reduction.

How can you possibly support the IF change? It dynamically changes everything about how the strategy is played. It seems to me like it would be PD with a small nerf to militias...

After talking with Cthulhu, it seems that the main reason IF is being changed is to favor larger maps, regardless of what it does to competitive play. His thought process is that militia that players get for free when taking cities should be allowed to wall, this is the only reason for adding the buffed range.

In my opinion, IF gives a player a tradeoff, stronger infantries for less movement. In this tradeoff, militias are used solely for defence in cities unless moved by a general. To wall, a person must use infantry, rather than militia. By being forced to use infantry to wall, the overwhelming power of IF is held in in check. Imagine how much stronger you would be if all the infantry you used to wall could be used for attacking. But if militias are allowed to wall, every single infantry will be used in battle, making IF an overpowered strategy and unbalanced.

Not only from the competitive EU+ scene either! Imagine if you are in a world game as IF, and you have all Asia. Think of how much walling with inf you did. HUNDREDS OF INFANTRY! By exchanging the infantry with FREE militias you now just gave a person 200 - 300 more infantry to use for battle. This strategy will become too OP if this proposed change happens.

PLEASE DON'T CHANGE IRON FIST ~CTHULHU!

Scritto da Nations, 20.02.2017 at 07:33

Scritto da Helly, 18.02.2017 at 13:15

I geuss 22 upvotes is enough to change the entire game lol.

laochra changes it with zero you hypocrites

Yes I like what Cthulhu is doing here. He set up a discussion for constructive criticism where everybody can participate and give their stance. Makes the whole process legit at least.

A big plus is that he's paying attention to the comments and removing the unpopular changes (those that many people have opposed to here). He removed the GC/LB/NC changes and agreed to a trial run of RA without the cost reduction. I'd really like to see the destroyer capacity removed, but I understand that is not a priority at the moment.

Taking up some of klevis ideas, I believe it would'be also great to have some polls <the oficial poll being one month after the change> to let the community play around with the changes and see how satisfied the community feels with them. If there's a lot of negativity then we can just roll back to the previous status.

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.02.2017 at 09:32

Scritto da Nations, 20.02.2017 at 07:33

Scritto da Helly, 18.02.2017 at 13:15

I geuss 22 upvotes is enough to change the entire game lol.

laochra changes it with zero you hypocrites

Yes I like what Cthulhu is doing here. He set up a discussion for constructive criticism where everybody can participate and give their stance. Makes the whole process legit at least.

A big plus is that he's paying attention to the comments and removing the unpopular changes (those that many people have opposed to here). He removed the GC/LB/NC changes and agreed to a trial run of RA without the cost reduction. I'd really like to see the destroyer capacity removed, but I understand that is not a priority at the moment.

Taking up some of klevis ideas, I believe it would'be also great to have some polls <the oficial poll being one month after the change> to let the community play around with the changes and see how satisfied the community feels with them. If there's a lot of negativity then we can just roll back to the previous status.

He pays no attention to my IF comments.

Scritto da Nations, 20.02.2017 at 07:33

Scritto da Helly, 18.02.2017 at 13:15

I geuss 22 upvotes is enough to change the entire game lol.

laochra changes it with zero you hypocrites

I never said loachra was right for doing so just I agreed with the changes made.

Scritto da Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

I enjoy playing a strategy where it feels unique. It needs to feel different from the rest. This is why I support changes that increase the contrast of strategies from one another.

While laochra was still a mod, we had debates on strategy improvements in a special mod forum. (The content which will not be shared ) He was a man who would recommend changes that tweak strategies to make them more equal with one another. To me, this creates a more bland taste, because even though the strategies may be balanced and fair, they would be boring. I guess more fun for the "competitive" scene (Small map/ low turn players).

I believe in changing the strategy to create more contrast, to bring more excitement. I want to make playing a strategy feel exciting and OP! If all strategies are OP, then none can be OP. A perfect imbalance you could say. Wasn't that RA suggestion fun to play?

I am against most nerfs, such as nerfing GW. That RA should have been nerfed with it def imo, and kept everything else. That would forced RA to be OP only in tank attacks.

I want you to upvote this if you are in favor of more contrast, more dynamic gameplay. Let's not play the entire game in a similar style.

For those of you who are against it, do not be worry, do not be scared. The strategies you know and love will stay the way you love. We are just going to make the poor strategies, the weak strategies, the unpopular strategies, great again!

#MakeStrategiesGreatAgain!!

UPDATE (As of 02.18.17):

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

so naval just be nerfed, already to weak,agree for hw

Remove the in city bonus gw marines have againsts infantry.

My fight for the HW: Please do not nerf HW AT, not even GW has such a nerf (A strategy whose nerfs are dedicated to hindering movement). Despite already having a huge overhead cost, you're going to nerf a unit so that it takes 5.4k SP to NORMALIZE and ANOTHER 24.3k to IMPROVE.

Just like you think walling should be universal, your transportation capacity should too.

Scritto da Zenith, 20.02.2017 at 09:36

He pays no attention to my IF comments.

Scritto da Zenith, 20.02.2017 at 08:59

After talking with Cthulhu

He did addressed you. That he didn't desist in the IF change doesn't means that he didn't payed attention to what you had to say.

By the way, I believe that there's a big flaw in your perception:

1) You can wall with IF militias by just moving them with sea or air transports.

2) The movement range is perhaps the second most important characteristic in a large maps, even with this boost IF will still be a no-no to, say, Eurasia (won't speak about LA/Africa due to the economy). IF can get outrun by all the other strategies and while you're sending your troops to defend a spot your opponent is already attacking another. Like,

P.S: Must remark again that this change has been implemented:

Scritto da Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

Scritto da Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

I dont see how this would make HW any better.. HW is fine as it is, ive used it frequently and found it OP in very many situations. Don't change this, HW is fine, it just takes thought and preplanning. If u ask me its stronger than GC because of the militia, its a lot more versatile than GC. Keep HW as it is, don't change it...

HW is already falsely deemed unplayable by most; this would make it unplayable for the few (like myself) who use it rountinely, which would kill the strat entirely.

Scritto da Sultan of Swing, 20.02.2017 at 21:18

Scritto da Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

I dont see how this would make HW any better.. HW is fine as it is, ive used it frequently and found it OP in very many situations. Don't change this, HW is fine, it just takes thought and preplanning. If u ask me its stronger than GC because of the militia, its a lot more versatile than GC. Keep HW as it is, don't change it...

HW is already falsely deemed unplayable by most; this would make it unplayable for the few (like myself) who use it rountinely, which would kill the strat entirely.

Scritto da Universali, 27.07.2016 at 20:49

This graph is filtered by players who are r9+ (36 Responses)


This graph is filtered by players who enjoy 3v3s / Clan Wars (29 Responses)


Finally, your desired graph is a combination of both of the filters above (22 Responses)


A similarity between the three is that Hybrid Warfare, Blitz, and Relentless Attack seem to consistently appear as the "worst" strategies with the applied filters; however, your Lucky Bastard "under-rated-ness" diminishes drastically. Instead, what we see is that Relentless Attack is not considered the "worst", implying that it is better than Hybrid Warfare and/or Blitz.

The numbers doesn't lie......

P.S: how is the ATS capacity supposed to ruin HW anyway.

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.02.2017 at 21:37

Scritto da Sultan of Swing, 20.02.2017 at 21:18

Scritto da Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

I dont see how this would make HW any better.. HW is fine as it is, ive used it frequently and found it OP in very many situations. Don't change this, HW is fine, it just takes thought and preplanning. If u ask me its stronger than GC because of the militia, its a lot more versatile than GC. Keep HW as it is, don't change it...

HW is already falsely deemed unplayable by most; this would make it unplayable for the few (like myself) who use it rountinely, which would kill the strat entirely.

Scritto da Universali, 27.07.2016 at 20:49

This graph is filtered by players who are r9+ (36 Responses)


This graph is filtered by players who enjoy 3v3s / Clan Wars (29 Responses)


Finally, your desired graph is a combination of both of the filters above (22 Responses)


A similarity between the three is that Hybrid Warfare, Blitz, and Relentless Attack seem to consistently appear as the "worst" strategies with the applied filters; however, your Lucky Bastard "under-rated-ness" diminishes drastically. Instead, what we see is that Relentless Attack is not considered the "worst", implying that it is better than Hybrid Warfare and/or Blitz.

The numbers doesn't lie......

P.S: how is the ATS capacity supposed to ruin HW anyway.

did u even read what the graphs are recording? they record opinion.. "opinion" note that.. OPINION. opinion doesn't equate to fact, i thought this was common sense. And, if u remember what i said, the majority of players don't like it because they don't try to use its advantages and actually try to use it. They try once and give up. Ive used it for about a full year now, and i can honestly say its won me a good share of games/cw.

also, just a side point, those graphs are not at all credible considering the number of players play this game, and those graphs only consist of 36 players.. kinda a small sample eh

Scritto da Cthulhu, 17.02.2017 at 00:52

To those that fear it will mess up scenario balances, for a long time, we played the game in the same manner, we have played a game of attrition. I say it is time we think about adding more complexities, more variation. You mapmakers are dedicated and smart individual, and I do not doubt your skills to re-balance any changes. I believe in your abilities to keep your scenario and maps interesting in the face of changes.

I present the community with my ideas:

Relentless Attack:
Tanks: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Militia: +1 Attack, -2 Defense
Infantry: +1 Attack, -1 Defense, -10 Cost
Marines: -30 Cost, -2 Def

Iron Fist:
Militia: +1 Mov, -10 Cost

G/C:
Tanks: -10 Cost
Infantry: -10 Cost

Hybrid Warfare:
Marines: -10 Cost, +3 Defense in cities
Air Tran: -1 Cap

Naval Commander:
Destroyer: -1 Cap
Transport: +2 Mov, -2 Def, -2 HP
Infantry: -1 Attack

Lucky Bastard:
-10 Cost to All units

Overall (Parts from Mod Forum):
+2 range to anti-air.
-30 cost to helicopters (This would fix DS)

I do not have time to address everyone individually, but do note I am reading every post and taking into account what people are saying!

Editor does not work for half and a majority of creators quite but nice job anyways xD

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.02.2017 at 21:04

Scritto da Zenith, 20.02.2017 at 09:36

He pays no attention to my IF comments.

Scritto da Zenith, 20.02.2017 at 08:59

After talking with Cthulhu

He did addressed you. That he didn't desist in the IF change doesn't means that he didn't payed attention to what you had to say.
By the way, I believe that there's a big flaw in your perception:
1) You can wall with IF militias by just moving them with sea or air transports.
2) The movement range is perhaps the second most important characteristic in a large maps, even with this boost IF will still be a no-no to, say, Eurasia (won't speak about LA/Africa due to the economy). IF can get outrun by all the other strategies and while you're sending your troops to defend a spot your opponent is already attacking another.

I finally got ahold of him yes, and I had a decent conversation with him. About the flaw, ok, you can wall with IF militias by seas or air trans, but what flaw does that bring to the table? I'm not criticizing you, just unsure of what you mean.

About the movement range, I believe the IF has a tradeoff to get stronger infantry. To get these infantry, you have to forgo the use of mobile militia. If you allow militia to be mobile, there is no nerf to the strategy outside of the -2 movement to all units except militia.

If a person was to use IF in a world game, this strategy now becomes way more overpowered than before, because you either save 210 cash per city by walling with free militia, or you get 3 extra infantry per city because you can wall with free militia. Say you have 100 cities, that is already 300 infantry more for use, or if you save the money, 21000 more coins. My hypothesis is that by adding mobile militia, the strategy becomes to unbalanced compared to other strategies. Just my opinion, you and Cthulhu may disagree with it, but that's not my problem.

Anyways, enough jabber from r8 noob for this post, later.

#SaveIronFist

Scritto da Sultan of Swing, 20.02.2017 at 21:47

did u even read what the graphs are recording? they record opinion.. "opinion" note that.. OPINION. opinion doesn't equate to fact, i thought this was common sense. And, if u remember what i said, the majority of players don't like it because they don't try to use its advantages and actually try to use it. They try once and give up. Ive used it for about a full year now, and i can honestly say its won me a good share of games/cw.

also, just a side point, those graphs are not at all credible considering the number of players play this game, and those graphs only consist of 36 players.. kinda a small sample eh

But Sultan, 36 players are actually a fair share if we group up all the current active players of the metagame.

But if you want facts, then you've plenty, as I believe many players had given reasons in the past about why HW is so weak. I'm myself don't remember theses threads but here was my stance:

Scritto da clovis1122, 28.11.2015 at 06:43

The strategy is hard by its nature. It requires you to know how to play with 4 (4!) main units, which are militias, infantries, marines and tanks.

> Militias have 4 attack but 2 defense and extra range, so you are ought to attack with them rather than def.
> Infantries have 7 defense and even a cost reduction (like PD), however they have 1 attack forcing you to use them purely for defense.
> Marines have 6 attack but 70 cost. They are purely for attack... and weaker than most of the other strategies's main attack unit.
> Tanks have 9 attack but 130 cost... This is just too high to consider them a main attack unit and I would support either extra range or a cost reduction or both for it. However I'm not sure if either of the changes would really fit the theme of the strategy.

Apart of those 4 you've got submarines, which are more or less useless (besides, forces you to use marines as main unit).

... And the typical strategy of Nerf useless units that aren't even used, like Stealth.

To sum up, the biggest problem is that you can't reuse the unit that you bought to adapt it to another situation... If you buy pure infs hoping to defend a rush and he doesn't rush, that means that you are fucked since there is no way to use that reinf for another thing.

I don't particularly understand how the proposed changed address this issue. But I assumed that Cthulhu and Universali are seeing something that I missed. I'm not myself an huger connoisseur of HW.

By the way since I had to search some threads I'd like to re-bring my idea of making the HW militia a defensive unit, coz Sultan, Tact and other guys agreed to it:

Scritto da clovis1122, 11.12.2015 at 08:35

We all know what is going on with this strategy. Literally the less versatile, harder to play, costly (in SP) and weakest game-play of all the strategies. I guess there is no need to introduction.

My proposal is to make the HW militias a defensive unit. Currently they have 4 attack, 2 defense and 3 range which forces you to attack with them (As they are so weak that even one IMP infantry could kill them). By making them a defensive unit the strategy would have 2 offensive units and 2 defensive units, trust improving the reuse of the units.

So the current boost (+1 att, -1 def, +1 range) would'be changed to: (+1 def, +2 range).

Scritto da Sultan of Swing, 11.12.2015 at 08:51

I like this idea. even without the +1 attack, you can still attack with them because of that range. atm if u attack anything with militia, you can't hold it. its almost better to attack with marines because its the same defense

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=23337