Strategies 2018

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.11.2018 at 19:24

BUMP

Remember to either upvote or comment the change that you'd like to see. Ideally, target one boost/nerf so that we have a more accurate metric on how valuable or supported it is. Broader posts that includes a lot of boosts/nerfs or that aren't conclusive enough are unlikely to be implemented.

In some days we'll decide which changes will make it to the next month!

Scritto da boywind2, 20.11.2018 at 19:26

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.11.2018 at 19:24

BUMP

Remember to either upvote or comment the change that you'd like to see. Ideally, target one boost/nerf so that we have a more accurate metric on how valuable or supported it is. Broader posts that includes a lot of boosts/nerfs or that aren't conclusive enough are unlikely to be implemented.

In some days we'll decide which changes will make it to the next month!

will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.11.2018 at 19:33

Scritto da boywind2, 20.11.2018 at 19:26

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.11.2018 at 19:24

BUMP

Remember to either upvote or comment the change that you'd like to see. Ideally, target one boost/nerf so that we have a more accurate metric on how valuable or supported it is. Broader posts that includes a lot of boosts/nerfs or that aren't conclusive enough are unlikely to be implemented.

In some days we'll decide which changes will make it to the next month!

will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?

They will. We'll probably split Boosts and Nerfs in two steps seeing that Steve's post have some support.

Quota:

Scritto da clovis1122, 20.11.2018 at 19:33

will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?

They will. We'll probably split Boosts and Nerfs in two steps seeing that Steve's post have some support.

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 00:37

I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 00:37

I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.

Scritto da 4nic, 21.11.2018 at 01:39

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 00:37

I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.

how about 20 cost milita?

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 16:42

Ok heres the updates: I'll add them to the op once theyre all agreed on. I added the suggestion by nic and critical to remove gw naval trans nerfs. It would fix that water map weakness gw has and improve it's viability on the low fund settings which imp is currently dominating hard.

I've also added a boost to gc to keep it relevant with the powerful lb and ironfist. Anyone who disagrees it isnt needed i suggest you do some tests of lb and ironfist tanks vs gc infantry. I may post some screenshots of that myself. I think it's debatable whether a marine def bonus is needed for gc too but the tank 1 is definitely needed.

Iron fist(IF):

+1 range to militia.

Lucky Bastard(LB):

-1 range to Infantry

Desert Storm(DS):

-1 def to helis

Master of Stealth:

-10 cost to infantry.

Guerilla Warfare(GW):

remove naval trans cost+range nerfs and restore it to 220.

Blitzkrieg:

+1 range to all units

Hybrid Warfare(HW):

+1 air transport capacity or -10 cost to militia

Sky Menace(HW):

+2 crit to infantry

Relentless Attack:

+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia

Great Combinator:

+1 def to infantry vs tanks

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 16:42

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 21.11.2018 at 20:32

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 16:42

I have an alternate proposal for GC.

How about instead of +1 def to inf or tanks, you have the following

Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost

This way you have to use a combination of naval units too. Destroyers will be the equivalent of the tanks while submarines will be the equivalent of the infantry.
Submarines will have 9 def vs destroyers and 8 def vs infantry and bombers so it will take the role of defending.

Scritto da 4nic, 21.11.2018 at 20:36

Scritto da Witch-Doctor, 21.11.2018 at 20:32

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 16:42

I have an alternate proposal for GC.

How about instead of +1 def to inf or tanks, you have the following

Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost

This way you have to use a combination of naval units too. Destroyers will be the equivalent of the tanks while submarines will be the equivalent of the infantry.
Submarines will have 9 def vs destroyers and 8 def vs infantry and bombers so it will take the role of defending.

sounds too complicated
its not even a +1 def for infs its just +1 against tanks its a minor buff

Scritto da Chess, 21.11.2018 at 21:07

Destroyers are just in a bad place, especially with the whole stack bonus being crazy. Costs for destroyers are way too high. I have reduced the cost of destroyers on my map by 20. NC destroyers are 150$ and still NC is not a beast despite all the port cities and water surrounding many countries. I just end up stacking militia and infantry instead of going for Destroyers.

Scritto da Guest, 22.11.2018 at 02:50

Scritto da Chess, 21.11.2018 at 21:07

Destroyers are just in a bad place, especially with the whole stack bonus being crazy. Costs for destroyers are way too high. I have reduced the cost of destroyers on my map by 20. NC destroyers are 150$ and still NC is not a beast despite all the port cities and water surrounding many countries. I just end up stacking militia and infantry instead of going for Destroyers.

You've never played NC germany with a Full Scandi vs UK

Scritto da boywind2, 22.11.2018 at 02:59

nc germany sucks ass

Scritto da Sultan of Swing, 06.11.2018 at 17:08

Getting back on topic to avoid derailing the entire thread, I would like to re-point out what Waffel said. I'm still not seeing an evidence as to why we shouldn't have consistency in strats. The only logic i've heard is that it will "spice things up" which will yield more activity. Clearly, as we have been tweaking strats for some time now, this just isn't the case. Obviously there are many other factors at play here, but I don't see how continually tweaking strategies will make things better. We'll end up with strats that are too op, others that are rendered eventually obsolete (blitz...) so why can't we just balance things, leave them at a SET standard, so we can stop bothering the admins with petty strat changes so they can actually work on implementing new things into the game, which many people have already asked for numerous times. That way, maybe instead of making old players who come back completely at a loss as to what all is going on with strategies, we can actually have strategies stay the same so that way when players do come back, theres not a massive learning curve. From this, now that admins didnt have to worry about changing strats, they can work on implementing and testing new things for the game, which will add more flavor than small tweaks that no one actually sees. In a game that is obviously dying, the solution isn't mechanical changes, but structural ones; which I think we are completely neglecting at the expense of strategy tweakings.

The pendulum will never stop swinging at this rate, and lets be real, no one will ever be truly happy with whatever changes are made. We have already begun to tumble down the slippery slope of allowing strategies to be changed at a frequent rate when players complain enough. Why can't we just stick with something?

Scritto da DireWarlord99, 27.11.2018 at 12:33

Just a general question, do people what these changes just because of how duels are being played nowadays? If so, changing the strats will have consequences on players who play scenarios. Though some of these changes are small, a slight buff or nerf can make senariors extremely unbalanced and force map makers to rework their maps to workaround the balance changes.

Also, seeing the opinions posted about the slight change of strats, for example, adding extra crit to inf when someone goes SM, the point of those strats is to focus a large majority of your army around your strat. People don't go SM because they want a good, infantry ground force. Strats should be solely focused on specific play style and army composition. Going back to SM, your focus is on the sky, not inf. Yes you can start with infantry and you can make them for a basic, powerful defense unit, but you have chosen to opt for a strong air army. What should be done is additional changes to the air army, not to ground units. This approach should be taken with other nerfs and buffs to strategies.

Scritto da Htin, 22.11.2018 at 02:39

Helicopter once had -1 defence to bomber and stealth bomber

Scritto da Permamuted, 21.11.2018 at 16:42

Ok heres the updates: I'll add them to the op once theyre all agreed on. I added the suggestion by nic and critical to remove gw naval trans nerfs. It would fix that water map weakness gw has and improve it's viability on the low fund settings which imp is currently dominating hard.

I've also added a boost to gc to keep it relevant with the powerful lb and ironfist. Anyone who disagrees it isnt needed i suggest you do some tests of lb and ironfist tanks vs gc infantry. I may post some screenshots of that myself. I think it's debatable whether a marine def bonus is needed for gc too but the tank 1 is definitely needed.

Iron fist(IF):

+1 range to militia.

Lucky Bastard(LB):

-1 range to Infantry

Desert Storm(DS):

-1 def to helis

Master of Stealth:

-10 cost to infantry.

Guerilla Warfare(GW):

remove naval trans cost+range nerfs and restore it to 220.

Blitzkrieg:

+1 range to all units

Hybrid Warfare(HW):

+1 air transport capacity or -10 cost to militia

Sky Menace(HW):

+2 crit to infantry

Relentless Attack:

+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia

Great Combinator:

+1 def to infantry vs tanks