Infantry OP, should be -2 attack

This game makes no scence at all, most guys use infantry as main attack units, just build high numbers of infantry as main attack force cause its cheap, and expensive specialized units have no chance to match infantry, which anyway should be main defence force, not attacking force, so i suggest -2 attack on infantry, it not realistic for example 100 infantry beats 40-50 warships, which are 5-4 times expensive

Well, that's your problem, learn to manage your money better... inf can't have attack = 2. It's even lower than militia's attack... Infantries are not OP of you defend against them with more infantries.

You are totally right. Shame on 3vs3'ers using PD as an offensive strategy when the name say it is mean to defend, not attack.

---

Infantries [NO UPGRADES]

cost = 70
Attack = 4
Defense = 6 (+1 in cities)
Range = 6
Critical = 5

Infantries [ALL UPGRADES]

cost = 60
Attack = 4
Defense = 6 (+1 in cities)
Range = 7
Critical = 7

Tanks:

Cost = 120
Attack = 8
Defense = 4
Range = 7
Critical = 5

---

Fact 1: 70 cost and 120 cost are pretty balanced in my opinion. But when you get Expandable upgrade, your infantries cost 60. In this chase, two infantries are equal to one tank.

However, for attack neutrals is away better to use infantries. Taking up the chase of 2 infantries vs 1 militia OR 1 tank vs 1 militia, the infantries have advantage because:

- Infantries have more critical.
- 2 infantries have 14HP in total, one tank only have 7.

Is pretty safe to say, that two infantries have more chances of beating one militia than one tank. However, don't trust this because I say it, but look at the test:

- 2 infantries vs 1 militia. Sucess rate: 97.4%
- 1 tank vs 1 militia. Success rate: 74.7%

As you can see, the infantries beats the tanks on their own territory.

---

Fact 2: The attack - defense value seems pretty even when it is not affected by any strategy:

One infantry: Attack 4, Defense 6 (+1 in cities). In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 10 (11 in cities)
One Tank: Attack 8, Defense 4. In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 12.

Many players would say "The tank have advantage on 1vs1vs1 battle (Actually 3vs3'ers wouldn't, since they don't know what is being reinforce-efficient)". Those players are right on it. I'll explain this in the conclusion.

The Tank - Infantry conversion would be that, for pay double the amount of money you earn +4 attack and -2 defense (-3 defense if the bonus apply). In total, 2 extra rolls.

This is not ever closer to the middle value of an infantry (5 or 5.5). This is less than half, which again, makes the tank usage a bad decision (In terms of economy).

---

Fact 3: Coming directly from the fact 2 we can also see the variation of the Attack - Defense relation among the strategies. With Iron Fist being the strongest strategy in term of attack - defense (this was proven before), The tanks still kept up their advantage over the infantries. However let's compare the second strongest strategies for both units: RA and PD.

PD infantries: +1 defense (extra +1 in cities), -1 range and -10 cost. (I don't yet knows if the +1 def against tanks got removed)
RA Tanks: +1 attack, +1 defense, +2 critical, +1 range and -20 cost.

Assuming we are talking without the bonus the Tanks once again show advantage over the infantry:

RA tank: 9 attack, 5 defense, 8 range, 7 critical, 100 cost.
PD infantry: 4 attack, 7 defense, 6 range, 7 critical, 50 cost.

But when it comes to bonus, the infantries earn +2 ( or +3) defense, which clearly outcome the input:

RA Tanks: 9 attack, 5 defense, 8 range, 7 critical, 100 cost. In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 14.
PD infantry: 4 attack, 9 defense, 6 range, 7 critical, 50 cost. In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 11 (bonnus doesn't apply)

Once again, the Tank- Infantry conversion would be that, for paying double the amount of one infantry, you earn +5 attack, -4 defense and +2 range. This is not ever closer to the middle value of an infantry (6.5), which again, makes the tank (and the strategy in general) a bad choice.

---

Fact 4: The Infantries haves bonuses against [ALL] the units when they are on cities or wall. Only an Helicopter user can overcome this. But still, the +2 whole country bonus goes with the -2 defense against helicopter. Which bring us to a 50 cost 7 defense vs 130 cost 8 attack battle.

¿Would you pay extra 80 cash for +1 attack?

---

Conclusion: Many players(Specially those who doesn't ever play RA anymore) would argue that the tanks would win in a battle in which we have infinite money, but limited reinforcements. This is true for the Attack part only. One infantry alone have 6 defense (7 in city) while one tank have 5 defense. I'll leave up this tab:

1- Limited reinforcements, Limited income: The infantries are better than the Tanks.

2- Unlimited reinforcements, Limited income: The infantries are better than the Tanks.

3- Unlimited reinforcements, Unlimited income: The Infantries and The Tanks are balanced. Tanks win at offensive, infantries at defensive.

4- Limited reinforcements, Unlimited income: The Infantries and The Tanks are balanced. Tanks win at offensive, infantries at defensive.

While infantry win two of the 4 situation, the other two are tie up.


What does this mean?

There is no situation in which you will have to use full tanks without being efficient.

The sentence above was mean to the income-reinforcements factors. Assuming the reinfs and income does not matter (you have both unlimited):

When Attacking, Full Tanks > Full Infantries.
in 1vs1vs1 battles, Full Tanks > Full infantries.
For movement, Full Tanks > Full Infantries.

When Defending, Full Infantries > Full Tanks.
When walling, Full Infantries > Full Tanks.
In presence of "General" unit, Full Infantries > Full Tanks.

---

Solution (So you don't think I am simply complaining):

Remove Expandable infantries or add cost upgrades for the other units.
Balance RA and PD nerfs/boost (I explained this on other post. )
Balance the cost among the units (One infantry should cost 3/4 of a tank).
Add new upgrades for the other units, which balance the Attack-Defense value.
Balance the cost-max roll retribution (A Tank should have at least half of the infantries max rolls). Your -2 attack suggestion fits here, but I'd suggest -1 attack or -1 defense instead.

As a sidenote I really like Talos Greek World because the infantries and Tanks are pretty balanced there ( 90 cost infantries, 120 cost Cavalry/Tanks)..

I believe adding upgrades for main attack units would be the easiest way to balance the issue something like expendable main attack cost 30k sp or so and gives -10 cost to tanks ?

I agree with clovis. Infantry is too strong, when compared with tanks.
But I'm skeptical of giving Infantry -2 attack. Infantry has, especially in rough terrain, been used in real life as offensive units after the invention of tanks, after all.
Perhaps a +1 range to tanks and -1 range to infantry?

Напишано од International, 12.01.2015 at 02:20

I agree with clovis. Infantry is too strong, when compared with tanks.
But I'm skeptical of giving Infantry -2 attack. Infantry has, especially in rough terrain, been used in real life as offensive units after the invention of tanks, after all.
Perhaps a +1 range to tanks and -1 range to infantry?

I don't believe nerfing inf is the issue I think buffing tanks a little is a better solution but that's just opinion

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

You are totally right. Shame on 3vs3'ers using PD as an offensive strategy when the name say it is mean to defend, not attack.

COME ON CLOVIS! You should know better than that... Offensive, really?? Is this some sort of joke?? Would you really just suicide all your units over an infantry stack as if you thought infantry were tanks??? PD is meant to play defensive and wait for an enemy fail... and I really hope you don't play it as if you were RA.

Strategies aren't meant to be counters to other strategies so comparing PD and RA is just useless. Besides, you didn't pay attention to an essential fact, the circunstances. Not only economical, but also geographical for example. RA is way better than PD in long distances.

Напишано од Exo-K, 12.01.2015 at 01:22

I believe adding upgrades for main attack units would be the easiest way to balance the issue something like expendable main attack cost 30k sp or so and gives -10 cost to tanks ?

If you're gonna boost tanks, you're gonna have to boost every single other unit in the map to make it balanced again.

Напишано од International, 12.01.2015 at 02:20

I agree with clovis. Infantry is too strong, when compared with tanks.
But I'm skeptical of giving Infantry -2 attack. Infantry has, especially in rough terrain, been used in real life as offensive units after the invention of tanks, after all.
Perhaps a +1 range to tanks and -1 range to infantry?

I doubt infantries can be considered as "too strong", even when compared to tanks. +1 range to tanks would make them too op for RA or even for blitz. -1 range for infantry would make it like IF infantry but without the attack boost that the raise in HP gives to IF. In any case, I don't think that solves much, it will just unbalance some strategies in front of others.

Little suggestion to all you fags constantly bitching about infantry being over used:

♥ Start playing less turn time

• you wont have time to use up all your reinforcements ....etc. etc.
• this will lead to leftovers of cash at every turn
• and suddenly you might find yourself using TANKS, HELICOPTERS, fucking STEALTH BOMBERS in a 10k game ...while playing PD or any other strategy

Terrible idea, youd have to redesign the entire strat dynamic since youd essentially be turning all the inf based strats into weaker versions of gc. Its hard enough to get people to accept minor nerfs/boosts to the strats nvm this. Not to mention nobody in this thread arguing for this has thought this through.

Ever play blitz/ra/ds vs blitz/ra/ds? its basically attempting to catch the other opponents units on defense where they are weaker, constantly trading cities. It is extremely tedious, that is what you would turn this game into if you "balanced" the costs of offensive and defensive units.

Also allow me to make several corrections to clovis' troll post.

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

However, for attack neutrals is always better to use infantries.

incorrect. If you are gw in particular it is better to use militias. In terms of cost efficiency with almost all strats its often better to use militias. however in cases where you have money and want to maximise your expansion then you should use offensive units since you need to send less to overcome a neutral.

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

- Infantries have more critical.

incorrect, as we discussed the other day, the crit stats displayed for ra tanks sm bombers and mos marines are incorrect. You can hit 10 pd inf with 10 sm bombers, the bombers will always win in spite of the pd inf having more defense.

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

Many players would say "The tank have advantage on 1vs1vs1 battle (Actually 3vs3'ers wouldn't, since they don't know what is being reinforce-efficient)".

incorrect, if you understand basic math you should be able to get a grasp on reinforcement efficiency, this isnt influenced by what map you play. Since competitive players play to challenge each other and to optimise their gameplay, it is more likely they will understand these things than a player who focuses on learning to roleplay.

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

You are totally right. Shame on 3vs3'ers using PD as an offensive strategy when the name say it is mean to defend, not attack.

---

Infantries [NO UPGRADES]

cost = 70
Attack = 4
Defense = 6 (+1 in cities)
Range = 6
Critical = 5

Infantries [ALL UPGRADES]

cost = 60
Attack = 4
Defense = 6 (+1 in cities)
Range = 7
Critical = 7

Tanks:

Cost = 120
Attack = 8
Defense = 4
Range = 7
Critical = 5

---

Fact 1: 70 cost and 120 cost are pretty balanced in my opinion. But when you get Expandable upgrade, your infantries cost 60. In this chase, two infantries are equal to one tank.

However, for attack neutrals is away better to use infantries. Taking up the chase of 2 infantries vs 1 militia OR 1 tank vs 1 militia, the infantries have advantage because:

- Infantries have more critical.
- 2 infantries have 14HP in total, one tank only have 7.

Is pretty safe to say, that two infantries have more chances of beating one militia than one tank. However, don't trust this because I say it, but look at the test:

- 2 infantries vs 1 militia. Sucess rate: 97.4%
- 1 tank vs 1 militia. Success rate: 74.7%

As you can see, the infantries beats the tanks on their own territory.

---

Fact 2: The attack - defense value seems pretty even when it is not affected by any strategy:

One infantry: Attack 4, Defense 6 (+1 in cities). In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 10 (11 in cities)
One Tank: Attack 8, Defense 4. In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 12.

Many players would say "The tank have advantage on 1vs1vs1 battle (Actually 3vs3'ers wouldn't, since they don't know what is being reinforce-efficient)". Those players are right on it. I'll explain this in the conclusion.

The Tank - Infantry conversion would be that, for pay double the amount of money you earn +4 attack and -2 defense (-3 defense if the bonus apply). In total, 2 extra rolls.

This is not ever closer to the middle value of an infantry (5 or 5.5). This is less than half, which again, makes the tank usage a bad decision (In terms of economy).

---

Fact 3: Coming directly from the fact 2 we can also see the variation of the Attack - Defense relation among the strategies. With Iron Fist being the strongest strategy in term of attack - defense (this was proven before), The tanks still kept up their advantage over the infantries. However let's compare the second strongest strategies for both units: RA and PD.

PD infantries: +1 defense (extra +1 in cities), -1 range and -10 cost. (I don't yet knows if the +1 def against tanks got removed)
RA Tanks: +1 attack, +1 defense, +2 critical, +1 range and -20 cost.

Assuming we are talking without the bonus the Tanks once again show advantage over the infantry:

RA tank: 9 attack, 5 defense, 8 range, 7 critical, 100 cost.
PD infantry: 4 attack, 7 defense, 6 range, 7 critical, 50 cost.

But when it comes to bonus, the infantries earn +2 ( or +3) defense, which clearly outcome the input:

RA Tanks: 9 attack, 5 defense, 8 range, 7 critical, 100 cost. In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 14.
PD infantry: 4 attack, 9 defense, 6 range, 7 critical, 50 cost. In 1vs1vs1 battle, it equals to 11 (bonnus doesn't apply)

Once again, the Tank- Infantry conversion would be that, for paying double the amount of one infantry, you earn +5 attack, -4 defense and +2 range. This is not ever closer to the middle value of an infantry (6.5), which again, makes the tank (and the strategy in general) a bad choice.

---

Fact 4: The Infantries haves bonuses against [ALL] the units when they are on cities or wall. Only an Helicopter user can overcome this. But still, the +2 whole country bonus goes with the -2 defense against helicopter. Which bring us to a 50 cost 7 defense vs 130 cost 8 attack battle.

¿Would you pay extra 80 cash for +1 attack?

---

Conclusion: Many players(Specially those who doesn't ever play RA anymore) would argue that the tanks would win in a battle in which we have infinite money, but limited reinforcements. This is true for the Attack part only. One infantry alone have 6 defense (7 in city) while one tank have 5 defense. I'll leave up this tab:

1- Limited reinforcements, Limited income: The infantries are better than the Tanks.

2- Unlimited reinforcements, Limited income: The infantries are better than the Tanks.

3- Unlimited reinforcements, Unlimited income: The Infantries and The Tanks are balanced. Tanks win at offensive, infantries at defensive.

4- Limited reinforcements, Unlimited income: The Infantries and The Tanks are balanced. Tanks win at offensive, infantries at defensive.

While infantry win two of the 4 situation, the other two are tie up.


What does this mean?

There is no situation in which you will have to use full tanks without being efficient.

The sentence above was mean to the income-reinforcements factors. Assuming the reinfs and income does not matter (you have both unlimited):

When Attacking, Full Tanks > Full Infantries.
in 1vs1vs1 battles, Full Tanks > Full infantries.
For movement, Full Tanks > Full Infantries.

When Defending, Full Infantries > Full Tanks.
When walling, Full Infantries > Full Tanks.
In presence of "General" unit, Full Infantries > Full Tanks.

---

Solution (So you don't think I am simply complaining):

Remove Expandable infantries or add cost upgrades for the other units.
Balance RA and PD nerfs/boost (I explained this on other post. )
Balance the cost among the units (One infantry should cost 3/4 of a tank).
Add new upgrades for the other units, which balance the Attack-Defense value.
Balance the cost-max roll retribution (A Tank should have at least half of the infantries max rolls). Your -2 attack suggestion fits here, but I'd suggest -1 attack or -1 defense instead.

As a sidenote I really like Talos Greek World because the infantries and Tanks are pretty balanced there ( 90 cost infantries, 120 cost Cavalry/Tanks)..

Great analyzing, anyway just to say RaulPB i know how to manage my economy its not actually problem, in usual games i beat infantry stacks, just think they are to cheap in terms of attacking power, for me its easy to make stack of infantry and beat opponent, but its very boring in type of games like GGG, no one use any other units cause they are to expensive, so all wars are infantry stack vs infantry stack mostly, and transports ( for sea battlles ), no one using other types of units as warships, dragoons, cavalry, or using very small amount, which is boring

Cry more. Leave everything how it is.
Just learn how to counter attack spam infantry.

PD:

Militia with gen = 7 defense +1hp

20 cost for OP unit

infantry with gen = 10 defense (+1 vs tanks)

50 cost for OP unit....

i say remove +1 vs tanks and remove militia defense in cities

Nerf pd

This is cry

In at-war offense is greater than defense. with nerfing infantry, it better to get Rentless attack is a better of the choice :0
Ra is as strong as Pd tbh honest it just that infantry can be reinfoce faster

Напишано од Goblin, 12.01.2015 at 05:37

Little suggestion to all you fags constantly bitching about infantry being over used:

♥ Start playing less turn time

• you wont have time to use up all your reinforcements ....etc. etc.
• this will lead to leftovers of cash at every turn
• and suddenly you might find yourself using TANKS, HELICOPTERS, fucking STEALTH BOMBERS in a 10k game ...while playing PD or any other strategy

Напишано од Guest, 12.01.2015 at 16:56

Напишано од Goblin, 12.01.2015 at 05:37

Little suggestion to all you fags constantly bitching about infantry being over used:

♥ Start playing less turn time

• you wont have time to use up all your reinforcements ....etc. etc.
• this will lead to leftovers of cash at every turn
• and suddenly you might find yourself using TANKS, HELICOPTERS, fucking STEALTH BOMBERS in a 10k game ...while playing PD or any other strategy

Death is even crazier then me with his 1min 10k games

I dont think it is an issue. every army in the world is made primarily out of infantry and tanks are second in the attack line regardless becasue they are too clunky and very easy targets and cost alot. realistically infantry is the attack unit of choice. vehicles are supportive entities on a battlefield.

Напишано од Netre, 12.01.2015 at 18:24

I dont think it is an issue. every army in the world is made primarily out of infantry and tanks are second in the attack line regardless becasue they are too clunky and very easy targets and cost alot. realistically infantry is the attack unit of choice. vehicles are supportive entities on a battlefield.

all wise all knowing dbryne

honestly didn't think of it that way but he is right

Напишано од Permamuted, 12.01.2015 at 06:26

Also allow me to make several corrections to clovis' troll post...

You over looked this.

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

4- Limited reinforcements, Unlimited income: The Infantries and The Tanks are balanced. Tanks win at offensive, infantries at defensive.

With unlimited cash, a player who purely pumps out tanks will always lose against a player who pumps out infantry.
Between tanks and infantries, infantries will always be preferred over the tank simply because this game heavily rewards those who play defensively.
This is precisely why defensive strategies will always reign over offensive ones.

There is always something to cry about isnt it?

Infantry OP in a sense that resources are limited, and also thanks to the mechanism of the game. We need not concern about food that feeds a huge army. Infantry can also fly up high and kill bombers over the sky. These factors lead to infantry spam every game. It is weird when the use of tanks make you tagged as a noob. Defensive-biased game play and mechanism gives rises to your claims.

Напишано од Leaf, 13.01.2015 at 02:36

Напишано од Permamuted, 12.01.2015 at 06:26

Also allow me to make several corrections to clovis' troll post...

You over looked this.

Напишано од clovis1122, 12.01.2015 at 00:47

4- Limited reinforcements, Unlimited income: The Infantries and The Tanks are balanced. Tanks win at offensive, infantries at defensive.

With unlimited cash, a player who purely pumps out tanks will always lose against a player who pumps out infantry.
Between tanks and infantries, infantries will always be preferred over the tank simply because this game heavily rewards those who play defensively.
This is precisely why defensive strategies will always reign over offensive ones.

You would think so however this isnt true.

here is 5 battles of 10 ra tanks vs 10 pd inf.



The tanks always win inspite of them having 9 attack and the inf having 10 def.

It is what i meant when i said this.

Напишано од Permamuted, 12.01.2015 at 06:26

the crit stats displayed for ra tanks sm bombers and mos marines are incorrect. You can hit 10 pd inf with 10 sm bombers, the bombers will always win in spite of the pd inf having more defense.

if you have the money, youre better off with the offensive units. ra tanks sm bombers and mos marines even have superior defense vs attacking inf. I remember challenging learsters mos europe with pd asia once. i was surprised at how his marine stacks were able to confront my pd stacks directly. i didnt expect such an even trade.

edit: extra tests to show





the bomber tests showed a little variance, but you get the idea. in the cases of the bombers and the marines both have 8 attack vs 9 defense. 9/10 times they won, and this isnt even with particularly large stacks.

Напишано од MURAD IV, 12.01.2015 at 06:57

Great analyzing, anyway just to say RaulPB i know how to manage my economy its not actually problem, in usual games i beat infantry stacks, just think they are to cheap in terms of attacking power, for me its easy to make stack of infantry and beat opponent, but its very boring in type of games like GGG, no one use any other units cause they are to expensive, so all wars are infantry stack vs infantry stack mostly, and transports ( for sea battlles ), no one using other types of units as warships, dragoons, cavalry, or using very small amount, which is boring

That analysis is pure theory. Not aplicable to the game with it's circumstances. RA is way stronger than you really think. The problem is that RA needs a bit more of money or else you don't have the hability to spam tanks all together. With PD you can spam nearly all your reinforcements in one single turn, with RA you need 2/3 turns to spam all those tanks but at the end you beat all the PD infantry. The problem is that people do not defend well meanwhile playing RA, so a PD player can take his reinforcements before the RA player has been able to use them. If you know everyone plays PD, why don't you counter it?? As if you couldn't play other strategies... Blitz, GW, RA, IF, NC, MoS, Imp, etc. If you're bored it's your problem for not trying anything else or taking a risk... PD isn't just about spamming freaking infantries all over, god dammit... PD can be freaking vulnerable once you've defended properly your own cities and limited his expansion, which is hard for a PD player with inf, or when you overwhelm him with superior range. Just... experience....

Напишано од Permamuted, 13.01.2015 at 05:03

the bomber tests showed a little variance, but you get the idea. in the cases of the bombers and the marines both have 8 attack vs 9 defense. 9/10 times they won, and this isnt even with particularly large stacks.

Actually 8/10 times * D: <3
I agree with laochra though, PD infantry are to much overrated

Напишано од Permamuted, 13.01.2015 at 05:03

Thanks for showing the testing... it sure is worse than expected! (Was hoping inf would give a bit more of a fight )

EDIT: what if those were the way round? Inf attacking marines, bombers and tanks??

Напишано од Exo-K, 13.01.2015 at 00:53

Напишано од Netre, 12.01.2015 at 18:24

I dont think it is an issue. every army in the world is made primarily out of infantry and tanks are second in the attack line regardless becasue they are too clunky and very easy targets and cost alot. realistically infantry is the attack unit of choice. vehicles are supportive entities on a battlefield.

all wise all knowing dbryne

honestly didn't think of it that way but he is right

haha what am doing studying engineering i should have went into the military career path

Напишано од RaulPB, 13.01.2015 at 05:36

Напишано од Permamuted, 13.01.2015 at 05:03

Thanks for showing the testing... it sure is worse than expected! (Was hoping inf would give a bit more of a fight )

EDIT: what if those were the way round? Inf attacking marines, bombers and tanks??

i should add the rank 4 account doesnt have lucky inf. but the effects of that on such a small battle would be negligible.

should be the same roughly, marines have 3 base def, +1 in city and+1 vs inf so 5 overall if you choose to defend with them, the sm bombers and ra tanks both have 5 base def.

Its a good thing they are stronger, so pd isnt godlike. I just wish the stats on them were displayed correctly.

I dont talk about games with tanks i talk about medieval games, i use SM in modern worlds anyway, every medieval games all just make infantry which is very boring, just whoever has bigger stack and more allies wins...

Напишано од MURAD IV, 13.01.2015 at 09:17

I dont talk about games with tanks i talk about medieval games, i use SM in modern worlds anyway, every medieval games all just make infantry which is very boring, just whoever has bigger stack and more allies wins...

I know you are but still, there usually are cavalry units and stealth units as well. RA, MoS, GW, NC, Blitz, IF, etc still are available to play those maps. Try different things..... Don't just cry and stand still, go there and kill some PD players!!