Guerrilla Warfare: The Statistics

Over the past number of weeks there has been a lot of discussion on Guerrilla Warfare and it's power. All these posts have been trying to address the problem with Guerrilla Warfare logically, with a general consensus among the top tier players that it is imbalanced. Unfortunately there are still some apologists who are trying to excuse the imbalance through meaningless arguments. Now, we are going to look at things statistically. Cold, hard numbers.

Considering each strategy is unique in it's cost, attack, range, etc, we are going to break them down into Cost Per 1 Attack (CPA) and Cost Per 1 Defence (CPD)
This is done by dividing the attacking/defending power of the strategy's main attack/defence by the cost.
So for example, if I wanted to find the CPA of Blitzkrieg: 120 / 8 = $15
In the interest of clarity, the in-game currency used to purchase a unit will be referred to as "$".
Lucky Bastard has been given +1.5 attack due to it's potential tank and infantry attacking power.
Iron Fist has been given +1 attack and +1.5 defence to compensate for its HP.
Great Combinator has been excluded from this sample as it is the outlier. It would not be represented accurately using this method.



Cost Per Attack
*Main attack unit's cost / attack*

Blitzkrieg: $15
Desert Storm: $16.25
Hybrid Warfare: $14.44
Imperialist: $12.86
Iron Fist: $13.33
Lucky Bastard: $13.68
Master of Stealth: $15
Naval Commander: $15.45
Perfect Defence: $17.14
Relentless Attack: $11.25
Sky Menace: $16.25

Most cost efficient attack: Guerrilla Warfare: $10



Cost Per Defence
*Main defence unit's cost / defence*

Blitzkrieg: $12.5
Desert Storm: $11.1
Hybrid Warfare: $9
Imperialist: $5
Iron Fist: $8.7
Lucky Bastard: $10
Master of Stealth: $10
Naval Commander: $20 (Naval) 10$ (Land)
Perfect Defence: $7.14
Relentless Attack: $13.3
Sky Menace: $10

Most cost-efficient defence: Guerrilla Warfare: $5, Imperialist: $5

So, Guerrilla Warfare is the most cost efficient strategy to attack with AND to defend with. That's not enough?

Cost Per Range
*Cost of Main Attack, Main Defence and Secondary Defence / Average Range

Blitzkrieg: $9.58
Desert Storm: $11.5
Hybrid Warfare: $13.75
Imperialist: $9.33
Iron Fist: $24.4
Lucky Bastard: $15.33
Master of Stealth: $15.7
Naval Commander: $ 12.3(Naval) $15.7 (Land)
Perfect Defence: $13.33
Relentless Attack: $13.13
Sky Menace: $9.2
Guerrilla Warfare: $12 ($11 if you exclude infantry, as they are almost never used by GW)

Most cost-efficient range: Sky Menace, Imperialist, Blitzkrieg, Guerrilla Warfare.

It also ranks 4th in range efficiency out of 13 strategies in the game, including Blitzkrieg, who's WHOLE PURPOSE is range.
I hear one apologist in particular argue; "but my air transports cost 750".
The whole point of Air Transports is to move units faster from one city so they can defend another city. If your main attack unit is Invisible there's no NEED to move these defensive units so urgently. This depletes the value of the air transport drastically.

In summary:
•Most cost efficient attack
•Most cost efficient defence
•Top strategy for range
•Invisible Main Attack
•Gain your main defence unit every time you capture a country (e.g take Belarus with 4 marines, get 5 militia in return)

There really is no defending GW anymore. Open your eyes.

Remove the City Defence Bonus for GW Militia.
-1 Attack For Militia

I suggest -2att for militia,marines cost 120 and -2 def for marines

Напишано од Nations, 24.05.2018 at 16:23

I suggest -2att for militia,marines cost 120 and -2 def for marines

not enough

Напишано од 4nic, 24.05.2018 at 16:25

Напишано од Nations, 24.05.2018 at 16:23

I suggest -2att for militia,marines cost 120 and -2 def for marines

not enough

this evil strat needs delete

-1 Attack for Militia (those these can low key hit hard)
-1 Defense for Militia
+10 Cost for marines(70 fucking cost guys, get fucking real)

With other adjustments
-2 Critical LB
(just to satisfy these damn crybabies)

Maybe some DS tweaks

Another point, you ever notice how if you cap any strat except gw, its almost always GG, but when you face gw they have the marine range chaining and dirt cheap units to recap with like 100+ marines after turn 9.

Nerf Guerilla Cancer

Напишано од The Sphinx, 24.05.2018 at 16:26

-1 Attack for Militia (those these can low key hit hard)
-1 Defense for Militia
+10 Cost for marines(70 fucking cost guys, get fucking real)

With other adjustments
-2 Critical LB

Maybe some DS tweaks

Another point, you ever notice how if you cap any strat except gw, its almost always GG, but when you face gw they have the marine range chaining and dirt cheap units to recap with like 100+ marines after turn 9.

Nerf Guerilla Cancer

-2 att mil -2def +100 cost marines

Wheelo sucking me in duel really hurt you didnt it? You post on forums and have me muted because you cant stand the truth.Also this survey is so retarded.So PD has less attack efficiency than all? Blitz better attack than PD? GW better def than pd? Your "survey" doesnt even calculate range correctly."gw top strategy for range".Hahahaha ok.Look if it will make u happy and make u feel better go ahead nerf it.You really seem to need it.No joke.

Man u have to autistic to calculate all this.

https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient

I want to tear my eyes off with all this that I'm seeing.

I would give ds helis 9 att due to the defence bonus. It should be represented in some small way in the calculation so their offensive power is higher than sm bombers. also i would give ironfist 1.5 att and 1 def. The hp additions are more significant to the strats offensive power than its defensive power.

Make marines cost 400, with 5 att, 1 def, and 3 range. Then only it fair

Напишано од Player 999, 24.05.2018 at 18:36

Make marines cost 400, with 5 att, 1 def, and 3 range. Then only it fair

i find this post the most logical and efficient way of nerfing gw.

Напишано од boywind2, 24.05.2018 at 18:56

Напишано од Player 999, 24.05.2018 at 18:36

Make marines cost 400, with 5 att, 1 def, and 3 range. Then only it fair

i find this post the most logical and efficient way of nerfing gw.

same

Hot lets make a thread for each strat xD

Where have you people been?

I've never known GW to be over-powered in any context outside 1v1s.

This is purely anecdotal for now and I will return to this talk with some more substance... but in my experience, GW has a difficulty in keeping pace with other strats.

Maybe Ukraine v Turk or something that specific, I can see it. But why are all of you complaining? Have any of you genuinely encountered some mystically overwhelming GW runner?

I'd like to see in what context GW is so overwhelming for you and others to so vigourously point it out.

Напишано од Permamuted, 24.05.2018 at 16:50

I would give ds helis 9 att due to the defence bonus. It should be represented in some small way in the calculation so their offensive power is higher than sm bombers. also i would give ironfist 1.5 att and 1 def. The hp additions are more significant to the strats offensive power than its defensive power.

why would hp addition affect attack more than defence?

Also i'd say +2 on each at least, IF rips through anything else but DS in battle

Wheelo r11 ............................

congrats

If there is still upkeep for militia (since it aint imp), then the more GW gains in militia the more expensive it becomes over a large front, also. The militia range is slow, the marine still low in def and has no buff like MoS. It can't hold very well any new land it takes immediately. The Whole point of GW is asymmetrical warfare and perfectly represents it. Why are you all complaining? It isn't even that cheap upkeep wise.

If y'all gonna whine about it maybe give it the HW treatment with -1 def to marines or perhaps -1 range so it aint so offensive, you don't see real asymmetrical factions making large blitz pushes, do we? and/or -70, instead of 80, because HW already has -80 but -1 att and def. So maybe it can balance out fine compromising over -70. So it can keep the att but not retain the range and not look like a more OP version of HW (Stealth wise). The militia can't be touched as that is the bloody damn point of GW.

I used GW a few times and it aint OP the further away the front is but perhaps it can be adjusted to make it more suited to its name sake. Like honestly what even is this thread. Let's all address the real trash strats no one really uses i.e. Blitz and RA.

You touched my lb... Let's just screw all strat. From all the players on the aw I'm probably the most competent player to talk about strat, because I play everything. Gw is fine! The only strategy that needs to change is MOS, and ofc -2crit for lb.

Напишано од K_Himmelreich, 25.05.2018 at 01:48

If there is still upkeep for militia (since it aint imp), then the more GW gains in militia the more expensive it becomes over a large front, also. The militia range is slow, the marine still low in def and has no buff like MoS. It can't hold very well any new land it takes immediately. The Whole point of GW is asymmetrical warfare and perfectly represents it. Why are you all complaining? It isn't even that cheap upkeep wise.

If y'all gonna whine about it maybe give it the HW treatment with -1 def to marines or perhaps -1 range so it aint so offensive, you don't see real asymmetrical factions making large blitz pushes, do we? and/or -70, instead of 80, because HW already has -80 but -1 att and def. So maybe it can balance out fine compromising over -70. So it can keep the att but not retain the range and not look like a more OP version of HW (Stealth wise). The militia can't be touched as that is the bloody damn point of GW.

I used GW a few times and it aint OP the further away the front is but perhaps it can be adjusted to make it more suited to its name sake. Like honestly what even is this thread. Let's all address the real trash strats no one really uses i.e. Blitz and RA.

Since RA and blitz got "balanced" because of 5 crybabes like now,no one is using them because "balance" to some people means making it so shit it cant be used.

Напишано од Nations, 25.05.2018 at 02:51

Напишано од K_Himmelreich, 25.05.2018 at 01:48

If there is still upkeep for militia (since it aint imp), then the more GW gains in militia the more expensive it becomes over a large front, also. The militia range is slow, the marine still low in def and has no buff like MoS. It can't hold very well any new land it takes immediately. The Whole point of GW is asymmetrical warfare and perfectly represents it. Why are you all complaining? It isn't even that cheap upkeep wise.

If y'all gonna whine about it maybe give it the HW treatment with -1 def to marines or perhaps -1 range so it aint so offensive, you don't see real asymmetrical factions making large blitz pushes, do we? and/or -70, instead of 80, because HW already has -80 but -1 att and def. So maybe it can balance out fine compromising over -70. So it can keep the att but not retain the range and not look like a more OP version of HW (Stealth wise). The militia can't be touched as that is the bloody damn point of GW.

I used GW a few times and it aint OP the further away the front is but perhaps it can be adjusted to make it more suited to its name sake. Like honestly what even is this thread. Let's all address the real trash strats no one really uses i.e. Blitz and RA.

Since RA and blitz got "balanced" because of 5 crybabes like now,no one is using them because "balance" to some people means making it so shit it cant be used.

i use them

Напишано од boywind2, 25.05.2018 at 03:08

Напишано од Nations, 25.05.2018 at 02:51

Напишано од K_Himmelreich, 25.05.2018 at 01:48

If there is still upkeep for militia (since it aint imp), then the more GW gains in militia the more expensive it becomes over a large front, also. The militia range is slow, the marine still low in def and has no buff like MoS. It can't hold very well any new land it takes immediately. The Whole point of GW is asymmetrical warfare and perfectly represents it. Why are you all complaining? It isn't even that cheap upkeep wise.

If y'all gonna whine about it maybe give it the HW treatment with -1 def to marines or perhaps -1 range so it aint so offensive, you don't see real asymmetrical factions making large blitz pushes, do we? and/or -70, instead of 80, because HW already has -80 but -1 att and def. So maybe it can balance out fine compromising over -70. So it can keep the att but not retain the range and not look like a more OP version of HW (Stealth wise). The militia can't be touched as that is the bloody damn point of GW.

I used GW a few times and it aint OP the further away the front is but perhaps it can be adjusted to make it more suited to its name sake. Like honestly what even is this thread. Let's all address the real trash strats no one really uses i.e. Blitz and RA.

Since RA and blitz got "balanced" because of 5 crybabes like now,no one is using them because "balance" to some people means making it so shit it cant be used.

i use them

And lose?

Напишано од Nations, 25.05.2018 at 03:09

Напишано од boywind2, 25.05.2018 at 03:08

Напишано од Nations, 25.05.2018 at 02:51

Напишано од K_Himmelreich, 25.05.2018 at 01:48

If there is still upkeep for militia (since it aint imp), then the more GW gains in militia the more expensive it becomes over a large front, also. The militia range is slow, the marine still low in def and has no buff like MoS. It can't hold very well any new land it takes immediately. The Whole point of GW is asymmetrical warfare and perfectly represents it. Why are you all complaining? It isn't even that cheap upkeep wise.

If y'all gonna whine about it maybe give it the HW treatment with -1 def to marines or perhaps -1 range so it aint so offensive, you don't see real asymmetrical factions making large blitz pushes, do we? and/or -70, instead of 80, because HW already has -80 but -1 att and def. So maybe it can balance out fine compromising over -70. So it can keep the att but not retain the range and not look like a more OP version of HW (Stealth wise). The militia can't be touched as that is the bloody damn point of GW.

I used GW a few times and it aint OP the further away the front is but perhaps it can be adjusted to make it more suited to its name sake. Like honestly what even is this thread. Let's all address the real trash strats no one really uses i.e. Blitz and RA.

Since RA and blitz got "balanced" because of 5 crybabes like now,no one is using them because "balance" to some people means making it so shit it cant be used.

i use them

And lose?

croat only plays bltz

+20 cost to marines +1 range, RA but invisible so +10 cost = +30 cost.
GW is op as fuck, everywhere you go ppl use it. (except for rp.) hell, there's a fucking map that lets you build 35 cost marines with GW, balance that shit.

I would rather suggest -1 range for marines which will actually give the strat the nerf its supposed to have if anything else is nerfed the strategy will turn from op to bullshit never forget marines and mil doesnt get +1 attack with general

Only changes I would accept would be the defense bonus marines get against inf and arguably the coty defense bonus for militia, again, arguably.

Can you not touch anything? GW is my most favorite strategies, also you should make the game easier with other strategies in my opinion not making the game even harder lol

Напишано од Dr Lecter, 24.05.2018 at 23:28

Where have you people been?

I've never known GW to be over-powered in any context outside 1v1s.

This is purely anecdotal for now and I will return to this talk with some more substance... but in my experience, GW has a difficulty in keeping pace with other strats.

Maybe Ukraine v Turk or something that specific, I can see it. But why are all of you complaining? Have any of you genuinely encountered some mystically overwhelming GW runner?

I'd like to see in what context GW is so overwhelming for you and others to so vigourously point it out.

duel i go gw?

Напишано од TovarishGabriela, 25.05.2018 at 04:35

Can you not touch anything? GW is my most favorite strategies, also you should make the game easier with other strategies in my opinion not making the game even harder lol

This is how all the GW defenders in this thread sound lol.
Thank you for this wonderful comment.

Напишано од Nations, 25.05.2018 at 02:51

Since RA and blitz got "balanced" because of 5 crybabes like now,no one is using them because "balance" to some people means making it so shit it cant be used.

Well we need to "unbalance" them and make other strats Viable again. But I suppose that discussion is for another thread.