Treatise: Strategy Changes

Напишано од clovis1122, 21.02.2017 at 08:18

Напишано од 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:

Напишано од 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:

Напишано од 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).

Напишано од 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

well if u urself admit u dont play it, why care? shouldnt this convo be left to the people who actually play the strat :S

and no 36 isnt really that much tbh.. simple sample theory clovis

i was a fan earlier of changing the militia to more defensive, however, the more that i played the strategy i found that if militia got more of a defense the strategy would turn out to be even stronger than GW, as its not really that far behind gw.

just keep hw as it is, its fine, yes its a hard strategy, use ur brain and u can figure out how to play it just fine

Напишано од Sultan of Swing, 21.02.2017 at 08:49

shouldnt this convo be left to the people who actually play the strat :S

No and you're making a mistake there.

HW wasn't made only for you or a handful of players. It was made to the whole players database to acquire and to use. If only you and a handful of players consider the strategy to be fine as it is, whereas the majority of the users finds the strategy to be weak, then there's obviously a problem there.

It may be that you've played the strategy more than us. But we've also played HW. We know how to use the strategy decently, and the reason about why we don't use it often is because in all the cases where you can use HW there's always a better choice, be it GC or GW. Or other strategy. This is also why some players also consider to remove the strategy completely. It tries to do too much but at the end can't do anything.

If you can find several places, niches. Where HW will outperform any other strategy there, then I will tend to agree with you that it is fine as it is. Until then, there is no point.

Напишано од clovis1122, 21.02.2017 at 09:31

Напишано од Sultan of Swing, 21.02.2017 at 08:49

shouldnt this convo be left to the people who actually play the strat :S

No and you're making a mistake there.

HW wasn't made only for you or a handful of players. It was made to the whole players database to acquire and to use. If only you and a handful of players consider the strategy to be fine as it is, whereas the majority of the users finds the strategy to be weak, then there's obviously a problem there.

It may be that you've played the strategy more than us. But we've also played HW. We know how to use the strategy decently, and the reason about why we don't use it often is because in all the cases where you can use HW there's always a better choice, be it GC or GW. Or other strategy. This is also why some players also consider to remove the strategy completely. It tries to do too much but at the end can't do anything.

If you can find several places, niches. Where HW will outperform any other strategy there, then I will tend to agree with you that it is fine as it is. Until then, there is no point.

ok valid point about how its supposed to be for all, fair point clovis ill give u that

however, there are many places where HW can outperform, however, in the name of keeping an OP secret within the confines of clan secrets, i cant actually divulge said secret. I can gurantee that there are situations where it does outperform other strats, that is a fact. Also, HW should be kept as a strat because it is unique and highly different than the others. It's a great alternative to the mainstream strategies that get played daily. To play HW you can't think like you normally do, you have to play with a different mindset. In todays game with rushers everywhere, it doesnt work to them because they want to rush. Hw, as im sure the average bystander can see, is not a rushing strategy. It was meant for slowroll, and is op at doing so.

I have found time to make my case on the RA suggestion you want to implement. Take the time to read through this post and I hope it makes complete sense to why it is flawed, please correct me if I make any errors/mistakes.
NOTE: this includes my upgrades because these strategies will usually effect players that have them, where as lower ranks do not have all the upgrades making performance unpredictable at times or different due to factors such as cost.

*Stats of your suggestion*
Infantry: 50 cost for 5 attack points = 10 cost per 1 attack point (10gc/1a)
Tanks: 110 cost for 9 attack points = 12.22 cost per 1 attack point (12.22gc/1a)

These two calculations should prove why I find this suggestion flawed because infantry are more efficient than tanks in attack. An argument which could be used to say that this is fair is that the infantry have -1 defense making them easier to kill. Again flawed due to more calculations.

Normal Infantry: 60 cost for 6 defense points = 10 cost per 1 defense point (10gc/1d)
Proposed RA Infantry: 50 cost for 5 defense points = 10 cost per 1 defense point (10gc/1d)

They are the exact same which is why the new RA will only encourage the spam of Infantry much like Imperialism, except it would work the other way around and favour a offensive style, while leaving the basic infantry defensive abilities completely viable and just as cost efficient as 'none' strategy.

As for militia the +1 attack is something we have seen quite often, the -2 would defiantly hurt the defensive capabilities of them, but as I proved above infantry spam will be very viable.

Proposed Militia: 30 cost for 4 attack points = 7.5 cost per 1 attack point (7.5gc/1a)

Making militia ever more cost efficient than tanks in close situations favouring a style of infantry and militia spam over ever needing to make tanks unless a lack of reinforcements with an influx of cash, but usually this is not the case and in my opinion tanks will be used primarily for expansions (paired with infantry) t1, than as a novelty when a player can afford them.

That's quite a bit of stats, but just take away that tanks are not cost efficient and in my opinion I would rather spam infantry over tanks due to their higher attack efficiency and just as good defense (even though you though it seems like it is actually being reduced).

---

---

My suggestion for RA, based strongly of PD, but not entirely (and a mix of some of your suggestions):
Tanks: +1 attack, -1 defense, -20gc, +1 range
Infantry: -1 defense, -1 or -2 critical
Anti Air: -1 range (this is a must if you want bombers to be able to do damage to tanks, I would personally through some AA in and it would be hard to stop tanks besides defending), OR -1 defense (serves same as range except less effective, while range just slows down overall stack).
- People might think I'm crazy for suggesting AA nerf, but in a WW game regardless of starting cash I use them quite a bit mid game to stop SM stacks and they work great due to their infantry like mobility. Might just be the best suggestion Laochra's ever made.
Militia: +10 cost
Marines: -2 defense in cities, -30 cost

Reasoning:
Tanks
110 cost for 9 attack points = 12.22gc/1a
- same as your suggestion except the infantry will not be more cost efficient.
The defense is there to make the tanks vulnerable, and the range to allow them to escape a bit quicker from those situations and improve expansions.

Infantry
60 cost for 4 attack = 15gc/1a
- clearly much less cost efficient than your proposed suggestion, and for good reason IMO.
The defense is:
60 cost for 5 defense = 12gc/1d

Making them about as cost efficient as tank offense, for their defense. Do not mistake this for a variation of GC because PD could be looked at the same way, except this does not benefit Infantry users in anyway, just like PD does not benefit tank users.

Anti Air
For the reasons stated in those brackets, just to make the tank stacks easier to counter with SM. This wouldn't be very noticeable, maybe even counter productive in EU+ 3v3, but to everyone's surprise - I am sure, there are other maps/scenarios the majority of atWar plays.

Militia
40 cost for 4 defense points = 10gc/1d
- making them as cost efficient as normal infantry units, except less mobility.

Marines
I see why you wanted them to be altered, to take a bit away from the crazy tank spams that occur, but it would be annoying to be spotted and having 2-3 tanks clean up 10 marines, therefore in cities -2 is a better solution.

Keep in mind, I know this favours a tank spam which is what RA really should be, while PD favours an infantry spam, and IMP/GC are a combination of them both. Again, hope this is taken seriously since I would love to see RA return to its former glory (but balanced).

Tanks (hehe) for taking your time to read or skim through this,
-Darkmace.

I wonder who supports this lol

Has everyone said what they wanted to say?

Напишано од Cthulhu, 12.03.2017 at 15:58

Has everyone said what they wanted to say?

If you boost RA you will regret it. Rewarding nooby offensive gameplay is probably the fastest method to kill this game.

HW is a joke strategy. It will never outperform any strategy anywhere unless it's boosted to a level where it's broken and overpowered.

Just fix DS and stop trying to make big changes. We have narbs making custom maps/units for that.

Cheers

Nerf ds. Buffing anti air is doing nothing to stop ds because AAs are incredibly expensive and the 1-5 that people can afford will only kill about 5-7 helicopters.

Nerf ds inf attack by 1 is my suggestion to weaken it's inital and overpowered expansion.

Напишано од Acquiesce, 14.03.2017 at 22:40

If you boost RA you will regret it. Rewarding nooby offensive gameplay is probably the fastest method to kill this game.

Why would boosting RA into a balanced level kill a fucking game........ we're wasting space by keeping it in such level of weakness

Напишано од RaulPB, 15.03.2017 at 07:55

Напишано од Acquiesce, 14.03.2017 at 22:40

If you boost RA you will regret it. Rewarding nooby offensive gameplay is probably the fastest method to kill this game.

Why would boosting RA into a balanced level kill a fucking game........ we're wasting space by keeping it in such level of weakness

a long range strat with one playstyle that produces only one unit. No finesse, less range skills needed and no slowroll capabilities. It is bad enough that we have loadful of low skills high ranks that can only play 2-3 strats.

Напишано од Witch-Doctor, 15.03.2017 at 04:59

Nerf ds. Buffing anti air is doing nothing to stop ds because AAs are incredibly expensive and the 1-5 that people can afford will only kill about 5-7 helicopters.

Nerf ds inf attack by 1 is my suggestion to weaken it's inital and overpowered expansion.

-1 defence to the militia is better imo.

Напишано од Permamuted, 15.03.2017 at 08:34

a long range strat with one playstyle that produces only one unit. No finesse, less range skills needed and no slowroll capabilities. It is bad enough that we have loadful of low skills high ranks that can only play 2-3 strats.

If that's your case, why don't you simply suggest to delete it? Right now it has become kinda useless.

If the range worries you, nerf it a bit, but don't make it unviable or else just delete it. Also, no slowroll capabilities is no reason to delete a strategy... why did you even include that in your reasons?

Напишано од RaulPB, 15.03.2017 at 08:54

Напишано од Permamuted, 15.03.2017 at 08:34

a long range strat with one playstyle that produces only one unit. No finesse, less range skills needed and no slowroll capabilities. It is bad enough that we have loadful of low skills high ranks that can only play 2-3 strats.

If that's your case, why don't you simply suggest to delete it? Right now it has become kinda useless.

If the range worries you, nerf it a bit, but don't make it unviable or else just delete it. Also, no slowroll capabilities is no reason to delete a strategy... why did you even include that in your reasons?

Because its a beginners strat? Because its the best strat with no upgrades? Because it is an easy to play acessible strat? The slowroll point was just to highlight how 1 dimensional its' gameplay it.

Напишано од Permamuted, 15.03.2017 at 09:50

Because its a beginners strat? Because its the best strat with no upgrades? Because it is an easy to play acessible strat? The slowroll point was just to highlight how 1 dimensional its' gameplay it.

Being a beginner friendly strat still doesn't prove your point for over-nerfing it. Being good with or without upgrades is still no reason to over-nerf it since upgrades barely improve RA at all (right now, even without upgrades is still quite shitty). Even if it's 1 dimensional, there's still no reason to over-nerf it.

The fact I see in all your arguments is that you simply don't like it...

Напишано од RaulPB, 15.03.2017 at 10:41

Напишано од Permamuted, 15.03.2017 at 09:50

Because its a beginners strat? Because its the best strat with no upgrades? Because it is an easy to play acessible strat? The slowroll point was just to highlight how 1 dimensional its' gameplay it.

Being a beginner friendly strat still doesn't prove your point for over-nerfing it. Being good with or without upgrades is still no reason to over-nerf it since upgrades barely improve RA at all (right now, even without upgrades is still quite shitty). Even if it's 1 dimensional, there's still no reason to over-nerf it.

The fact I see in all your arguments is that you simply don't like it...

Nope, being beginner friendly, one dimensional and lacking any niche combined however do. The current form of ra is cthulhus idea. All the other changes people have been applying over the years have done nothing so we went with something different. But i see no reason to improve it. We already have ds as an early game agression strat. Why do we need to boost ra(a simplified version) to do the same thing? Ra is a stepping stone to other strategies. We want players to experience the rest of the strats. Not stick with ra because it wrecks everything.

If all you are seeing in my arguments "i dont like it" then you are not comprehending what i am saying.

Напишано од Permamuted, 15.03.2017 at 11:31

Nope, being beginner friendly, one dimensional and lacking any niche combined however do. The current form of ra is cthulhus idea. All the other changes people have been applying over the years have done nothing so we went with something different. But i see no reason to improve it. We already have ds as an early game agression strat. Why do we need to boost ra(a simplified version) to do the same thing? Ra is a stepping stone to other strategies. We want players to experience the rest of the strats. Not stick with ra because it wrecks everything.

If all you are seeing in my arguments "i dont like it" then you are not comprehending what i am saying.

In such case, I'd say you're not sending the message you've actually meant to send. In which case, you should try a bit clearer.

It lacks any niche due to it being nerfed because it is beginner friendly and one dimensional. In other words, it is a loop. If such is the case of DS, why not putting RA at the same level as it? Why just having one early agression strat while disgracing the other one? If you see no reason to improve RA, there is no reason at all to have this useless strategy. By no means I want RA at a higher level than all other strategies, but not buffing it to the same level of them is quite a mistake. But I'm guessing you don't see this and you simply want noobs to forget about RA ever existing...

PS: just cause you believe so, RA doesn't need to be a stepping stone to anything. It's just another strat, which should have exactly the same value as any other and you're disregarding it.

Напишано од RaulPB, 15.03.2017 at 14:05

In such case, I'd say you're not sending the message you've actually meant to send. In which case, you should try a bit clearer.

It lacks any niche due to it being nerfed because it is beginner friendly and one dimensional. In other words, it is a loop. If such is the case of DS, why not putting RA at the same level as it? Why just having one early agression strat while disgracing the other one? If you see no reason to improve RA, there is no reason at all to have this useless strategy. By no means I want RA at a higher level than all other strategies, but not buffing it to the same level of them is quite a mistake. But I'm guessing you don't see this and you simply want noobs to forget about RA ever existing...

PS: just cause you believe so, RA doesn't need to be a stepping stone to anything. It's just another strat, which should have exactly the same value as any other and you're disregarding it.

I have been pretty clear and explained all of this in the past. I repeating myself for your benefit and you are throwing the same old tired accusations at me.
Buffing ra to the same level is pretty difficult since a lot of people want it focused on only 1 unit. I would've thought given the 5 years of boosts and nerfs that would be pretty obvious and i didnt need to spell it out. But there is more to it than that. When you start this game as a guest you unlock pd nc and ra. People nearly always spam ra since pd is horrendous to play without upgrades and nc is largely water based. So a low rank immediately gains a competitive tier strat. Why bother with sp and an upgrades system at all.

A beginners strategy needs to exist. If you disagree with this then imagine if we replaced the beginners strats with hw and gc. Even most high ranks cant handle those strats nevermind beginnners. But putting all that aside acquiesce is correct. Ra is literally and unarguably the most unimaginative and one dimensioned strategy in the game. If you make it as powerful as ds you will kill the strategy of this game. Why would you even bother learning more difficult strats if something like ra is strong. It is already vastly the most popular strategy. If you truly think it has the same value of any other strategy then you're deluded and i cannot help you.

Arguments aside, these are my observations and suggestions for RA:

RA is a beginner strat and it is one of, if not the only, strat that you can play at almost full capability without many upgrades. For that very reason, I recommend it to all low ranks who ask for a mentor. To say that it isn't a noob-friendly stepping stone is naive.
Now, I don't mind that RA has efficient attack, to an extent, because that is what the strategy is about, but no strat, imo, should be more efficient than Imp, for efficiency is what Imp is about.

What should be changed? Let's compare RA to its counterpart PD. You do not have PD tanks with buffed prices and def. You do not have PD marines with buffed prices and defense. What you do have is PD inf and mils with buffed def. So likewise, the more appropriate suggestion for RA would be to remove the additional -10 cost buff for tanks, inf, marines. but maintain all other changes that keep and enhance the foundation of RA, such as +1 atk on tanks and mils.

Напишано од Universali, 15.03.2017 at 17:24

Arguments aside, these are my observations and suggestions for RA:

RA is a beginner strat and it is one of, if not the only, strat that you can play at almost full capability without many upgrades. For that very reason, I recommend it to all low ranks who ask for a mentor. To say that it isn't a noob-friendly stepping stone is naive.
Now, I don't mind that RA has efficient attack, to an extent, because that is what the strategy is about, but no strat, imo, should be more efficient than Imp, for efficiency is what Imp is about.

What should be changed? Let's compare RA to its counterpart PD. You do not have PD tanks with buffed prices and def. You do not have PD marines with buffed prices and defense. What you do have is PD inf and mils with buffed def. So likewise, the more appropriate suggestion for RA would be to remove the additional -10 cost buff for tanks, inf, marines. but maintain all other changes that keep and enhance the foundation of RA, such as +1 atk on tanks and mils.

Imp is about reinforcement efficiency in low funds. Picking the right strat involves as one of the considerations, reinf efficiency for your country/map. Adding attack to ra without significantly increasing price (beyond 120) would make it op in a way adding stats to pd just doesn't do. You can't win without attack but you can win without defence, blitz being an extreme example of this.
Not only this but it goes in the direction of making it even more similar to ds except requiring less skill.

Напишано од Permamuted, 15.03.2017 at 14:42

I have been pretty clear and explained all of this in the past. I repeating myself for your benefit and you are throwing the same old tired accusations at me.
Buffing ra to the same level is pretty difficult since a lot of people want it focused on only 1 unit. I would've thought given the 5 years of boosts and nerfs that would be pretty obvious and i didnt need to spell it out. But there is more to it than that. When you start this game as a guest you unlock pd nc and ra. People nearly always spam ra since pd is horrendous to play without upgrades and nc is largely water based. So a low rank immediately gains a competitive tier strat. Why bother with sp and an upgrades system at all.

A beginners strategy needs to exist. If you disagree with this then imagine if we replaced the beginners strats with hw and gc. Even most high ranks cant handle those strats nevermind beginnners. But putting all that aside acquiesce is correct. Ra is literally and unarguably the most unimaginative and one dimensioned strategy in the game. If you make it as powerful as ds you will kill the strategy of this game. Why would you even bother learning more difficult strats if something like ra is strong. It is already vastly the most popular strategy. If you truly think it has the same value of any other strategy then you're deluded and i cannot help you.

The only point with which I firmly disagree is in nerfing RA to a point it can't compete under any condition against any other strategy once you have a couple upgrades. That is beyond my understanding. It makes it impossible to use for us...

No matter how one dimensioned or unskilled it may be, one can't simply spam tanks without a thought proces behind that spam (unless it is ridiculously op as it used to be). But in this state, no matter how hard you think, you're not gonna do much since it is both horrible in defense and attack.

TL;DR Modifying strategies due to their ease of play is a big no-no. Cthulhu puts it nicely:

Напишано од Cthulhu, 15.02.2017 at 04:16

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?

Perhaps we could have "upgrades" which unlocks certain boost for a "strategy". For example, you could start playing RA with 120 cost tanks, then after buying two (expensive) cost upgrades you can get the RA tanks cost down to 100 or whatever. This would restrict RA's efficiently without upgrades which seems to be a concern. Eventually you should acquire [perhaps at a high rank] the upgrades that will make RA viable against other strategies at their top potential.

Clearly this approach needs to be taken with moderation: we don't want to make the (already) big gap between low and high ranks to become even bigger.

What I am hoping for is that the increase attack at the cost of defense will make players think more carefully about attacking, because if they sent 30 tanks to attack an empty city, it will hurt when they get killed the next turn. I want RA to have a weak defense to force players to wall. Ideally, I want RA to be the twin of PD, but for attack. Walls everywhere and focused on attack. The key is that RA must have wall, and be shredded by a better player.

I am for creating more skill and thought process in this game, and it saddens me the day that 1st turn TB was removed. Ideally, we would have no strats, but slots for upgrades, and infinite amount of upgrades, so we can create our own strategies that best suites our individual playstyles.

What we should do is go through with the suggestion, but have the RA changes on a one month trial basis (If large amount players has an uproar, we revert back). It sounds like the only concern we are facing now is the topic of RA, but please remember that PD is also a beginner strat.

Напишано од Cthulhu, 16.03.2017 at 00:51

What I am hoping for is that the increase attack at the cost of defense will make players think more carefully about attacking, because if they sent 30 tanks to attack an empty city, it will hurt when they get killed the next turn. I want RA to have a weak defense to force players to wall. Ideally, I want RA to be the twin of PD, but for attack. Walls everywhere and focused on attack. The key is that RA must have wall, and be shredded by a better player.

I am for creating more skill and thought process in this game, and it saddens me the day that 1st turn TB was removed. Ideally, we would have no strats, but slots for upgrades, and infinite amount of upgrades, so we can create our own strategies that best suites our individual playstyles.

What we should do is go through with the suggestion, but have the RA changes on a one month trial basis (If large amount players has an uproar, we revert back). It sounds like the only concern we are facing now is the topic of RA, but please remember that PD is also a beginner strat.

What are you talking about 1st turn tbs was removed. There is a max of 50% to first turn tb someone else's first move if you send at least half their army.

As for the DS nerf you're looking for, consider reducing DS infantry attack by 1.

Напишано од Witch-Doctor, 16.03.2017 at 01:45

Напишано од Cthulhu, 16.03.2017 at 00:51

What I am hoping for is that the increase attack at the cost of defense will make players think more carefully about attacking, because if they sent 30 tanks to attack an empty city, it will hurt when they get killed the next turn. I want RA to have a weak defense to force players to wall. Ideally, I want RA to be the twin of PD, but for attack. Walls everywhere and focused on attack. The key is that RA must have wall, and be shredded by a better player.

I am for creating more skill and thought process in this game, and it saddens me the day that 1st turn TB was removed. Ideally, we would have no strats, but slots for upgrades, and infinite amount of upgrades, so we can create our own strategies that best suites our individual playstyles.

What we should do is go through with the suggestion, but have the RA changes on a one month trial basis (If large amount players has an uproar, we revert back). It sounds like the only concern we are facing now is the topic of RA, but please remember that PD is also a beginner strat.

What are you talking about 1st turn tbs was removed. There is a max of 50% to first turn tb someone else's first move if you send at least half their army.

As for the DS nerf you're looking for, consider reducing DS infantry attack by 1.

Tbs are still fairly powerful if you target the stack and suspected cities it will pass through, and transports it will use.

High ranks talking about beginner strategies is like admirals talking about the waxing of army boots. Call op low ranks to do it.

Напишано од Cthulhu, 16.03.2017 at 00:51

What we should do is go through with the suggestion, but have the RA changes on a one month trial basis (If large amount players has an uproar, we revert back). It sounds like the only concern we are facing now is the topic of RA, but please remember that PD is also a beginner strat.

There's a lot of disagreement with the RA change as it is now, so I really think that you should reconsider removing at least the cost reduction. Must admit that I'm myself skeptical and I don't really think that what you said will happen (why would you send 30 tanks to a single city anyway...?). Do also consider that defensive strategies will struggle against RA even if they have 3 def inf/tank, 2 def militias.

Reminding that the AA's changes were already implemented as you posted them. Though a period have happened and perhaps there are some opinions about it - personally I didn't found them any more useful.

Why was the destroyer capacity fix of NC turned back? That's really something that we need if we want to see NC back into the scenario scene.

Looking forward to see this being implemented (sooner than later...).

Ivan wont apply any of these changes, its all a moot point anyway.

Напишано од Permamuted, 21.03.2017 at 19:49

Ivan wont apply any of these changes, its all a moot point anyway.

Thx for the "your are plebs whose voice don't matter" meaning of your statement. Meanwhile, e-mail him and propose some changes you have...maybe dreamt of in this night. We don't mind, because we don't matter anyways. xd

Напишано од Guest, 22.03.2017 at 07:17

Напишано од Permamuted, 21.03.2017 at 19:49

Ivan wont apply any of these changes, its all a moot point anyway.

Thx for the "your are plebs whose voice don't matter" meaning of your statement. Meanwhile, e-mail him and propose some changes you have...maybe dreamt of in this night. We don't mind, because we don't matter anyways. xd

Oh spare me that nonsense. Go read the newsletter.

Напишано од Permamuted, 22.03.2017 at 10:52

Oh spare me that nonsense. Go read the newsletter.

Extra, extra! Fresh news, Lao behaving like the true potato he is! Get your latest newspaper edition at your local SP police dealer!

Напишано од RaulPB, 22.03.2017 at 19:25

Напишано од Permamuted, 22.03.2017 at 10:52

Oh spare me that nonsense. Go read the newsletter.

Extra, extra! Fresh news, Lao behaving like the true potato he is! Get your latest newspaper edition at your local SP police dealer!

thats racist....