Relentless attack.

So, I used Relentless attack for the first time not too long ago and thought it was lacking somewhat (I'm slow to realise things.) and I got to thinking, why doesn't it include non land?
So, what I propose is it affecting Bombers and Destroyers, perhaps increasing attack at the cost of reduced defence. I just think it should reflect both the name and the game better by increasing the amount of units it affects.

Well, the reason it only affects tanks is because it was originally called Tank General.

Personally I think it's already a strong enough strategy, but I'd like to see what others have to say.

I understand that, but now that they've gone with a new, more generalised approach to the game and the warfare represented within, I think maybe it should cover more, but perhaps you're right, and I wasn't using it as efficiently as I could have been.

I agree with acqui, it's not that good but it's playable sometimes.

Scris de Guest, 26.12.2012 at 11:10

I agree with acqui, it's not that good but it's playable sometimes.

Tank General best strategy ever.

Scris de Tundy, 26.12.2012 at 15:44

Scris de Guest, 26.12.2012 at 11:10

I agree with acqui, it's not that good but it's playable sometimes.

Tank General best strategy ever.

I like sarcasm.

Infantry should have 4 attack. it says "at the cost of weaker defence" (so lowering defence of units and increasing cost makes sense) but degrading the attack of infantry seems to go against the description of the strategy.

I suggest adding that extra attack to infantry because the strategy is slightly underpowered at the moment.

Also, "9 attack units" give out strange, unlucky and mainly unreliable rolls against neutrals. I would suggest adding a +1HP to tanks instead of the +1 attack to infantry actually. Either way, the strategy needs one or the other to be balanced.

I think 4 inf attack might give a better usability already.