Guerrilla Warfare: The Statistics
Postări: 168
Vizitat de: 300 users
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
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
xaxa ok
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
nice defending gw. Its the only strat ppl like u can win with. Play something else and u will fail miserably. If this strat gets nerfed we will see all gw defenders with 900 elo because they cant play with any other strats xaxaxa
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Agreed.All gw defenders will end up with elo like yours you mean.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
i have180 elo more than 900 so no. All GW defenders will end up with the elo equal to your brain cells.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
yes laochra, you can. Im sure you do see the point that you can't claim a strategy should be nerfed based on its strength when its already in a position of power, which yes was one of your reasons, though not your main reason for agreeing with nerf. does that not seem a little skewed? to bring you back to the old RA example, that was an OP strategy in not just situations where it would thrive, but in situations where it was in a state of weakness. with RA ofc it was the fact that tanks were cheap, huge attack, and a good defense (sounds like another strat ik... cough ds cough), which allowed it to beat everything in every situation. Within a few months this eventually led to the nerf to the RA that we see today. GW is not that extreme, simple as that. Thank you for reminding me what thread I am posting in because clearly, as I touched on in the post above, i never touched on the essence of the post (guess you didnt read the whole thing). "If the stats that Wheelo provided are to be considered seriously, then gw should work well everywhere, as it's claimed to be the most efficient defense, and the most efficient attack. it's also claimed to be the 4th most efficient in range. Therefore, guerilla warfare should thrive in high income settings such as UK, or China, or in NA." what you failed to mention , and what the stats failed to mention, was many factors. Efficiency is only one piece of the puzzle, a very small one. no one took into account the transport cost? what about the map its played on? what about starting units? what happens when you get rushed early? there are so many factors that are unaddressed here that are needed to prove it needs a nerf. i will remind you that despite all these sketchy stats that supposedly make gw the "most overpowered strategy," that it is still beaten numerous times across all play throughs. What makes GW op, as im sure all can agree with, is when it isnt touched or pressured, and thus gains marine spam (which of course leads to a lot of attacking units and an increase in units with militia). but, this doesnt seem to be an issue for a lot of turkeys in 3v3 settings (also blitz does rape gw D.. nerf blitz?). But we've known for a while that you can't beat GW in lategame. which is why you simply pressure it early. on top of the fact that the efficiency stats aren't entirely conclusive, what needs to be proven to nerf a strat is how powerful it is in situations when its in a state (no pun intended) of weakness. prove to me that GW (like the old RA) beats out other strategies in all other playthroughs and ill agree that it needs a nerf. Im saying that there just isnt enough evidence for me to support a nerf. dont try to generalize what I say into a quick quip, as clever as you may think yourself to be. actually read what Im saying. gw shouldnt be nerfed because it can be beaten is only one aspect of what im saying. theres just not enough evidence here to prove that it needs one.
----   
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
because that made sense.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
your reply doesnt make any sense either. You have 899 less brain cells than the future elo of a nerfed gw player
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
No i did not say you should nerf a strategy just because its unbeatable when its in a situation of power. A strategy should never be immediately unbeatable once its picked. And i can name several situations on eu and the world map where you've won as soon as youve picked gw. Now i find it interesting that you defend gw on the grounds that it has weaknesses and limited use yet at the same time claim ds is broken. Ds which has a far more limited range of use than gw. You also completely disregard the strat comparison of this thread. It makes me question your motives. Gw lover are we? I'm just going to target this paragraph so you cant claim im ignoring your points.
Efficiency demonstrated in this thread by a cost/power analysis in this thread. Gw reigns supreme. What about the transports you say? Well what about situations where you dont need transports. These exist in abundance. We already know gw sucks where theres lots of water. It is why it fails on dreamworld. Yes we know its t1 expand is weak but a necessary weakness when gw will outexpand and outspam almost every strat within 2-3 turns. The exception being a rich ds opponent. What if you're rushed early? Well with a general you have almost pd tier defence so sometimes defending is possible. But again sultan what about the situations where you cant rush a gw player. Why does gw deserve to be unbeatable?
---- 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Gw is literally so broken and so easy you can play it anywhere on the map, at any settings. Thats just the reality of it. Heck you can even play GW on mars its just that tough 
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
lao of course he would defend his favorite strat, just like i used to defend DS once
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
IF rush beat gw every time, gw underpowered need more buff so it can stand up to rush and be played competitively.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Just because you're shit at fighting GW players doesn't make the strat OP or anything like that. It's very frail early on, this is a general consensus and we can demonstrate this easily in several games.
---- "Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one"
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
I just want to point out GW is actually $6/defense militia, whereas IMP is $5/defense of infantry. You have to use all your upgrades in the stats because it is common knowledge that if a player does not have many upgrades vs. a player that does, they are at a clear disadvantage. Thus GW is not the top defensive strategy. The values are horribly done considering the "main-defensive unit" is different for each strategy, which does not take into consideration range. Because if we go off of not looking at the range, who cares what the main unit is, since PD militia has $4/defense, or IMP militia at $2.50/defense, blowing every other strategy for defence out of the game. All in all, not the best representation of data, super preliminary and do not take into so many variables. Normally, I do not get involved in these kinds of debates, but I do not want to see another change like RA pushed through because "top-tier" players said so. Now no one but newer players touch RA, or the odd time it is used in a 5K Serbia duel. Generally speaking, it is a useless strategy, only used against weaker players, or for fun. GW is definitely if good strategy, but just because it has niches, does not make it OP. I don't understand why this community is perfectly okay with making strategies useless but does not care to make other strategies viable. It's literally the complete opposite of inflating strategies because it seems to be a constant cycle of reducing the strength of strategies, and deeming the remaining viable strategies as "OP" because generally speaking changes are made off of experience and not any real or substantial data.
---- Be Humble
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
The GOAT himself. Fuck you cunts in this thread that think GW is OP.
---- "Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one"
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
ANOTHER FUCKING GOAT to SLAP some SENSE in here.
---- "Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one"
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Incorrect. Both have 6 defence, both cost 30.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
You're right.. idk why i got $6.. the rest remains true though. i was looking at that earlier to see where I got it but didn't want to 2nd guess. My main point wasn't even that, rather than range should be included in the defence statistic since otherwise, IMP is still most efficient with $2.50/defense per militia. I'm actually motivated to make an actual chart and stuff this week just for my own sake to see where GW truly stands when more factors are taken into consideration, but for now I just wanted to say the rest, I hope there aren't more errors since that would be embarrassing, but I just don't want to see GW nerfed out of viability like RA was.
---- Be Humble
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Wait are you including your upgrades?? IMP INF: 30 cost, 6 defense = $5/defense GW Militia: 30 cost, 5 defense = $6/defense I am correct?? Edit: For anyone else reading, the city bonus was taken into consideration, which again goes to show how skewed the data presented in this thread truly is. Maybe GW needs a nerf, but not to the extent presented by this thread which (as I have stated previously), does not take into any consideration of other factors such as range of the units, nor are the units even the same.. ie. with city bonus, IMP militia are at $2/defense.. which is mindblowing.
---- Be Humble
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
nerfed out of viability like ra? Ok duel? I'll go ra. edit: and theres no upgrade that gives militia 6 defence. Youre failing to account for city def bonus.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Match me up with any new player in this game, I'll go HW, I'll show all the haters, just you watch.. don't be ridiculous. Your skill alone is enough to beat me/most other players, and you asking me for a duel right there proves that strategy changes are justified off of experience of players and 0% of off any tangible evidence.
---- Be Humble
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
These statistics are calculated including upgrades, of course. Ignoring upgrades would just completely imbalance the data since certain strategies aren't affected by certain upgrades as much as others. Including all available upgrades creates a level playing field for data. Imp infantry have 6 defence and cost 30. Gw miltia have 6 defence including the city bonus, and cost 30. So they are correct. A strategies attack, defense and range are the core of a strategy. Once a strategy dominates these three elements in a cost-power ratio, all the rest of it's stats lose even more importance. You're welcome to graph new statistics, but unfortunately if they're not correcting the ones that are here, they're irrelevant. They have yet to be proven incorrect. Please read the thread and figures carefully before attempting to "correct" them to avoid embarrassment please.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
If you accept that i am more skillful then how can you so easily dismiss the opinions of "top players" in posts like above? You've already incorrectly assumed defence values on gw and attacked all the arguments against it based on that assumption. I think it's incredibly arrogant of players who don't play anymore or who havent a complete knowlege of the game attempt to lecture their betters on how the game works. Sorry if it seems harsh or hurts people's egos but if you havent demonstrated a complete knowlege of the game and all its' strats then why should we listen to you? And on the contrary i feel i could have a decent go at players of witch doctors, nic, jf, don, eagles etc calibre with ra and have a good shot at beating them in the right circumstances. The strat isnt as bad as some make out. It's just not as easy for them to stomp over people with their tankspam strat when they had +1 att/def on their tanks.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Honestly, I will try to see if I can graph them on a unit vs unit level, because as I mentioned - something you kindly skipped over. IMP militia are at a $2/defense... where is the outrage for that?? And tbh if it's too much work I likely will not do it considering I'm quite busy, in which case you guys can push through whatever you want.. but I wouldn't say I embarrassed myself when the data presented is literally comparing different units between different strategies... it isn't horrible, I see the intent of the data, but it's is clearly made with a lot of bias. Do not mistake my counter to your data as saying GW is not OP (I feel like it isn't, but again I don't have any facts - just like the rest of the community), I'm open to nerfing it too, but I simply don't want a repeat of the RA situation.
---- Be Humble
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
I never dismissed your opinion, I think it makes sense to make strategy changes based off of something tangable? Personally, I would not consider Wheelo to be a completly knowledgeable player of the game, but I'm sure his opinion has some value? You're right though, it would help my case if I had played more recently, but I personally think it's ignorant to say RA is viable when its usage has dropped dramatically.
---- Be Humble
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
The formula clearly states that BOTH main defense and secondary defense are represented to give the fairest result for each strategy. If I represented both individually there'd be tit for tating back and forward for each strategy all over this thread. GW militia have double imp militia's range, have +2 attack and +1 defense. See what we're trying to avoid here? There is different power to different units in each strategy, vice versa. That's literally the only way a strategy can be compared statistically. This isn't an opinionated thread, its a factual one. GW simply outperforms or rivals every other strategy in every important area statistically.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
So top players are the ones that only play europe , damn lets all just follow what they say cuz they too good xD ~runs to zeph and builts a altar to the scenario map gods
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
wow ur such a competitive, experienced and pro player. Your elo gives it all off that you're just asking for attention with shitty arguments. GW is op as fuck and you're basically another nasty gw spamming cunt that doesnt want to lose more elo, fyi all the high ranked players go gw almost all the time, Vict0ry and Dominicano as an example, 70 cost tanks.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Well said, these gw spamming jews should be gassed xaxa
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Kaska Cont șters |
Kaska Cont șters  I just cannot understand how u can defend 70 marines cost with such an op range. Please try to remain honest in your consideration on how fucked up gw is ffs
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
