Very Slight PD Nerf

B0nker suggested to me the other day that the +1 militia defense in cities while using PD should be removed, and I must say that I agree. 6 defense(7 if general stack) in a city for a unit that costs only 20 is a bit OP in my opinion. I am not saying we need a complete overhaul. Removing the +1 defense in cities for the unit would be enough. Just figured I would make this post to see how the rest of the community feels.

SUPPORT

This is the most logical I've heard out of you spart. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupoooooooooooooorrrttttttttttttt

PD should give extra defence. With a -1 defence for militia, there is only infantry with extra defence left; so you can't speak of 'Perfect Defence' anymore, and it will be nerfed to a useless strategy. Futhermore; is a nerf (again) on PD really necessary? It has been nerfed a lot over time (i think its the most nerfed strategy out there).
What about -1 crit to militia? Might have the effect you want. But still, i won't support that either .

Pd is perfect like this no support.

Scris de Guest, 24.12.2013 at 03:35

Pd is perfect like this no support.

Child identified: Level: Parrot

Solution: Kebab Removal

Support.

You think PD is perfect because you use it and its works for you because OP. 20 for 6 Defense is very irrational.

I rarely use it and play a lot against it. I think a nerf would put my enemies at disadvantage and maybe even kill them quicker.

Pd dont need a nerf!!!

I love PD but cost to impact ratio it is a little OP. Inf having 10 def for 50 gold when in a city is enough to warrant the name Perfect Defence

. -1 city bonus still leaves militia at a 6 def for 20 gold(with gen) still a militia + compared to most strategies. Either way I am sure it won't get changed guess more PD.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 02:17

PD should give extra defence. With a -1 defence for militia, there is only infantry with extra defence left; so you can't speak of 'Perfect Defence' anymore, and it will be nerfed to a useless strategy. Futhermore; is a nerf (again) on PD really necessary? It has been nerfed a lot over time (i think its the most nerfed strategy out there).
What about -1 crit to militia? Might have the effect you want. But still, i won't support that either .

I only meant the extra 1 defense whilst in citities, keeping +1 defence to militia not a problem goes with the strategy description.

Support - I don't see how anyone could think PD could be balanced.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 02:17

PD should give extra defence. With a -1 defence for militia, there is only infantry with extra defence left

No, PD effectively gives +2 defence to militia - +1 defence and +1 more in cities. Removing the +1 in cities still leaves the militia with 5 defence.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 02:17

Futhermore; is a nerf (again) on PD really necessary? It has been nerfed a lot over time (i think its the most nerfed strategy out there).

The problem with PD over time is the innate low cost of infantry, which causes a multiplication effect on any boosts, where funds are limitied. In these places, PD can often build 2 units where other strategies could build one, so for the same cost the effectiveness of the boost is doubled e.g. if an opponent builds one RA tank with +1 attack, PD infantry boost will be +3 defence (which is apparently not considered op in itself) for both infantry, or +6 in total.
Giving a total defence of 20 against a total attack of 9 for less cost with the inf cost upgrade. Now tell me PD is not op

Scris de Unleashed, 24.12.2013 at 04:08

Scris de Guest, 24.12.2013 at 03:35

Pd is perfect like this no support.

Child identified: Level: Parrot

Solution: Kebab Removal

you mad why? ı just said my idea you are the kid in here.lol

Scris de EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 04:54

Now tell me PD is not op

Yeah, PD is stronger against a few other strategies, but also weaker against a few other (GW fe.). I think thats the same for most strategies, and it should be that way.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 05:57

Yeah, PD is stronger against a few other strategies, but also weaker against a few other (GW fe.). I think thats the same for most strategies, and it should be that way.

OK, I'm very confused now. I have always found it is practically impossible to fight PD using GW, and specifically don't use GW because it always looses to PD. GW is very weak against rushes, and usually the best one can do is recap. However against PD this is impossible, and there is never enough militia to resist the cap from such a powerful attacking strategy like PD.
Last time I played a 3v3 where GW was used was more than 2 weeks ago, where there was a UK-Germany-Ukraine combo, and so there was no possibility of Germany getting rushed. If GW is so strong against PD, why does almost no one use it when 3v3's are almost always at least 50% PD?

Perhaps I just can't play it properly, but I find the weak attack in PD makes it actually really a weaker strategy than most people seem to think.

It is very OP, yea... but only in defence... However, we all know, attack is actually the best form of defence, so... You can't really compare defence strength to attack strength. Without a good attack you can't expand properly, can't build a real empire fast enough, etc... So, imo, PD must be pretty OP in defence.

This being said, I for one, would find it still ok, if PD would get this said nerf, but only if it gets an anti-aircraft boost for this.
Imo, AAs are already a viable unit sometimes, but with PD, they are just totally redundant, although it would fit very well to the strat if they would be valuable.

Edit: I think one of the reasons why so many say PD would be OP, is just because so many here focus so much only on little maps like Europe (+).
In such maps it is really good, yea, but in larger maps, I for one find it mostly very weak.

Seriously no support.

@EndsOfInvention
Well, i must confess that i didn't play for a while. But in the past i always played PD, and tested it against a lot of strategies and the best players of that moment. I noticed (in a 1v1); that i had a very hard time against GW (and also against IF). PD needs to defend his fortress and they are total fail in attack (unlike you suggested).
Yes, PD has some good advantages:
Its a cheap strategy, taking the money source from PD isnt useful. The terible good defence of infantry forces you to avoid hitting the inf stacks of PD. And the PD-player its most times the last one standing in a CW.
But GW is the ultimate strategy that is able to attack on serval fronts and create total chaos; these are weak point for PD and disastrous.
GW > PD

So; if you play against PD, it is best to do the opposite things of what PD does. So; expand quick, keep destroying the defencelines everywhere, so the PD player can't stack all his cities, and attack where the least expected. Don't focus on 1/2 cities, because you will lose them. Focus on the total map. Also building defencelines yourself will help you to keep the PD player from expanding quick.

Scris de Chess, 05.06.2013 at 09:31

We could nerf PD Militia with killing the city bonus. This wont affect world games but would make PD slighty more weaker in Europe games even tough I think this wont be enough to make it less powerful in comparision to other strategies.

I also think GW actually is already powerful enough for PD. Otherwise I couldn't explain how players like tophats for example can be so successful with GW in Europe maps.
Instead of nerfing PD (without balancing the nerf with a contra boost at least), people rather should give strats like IF a little boost, imo.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 06:55

they are total fail in attack (unlike you suggested).

Let's do the maths. Still working where cost is a limiting factor (as it always is in competitive play) the max attack per 10 cost should be considered. The higher this value, the more cost effective the attack. (All figures rounded to 2 d.p.)
RA tanks - 0.82
PD inf - 0.8
GW marines - 1
imp infantry - 1
IF tanks/ IF inf - 0.86
MoS marines - 0.73
SM bombers - 0.61
Blitz tanks/inf - 0.67
DS helicopters - 0.61
GC tanks - 0.83
normal inf - 0.67
As you can see, the PD inf cost effectiveness is not far off some of the strategies one would consider to have a powerful attack. Additionally, All the units with more cost effective attacks have additional incurred disadvantages from their strategies compared to PD. GW marines have bad defence, and are virtually untransportable in early game. Imp inf so many are required that it becomes problematic to attack anything without killing so many units none are left. IF is horrendously slow, easily outpaced by PD. GC tanks come with no defence and a massive limitation of terrible expansion because no starting inf are available for attack.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 06:55

I noticed (in a 1v1); that i had a very hard time against GW (and also against IF)... GW is the ultimate strategy that is able to attack on serval fronts and create total chaos; these are weak point for PD and disastrous.

I agree that GW is powerful given room to manouvere and build up, but this is never the case now, as PD can easily put enough pressure on it to prevent an invasion of marines deep into the PD player's territory. A simple rush on the cap of a GW player is unstoppable because GW can never get enough militia there early on, whereas PD's much superior expansion provides the units. Then the GW player is forced to attack, flushing out all the marines to try and recap. Even if this succeeds, the PD player now has a massive advantage and usually can push back the GW player's empty cities. Also:

Scris de BASED Ironail, 24.05.2011 at 16:11

Guerilla Warfare is possibly the worst strat to use against PD. Slow development, weaker or more expensive units.

Scris de Pinheiro, 24.05.2011 at 19:23

GW is, in fact, the worst strategy to use against PD, that's for sure.

So I am not alone in this belief

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 06:55

So; if you play against PD, it is best to do the opposite things of what PD does. So; expand quick, keep destroying the defencelines everywhere, so the PD player can't stack all his cities, and attack where the least expected. Don't focus on 1/2 cities, because you will lose them. Focus on the total map. Also building defencelines yourself will help you to keep the PD player from expanding quick.

As for expanding quick, out expanding PD is practically impossible in anything below 15k. All other strategies have limitations that PD is not bothered by: Limitations in the units (Imp, GC, Gw,), limitations in cost (Mos, SM, DS, GC, LB, Blitz), limitations in speed (GW, IF).

Scris de Tundy, 28.05.2013 at 08:04

PD = expands like a boss.

With their terrifyingly powerful defence, letting PD take anything is not an option for most strats, and strategies like GW cannot effectively defend front line cities, because of slow militia. Strategies that could usually perform unexpected attacks are unable to, due to the pressure to defend. I play blitz often, and because it is more effective to defend against PD than to attack it, even with blitz, this means that you are forced to keep those inf from overrunning you. The pressure is too much to give any strategy facing PD any room to maneuver.
Breaking defence lines does not put nearly as much pressure on PD as on other strategies. It knows that attacking even nearly undefended cities with only a few militia will wast so many of the opposing player's units, it will count for a victory, because it takes them away from cities the PD player can then attack. PD wants you to attack it, it just makes it easier to win.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 06:55

the PD-player its most times the last one standing in a CW.

You make it sound like there would only be one.

Instead of nerfing PD, why not boost the other strats you guys deemed as weak. I think PD is pretty balanced, just ever the TB removal and passing through unit removal, the game mechanics reward spamming instead of tactics. Which is why PD is now more favored then SM.

Scris de EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 08:10

limitations in cost (Mos, SM, DS, GC, LB, Blitz)

Actually Blitz is the best strategy for low funds ever (on larger maps at least), because it needs no Transporters (if you take the right country at least),
while PD on the other hand is nothing without Transports and they are expensive as fuck. On world maps, PD mostly wouldn't stand a chance against Blitz.

Even if the PD player spawns in your near, you easily could just block his expandings (not to mention how easy it is to turnblock PD) and if the PD player spawns far away from you, you have a much bigger advantage because of your speed/range too.

Scris de Hugosch, 24.12.2013 at 02:17

PD should give extra defence. With a -1 defence for militia, there is only infantry with extra defence left; so you can't speak of 'Perfect Defence' anymore, and it will be nerfed to a useless strategy.

All I suggested was taking away the in-city boost for militia. It won't give -1 to militia defense at all. Militia defense will still be boosted. It simply will not add +1 defense to them in cities along with its other defensive boosts.

Ends, you stated GW can't do any defending and the best it can do is recap. Well, you hit it spot on! Your interpretation of it is wrong though, being able to recap isn't a bad thing, its a great thing. GW is THE late game comeback strategy, I have been told that many times and experienced this. GW's advantage is you lure your opponent in your cap, when you have those cheap powerful marines waiting to recap. Thus destroying his stack and grabbing empty cities.


Hugosch, the theme of perfect defense will still stay the same with the +1 def to militia, its just the in city defense boost is too much. Imagine you cap London for example and you get 42 defense instantly from militia. Not to mention gen's stack.

Cthulhu, in that case you would have to boost every powerful expensive strategy instead of just making this slight nerd to PD. Why?

Scris de Cthulhu, 24.12.2013 at 08:40

I think PD is pretty balanced

How?

Scris de The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 09:08

Ends, you stated GW can't do any defending and the best it can do is recap. Well, you hit it spot on! Your interpretation of it is wrong though, being able to recap isn't a bad thing, its a great thing. GW is THE late game comeback strategy, I have been told that many times and experienced this. GW's advantage is you lure your opponent in your cap, when you have those cheap powerful marines waiting to recap. Thus destroying his stack and grabbing empty cities.

For every other strategy this would be correct. However, with GW, the limitation is the fact that often there is simply no way to build enough marines to retake, at many times. Fighting PD by attacking it is simply not feasible. Remember that the attacker probably has a general giving his inf 10 defence, and his militia over 6. Marines have a maximum of 7 attack, and so often there is simply not enough force you can muster.

Scris de EndsOfInvention, 24.12.2013 at 08:10

Let's do the maths.

I believe your maths. Still this game is not all about money+attack strength. With PD you need a lot more units to have the same effect. Yes, they are cheaper so you have a advantage when you are in low money. But you will run out reinforcements. Especially in early game.

Then you have a few (2,5 year old) quotes from good players. At that time, PD was much stronger then it is today, and it has been nerfed a few times since then. Also; i played multiple 1v1's against Ironail, tried with him hours and hours; he tried to destroy my PD with multiple strategies; and found out IF was the best to do that. But later on, Philipho proved that GW also worked very good against PD. On a 5k europe map (which was default by then) i was unable to beat him in a 1v1, while PD was even stronger then it is today.

I do believe that PD is a strong strategy (even after all the nerfs). And its cheap + easy to play (just build infantry); which makes it populair. But it is not OP imo.

Tact, people been wanting to nerf strategy left and right, I seen it. I never had a problem fighting against SM, but now that they nerfed, I don't really encounter SM as much anymore. The point being - we shouldn't nerf other strats because you tend to lose to it. Boost the strat you love to make it fair in certain playing field. PD has went on many seasons without changing, and now all sudden people want to nerf it because its popular? No thanks. Also, PD and Me have a love affair, I can't let it get hurt :/

It saved my life many times before, and so its my duty to protect her from the nerfs

Scris de Spart, 24.12.2013 at 08:50

All I suggested was taking away the in-city boost for militia. It won't give -1 to militia defense at all. Militia defense will still be boosted. It simply will not add +1 defense to them in cities along with its other defensive boosts.

Ok, i misunderstood that one. And after reading this:

Scris de The Tactician, 24.12.2013 at 09:08

Hugosch, the theme of perfect defense will still stay the same with the +1 def to militia, its just the in city defense boost is too much. Imagine you cap London for example and you get 42 defense instantly from militia. Not to mention gen's stack.

This is true tbh. Point taken.

Well Ends, yes but no. The recap I'm talking about is already planned, you use all your spawn to recap+gen. Lets say you use all scandies/germany/austria/czech/slovenia/croatia and whatever else you own to make marines to recap berlin. Lets say a UK send 40 inf which you defend with only 8 militia or something. With a clever wall, or a kill of trans UK is immobilized in only germany reinforcements. While you have another round of spawn not to mention the ones you already have from before. Easy recap. Then he is left with much lesser force to get jewed and die.


Cthulhu trust me mother PD has saved me many many times too. And it is that why i say it needs a slight nerf. Like i said, if we boost all strats weak to PD we would end up boosting all expensive powerful strategies except DS maybe. So a very slight nerf will balance it out just a bit, without stopping people from playing PD. Between me an you people wouldn't notice that much anyway .