Strategies Discussion 2015.
Postări: 245
Vizitat de: 236 users
There are still some strategies that need some work, but theres been a fair deal of improvement since the last round of changes.
We have 3 tiers of strategies atm. The competitive strategies, the middle ground strats and the almost useless strats.
Competitive Strats(competitive in that they all have a niche in which they are powerful):
Guerilla Warfare
Perfect Defense
Sky Menace
Iron Fist
Imperialist
Master of Stealth
Naval Commander
Desert Storm(almost in the next category)
Blitzkrieg
Middle Ground strats(not bad but not quite competent):
Great Combinator
Relentless attack
Almost useless:
Hybrid Warfare
Lucky bastard.
Ideally all of the strats should be in the first category. Lucky bastard was originally created as a troll strat, perhaps it is to stay that way if the community wishes. Some of the strats in the competitive category could use some tweaks, but the majority are widely considered perfect within the current meta.
I'll go through a quick breakdown of the strats.
Guerilla Warfare - Powerful in low/medium income areas with a medium/high city density(due to short range). Assuming cities are in range of its militia and marines it expands faster than any other strat due to the militia's attack and the acquiring of these buffed militia in every neutral taken. A powerful lategame strat.
Perfect Defense: A well rounded strat that can be used almost anywhere due to the low cost of its primary units and their high stats, Particularly powerful in the low-mid tier starting fund settings. However it can be dominated by the other strats in their specific niches.
Sky Menace - Powerful in medium-high income areas with low - high city densities. Can expand and travel fast and possesses great offensive power.
Iron Fist - Powerful in high income areas with a high city density. The most powerful offensive and defensive strat in the game, however it is limited by its short range. The recent change to its' transport range has seen it become a more popular pick competitively.
Imperialist - Powerful in low to medium income areas particularly with lots of spawn points. Possesses standard range on its units so is usable almost everywhere.
Master of Stealth - Powerful in medium to high income areas, particularly on big maps where it can make full use of its range and its stealth. Very mobile due to the range of its' marines and is arguably the most powerful lategame strat dominating even gw due to its meaneuvreability and powerful offense. Also possesses a decent naval presense.
Naval commander - Powerful on maps with medium to high income and lots of water and ports for it to make use of its naval transport range and powerful destroyers. Possesses the most powerful naval presense in the game.
Desert Storm: Powerful with lots of money, specifically against infantry based strats in countries with high starting funds. one of the competitive strategies which could arguably use some tweaks.
Blitzkrieg: Dangerous for surprise attacks and early game agression however it will fail vs most strats if the other has time and room to expand and grow strong. Has recently become a controversial strat due to its recently discovered power in europe+ 10k duels.
Great Combinator: Can be strong in medium to high income areas with lots of money. An attrition strat however currently in almost every situation you can use gc in a map with the default units theres a better strat choice.
Relentless Attack: A strat unique in that it has a singular boosted unit, however in function ra is the same as ds. You can pick a country with high starting funds, spam tanks and expand rapidly then go agressive. However it lacks any defensive capabilities and is dominated by pd and more powerful/versatile offensive strats like sm and mos.
Hybrid Warfare: Can be strong with lots of money, however currently it is too expensive to compete vs the competitive strats.
Lucky bastard: Is ok on high income maps, however in every situation you can use lb, theres a better strat choice. If i was to try and find a niche for lb it would be perhaps on some custom map with all "other" units with high stats and huge income.
Boosts nerfs to strats like pd/ds are controversial, so i am going to focus on the least used and widely acknowleged as weak strats, Particularly those that keep cropping up in general discussion and the ideas and suggestions section.
Boosts:
All boosts/nerfs have received support by the majority.
Great Combinator:
-10 cost to infantry.
Hybrid Warfare:
-20 to inf
Lucky Bastard:
+2 crit to all units.
Nerfs:
Blitzkrieg:
-1 defense to militia
We have 3 tiers of strategies atm. The competitive strategies, the middle ground strats and the almost useless strats.
Competitive Strats(competitive in that they all have a niche in which they are powerful):
Guerilla Warfare
Perfect Defense
Sky Menace
Iron Fist
Imperialist
Master of Stealth
Naval Commander
Desert Storm(almost in the next category)
Blitzkrieg
Middle Ground strats(not bad but not quite competent):
Great Combinator
Relentless attack
Almost useless:
Hybrid Warfare
Lucky bastard.
Ideally all of the strats should be in the first category. Lucky bastard was originally created as a troll strat, perhaps it is to stay that way if the community wishes. Some of the strats in the competitive category could use some tweaks, but the majority are widely considered perfect within the current meta.
I'll go through a quick breakdown of the strats.
Guerilla Warfare - Powerful in low/medium income areas with a medium/high city density(due to short range). Assuming cities are in range of its militia and marines it expands faster than any other strat due to the militia's attack and the acquiring of these buffed militia in every neutral taken. A powerful lategame strat.
Perfect Defense: A well rounded strat that can be used almost anywhere due to the low cost of its primary units and their high stats, Particularly powerful in the low-mid tier starting fund settings. However it can be dominated by the other strats in their specific niches.
Sky Menace - Powerful in medium-high income areas with low - high city densities. Can expand and travel fast and possesses great offensive power.
Iron Fist - Powerful in high income areas with a high city density. The most powerful offensive and defensive strat in the game, however it is limited by its short range. The recent change to its' transport range has seen it become a more popular pick competitively.
Imperialist - Powerful in low to medium income areas particularly with lots of spawn points. Possesses standard range on its units so is usable almost everywhere.
Master of Stealth - Powerful in medium to high income areas, particularly on big maps where it can make full use of its range and its stealth. Very mobile due to the range of its' marines and is arguably the most powerful lategame strat dominating even gw due to its meaneuvreability and powerful offense. Also possesses a decent naval presense.
Naval commander - Powerful on maps with medium to high income and lots of water and ports for it to make use of its naval transport range and powerful destroyers. Possesses the most powerful naval presense in the game.
Desert Storm: Powerful with lots of money, specifically against infantry based strats in countries with high starting funds. one of the competitive strategies which could arguably use some tweaks.
Blitzkrieg: Dangerous for surprise attacks and early game agression however it will fail vs most strats if the other has time and room to expand and grow strong. Has recently become a controversial strat due to its recently discovered power in europe+ 10k duels.
Great Combinator: Can be strong in medium to high income areas with lots of money. An attrition strat however currently in almost every situation you can use gc in a map with the default units theres a better strat choice.
Relentless Attack: A strat unique in that it has a singular boosted unit, however in function ra is the same as ds. You can pick a country with high starting funds, spam tanks and expand rapidly then go agressive. However it lacks any defensive capabilities and is dominated by pd and more powerful/versatile offensive strats like sm and mos.
Hybrid Warfare: Can be strong with lots of money, however currently it is too expensive to compete vs the competitive strats.
Lucky bastard: Is ok on high income maps, however in every situation you can use lb, theres a better strat choice. If i was to try and find a niche for lb it would be perhaps on some custom map with all "other" units with high stats and huge income.
Boosts nerfs to strats like pd/ds are controversial, so i am going to focus on the least used and widely acknowleged as weak strats, Particularly those that keep cropping up in general discussion and the ideas and suggestions section.
Boosts:
All boosts/nerfs have received support by the majority.
Great Combinator:
-10 cost to infantry.
Hybrid Warfare:
-20 to inf
Lucky Bastard:
+2 crit to all units.
Nerfs:
Blitzkrieg:
-1 defense to militia
|
I think NC is a powerful strategy when used in the right places, but ultimately, it has some issues, notably it's cost. Even though destroyers are buffed and have a significantly lower cost, the strategy still needs a way to combat the fact that it is still extremely costly, and on a standard world map, quite ineffective. So my suggestion would be to convert Cruisers from a rare unit to a default unit. Cruisers would be weaker than destroyers, but less costly as well. This would make NC a much more usable strategy, as there would still be income available for conquering land, while your expansion into naval cities would be the same or weaker. NC is only useful in very specific situations on the long term, and I think this change could very well balance it out in terms of overall usefulness with other strategies.
----  
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
and probably only 20-30 people are able to play blitz properly, i mean, is not like everyone knows how to play blitz properly, what could i possible do against laochra turkey using blitz ukraine 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
and probably only 20-30 people are able to play ukraine blitz properly, i mean, is not like everyone knows how to play it properly, what could i possible do against laochra turkey using blitz ukraine
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
I could be wrong here, but i feel like a blitz turkey vs a blitz ukraine would be a fair 1v1 matchup
----      
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
No, Ukraine has the disadvantage because big starting cash, nice tanks spamming
---- Hi
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
can you beat neuvieme Blitz ukraine
---- Hi
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
literally all the rps ive played, tempteds, adogs, etc and that 1 we cwd on are op with blitz. oh no my bunkers have 99 defense instead of 100. Even the ones without bunkers are ridiculous with blitz, pds useless since ground main defense are so expensive, and on some of the rp maps i played, nerfed to the point theyre almost useless obviously by an inf spam hating mapmaker. You obviously play scenarios i dont.
People keep mentioning that its one situation, failing to realise the implications of why blitz ukr is so strong and where this might be applicable elsewhere. The same issue arises even on your true competition map. boosting ra etc wont make a difference to the early game domination(and sometimes lategame) of blitz. Unless ofc you start boosting power strats like sm pd imp gw to counter it. This problem wont go away, the -1 on militia is needed. in regards your ra suggestion though, i thought id responded to it but apparently i didnt. Its hard to make strats without a defensive capability competitive, since holding territory is so important in this game. Your suggestion would make ra more formidable in what it does. But mos sm and gw will still run rings around it.
The other day in a duel a players whos blitz ukr id failed against before joined and picked ukr first pick, i went spain having prepared a line of expansion which i knew most players would struggle against. I won. Even though i won i still understand the disadvantage of spain vs ukraine and that i would most likely have lost vs a more competent player. Sure you can beat ukr with germ or italy or even slovenia, but that doesnt make any of those countries good ukr counters. Frankly at current theres no fair ukraine counters in europe. blitz dominates turk, sm dominates poland volga rnw, blitz sm and gw dominate all west picks. Your best bet is to pick germany or poland and play high risk. Precious few players on aw understand what it means to play a country/strat combo to its' full potential, 100% efficiency in expansion, balancing offense and defense, economisation and positioning. Many players posting in this thread lack the ability at a higher level to provide decent constructive criticism or form informed opinions on the current strat dynamic.
---- 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
 You are confusing skill with memorization. When you play a map over and over and over again, it eventually becomes easy to "optimize" your expansions, so please get off your high horse. AtWar is mostly a game based on luck and guesses most moves are based on what you expect from your opponent, Blitzkrieg is not a traditional strategy so it feels weird that it has so much success, eventually everybody will get use to blitzkrieg Ukraine and this issue will die out.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Haven't tried, can't tell what would happen. But I should give it a try, all those pesimist coments cheer me up to try XD
No country is counter for any other country. There's no such thing as a freaking counter!! It's a simple Eu map, not the product of a highly complex plan to balance the whole continent. There's always a risk when picking a country, you can always get rushed, you can always fail at your expansion, etc. but that doesn't mean something is unbeatable. Many things take place during a game. Tbs, walls, rushing, defending, etc. Why are you guys so pesimist? Besides, once one person gets to discover the weakness of ukr blitz it will fall apart. Same happened to me with blitz Belarus for 3k, everyone watched and soon everyone knew how to beat it ^^
---- Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you. We're all people. 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
wrong, did you believe ivan cloned the world map then randomly slapped various income and rein amounts onto the countries etc and it all worked out? The world map, specifically europe have undergone significant changes since its conception, specifically for balance. eg russia central being changed from militia to inf neutrals.
this is mostly correct, however i think youll find nobody said blitz ukraine was unbeatable. This is about fair competition, how can you play competitive 1v1s and play tournaments on a map to test your skill when 1 country/strat combo is significantly more powerful than the rest? It will screw with the win % of those who seek to challenge/test themselves. If youre a good player a few games with 1 country vs another should give you an idea of their capabilities and whether a decently fair battle can be had between the 2, europe is so ridiculously overplayed and optimised its on another level. Outlook doesnt even come into it, frankly it is quite patronising to ignore the facts and our arguments and accuse us of mere pessimism. Many of us are fully aware of what can happen during a game.
Well i invite you to discover this weakness, i will outright admit i have failed, the only way i can overcome blitz ukr is through luck, high risk gameplay or a skill advantage over my opponent. Many other competent players have failed also. also you cant compare 3k blitz, that is ridiculous on so many levels, for 1 its a low fund game where blitz will have no power if the opponent can survive the initial attacks with an economical strat. Therein lies how you beat it.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Honestly good work Laochra I support all but really I only care about GC, I love it but let's face it, it sucks now so that should be fixed. I could've bought HW but everyone says its not worth it. If it's the most expensive upgrade it should be worth it. IF is my favourite strategy atm but I hate militia because at's are too expensive so maybe get IF fixed like add the movement range for militia or -50 for at's or something other than that GJ 
---- R.I.P. Mortal Kombat 2/15/2015  ~Cryptic(CDN)
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
 a blitz ukr turn 3, expanding through west while getting enough to your cap to stop a pd rush, i havent even tried optimising this play more but im pretty sure i could get more to kiev and make it so i can unload that 80 units onto ankara turn 4. kiev consists of 55 inf rest militia and 2 ats. neither pd nor sm ukraine can achieve this feat, not even close, but sure blitz is not op 
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Support this, everything I've read this is on point.
---- It's not the end. 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
The only time i every beat blitz ukraine was with IF germany, I never won as turk against blitz ukraine. If germany is hard to play , tbh honest blitz ukraine is hard to beat
---- Hi
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
I recall that only goblin and eagles can say ukraine 1v1 is op. I've beat and have more victories than loses against everybody else at germ vs ukr, except for eagle and those Who havent fight me yet. (or those Who only fight me one time...). There is absolutery no problem in the country or the strategy. Please leave blitz and any country combo in peace and focus on boosting GC and Ra, they sure need the boost more than blitz. Actually why no make a whole New thread for discuss about it?
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
hi.my name is khal. (2-0)
----      
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
lol are you really gonna lie about this?we played 2 games me ukraine and you germany and i won both.with SM.first one was some months ago and the last one was pretty recent.The game had several spectators so it would be foolish of you to deny it. I am winning 2-0 and i will play you another ger-ukr anytime you want.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
so you deny you lost 2 times in our ukr- germany games?i knew you were an autist but i never had you for a liar lol.Actually i thought it was funny at first, but i am realizing its quite pathetic to be honest..i mean why would you embarass your self infront of me, by lying?just to prove a point? And this is not offtopic at all.My argument is that, if a west player with medium ukraine like me, can rape you in duels with my ukraine against your supposedly good germany, then yes its safe to reach the conclusion, you are either a very noob Germany or Ukraine has a very big advantage over the west.Pick one.And its not like we played one game, we played 2.And we can make a third whenever you like, only this time i will have to bring witnesses cause apparently you are a little liar 
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Clovis stop derailing this thread, not only did i witness khal beating your ukraine and can confirm youre a liar, you also are lying about our germ/ukr battles as gw, since the score is 1-1. And you should try beating gw with the other west picks. i should also add that only last month you were complaining to me in pr about how blitz ukraines were raping your germany, only last week i also used blitz ukraine to crush your germany. but this is all irrelevant, the physical capabilities of a country played optimally are what is in question, it doesnt matter who has beaten who. i gave a quick demonstration of blitz ukr above.These capabilities extend to every map with a country with high starting income and decent starting reins. Just look at the player kord on his medieval map and what his number 1 strat is. Also clovis, since you just got player of the season, you should probably not troll and derail threads trying to feed your little ego.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
This thread is a strategy discussion thread, you brought up your ukraine vs germany success rate against various players to support your argument that blitz is fine and should not be nerfed(you actually typed boosted but ill assume thats a typo). As such this tangent is not offtopic, it is however pointless and irrelevant. I should add that you also provoked khal into responding by lying about your success rate vs him. You should probably stop posting at this juncture, since you are indeed leading this discussion away from the strategies and more towards your lying and generally poor understanding of how forums and debates work.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Pointless discussion as you aren't able to recognize your own bias with khal. Returning to the Main point of this thread: I don't support any nerfs. LB is already nice just requires knowledge and non eu+ knowledge. So is hybrid Warfare (but support Cthulhu's suggestion of infantries either way). I'd also add one extra range for marines, would'be useful. For Ra I still support making it boost different units, but adding some Lucky tanks/ expandable tanks updates would also work.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
a pointless discussion brought to this thread by you, bias has nothing to do with anything.
how? why? what knowlege? elaborate on your points if you wish to be taken seriously. We do not want strats to be nice we want them to be competitive.
this would boost mos and gw, strats that already dominate in their specific niches. i agree about ra though.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
For the second point I was talking about HW... As for LB, it does work with both france and spain in eu+ 10k. Boost for your infantry stacks, without lose range(Hi IF bye IF). The extra critical is basically add up attack for your units, but after it turns into 45 vs 45 due to the critical influence, i'd say it wort more than +2 individual attack. Same logic applies to Uk vs germany in 1vs1.. Basically, is the range version of IF (but for certain promise I am not allowed to reveal much about specifics combos and situations yet. ) In Ancient world, Imo is the Best europe lategaming strategy. I've ever made a thread about It. In 5k europe, Belarús is also an excelent choise, one of AlexMeza's pick. I'd personally go scandi, but oh well... Compared to other strategies, the advantages of LB are basically: Infantries with more range than PD (this allows better expansions and New possibilities) Second Best overall attack Infantries power (IF goes First I guess, haven't made test for compare +2 Hp vs +10 critical). So, the only disadvantage Is the cost, but +10 means nothing in the First 4 turns where you can outexpand... If you want to have a strong power when stacking, is either If IF or LB.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Btw, I do agree with clovis for some parts. LB and strats like that are pretty good atm. The strategies were fine ages ago, its not the strategies that change its the playstyle of people that does/did. With that saying it doesnt mean we have to change the strategies together with the playstyles. If you want to master or play a strategy YOU should change your playstyle to play the strategy not otherwise. I also kinda think most of these changes are based on 3v3 or 1v1/duel? (this is a question) if so, then its not fair towards other people who do play these strategies in other genres/games. I have seen enough games won with GW/LB/DS/GC/NC etc.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
"Yes, cause we are the competitive players and everybody else is not important enough. AtWar should be pure 3v3 and 1v1 nothing else." - Fake competitive player. You forgot to ask why europe: "Cause europe is the standard map and admins wanted it to be balanced. All changes were made in the past for balance this zone. So Who cares about any other map/scenario?" - Fake competitive player. So yeah, boost/nerf all strats based completely on their perforance in europe+
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Well yeah, I think most of the people who dont play this game as long as we do and basically didn't grew up with these strategies/standard maps have another way of thinking than us I think :p. I always use LB/DS/GC/blitz(old blitz) as a challenge into hard games where they re just in an disadvantage due the income and reinf (3v3). So yeah, people should think about AW as a whole, and not just the competitive games and players... D:
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
You guys are right we should boost and nerf strategies according to Roleplay and Middle Earth right? Get a grip, you guys can cry day and night but 3v3 and 1v1 Eu+ is the competitive standard. These are the players that have fully understood strategy dynamics and pushed the gameplay forward in the past and continue to do so now. Mapmakers are free to balance their scenarios by altering unit statistics. But no, as you've graciously pointed out Clovis, their maps aren't worth a second thought when it comes to strategy balance.
---- The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
Ss or never happened.
