Strategies Discussion 2015.

Hmmm... Mb it's an overnerf. But as critical said, blitz has same ( i think ) range of naval than NC .. it's op as fuck.
Typically as ukraine. you can rush ankara ( even with militia ) by using the navals from RS port without using AT's lol. and you can send 60 unit on turn 4 with odessa taken.
I think it's really OP. A bit too much. Mb - 1 range would be good

Thinking just logically. it's strange that NC is not best range because it is supposed to be it's niche. Also as critical said. Historically, blitzkrieg wasn't a naval strategy. ( Just a detail there btw not really important but still )

As I said previously on this thread Zone, take it step by step, do the militia first (if have to) then see if that makes a significant change for you 1v1'ers, if it is still OP then make further changes, too many at once may end up making it a dud strat.

Yes agree, still i feel like this militia nerf is not enough.
We'll see . Step by step yes

Support blitz nerf.

would be so much better to nerf ukraine income and turk reinforcements, but this can never happen in a retarded community like ours, where we cant even agree what colour a dress is.(obviously blue)

Napísal Khal.eesi, 20.03.2015 at 14:04

would be so much better to nerf ukraine income and turk reinforcements, but this can never happen in a retarded community like ours

Actually, Ukraine used to have 2 more cities and a few more reinforcements and it got nerfed in the past.

[Another idea for 1v1 is just agree to no ukraine, just like no turk-ukr btw]

Napísal Khal.eesi, 20.03.2015 at 14:04

... but this can never happen in a retarded community like ours...

You know you are part of the community and you are calling youself retard right...

I feel dishonoured cause a retard called me retard... I might be worsen than a retard

Clovis as we already said many many many times. The problem is not about ukraine blitz being unbeatable. We keep saying that and you keep not understanding :s.
The problem is about the natural big advantage a blitz ukraine player has against turk.
The advantage is huge. That's why there need to be something done cause it fucks the east 1vs1 balance.

And for a great part of competitive community. East is best ground for duels that's why we are trying so hard to get it as much balanced as possible.

Here we see that there"s a big unbalanced challenge between turk and ukraine and we will resolve it.

I already know how to fight blitz ukr efficiently ( Mostly cause i played it a lot ) but i can tell you. For same player it will be so much harder to kill him if he's blitz than any other strat.

If i was playing myself as ukr ( Meaning exact same level guy ) i'm sure that my ratio of win as ukr will be clearly advantaged.

You can keep telling your things about not blitz nerfing but be sure we'll continue in the same path and get the things done.

Napísal Zone, 20.03.2015 at 19:15

... The problem is not about ukraine blitz being unbeatable...

Problem solved. Or should I claim because certain country have advantage against certain country?

Well yes please boost cyrus because it is unfair against turkey. Also nerf turkey.

---

Blitz ukraine today, SM ukraine tomorow, then PD, then UK, then NC... IMO as long as something is betable it shouldn't be nerfed. Let the players accept the challenge, and hopefully we won't be making a rule of "Do no pick this or not duel/cw".

I think you don't understand at all the point.

It is about the classical east duel between turk and ukr.

Why you even talk about cyprus. Anyway won't talk about this longer cause it's not worse it

Plz make an effort to truely read what i say and try to understand it .

" The PROBLEM is that in EAST DUEL the challenge got A LOT unbalanced with ukr blitz being so OP compare to turk that ukr wins most of time "

Also as always. Nice contradictory talking.... You are always the first guy to say that no country is unbeatable, depends on player and stuff and strat.

Anyway this is not even the problem. The problem is about BALANCE which is clearly bad.

Clovis add zone to best friend list.he is one of the few people who still take you seriously

Napísal Pinheiro, 20.03.2015 at 14:29

Napísal Khal.eesi, 20.03.2015 at 14:04

would be so much better to nerf ukraine income and turk reinforcements, but this can never happen in a retarded community like ours

Actually, Ukraine used to have 2 more cities and a few more reinforcements and it got nerfed in the past.

to elaborate on this khal, if you did this youd make turk a horrible first pick since germany at current is more than a match for it, so youd need to nerf germany, and then youd need to nerf uk, and then...

see the problem? If we want different gameplay we need a whole new map, something that perhaps gravitates away from the pd centric gameplay of europe+. Europe+ has achieved a level of perfect imbalance, ignoring blitz ukraine, the differences in balance between the primary countries people like to play against each other with is so small nobody would ever be able to agree on changes.

If 1 strat rises to the fore as obviously overpowered, as blitz has done then its the strat that needs to be cut not the country. Especially since the boost blitz received was quite significant. It was a long time before it came to all of our attention just how strong blitz could be.(thank beserok)

Cthulhus suggestion is what i actually do myself when dueling these days, well i specifically ask for no blitz, im perfectly happy to play the other versions of ukraine.

How about starting with boosting other strats instead of going in circles over blitz? we've spoken about some strats being good still in some maps non EU+ 10k exta this maybe the case but isn't EU+ what most people have agreed on as being balanced? (sure it's not 100% balanced but it has a wide variety of areas that make most strats viable, sure mos and hw are more for world games (at least the way I see it and I think most others do) so that's fine then there are strats that are commonly played in cw those being ya basic SM Blitz PD NC imp ok that's fine (blitz might need something but I say leave it for now and focus on making the strats that aren't useful and making them useful)

then you got strats played but not a lot being well all ya others your RA LB GC IF DS

RA people really don't seem to play it much from what most people have commented on changing to it makes me wonder

LB +12crit or 13 should be fine instead of 10 making it a little more lucky so it's usable and not to lucky that it's OP

IF I think should have only -1 range to trans instead of -2 but keep everything else same then again on other maps IF is fine as is so it could be kept as is as well

GC I think giving them a crit boost and a -10 to cost of the inf would be a bit much but doing just one of those I think would be good probs the -10 to inf cost since GC tanks already have -10 cost so making inf -10 cost as well sounds reasonable

I'd like to point out that I was the original eu+ blitz fag and no one does it better then me :-)

Napísal Zone, 20.03.2015 at 19:43

I think you don't understand at all the point.

It is about the classical east duel between turk and ukr.

Why you even talk about cyprus. Anyway won't talk about this longer cause it's not worse it

Plz make an effort to truely read what i say and try to understand it .

" The PROBLEM is that in EAST DUEL the challenge got A LOT unbalanced with ukr blitz being so OP compare to turk that ukr wins most of time "

Also as always. Nice contradictory talking.... You are always the first guy to say that no country is unbeatable, depends on player and stuff and strat.

Anyway this is not even the problem. The problem is about BALANCE which is clearly bad.

East duel in itself is niche game mode of the community, why should a strategy that is used across the community be nurfed to sate your duel blights? If it was recently discovered it up to you to discover a version of Turk to counter it not cry foul and plead for nurf, this whole blitz attack is pathetic.

Napísal Permamuted, 20.03.2015 at 21:02

Napísal Pinheiro, 20.03.2015 at 14:29

Napísal Khal.eesi, 20.03.2015 at 14:04

would be so much better to nerf ukraine income and turk reinforcements, but this can never happen in a retarded community like ours

Actually, Ukraine used to have 2 more cities and a few more reinforcements and it got nerfed in the past.

to elaborate on this khal, if you did this youd make turk a horrible first pick since germany at current is more than a match for it, so youd need to nerf germany, and then youd need to nerf uk, and then...

see the problem? If we want different gameplay we need a whole new map, something that perhaps gravitates away from the pd centric gameplay of europe+. Europe+ has achieved a level of perfect imbalance, ignoring blitz ukraine, the differences in balance between the primary countries people like to play against each other with is so small nobody would ever be able to agree on changes.

If 1 strat rises to the fore as obviously overpowered, as blitz has done then its the strat that needs to be cut not the country. Especially since the boost blitz received was quite significant. It was a long time before it came to all of our attention just how strong blitz could be.(thank beserok)

Cthulhus suggestion is what i actually do myself when dueling these days, well i specifically ask for no blitz, im perfectly happy to play the other versions of ukraine.

you have a point.But i would just like it if you could pick west against ukraine.when dueling people are like, east or west?that is really boring, i mean we all know that west duels are boring and repetitive and east duels are unbalanced now, so whats left?Just somehow make east picks on par with west, i dont know how difficult that would be.

anyway blitz needs nerf.atleast nerf blitz transports.both naval and air.

Napísal Pinheiro, 20.03.2015 at 14:29

Napísal Khal.eesi, 20.03.2015 at 14:04

would be so much better to nerf ukraine income and turk reinforcements, but this can never happen in a retarded community like ours

Actually, Ukraine used to have 2 more cities and a few more reinforcements and it got nerfed in the past.

wow lol, not op at all.i wish i could play the old atwar..

Napísal clovis1122, 20.03.2015 at 17:24

You know you are part of the community and you are calling youself retard right...

I feel dishonoured cause a retard called me retard... I might be worsen than a retard

yes clovis i am not taking my tail out of this.i am part of this community and part of the problem.we can never unite and agree on something.Just take a look at blitz now, all the high elo duelers are saying it needs nerf and yet you still have people objecting to it..

Napísal Khal.eesi, 20.03.2015 at 20:00

Clovis add zone to best friend list.he is one of the few people who still take you seriously

Congratulations upon receiving my first and only upvote. After reading through three large threads, MoU's clan thread, Gard's ToS thread, and now this strategy thread one after another I began to tire from the pitiful circular discussions until this post. I had a good chuckle.

Napísal Fockmeeard, 07.03.2015 at 21:23

Napísal Permamuted, 07.03.2015 at 15:02

Ukraine is not the problem, as ive just explained to zone, especially with new expansion innovations by lynchski with turk. Its now possible to cap hungary and austria turn 1 with all main lower balkan capitals with only 2 nts and an at.

*correction: Desu is the creator of that innovative Turk Expansion. Is like 6 months old already.

Yep, though Laochra already pr'd me asking so. I had plenty desumagics saved up many years ago and rarely used any of it, hid it all to use against Dalmati. Then they stopped playing, which rendered it all useless. I have an ss of this from Feb 3, 2014 when I was showing Bertank. And I saved a few glitches, "irregularities," but that was before becoming a mod huehuehuehue.


Small talk aside... onto the point of the topic, strategies. (And apparently more discussions going in circles about blitz)

I largely agree with Laochra's adjustments, but adding my position should be useful for discussion.

Napísal Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:29

Great Combinator:

+2 crit to infantry and tanks
-10 cost to infantry.

Ideally gc would be great as a competent alternative to pd. Previously gc was nerfed for being too powerful with +1 attack/defense and hp on its tanks/inf. A +12 crit addition would be a rough equivalent to the +1 att/def addition so this is a baby step in that direction to improve the quality of the inf and the tanks. An improvement to gcs economy would also help it to match up to pd and the other competitive strats.

I see +2 crit listed, then you say "A +12 crit addition" in the paragraph, which baffled me for a few seconds. Do you wish to give it a whole +12 crit? That's more than LB. Back tracking prior to your assumed mistake, +2 crit to tanks/inf would seem more agreeable (though not much).

GC is my favourite strategy. I use it every time I'm not in a 10k 3vs3, mainly for 5k EU games. FFA's etc. And SPECIALLY on my alt accounts. It's a very satisfying strategy to achieve victory with.

A slight buff is welcome, but I hope people realize that GC does have it's moments, even in its nerfed state. I'd be happy with the -10 cost to infantry, but even that might be too much of a push. Of course in a 3vs3 it is rarely used, so more buffs would help there.

Conclusion: -10 cost to GC infantry is a simple patch I think is viable.

Napísal Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:29

Hybrid Warfare:

-20 to inf

This was a suggestion recently proposed in ideas and suggestions, it would improve hws economy giving it a better capability to defend. The inf have no offensive capabilities so that is a sufficient counter to their boosted defense.

This strategy needs all the help it can get. It has its militia's defence nerfed with only its infantry as a defence unit. Overall Tophat's concept was interesting, combining GC/GW, but it's a very vulnerable strategy trying to accomplish both sides with those huge nerfs. I actually don't think HW even needs to exist. GC and GW accomplishes everything to a better degree.

I'm afraid the current HW concept is a little broken. If we remove nerfs to make it able to face the rest, GC/GW can be usurped as this strategy aims to do both strategies to a lesser degree. It's also an SP-bought strategy, and a huge amount too. This with a fixed set of stats in the hands of a rank 10 against the little rank 6/7's in a world game is nearly unfair (though other strategies in the hands of a rank 10 accomplishes the same result).

I have a very interesting concept to replace HW's current stats, or replace the strategy altogether, but that's not what this thread is about.

Conclusion: I agree with the -20 to infantry, but I believe this strategy should be removed altogether.

Napísal Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:29

Relentless Attack:

Ra is a strat that definitely needs work, perhaps a complete overhaul in terms of function. It is a very basic strat that has no unique or interesting niche in terms of gameplay and is perhaps too easy to play. Any suggestions?

It is plenty powerful in some situations outside of 3vs3s. Those tanks are impressive by themselves, and as others noted, without upgrades RA is pretty crazy.

As for adjustments, everyone has pondered and thought but adding other units to it infringe upon other strategies. Clovis' lines about adding destroyers/bombers to the mix in buffs does exactly that, infringe upon SM and NC. I'm sort of tired that people keep thinking like this, but there's not much we can do about this strategy short of just messing with the tank's stats. It could be done I suppose, like Cthulhu's post on a previous page about adjusting costs. Not too bad

Or we could think outside of the box and just throw away the title and make something new. How about throwing in a special way to defend itself? Give Destroyers +5/+6 defence, making them 12 or 13 defence total. It would be hilarious, turning ports into defensive hard points for tanks to hide behind. Very expensive 250 cost each, and almost not worth it compared to PD's infantry 10 defence in a city+gen for only 50 cost. Suddenly Scandi/RNW/UK RA would be competitively plausible, but that's a pretty far out idea.

Conclusion: I'm not sure either. It's probably fine as it is.

Napísal Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:29

Nerfs


Blitzkrieg:

-1 defense to militia

The advantages of blitz in its current form far outweigh the disadvantages. Its too much for a mere -1 defense on its units. We dont need to go back to minus 2 defense, but a cut is needed somewhere.

I can largely grasp the situation about this, though I'm very inactive, this seems to be the only new position in play that I haven't had to find a way around by testing. I've seen several odd 1 vs 1's the last couple of months and only realized why when someone said something in clan chat(Goblin?) that it was because of Blitz Ukraine. Witnessing its power by watching duels between top players was something else. Yes it is very likely the person with Ukraine in their possession will beat the person with Turkey, armed with Blitz.

Other arguments displayed through the thread do try to counter the need for the said nerf. Remember that Blitzkrieg used to have -2 defence to every unit, and it was still a popular strategy to use. In fact I had it on my favourite strategies list on my profile till I was rank 9. This isn't a leap forward in developing the 3 vs 3 meta, rather it's a small step back to correct a partial over-buff. I suspect more could be done, even removing one defence from the infantry, but I think some would oppose that.

Conclusion: A nerf to its militia by -1 defence should be fine as a partial patch, making it -2 compared to the other -1's.

I look forward to any replies.

Blitz Ukraine doesn't need to defend against the rush ...recap easy.

Btw. for fuck sake ...who thinks that its normal that you have to read a step by step guide on how to defeat a specific country.

Napísal Eagle, 05.03.2015 at 15:49

Full support for blitz nerf

Napísal Steve Aoki, 06.03.2015 at 13:22

Napísal Guest, 06.03.2015 at 13:05

No support for nerfing blitz
pd has 9 defence in city and blitz only 5 how the hell blitz should be nerfed omg it's pd and it's op infantries or militias should be nerfed

Blitz inf have 6 def in city and infinite range, pd has 9 def and -1 range on infs.. Pd tanks? -1 attack. Blitz tanks? -1 def and infinite range. (you dont defend with tanks while you attack with tanks.. usualy.. a lot..)
every other offensive unit is boosted by range while the -1 def on offensive units doesnt affect the point of that unit (attacking).
nerfing militias on blitz is totaly fine to make that strategy 'ok'.

Napísal Desu, 21.03.2015 at 07:38

I see +2 crit listed, then you say "A +12 crit addition" in the paragraph, which baffled me for a few seconds. Do you wish to give it a whole +12 crit? That's more than LB. Back tracking prior to your assumed mistake, +2 crit to tanks/inf would seem more agreeable (though not much).

GC is my favourite strategy. I use it every time I'm not in a 10k 3vs3, mainly for 5k EU games. FFA's etc. And SPECIALLY on my alt accounts. It's a very satisfying strategy to achieve victory with.

A slight buff is welcome, but I hope people realize that GC does have it's moments, even in its nerfed state. I'd be happy with the -10 cost to infantry, but even that might be too much of a push. Of course in a 3vs3 it is rarely used, so more buffs would help there.

Conclusion: -10 cost to GC infantry is a simple patch I think is viable.

whoops yea, i meant a +12 was the rough equivalent of +1 att/def , which would restore gc to its old op form, i was just highlighting that a partial crit boost would take a step in the direction as i do feel the main gc units need a slight boost in quality.

however as i already said i do agree with bonkers point about taking baby steps so i am quite happy with the inf cost nerf and seeing how that works out first.

Napísal Desu, 21.03.2015 at 07:38

This strategy needs all the help it can get. It has its militia's defence nerfed with only its infantry as a defence unit. Overall Tophat's concept was interesting, combining GC/GW, but it's a very vulnerable strategy trying to accomplish both sides with those huge nerfs. I actually don't think HW even needs to exist. GC and GW accomplishes everything to a better degree.

I'm afraid the current HW concept is a little broken. If we remove nerfs to make it able to face the rest, GC/GW can be usurped as this strategy aims to do both strategies to a lesser degree. It's also an SP-bought strategy, and a huge amount too. This with a fixed set of stats in the hands of a rank 10 against the little rank 6/7's in a world game is nearly unfair (though other strategies in the hands of a rank 10 accomplishes the same result).

I have a very interesting concept to replace HW's current stats, or replace the strategy altogether, but that's not what this thread is about.

Conclusion: I agree with the -20 to infantry, but I believe this strategy should be removed altogether.

yea, hw is a difficult one. The direction its going in is towards a version of gc and gw, i dont think it will ever usurp gw because of the unique power and maneuverability of its' militia, but it would certainly compete with/usurp gc in pretty much the same niche except with the added bonus of surprise stealth attacks. Im not sure about removing it altogether, id like to see more opinions, but i do feel the sp cost should be cut if it does stick around.

Napísal Desu, 21.03.2015 at 07:38

Napísal Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:29

Relentless Attack:

Ra is a strat that definitely needs work, perhaps a complete overhaul in terms of function. It is a very basic strat that has no unique or interesting niche in terms of gameplay and is perhaps too easy to play. Any suggestions?

It is plenty powerful in some situations outside of 3vs3s. Those tanks are impressive by themselves, and as others noted, without upgrades RA is pretty crazy.

As for adjustments, everyone has pondered and thought but adding other units to it infringe upon other strategies. Clovis' lines about adding destroyers/bombers to the mix in buffs does exactly that, infringe upon SM and NC. I'm sort of tired that people keep thinking like this, but there's not much we can do about this strategy short of just messing with the tank's stats. It could be done I suppose, like Cthulhu's post on a previous page about adjusting costs. Not too bad

Or we could think outside of the box and just throw away the title and make something new. How about throwing in a special way to defend itself? Give Destroyers +5/+6 defence, making them 12 or 13 defence total. It would be hilarious, turning ports into defensive hard points for tanks to hide behind. Very expensive 250 cost each, and almost not worth it compared to PD's infantry 10 defence in a city+gen for only 50 cost. Suddenly Scandi/RNW/UK RA would be competitively plausible, but that's a pretty far out idea.

Conclusion: I'm not sure either. It's probably fine as it is.

Napísal Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:29

Nerfs


Blitzkrieg:

-1 defense to militia

The advantages of blitz in its current form far outweigh the disadvantages. Its too much for a mere -1 defense on its units. We dont need to go back to minus 2 defense, but a cut is needed somewhere.

I can largely grasp the situation about this, though I'm very inactive, this seems to be the only new position in play that I haven't had to find a way around by testing. I've seen several odd 1 vs 1's the last couple of months and only realized why when someone said something in clan chat(Goblin?) that it was because of Blitz Ukraine. Witnessing its power by watching duels between top players was something else. Yes it is very likely the person with Ukraine in their possession will beat the person with Turkey, armed with Blitz.

Other arguments displayed through the thread do try to counter the need for the said nerf. Remember that Blitzkrieg used to have -2 defence to every unit, and it was still a popular strategy to use. In fact I had it on my favourite strategies list on my profile till I was rank 9. This isn't a leap forward in developing the 3 vs 3 meta, rather it's a small step back to correct a partial over-buff. I suspect more could be done, even removing one defence from the infantry, but I think some would oppose that.

Conclusion: A nerf to its militia by -1 defence should be fine as a partial patch, making it -2 compared to the other -1's.

I look forward to any replies.

im kinda stumped on ra, yea all we can do is mess around with the tank stats, but theres no major need to boost or nerf it at current. The only argument for change is to make it more interesting.

But in regards blitz, i do agree that the militia nerf alone probably wont be sufficient, all it will do is make blitz a little more vulnerable to early game harassment/latemoves. However it will still retain all of its offensive/snowballing power, maneuverability and a significant amount of its defensive capabilities. What i displayed in that screenshot i posted of blitz turn 3 will still be possible. My thoughts on this were perhaps hitting the militia range as well but the inf defense nerf would work too.

For those that oppose an extra blitz nerf they lack decent arguments to their cause, and frankly lack the ability/understanding to use the strats to their full potential to be making such strong statements in opposition, and a brief look at their top strats is quite amusing. The blitz argument has gone in circles, on this page alone 3 players have regurgitated points all addressed on previous pages already.

However again i support the step by step approach and would be happy with the -1 alone on militia for now.

Napísal clovis1122, 20.03.2015 at 19:30

Napísal Zone, 20.03.2015 at 19:15

... The problem is not about ukraine blitz being unbeatable...

Problem solved. Or should I claim because certain country have advantage against certain country?

Well yes please boost cyrus because it is unfair against turkey. Also nerf turkey.

---

Blitz ukraine today, SM ukraine tomorow, then PD, then UK, then NC... IMO as long as something is betable it shouldn't be nerfed. Let the players accept the challenge, and hopefully we won't be making a rule of "Do no pick this or not duel/cw".

nicely said clovis

Thanks for your input Desu!

to summarize my position aswell, full support for:

-blitz -1 defense to militia
-gc -10 cost to inf / crit i am not sure
(hw/ra - have no idea)

and would add
-LB -10 cost to infantry and militia maybe +2 crit on them aswell

blitz vs LB

Napísal clovis1122, 22.03.2015 at 19:29

blitz vs LB

Assuming you are on the left with LB and judging from the colour and strat, on your right is bonker or hellraiser, with blitz, after calculations with all upgrades and general and criticals your stack had 91,56 attack and his stack had 113,36 defense. You had better rolls slash that, i just saw he had no general.That would lower his defense to 92,34.

So rolls seem pretty normal you just rolled 2-3 points better, probably.

You are right. Lets talk after LB is boosted.

I am pretty sure you did not include the HP advantage on your calculation. He have 21 extra hp.

IMO admins should implement the non controversial ones (LB, GC and HW boost) that didnt had any discussion at all. So this can speed up.

Ok i am going to push on the changes to lb, blitz, gc and hw. It appears everyone has said what theyve wanted to say in regards these. I've updated the original post.

Napísal Permamuted, 28.03.2015 at 08:25

Ok i am going to push on the changes to lb, blitz, gc and hw. It appears everyone has said what theyve wanted to say in regards these. I've updated the original post.

If a mod could please bring this to ivan it would be great.

Why? I think the mods and the admins think and know they are perfectly fine. Stop boosting everything, and actually nerf/boost every strat to a level and then stop touching it. half year later those strats you mentioned will be mentioned again and called TO op, then people say nerf this blablabla