Nerf GW a little bit

Can people stop pretending GW isnt completely broken and doesnt take that much skill to play? People say GW is hard to play because of weak expansion, but all it takes is 5 minutes for even a noob to develop a viable expansion for it.

I propose a very simple nerf for GW.

Remove the marine's city bonus versus infantry.

On a similar note can we nerf DS too?

No to either.

Cituj:

Ivan: Amok's view is "let's never touch them again", and after the responses to the latest changes, I tend to agree with him. Every change that is supported by a group of people (in this case it was Laochra and co) will be vehemently opposed by another, even though it might seem like a net positive and rather uncontroversial at the time.

Good thing that Ivan came to his sense. Amok's point is just as understandable for listening to a random guy and push theses horrendous strategy changes earlier on.

atWar future looks a little more brighter.

Well then the current Eu duel meta of overpowered ukr may never change.

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2017 at 21:11

Well then the current Eu duel meta of overpowered ukr may never change.

its only ds ukr that makes ukr overpowered, all the other strats are a fair battle. I am debating what to do about ds. The militia boost was devised by myself chess and desu. The idea was to give ds light defensive capabilities and upgrade it from a hipster strat to a competitive midrange contender. We were successful in that regard for sure. Giving the inf +1 defense was discussed. I cant remember for sure but i believe we didnt do that because ds originally had 6 defense infantry back in 2013. It was changed by Ivan/amok without any discussion due to the complaints of a handful of players so we saw it as unlikely that the admins would agree to restore it. However there were 2 unforseen consequences to boosting the militia over the infantry.

1. It makes ds viable on 3k settings as a rush strat. On that setting youre most likely to encounter gw and imp both of which are no match for ds when it comes to contesting for expansion t1. The stronger more maneuverable militia gives ds a lategame on that setting too. I got to experience this first hand in an africa cw.

2. Ds already had the best expansion vs neutrals. Due to the defence bonuses you can send less at neutrals and you tend to lose very few helis. As a result you expand faster than any other strat. Now with the militia its worthwhile to use up all this unit prod so ds now has some serious spam capabilities. People don't yet realise this.

I am unsure as to how to approach this with a solution and desu and chess are no longer active and in touch with the meta to test ideas against and bounce ideas off of. Even if a solution were to be found itd be difficult to convince to admins to implement it. I believe i could with enough effort towards producing a convincing argument but why should i bother. You I and a handful of others are the only people who care about this. In the meantime i would suggest you just obnoxiously spam these strats.

Although i am sorry to see that nobody plays east duels anymore because of ds. It was the best and most interesting/diverse 1v1 setting we had on atwar. Theres nothing to replace it.

Y gw is ok tho ds needs a little mili defence nerf but with dead amok nothing can be fixed

Gw can be beat same as ukr ds. it all depends from who plays vs who. but ds is way too op i agree ds needs nerf but not for gw. any nerf on gw it will make it a bad strat like hw and don will be the only player to use it

Napísal AlBoZzZ, 14.02.2017 at 01:32

Gw can be beat same as ukr ds. it all depends from who plays vs who. but ds is way too op i agree ds needs nerf but not for gw. any nerf on gw it will make it a bad strat like hw and don will be the only player to use it

i support i am albanian as well

Napísal Permamuted, 13.02.2017 at 22:41

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2017 at 21:11

Well then the current Eu duel meta of overpowered ukr may never change.

its only ds ukr that makes ukr overpowered, all the other strats are a fair battle. I am debating what to do about ds. The militia boost was devised by myself chess and desu. The idea was to give ds light defensive capabilities and upgrade it from a hipster strat to a competitive midrange contender. We were successful in that regard for sure. Giving the inf +1 defense was discussed. I cant remember for sure but i believe we didnt do that because ds originally had 6 defense infantry back in 2013. It was changed by Ivan/amok without any discussion due to the complaints of a handful of players so we saw it as unlikely that the admins would agree to restore it. However there were 2 unforseen consequences to boosting the militia over the infantry.

1. It makes ds viable on 3k settings as a rush strat. On that setting youre most likely to encounter gw and imp both of which are no match for ds when it comes to contesting for expansion t1. The stronger more maneuverable militia gives ds a lategame on that setting too. I got to experience this first hand in an africa cw.

2. Ds already had the best expansion vs neutrals. Due to the defence bonuses you can send less at neutrals and you tend to lose very few helis. As a result you expand faster than any other strat. Now with the militia its worthwhile to use up all this unit prod so ds now has some serious spam capabilities. People don't yet realise this.

I am unsure as to how to approach this with a solution and desu and chess are no longer active and in touch with the meta to test ideas against and bounce ideas off of. Even if a solution were to be found itd be difficult to convince to admins to implement it. I believe i could with enough effort towards producing a convincing argument but why should i bother. You I and a handful of others are the only people who care about this. In the meantime i would suggest you just obnoxiously spam these strats.

Although i am sorry to see that nobody plays east duels anymore because of ds. It was the best and most interesting/diverse 1v1 setting we had on atwar. Theres nothing to replace it.

How about making inf -10 cost +1 range, removing mil defence but keeping range?

Napísal Permamuted, 13.02.2017 at 22:41

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2017 at 21:11

Well then the current Eu duel meta of overpowered ukr may never change.

its only ds ukr that makes ukr overpowered, all the other strats are a fair battle. I am debating what to do about ds. The militia boost was devised by myself chess and desu. The idea was to give ds light defensive capabilities and upgrade it from a hipster strat to a competitive midrange contender. We were successful in that regard for sure. Giving the inf +1 defense was discussed. I cant remember for sure but i believe we didnt do that because ds originally had 6 defense infantry back in 2013. It was changed by Ivan/amok without any discussion due to the complaints of a handful of players so we saw it as unlikely that the admins would agree to restore it. However there were 2 unforseen consequences to boosting the militia over the infantry.

1. It makes ds viable on 3k settings as a rush strat. On that setting youre most likely to encounter gw and imp both of which are no match for ds when it comes to contesting for expansion t1. The stronger more maneuverable militia gives ds a lategame on that setting too. I got to experience this first hand in an africa cw.

2. Ds already had the best expansion vs neutrals. Due to the defence bonuses you can send less at neutrals and you tend to lose very few helis. As a result you expand faster than any other strat. Now with the militia its worthwhile to use up all this unit prod so ds now has some serious spam capabilities. People don't yet realise this.

I am unsure as to how to approach this with a solution and desu and chess are no longer active and in touch with the meta to test ideas against and bounce ideas off of. Even if a solution were to be found itd be difficult to convince to admins to implement it. I believe i could with enough effort towards producing a convincing argument but why should i bother. You I and a handful of others are the only people who care about this. In the meantime i would suggest you just obnoxiously spam these strats.

Although i am sorry to see that nobody plays east duels anymore because of ds. It was the best and most interesting/diverse 1v1 setting we had on atwar. Theres nothing to replace it.

how about wemake individual strategies so everyone can nerf or boost what suits him, in range of 3 or 5

Napísal Xenosapien, 14.02.2017 at 03:49

Napísal Permamuted, 13.02.2017 at 22:41

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2017 at 21:11

Well then the current Eu duel meta of overpowered ukr may never change.

-

How about making inf -10 cost +1 range, removing mil defence but keeping range?

That's just gonna make it more op, imagine how op t1 is gonna be with that in action with all that inf. It's not like ds inf wasn't okay already, in some situations it can come off as a cheap way to capture countries with a decent range/defence which makes up for it's cost.

If DS needs anything it's -1 inf range and upped cost for it, that way DS t1 is less op and balances up the front a bit. Not only that but I also would suggest upping the cost for ATs to force ukraine to use more ds units and less maneuverable milli/inf.

I also believe that Helis having same defense as milli/inf is kinda ridiculous. They have huge mobility so you can use them to defend long targets at an okay cost. They should have at least a -1 nerf to make up for it. This is seriously the new RA, like how tanks got 9 atk 5 def 9 range. And how is helis defending make any sense in warfare anyways?

Napísal Leo, 14.02.2017 at 07:52

Napísal Xenosapien, 14.02.2017 at 03:49

Napísal Permamuted, 13.02.2017 at 22:41

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2017 at 21:11

Well then the current Eu duel meta of overpowered ukr may never change.

-

How about making inf -10 cost +1 range, removing mil defence but keeping range?

That's just gonna make it more op, imagine how op t1 is gonna be with that in action with all that inf. It's not like ds inf wasn't okay already, in some situations it can come off as a cheap way to capture countries with a decent range/defence which makes up for it's cost.

If DS needs anything it's -1 inf range and upped cost for it, that way DS t1 is less op and balances up the front a bit. Not only that but I also would suggest upping the cost for ATs to force ukraine to use more ds units and less maneuverable milli/inf.

I also believe that Helis having same defense as milli/inf is kinda ridiculous. They have huge mobility so you can use them to defend long targets at an okay cost. They should have at least a -1 nerf to make up for it. This is seriously the new RA, like how tanks got 9 atk 5 def 9 range. And how this helis defending make any sense in warfare anyways?

I agree helis need defence nerf. Maybe inf +10 cost? it should have some form of defence just expensive.

Ivan and amoks fiew of never changing the strategies is insane. An exploited strat will never been changed?

For the game to develop and grow the strategies need to be changed.

"stop messing with the strats" yea but how about we fix the 2 everyone agrees they need fixing? RA and DS

Gota agree with Civ , no one even uses RA anymore and DS is just fucked up xD

Napísal Evic, 14.02.2017 at 11:44

"stop messing with the strats" yea but how about we fix the 2 everyone agrees they need fixing? RA and DS

The problem with ds and ra is that they both occupy the same niche. Relentless attack would also be an appropriate name for desert storm too. It is why nobody has ever been able to get ra right, nobody knows what to do it. The tanks have had 120 cost, 110 cost, 100 cost, 90 cost, 9 attack, 8 attack, 5 defence, 4 defence. And out of the 2 ra is the beginners strat. If you make it strong you discourage players from moving on to try others.

Napísal Permamuted, 14.02.2017 at 12:14

The problem with ds and ra is that they both occupy the same niche. Relentless attack would also be an appropriate name for desert storm too. It is why nobody has ever been able to get ra right, nobody knows what to do it. The tanks have had 120 cost, 110 cost, 100 cost, 90 cost, 9 attack, 8 attack, 5 defence, 4 defence. And out of the 2 ra is the beginners strat. If you make it strong you discourage players from moving on to try others.

well you had sky mence and perfect defence to counter tg/ra, anti aircraft is not sufficient parallel to counter the helicopter, and if it was'snt enough they priviliged the desert stormers with defence priviliges that tank generals simply did not have, frankly i never played desert storm but with their expansion and on paper stats it does not seems very complicated to defend, i will be glad to be proven wrong.

both strategies are not at the sime nitche, Desert Storm is overpriviliged, i don't know what motivated the staff to do these changes, but if balance is what you seeked by nerfing ra and buffing ds it does'nt seems very successful as you said yourself.

Nerf the fking ds..

Napísal Permamuted, 13.02.2017 at 22:41

just make clov a mod already, dude, he'd help you w/ this shit. not taking him seriously, because you dont agree with him is just childish. i mean, its either listening to him and the last few brilliant, active, highly competitive players, or no change whatsoever. there are the capabilities to find better solutions to the current problems, you're simply ignoring them.

Eagle, Mauzer, Acq, Heat (shame prom went as quickly as he came), clov and dr.shitface (who still plays world games and stuff like MoS). the capabilities are available, you need to use them.

Napísal Rock Lee, 14.02.2017 at 12:37

well you had sky mence and perfect defence to counter tg/ra, anti aircraft is not sufficient parallel to counter the helicopter, and if it was'snt enough they priviliged the desert stormers with defence priviliges that tank generals simply did not have, frankly i never played desert storm but with their expansion and on paper stats it does not seems very complicated to defend, i will be glad to be proven wrong.

both strategies are not at the sime nitche, Desert Storm is overpriviliged, i don't know what motivated the staff to do these changes, but if balance is what you seeked by nerfing ra and buffing ds it does'nt seems very successful as you said yourself.

Except sky menace only counters ra in the 15k+ funds range and it should be obvious as to why. The Ra that we nerfed certainly was not countered by pd. How can you say that? Even on paper it's ridiculous. 9 attack tanks with 8 range vs 8 defense infantry with 6 range. Costs dont matter when youve enough money to fully spam them for 3-4 turns. So ra expands faster, loses less vs neutrals, reaches further and hits harder. How exactly does pd counter that? And what about the poor strategies that don't have a defense bonus vs tanks? Fuck them eh? Ra was never even intended to become that strong. Amok just accidentally overboosted the cost. Yet you and your ilk criticise me as if ra was finally made perfect and i ruined it.

Ds is indeed overpriviliged and in it's current form it is more versatile than ra. It's versatility is part of the reason it needs to be nerfed. The defense change was only ever meant to be a beta, now we see its too strong and its time to try something else.

Napísal Tirpitz406, 14.02.2017 at 13:08

Napísal Permamuted, 13.02.2017 at 22:41

just make clov a mod already, dude, he'd help you w/ this shit. not taking him seriously, because you dont agree with him is just childish. i mean, its either listening to him and the last few brilliant, active, highly competitive players, or no change whatsoever. there are the capabilities to find better solutions to the current problems, you're simply ignoring them.

Eagle, Mauzer, Acq, Heat (shame prom went as quickly as he came), clov and dr.shitface (who still plays world games and stuff like MoS). the capabilities are available, you need to use them.

Youve no idea what you are talking about. All the players you named are largely inactive and only play cws or the odd game. They also dont give a shit, do you see their presense in any of these threads?

As for clovis, he has me on ignore and disregards my posts purely because theyre mine. And yet you are here calling me the childish one.

Napísal Permamuted, 14.02.2017 at 13:23

Except sky menace only counters ra in the 15k+ funds range and it should be obvious as to why. The Ra that we nerfed certainly was not countered by pd. How can you say that? Even on paper it's ridiculous. 9 attack tanks with 8 range vs 8 defense infantry with 6 range. Costs dont matter when youve enough money to fully spam them for 3-4 turns. So ra expands faster, loses less vs neutrals, reaches further and hits harder. How exactly does pd counter that? And what about the poor strategies that don't have a defense bonus vs tanks? Fuck them eh? Ra was never even intended to become that strong. Amok just accidentally overboosted the cost. Yet you and your ilk criticise me as if ra was finally made perfect and i ruined it.

Ds is indeed overpriviliged and in it's current form it is more versatile than ra. It's versatility is part of the reason it needs to be nerfed. The defense change was only ever meant to be a beta, now we see its too strong and its time to try something else.

I have no idea what it was like in 2013 or whenever they nerfed it (idk what was it like or what did admins do to it), so i can't debate about that period, i can only say that in diffrent period time of atwar it was easy to hold ra players with turnblocks (no longer relevant) and big stacks, they eventually would run out of money and get too many important cities captured

It really was strategy for beginners only, when you reached level 4 or 5 you knew how to deal with them efficiently except in scenarios or against players who really learned the strategy, but in default map PD master would beat RA master. perhaps anyone can tell us what has changed.

I support nerf of ds, but strongly oppose to any change of gw (even though i don't like playing it)

Napísal Permamuted, 14.02.2017 at 13:23

Napísal Rock Lee, 14.02.2017 at 12:37

well you had sky mence and perfect defence to counter tg/ra, anti aircraft is not sufficient parallel to counter the helicopter, and if it was'snt enough they -

-

Why wasn't RA's defense ever nerfed? 9 atk 3/2 def 120/110/100 cost tanks sounds like a fair nerf to me. After all, that's what the audience want, an actual offensive strat, cause let's be honest, RA has been gimped so hard it doesn't even make sense anymore, esp the buffs for bombers and destroyers. it's not like it was meant to be yet another defensive strat, it's clearly a suicide/rush strat that won't survive past t5 and is just meant to create as much chaos as possible.
Giving pd/other strats the ability to kill these tanks easily should balance it well, not only that but it'll force RA to play less carelessly as it'll pay hard in 1v1v1 battles. Also it's not as if PD can't already defend that easily already, for pretty much the same cost.

Napísal Waffel, 14.02.2017 at 14:19

what is it on your heart?

Napísal Leo, 14.02.2017 at 14:15

Why wasn't RA's defense ever nerfed? 9 atk 3/2 def 120/110/100 cost tanks sounds like a fair nerf to me. After all, that's what the audience want, an actual offensive strat, cause let's be honest, RA has been gimped so hard it doesn't even make sense anymore, esp the buffs for bombers and destroyers. it's not like it was meant to be yet another defensive strat, it's clearly a suicide/rush strat that won't survive past t5 and is just meant to create as much chaos as possible.
Giving pd/other strats the ability to kill these tanks easily should balance it well, not only that but it'll force RA to play less carelessly as it'll pay hard in 1v1v1 battles. Also it's not as if PD can't already defend that easily already, for pretty much the same cost.

It's not just for chaos or expansion, in order to win in RA you needed to choose where to meet your enemy, it sounds dumb when i say that but that's true, that was the reason it was so popular in scenarios when the course of the game already written.

ofcourse that with the previous tb system pd and ra had wayy more options and now game is restriced to the surface of cities recruitment and income, but it's like Naval Commander, when you learn to master it it could be very efficient.

Napísal Rock Lee, 14.02.2017 at 14:23

Napísal Leo, 14.02.2017 at 14:15

-

-

Tbh the only times i'd see RA played is poland, and maybe ukraine. You're probably talking about old times which have changed a lot, but RA serves as a suicide strat mainly in europe, even back when it was still buffed. I personally think it's irrelevant in scenarios because they can always alter the statistics however they want, but it still makes sense though. How is it that the only outright attacking strat doesn't even buff attack?

Napísal Leo, 14.02.2017 at 14:31

Tbh the only times i'd see RA played is poland, and maybe ukraine. You're probably talking about old times which have changed a lot, but RA serves as a suicide strat mainly in europe, even back when it was still buffed. I personally think it's irrelevant in scenarios because they can always alter the statistics however they want, but it still makes sense though. How is it that the only outright attacking strat doesn't even buff attack?

RA was very effective in scenarios because it helps to destroy big stacks, for example when you play soviet in WWII you barely attack your enemy, so when your enemy only protects itself you can do whatever you want, in default map it was diffrent, tank players had to divide and hide their forces in order to not get turnblocked, they always had to recapture their lands because militias were not enough to protect cities, so they could'nt send all they had against their enemy, at the time the most efficient counter to tanks that i remember is SM Volga - you could attack them whenver they were.

I'm not sure that's the reason, but the popular strategy (PD) suffered many nerfs (range, city defence bonuse, turnblocks removed), i assume that it's what brought the nerfs to the rest of the strategies (RA GC LB), let's hope they will manage to fix it.

Napísal Rock Lee, 14.02.2017 at 14:39

Napísal Leo, 14.02.2017 at 14:31

-

-

I still don't understand how is that relevant to the conversation at all. Even if it's a suicide strat, RA players still had/have to be careful about their stacks because everyone keeps trying to destroy them. What were even the old stats of RA/TG? My point since the beginning was to kill much of it's defensive aspect and buff it's attack, so at least it's not as useless as it currently is.