Strategies

Imperialist is useful.

Moving this discussion of Desert Storm into the sticky where its supposed to be.

Copypasted from thread:

Napísal T.Atheist, 03.03.2012 at 18:18

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters, faster and stronger Marines at the cost of slower and weaker
Tanks and Infantry. Faster and more expensive Transports and Submarines.

Tanks and Infantry (-2 movement, -1Hp, -1 defense, +20 cost.)
Marines (+2 movement, +1 Hp, -20 cost.)
Submarines, Transport, Air transport (+1 movement, +50 cost.)
Advanced Helicopters (+1 attack, +2 movement, +1 defense, +1ARB, +1 view range, +1Hp, -30 to cost.)

To start, I really like the idea of a Helicopter based strategy. We are long overdue for a new strategy, and helicopters fit the bill perfectly. It would also do well to combat strategies like IF and PD that spam infantry, so it would have a distinctive place with the other strategies. But the bonuses and nerfs you suggested don't make very much sense to me as a Helicopter based strategy. The nerf on tanks/inf is weird, it overbuffs the marines, doesn't buff Helicopters enough, and doesn't nerf bombers to make them a poor choice compared to Helicopters. I think this would just be a(n unbalanced) MoS ripoff with SM like buffs/nerfs as is. My suggestions to fix this are as follows.

-2/+2 to tanks/inf and marines is too much. I think -1/+1 would be fine for these units movement range.The only land unit currently that gets +2 (outside of blitz) is militia in GW, and that's because militia have shit range to start with (2). I think a -1 attack -1 range would be better than -2 range for these units. For marines the proposed +2 would make 9 range with +1 HP, which is ridiculous. If you really want them faster +1 is enough, there's already an upgrade that gives them +1 you can buy with SP. These buffs make the marines rival MoS, yet this is supposed to be a helicopter strategy. The buffs you proposed to marines overshadow the buffs to helicopters; and when you combine them with the rest this strategy would be overpowered.

Mentioning the +1 HP, I think it's overpowered to fuck with the units HP count in reference to marines. Marines used to have higher defense (5 I think) and it was nerfed because defensive marines are OP, the +1 HP reminds me of this, which is why I don't like it.

Next I don't see any reason at all why this has a buff to air transport movement. It doesn't bring any distinct benefit to the air transport by matching the range up with anything else. For air transports, the range without the buff (13) already exceeds the range of Helicopters with your proposed buff +2 (10). I don't believe this encourages use of Helicopters at all, but instead undermines it and mimics SM. This brings me to my next point, which is that you under buffed Helicopters in a supposed Helicopter based strategy, while leaving bombers the same.

The +2 movement isn't enough to me when it comes to helicopters, they would still be the slowest air unit by 3 range (4 if you include your air transport buff). It wouldn't even be enough to match up with an air transport, as previously mentioned. I think it would be better to not buff air transports, and instead buff helicopters range to match air transport range (+5 to helicopters). This would give helicopters a purposeful use. Also Helis already have 5 ARB, the highest default arb for any unit , the +1 ARB is definitely unneeded. Next, -30 cost to Helicopters still puts them at 170, much too expensive to rely on as a main unit. Making this , again, another marine strategy. I think a -50 cost (or more), like pulse suggested in his SM Heli thread, would be better for this strategy. It would make them semi affordable and encourage use so this would actually be what it's intended to be, a helicopter strategy.

I think the down side to infantry is a little pointless. Instead of nerfing infantry it would do better to nerf bombers. This would differentiate this strategy from the already existing ones, the only other strat to nerf bombers is PD (-1 attack). As is (-30 cost@helis) bombers would still be the cheapest and fastest air unit, with only 1 less attack, 1 more def, 2 less ARB and 5 more range. This directly works against encouraging Helicopter use, which is why I think they need a nerf for this helicopter strategy to be viable. For what kind of nerf to bombers, my first idea is to have +20 cost and -3 range. This would make them less attractive than helicopters. It would also make them unable to match with air transports, solidifying Helicopters position as favored air unit in this strategy.

I know I typed a lot of shit so i'll sum up my suggestions here.
-1 attack -1 def -1 range +20 cost @ tanks
+1 range -20 cost @ marines
+1 range +50 cost @ submarines & transports
+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost @ Helicopters
-Removing suggested nerf on infantry, adding a nerf on bombers.
-3 range +20 cost @ bombers

These are just my first reactions/suggestions to this. There's lots of room for further tweaking and discussion. If you have any ideas for improvement post 'em.

Second copypaste:

Napísal notserral, 08.03.2012 at 17:31

Houdini, I think either the Helis should get +2 attack or the marines -1, since they'd usually be used together and in the current situation marines would die first. This would be good.

-1 attack -1 def -1 range +20 cost @ tanks
-1 attack +1 range -40 cost @ marines
+1 range +50 cost @ submarines & transports
+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost @ Helicopters
-3 range +20 cost @ bombers

I think -40 cost is too cheap, that'd be cheaper than MoS, but I see your point. I sort of thought -20 was too much already for +1 range marines, but with -1 attack I think -20 or -30 is fair.

Third copypaste:

Napísal Tundy, 08.03.2012 at 17:50

-1 def -1 range +20 cost (tanks)

-20 cost (marines)

+1 range +50 cost (submarines & naval/air transports)

+2 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range,+1 ARB, +1Hp, -60 to cost (Helicopters)

-3 range +40 cost (bombers)

-----------------------------------
Changes:
+10 cost to bombers (you decrease -50 to Helicopters and -20 to marines xD come on)
marines range back to normal. (is a helicopter based strategy)
-10 helicopters cost (you know why, 200-60 = 140 cost.)
tanks range back to normal (tanks on the desert are the same, but less defense and offensive)
+1 ARB to Helicopters (the max ARB is 10, if you have lucky bastard xD)

First off, you changed more than you said you did in your "changes". You also listed your changes incorrectly and inconsistently,way to go.

As far as the ideas themselves:
- Bomber +40 (I suggested +20, you did +40, that's not an extra 10 thats an extra 20) cost makes no sense. With helicopters at 150, bombers would be 180 @ +20. With the range nerf (-3)this is more than enough to make them very unattractive to buy. No reason to make them not worth the gold you buy them for @ 200, they're already bad.

-I don't think Helicopters need to be 140. They have 5 ARB and offensive bonuses against militia and infantry,which is good already @ 200. Along with the other buffs they are well worth the 150 gold.

-You said marines back to normal but kept the -20 cost, which is not back to normal. Marines are meant to be the main offensive land unit in the strategy, so the +1 range is viable, no reason to take it out.

-You listed tanks as -1 range but typed that you took it out, i'm not sure what you're trying to say. But the -1 range works as a downside to the strategy and is needed in my opinion. You also said "tanks are less defensive and offensive" but you took out the -1 attack, without listing it, making them more offensive. I strongly disagree with both of these changes. Tanks need to be shitty in this strategy, or if not tanks then marines do. Bombers cannot be the ONLY downside to this strategy, tanks having -1 range -1 attack helps balance it.

-You didn't list it for some reason, but you also added +1 attack to helicopters. This is unnecessary. They get offensive bonuses against infantry and militia and have 5 ARB along with other bonuses in this strategy. With the +1 they would already have the same attack as a stealth plane, with 1 more defense and 2 more ARB at half the cost. Helicopters are powerful enough with the other bonuses and don't need +2 attack.

-Lastly,you did not understand what I wrote about ARB. I did not say 5 was the maximum limit. Please re-read this and go look at the UNIT tab on the home page. The maximum a unit has without a strategy buff is 5, which destroyers and helicopters have. There's no need for another one when it already has 2-3 more ARB than 12/14 of the units in the game. I don't know if you've purchased any of the ARB upgrades, but one extra ARB makes a big noticeable difference. 5 ARB is a lot to have already.


These are the most recent discussions involving the new proposed strategy Desert Storm. Please share your thoughts and ideas regarding this and hopefully we can get it implemented!

Desert Storm is 5/5. Your ideas are awesome, Houdini.

They are goin to add desert storm, xD
but we need a anti-aircraft strategy too

How does this change sounds to you?

• -1 attack
  
• - 20 cost
  
• +1 reinforcement an all cities

I know this can sound OP, but Imp, with LB, it's probably the weaker of all strategies. This modification follows the idea of the strategy (more unite with less effectiveness) but helps building bigger stacks. You know for sure that while imp is good at the start, it loses efficacy along the match is going. With this, the strat will be a little less effective at the beginning but more sustainable on long matches.

Napísal Cougarinho, 10.03.2012 at 10:02

I know this can sound OP, but Imp, with LB, it's probably the weaker of all strategies.

I've never played it myself but I can tell you that Pinheiro and several other players use Imperialist to great effect. Also, don't forget it costs a meager 180 SP.

It should probably be balanced out and have its price raised though if it's indeed weak like you said.

Napísal YOBA, 10.03.2012 at 15:39

Napísal Cougarinho, 10.03.2012 at 10:02

I know this can sound OP, but Imp, with LB, it's probably the weaker of all strategies.

I've never played it myself but I can tell you that Pinheiro and several other players use Imperialist to great effect. Also, don't forget it costs a meager 180 SP.

It should probably be balanced out and have its price raised though if it's indeed weak like you said.

I used it a few times, but i've tought this after reading the forum quite a lot.

From several discussions i've read it comes out that those strat are a bit weaker (Imp, LB). I think that every strat has his "champion" but i think that, with a few simple adjust, imp can become quite good. And well, it's cheap yeah, only 200 sp and it's probably intended as a newbie strat, but hey, even its for newbies it doesent mean it cant be buffed a bit. Just to become more viable. Not to be a 1 shot 1 kill strat, just something easy to use and fun .

Napísal Cougarinho, 10.03.2012 at 10:02

How does this change sounds to you?

Imperialist

• -1 attack
  
• - 20 cost
  
• +1 reinforcement an all cities

I know this can sound OP, but Imp, with LB, it's probably the weaker of all strategies. This modification follows the idea of the strategy (more unite with less effectiveness) but helps building bigger stacks. You know for sure that while imp is good at the start, it loses efficacy along the match is going. With this, the strat will be a little less effective at the beginning but more sustainable on long matches.

Imp is very,very powerful, you're probably just using it wrong. I don't think this strategy is needed because it's basically an even more powerful IMP.

I have an idea: Revolutionist

+2 attack and defence to tanks, +1 attack and defence to militia and Infantry, -1 range, view, and +20 cost for all units.

I have an idea: Revolutionist

+2 attack and defence to tanks, +1 attack and defence to militia and Infantry, -1 range, view, and +20 cost for all units.

Other idea:

+3 range for sentrys
-200 cost of sentrys

+1 range of bombers and airplanes

+3 att/def/range to anti airs

-1 att/def/to tanks, bombers, battleships and +10 cost

+1 range & arb to subs, marines and stealths +10 cost

Napísal LEGION, 12.03.2012 at 11:41

Other idea:

+3 range for sentrys
-200 cost of sentrys

+1 range of bombers and airplanes

+3 att/def/range to anti airs

-1 att/def/to tanks, bombers, battleships and +10 cost

+1 range & arb to subs, marines and stealths +10 cost

calmate cabron eso esta muy OP

his Op dude xD

I dont think so, anti airs and sentrys are both units how are not useful in attack. Tanks and bombers are less effectiv in off and def and with a higher cost.
and only stealthed units are a little bit better with a +1 range and (who cares) arb. but also costs a bit more.

this strategy works with spying operations. and a good defence against (OP) SM. The extra range for stealthed units could be a blitz alternative.

i dont think its op, the attack/and def isnt raised to much.

btw bombers +1 to range -1 att -1 deff +10 costs

Here's a joke of a strategy:

Economist

-3 attack, +1 defence, -2 range and -50 cost (yes 50) to Militia
-2 attack, -1 defence, -1 range to tanks and infantry
-1 attack, -1 defence, -2 range to destroyers and bombers
+2 ARB, -30 cost to marines, submarines and stealths
+4 attack, +2 ARB, +1 health, +20 view range to sentry planes
+1 defence, +1 health, +2 range, + 1 capacity to transports and air transports

Basically, purchasing militia earns you 20 bucks and each militia gives you 2 bucks per week, acting as another source of income. Tanks, infantry, destroyers and bombers get nerfed while stealth units get slightly boosted and get cheaper. Sentry planes become godly and air/transports become safer, carry more, and travel further.

Napísal BlackGreyWhite, 26.05.2012 at 10:21

Here's a joke of a strategy:

Economist

-3 attack, +1 defence, -2 range and -50 cost (yes 50) to Militia
-2 attack, -1 defence, -1 range to tanks and infantry
-1 attack, -1 defence, -2 range to destroyers and bombers
+2 ARB, -30 cost to marines, submarines and stealths
+4 attack, +2 ARB, +1 health, +20 view range to sentry planes
+1 defence, +1 health, +2 range, + 1 capacity to transports and air transports

Basically, purchasing militia earns you 20 bucks and each militia gives you 2 bucks per week, acting as another source of income. Tanks, infantry, destroyers and bombers get nerfed while stealth units get slightly boosted and get cheaper. Sentry planes become godly and air/transports become safer, carry more, and travel further.

LOL i think instead of being named economist it should be called American foreign policy.

We already have guerilla warfare.
now GORILLA WARFARE.

includes new unit - the GORILLA

1 cost, 1 attack, 1 defence, 1 health, but you can make as many of them as you want - they cost 0 in production.

Recon/Counter Surveillance

All units +2 view range and +1 def against stealth units (marines, submarines, stealths)

Sentry Planes -100 cost +1 def +3 range
Anti Aircraft -40 cost +1 def +2 range
Sea Transport -50 cost +1 def +2 range +5 transport capacity
Air Transport -100 cost +1 def +2 range +1 transport capacity
Infantry -10 cost

Tanks -1 attack -1 def -1 ARB +10 cost -1 range
Destroyers -1 attack -1 ARB +10 cost -1 range
Helicopters -1 attack -1 ARB
Stealths -1 attack -1 def -1 ARB +10 cost -1 range

Napísal WillPalm, 20.08.2012 at 16:22

Napísal Soul, 20.08.2012 at 13:56

Recon/Counter Surveillance

All units +2 view range and +1 def against stealth units (marines, submarines, stealths)

Sentry Planes -100 cost +1 def +3 range
Anti Aircraft -40 cost +1 def +2 range
Sea Transport -50 cost +1 def +2 range +5 transport capacity
Air Transport -100 cost +1 def +2 range +1 transport capacity
Infantry -10 cost

Tanks -1 attack -1 def -1 ARB +10 cost -1 range
Destroyers -1 attack -1 ARB +10 cost -1 range
Helicopters -1 attack -1 ARB
Stealths -1 attack -1 def -1 ARB +10 cost -1 range

There's a strat for everything, yet not one for countering stealth units.

I don't know whether you are saying you like the idea or not or if you're stating the obvious, no offense lol.

Napísal Soul, 20.08.2012 at 13:56

or if you're stating the obvious, no offense lol.

Iron Fist

+1 mov to militia

Amazing Offense its the opposite of Perfect Defence

Elite Combat, or some better name

+1 att and def to all units, +30 cost to all.

Napísal Cherse, 07.01.2013 at 18:23

Elite Combat, or some better name

+1 att and def to all units, +30 cost to all.

This is basically a much more extreme Lucky Bastard. Remember my analysis thread, increasing crits is basically increasing att and def.

Yes i guess so... i dunno, Lucky Bastard isn't exactly an awesome name / idea. Blitzkreig, Guerilla Warfare, these are proper strategies. So maybe this one could replace it.

PD:

- 2 Attack ( infantry).

Would make PD very underpowered, don't support.

You should feel bad for even suggesting this as a strategy.

Air Superiority- The idea is to be able to stop the massive game breaking bomber-air transport stacks, at the cost of vulnerability to marines. This is my stab at the idea, but I'd like further input. Feel free to take the concept but change it in a more realistic way. This is my first shot at making a strat, so I'm no pro.

Anti Air: +3 range -50 cost
Helicopters: - 40 cost +3 attack (to bombers) -3 attack to infantry +4 defence to bombers (this is covering the normal -2 defence, so in reality its only +1)
Infantry: +2 against bombers -2 against marines -1 range
Bombers: +50 cost -2 attack -3 range
Destroyers: +10 cost -2 attack -2 against submarines +4 attack against bombers
Tanks: range -1
Marines: +10 cost -1 attack -1 range
Submarines: +10 cost -2 range
Sentry: +20 cost

Devious that is overpowered D: because helicopters are supposed to be weak vs bombers.
Any way I'll take a stab at improving it.

Air Superiority-
Pros:
Anti aircraft:+1 defense vs all (except tanks) +3 range -80 cost
Bombers: +1 defense vs air units -10 cost
Stealth: -150 cost
Cons:
Tanks -1 attack and 1 defense -10 cost
Marines -1 attack

So this is what it looks like:
Anti-aircraft: 1 attack 6 defense (+8 vs air units) 6 range with cost of 110
Bombers: 6 defense (+1 vs bombers) 6 attack with cost of 150
Tanks: 7 attack 3 defense with cost of 100

This would be able to shut attacking air units down and help Anti-aircraft better to use in general. While costing a a lot more then most strategies and having trouble attacking.

Best against: Sky Menace, Desert Storm, lucky bastard
Useable against: Perfect defense, Imperialist,Blitz, Guerrilla Warfare
Weak against: Relentless assault, Naval commander, Iron Fist, Great combatant

@ Yihka
I propose this
Pros:
Cities that normally give 1 reinforcement gain +1 reinforcement
Cities that normally give 2-4 reinforcement gain +2 reinforcement
Cities that normally give 5-6 reinforcement gain +3 reinforcement
Cities that normally give 7 and up reinforcement gain +4 reinforcement
Cons:
+20 cost to all units
-1 defense to all units except infantry
Note: You can expand faster and make more units but you will run out of cash quickly unless you built only infantry .