Bunch of strat ideas

Logistic Wizard


• inf,tanks,marines,anti-air - 2 range
• naval trans +3 range
• naval trans - 100 cost
• air trans - 300 cost
• air trans +2 range

The idea: Units have nerfed range and people are encouraged to use buffed transports.

Fly Swatter

• Anti-air -80 cost.
• Anti-air +2 def
• Anti-air +1 range

The Idea: Strong strat that uses a lot of anti air.

Mechanized Assault

• Tanks +1 Capacity
• Tanks +2 range
• Infantry -2 range
• Marines -2 range

The Idea: Have strong offensive of tanks carrying infantry/marines etc... Sounds like a cool idea.

I hate strat ideas that nerf inf

Napísal boywind2, 08.04.2019 at 01:31

I hate strat ideas that nerf inf

Agree you hate gw and ds the two most meta strat right now.

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 08.04.2019 at 01:34

Napísal boywind2, 08.04.2019 at 01:31

I hate strat ideas that nerf inf

Agree you hate gw and ds the two most meta strat right now.

i hate gw and ds but they arent meta

Flyswatter needs a downside.

First can be interesting.
Second : that strat would destroy sm, ds but lose vs any other strat. Why all want to troll air strats? Sm bomber cost 130 and sometimes 20 bombers cant kill 20 imper infs (cost 30). That is meh and theres already aa unit, which is solid.

Sm should be stronger.
GC can have 2 att with infs. With simple buffs we can back gc and blits into game.

Third sound like some version of blits, every suggestions sounds like upgrade for range here.
Blits should get buff with 2 capacity tanks for: infs, marines, militia. It can make things interesting.

Maybe we should fix some old strats, instead to release every day new troll strat.

Napísal Franz, 08.04.2019 at 02:39

Flyswatter needs a downside.

Mos is a direct upgrade over none with no downside

My suggestions about Mechanized Assault:

1) Remove the movement range nerfs.
2) -1 attack for Infantry and Militia.
3) +1 critical chance for Tanks.

The other two strategies have no reason to exist.

Maybe add def against tanks for anti air in Fly Swatter,cus AA can be used well vs those as well.

1. Cool!

2. Too weak/specific

3. Interesting concept...

I have no favourite, they re all amazing!

The first two are kinda meh, but the last one has really cool potential. Do you think it would be too much to give tanks a cost nerf and an attack nerf on top of what you have proposed? Logic behind this is that since infantry don't have great range, tanks would be used more and removing 1 attack makes them not too op kinda like the 90 9 attack RA days

The 3rd one seems really nice
Could have potential in some scenarios as well

How is the second one weak? It's basically none but with good AA unit

Transport-based strategy is really damn interesting and is something I'd love to personally explore/test with you in the near future!

Fly Swatter I've been a fan of ever since you talked about it last month, I think the ethos should be expanded a bit since it only exists as a counter to Air-based strategies, but it has great potential.

The third one is going somewhere for sure...

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 08.04.2019 at 12:12

Napísal Franz, 08.04.2019 at 02:39

Flyswatter needs a downside.

Mos is a direct upgrade over none with no downside

Mos broken strat. Stealth tanks basically.

Nice job including photos you googled to make your post look more cooler to get more attention.
I liked the Mechanized Assault strat.

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 08.04.2019 at 01:01

Mechanized Assault

• Tanks +1 Capacity
• Tanks +2 range
• Infantry -2 range
• Marines -2 range

The Idea: Have strong offensive of tanks carrying infantry/marines etc... Sounds like a cool idea.

This idea seems really interesting. The only problem I have with it is that, when you think about it, this strat can do some insane range feats if you consider transports. Naval trans range (10) + Tank range (9) + Inf range (5) = 24, which is a lot of range imo, compared to blitz, which is Naval trans range (13) + Inf/tank range (10) = 23. It's like being able to transport helicopters filled with marines. You can send the tanks into something that's closer and the infantry into something that's farther away. Doesn't that seem a little too strong?

You could solve this by making the tanks unable to be transported. But that might probably kill the strat, since you can't transport your best unit. Maybe if you give the tanks 10 range (+3), instead of 9 (+2), that might make up for it.

You could also try reducing either the range or the capacity of transports.

Now that i look at it i do like the third one

Napísal Plato, 10.04.2019 at 06:08

Any new strat atm will either be useless or be too similar to an already existing one and would make the latter also usless.

For the game to absorb new strats it needs new units(mechanized infantry for example, similar to whats suggested) or a new game-changing aspect or mechanic introduced.

A for effort though.

What would you know, you only play GW, and not even well.

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 08.04.2019 at 01:01

Logistic Wizard


• inf,tanks,marines,anti-air - 2 range
• naval trans +3 range
• naval trans - 100 cost
• air trans - 300 cost
• air trans +2 range

The idea: Units have nerfed range and people are encouraged to use buffed transports.

Worst Idea ever.

Napísal Saschas Gay BF, 06.11.2024 at 17:16

Napísal Witch-Doctor, 08.04.2019 at 01:01

Logistic Wizard


• inf,tanks,marines,anti-air - 2 range
• naval trans +3 range
• naval trans - 100 cost
• air trans - 300 cost
• air trans +2 range

The idea: Units have nerfed range and people are encouraged to use buffed transports.

Worst Idea ever.

How did u ever find this jesus christ

Add +1 capacity to ra tanks apes