New strategy : Fortress

Fortress :

Rencently buildings have been added, so I think it's time to try to come up with ideas for creating a strategy based on them.
I propose here one that improves "fortifications" since it will probably be the most used anyway.

At the moment, if we try to establish a quality / price ratio for the defence between a city that contains a fortification + infantry and a city with only infantry, without taking into account the fact that you do not have enough reinforcement in the area ( so only the bonus of +1 def for all units at the cost of 700$ ), with the - 10 cost upgrade for infantry it worth the price only with atleast 70 infantry ( without general nor strategy ). But it's still good even with less because reinforcement are not infinite most of the time anyway.

With the adjustements of this strategy it would make it viable with 34 Infantry, which would make it stronger and usefull most frequently.
To fit with the theme and don't make it boring some adjustment on other units are needed, I thought about that :

---

● Fortifications : - 400 cost ( 300$ ).
● Militia : No changes.
● Infantry : - 1 attack ; + 1 defence ; - 1 range.
● Tank : - 10 cost ; - 1 defence.
● Others buildings : + 300 cost.
● Others units : + 30 cost.

---

Edit : at and trans nerf removed. (07/04/19)
militia nerf removed. (08/04/19)
fortifications nerfed, +100 cost. (10/04/19)

---

If you have things to suggest for balance it do not hesitate to say it in comments below, the thread is here for that.
Don't say that you have not been warned this time. Comment. D

What about AA building

Geschrieben von Puf, 06.04.2019 at 18:18

What about AA building

Here there is +300 cost for others buildings than fortifications, but maybe there is too many nerf in the strat and I shouldn't make buildings cost +300, I could even make another building like AA cost only 300, that's what you meant?

Remove at and trans nerf

Wouldnt play it but like nero said an engineer strat would be nice

Geschrieben von boywind2, 06.04.2019 at 20:41

Remove at and trans nerf

Okay, done.

You guys must be mental to implement this

You could also call it "Immobility", since with it you don't have to move at all...

Questions

1) Why other units have +30 cost?
2) Why Tanks has -1 defense and -10 cost?

My suggestions:

A) Remove the +300 cost to other buildings and keep it normal. Only a dumb player would take such strategy and start spamming other buildings rather than build only Fortifications.
B) Keep Militia attack at normal.
C) Rather than mess with units stats and costs, just give them all -2 range. But keep the +1 defense for Infantry.

Geschrieben von Estus, 07.04.2019 at 16:11

Questions

1) Why other units have +30 cost?
2) Why Tanks has -1 defense and -10 cost?

My suggestions:

A) Remove the +300 cost to other buildings and keep it normal. Only a dumb player would take such strategy and start spamming other buildings rather than build only Fortifications.
B) Keep Militia attack at normal.
C) Rather than mess with units stats and costs, just give them all -2 range. But keep the +1 defense for Infantry.

no point of playing a -2 range inf strat id rather play if

Geschrieben von boywind2, 07.04.2019 at 16:30

Geschrieben von Estus, 07.04.2019 at 16:11

Questions

1) Why other units have +30 cost?
2) Why Tanks has -1 defense and -10 cost?

My suggestions:

A) Remove the +300 cost to other buildings and keep it normal. Only a dumb player would take such strategy and start spamming other buildings rather than build only Fortifications.
B) Keep Militia attack at normal.
C) Rather than mess with units stats and costs, just give them all -2 range. But keep the +1 defense for Infantry.

no point of playing a -2 range inf strat id rather play if

But it's easier to defend with fortifications and the +1 def. for Infantry. IF isn't a strategy entirely focused on defending.

Geschrieben von Estus, 07.04.2019 at 16:36

Geschrieben von boywind2, 07.04.2019 at 16:30

Geschrieben von Estus, 07.04.2019 at 16:11

Questions

1) Why other units have +30 cost?
2) Why Tanks has -1 defense and -10 cost?

My suggestions:

A) Remove the +300 cost to other buildings and keep it normal. Only a dumb player would take such strategy and start spamming other buildings rather than build only Fortifications.
B) Keep Militia attack at normal.
C) Rather than mess with units stats and costs, just give them all -2 range. But keep the +1 defense for Infantry.

no point of playing a -2 range inf strat id rather play if

But it's easier to defend with fortifications and the +1 def. for Infantry. IF isn't a strategy entirely focused on defending.

it has best def and atk out of any strat wdym its not focused on defending

I don't mean to be a debby downer here, but 100 cost fortifications even with all the other nerfs is just gay as hell. You can only produce one, so the cost really isnt worth it. not to mention its basically unplayable since most of the units are now nerfed...

edit: nerfing militia is just dumb in general, unless its because every unit is receiving the same nerf (such as IF).

Geschrieben von Sultan of Swing, 07.04.2019 at 20:26

I don't mean to be a debby downer here, but 100 cost fortifications even with all the other nerfs is just gay as hell. You can only produce one, so the cost really isnt worth it. not to mention its basically unplayable since most of the units are now nerfed...

Only the militia. Otherwise it's pretty balanced.

Geschrieben von Estus, 07.04.2019 at 16:36

But it's easier to defend with fortifications and the +1 def. for Infantry. IF isn't a strategy entirely focused on defending.

2 hp is better than 1 def (in case of generic inf(and most of other cases))and also more convenient and cheaper cus no forts are needed

This is some kind of joke. was not the first April pass?

Okay, militia nerf removed. Also, those who trash talk, explain yourself or it's 100% useless and we don't care.

Don't you think having fortifications at 300 cost is too strong? A lot of countries can abuse this by overexpanding and defending efficiently. Ukraine, for example, would probably use this to overexpand a ton with tanks (which are now cheaper), and defend a possible rush with almost nothing (Fort + Gen + a couple of infantry). The defense is super efficient and effective, compared to having to AT a bunch of units back into Kiev, which takes more skill and is more prone to be tbed, which means it's fairer.

I honestly think the cost of the building should not be tampered with.

Geschrieben von Lelouch., 09.04.2019 at 11:52

Don't you think having fortifications at 300 cost is too strong? A lot of countries can abuse this by overexpanding and defending efficiently. Ukraine, for example, would probably use this to overexpand a ton with tanks (which are now cheaper), and defend a possible rush with almost nothing (Fort + Gen + a couple of infantry). The defense is super efficient and effective, compared to having to AT a bunch of units back into Kiev, which takes more skill and is more prone to be tbed, which means it's fairer.

I honestly think the cost of the building should not be tampered with.

I see your point yes, but even with -10 cost for tanks it's still the only viable unit of attack there is, like gc who have 110 cost tank but without the +1hp, so you will spend much more money than PD for example and you will have to maybe mix tanks and infs for attack a cap because tank isn't a unit defence + have defence nerf and if you attack ankara and there is no reinf there you are fucked if you haven't mixed. So it make it harder to play and will require to use trans etc anyway, specifically for attack but also for defend, ukraine would probably be the only country where it's op. On the other side, what you said about the fact it's possible to defend with only few inf and 1 fort to make it unbeatable is wrong for example if you have only 10 inf it only give you +10 def for 300, with 300 you can buy 5 inf who would give you +35 def, in facts as explained if you have 300$ left and have the choice between bring some inf from cities around and buy a fort, even with 300 cost for fort if you haven't at least 34 inf in the city it's not worth the price you pay, but it's safer or in case you haven't enought reinf that's right. But since i recently removed several nerf in the strat i guess i can increase a little bit the price of fort yes.

Geschrieben von Apocalypse, 09.04.2019 at 18:57

Geschrieben von Lelouch., 09.04.2019 at 11:52

Don't you think having fortifications at 300 cost is too strong? A lot of countries can abuse this by overexpanding and defending efficiently. Ukraine, for example, would probably use this to overexpand a ton with tanks (which are now cheaper), and defend a possible rush with almost nothing (Fort + Gen + a couple of infantry). The defense is super efficient and effective, compared to having to AT a bunch of units back into Kiev, which takes more skill and is more prone to be tbed, which means it's fairer.

I honestly think the cost of the building should not be tampered with.

I see your point yes, but even with -10 cost for tanks it's still the only viable unit of attack there is, like gc who have 110 cost tank but without the +1hp, so you will spend much more money than PD for example and you will have to maybe mix tanks and infs for attack a cap because tank isn't a unit defence + have defence nerf and if you attack ankara and there is no reinf there you are fucked if you haven't mixed. So it make it harder to play and will require to use trans etc anyway, specifically for attack but also for defend, ukraine would probably be the only country where it's op. On the other side, what you said about the fact it's possible to defend with only few inf and 1 fort to make it unbeatable is wrong for example if you have only 10 inf it only give you +10 def for 300, with 300 you can buy 5 inf who would give you +35 def, in facts as explained if you have 300$ left and have the choice between bring some inf from cities around and buy a fort, even with 300 cost for fort if you haven't at least 34 inf in the city it's not worth the price you pay, but it's safer or in case you haven't enought reinf that's right. But since i recently removed several nerf in the strat i guess i can increase a little bit the price of fort yes.

The tanks shouldn't be -10 cost. Also, take into account that the building itself is also 6 defense and has 20 hp. With just 25+ inf with gen and fort, you're looking at a pretty decent defense against anything that turk can come up with during the first 4 turns. And I don't agree with the playstyle that the strat encourages either.

Geschrieben von Lelouch., 09.04.2019 at 19:43

The tanks shouldn't be -10 cost. Also, take into account that the building itself is also 6 defense and has 20 hp. With just 25+ inf with gen and fort, you're looking at a pretty decent defense against anything that turk can come up with during the first 4 turns. And I don't agree with the playstyle that the strat encourages either.

Ah yes 6 def, wasn't it 1 def and 20hp before?? It's stronger than i thought then, but that's don't really change what i was saying. If you want we do a test, you go pd (same def for inf) ukraine and stack your cap with 25inf+fort+gen just for the test, i'm pretty sure i can easily cap you during the first 4 turns. It's 100% sure tbh, imp turk can send around 70 units in kiev t3 easily.

Decided to cancel the edit i made about fortifications after test with IP.