Remove the Tank Bonus from Perfect Defense or give Infantry -1 Attack

Perfect Defense is more like Perfect Everything. This strategy is just full infantry spam and nothing else. Players don't see a reason to use any other unit other than infantry because infantry are cheap and perfect with this strategy and have no real downsides besides -1 range which doesn't do anything to lower its effectiveness.

First of all, for a strategy called Perfect Defense it has no attacking downside. Now, tanks do get -1 attack but here is the calculation:

Tanks normally have 8 attack and 4 defense. PD infantry have 4 attack and have 7 defense(8 against tanks). When units take turns attacking and defending, and considering that 8 attack cancels out 8 defense vice versa, PD infantry and normal tanks have no advantages against each other despite the "Perfect Defense", it is basically a fair dice roll, whoever gets the best roll is going to win. This removes any thinking and use of tactics in a game, this strategy will mostly likely always win if they gather reinforcements as fast as they can early on.

We can all conclude this is bullshit and needs a nerf. My suggestion is to either take away the tank defense bonus PD infantry get or give PD infantry -1 attack.

Perfect Defense is the most balanced strategy in the game. You don't seem to take into account that the infantry have -1 range, which is a key factor for balancing the strategy. One of the main reasons that people would opt to use LB, for instance, is the extra range the infantry get, which is significant in certain scenarios (like France to reach Spain without transport, for example).

Furthermore, PD is one of the worst strategies at attacking, compared to most of the strategies in the game (DS, RA, LB, NC, Blitz, GC, MoS, SM, GW).

Using your calculation as an argument against PD is counter-intuitive. In a PD vs PD scenario, they are SUPPOSED to cancel each other out anyways, since it's the same strategy. Believing that such a balance "removes any thinking" from the game is completely incorrect. It's natural to believe instead that in a situation where the main thing that determines the outcome is how the units move, without including which strategies are being used (since they are the same), the highest determining factor for who wins is skill.

If you remove 1 attack from the infantry, PD just becomes a more expensive imperialist with less range. If you take away the tank bonus, it becomes a more expensive GW.

Make RA Tank General Again

Geschrieben von Lelouch., 13.01.2019 at 18:19

Perfect Defense is the most balanced strategy in the game. You don't seem to take into account that the infantry have -1 range, which is a key factor for balancing the strategy. One of the main reasons that people would opt to use LB, for instance, is the extra range the infantry get, which is significant in certain scenarios (like France to reach Spain without transport, for example).

Furthermore, PD is one of the worst strategies at attacking, compared to most of the strategies in the game (DS, RA, LB, NC, Blitz, GC, MoS, SM, GW).

Using your calculation as an argument against PD is counter-intuitive. In a PD vs PD scenario, they are SUPPOSED to cancel each other out anyways, since it's the same strategy. Believing that such a balance "removes any thinking" from the game is completely incorrect. It's natural to believe instead that in a situation where the main thing that determines the outcome is how the units move, without including which strategies are being used (since they are the same), the highest determining factor for who wins is skill.

If you remove 1 attack from the infantry, PD just becomes a more expensive imperialist with less range. If you take away the tank bonus, it becomes a more expensive GW.

Your 15 infantry beat my 8 inf 7 tank in attacking and defending our last duel. I spent much more money making tanks than what your 15 infantry cost you, yet you still won. Nothing more to say. And I didn't say PD vs PD, read it again. A normal tank cancels out with a PD infantry in attacking and defending, it is just a matter of who gets a better roll.

Geschrieben von Guest, 13.01.2019 at 18:31

Geschrieben von Lelouch., 13.01.2019 at 18:19

Perfect Defense is the most balanced strategy in the game. You don't seem to take into account that the infantry have -1 range, which is a key factor for balancing the strategy. One of the main reasons that people would opt to use LB, for instance, is the extra range the infantry get, which is significant in certain scenarios (like France to reach Spain without transport, for example).

Furthermore, PD is one of the worst strategies at attacking, compared to most of the strategies in the game (DS, RA, LB, NC, Blitz, GC, MoS, SM, GW).

Using your calculation as an argument against PD is counter-intuitive. In a PD vs PD scenario, they are SUPPOSED to cancel each other out anyways, since it's the same strategy. Believing that such a balance "removes any thinking" from the game is completely incorrect. It's natural to believe instead that in a situation where the main thing that determines the outcome is how the units move, without including which strategies are being used (since they are the same), the highest determining factor for who wins is skill.

If you remove 1 attack from the infantry, PD just becomes a more expensive imperialist with less range. If you take away the tank bonus, it becomes a more expensive GW.

Your 15 infantry beat my 8 inf 7 tank in attacking and defending our last duel. I spent much more money making tanks than what your 15 infantry cost you, yet you still won. Nothing more to say. And I didn't say PD vs PD, read it again. A normal tank cancels out with a PD infantry in attacking and defending, it is just a matter of who gets a better roll.

My mistake for misreading. Also, yes, those were probably crits. Happens with LB too.

Geschrieben von Guest, 13.01.2019 at 18:31

Geschrieben von Lelouch., 13.01.2019 at 18:19

Perfect Defense is the most balanced strategy in the game. You don't seem to take into account that the infantry have -1 range, which is a key factor for balancing the strategy. One of the main reasons that people would opt to use LB, for instance, is the extra range the infantry get, which is significant in certain scenarios (like France to reach Spain without transport, for example).

Furthermore, PD is one of the worst strategies at attacking, compared to most of the strategies in the game (DS, RA, LB, NC, Blitz, GC, MoS, SM, GW).

Using your calculation as an argument against PD is counter-intuitive. In a PD vs PD scenario, they are SUPPOSED to cancel each other out anyways, since it's the same strategy. Believing that such a balance "removes any thinking" from the game is completely incorrect. It's natural to believe instead that in a situation where the main thing that determines the outcome is how the units move, without including which strategies are being used (since they are the same), the highest determining factor for who wins is skill.

If you remove 1 attack from the infantry, PD just becomes a more expensive imperialist with less range. If you take away the tank bonus, it becomes a more expensive GW.

Your 15 infantry beat my 8 inf 7 tank in attacking and defending our last duel. I spent much more money making tanks than what your 15 infantry cost you, yet you still won. Nothing more to say. And I didn't say PD vs PD, read it again. A normal tank cancels out with a PD infantry in attacking and defending, it is just a matter of who gets a better roll.

tbh, PD, along with NC, SM, IF and Imp, feel like the most fair strats in the game. I don't think it should ever be changed. It's healthier for the game to work around PD rather than change PD itself.

Geschrieben von Guest, 13.01.2019 at 18:08

Perfect Defense is more like Perfect Everything. This strategy is just full infantry spam and nothing else. Players don't see a reason to use any other unit other than infantry because infantry are cheap and perfect with this strategy and have no real downsides besides -1 range which doesn't do anything to lower its effectiveness.

First of all, for a strategy called Perfect Defense it has no attacking downside. Now, tanks do get -1 attack but here is the calculation:

Tanks normally have 8 attack and 4 defense. PD infantry have 4 attack and have 7 defense(8 against tanks). When units take turns attacking and defending, and considering that 8 attack cancels out 8 defense vice versa, PD infantry and normal tanks have no advantages against each other despite the "Perfect Defense", it is basically a fair dice roll, whoever gets the best roll is going to win. This removes any thinking and use of tactics in a game, this strategy will mostly likely always win if they gather reinforcements as fast as they can early on.

We can all conclude this is bullshit and needs a nerf. My suggestion is to either take away the tank defense bonus PD infantry get or give PD infantry -1 attack.

Defending requires more skill and thinking than attacking. Defending in itself should be better than attacking, because defending requires predicting where and when an enemy will attack, while attacking requires nothing but moving a unit into a certain spot. The meta is, that whoever can gain the most land while participating in as little attacking as possible and as much in defending as possible wins. For this you need to predict your enemies' moves, it's inherently not spamming. This has been the meta since 2010 and without it, the meta becomes pointless, if attacking and defending was equal you wouldn't have to predict at all and you'd simply spam units at your enemies' cities.

Nerf it now