Cheaper and Faster Tanks

Give us upgrades, that make the tanks -10 cost

And A upgrade that gives them +1 range.

Remember infantry gets this boosts without reason. Forcing competitive players to stop using tanks unless they are imperialist.

There must be a balanced way to bring tanks to competitive play.

Tanks are fine ...thing is knowing when to use them and how to use them. I fuckin use them all the time, i even use stealth planes sometimes in 1v1 ...its called startegy.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 09:21

Tanks are fine ...thing is knowing when to use them and how to use them. I fuckin use them all the time, i even use stealth planes sometimes in 1v1 ...its called startegy.

^

Geschrieben von Waffel, 03.09.2014 at 09:23

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 09:21

Tanks are fine ...thing is knowing when to use them and how to use them. I fuckin use them all the time, i even use stealth planes sometimes in 1v1 ...its called startegy.

^

o.o ...i mean whats next someone suggesting stealth planes get cheaper because they are unusable in 3k africa

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 09:30

Geschrieben von Waffel, 03.09.2014 at 09:23

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 09:21

Tanks are fine ...thing is knowing when to use them and how to use them. I fuckin use them all the time, i even use stealth planes sometimes in 1v1 ...its called startegy.

^

o.o ...i mean whats next someone suggesting stealth planes get cheaper because they are unusable in 3k africa

ikr. People trying to make it easy to rush more and more and more -.-

Tanks can be -10 cost or +1 attack even and inf would still be more op. Imo by default tanks should be 9 attack 4 defense

People don't realise infs cost half the cost of tanks and have half the attack of tanks . That basically means you don't need tanks unless you can afford more money to buy them. I had asked for this before but had no luck. So I guess let the inf farming continue

support

Geschrieben von minusSeven, 03.09.2014 at 11:28

People don't realise infs cost half the cost of tanks and have half the attack of tanks .

Do you not realise how stupid this statement is xD

Think about a thing called "available reinforcements".

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 11:43

Do you not realise how stupid this statement is xD
Think about a thing called "available reinforcements".

meh what I mean is if you had 1000 cash and 40 available reinforcements you wouldn't make 10 tanks to attack , you try to spam 20 infs instead which you can use to defend as well as attack, you would buy tanks usually only when you have less reinforcements and more money or when you want to add some more attack to your rush and such.

Geschrieben von minusSeven, 03.09.2014 at 12:12

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 11:43

Do you not realise how stupid this statement is xD
Think about a thing called "available reinforcements".

meh what I mean is if you had 1000 cash and 40 available reinforcements you wouldn't make 10 tanks to attack , you try to spam 20 infs instead which you can use to defend as well as attack, you would buy tanks usually only when you have less reinforcements and more money or when you want to add some more attack to your rush and such.

So whats the problem?

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 12:30

So whats the problem?

haha, that is precisely the problem. go play games with no strats and upgrades enabled you would see the real use of tanks. actually then you can't take countries the way you do now, you would have to use tanks. The game was designed with tanks being one of the most important units in the game. And tanks would prove OP then. but then upgrades and strategies have ensured that infs are just as useful as tanks even though they cost half and are super OP in defense as well. That is the problem and the solution is to give a little bit extra to tanks to make them more useful as well instead of inf farming that most people do.

Geschrieben von minusSeven, 03.09.2014 at 13:04

haha, that is precisely the problem. go play games with no strats and upgrades enabled you would see the real use of tanks. actually then you can't take countries the way you do now, you would have to use tanks. The game was designed with tanks being one of the most important units in the game. And tanks would prove OP then. but then upgrades and strategies have ensured that infs are just as useful as tanks even though they cost half and are super OP in defense as well. That is the problem and the solution is to give a little bit extra to tanks to make them more useful as well instead of inf farming that most people do.

Oh you think i was always a rank 11 with all upgrades? ...i played RA germany as far as rank 9 mate (with germany also to counter ukraine) so ...nigga pls.

Only thing where tanks arent much used is 3v3 10k europe ...so if you guys would stop bitching about something and suggesting something based on that, it would be great.

EDIT: Forgot to say ...if this was a suggestion to make tanks -10 cost with RA i would think thats fine (not +1 range doe ...range is damn fine) ,but making this an upgrades for tanks is wrong.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 13:34

Oh you think i was always a rank 11 with all upgrades? ...i played RA germany as far as rank 9 mate (with germany also to counter ukraine) so ...nigga pls.

Only thing where tanks arent much used is 3v3 10k europe ...so if you guys would stop bitching about something and suggesting something based on that, it would be great.

bla my opinion isn't based on how good anyone is. You maybe very good in something doesn't mean its the best thing for everyone. I told you why I think tanks should be given an upgrade its simple infs cost half the price as tanks and still have half the attack of tanks while being enormously better at defense.

And yes my opinion is more from a 3 v 3 perspective but still it should be balanced overall.

Geschrieben von minusSeven, 03.09.2014 at 13:49

And yes my opinion is more from a 3 v 3 perspective but still it should be balanced overall.

This wouldnt balance anything, no one gave any argumment on how is this balancing (i could think of a few things on how this would unbalance shit).

This is only about ..."we want to use tanks more", "we want more upgrades" and the golden "this game is about spamming infantry" ...and the last one is wrong.

Not every strategy or every unit has to be usable on every map with every setting in the game, even turn wise (early, mid, late game) ...wouldnt be much of a strategy game or point in strategies if it was like that.

If you brought tank cost down to be more equal with inf you would remove the point in defending your cities at all. the game would be reduced to city trading, whoever catches the other persons tanks on defense wins.

i would agree with in someway boosting the tanks for gc and maybe hw particularly, but not universally. you would make imp op. not to mention the knockon effects to other strats like pd which dont need boosts.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 14:03

Geschrieben von minusSeven, 03.09.2014 at 13:49

And yes my opinion is more from a 3 v 3 perspective but still it should be balanced overall.

This wouldnt balance anything, no one gave any argumment on how is this balancing (i could think of a few things on how this would unbalance shit).

This is only about ..."we want to use tanks more", "we want more upgrades" and the golden "this game is about spamming infantry" ...and the last one is wrong.

Not every strategy or every unit has to be usable on every map with every setting in the game, even turn wise (early, mid, late game) ...wouldnt be much of a strategy game or point in strategies if it was like that.

Without upgrades, a tank is stronger and faster than default infantry.
Upgrades makes infantry cheaper and faster and luckier....

Geschrieben von Tundy, 03.09.2014 at 14:07

Without upgrades, a tank is stronger and faster than default infantry.
Upgrades makes infantry cheaper and faster and luckier....

Your point Captain?

Geschrieben von Tundy, 03.09.2014 at 14:07

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 14:03

Geschrieben von minusSeven, 03.09.2014 at 13:49

And yes my opinion is more from a 3 v 3 perspective but still it should be balanced overall.

This wouldnt balance anything, no one gave any argumment on how is this balancing (i could think of a few things on how this would unbalance shit).

This is only about ..."we want to use tanks more", "we want more upgrades" and the golden "this game is about spamming infantry" ...and the last one is wrong.

Not every strategy or every unit has to be usable on every map with every setting in the game, even turn wise (early, mid, late game) ...wouldnt be much of a strategy game or point in strategies if it was like that.

Without upgrades, a tank is stronger and faster than default infantry.
Upgrades makes infantry cheaper and faster and luckier....

a tank is stronger and faster than the default infantry anyway, even without upgrades, assuming you have the reins, inf are still a more cost effective method of attacking/expanding than tanks.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 14:27

Geschrieben von Tundy, 03.09.2014 at 14:07

Without upgrades, a tank is stronger and faster than default infantry.
Upgrades makes infantry cheaper and faster and luckier....

Your point Captain?

Tanks should have upgrades too, or infantry must get their boosts removed.

Geschrieben von Tundy, 03.09.2014 at 15:47

Tanks should have upgrades too, or infantry must get their boosts removed.

Explain why? ...and should all units get upgrades too? bombers, stealths, helicopters, destroyers ...give proof that this wouldnt unbalance the game and create a bigger gap between ranks.

You guys made me wet.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 03.09.2014 at 16:16

Geschrieben von Fockmeeard, 03.09.2014 at 16:01

You guys made me wet.

Jesus fock.

Why did you say my name twice?