Guerrilla Warfare: The Statistics
Beiträge: 168
Besucht von: 300 users
Over the past number of weeks there has been a lot of discussion on Guerrilla Warfare and it's power. All these posts have been trying to address the problem with Guerrilla Warfare logically, with a general consensus among the top tier players that it is imbalanced. Unfortunately there are still some apologists who are trying to excuse the imbalance through meaningless arguments. Now, we are going to look at things statistically. Cold, hard numbers.
Considering each strategy is unique in it's cost, attack, range, etc, we are going to break them down into Cost Per 1 Attack (CPA) and Cost Per 1 Defence (CPD)
This is done by dividing the attacking/defending power of the strategy's main attack/defence by the cost.
So for example, if I wanted to find the CPA of Blitzkrieg: 120 / 8 = $15
In the interest of clarity, the in-game currency used to purchase a unit will be referred to as "$".
Lucky Bastard has been given +1.5 attack due to it's potential tank and infantry attacking power.
Iron Fist has been given +1 attack and +1.5 defence to compensate for its HP.
Great Combinator has been excluded from this sample as it is the outlier. It would not be represented accurately using this method.
Cost Per Attack
*Main attack unit's cost / attack*
Blitzkrieg: $15
Desert Storm: $16.25
Hybrid Warfare: $14.44
Imperialist: $12.86
Iron Fist: $13.33
Lucky Bastard: $13.68
Master of Stealth: $15
Naval Commander: $15.45
Perfect Defence: $17.14
Relentless Attack: $11.25
Sky Menace: $16.25
Most cost efficient attack: Guerrilla Warfare: $10
Cost Per Defence
*Main defence unit's cost / defence*
Blitzkrieg: $12.5
Desert Storm: $11.1
Hybrid Warfare: $9
Imperialist: $5
Iron Fist: $8.7
Lucky Bastard: $10
Master of Stealth: $10
Naval Commander: $20 (Naval) 10$ (Land)
Perfect Defence: $7.14
Relentless Attack: $13.3
Sky Menace: $10
Most cost-efficient defence: Guerrilla Warfare: $5, Imperialist: $5
So, Guerrilla Warfare is the most cost efficient strategy to attack with AND to defend with. That's not enough?
Cost Per Range
*Cost of Main Attack, Main Defence and Secondary Defence / Average Range
Blitzkrieg: $9.58
Desert Storm: $11.5
Hybrid Warfare: $13.75
Imperialist: $9.33
Iron Fist: $24.4
Lucky Bastard: $15.33
Master of Stealth: $15.7
Naval Commander: $ 12.3(Naval) $15.7 (Land)
Perfect Defence: $13.33
Relentless Attack: $13.13
Sky Menace: $9.2
Guerrilla Warfare: $12 ($11 if you exclude infantry, as they are almost never used by GW)
Most cost-efficient range: Sky Menace, Imperialist, Blitzkrieg, Guerrilla Warfare.
It also ranks 4th in range efficiency out of 13 strategies in the game, including Blitzkrieg, who's WHOLE PURPOSE is range.
I hear one apologist in particular argue; "but my air transports cost 750".
The whole point of Air Transports is to move units faster from one city so they can defend another city. If your main attack unit is Invisible there's no NEED to move these defensive units so urgently. This depletes the value of the air transport drastically.
In summary:
•Most cost efficient attack
•Most cost efficient defence
•Top strategy for range
•Invisible Main Attack
•Gain your main defence unit every time you capture a country (e.g take Belarus with 4 marines, get 5 militia in return)
There really is no defending GW anymore. Open your eyes.
Remove the City Defence Bonus for GW Militia.
-1 Attack For Militia
Considering each strategy is unique in it's cost, attack, range, etc, we are going to break them down into Cost Per 1 Attack (CPA) and Cost Per 1 Defence (CPD)
This is done by dividing the attacking/defending power of the strategy's main attack/defence by the cost.
So for example, if I wanted to find the CPA of Blitzkrieg: 120 / 8 = $15
In the interest of clarity, the in-game currency used to purchase a unit will be referred to as "$".
Lucky Bastard has been given +1.5 attack due to it's potential tank and infantry attacking power.
Iron Fist has been given +1 attack and +1.5 defence to compensate for its HP.
Great Combinator has been excluded from this sample as it is the outlier. It would not be represented accurately using this method.
Cost Per Attack
*Main attack unit's cost / attack*
Blitzkrieg: $15
Desert Storm: $16.25
Hybrid Warfare: $14.44
Imperialist: $12.86
Iron Fist: $13.33
Lucky Bastard: $13.68
Master of Stealth: $15
Naval Commander: $15.45
Perfect Defence: $17.14
Relentless Attack: $11.25
Sky Menace: $16.25
Most cost efficient attack: Guerrilla Warfare: $10
Cost Per Defence
*Main defence unit's cost / defence*
Blitzkrieg: $12.5
Desert Storm: $11.1
Hybrid Warfare: $9
Imperialist: $5
Iron Fist: $8.7
Lucky Bastard: $10
Master of Stealth: $10
Naval Commander: $20 (Naval) 10$ (Land)
Perfect Defence: $7.14
Relentless Attack: $13.3
Sky Menace: $10
Most cost-efficient defence: Guerrilla Warfare: $5, Imperialist: $5
So, Guerrilla Warfare is the most cost efficient strategy to attack with AND to defend with. That's not enough?
Cost Per Range
*Cost of Main Attack, Main Defence and Secondary Defence / Average Range
Blitzkrieg: $9.58
Desert Storm: $11.5
Hybrid Warfare: $13.75
Imperialist: $9.33
Iron Fist: $24.4
Lucky Bastard: $15.33
Master of Stealth: $15.7
Naval Commander: $ 12.3(Naval) $15.7 (Land)
Perfect Defence: $13.33
Relentless Attack: $13.13
Sky Menace: $9.2
Guerrilla Warfare: $12 ($11 if you exclude infantry, as they are almost never used by GW)
Most cost-efficient range: Sky Menace, Imperialist, Blitzkrieg, Guerrilla Warfare.
It also ranks 4th in range efficiency out of 13 strategies in the game, including Blitzkrieg, who's WHOLE PURPOSE is range.
I hear one apologist in particular argue; "but my air transports cost 750".
The whole point of Air Transports is to move units faster from one city so they can defend another city. If your main attack unit is Invisible there's no NEED to move these defensive units so urgently. This depletes the value of the air transport drastically.
In summary:
•Most cost efficient attack
•Most cost efficient defence
•Top strategy for range
•Invisible Main Attack
•Gain your main defence unit every time you capture a country (e.g take Belarus with 4 marines, get 5 militia in return)
There really is no defending GW anymore. Open your eyes.
Remove the City Defence Bonus for GW Militia.
-1 Attack For Militia
Plus rock lee has like a hundred units which give him a slight advantage. I'd call that fair rolls. Shattered Skies is just being retarded.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
XAXAXAXAXAXA YOU SO FULL OF IT
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
no mate but if you deny that its very necessary to post proves for anything you say "and that applies for every human" you shouldn't be taken seriously there's no sense in the blind trusting psychology today
---- Our next Moments are Tomorrows Memories
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
GW is not op, its been beaten many times by many people.. just because a few people feel they can't beat it playing normally does not mean it needs nerf. GW has been untouched just as long as none has  theres a reason for this. just pressure GW, and you'll be fine. just be a little more aggressive, and no worries, gw isnt op. just learn to play atwar a little and think strategically, and you'll find its not as strong as people complain it is. the ONLY strat on atwar that needs to be changed is DS, it needs to be reverted back to what it was before the boost. the heli attack is fine at the moment, helis just dont need that +1 defense and militia dont need the +1 range.
----   
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon 
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
---- 
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
blitz turkey rush almost instantenously kills gw ukraine t1 gg no re. shattered skies knows from experience D  and people cry and say gw ukr is op lol
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
he had more+stack bonus+7 tanks and he only won by 2 so stop cri
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
what's your point?
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
gw is op
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
yea that was such an op defense
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
GW has 6 defense and 4 attack milita for 30 cost, how can you defend that. GW has 3+1 defense and 7 attack marines for 70 cost, how can you defend that.
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
im not going to start this conversation all over again and mil def is 5,6 in cities.Also we all saw how op def it has(and attack failing neutrals).Also same logic imp mil 10cost 2att 5def and 30cost inf 3att 6def +more range.
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
compare gw infs to imp infs, dont compare gw miita to imp infs imp milita arent 5 def they are 4 def
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
"It can be beaten so it isn't OP" What is this 2015? We're still using this shit argument?
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
5 in cities
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
no it is not 2015, and no it is not a shit argument  and its more than just beatable, its consistently beatable.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
my winrate as gw ukraine in duels is 19/20 i just dont like playing it
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
exactly 
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
?
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
apologies, misread.. then you play some terrible turks
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
So that is your solution? put pressure on gw on the east? it would'nt work against concious player. you as well admit that in open game gw is too priviliged and eventually will easily overcome you. one of the mods in your clans posted several weeks ago CW video of himself calmly expanding to 3 countries with gw ukr, failed neturals and even though he lost all his battles against turkey in the second turn he said he is not concerned because eventually gw always win. (clue: he did win eventually).
----  
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
Stop making up nonsense. Several top tier players are all telling you the same thing. You should listen to them. Ukr v turk is so irrelevant to this discussion. Ukraine isn't even a natural gw niche. If i was playing europe+ for the first time and i saw ukraine gw would be 1 of the last strats i would think to play on it. People have learned to make it work though because its so powerful. If you disagree feel free to open a casual duel vs me on eurasia/world. lets see if you can beat gw with any strat. When that strat is played on its' niche nothing matches it. Nothing.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
with that logic, you can play any strat in its niche, and its unbeatable.. you can't soley base an argument of its strength based on it's beatability in its niche, you gotta base it on its beatability in situations where it shouldn't thrive. if it is unbeatable in almost all circumstances, then i say it needs nerf. However, as you already pointed out, it's not. im sure you remember how RA used to be. it was nerfed because it was virtually unbeatable in almost all situations. guerilla warfare is, as youve mentioned, beatable in ukraine, as it is commonly used in the competitive scene. it's also beatable if you try to use it in other settings such as world games if you pressure it early. guerilla warfare does get basically unbeatable in lategame situations, but so do other strategies such as hybrid warfare, sky menace, perfect defense.. etc. we can't base our decision to nerf a strategy over its ability to win and its strength when its in an ideal situation, thats just silly. it needs to be based on its strength in positions of weakness, and in situations where it shouldnt thrive, but it does. If the stats that Wheelo provided are to be considered seriously, then gw should work well everywhere, as it's claimed to be the most efficient defense, and the most efficient attack. it's also claimed to be the 4th most efficient in range. Therefore, guerilla warfare should thrive in high income settings such as UK, or China, or in NA. However, you shuold know this as you've played many maps, it doesn't always work in these settings. It also won't work in settings such as spain or france, where more cash is even prevalent. until someone can prove to me that guerilla warfare is stronger than strategies in every other setting, or at least 75% of settings, then I will buy that it needs to be nerfed. however, I don't see how any of the evidence provided yields the opportunity to even propose a nerf. Also, considering that most of the feedback for this nerf is coming from mainly competitive CW players, yes the ukraine argumentation is valid, considering this would effect the most people who care about aw here. once again, yes GW is easily beatable in the east, this can't even be argued with. we have all known this for quite some time now.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
yes. dont base ur feedback off of one example. edit: as youll read in my response to lao, its well known to be beatable in the east. this is undisputed.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
No sultan, with that logic you cannot claim any strat is unbeatable in its niche because that would be nonsense. If you find a situation where gw is actually a good pick nothing will counter it. You cannot claim the same for any other strat. Besides i didnt claim this was the sole reason it needs to be nerfed. Youre posting in a thread that does a cost/power efficiencey comparison of gw against the rest of the strats. So you get near pd defence at almost half the cost and invisible tanks at 70 cost. AND your main defensive unit is given to you free everytime you take a new city. So with 1 strat i get the cheapest most powerful units in the game. I get the fastest expansion in the game and also the best lategame. But sure this is not overpowered according to sultan because it can be beaten and gw uk/china sucks.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
with ds how it is? 25/20?
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
less then gw
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Lade...
Lade...
|
now gw op defense
oh look more op gw defense
