A discussion on the state of INS and CI.

Now that INS has been nerfed into oblivion and people haven't solved CI yet, what does everyone think of both strategies? With the trial period ending soon, I think now is a good time to discuss what positives were added with both, and conversely what negatives exist as well.

With INS, it seems that cheap, 6 ATK Militia apparently was so drastic that it required a round of nerfs fairly quickly- But were these really necessary, or was INS just a necessary powercreep? Perhaps if LB hadn't been nerfed right before the INS release, INS wouldn't have been so bad as it would have some sort of competition; Though as I don't have any quantifiable metrics or anecdotal experiences from players regarding a possible matchup between pre-nerf LB and pre-nerf INS, I can't really back this statement up. Personally for me, above all else: I think INS was a wake-up call about the mediocrity of many strategies in this game. If INS is permanently removed, I'd like to think that we should begin buffing strategies again; Relentless Attack and Blitzkrieg come to mind here, and I'm sure most of you have ideas as well.

Now with CI, I've had people tell me that it might be a good Turkey pick for some reason; I haven't played the strategy much myself. Many competitive players tend to agree that it's either average or mediocre in nature, which may make it too balanced if that makes sense; Why play the cool new strategy if it doesn't change the game or have any benefits over older, better strategies? Perhaps a buff would need to be made if it sticks around, and I think it should; The premise is wholly unique and I feel like it hasn't been explored enough in the games I've played.

Now what I would like to know: What are your thoughts on both strategies? How do they impact the current format? Would you like to see a more dynamic and changing meta in the future, or do you prefer everything being rather predictable or samey as it has been for some years? Share your thoughts!

Ins is tough because cheap 6 atk mil make it OP, while nerfing it would just make GW a better alternative. With CI, you need to know if your opponent is using a stealth strategy, otherwise it is a shittier SM. If we want to change the meta, we need to update the map (city reinf change based on updated pop, possibly Crimea to Russia, etc). Also, bringing Tank General back would be a good idea.

I say we make changes to INS and buff CI

INS failed out of favor in competitive 3v3, but is still a fun and viable strategy in scenarios

Geschrieben von Nero, 02.03.2019 at 13:01

Ins is tough because cheap 6 atk mil make it OP, while nerfing it would just make GW a better alternative. With CI, you need to know if your opponent is using a stealth strategy, otherwise it is a shittier SM. If we want to change the meta, we need to update the map (city reinf change based on updated pop, possibly Crimea to Russia, etc). Also, bringing Tank General back would be a good idea.

With INS I agree, perhaps nerfing Infantry defence instead of Militia defence may have helped, and making it 45 per Militia. I think it's sad because less skilled and new players really enjoy the strategy in non-comp (hell even in some midtier 3v3). CI seems to have a hidden usage I won't discuss here, but I agree; I still think having a tickbox option to display what strat everyone is using would be a good idea for reason like this. Updating the default map has been talked about a lot, and I think it should happen eventually. Tbh I think we should just ditch RA and bring TG back as well.

Geschrieben von Tundy, 02.03.2019 at 13:09

I saw we make changes to INS and buff CI

INS failed out of favor in competitive 3v3, but is still a fun and viable strategy in scenarios

What kinds of changes and buffs? And yeah, I think if INS stays we should either powercreep other strategies so they can compete with INS, or put INS in a banlist when disabling certain strategies is eventually implemented (until other strategies can compete with INS, of course).

Ins has potential to be ok but I see why many people hate it. The meta of this game needs to favour defence. Tirpitz explained it pretty well here.

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=40471

If you disagree i encourage you to open a 1v1 and play an ins vs ins game against an opponent who doesnt pick too close. Ra vs Ra will also demonstrate this but ins is particularly bad because you acquire the strats main offensive unit in every city you take. Enjoy the cancer.

As for counter ins, that strat either needs to go or requires a major overhaul. I already explained why in another thread. No to rock/paper/scissors strategy combos.

I think INS does pretty great in my opinion. 6 attack with 4 defense at 40 cost with very small range seems fair. Especially since AT's and Sea trans are nerfed too.
PD has 7 defense and 4 attack infantry for 50 cost. So if we compare INS militia to PD infantry I think they are pretty equal in comparison. But at the end of the day most strats I feel would beat INS due to its lack of defense.

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 02.03.2019 at 13:30

Ins has potential to be ok but I see why many people hate it. The meta of this game needs to favour defence. Tirpitz explained it pretty well here.

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=40471

If you disagree i encourage you to open a 1v1 and play an ins vs ins game against an opponent who doesnt pick too close. Ra vs Ra will also demonstrate this but ins is particularly bad because you acquire the strats main offensive unit in every city you take. Enjoy the cancer.

As for counter ins, that strat either needs to go or requires a major overhaul. I already explained why in another thread. No to rock/paper/scissors strategy combos.

Why shouldnt there be no rock/paper/scissor type of strats. We already have such strats with PD countering RA. DS countering inf spam strats.

Geschrieben von Witch-Doctor, 02.03.2019 at 14:38

Why shouldnt there be no rock/paper/scissor type of strats. We already have such strats with PD countering RA. DS countering inf spam strats.

I knew someone would make this tedious troll point.

Except youve a good chance of beating pd with ra. Same with ds and the various inf strats. We are talking about a ds vs blitz level counterstrat. Where basically picking the strat vs the other wins you the game. Ds vs blitz was the only example of a true counterstrat that we had. But now it's counter-ins and gw/insurrection.

Geschrieben von Nero, 02.03.2019 at 13:01

Ins is tough because cheap 6 atk mil make it OP, while nerfing it would just make GW a better alternative. With CI, you need to know if your opponent is using a stealth strategy, otherwise it is a shittier SM. If we want to change the meta, we need to update the map (city reinf change based on updated pop, possibly Crimea to Russia, etc). Also, bringing Tank General back would be a good idea.

Crimea is ukraine