♥♥♥ What is the Weakest Strategy - 2019 Edition ♥♥♥

Given new admin is actively making changes and testing new strats, and given the old survey was done years ago with most strats being nerfed/buffed since then, what do you think now? [The first poll ==> https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=26707]

There are other forums for specifically discussing strat changes that go into detail, so reserve comments to Imp Gw PD SM considerations as survey only allows for 9 items. If you feel strongly these are weakest, the secondary poll is here:

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=40708#m686083

Also note, IS and I as well as HtL and SE are test strats and so are not included.

BRING BACK TANK GENERAL 2019

I'd say NC, RA and Blitz need a slight buff.
Would really love to see NC Turkey being somewhat viable. Hate playing Imp over and over again.

+1 def for ra milita

Geschrieben von Chess, 07.03.2019 at 04:54

I'd say NC, RA and Blitz need a slight buff.
Would really love to see NC Turkey being somewhat viable. Hate playing Imp over and over again.

Geschrieben von Chess, 21.01.2019 at 12:52

I still only see opinions regarding MoS in Europe+ without considering what impact new implementations might have on other settings.
Competitive Eu/Eu+ playerbase is small compared to the rest of the playerbase, yet you guys want to make a decision that will affect the whole playerbase.

MoS is a lategame/world strategy not an EU+ strat.
Create another one if you guys would like to play with marines in EU+

NC is perfectly fine. It totally dominates areas with water, ports and income. If you want to play nc turkey go make another strat.

Relentless Attack: I've played a lot of games with Witch Doctor and Sid, along with my own personal experiences as of late with Relentless Attack. Do I think it's a viable strategy? Somewhat. Now, I'm not very skilled at rushing and tend to always follow the Fabian line of thought when playing, so of course RA would be a bad strat for me so take what I say only at face value; The strategy seems awkward to play at times and relies very heavily on map control rather than tactical insight, by this I simply mean rapid conquest IE Rushing. I'm sure there are other ways to play the strategy that I'm not aware of, but it's very interesting to say the least. I feel as though retooling it's ethos to focus moreso on what it's good at- Making cheap tanks and bombers and cutting through armies mercilessly- might be a decent route to follow.

Do I think Tank General would be better? Of course, my opinion on having a strategy with crazy good tanks and shit everything else will always be near and dear to my heart due to its stupid simplicity and the fact that I started out with in years ago, but nonetheless I think RA is at least viable in the right hands. Unfortunately I do believe it to be too inconsistent for my ow personal liking when I could use the same playstyle with something like Great Combinator and find more success.

Should we buff RA? Maybe. If anything, I would get rid of the Bomber Def nerf and give it and Destroyers +1 Crit to be more consistent with Tanks. I'm sure some Sid crazy madman would find some way to abuse this however, so some testing would be needed.

Blitzkrieg: A lot of people just want a +1 Range buff, I would personally rather have the -1 Def in cities for Infantry nerf be taken away and the -1 Def nerf for the general taken away. Witch Doctor demonstrated to me the vast power Blitz holds in early game expansions, but where Blitz seems to fail is middle game territorial management and defense considering it's one-trick nature of going really fucking far but having diddly-dick defense, hence the importance of the early game so you have enough resources to win. How would you guys buff this?

Naval Commander: It's fucking fine, play more naval maps and you will realize this. If we absolutely had to buff it though, make Marines cost -50 or something like that, or give Infantry +1 Atk or HP since NC spams a lot of them. i don't see the point in buffing NC though.

Geschrieben von Garde, 17.03.2019 at 11:38

.

Your suggestion for Blitz buff is very interesting yes, not crazy but better than just +1 range (who wouldn't make a big difference). I like Blitz and play it often because it was my first strat but it's bad tbh, if you don't dominate your opponent before turn 5 it's almost over. Anyway whatever it is, Blitz definitly need a buff.

Geschrieben von Garde, 17.03.2019 at 11:38

Relentless Attack: I've played a lot of games with Witch Doctor and Sid, along with my own personal experiences as of late with Relentless Attack. Do I think it's a viable strategy? Somewhat. Now, I'm not very skilled at rushing and tend to always follow the Fabian line of thought when playing, so of course RA would be a bad strat for me so take what I say only at face value; The strategy seems awkward to play at times and relies very heavily on map control rather than tactical insight, by this I simply mean rapid conquest IE Rushing. I'm sure there are other ways to play the strategy that I'm not aware of, but it's very interesting to say the least. I feel as though retooling it's ethos to focus moreso on what it's good at- Making cheap tanks and bombers and cutting through armies mercilessly- might be a decent route to follow.

Do I think Tank General would be better? Of course, my opinion on having a strategy with crazy good tanks and shit everything else will always be near and dear to my heart due to its stupid simplicity and the fact that I started out with in years ago, but nonetheless I think RA is at least viable in the right hands. Unfortunately I do believe it to be too inconsistent for my ow personal liking when I could use the same playstyle with something like Great Combinator and find more success.

Should we buff RA? Maybe. If anything, I would get rid of the Bomber Def nerf and give it and Destroyers +1 Crit to be more consistent with Tanks. I'm sure some Sid crazy madman would find some way to abuse this however, so some testing would be needed.

Blitzkrieg: A lot of people just want a +1 Range buff, I would personally rather have the -1 Def in cities for Infantry nerf be taken away and the -1 Def nerf for the general taken away. Witch Doctor demonstrated to me the vast power Blitz holds in early game expansions, but where Blitz seems to fail is middle game territorial management and defense considering it's one-trick nature of going really fucking far but having diddly-dick defense, hence the importance of the early game so you have enough resources to win. How would you guys buff this?

Naval Commander: It's fucking fine, play more naval maps and you will realize this. If we absolutely had to buff it though, make Marines cost -50 or something like that, or give Infantry +1 Atk or HP since NC spams a lot of them. i don't see the point in buffing NC though.

ra only good if u cancer wall, dont play vs pd or dont get rushed. 90 cost tanks are very strong.
just cut inf cost if u want it viable lol.

-1 def only blitz too strong. just give it more range or whatever. i dont want cancer noob blitz players just over expanding without at and no consequences.

marines suck monkey balls not even worth buffing
if u had to buff just -10 cost inf lol

inf cost buff solves practically solves any problem about viability

Buff none strat

How unexpected......(not really)

How is relentless attack so weak? i use it almost every game lol.

Geschrieben von Pancakes, 03.04.2019 at 14:07

How is relentless attack so weak? i use it almost every game lol.

its not weak.

Geschrieben von boywind2, 03.04.2019 at 19:33

Geschrieben von Pancakes, 03.04.2019 at 14:07

How is relentless attack so weak? i use it almost every game lol.

its not weak.

its has weakest strat.

Geschrieben von Pancakes, 04.04.2019 at 07:55

Geschrieben von boywind2, 03.04.2019 at 19:33

Geschrieben von Pancakes, 03.04.2019 at 14:07

How is relentless attack so weak? i use it almost every game lol.

its not weak.

its has weakest strat.

thats cuz they suck

Geschrieben von brianwl, 06.03.2019 at 16:39

Given new admin is actively making changes and testing new strats, and given the old survey was done years ago with most strats being nerfed/buffed since then, what do you think now? [The first poll ==> https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=26707]

There are other forums for specifically discussing strat changes that go into detail, so reserve comments to Imp Gw PD SM considerations as survey only allows for 9 items. If you feel strongly these are weakest, the secondary poll is here:

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=40708#m686083

Also note, IS and I as well as HtL and SE are test strats and so are not included.

I think industrial powerhouse is good but needs buffed, relentless attack is useless and needs major buffs, iron fist dosen't do shat, and i haven't used naval commander so ehh

Geschrieben von Jthejedigaming, 10.05.2019 at 11:18

Geschrieben von brianwl, 06.03.2019 at 16:39

Given new admin is actively making changes and testing new strats, and given the old survey was done years ago with most strats being nerfed/buffed since then, what do you think now? [The first poll ==> https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=26707]

There are other forums for specifically discussing strat changes that go into detail, so reserve comments to Imp Gw PD SM considerations as survey only allows for 9 items. If you feel strongly these are weakest, the secondary poll is here:

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=40708#m686083

Also note, IS and I as well as HtL and SE are test strats and so are not included.

I think industrial powerhouse is good but needs buffed, relentless attack is useless and needs major buffs, iron fist dosen't do shat, and i haven't used naval commander so ehh

The prophet is here

Why Industrial Powerhouse and Insurgency was removed?

Geschrieben von Estus, 05.10.2019 at 07:15

Why Industrial Powerhouse and Insurgency was removed?

Industrial Powerhouse, Insurrection, and Counter-Insurgency were time-limited Strategies available during February, March, and May, respectively. The Implementers team has collected a vast amount of information on player feedback for each, and ultimately they will all return with community-requested tweaks and balancing, as well as ideas of our own we've explored on the AtWar Test server.

Geschrieben von Garde, 05.10.2019 at 08:24

Geschrieben von Estus, 05.10.2019 at 07:15

Why Industrial Powerhouse and Insurgency was removed?

Industrial Powerhouse, Insurrection, and Counter-Insurgency were time-limited Strategies available during February, March, and May, respectively. The Implementers team has collected a vast amount of information on player feedback for each, and ultimately they will all return with community-requested tweaks and balancing, as well as ideas of our own we've explored on the AtWar Test server.

I see, cant wait to see them back (or as optional)

Geschrieben von Estus, 05.10.2019 at 08:44

Geschrieben von Garde, 05.10.2019 at 08:24

Geschrieben von Estus, 05.10.2019 at 07:15

Why Industrial Powerhouse and Insurgency was removed?

Industrial Powerhouse, Insurrection, and Counter-Insurgency were time-limited Strategies available during February, March, and May, respectively. The Implementers team has collected a vast amount of information on player feedback for each, and ultimately they will all return with community-requested tweaks and balancing, as well as ideas of our own we've explored on the AtWar Test server.

I see, cant wait to see them back (or as optional)

Shouldn't be too much longer

None is the most useless strategy.