Sky Menace - A deeper look on the gameplay

[PLEASE, READ THE FULL THREAD BEFORE VOTING]

In a few recent discussions I had with SM players after some in-game experiences, I've noticed what seems, to me and to them, as a balancement problem related with the Sky Menace strategy. In my opinion, it has turned from the hardest to one of the easiest strategies to play.

Economic management - Nowadays, SM players have little to no problem handling their economy mid and late game, mainly because their very fast expansion, losing only to Blitzkrieg, a strategy that has a way worst side effect while defending conquered cities. This applies to small and big maps, being easily noticed in europe and whole world games by other players.

Military management - While using SM, players are actually playing in a "blank" map with no obstacles (water to most strategies, land to MoS, GW and NC), being the only strategy that can take fully advantage of it. SM bombers have also a big advantage against other offensive AND defensive units when it comes to movement range, making it easier to reinforce or regroup stacks anywhere on the map.

Offensive tactics - Despite being buffed, Air Transports and mainly Stealths are rarely used in the way they were meant to be when the strategy was originally created. In my opinion, the main reason to this situation is the fact that, compared to the continuously "bomber stacking" tactic, the use of the expensive stealths doesn't appear as a good strategic alternative that could add some versatility to the strategy. Meanwhile, the Air Transports are used to one single purpose: joining the bomber stacks to capture cities. I'm not saying this is wrong, just that it could (and should) have more uses.

Defensive tactics - Militias and Infantries have no defensive penalties while playing SM, and I suggest it to remain the same. The main problem, to me, is that even when having fine defensive units, the SM players choose to defend their cities by stacking bombers on it, which is supposed to be an offensive unit, but nowadays it's a viable option. A good comparative example is that you won't see MoS or GW players defending their cities with Marines or TG and GC with tanks. The other strategies that can use their main units for defensive and offensive purposes are PD, for obvious reasons, and NC, that can only use it's destroyers on coastal cities.

Taking those factors into account, I suggest these specific changes to SM units (based on default stats):

Bomber
8atk/6def ($130)
9atk/5def ($150)

In my opinion, bombers should be used as offensive units only, making it's defensive use an expensive option. I'm also talking about the fact that, at the moment, it's very easy to capture and hold a country with the same units you used to capture it in the first place, with no negative effects at all. Also, I suggest a raise on it's cost, since it's "spamming" capacity is already solid comproved by most players.

Stealth
9atk/5def ($250)
9atk/4def ($230)

At the moment, the discount Stealths have on it's price doesn't make it attractive enough for SM players to buy them. By reducing it a little more, together with the raise on the Bombers cost, I believe that it can become a more used unit, adding versatility to the gameplay while using SM.

Sentry Plane
1atk/4def ($400) (60 view)
1atk/4def ($390) (70 view)

Now, Sentry Planes have no buff on SM and that, in my opinion, should change, since it's also an "air" unit type. I also notice that it's use is very restrict, and buff to it's stats could make it more attractice for defensive purposes mainly.

Air Transport
2atk/4def ($400) (3 capacity)
2atk/4def ($400) (4 capacity)

In my opinion, Air Transports are supposed to work as a fast option to manage units in the battlefield, which doesn't happen with SM in the present moment, by raising it's capacity by 1 (a huge difference in long terms) and with the reduced defense of bombers, it could work as a defensive tool for bringing infantries/militias from other locations to more strategical spots that need to be defended.

Well, that's it for now, I hope you can help me with critics and suggestions about it. I sincerely think that these changes can add the so needed complexity that SM lacks in our actual situation. My intention is not to nerf the strategy, but make it more complex than a single unit spamming.

I never use bombers as defensive unit only if there are no other way to reinforce the city ,about the attacking part by changing the cost it will be impossible to play sm in eu cause cost for 20 bombers will be 400 more a lot of money for eu.

Geschrieben von babisili, 16.05.2012 at 16:02

I never use bombers as defensive unit only if there are no other way to reinforce the city ,about the attacking part by changing the cost it will be impossible to play sm in eu cause cost for 20 bombers will be 400 more a lot of money for eu.

no babaisili you can tell mj to pay for your bombers and he will fill your transports with little boys

You also forgot about the +2 mov. which is very valuable in a game full of logistics.

But I agree with your statements.

Geschrieben von IchimaruGin, 16.05.2012 at 16:06

Geschrieben von babisili, 16.05.2012 at 16:02

I never use bombers as defensive unit only if there are no other way to reinforce the city ,about the attacking part by changing the cost it will be impossible to play sm in eu cause cost for 20 bombers will be 400 more a lot of money for eu.

no babaisili you can tell mj to pay for your bombers and he will fill your transports with little boys

lol stop spaming your shit and quote pinheiros proposal.

Geschrieben von Pinheiro, 16.05.2012 at 15:49

you won't see MoS or GW players defending their cities with Marines or TG and GC with tanks.

You're absolutely right, I love SM, but it's too OP, bombers should be only offensive

I also agree with you, that air transports should have a +1 capacity (to make up for the bombers' newfound lack of defense), and maybe also increase its movement range and decrease its cost.
Also, sentry planes do need some buff, but not much, i might even say only buff the visibility range, and let the price stay at 400.
As of bombers, they should be more powerful offensively, and less powerful defensively, but I'm not sure about the price, i'd let it remain the same.
And stealths should definitely be buffed, when's the last time you saw someone actually using them with SM!!!!, for them, i'd definitely drop the price(220-230 would be fine) and increase its range as well
And if this buff for the stealth is applied, then i'd raise the price of the bomber to at least 150, as you said

EVERYONE: WATCH THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE FINAL THIS WEEKEND
AND AGUANTE ARGENTINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It took you this long to figure out SM was OP? Oh dear lord.
I applaud your in-depth facts though (needs spaces after each parenthesis, and with Credit signs though), 5/5.

I like the proposal.

Sky Menace has always been a single-minded strategy that thrived on expanding and making a bomber focus style of gameplay that led to this spamming tactic. As Pinheiro mentioned this is not a nerf to the strategy, but more an adjustment to make it more versatile and difficult to apply. Ex; bombers with 9 attack will have an offensive purpose more stronger than previously but with a lower defence of 5. (which can still be useful for last minute defence). The same was done with stealths except with a lower cost than before. Lastly, for those with all the air transport capacity upgrades they will now have a capacity of 6. This makes transports stronger than ever enabling it as a secondary unit behind bombers. "Transport refills" will be a good tactic for this especially with its long range.

Great thread Pinheiro i think you have something going here.

Too complicated, too many changes to effectively sum up in one sentence in the mouseover.

As for bombers, we had a feedback poll back in the beta days on bombers, by the way.

I don't think SM is OP*, and hence, I voted against this.

* I no longer play Sky Menace, I'm now a Great Combinator player and hence am unbiased.

Geschrieben von babisili, 16.05.2012 at 16:02

I never use bombers as defensive unit only if there are no other way to reinforce the city

Well, maybe you don't do that too much, but most SM players I know do it, specially when bigger stacks are involved. Let me add that this also interferes on the endless offensive that the SM user can practice at the moment, since he doesn't really need to worry too much about his bombers being attacked while capturing enemies cities.

Geschrieben von Garde, 16.05.2012 at 16:22

It took you this long to figure out SM was OP? Oh dear lord.
I applaud your in-depth facts though (needs spaces after each parenthesis, and with Credit signs though), 5/5.

No, not really, when the update first came out I had already made the observation that SM would need some changes in order to adapt to the new situation, but my concerns about it's gameplay already existed before it too. Thanks for your comment.

Geschrieben von YOBA, 16.05.2012 at 17:25

Too complicated, too many changes to effectively sum up in one sentence in the mouseover.

At the moment, the description about SM is Advanced bombers and stealths at the cost of weaker land units. I would even reduce it to Advanced aircrafts at the cost of weaker land units. without any fear of losing it's original concept.

Geschrieben von YOBA, 16.05.2012 at 17:25

I don't think SM is OP, and hence, I voted against this.

I'm not saying it's, that's why I tried to clarify (but I might have failed to make it clear) that my aim is to create a little more complexity and variety to SM's gameplay experience, for those who are playing with and against it.

Pin is proposing for SM to be harder to play not nerfed.

I use air transports a lot when playing SM, and I know many other SM players who do that too. Honestly adding +1 capacity to them would be insanely powerful, especially when mixed with such strong offensive units. I should also mention I never see strong players using bombers in defense unless they really have to, perhaps you're observing the wrong players.

also I don't think SM should be changed at all, It's perfectly balanced atm (even a little weak due to wf) the real reason people complain about SM now is because Ukraine is overpowered, not Sky Menace. I would love to see someone try to say SM Spain is too strong. SM took a huge hit losing flowers - which made it fairly balanced since it was a little too strong before, there is no reason to weaken or buff it now since it is fine tuned now.

also a sentry plane buff? really?


EDIT: TopHats y u post as zorbo

I almost agreed to what Pin said until i read Fruit's Second Paragraph post.

Geschrieben von Fruit, 16.05.2012 at 23:38

the real reason people complain about SM now is because Ukraine is overpowered, not Sky Menace. I would love to see someone try to say SM Spain is too strong. SM took a huge hit losing flowers - which made it fairly balanced since it was a little too strong before, there is no reason to weaken or buff it now since it is fine tuned now.

This is 100 % correct. And im starting to to think that maybe not outrule Pin's suggestions but maybe edit them

I also thought about nerfing bombers defense by 1 point since they shouldn't be used so much for defending. But I think the main problem, as Fruit said, is Ukraine. It gives a lot of starting money and a lot of reinforcements combined with rich nearby countries. Possibly the raising price for Ukraine would balance things a little.

How to balance SM:

Increase Ukraines income by 100%
?
Profit!

P.s. I would like to say that SM is a horrible cancerous strat and I'm pleased to say I no longer play it. The mobility of the strat is its true strength and I don't believe that SM bombers should get any attack or defence increase from the strategy, simply them being cheaper is good enough because they can converge on single targets from extreme distance and no other strategy can emulate that without extensive use of transports.

P.s.s. I really do believe just increasing Ukraines income would work fine though. Screw realism.

P.s.s.s. Pin, your point about GC not defending with Tanks etc. is really bad. The strats you listed have a dedicated defensive unit, SM have normal infantry which is fine but why build Infantry when you could just build bombers which you can use to counter attack with? If you want to go down the route of low bomber def and turn it into an ariel version of GC go right ahead but it will need a buff to Helicopters or something so that SM have a unit to defend with.

Geschrieben von Fruit, 16.05.2012 at 23:38

Honestly adding +1 capacity to them would be insanely powerful, especially when mixed with such strong offensive units.

How so? I'm not disagreeing, but I need factual arguments to discuss with, or else it would become a pointless discussion.

Geschrieben von Fruit, 16.05.2012 at 23:38

I should also mention I never see strong players using bombers in defense unless they really have to, perhaps you're observing the wrong players.

Well, I do have a good experience playing different maps and scenarios, with and against SM, but that's a personal point of view and we probably won't reach any conclusions based on it.

Geschrieben von Fruit, 16.05.2012 at 23:38

also I don't think SM should be changed at all, It's perfectly balanced atm (even a little weak due to wf) the real reason people complain about SM now is because Ukraine is overpowered, not Sky Menace. I would love to see someone try to say SM Spain is too strong.

The fact that you're only mentioning european countries make me think you're the one observing only Europe and Europe+ games, which is just a small portion of the game. I'm talking about a change taking into account the whole dynamics on AW, and where SM takes place. No, it's not only about Ukraine SM, far from it.

Geschrieben von Fruit, 16.05.2012 at 23:38

also a sentry plane buff? really?

What's the point on this kind of comment? Please refrain from posting useless observations.

Geschrieben von Barrymore, 17.05.2012 at 03:24

How to balance SM:
Increase Ukraines income by 100%

Again, I'm not talking about nerfing SM, but a way to add versatility to it's gameplay, including both, the players that are using it, and those who need to fight it (seriously, playing against SM is turning into a really boring situation, and you know it).

Geschrieben von Barrymore, 17.05.2012 at 03:24

The strats you listed have a dedicated defensive unit, SM have normal infantry which is fine but why build Infantry when you could just build bombers which you can use to counter attack with? If you want to go down the route of low bomber def and turn it into an ariel version of GC[...]

That's not my intention, hence why I also mentioned GW (defend with militias, that still have less defense than normal SM infantries), MoS (also defends with non-buffed infantries) and TG (has nerfs to both basic defensive units). I could also mention IMP (no defensive buff), NC (no defensive buff in land), DS (no defensive buff) and Blitz (huge defensive nerf to all units).

No, I don't want to make SM an aerial version of GC, what I want, in fact, is making it an interesting and fun-to-play strategy, and that's what my proposal is all about.

Pinheiro I don't think you get how SM players actually play... They use bombers for offense expanding agressively against their opponent and for defence they Infantry spam. Most players only put bombers to defend if they don't have the range to stack Infantry. So a nerf to the bombers defense would do nothing.

Zitat:

How so? I'm not disagreeing, but I need factual arguments to discuss with, or else it would become a pointless discussion.

well with upgrades you can take 6 units with the +1 capacity (and who doesn't have the capacity upgrades), that means you can have 18 attack and 24 defense with amazing range. Militia isn't that bad, If you can fly it across the map in 1 turn it's great in fact. I always end up militia stacking because I end up with a lot just from taking 8 cities, while it was nice to take 5 militia and make a 3 wall I would prefer to leave 2 defending units and take the 6 (since it would get wf'd anyways, such is AW now). I don't think this would be too powerful on it's own, but when mixed with 9 attack from bombers you would effectively make a flying GC in that their attack units are very strong and would destroy defending units easily, and you can also put 6 infantry which would die before the very strong bombers in a battle(in def).

Zitat:

The fact that you're only mentioning european countries make me think you're the one observing only Europe and Europe+ games, which is just a small portion of the game. I'm talking about a change taking into account the whole dynamics on AW, and where SM takes place. No, it's not only about Ukraine SM, far from it.

Well then I see no problem, If it's not broken don't fix it. In a world game SM is by no means overpowered and does just fine against other strats if played effectively. If anything you should be trying to change Imperialist right now, It's hilariously overpowered with this system.

Geschrieben von Deray YG, 17.05.2012 at 11:58

Pinheiro I don't think you get how SM players actually play... They use bombers for offense expanding agressively against their opponent and for defence they Infantry spam. Most players only put bombers to defend if they don't have the range to stack Infantry. So a nerf to the bombers defense would do nothing.

Please, read my previous replies.

Geschrieben von Pinheiro, 16.05.2012 at 20:03

Well, maybe you don't do that too much, but most SM players I know do it, specially when bigger stacks are involved. Let me add that this also interferes on the endless offensive that the SM user can practice at the moment, since he doesn't really need to worry too much about his bombers being attacked while capturing enemies cities.

Also, why are you implying that I don't know how to play SM in the first place?
Favorite strategies: Guerrilla Warfare, Perfect Defence, Sky Menace

Geschrieben von Fruit, 17.05.2012 at 12:27

Well then I see no problem, If it's not broken don't fix it. In a world game SM is by no means overpowered and does just fine against other strats if played effectively.

Again, I'm not saying it's overpowered, it's just lame, as you only use one type of unit and on stacking formations, there's no need to think about holding your captured cities, for example, you won't build infantries, you will build more bombers because you don't need to worry if those are actually attacked, due to it's high defense.

Geschrieben von Fruit, 17.05.2012 at 12:27

If anything you should be trying to change Imperialist right now, It's hilariously overpowered with this system.

I agree, and I will try to work on something about that in the near future too.

With bombers 9 attack, i would be able to take with 10k spain uk, france and italy in the first week ...
the problem of sm is the range of the transports.
one solution could be a big antiair upgrade and unlock this unit for all
or reduce the range of the transports, so a sm-player could expand so fast(less cities, less money, less units)

As a SM player I agree with Pin's suggestion to increase the attack and decrease the defense of the bombers but the price should remain the same. (SM is already an expensive strat to use) I don't get the point of any stealth upgrades for SM, yes they are "air units" but SM isn't a stealthy strategy. Surprise attacks can be accomplished by the range the strategy offers. I do like the idea of cheaper sentry planes because again they are "air units" but -10 cost wouldn't do much because you only need 1-3. (unless it's a world game but by midgame the economy will be enough to support the amount of sentries needed) I even like the idea of +1 capacity of air transports, but I do agree that with the additional upgrades a capacity of 6 might be a bit much. (I myself don't even have the last upgrade for it because it's so expensive and there were better options like faster infantry, I'm getting it soon tho) Also I personally don't ignore the water while playing SM, it gives an opportunity for much cheaper transport with a much greater capacity. (only a noobish fool would ignore the advantages the sea offers)

The thought that this could become a type of "flying GC" excites me a lot. (I'm very biased because SM and GC are my two favorite strategies)

If anyone has a problem with SM being OP it's because of Ukraine's price, so if it upsets you go make a Thread about increasing Ukraine's cost don't attack SM. (do this and i will probably cry a bit)

Btw Trollface I can get UK, France, Italy, and Portugal with SM Spain first turn with 8 attack it actually isn't very difficult.

ps. i miss my bomber walls

Geschrieben von Deray YG, 17.05.2012 at 11:58

Pinheiro I don't think you get how SM players actually play... They use bombers for offense expanding agressively against their opponent and for defence they Infantry spam. Most players only put bombers to defend if they don't have the range to stack Infantry. So a nerf to the bombers defense would do nothing.

It's not only about defending cities. The higher the defense, the more units you lose attacking them, no matter where. If theres 80 bombers flying in who have 6 defense, I will lose more units on attacking them than I would if they had 5 defense.
That's something that always annoyed me. When attacking a bomber stack with equal numbers of marines, I lose like 3/4 of my troops. While he will only lose 1/5 of his units, when attacking my marine stack. That's bullshit. I'd even lower their defense to 4 to make them on par with tanks.

Geschrieben von learster, 18.05.2012 at 05:00

Geschrieben von Deray YG, 17.05.2012 at 11:58

Pinheiro I don't think you get how SM players actually play... They use bombers for offense expanding agressively against their opponent and for defence they Infantry spam. Most players only put bombers to defend if they don't have the range to stack Infantry. So a nerf to the bombers defense would do nothing.

It's not only about defending cities. The higher the defense, the more units you lose attacking them, no matter where. If theres 80 bombers flying in who have 6 defense, I will lose more units on attacking them than I would if they had 5 defense.
That's something that always annoyed me. When attacking a bomber stack with equal numbers of marines, I lose like 3/4 of my troops. While he will only lose 1/5 of his units, when attacking my marine stack. That's bullshit. I'd even lower their defense to 4 to make them on par with tanks.

leaster is right, there litterally flying tanks. we should lower defesne to 4 or 5

I agree with Pinheiro wholeheartedly. Making one unit (bombers) overpowered and nerfing other units (although SM barely has any nerfs to it) only means the players will use that one overpowered unit.

Compare: all other strats require using a variety of other units, and using a lot of each.

GC: you need to use all your units to play it effectively. Infantry, Tanks, Air Transport, in equal measure.
IF: Same thing, except you even use bombers too.
Guerilla Warfare: You use militia and marines, and bombers too.
Blitzkrieg: Use everything
MoS: Subs, Marines, Infantry for defence.
Naval: Destroyers, Infantry, Boat Transports.
Imperialist: Infantry and Bombers, Tanks too sometimes
Tank General: Tanks, Infantry for defence (let's face it, TG isn't a great strat).


Quite honestly, SM players do actually only rely on ONE unit, and they slap a transport with one militia onto them. That's annoying, and now they don't even need to worry about turnblocking anymore, since they can move everything out without fear of being stopped.

Ironail is 100% right.

Something have to be done.

Perhaps just getting rid that massive range the bombers have..

Do tank general gets a boost +2 range boost? no.

Perfect defense actually gets a -1 range.

I think the strat would be fine if the just remove the range or just remove the attack bonus.

Why increase the attack of bombers? Wouldn't it be better to have stealth bombers as the offensive unit and bombers as the defensive unit. Even name them something different to reflect this.

If bombers attack is increased, than stopping a big stack of bombers will become even harder.

I'm a Sky Menace user, and you can't increase the air capacity even more!!!

With the upgrades you can already take a capital, wall it and take 2 other cities in a country imagine it with 6 units on a transport! It would only make SM more OP

I realise most of sm players dont think stratigecaly because its a rather easy strat nowadays mainly in world and eurasia games im which just spamming the bombers is enough to avoid tb, against myself i talk, i've been winning tons of sp fighting eurasia maps because after you have a good income/number of countries you are pretty much unbeatable (most of the time)

I'm also against boosting their attack, because that would make stealths even more obsolete because their advantage over bomber are the stealth (obv.) and the extra attack! If you want to bring more strategy to sm maybe you should cut bombers attack to 7(???) or increase stealth attack to 10(???????) to make it worthy of recruiting as an offensive unit

FYI, i haven't made math I threw random values to the discussion but they seemed right at first sight

Why would you make a transport with 6 capacity when the most any SM player would use is 1 militia?
I think SM is OP no matter how you apply it. Spamming bombers will always be more powerful tan anything.

I use the full capacity all the time... Pretty nice walling your countries the same turn you take them. Also helps to take the country if you don't have enough bombers.