Strategies Discussion 2015.
Beiträge: 245
Besucht von: 236 users
There are still some strategies that need some work, but theres been a fair deal of improvement since the last round of changes.
We have 3 tiers of strategies atm. The competitive strategies, the middle ground strats and the almost useless strats.
Competitive Strats(competitive in that they all have a niche in which they are powerful):
Guerilla Warfare
Perfect Defense
Sky Menace
Iron Fist
Imperialist
Master of Stealth
Naval Commander
Desert Storm(almost in the next category)
Blitzkrieg
Middle Ground strats(not bad but not quite competent):
Great Combinator
Relentless attack
Almost useless:
Hybrid Warfare
Lucky bastard.
Ideally all of the strats should be in the first category. Lucky bastard was originally created as a troll strat, perhaps it is to stay that way if the community wishes. Some of the strats in the competitive category could use some tweaks, but the majority are widely considered perfect within the current meta.
I'll go through a quick breakdown of the strats.
Guerilla Warfare - Powerful in low/medium income areas with a medium/high city density(due to short range). Assuming cities are in range of its militia and marines it expands faster than any other strat due to the militia's attack and the acquiring of these buffed militia in every neutral taken. A powerful lategame strat.
Perfect Defense: A well rounded strat that can be used almost anywhere due to the low cost of its primary units and their high stats, Particularly powerful in the low-mid tier starting fund settings. However it can be dominated by the other strats in their specific niches.
Sky Menace - Powerful in medium-high income areas with low - high city densities. Can expand and travel fast and possesses great offensive power.
Iron Fist - Powerful in high income areas with a high city density. The most powerful offensive and defensive strat in the game, however it is limited by its short range. The recent change to its' transport range has seen it become a more popular pick competitively.
Imperialist - Powerful in low to medium income areas particularly with lots of spawn points. Possesses standard range on its units so is usable almost everywhere.
Master of Stealth - Powerful in medium to high income areas, particularly on big maps where it can make full use of its range and its stealth. Very mobile due to the range of its' marines and is arguably the most powerful lategame strat dominating even gw due to its meaneuvreability and powerful offense. Also possesses a decent naval presense.
Naval commander - Powerful on maps with medium to high income and lots of water and ports for it to make use of its naval transport range and powerful destroyers. Possesses the most powerful naval presense in the game.
Desert Storm: Powerful with lots of money, specifically against infantry based strats in countries with high starting funds. one of the competitive strategies which could arguably use some tweaks.
Blitzkrieg: Dangerous for surprise attacks and early game agression however it will fail vs most strats if the other has time and room to expand and grow strong. Has recently become a controversial strat due to its recently discovered power in europe+ 10k duels.
Great Combinator: Can be strong in medium to high income areas with lots of money. An attrition strat however currently in almost every situation you can use gc in a map with the default units theres a better strat choice.
Relentless Attack: A strat unique in that it has a singular boosted unit, however in function ra is the same as ds. You can pick a country with high starting funds, spam tanks and expand rapidly then go agressive. However it lacks any defensive capabilities and is dominated by pd and more powerful/versatile offensive strats like sm and mos.
Hybrid Warfare: Can be strong with lots of money, however currently it is too expensive to compete vs the competitive strats.
Lucky bastard: Is ok on high income maps, however in every situation you can use lb, theres a better strat choice. If i was to try and find a niche for lb it would be perhaps on some custom map with all "other" units with high stats and huge income.
Boosts nerfs to strats like pd/ds are controversial, so i am going to focus on the least used and widely acknowleged as weak strats, Particularly those that keep cropping up in general discussion and the ideas and suggestions section.
Boosts:
All boosts/nerfs have received support by the majority.
Great Combinator:
-10 cost to infantry.
Hybrid Warfare:
-20 to inf
Lucky Bastard:
+2 crit to all units.
Nerfs:
Blitzkrieg:
-1 defense to militia
We have 3 tiers of strategies atm. The competitive strategies, the middle ground strats and the almost useless strats.
Competitive Strats(competitive in that they all have a niche in which they are powerful):
Guerilla Warfare
Perfect Defense
Sky Menace
Iron Fist
Imperialist
Master of Stealth
Naval Commander
Desert Storm(almost in the next category)
Blitzkrieg
Middle Ground strats(not bad but not quite competent):
Great Combinator
Relentless attack
Almost useless:
Hybrid Warfare
Lucky bastard.
Ideally all of the strats should be in the first category. Lucky bastard was originally created as a troll strat, perhaps it is to stay that way if the community wishes. Some of the strats in the competitive category could use some tweaks, but the majority are widely considered perfect within the current meta.
I'll go through a quick breakdown of the strats.
Guerilla Warfare - Powerful in low/medium income areas with a medium/high city density(due to short range). Assuming cities are in range of its militia and marines it expands faster than any other strat due to the militia's attack and the acquiring of these buffed militia in every neutral taken. A powerful lategame strat.
Perfect Defense: A well rounded strat that can be used almost anywhere due to the low cost of its primary units and their high stats, Particularly powerful in the low-mid tier starting fund settings. However it can be dominated by the other strats in their specific niches.
Sky Menace - Powerful in medium-high income areas with low - high city densities. Can expand and travel fast and possesses great offensive power.
Iron Fist - Powerful in high income areas with a high city density. The most powerful offensive and defensive strat in the game, however it is limited by its short range. The recent change to its' transport range has seen it become a more popular pick competitively.
Imperialist - Powerful in low to medium income areas particularly with lots of spawn points. Possesses standard range on its units so is usable almost everywhere.
Master of Stealth - Powerful in medium to high income areas, particularly on big maps where it can make full use of its range and its stealth. Very mobile due to the range of its' marines and is arguably the most powerful lategame strat dominating even gw due to its meaneuvreability and powerful offense. Also possesses a decent naval presense.
Naval commander - Powerful on maps with medium to high income and lots of water and ports for it to make use of its naval transport range and powerful destroyers. Possesses the most powerful naval presense in the game.
Desert Storm: Powerful with lots of money, specifically against infantry based strats in countries with high starting funds. one of the competitive strategies which could arguably use some tweaks.
Blitzkrieg: Dangerous for surprise attacks and early game agression however it will fail vs most strats if the other has time and room to expand and grow strong. Has recently become a controversial strat due to its recently discovered power in europe+ 10k duels.
Great Combinator: Can be strong in medium to high income areas with lots of money. An attrition strat however currently in almost every situation you can use gc in a map with the default units theres a better strat choice.
Relentless Attack: A strat unique in that it has a singular boosted unit, however in function ra is the same as ds. You can pick a country with high starting funds, spam tanks and expand rapidly then go agressive. However it lacks any defensive capabilities and is dominated by pd and more powerful/versatile offensive strats like sm and mos.
Hybrid Warfare: Can be strong with lots of money, however currently it is too expensive to compete vs the competitive strats.
Lucky bastard: Is ok on high income maps, however in every situation you can use lb, theres a better strat choice. If i was to try and find a niche for lb it would be perhaps on some custom map with all "other" units with high stats and huge income.
Boosts nerfs to strats like pd/ds are controversial, so i am going to focus on the least used and widely acknowleged as weak strats, Particularly those that keep cropping up in general discussion and the ideas and suggestions section.
Boosts:
All boosts/nerfs have received support by the majority.
Great Combinator:
-10 cost to infantry.
Hybrid Warfare:
-20 to inf
Lucky Bastard:
+2 crit to all units.
Nerfs:
Blitzkrieg:
-1 defense to militia
|
To elaborate on what acqui said, atwar was built around the default map and its units, there are a mere handful of mapmakers who give thought to the strats when creating their maps, and it is up to them to adjust their maps as the strats are updated if required. and just in response to waffel and clovis, the point of this thread is to make al the strats competitive. You make these big long posts explaining stuff as if talking to new players. do you think us idiots? we know LB "works" on europe. But if you can find one situation where lb is a better strat choice than pd or gc then youll have something to your argument. This is why it retains its status as a troll strat and why i labelled it useless in my op. And no clovis LB is most certainly not the greatest lategame europe strategy, and im not even going to comment on what you said about 5k lb usage...
---- 
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
I said Ancient europe Laochra, but looks like acq had proved once again, the think of fakes competitive players. "Europe is the YOLO!!!!" gl. (And no I never called you fake competitive player, but your logic for sure is.) IMO LB is better than PD or GC in the initial spain Rush. But of course you get broked if he doesn't Rush and blablabla... Still I consider it, in my opinión, better lategaming as spain than GC By the use of not useless infantries.
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
its not best ancient lategame strat either, ironfist is hands down. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic and i invite you highlight where you feel i have gone wrong. LB is not better for the initial rome rush, i tried it 5 times and won rome only once over nc france. +10 crit on a tank is almost the rough equivalent of +1 attack, the hp is >+1 attack or def and is reflected in gc having the highest success rate on rome out of all my tests. pd is 50/50 roughly. i tried each strat 5 times, . you can go do tests with a higher sample in an attempt to disprove my observations, but until then, i am yet to find a competitive use for lb.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
on ancient(which i play and have cwd on) youve a high city density and high income and a +2 base militia movement range. +2 hp to if is more reliable and more powerful than the crit boosts. So playing lb over if youre leaving yourself with weaker units and a weaker economy. LBs extra range isnt needed. My point still stands. And you should perform more lb tests on rome and post them here, i would be delighted to have the results posted. however at this point i am going to stop acknowleging your posts as you are evidently trolling and are not adding anything of worth to the original discussion.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
I have done something more than you clovis.Not only have i tested LB Spain rome rush but i have actually played it on a cw, twice if i remember corectly.I won Rome both times but i also lost the game in my area, both of the times.So what if its the strongest Rome rush, if you are so broke you cant even use your reinforcements or even buy transports, let alone fund east.So i would say, no, sadly its not competitive.
----      
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
i tested lb twice with you and it lost both times. its like 13 tanks rest inf or something like that. Maybe you guys are just lucky bastards.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
yes but you realize that we have to test it more times and with a different tank-inf analogy, if we want our conclusions to have any merit.I also faced another lb spain rush while i was france and he beat me also, wth quite a difference i might add, but im not sure of the tank-inf ratio.I remember it was against syndicate though, maybe syrian im not sure.I still believe LB to be stronger than nc for rome rush, but i cant prove it yet. But anyway, even if i am right, the fact that lb is weak still stands as even if you have Rome you just cant mantain an economy after that, no matter what you do.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
yea i know youre right. not much change you can apply there, lb spain cant afford a full 50:50 tanks/inf. i dunno, it has failed most my rome vs france tests. lb needs high starting funds but to be frank i dont even think full europes economy can support lb to its full potential, when you think about it the militia are 33% more expensive, its a huge nerf for such an unreliable boost as critical. If you did have such an economy as to support it youd be better off with mos. Theres just no niche for lb
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
totally agree with this.Having played also in a world game as Spain LB, i can also attest to the fact that even with a great income and a strong performance early, you still experience fund shortage, that cripples your potential mid game.As you said, i also fail to see a specific ocasion where i would prefer to go as LB over an other of the other tier 1 strategies.Oh sorry i forgot, ancient world map from turn 29 to 67 and if your enemy name is Indian tiger and you are Europe and he is Asia.then its totally worth it, so yeah lets keep it as it is 
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
Well as I said I might be wrong cause I've only played it one time. Anyway, how can we boost LB? I do remember people complaining in the past about +15 critical...
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
to be honest i have no idea.i think LB is designed to be a troll strat just for the fact its based on luck alone.All i know is my experience with it, because i like the strat amd use to play it alot.My main problem in all games was the money.I never could build not even close to all my reinforcements and that really screwed with my games. The greatest choice of all, a really brilliant idea i had, would be to make duplicates of all the units an LB player can build, in all his cities and countries and he could choose to make either the normal default ones or the special lucky ones, who would have more crit and be more expensive.Thus the player would be able to have a mix of them and still manage his finances. But not only would this maybe hard to implement, but it might also be too time consuming for the player, dunno if it will be manageable in practice.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
LB +2 crit for LB? so that it's +12 crit instead of +10? RA please of bloody PLEASE get rid of the +10 to militia cost ik this wouldn't make it "relentless" but it would make the damn strat more playable in 3v3 edit: just allowing some upgrades for tanks could work as well as currently most strats are inf based and since there are inf upgrades it makes them stronger where as RA a strat that discourages any use of inf gets nada blitz I find it fine as it is people have complained about it with ukr but I think boosting other strats slightly would make it more balanced as blitz ukr I find to be the only one people really complain about as blitz turk Italy spain uk ect ect are all combatable IF I feel reducing the nerf it's trans get, -1 range instead of -2 range to make it more usable I mean sure IF is good but I find usually PD just a better pick as for giving militia range this would make IF to OP I think SM I think getting rid of it's crit nerfs on tanks and inf and getting rid of the nerf on bomber deff would help it PD I think is fine and the other strats I haven't listed I haven't played enough to be able to comment NC might need a boost but I think it's ok currently most the west is just all PD and other strats need to be changed a bit I believe to stop this from being the case edit 2: on the line of tank upgrades this would help RA imp and blitz (yeah I know people don't like blitz but hear me out) wouldn't tank ups help an imp turk more then it would a blitz ukr? since turk already needs to build tanks anyways and often builds more then blitz ukr would anyways idk what others think but that's just my opinion
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
Ra hell no aND SM HELL NO, the rest of your suggestion is ok
---- Hi
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
I can understand saying no to SM why no to RA? it needs something to make it playable in 3v3 so what do you think? edit: the reason I suggest getting rid of the +10 cost of militia is if you notice when you play RA ukr or spain or even Poland you end up with a lot of militia after attacking thus your stuck paying extra a turn for having attacked someone, for a strat that encourages attacking it also punishes you for it by hurting your economy edit 2: would making it -1 deff to militia instead of +10 cost be ok? my main issue with RA is when I play it I end up with far more militia then anything else (this happens with most strats anyways) but with RA your militia cost a fortune to upkeep and you can't get rid of them as easily as with SM blitz PD GW ect so when I play it I always end up losing an extra 100+ a turn then what I would be with anything else
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
Because Ra is op as hell, considering we don't play with no upgrade on, it can wreck Pd in a no upgrade situation.
---- Hi
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
where not talking about no upgrades where talking about standard 3v3 scenario at the moment with upgrades it don't matter where you pick RA I've found rarely the best choice
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
i almost beat neuvieme zone as ra, and ra is good in 3vs3, Fe) Ra poland. When allies are ukraine
---- Hi
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
almost doesn't really mean anything as it's possible to almost beat anyone with any strat, unless it's done consistently with winning that's no evidence to saying it's OP
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
it's already good as it is, not to bad nor too good
---- Hi
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
compared to the current meta imp NC PD SM Blitz for 3v3 the others would need something to bring them upto par with them, sure RA ain't bad but GC IF RA ect would need a little (not a lot) in order to bring them into the meta, as you said RA Poland is good, yeah that's true but every strat Poland is playable anyways and any strat Poland can work since it's close to areas with money it has a port and is close to highly compacted area and high starting cash
---- The best players are those who think outside the box and aren't afraid to try something new
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
If is strong enough to handle a sm ukraine. Nc got it's transport. and Ra rule the land
---- Hi
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
It appears you don't understand the argument I'm making. GW and MoS already have specific niches (world games, low/high funds) that they fill. All your example proves is that not all strats are ideal on the standard map/settings, something we all already knew. The issue is when a strategy is either so broken than it's unusable or so overpowered that it's abused. That's what we are here to discuss, not your personal misgivings with the competitive community.
---- The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
According to the guy here, we aren't comparing strategies on eu+. Good so you all know and I do no expect to see someone with "this strat is weak on eu+ need balance". Here's the analysis made by Mathdinho about LB. Some information had changed, but since LB went back from +5 to +10 our past generation would consider it "op". http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6361 But the difference now is that with upgrades you don't have another +10 critical like back at those times, but +2 plus +3 from general = +5 so LB inf with general and Lucky upgrade makes it +15 critical. 3/4 of how it was before. Edit: just noticed infantries marines and militias get +8 instead of +10... We can start up by making them all +10. If people are still afraid of criticals, then we can prove reducing the cost... -5 cost reduction?
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
that was a great thread but outdated, not complete and mistaken in some numbers.I will make a new table and post it in a new thread so we can have a more clear view in the matter of criticals.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
Heretofore, defense was almost entirely walls. Then, turnblock got modified, and now the game is all about attrition base warfare. I believe RA will be very competitive, because it allows powerful units at a good price, and if the user has a brain, he will wall. It will make RA a much better alternative then mos and possibly rivaling the great gw. I would also like to point out the name is called relentless attack, not the turtle strat.
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
I love how clovis deleted all his troll posts where he was trying to wind me up and the posts regarding his incorrect claims about LB. At least be a man about it and admit you were wrong, or better just remain silent.
i have misgivings about such a boost, you might be replacing one monster(blitz) with another. Many people falsely believe defense is the most powerful in this game, they are incorrect however. Offense is, here is a group of battles of the primary offensive units of ra sm and mos vs stacks of 10 pd infantry.    in the cases of the bombers and marines, it is 80 attack vs 90 defense, in the case of the ra tanks, its 90 attack vs 100 defense, yet the infantry nearly always lose. The critical stats displayed to us on both the inf and the tanks/marines/bombers are the same. So either the crit is displayed incorrectly or there is an unknown mechanic in play here. But this isnt my only issue, take a well known country like ukraine or poland for example, in a 10k game you immediately have almost 7k at your disposal, thats over 70 tanks worth of production without grabbing any income and factoring in neutral losses, but as these countries youll be able to expand rapidly then hammer your opponent with cheap tanks. This would be pretty hard to stop, it would certainly be relentless, indeed the current form of ra we have is used quite effectively as such, quite like ds in nature. The issue with boosting this strat atm in such a way is it offers nothing new and is considered quite an easy strat to play. There is certainly an argument there in that regard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also i updated the rp, the blitz nerf will be -1 to militia, and i changed the proposed gc boost to +2 crit, after reading that crit thread it is probably best to proceed with caution in altering critical, however i do believe that to improve gc the quality of the tanks and the inf needs to be increased without ofc venturing too near the original overpowered form of the strat.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
heres a suggestion, try not making the posts in the first place. Its preferable over waiting for you to develope self awareness after the mess has been made.
----
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
Full support on blitz nerf. Nerf mili but also the naval transport as critical explained in other thread.
---- Only the Braves
Lade...
Lade...
|
|
|
Just don't nerf range of blitz, trans inc, defeats the point of the strategy. Militia fine, just don't touch range. Both is an overnerf.
Lade...
Lade...
|
