Planning for Strategy Update 2019 #2

Let's start planning what the next strategy changes will be. Speak here and make your voice heard!

Things to think about:

1) How is the last round of changes working out? (see Strategy Update 2019 #1) Should we keep it, eliminate it, or modify it?

2) What new strategies are you most interested in seeing added? (if there's a separate thread already, please provide links)

3) What other strategy changes do you want to see made?

1) Modify. Decreasing helicopter capacity doesn't make a difference as only 1 marine is needed to capture territory. The strategy is practically unaffected.

2) --

3) This isn't a suggestion for strategy change but I think lowering the cost of the anti-aircraft unit will bring more diversity to the game. It is too expensive to buy while playing, I suggest lowering the cost and reducing defense bonuses slightly.

2) https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=39963

Both of course would need some testing and tweaks but they seem unique and interesting to myself and other's

1) I believe Desert Storm nerf wasn't very effective. IMO helicopters +10 cost need -2 defense, -1 range on militia and go from +2 attack on infantry with heli to -1 attack on infantry but ONLY on DS leave it as +2 for all other strats.

2) Witch Doctor came up with an interesting idea to utilize sentry planes more https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=39856

3)
MOS: +1 attack and -2 defense for stealth bombers, +1 capacity to submarines, -10 cost to marines, -1 movement to infantry, -1 defense to marines

Blitzkrieg: +1 movement to all units

I would really like to see master of stealth changed because it is a very unique strat since it utilizes stealth units. At the cost of very weak defenses and very high attack. It will be best used as a highly offensive strategy. This might mean needing to give a little more detection range to sentry planes that way they can be utilized more in combat. But I supposed you could just adjust as you go.

I am sure a lot of people will disagree with me but I am giving my own opinion as will everyone else.

Glad to see changes are happening

1) LB nerf overkill, need to dial it back slightly

3)
Blitz +1 range

LB -10 militia cost

DS -1 helicopter range

Skrivet av Guest, 08.01.2019 at 00:33

3. Maybe making GC tanks and infs have 2 extra HP instead of just 1, as well as RA tanks having 9 ATK maybe? Not sure on these though, just ideas coming out of my head not sure if they'd be disasters.

So you want them to be iron fist unit with FULL range and -10 cost? Disagree

Buff NC

1) LB nerf is too big and DS not enought.

3) Blitz +1 range for all units. [EDIT] : +1 view range too, since it can be embarassing if you barely see where you go.

Ra needs to be fixed

The LB nerf is useless, and certainly not enough

LB in some cases can practically double the effectiveness of a stack, what is a +10 cost nerf, which is only a 5-10% increase in cost supposed to do. Improves effectiveness of up to 100%, at the cost of a measly +10% ? Especially when most games nowadays are 50k, people all pick rich countries and money is never much of an issue in the first place.

To put into perspective how meaningless +10 cost is...... if you created a THOUSAND units, it only only cost you +10k more, and most of these 50k games, people end up making 5-10k cash in a SINGLE turn...so really the effect is negligible even in massive 1k+ unit games. Now considering most games people dont go up to a thousand units, the extra cost suffered from this nerf is far far less than 10k in an entire game.

The entire strategy 'update' made no difference at all

For people thinking that it should be a +5 nerf instead of a +10.....so for a 120 cost tank, instead of 130, which is only an 8% increase in cost, you want to make it 125, a 4% increase in cost?? Lol, why not just make it 0% increase in cost while you're at it?

Dave please test it yourself, attack 100 units with LB against 100 units without LB and calculate how much of a monstrous advantage LB gives. It is honestly insane, it feels like you're attacking with 200 units vs 100. In reality, a +20 or more increase in cost would be more suitable if you want the math to work and be deemed 'fair' (it would still be an enormous advantage at +20)...but there are way too many crying LB users for an increase that large to ever happen.

First of all i'd say tweak LB and DS abit like it has been proposed above and wait a little while and see what goods or bads it delivers.

I would like to advise to promote this thread, so it might be noticed better by the (scenario)community, since I have a strong feeling they feel underappreciated when it comes down to subjects like these. (Not sure where my strong feeling comes from ) .

As for the strategy changes I would like to state that you shouldn't change strategies based on their (un)popularity. Most strategies in the past have been nerfed/boosted with the sole reason to make them more playable (and picked) for everyone and eventhough the goal is great, history has taught us that it eventually only creates more problems. Even if you boost all the strategies, there will always be one or two strategies that stick out and will be played the most, then the others get boosted again, and the circle repeats itself all over again. You shouldn't let upvotes be the deciding factor either, I think Clovis said something like this in the thread from Laochra and in my opinion that would be a huge mistake, since alot of people (sorry in advance) are to inexperienced with some/most of the strategies and that they take their way of playing as the core base of the nerfs/boosts.

Nerf ds more,buff mosr,ra and lower cost for AAs.Lb is fine as it is it still has 4att 6def12crit 70cost infatry imao.And 12crit militia should have 40cost since it makes them op.

Skrivet av smegma lover, 08.01.2019 at 03:39

IF +1 range to militia

Not this again.

Iron Fist is probably one of the few if not the last strategy that is actually pretty well based. I strongly believe that giving IF +1 militia range will make it to powerful and eventually gets nerfed again (only then not only the militia range will be reduced, probably won't be even touched, but then the HP or defense/attack will be nerfed aswell and will leave the strategy untouched for the next few years, RA as example).

Skrivet av Witch-Doctor, 08.01.2019 at 01:45

Blitz +1 range

Why +1 range though? I am pretty sure its not the lack of range that keeps the people from picking the strategy. I think the strategy should be changed on different areas, like either defending or attacking. Adding +1 more range is like the capacity nerf of DS, barely effects the strategy.

Skrivet av PleaseMe, 08.01.2019 at 00:48

MOS: +1 attack and -2 defense for stealth bombers, +1 capacity to submarines, -10 cost to marines, -1 movement to infantry, -1 defense to marines

I would really like to see master of stealth changed because it is a very unique strat since it utilizes stealth units. At the cost of very weak defenses and very high attack. It will be best used as a highly offensive strategy. This might mean needing to give a little more detection range to sentry planes that way they can be utilized more in combat.

Don't you think 10 attack is way to OP for the stealth bomber? Eventhough they cost 200, so basically 70 more than bombers/helicopters, having 10(2 more) attack seems way to overpowered imo. +1 Capacity to submarines I do agree on or maybe add one more upgrade with +1 capacity to submarines like we have with the air transports. Nerfing infantries and marines for the sake of better stealth bombers doesnt sound right to me tbh, changes MoS into the stealthy air unit strategy version of SM and DS.

Give Blitz millitias +1 defence (or attack). I saw some noob earlier propose that they get a defense boost because,

Germany at the end of the war used millitia troops (Volkssturm) in large numbers to the defend to the end.

LB nerf was too much, need to keep it 30 cost for militia and 70 for inft

DS -1 helicopter defense, keep the hilo capacity 2 and add +10 cost to marines

And fix RA cuz it is an useless stra now, -10 cost to inft (70 cost) and +1 in attack

1) Blitz +1 attack for infantry & tanks, +1 range for infantry and tanks

2) DS capacity returns to original, heli defence -1
Please don't listen to others when they say the strategy is unchanged.

It's only unchanged if you have the heli capacity upgrade, otherwise it just breaks the entire strat

3) Remove the crit nerf on SM infantry

4) RA infantry go down to +10 of normal infantry price

5) MoS infantry +1 defence

Remove the 1- def for infantry in cities and make RA playable

There wasnt any reason to nerf DS. What u could play with that, Ukraine and maybe Spain on EU + map? That strat is useless in world games and now in almost everything.

Lb, maybe deserved some small nerf, +10 cfau. isnt small. Now who will play it? When no money to play it normall, maybe in 50 k games haha.

Some players lost few duels and cried to Dave that he nerf every strats in which u dont only spam infs.

For now Dave did nothing good, removed lifetime premium (bad for new players) and 2 strats got nerfed, so less players will use them. This game need new things, new options to mix gameplay and here just opposite things heppened. Less options, less strategies.

Wheres new things, wheres editor, gifts to new players so they stay and buy premium, new options in pc shop, to spend money on it for players who have unused pcs...

But k, what i know... D

LB: either +5 cost for all units, or normal cost but -1 range to either tanks or inf. both could work
DS: Its fine in its current nerfed form. its expansion ability is very curbed and -r9 and lower cant abuse it because the marine upgrade costs a lot of SP.
GC: -10 cost for infs or +1 def against tanks
RA: +1 attack for tanks and +1 range for milita. or just +1 range for milita.
SM: normal infs

Edit: Unlike the rest of your anecdotal ramble about DS and LB, im trying to be real here and look for the strats longevity, current form of LB makes it utter garbage in low-fund games and DS expansion ability is much weaker but itd have to do. so keep ds as it is now. it had 3 nerfs in a row at this point.

Https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=39373

I miss TG which was fun to use to counter PD (TG focus on main attack, PD on main defence). Replacing it with RA doesn't make sense because RA doesn't look like attacking specialization, but manouver.

No range buffs, just main attack type units attack stat buff and defensive units def nerf like it used to be.

The rest strats are fine and no need to change, because if you change them, that affects the other side of spectrum as well (still remember that lesson from art class). Change is never local and it will affect all your work.

I am not talking only about LB nerf you did, tbh i don't have problem with it, it just turned off my inf upgrade, no big deal, i am talking about all nerfs and buffs that happened till now since 2011, because as i said about my lesson - change leads to change and you will never achieve perfection. So just leave as it is, it is already perfect.

Skrivet av Dave, 07.01.2019 at 23:27

Let's start planning what the next strategy changes will be. Speak here and make your voice heard!

Things to think about:

1) How is the last round of changes working out? (see Strategy Update 2019 #1) Should we keep it, eliminate it, or modify it?

2) What new strategies are you most interested in seeing added? (if there's a separate thread already, please provide links)

3) What other strategy changes do you want to see made?

1: lb nerf should only apply to inf
2: mass conscription. inf stats are same but -30 cost while tanks are -1att +20 cost. inf and militia +1 range crit-1 on all
3: RA buff +1 att, +2 range, +5 crit -10 cost on tanks -1 att -1 def -1 range militia -2 att -2 def -2 range -3 crit inf

As said before. The only way to save the game is to be willing to be proven wrong and fix our mistakes. Immediate buffs are needed for MoS and HW. For GC I would love to see the capability for tanks to carry militias and I would'nt mind to see +1 attack to LB Infnatry in exchange of zero capbility for sea transforts to carry troops. Since people love infnatry based starts so much we can provide it while keeping the game intersting and balanced by having LB and PD for short games and Imperialist and Hybrid Warfare for long games (Imp Turkey is rare exception). As for specifics if you consider nerfing or buffing strategies I think it will be right to discuss each one seperately.

New Strategies

Armored Cavalry


Airborne Assault

I thought the biggest issue people had with LB was its sometimes ridiculous high rolls in battles against PD for instance. Increasing the cost doesnt help this issue instead makes it frankly unplayable leaving us with more bland nerfed strats.

Skrivet av Waffel, 08.01.2019 at 05:16

Skrivet av Witch-Doctor, 08.01.2019 at 01:45

Blitz +1 range

Why +1 range though? I am pretty sure its not the lack of range that keeps the people from picking the strategy. I think the strategy should be changed on different areas, like either defending or attacking. Adding +1 more range is like the capacity nerf of DS, barely effects the strategy.

The proper way to buff/nerf things in games is to buff their strength and nerf their weakness. Right now blitz is barely able to out expand sm/nc. If you increase the range and allow it truely limitless reach, it will be picked a lot more to snipe expansions.

Take blitz turk vs ukr right now. Blitz turk is required to buy an air transport to take moscow and poland. Range buff will help this a lot. In addition, RNW is impractically out of reach with the current blitz. But with the buff it will be viable to snipe rnw with blitz turk.

My point is that blitz's range isn't actually that great and it has a big downside. Imp turk has a more viable moscow rush than blitz.

For update 2

RA: +1 attack for main attack (tank) at the very least. -10 cost to main defense (infantry).
LB: roll back on the +10 cost for secondary defense (militia) , keeping just the +10 for main defense (infantry).

MoS: this strat needs to be changed, either a small buff to it's main defense (infantry) or what the player ''PleaseMe'' described above.

Skrivet av Dozer, 08.01.2019 at 16:09

New Strategies

Armored Cavalry


Airborne Assault

1) I agree with some guys, Lb nerf is way too much. It leaves this strat useless for mostly all spots and settings. I think +10 crit for all units ( instead of +10/+12) and increasing tranports cost (like +50 air transport and +30 sea t) looks better.

The way to counter DS strength could be by adding new stuff. AA unit is useless right now, I suggest to change AA´s stats to make it a reliable unit vs DS.
170 cost, 5 range, same defense by default, and then change the current aa upgrades (+ 3 range,+1def) for -10 cost and +1/2 hp.
130 cost, 11def(vs air units), 8/9hp for aa imp units sounds good to counter DS helis. Maybe reducing the attack on helis -1 also fit for balancing.

I´ve seen some guys talking about nerf def of helis. It wouldnt make DS´s expansions even more op? just think about a PvPvN battle.

2) Blitz +1 range sounds good. Mos : I agree with PleaseMe proposal. RA: +1 att for tanks and -10 cost inf.

Skrivet av DeepFriedUnicorn, 08.01.2019 at 18:10

Skrivet av Dozer, 08.01.2019 at 16:09

New Strategies

Armored Cavalry


Airborne Assault

Sorry, I thought you knew what a Armored Personnel Carrier was and how it is utilized.

The first picture is a Stryker m1126 Armored Personnel Carrier or APC. It has 11 man crew; driver, vehicle commander and 9 infantry.

Armored Cavalry Strategy:
This would utilize a new unit - Armored Personnel Carriers.
Armored Personnel Carriers would be able to transport 10 infantry.
Infantry: +1 attack, + 20 cost
Armored Personnel Carrier: cost 120, attack at 6, defend at 6, +1 HP, move at 7

Airborne Assault Strategy:
Infantry: +2 attack, + 30 cost
Air Transports: 10-15 Capacity
Bomber: -2 Attack, +3 Defence vs Bombers

BTW, this is just an idea!

Skrivet av Witch-Doctor, 08.01.2019 at 17:00

Skrivet av Waffel, 08.01.2019 at 05:16

Skrivet av Witch-Doctor, 08.01.2019 at 01:45

Blitz +1 range

Why +1 range though? I am pretty sure its not the lack of range that keeps the people from picking the strategy. I think the strategy should be changed on different areas, like either defending or attacking. Adding +1 more range is like the capacity nerf of DS, barely effects the strategy.

The proper way to buff/nerf things in games is to buff their strength and nerf their weakness. Right now blitz is barely able to out expand sm/nc. If you increase the range and allow it truely limitless reach, it will be picked a lot more to snipe expansions.

Take blitz turk vs ukr right now. Blitz turk is required to buy an air transport to take moscow and poland. Range buff will help this a lot. In addition, RNW is impractically out of reach with the current blitz. But with the buff it will be viable to snipe rnw with blitz turk.

My point is that blitz's range isn't actually that great and it has a big downside. Imp turk has a more viable moscow rush than blitz.

With blitz turk it's possible to reach moscow and poland without any air transport if you know how to do it, but it would make it easier of course, for the rest you are right.