Hybrid Warfare: New Strategy
Inlägg: 106
Besökt av: 755 users
This is the second time I try to bring this idea along, I'll try my best to convince you to love this new strategy and I will attempt to make it as balance and as interesting as possible.
What is Hybrid Warfare? or HW?
It's a military strategy that mixes various forms of warfare such as conventional and irregular warfare, which fits well with the current units that AW consists of. Hybrid Warfare (HW) also blends different types of warfare such as biological and cyber warfare but those wouldn't work well with what AW currently is. So lets just stick with a blend of conventional and irregular warfare tactics.
Hybrid Warfare originally became famous after the American Revolution, where it was used by generals like George Washington. Basically said, hybrid warfare was a combination of large armies of expendable and decently trained militias forming perimeters to fight various fronts, while having a stronger core of infantry units guarding the center where the general was. Thus, using tactics such as stealth and the use of conventional weapons.
The part that makes it hybrid, is the mix between conventional and irregular warfare. In AW terms, we would therefore compare these tactics with the units the game currently amounts of. For example, a bonus to infantry defense in cities would fit well with the HW principles. A boost to militia attack and range would be needed. And finally, having very cheap marine units with a slight boost to defense at the cost of a much lower attack would fit very well in Hybrid Warfare's "irregular" form of warfare.
Arbitrator's Suggestion (IMO better)
new unit stats (change only)
Land
Infantry 1 atk(-3) 7 def(+1) 85 cost (+15)
Tank 9 atk(+1) 1 def(-3) 130 cost(+10)
Marine 6 atk(-1) 2def(-1) 80 cost(-80) + loses defence in city bonus. (so overall -2 def)
Militia: 4 atk(+1) 3 range(+1) 30 cost
Subs 5 atk(-2) 3 def(-2) 3 cap (+1) 175 cost(-25) (delib made it so subs can't help take city)
major nerfs
bombers 4 atk(-2) 4 def(-2)
stealth 5 atk(-2) 4 def(-2)
transports 350cost(+100) 7 range(-2)
Air trans 750cost(+150) 11 range(-2)
Helicopters get no bonuses against militia/infantry
Anyways this is it. Please comment and discuss it. I believe it is pretty balanced, so there shouldn't be other boost/nerf suggestions, unless you think of something better. But I don't want people changing the point of this strategy. Modifying it is fine, but changing it is not.
Have fun!
What is Hybrid Warfare? or HW?
It's a military strategy that mixes various forms of warfare such as conventional and irregular warfare, which fits well with the current units that AW consists of. Hybrid Warfare (HW) also blends different types of warfare such as biological and cyber warfare but those wouldn't work well with what AW currently is. So lets just stick with a blend of conventional and irregular warfare tactics.
Hybrid Warfare originally became famous after the American Revolution, where it was used by generals like George Washington. Basically said, hybrid warfare was a combination of large armies of expendable and decently trained militias forming perimeters to fight various fronts, while having a stronger core of infantry units guarding the center where the general was. Thus, using tactics such as stealth and the use of conventional weapons.
The part that makes it hybrid, is the mix between conventional and irregular warfare. In AW terms, we would therefore compare these tactics with the units the game currently amounts of. For example, a bonus to infantry defense in cities would fit well with the HW principles. A boost to militia attack and range would be needed. And finally, having very cheap marine units with a slight boost to defense at the cost of a much lower attack would fit very well in Hybrid Warfare's "irregular" form of warfare.
Arbitrator's Suggestion (IMO better)
new unit stats (change only)
Land
Infantry 1 atk(-3) 7 def(+1) 85 cost (+15)
Tank 9 atk(+1) 1 def(-3) 130 cost(+10)
Marine 6 atk(-1) 2def(-1) 80 cost(-80) + loses defence in city bonus. (so overall -2 def)
Militia: 4 atk(+1) 3 range(+1) 30 cost
Subs 5 atk(-2) 3 def(-2) 3 cap (+1) 175 cost(-25) (delib made it so subs can't help take city)
major nerfs
bombers 4 atk(-2) 4 def(-2)
stealth 5 atk(-2) 4 def(-2)
transports 350cost(+100) 7 range(-2)
Air trans 750cost(+150) 11 range(-2)
Helicopters get no bonuses against militia/infantry
Anyways this is it. Please comment and discuss it. I believe it is pretty balanced, so there shouldn't be other boost/nerf suggestions, unless you think of something better. But I don't want people changing the point of this strategy. Modifying it is fine, but changing it is not.
Have fun!
yes it is pretty much nerfed GC and a nerfed GW with extra sub range and utterly useless naval and air units.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
I'm not really liking it, all I'm getting is GC/GW/Imp combined to be a idk waste bucket, yes I know this is not constructive criticism I'm just not seeing how this would work. I like the original better that Arbitrators to say the least, but dislike both, I just dislike Arbitrators version more than the first one lol.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
you may dislike the strategy, but it doesn't mean it can't fit well in AW. It's balanced and, hey, it's a new strategy. For example, I hate relentless attack, but it's a viable strategy that goes well into AW and that is somewhat balanced. Same goes with HW. Not everyone likes certain strategies, this is why players have their "favorite strategies", which they play regularly. It's not a waste bucket, and you may say it's a combination of GC/GW/IMP but that's exactly what Hybrid Warfare is. A mix of various tactics of war such as conventional and irregular warfare. It's not like if it has grand combination of other strategies that it will become OP. Not at all, the admins will implement it to be balanced and that is why we need some constructive criticism.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
xaxaxa it's not about the porn I watching, I saw the word hybrid in a porn site first that's why 
---- 
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Well I didn't have brazzers accounts when I was 10 xaxaxa
----
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
My suggestions: Infantry 5 attack,7 def (cost 100). Tanks 0 att. 0 def, 0 cost  Marines 5 att. 3 def, 60 c. Bombers 5 a. 5 d. 150 c. - 2 range. Stealth 6 att, 3 def 350 cost. Subs - 1 range,300 cost. Militia 3 atatck, 4 def, - 1 range. Air transporter and sea trans. normal.
----  http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=14714&topicsearch=&page= 
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Arbitrators strategy is pretty much a GC with more nerfs and Imp.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
sandtime Kontot borttaget |
sandtime Kontot borttaget
This just doesn't make much sense. 
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
sandtime Kontot borttaget |
sandtime Kontot borttaget
I feel Hybrid warfare should make all units more viable and useable (compared to none strategy) with minor Nerfs pertaining to the same unit it helped making some units strengths stronger and other units weaknesses stronger according to the use of the corresponding unit .(that seems too much like GC also) This following writing is a varient of Arbitrators strategy. Militia:2 atk (-1) 4 def(0) 4 Range (+2) cost 30(0) 7HP (0) Infantry: 3 atk (-1) 5 def (-1) 5 range (-1) cost 80 (+10) 8HP(+1) Tanks: 7atk (-1) 4def (0) 8 range (+1) cost 110(-10) 7HP(0) Marines:7atk(0) 4def (+1) 7 range (+1) cost 160(0) 7HP(0) Anti-Aircraft:2 defense(-1) cost 140(-40) submarines:5 atk (-2) 4 defense (-1) 3cap(+1) 9 range (-1) cost 130 (-70) destroyer:9atk(0) 5defense (-2) 11 range(+1) cost 170(-80) Transport: 5cap (-5) 11 range(+1) cost 200 (-50) bombers:6atk 6def 13 range(-2) cost 150 (-10) helicopters: 7atk (+1)3def(-1)12range(+4) cap+1:marine: 250 cost(+50) Stealth 8atk (+1)4def(0) cost 370(+70) Air trans: +1cap 18range (+5) cost 850(+250) I got a little carried away with some of this but, the main point is to improve on what you started. notice how the nerfs and pros are all warped up into one unit?, that's what i would think hybrid warfare would be like
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Mfw never saw Amok's post. Wasn't commenting on Arb because the admins hadn't responded with a 'maybe' yet, but apparently they did. Thinking in terms of cost effectiveness, the militia buff looks fair, as it remains the most efficient method of attack at short range. The infantry buff also looks fair; same cost effectiveness as before. The tank buff/nerf also retains the cost effectiveness of the original tank (along with the unpredictability of high attack). And marines have the same cost effectiveness as GW. But now that I think about it, forgive me for asking, but what is the point of this strat? With the exception of marines, every unit is just as cost effective as before. The marine cost effectiveness, however, nullifies tanks, while the inf buff gives an efficient alternative to GW militia. So wouldn't you just play it like a GW with usable infantry? I see no reason to compare it to GC, as tanks are still kinda useless for attacking in comparison, unless you need an extra oomph. I won't jump the gun and say it's OP, as I really have no idea if it is (and more nerfs can lower the OPness), but I'm not sure if I see the point in a strat that really changes nothing but marines and militia range, which is basically GW without the nerfs on ground units. I'm open to the principle of it, just not the Math behind the current suggestion. Modify the cost effectiveness of units just to make things interesting, and I think it'd be a pretty cool strat. I can't really offer a suggestion on it as I'm not sure how you want things tweaked.
---- "If in other sciences we are to arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics." -The Opus Major of Roger Bacon
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
Hmm i understand what math is saying, maybe marines are in need of a debuff, so that they are more of a support, and are more for use over sea than land battles. how about changing the cost to 80, same as gw cost so that they are much less powerful than GW marines but are still very cheap and useable.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
I agree, because at 60 cost a wise HW player will probably just spam marines instead of buying other units. At 80 cost (70 with upgrade) it balance this issue. But we should remove the +5 cost to militia in that case. So for now I'll make marines 80 cost (70) and militia 30 cost and make tanks 130 cost to balance this. 35 and 135 seemed like strange numbers, also we want HW players to actually use tanks and not shy away from buying them we might also want to make tanks a bit cheaper but for lower attack and higher defense. (it doesn''t have to be like GC) So please, everyone discuss the tank issue.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
I really like the idea of this strategy. Although I am sure Hannibal Barca (and he wasn't the first) is rolling in his grave having it described as not being famous until after the American Revolution .However the ideas for buffs etc do not seem to match the idea of Hybrid Warfare as you described it. Perhaps if this strategy could be more of a rock paper scissors affair where the units used depends on the situation. Some units good for defence in cities, some out in the countryside where ambushes can destroy. Some units good for warfare out in the open but require specialised troops to take cities. Militia & Infantry - Your irregular but trained force to hold the enemy up until help comes. Militia are useful than regular militia, but more costly due to the extra training. Infantry weaker in attack but can move farther for a mobile defense force. Marines - Highly trained but independent troops that are good in attack and defense (because they use the environment to their advantage) but are no good in conventional warfare, i.e. taking and holding cities. Perhaps high atk and defense but large penalty to attacking cities and no bonus defending a city. With these as the bulk of your army you still need conventional troops to carry out large operations such as taking a city. Which gives us: Tanks - Although in real life not good at taking cities, now they are called main attack (or ground attack or whatever) they are your conventional shock troopers used to take heavily defended fortified positions. Good attack, low defense and bonus when attacking cities. Bombers - These carry biological and other shock weapons to really destroy the enemies support base. In AW only population is modelled so they could kill population, lots of population. Stronger attack than normal but very bad defense as Hybrid warfare uses a irregular style of defense.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Because i took Arbitrator's suggestions and removed mine (which described more the actual hybrid warfare) However, Arb's suggestion is much more balanced and unique, and really defines what Hybrid is, except a new kind of hybrid, one that fits well into AW units.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
I fully support the new idea, as every unit now has its use in a way. I wonder what they'd put as the mini-description of the strat.
---- "If in other sciences we are to arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics." -The Opus Major of Roger Bacon
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
I'm thinking something like this: "A symmetrical blend of conventional and irregular warfare at the cost of weak air units and transportation."
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
No, we're keeping Arb's suggestion. I will try to add a few of martin's ideas into it later.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
I like the concept, its like TG mixed with IF making for hardy units to play a compact war, following what math said: bombers, tanks and destroyers should get more collateral damage
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
Alright so here are some ideas i have for tanks. 1. 130 cost, 9att, 1 def (current stats by arb) 2. 120 cost, 8 att, 1 def 3. 110 cost, 7 att, 3 def 4. 100 cost, 6 att, 4 def Please discuss. or it will remain as it is atm.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
sandtime Kontot borttaget |
sandtime Kontot borttaget
1.no its like GC to much much 2.no^ same reason 3.support 4.no because its to nerfed attack just my thinking anyway IDK this is just GW sort of hmmm.... I suggest that stealth units all get +2movement (and marines cost 20 more) and all other units (not stealth) get +1HP and -1 range.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
Yea keep it simple, Arb's suggestion has support and splintering that support will not help it get implemented. Work on my ideas after it gets in .
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
It's not Imp, we don't want everything to be cheap. I think we should keep the tank as it is in Arb's suggestion- a strong and moderately expensive attack unit. @sandtime- You have to remember, that a tank with 110 cost and 7 attack isn't as cost effective as the normal tank, meaning it's basically as useless as the normal tank. Increasing attack and cost (to an extent) keeps the tank as a usable unit. On the topic of balance, seeing as all the land units are now more or equally cost effective, nerfing bombers won't do all that much, and with the cheap trans upgrade, air transports are still affordable. Perhaps to keep the player more stuck to land, decrease capacity of air transports by 1, and transports by 3?
---- "If in other sciences we are to arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics." -The Opus Major of Roger Bacon
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Thanks mate, the problem is getting those unit stats right to give it a new feel. Unfortunately the current strategies are pretty much spam 1 or 2 units.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
750 cost air transport is going to make people use it sparingly, and the +100 to transport just means you should still be able to transport short distances but ofc you have no defence in the form of bombers or naval units if you want to move anywhere long, meaning you are going to probably have to result to using subs ofc.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Yeah I agree as well I'll keep the tanks the same. I think the transportation is nerfed enough for now.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
Fair enough then. Guys, if we want the admins to implement, we'll need a lot of support! Post your thoughts, even if you have nothing to add.
---- "If in other sciences we are to arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics." -The Opus Major of Roger Bacon
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
|
We have quite enough supporters as of now. But more wouldn't hurt
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
