Scorched Earth Megathread

I've taken some time to contemplate how Scorched Earth could actually be implemented without deciding a new meta nor being useless (t. Hybrid Warfare), and this is what I've come up with thus far. Now, what do each of these stat changes mean and why did I implement them?

1). Making a Scorcher Missile unit viable

With a base ATK of 20 and a cost of 700, on paper a Scorcher Missile seems like a mild investment at best even to a newer player. On your average 3v3 game, having 700 credits would always be far better spent recruiting literally anything else than a big bad 20ATK unit with a measly DEF of 1, and an HP of 1, meaning the unit is essentially a glass cannon... if it could even land a blow before getting blasted by DEF-based units. What I've done by lowering the base unit's ATK from 20 to 13 is create a more viable unit in almost every scenario, as that stat change has been followed up by a far more affordable reduction in cost from 700 to 300, only a tad more expensive than a Destroyer or Air Transport. The only other issue is the DEF- to the best of my knowledge, a DEF that low will result in a catastrophic loss of Scorcher Missiles if, say, a stack of them is attacked or if said stack attacks a heavily fortified position. Without making these things crazy strong, I've buffed the HP from 1 to 4 to hopefully remedy this. If in this future this does not pan out as I intended, we could always raise the DEF from 1 to 3 || 4.

2). Ensuring the Strategy has a focus and cannot become easily exploitable

Many strategies have a knack for providing a wealth of buffs to integral units while offering measly nerfs to units intended to become no longer used whilst using the strategy, I attempt to remedy this issue with Scorched Earth by nerfing a host of units to varying degrees to ensure there can be little to no abuse. Bombers have their ATK reduced from 6 to 4, and Stealth have their ATK reduced from 7 to 6. The rationale behind this is to shift focus from other air units to Scorcher Missiles as a means of a main attack Air unit. Cheap missiles plus other decent to great attacking air units could be catastrophic, if say, a casual DS Ukraine player finds out how to play SE. Along with this, Infantry have a DEF nerf from a base 6 DEF to 4; Mind you, the only way to make a Scorched Earth strategy work is by focusing on the Scorcher Missile unit itself, and planning everything else around utilization of said Scorcher Missile unit. To compensate for this, I've buffed Militia DEF from 4 to 5, and increased their RNG from 2 to 5, with no effect on cost unless someone believes there should be one. Why would I want to effectively replace Infantry with Militia in this regard? It gives you more money to spend on Scorcher Missiles without buffing Infantry. We could also always reduce Militia range if it proves problematic as well, which would be harder/more controversial with Infantry. Naval Transport also has a DEF nerf from 2 to 1 as a precautionary measure; This may prove detrimental in the future, so if anyone has any input here I'd love to hear it. Bombers also have a range nerf from 15 to 6, effectively gimping the unit. Why? Again, focusing on Scorcher Missile production is paramount to making this strat not just another meta bomb. This strategy, in my opinion, should not be immensely versatile.

3). Transport options for Scorcher Missiles

My original idea was to allow Submarines and Destroyers to transport Scorcher Missiles in order to receive stack bonuses/defense bonuses, but it has since come to my attention that the manner that the game is written in (IE shit) may not allow for an air unit to be considered transportable, though I have seen a plethora of custom units get around this before, so i'm not sure. If someone could clarify here, that would be absolutely fantastic. Either way: Submarine capacity has been increased from 2 to 4, but only with Marines, which themselves have seen a cost buff from 160 to 120 to reinforce this transport model, as was the Naval Transport nerf. This is to further centralize a playstyle around Scorcher Missiles considering their otherwise uselessness. Perhaps we should add further Collateral damage to Marines as well?

4). Locking Air Transport

Yes, I think it sounds batshit crazy as well. But I'm mainly thinking Desert Storm here; Would you really want the guy playing a strategy based around crazy strong air units to be able to drop some militia in the same far-off city he's attacking i one play? Please discuss this point heavily, as I'm only partial on it.

After speaking with you on the subject, I believe raising the cost of this unit is a better idea as well, though I do maintain that keeping Scorcher Missiles as units only available in this strategy is for the best.

5). Problems with Collateral

As Boywind pointed out, the original intention for Scorched Earth was to provide a means of easy and massive collateral damage in the form of Scorcher Missiles, but this becomes problematic and essentially useless when you factor in the cost to maintain and build said units just to neg cities. Theoretically, a player could join as Spain and support their team by bombing cities under this model and be a great net for their team, but this wouldn't always work as intended. The cheaper Militia would help here as well, but nonetheless; Do we really want a strategy based around gimping the map as soon as possible? If people really want this, then by all means do it. It could be fun imo, but we would actually have to test it. In all reality, Scorcher Missiles could have a higher-than-normal collateral value, perhaps 5. I'll update the header soon to show collateral.

Conclusion): Tell me what you think!

I too really would like to see this strategy, Hold The Line and other new introductions be patched into the game. I think the two year focus on the Map Editor has dampened the devs' ability to add small things in like this every so often, hence the work I have done, and so will you (if you read this post/comment/debate over its merits) towards balancing this strat prior to implementation. Please do give me your honest thoughts, opinions, and comments towards what I have said, and hopefully we can get this meme strat into the game sooner than 2020.

I overall agree with the idea of implementing this. I don't agree with locking the Air Trans as you already have enough things to transport in and are probably cheaper to begin with. Just raise the cost of Air Trans like you do with Naval and Air Trans in GW. Also a part you left out here is what would be done to the unit in this strat in other strats (Like the 4 HP down to 3 or 2 in IF). Yes, you have a way of implementing 1 part of the Strat into the game, but what about the rest? And if you're going to play this let's say 3v3 or world map, Having 10 cap for destroyers and only for SM's is too much. They will cost 300 and there is no way, in a 3v3 game or a world map game that you are going to get enough money to produce that unless you allyfag your way out and plan out something. Which almost NEVER happens. I Also feel that 5 cap for Sub's are too much as well as those with sub cap upgrades can get 6. Which, with 120 cost can do a lot of mishaps and overpower the strat.


P.S.
How in the fuck?

Written by Alois, 23.09.2018 at 02:12

I overall agree with the idea of implementing this. I don't agree with locking the Air Trans as you already have enough things to transport in and are probably cheaper to begin with. Just raise the cost of Air Trans like you do with Naval and Air Trans in GW. Also a part you left out here is what would be done to the unit in this strat in other strats (Like the 4 HP down to 3 or 2 in IF). Yes, you have a way of implementing 1 part of the Strat into the game, but what about the rest? And if you're going to play this let's say 3v3 or world map, Having 10 cap for destroyers and only for SM's is too much. They will cost 300 and there is no way, in a 3v3 game or a world map game that you are going to get enough money to produce that unless you allyfag your way out and plan out something. Which almost NEVER happens. I Also feel that 5 cap for Sub's are too much as well as those with sub cap upgrades can get 6. Which, with 120 cost can do a lot of mishaps and overpower the strat.


P.S.
How in the fuck?

To be honest, I do not think Scorcher Missiles should be available outside of this strategy due to their lack of import. There's no reason to use one when Bombers are cheaper and more effective.

As for capacity, this evening I will update it out in favor of stack/defense bonuses.

The worst part about scorcher missiles is how fuckin useless it is
it's collateral isn't that great. actually its dog shit
scorched earth is about causing collateral dmg
now lets say we add 20 collateral to all units
then people will just suicide 1 mil to every enemy city and fucking rape the population making it retarded
the strat is just way too hard to balance imo

Written by Alois, 23.09.2018 at 02:12

I overall agree with the idea of implementing this. I don't agree with locking the Air Trans as you already have enough things to transport in and are probably cheaper to begin with. Just raise the cost of Air Trans like you do with Naval and Air Trans in GW. Also a part you left out here is what would be done to the unit in this strat in other strats (Like the 4 HP down to 3 or 2 in IF). Yes, you have a way of implementing 1 part of the Strat into the game, but what about the rest? And if you're going to play this let's say 3v3 or world map, Having 10 cap for destroyers and only for SM's is too much. They will cost 300 and there is no way, in a 3v3 game or a world map game that you are going to get enough money to produce that unless you allyfag your way out and plan out something. Which almost NEVER happens. I Also feel that 5 cap for Sub's are too much as well as those with sub cap upgrades can get 6. Which, with 120 cost can do a lot of mishaps and overpower the strat.


P.S.
How in the fuck?

[tr]I[/tr][tr]AM[/tr][tr]A[/tr][tr]B[/tr][tr]U[/tr][tr]G[/tr]

Written by boywind2, 23.09.2018 at 03:37

The worst part about scorcher missiles is how fuckin useless it is
it's collateral isn't that great. actually its dog shit
scorched earth is about causing collateral dmg
now lets say we add 20 collateral to all units
then people will just suicide 1 mil to every enemy city and fucking rape the population making it retarded
the strat is just way too hard to balance imo

I was sort of reminagining them as high-output units myself, I disregard collateral entirely for my own reasons and was hoping you all could sort that out as I personally see it as a bad metric to have in a competitive game. So yes, I agree with your point on Scorcher Missiles being retarded, hence why I tried to make them something different.

But nonetheless, we could scale down collateral if it's possible to make it far more manageable in the long run. When I get home I'll edit the OP with all suggestions thus far.

Update: I've taken your suggestions and added them to the header; Tell me what you think of how I handled collateral, you know more about it than I do. I also took Alois' suggestion and increased AA cost in the same manner as GW; As I previously stated, this is to avoid more Ukraine play. I've also included an area for EU+ countries I believe this strat may be applicable for, if you have any other suggestions for that feel free to comment.

Written by Guest, 23.09.2018 at 02:24

Written by Alois, 23.09.2018 at 02:12

To be honest, I do not think Scorcher Missiles should be available outside of this strategy due to their lack of import. There's no reason to use one when Bombers are cheaper and more effective.

Then what use is it to have the strat if bombers are better than the unit its self? lul

and no other strat has a unit specialised in it, personally it could be something for prem's to have a specialised unit in it but at the same time it'd be another useless prem strat because there are more effective and cheaper units.

Written by Alois, 23.09.2018 at 15:47

Written by Guest, 23.09.2018 at 02:24

Written by Alois, 23.09.2018 at 02:12

To be honest, I do not think Scorcher Missiles should be available outside of this strategy due to their lack of import. There's no reason to use one when Bombers are cheaper and more effective.

Then what use is it to have the strat if bombers are better than the unit its self? lul

and no other strat has a unit specialised in it, personally it could be something for prem's to have a specialised unit in it but at the same time it'd be another useless prem strat because there are more effective and cheaper units.

Because this strategy makes them worthwhile to recruit and cost effective at what they do. 700 Cost missiles with a fuckload of collateral damage outside of this strat sounds good on paper, but ultimately is ineffective unless you have mountains of cash.

No other strat does this, correct. We need to test this on the test server and see how the strategy interacts before we can come to conclusions whether or not Scorcher Missiles should be standalone units as well, imo. The point is this: A stack of Scorcher Missiles using Scorched Earth should be the mainstay of the strat, and be the most effective killing machine on the board. But its only that; The strategy should not be as flexible as something like PD or IMP. Theoretically, you would empty someone in a 3v3 to use SE to bombard your opponents from afar whilst you and your ally close in to capture the now abandoned cities. That is the only route I see this strat taking, but if anyone else has a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it. I would rather see this strat and Hold the Line in the game in a few weeks than wait another six months for the Scenario Editor to release.

Great thread! Hopefully we can implement something like this in the future.

Written by boywind2, 23.09.2018 at 03:37

The worst part about scorcher missiles is how fuckin useless it is

when this was being tested a bit back, the whole point was to destroy enemy populations with scorcher missles, most other units didnt really change much. TBH if we only just allowed implementation of scorcher missiles and boosted the crit to like 80 or something crazy, i can it being viable. Might be something there, but until admins can agree on what to do with it, nothing is going to change. Pointless discussion atm really

Written by Sultan of Swing, 23.09.2018 at 22:46

Written by boywind2, 23.09.2018 at 03:37

The worst part about scorcher missiles is how fuckin useless it is

when this was being tested a bit back, the whole point was to destroy enemy populations with scorcher missles, most other units didnt really change much. TBH if we only just allowed implementation of scorcher missiles and boosted the crit to like 80 or something crazy, i can it being viable. Might be something there, but until admins can agree on what to do with it, nothing is going to change. Pointless discussion atm really

Under default settings, here's what happens when you pit Scorcher Missiles with Militia (No upgrades, always in cities):





As you can see, winning two out of seven hypothetical conflicts isn't exactly stunning, minus the collateral of course. I ran these simulations in Clovis' calculator, each a million times. I don't think you'll find more accurate measurements of hypothetical browser game doomsday missiles anywhere else in existence. Lifting the Crit value from 10 to 80 is a possibility for usefulness, but I myself am opting for the "Swift, painful attack" approach for Scorcher Missiles rather than cementing them as Pop. Casualty bait. I don't believe its fair in the slightest to destroy your opponents chances of recovery that horribly, unless you would want a Scorched Earth player on every 3v3 team; It would become optimal meta to run Scorched Earth, Imperialist/Perfect Defense, and Blitzkrieg/Sky Menace in this approach: Clean out opponent cities of manpower and possible reinforcements, take it, move on. Any chance of re-expansion is void under this approach as there are no rewards to sought in the form of valued income or reinforcements as they have been laid waste to. The degree by which this would occur varies, though it is important to note that despite even a small chance of recovered reinforcements and income, no matter what the team that scorches cities only a tad more than the other early-game will always most likely be victorious.

High collateral is good, but not so high that it can single-handedly decide games, unless of course this is what the community wants. If that's the case, let's go for it.

---

I'd like to add that I will continue doing as many simulations as I can in the coming days, both under the Scorcher Missile's default stats (IE those listed on the Units page), and under our collectively influenced changes under a Scorched Earth strat.

Man this garde guy is sure as hell a NERD.

I AM A TREE!!!

Tldr

Written by Guest4850, 25.09.2018 at 09:31

Tldr

Itt we make the big missile strategy : )

Now that sounds cool.

This is too much for me Garde, I don't know how to read.

Considering Dave is implementing new strategy changes and reviewing what people have to say, I'd like to bump this and see what he thinks of it.

Bump

I spoke with Boywind, Tunder, and Witch Doctor among others tonight on future strategies along with the potential for Scorched Earth. WD specifically spoke on increasing collateral across the board for all units rather than having a unique missile unit for this purpose, I also commented on the necessity to reanalyze and possibly change how collateral is used as well. Moving forward, what else can we do to work this strategy out?