New strat idea

I think this idea is very cool! However i think there can be some changes to it. The buff against stealth units is not necessary due to the fact that sentry planes will be your main form of attack. This naturally helps it against stealth units anyways. The -1 defense against infantry, tanks, etc is too much of a nerf for this to ever be played effectively. I would say you should nerf the attack of this strats units rather than nerf the defense. Attack nerfs generally are not as detrimental as defensive nerfs.

Bump

Air Support units can only have an attack as high as 3, so as written, this strat cannot fit the current framework. Maybe Dave would be amendable to changing that range limit (and others, perhaps)?

Another possibility would be to increase the critical. The default for Air Support is 0, but offhand, I don't know how high it can go. A high critical, plus the proposed -1 defense bonus to stealth units against Sentry Planes, could help somewhat. Not sure, though.

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:18

Bump

Air Support units can only have an attack as high as 3, so as written, this strat cannot fit the current framework. Maybe Dave would be amendable to changing that range limit (and others, perhaps)?

Sooo what makes you think strategies work the same as unit stat limit in the map editor?

Written by Witch-Doctor, 28.01.2019 at 02:48

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:18

Bump

Air Support units can only have an attack as high as 3, so as written, this strat cannot fit the current framework. Maybe Dave would be amendable to changing that range limit (and others, perhaps)?

Sooo what makes you think strategies work the same as unit stat limit in the map editor?

Interesting question.

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 04:10

Written by Witch-Doctor, 28.01.2019 at 02:48

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:18

Bump

Air Support units can only have an attack as high as 3, so as written, this strat cannot fit the current framework. Maybe Dave would be amendable to changing that range limit (and others, perhaps)?

Sooo what makes you think strategies work the same as unit stat limit in the map editor?

Interesting question.

Can you stop trying to pad your forum post count. Thanks.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 31.01.2019 at 22:16

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 04:10

Written by Witch-Doctor, 28.01.2019 at 02:48

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:18

Bump

Air Support units can only have an attack as high as 3, so as written, this strat cannot fit the current framework. Maybe Dave would be amendable to changing that range limit (and others, perhaps)?

Sooo what makes you think strategies work the same as unit stat limit in the map editor?

Interesting question.

Can you stop trying to pad your forum post count. Thanks.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 31.01.2019 at 22:16

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 04:10

Written by Witch-Doctor, 28.01.2019 at 02:48

Written by RatWar, 28.01.2019 at 02:18

Bump

Air Support units can only have an attack as high as 3, so as written, this strat cannot fit the current framework. Maybe Dave would be amendable to changing that range limit (and others, perhaps)?

Sooo what makes you think strategies work the same as unit stat limit in the map editor?

Interesting question.

Can you stop trying to pad your forum post count. Thanks.

you just did the same by writing this.

edit: i did the same too

We actually need this strat to counter ins

Yeah ins really is OP and i would certainly try this strategy.

Holy

full support

edit: I think sentries should only get +3 attack since theres no range nerf for them in this idea (range is quite op indeed), and should get +1 attack against stealth

Written by Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 21:05

Holy

full support

Written by Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 21:05

edit: I think sentries should only get +3 attack since theres no range nerf for them in this idea (range is quite op indeed), and should get +1 attack against stealth

So sentries only have 4 attack? Why would anyone make them then. Also you cant have attack bonuses with how things are.

6 attack for 120 cost is hardly gamebreaking when we have imp with 7 att for 90 cost and insurrection with 6 att for 40 cost.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2019 at 10:38

Written by Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 21:05

edit: I think sentries should only get +3 attack since theres no range nerf for them in this idea (range is quite op indeed), and should get +1 attack against stealth

So sentries only have 4 attack? Why would anyone make them then. Also you cant have attack bonuses with how things are.

6 attack for 120 cost is hardly gamebreaking when we have imp with 7 att for 90 cost and insurrection with 6 att for 40 cost.

its their range that im afraid of. Obviously 6 attack isn't game breaking, but 4 attack is still ground infantry attack, which is still quite nice for a unit of that sort of range with a total cost of 120. If we're going to keep its range the way it is, which I'm totally fine with, it should only have 4 attack, but have an additional attack against all stealth units (marines, subs, stealths, etc..) that way to your point, you have units that are highly capable of finding and destroying stealth, and not finding and destroying everything on the map. i mean hell you'd be able to expand the world with these sort of op sentries, which you'd still be able to do with 4 attack

Written by Sultan of Swing, 13.02.2019 at 14:13

Written by Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2019 at 10:38

Written by Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 21:05

edit: I think sentries should only get +3 attack since theres no range nerf for them in this idea (range is quite op indeed), and should get +1 attack against stealth

So sentries only have 4 attack? Why would anyone make them then. Also you cant have attack bonuses with how things are.

6 attack for 120 cost is hardly gamebreaking when we have imp with 7 att for 90 cost and insurrection with 6 att for 40 cost.

its their range that im afraid of. Obviously 6 attack isn't game breaking, but 4 attack is still ground infantry attack, which is still quite nice for a unit of that sort of range with a total cost of 120. If we're going to keep its range the way it is, which I'm totally fine with, it should only have 4 attack, but have an additional attack against all stealth units (marines, subs, stealths, etc..) that way to your point, you have units that are highly capable of finding and destroying stealth, and not finding and destroying everything on the map. i mean hell you'd be able to expand the world with these sort of op sentries, which you'd still be able to do with 4 attack

Sultan 4 att sentries would be useless. Sentries also cant take cities so idk what you mean by "expand the world" with sentries.
Right now how it is, it's a sidegrade to sky menace. The way you want it, it would be a direct downgrade from sm in everyway.

Please use your head, nobody is going to use a 4 attack 130 unit with 20 range.

A strategy like this needs an attack unit or it will not work at all. SM gets bombers, ds get helicopter, mos get marines, gw get marines, etc... so why shouldn't this strat get a unit that isn't even as strong as the other strat.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2019 at 14:18

Written by Sultan of Swing, 13.02.2019 at 14:13

Written by Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2019 at 10:38

Written by Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 21:05

edit: I think sentries should only get +3 attack since theres no range nerf for them in this idea (range is quite op indeed), and should get +1 attack against stealth

So sentries only have 4 attack? Why would anyone make them then. Also you cant have attack bonuses with how things are.

6 attack for 120 cost is hardly gamebreaking when we have imp with 7 att for 90 cost and insurrection with 6 att for 40 cost.

its their range that im afraid of. Obviously 6 attack isn't game breaking, but 4 attack is still ground infantry attack, which is still quite nice for a unit of that sort of range with a total cost of 120. If we're going to keep its range the way it is, which I'm totally fine with, it should only have 4 attack, but have an additional attack against all stealth units (marines, subs, stealths, etc..) that way to your point, you have units that are highly capable of finding and destroying stealth, and not finding and destroying everything on the map. i mean hell you'd be able to expand the world with these sort of op sentries, which you'd still be able to do with 4 attack

Sultan 4 att sentries would be useless. Sentries also cant take cities so idk what you mean by "expand the world" with sentries.
Right now how it is, it's a sidegrade to sky menace. The way you want it, it would be a direct downgrade from sm in everyway.

Please use your head, nobody is going to use a 4 attack 130 unit with 20 range.

A strategy like this needs an attack unit or it will not work at all. SM gets bombers, ds get helicopter, mos get marines, gw get marines, etc... so why shouldn't this strat get a unit that isn't even as strong as the other strat.

here, ill "use my head" in hoping you will use yours when you read what im actually saying:

Correct, 4 attack sentries are almost.. ALMOST useless. Imagine a 6 attack bomber that can from london to warsaw in 1 turn... bruh. The potential is scary. However, I really like what you said about a strategy that will seek out and destroy stealth units, and turning sentries basically into predator drones. Super cool idea, and im a 100% fan of that. The only issue I have is that if they are going to have this ridiculous far-fetching range, they either need to lose that range to keep the proposed 6 attack, or lose some attack. In doing so however, you're not completely neutralizing this unit, but rather making it more useful at killing stealth units, hence the proposed idea on my end of getting a +1 attack against all stealth units. So in summary, from your idea to mine, sentries are only losing out on 2 attack, and only 1 attack when going up against stealth units.

Im sure you'd understand that if we reduce the range of sentry planes, then they'd lose out on their ability to seek out stealth units (unless this can be edited) which is the whole point of this strat. Furthermore, a 6 attack unit that can go the world is just Now as you've already said, (should it be implemented) giving marines a -1 defense against sentry planes on top of all this that im proposing, would balance the strats ability to be decent, yet also destructive against marines. Lets recap:

All im changing is this:

Sentry planes:
+3 attack
+1 against stealth
Total Sentry attack: 4
Attack vs stealths: 5

the average stealth defense is quite low..
Marines: 3
Subs: 5
Stealths: 4

If we implement the global -1 defense of all stealth units vs sentries + my -2 attack nerf, then the strat accomplishes its goal in being stronk against stealth units, and isn't boasting 6 attack units with a range of 20. Giving it the full 6 attack under this strat makes it able to handle normal infs (not pd/if/gc/hw). I'm thinking outside the box here WD. Think about how far you can expand by being able to walk a stack of infantry that just landed off an AT with support of 6 attacking sentries, you could most definitely expand the world with this strat. To me, as the way you proposed it, it feels more like a combo of SM and blitz, than being a counter stealth strat. I think the concept of a counter stealth strat is great, but it shouldn't be op against normal strats as well. It should be able to manage, but not rape

Written by Sultan of Swing, 13.02.2019 at 15:33

Written by Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2019 at 14:18

Written by Sultan of Swing, 13.02.2019 at 14:13

Written by Witch-Doctor, 13.02.2019 at 10:38

Written by Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 21:05

edit: I think sentries should only get +3 attack since theres no range nerf for them in this idea (range is quite op indeed), and should get +1 attack against stealth

So sentries only have 4 attack? Why would anyone make them then. Also you cant have attack bonuses with how things are.

6 attack for 120 cost is hardly gamebreaking when we have imp with 7 att for 90 cost and insurrection with 6 att for 40 cost.

its their range that im afraid of. Obviously 6 attack isn't game breaking, but 4 attack is still ground infantry attack, which is still quite nice for a unit of that sort of range with a total cost of 120. If we're going to keep its range the way it is, which I'm totally fine with, it should only have 4 attack, but have an additional attack against all stealth units (marines, subs, stealths, etc..) that way to your point, you have units that are highly capable of finding and destroying stealth, and not finding and destroying everything on the map. i mean hell you'd be able to expand the world with these sort of op sentries, which you'd still be able to do with 4 attack

Sultan 4 att sentries would be useless. Sentries also cant take cities so idk what you mean by "expand the world" with sentries.
Right now how it is, it's a sidegrade to sky menace. The way you want it, it would be a direct downgrade from sm in everyway.

Please use your head, nobody is going to use a 4 attack 130 unit with 20 range.

A strategy like this needs an attack unit or it will not work at all. SM gets bombers, ds get helicopter, mos get marines, gw get marines, etc... so why shouldn't this strat get a unit that isn't even as strong as the other strat.

here, ill "use my head" in hoping you will use yours when you read what im actually saying:

Correct, 4 attack sentries are almost.. ALMOST useless. Imagine a 6 attack bomber that can from london to warsaw in 1 turn... bruh. The potential is scary. However, I really like what you said about a strategy that will seek out and destroy stealth units, and turning sentries basically into predator drones. Super cool idea, and im a 100% fan of that. The only issue I have is that if they are going to have this ridiculous far-fetching range, they either need to lose that range to keep the proposed 6 attack, or lose some attack. In doing so however, you're not completely neutralizing this unit, but rather making it more useful at killing stealth units, hence the proposed idea on my end of getting a +1 attack against all stealth units. So in summary, from your idea to mine, sentries are only losing out on 2 attack, and only 1 attack when going up against stealth units.

Im sure you'd understand that if we reduce the range of sentry planes, then they'd lose out on their ability to seek out stealth units (unless this can be edited) which is the whole point of this strat. Furthermore, a 6 attack unit that can go the world is just Now as you've already said, (should it be implemented) giving marines a -1 defense against sentry planes on top of all this that im proposing, would balance the strats ability to be decent, yet also destructive against marines. Lets recap:

All im changing is this:

Sentry planes:
+3 attack
+1 against stealth
Total Sentry attack: 4
Attack vs stealths: 5

the average stealth defense is quite low..
Marines: 3
Subs: 5
Stealths: 4

If we implement the global -1 defense of all stealth units vs sentries + my -2 attack nerf, then the strat accomplishes its goal in being stronk against stealth units, and isn't boasting 6 attack units with a range of 20. Giving it the full 6 attack under this strat makes it able to handle normal infs (not pd/if/gc/hw). I'm thinking outside the box here WD. Think about how far you can expand by being able to walk a stack of infantry that just landed off an AT with support of 6 attacking sentries, you could most definitely expand the world with this strat. To me, as the way you proposed it, it feels more like a combo of SM and blitz, than
being a counter stealth strat. I think the concept of a counter stealth strat is great, but it shouldn't be op against normal strats as well. It should be able to manage, but not rape

You're out of your mind if you think you can air trans and expand far away with sentries. You cant even go london to warsaw with a sentry. I guarantee you that you dont know the range of sentries.

Compare this to sm.


Sm get air transport range buff as well as a strong air attack unit.

This doesnt get any transport buff so you'll expand even slower than sm. Not only that but because sentries having the same attack as infantry, there is a 50% chance the inf will attack first, die and then even if you win with the sentry you cant capture the city because sentries cant take cities.


Honestly sultan you have very little understanding of how this game works.
I have much more experience than an amateur like you, I know how to balance strategies.

Ill let you re-read my post.. and no i wasnt serious when i said london to warsaw...

One says 6 attack is to much and 4 attack is the perfect amount
The other says that 6 attack is perfectly fine and 4 attack is useless.

Why don't you guys discuss about 5 attack? ..

Yano ins is suppose to be gone within a month of it being published ....

but, it might stay if it's nefted.

This strat....

Give it a trial period and see how it goes. No point arguing over +1s. Only real way to balance it, is to get it in a game.

Ps. A trial lobby for stats would be good.

Written by Waffel, 13.02.2019 at 17:23

One says 6 attack is to much and 4 attack is the perfect amount
The other says that 6 attack is perfectly fine and 4 attack is useless.

Why don't you guys discuss about 5 attack? ..

130 cost for 5 attack. Might as well buy a tank.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 14.02.2019 at 00:29

Written by Waffel, 13.02.2019 at 17:23

One says 6 attack is to much and 4 attack is the perfect amount
The other says that 6 attack is perfectly fine and 4 attack is useless.

Why don't you guys discuss about 5 attack? ..

130 cost for 5 attack. Might as well buy a tank.

But tanks don't have 20 range

TBH if they had 5 attack, but had +1 attack against stealth units, that would probably work out fine

Written by Sultan of Swing, 14.02.2019 at 08:53

Written by Witch-Doctor, 14.02.2019 at 00:29

Written by Waffel, 13.02.2019 at 17:23

One says 6 attack is to much and 4 attack is the perfect amount
The other says that 6 attack is perfectly fine and 4 attack is useless.

Why don't you guys discuss about 5 attack? ..

130 cost for 5 attack. Might as well buy a tank.

But tanks don't have 20 range

TBH if they had 5 attack, but had +1 attack against stealth units, that would probably work out fine

I fail to see how 3 more range than sm bomber warrants -3 att compared to them. Not only that but generals give sm bombers +1 att and not sentries.

Stop this foolishness already.

5 att 20 range no gen buff compared to sm 8 att 17 range and gen buff is garbage. You're being stubborn as hell.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 14.02.2019 at 08:58

Written by Sultan of Swing, 14.02.2019 at 08:53

Written by Witch-Doctor, 14.02.2019 at 00:29

Written by Waffel, 13.02.2019 at 17:23

One says 6 attack is to much and 4 attack is the perfect amount
The other says that 6 attack is perfectly fine and 4 attack is useless.

Why don't you guys discuss about 5 attack? ..

130 cost for 5 attack. Might as well buy a tank.

But tanks don't have 20 range

TBH if they had 5 attack, but had +1 attack against stealth units, that would probably work out fine

I fail to see how 3 more range than sm bomber warrants -3 att compared to them. Not only that but generals give sm bombers +1 att and not sentries.

Stop this foolishness already.

5 att 20 range no gen buff compared to sm 8 att 17 range and gen buff is garbage. You're being stubborn as hell.

stealth bonus; i feel like u read 1/3 of everyones posts then argue based off that. im done trying to have a normal forum based discussion. pls dont pr me in game about it either with spam, thanks.

Written by Sultan of Swing, 14.02.2019 at 09:00

Written by Witch-Doctor, 14.02.2019 at 08:58

Written by Sultan of Swing, 14.02.2019 at 08:53

Written by Witch-Doctor, 14.02.2019 at 00:29

Written by Waffel, 13.02.2019 at 17:23

One says 6 attack is to much and 4 attack is the perfect amount
The other says that 6 attack is perfectly fine and 4 attack is useless.

Why don't you guys discuss about 5 attack? ..

130 cost for 5 attack. Might as well buy a tank.

But tanks don't have 20 range

TBH if they had 5 attack, but had +1 attack against stealth units, that would probably work out fine

I fail to see how 3 more range than sm bomber warrants -3 att compared to them. Not only that but generals give sm bombers +1 att and not sentries.

Stop this foolishness already.

5 att 20 range no gen buff compared to sm 8 att 17 range and gen buff is garbage. You're being stubborn as hell.

stealth bonus

That's why gw marines are 70 cost 7 attack and imp tanks are 90 cost 7 att. Because stealth do so much.

Sultan i'll explain this once again. I can make a custom world map with units edited to be like this strategy when you pick none strat. If you can beat me even once in an actual game with it, i'll concede you are right.

With your current suggestion of 5 attack, you wouldnt be able to stand a chance vs gw, insurrection, mos using this. Wanna know why? Because all of those strategies have an attacking unit. You'll be forced to spam full infantry to contend with them. Attacking stealth units are situational at best. You still gotta chew through their massive stack of militia/inf defense and 5 att is just garbage.

If you honestly think a 6 att unit that cant take cities is broken while gw has access to 7 att 70 cost marines, you're out of your mind.

Sm bombers are 17 range 8 attack
counter ins sentries 20 range 6 attack
its perfect and not at all broken, if anything it might need a buff. lol.

Just for the record, I am against the addition of this strategy. Rock/paper/scissors strategy setups are bad for the game. It's bad enough that we have ds and blitz. We don't want more of these imbalances. It dumbs down the game to just picking the right counterstrat to win. Besides the strategies that this is designed to counter arent even that strong in the current meta.

But if we are going to be stuck with it.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 29.12.2018 at 22:44

-1 defence against tanks, destroyers, bombers, infantry

Remove that nerf from the strategy. It makes it redundant.

Written by Permamuted, 15.02.2019 at 11:35

Written by Witch-Doctor, 29.12.2018 at 22:44

-1 defence against tanks, destroyers, bombers, infantry

Remove that nerf from the strategy. It makes it redundant.

or just from the infantry

Written by Permamuted, 15.02.2019 at 11:35

Just for the record, I am against the addition of this strategy. Rock/paper/scissors strategy setups are bad for the game. It's bad enough that we have ds and blitz. We don't want more of these imbalances. It dumbs down the game to just picking the right counterstrat to win. Besides the strategies that this is designed to counter arent even that strong in the current meta.

But if we are going to be stuck with it.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 29.12.2018 at 22:44

-1 defence against tanks, destroyers, bombers, infantry

Remove that nerf from the strategy. It makes it redundant.

Clearly pd vs ra isnt meant as a counter. Back when ra was ridiculously broken, only pd could take it on because of the extra def versus tanks.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 15.02.2019 at 13:18

Written by Permamuted, 15.02.2019 at 11:35

Just for the record, I am against the addition of this strategy. Rock/paper/scissors strategy setups are bad for the game. It's bad enough that we have ds and blitz. We don't want more of these imbalances. It dumbs down the game to just picking the right counterstrat to win. Besides the strategies that this is designed to counter arent even that strong in the current meta.

But if we are going to be stuck with it.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 29.12.2018 at 22:44

-1 defence against tanks, destroyers, bombers, infantry

Remove that nerf from the strategy. It makes it redundant.

Clearly pd vs ra isnt meant as a counter. Back when ra was ridiculously broken, only pd could take it on because of the extra def versus tanks.

Not even remotely in the same league. I can beat pd with ra and vice versa. Can you say the same about blitz and ds? Or now counter ins and gw?