New Strategy [Desert Storm] opinions needed.

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters, faster but weaker Marines at the cost of slower and weaker
Tanks and Bombers. Faster and more expensive Transports and Submarines.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +20 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -20 cost.)
Submarines & Transport, (+1 range, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost)
Bombers, (-3 range, +20 cost.)

Remade, thanks to all posters.
Still need opinions on these changes, are they good or still some twisting and balancing to go?

Also i think that helicopters should be allowed the ability to take over a city, and not work as bombers or transport, same as destroyers.

Unit stats before & after the change:

Before:

Tanks, 8 Attack, 4 Defense, 3 ARB, 7 Hit points, 7 Range. - cost 120.
Marines, 7 Attack, 3 Defense, 3 ARB, 7 Hit points, 6 Range. - cost 160.
Helicopters, 6 Attack, 4 Defense, 5 ARB, 7 Hit points, 8 Range. - cost 200.
Bombers 6 Attack, 6 Defense, 3 ARB, 7 Hit points, 15 Range. - cost 160.
Submarines & Transports (10 Range.) - cost 250 for Transports, 200 cost for Submarines.


After:

Tanks, 7 Attack, 3 Defense, 3 ARB, 7 Hit points, 6 Range.) - cost 140.
Marines, 6 Attack, 3 Defense, 3 ARB, 7 Hit points, 7 Range.) - cost 140.
Helicopters, 7 Attack, 5 Defense, 5 ARB, 8 Hit points, 13 Range.) - cost 150.
Bombers, 6 Attack, 6 Defense, 3 ARB, 7 Hit points, 12 Range.) - cost 180.
Submarines & Transports (11 Range.) - cost 300 for Transports, 250 for Submarines.

The strategy you're describing is too complex and has nothing to do with desert storm, the title you've named it. Strategies are meant to be short and sweet, like 2 or 3 advantages and 2 or 3 disadvantages.
This strategy is too divers and doesn't seem to have any specific characteristics.

Destert Storm was first Iraq War right?

Iraq - hmn desert without hiding places and sandstormes.

ok whats about -2 movment range for tanks and infantrie. plus cheaper units (-20 cost) because us dominates this war with his army
and a attack increase by 2 for helis and bombers with cheaper helis? (-30 cost)

the difference between DS and SM would be a shorter movement range, no improved stealthes and no cheaper bombers.

Or better this way:

Avanced Helicopters (+2 attack,+2 movement,+1 defense,+1 ARB,+1 sight,+1 Hp. -30 less cost).

Marines (+1 Hp and +2 movement. -20 cost)

Submarines,Transports,Airplane (+1 movement +50 cost)

Tanks and militia (-2 movement, -1 Hp +20 cost)

Written by Tundy, 04.03.2012 at 20:09

Or better this way:

Avanced Helicopters (+2 attack,+2 movement,+1 defense,+1 ARB,+1 sight,+1 Hp. -30 less cost).

Marines (+1 Hp and +2 movement. -20 cost)

Submarines,Transports,Airplane (+1 movement +50 cost)

Tanks and militia (-2 movement, -1 Hp +20 cost)

aprroved

Written by T.Atheist, 03.03.2012 at 18:18

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters, faster and stronger Marines at the cost of slower and weaker
Tanks and Infantry. Faster and more expensive Transports and Submarines.

Tanks and Infantry (-2 movement, -1Hp, -1 defense, +20 cost.)
Marines (+2 movement, +1 Hp, -20 cost.)
Submarines, Transport, Air transport (+1 movement, +50 cost.)
Advanced Helicopters (+1 attack, +2 movement, +1 defense, +1ARB, +1 view range, +1Hp, -30 to cost.)

To start, I really like the idea of a Helicopter based strategy. We are long overdue for a new strategy, and helicopters fit the bill perfectly. It would also do well to combat strategies like IF and PD that spam infantry, so it would have a distinctive place with the other strategies. But the bonuses and nerfs you suggested don't make very much sense to me as a Helicopter based strategy. The nerf on tanks/inf is weird, it overbuffs the marines, doesn't buff Helicopters enough, and doesn't nerf bombers to make them a poor choice compared to Helicopters. I think this would just be a(n unbalanced) MoS ripoff with SM like buffs/nerfs as is. My suggestions to fix this are as follows.

-2/+2 to tanks/inf and marines is too much. I think -1/+1 would be fine for these units movement range.The only land unit currently that gets +2 (outside of blitz) is militia in GW, and that's because militia have shit range to start with (2). I think a -1 attack -1 range would be better than -2 range for these units. For marines the proposed +2 would make 9 range with +1 HP, which is ridiculous. If you really want them faster +1 is enough, there's already an upgrade that gives them +1 you can buy with SP. These buffs make the marines rival MoS, yet this is supposed to be a helicopter strategy. The buffs you proposed to marines overshadow the buffs to helicopters; and when you combine them with the rest this strategy would be overpowered.

Mentioning the +1 HP, I think it's overpowered to fuck with the units HP count in reference to marines. Marines used to have higher defense (5 I think) and it was nerfed because defensive marines are OP, the +1 HP reminds me of this, which is why I don't like it.

Next I don't see any reason at all why this has a buff to air transport movement. It doesn't bring any distinct benefit to the air transport by matching the range up with anything else. For air transports, the range without the buff (13) already exceeds the range of Helicopters with your proposed buff +2 (10). I don't believe this encourages use of Helicopters at all, but instead undermines it and mimics SM. This brings me to my next point, which is that you under buffed Helicopters in a supposed Helicopter based strategy, while leaving bombers the same.

The +2 movement isn't enough to me when it comes to helicopters, they would still be the slowest air unit by 3 range (4 if you include your air transport buff). It wouldn't even be enough to match up with an air transport, as previously mentioned. I think it would be better to not buff air transports, and instead buff helicopters range to match air transport range (+5 to helicopters). This would give helicopters a purposeful use. Also Helis already have 5 ARB, the highest default arb for any unit , the +1 ARB is definitely unneeded. Next, -30 cost to Helicopters still puts them at 170, much too expensive to rely on as a main unit. Making this , again, another marine strategy. I think a -50 cost (or more), like pulse suggested in his SM Heli thread, would be better for this strategy. It would make them semi affordable and encourage use so this would actually be what it's intended to be, a helicopter strategy.

I think the down side to infantry is a little pointless. Instead of nerfing infantry it would do better to nerf bombers. This would differentiate this strategy from the already existing ones, the only other strat to nerf bombers is PD (-1 attack). As is (-30 cost@helis) bombers would still be the cheapest and fastest air unit, with only 1 less attack, 1 more def, 2 less ARB and 5 more range. This directly works against encouraging Helicopter use, which is why I think they need a nerf for this helicopter strategy to be viable. For what kind of nerf to bombers, my first idea is to have +20 cost and -3 range. This would make them less attractive than helicopters. It would also make them unable to match with air transports, solidifying Helicopters position as favored air unit in this strategy.

I know I typed a lot of shit so i'll sum up my suggestions here.
-1 attack -1 def -1 range +20 cost @ tanks
+1 range -20 cost @ marines
+1 range +50 cost @ submarines & transports
+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost @ Helicopters
-Removing suggested nerf on infantry, adding a nerf on bombers.
-3 range +20 cost @ bombers

These are just my first reactions/suggestions to this. There's lots of room for further tweaking and discussion. If you have any ideas for improvement post 'em.

Inb* tl;dr.
Also I like the idea of a helicopter-based strategy and with the stats houdini posted this would be a really refreshing and unusal one.
I support.

Houdini, I think either the Helis should get +2 attack or the marines -1, since they'd usually be used together and in the current situation marines would die first. This would be good.

-1 attack -1 def -1 range +20 cost @ tanks
-1 attack +1 range -40 cost @ marines
+1 range +50 cost @ submarines & transports
+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost @ Helicopters
-3 range +20 cost @ bombers

Written by notserral, 08.03.2012 at 17:31

Houdini, I think either the Helis should get +2 attack or the marines -1, since they'd usually be used together and in the current situation marines would die first. This would be good.

-1 attack -1 def -1 range +20 cost @ tanks
-1 attack +1 range -40 cost @ marines
+1 range +50 cost @ submarines & transports
+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost @ Helicopters
-3 range +20 cost @ bombers

I think -40 cost is too cheap, that'd be cheaper than MoS, but I see your point. I sort of thought -20 was too much already for +1 range marines, but with -1 attack I think -20 or -30 is fair.

-1 def -1 range +20 cost (tanks)

-20 cost (marines)

+1 range +50 cost (submarines & naval/air transports)

+2 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range,+1 ARB, +1Hp, -60 to cost (Helicopters)

-3 range +40 cost (bombers)

-----------------------------------
Changes:
+10 cost to bombers (you decrease -50 to Helicopters and -20 to marines xD come on)
marines range back to normal. (is a helicopter based strategy)
-10 helicopters cost (you know why, 200-60 = 140 cost.)
tanks range back to normal (tanks on the desert are the same, but less defense and offensive)
+1 ARB to Helicopters (the max ARB is 10, if you have lucky bastard xD)

Written by Tundy, 08.03.2012 at 17:50

-1 def -1 range +20 cost (tanks)

-20 cost (marines)

+1 range +50 cost (submarines & naval/air transports)

+2 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range,+1 ARB, +1Hp, -60 to cost (Helicopters)

-3 range +40 cost (bombers)

-----------------------------------
Changes:
+10 cost to bombers (you decrease -50 to Helicopters and -20 to marines xD come on)
marines range back to normal. (is a helicopter based strategy)
-10 helicopters cost (you know why, 200-60 = 140 cost.)
tanks range back to normal (tanks on the desert are the same, but less defense and offensive)
+1 ARB to Helicopters (the max ARB is 10, if you have lucky bastard xD)

First off, you changed more than you said you did in your "changes". You also listed your changes incorrectly and inconsistently,way to go.

As far as the ideas themselves:
- Bomber +40 (I suggested +20, you did +40, that's not an extra 10 thats an extra 20) cost makes no sense. With helicopters at 150, bombers would be 180 @ +20. With the range nerf (-3)this is more than enough to make them very unattractive to buy. No reason to make them not worth the gold you buy them for @ 200, they're already bad.

-I don't think Helicopters need to be 140. They have 5 ARB and offensive bonuses against militia and infantry,which is good already @ 200. Along with the other buffs they are well worth the 150 gold.

-You said marines back to normal but kept the -20 cost, which is not back to normal. Marines are meant to be the main offensive land unit in the strategy, so the +1 range is viable, no reason to take it out.

-You listed tanks as -1 range but typed that you took it out, i'm not sure what you're trying to say. But the -1 range works as a downside to the strategy and is needed in my opinion. You also said "tanks are less defensive and offensive" but you took out the -1 attack, without listing it, making them more offensive. I strongly disagree with both of these changes. Tanks need to be shitty in this strategy, or if not tanks then marines do. Bombers cannot be the ONLY downside to this strategy, tanks having -1 range -1 attack helps balance it.

-You didn't list it for some reason, but you also added +1 attack to helicopters. This is unnecessary. They get offensive bonuses against infantry and militia and have 5 ARB along with other bonuses in this strategy. With the +1 they would already have the same attack as a stealth plane, with 1 more defense and 2 more ARB at half the cost. Helicopters are powerful enough with the other bonuses and don't need +2 attack.

-Lastly,you did not understand what I wrote about ARB. I did not say 5 was the maximum limit. Please re-read this and go look at the UNIT tab on the home page. The maximum a unit has without a strategy buff is 5, which destroyers and helicopters have. There's no need for another one when it already has 2-3 more ARB than 12/14 of the units in the game. I don't know if you've purchased any of the ARB upgrades, but one extra ARB makes a big noticeable difference. 5 ARB is a lot to have already.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, guys. We will definitely be adding a new helicopters strategy soon and there's a good chance it will be based on what was suggested here.

Written by Amok, 09.03.2012 at 01:59

Thanks for sharing your ideas, guys. We will definitely be adding a new helicopters strategy soon and there's a good chance it will be based on what was suggested here.

Awesome Amok. I'm glad we have that much progress in the last time.

Wouldn't this -3 bomber range and +5 helicopters range make helicopters faster than the bombers?
To keep it realistic, wouldn't it be better if we reduce some bomber stats instead of their range, and i suppose then this +5 range on helicopters would make them have same range as bombers.

Ok decrease attack and defense from bombers
but why to decrease marines attack? if you can buy tanks with more attack,defense and range for less price?

Written by T.Atheist, 10.03.2012 at 12:18

I've updated the first post, with the changes as they are, so people don't get confused like you did.

Now Marines travel further than Tanks, have 1 less attack, while holding same 3 Defense.
And they cost same price.

You should really stop changing the first post man. Or at least leave the old post in and add new stuff under it. Just make new posts. It's better to be able to read the changes as they occur by scrolling down and reading the thread. With the OP constantly changing, reading the thread makes no sense because the bonuses are all inconsistent. Makes it a lot harder to follow the logic on WHY the bonuses are like that. Example being how dark asked why the -1atk@marines, when it's clearly explained already in the thread.

Also you didn't read my post section about not giving air transports a bonus +1 range. If you do, then helicopters need +6. The entire point of giving heli's +5 is so they match air transports at 13.

In response to what you said about taking away atk/def from bombers instead of range. I think that would also be a good idea if it was a big enough decrease (-2 atk or something). I just thought it would be easier and make the strategy more unique to nerf the range of bombers and make helicopters faster.

Written by Mr House, 09.03.2012 at 17:36

Ok decrease attack and defense from bombers
but why to decrease marines attack? if you can buy tanks with more attack,defense and range for less price?

Marines attack are -1 so you can take cities with Marines/Helicopters. Without the -1 on marines, they would die before the helicopters and you would be unable to occupy the city. Also you did the math wrong, marines would have more range than tanks, same price.

Written by Houdini, 10.03.2012 at 17:02

Written by T.Atheist, 10.03.2012 at 12:18

I've updated the first post, with the changes as they are, so people don't get confused like you did.

Now Marines travel further than Tanks, have 1 less attack, while holding same 3 Defense.
And they cost same price.

You should really stop changing the first post man. Or at least leave the old post in and add new stuff under it. Just make new posts. It's better to be able to read the changes as they occur by scrolling down and reading the thread. With the OP constantly changing, reading the thread makes no sense because the bonuses are all inconsistent. Makes it a lot harder to follow the logic on WHY the bonuses are like that. Example being how dark asked why the -1atk@marines, when it's clearly explained already in the thread.

Also you didn't read my post section about not giving air transports a bonus +1 range. If you do, then helicopters need +6. The entire point of giving heli's +5 is so they match air transports at 13.

In response to what you said about taking away atk/def from bombers instead of range. I think that would also be a good idea if it was a big enough decrease (-2 atk or something). I just thought it would be easier and make the strategy more unique to nerf the range of bombers and make helicopters faster.

Written by Mr House, 09.03.2012 at 17:36

Ok decrease attack and defense from bombers
but why to decrease marines attack? if you can buy tanks with more attack,defense and range for less price?

Marines attack are -1 so you can take cities with Marines/Helicopters. Without the -1 on marines, they would die before the helicopters and you would be unable to occupy the city. Also you did the math wrong, marines would have more range than tanks, same price.

Ok, so we let the strategy like that? or he needs tu update again?

PS: i dont like the description, make it more short

Written by Tundy, 10.03.2012 at 17:41

Ok, so we let the strategy like that? or he needs tu update again?

PS: i dont like the description, make it more short

What I suggested is taking away the +1 range +50 cost on air transports, as i've posted before. Exactly how to nerf bombers still seems to be on the table; suggestions being -3range+20 cost or nerfing attack instead of range.

The description is an easy fix. Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Yea, your right Houdini.
I'll stop messing up with the first post.
When we reach final decision about the strategy, we'll ask from mod to close the thread and done.

Latest update:

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +20 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -20 cost.)
Submarines & Naval Transport, (+1 range, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-3 range, +20 cost.)

So, the air transport range is off.

And about the bombers nerfing?
To be realistic we'll need to at least remove -2 range, not -3, so it will match the Helicopters range.
And not mess around with the attack/defense.
Or to give them -1 attack, and -2 range +20 cost, or this -1 defense, -2 range, +20 cost.

I also want to bring up the Marines, probably -30 cost, this will make them 130 funds, 10 less than the Tanks.
Tanks are still usable with the +1 attack compared with the marines, and stronger.
Or maybe to increase Tank cost to +30 and leave Marines at -20.

Opinions?

My suggestion would be this:
Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -20 cost.)
Submarines & Naval Transport, (+1 range, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-1 defense, -1 range, +20 cost.)

Written by T.Atheist, 10.03.2012 at 19:06

Yea, your right Houdini.
I'll stop messing up with the first post.
When we reach final decision about the strategy, we'll ask from mod to close the thread and done.

Latest update:

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +20 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -20 cost.)
Submarines & Naval Transport, (+1 range, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-3 range, +20 cost.)

So, the air transport range is off.

And about the bombers nerfing?
To be realistic we'll need to at least remove -2 range, not -3, so it will match the Helicopters range.
And not mess around with the attack/defense.
Or to give them -1 attack, and -2 range +20 cost, or this -1 defense, -2 range, +20 cost.

I also want to bring up the Marines, probably -30 cost, this will make them 130 funds, 10 less than the Tanks.
Tanks are still usable with the +1 attack compared with the marines, and stronger.
Or maybe to increase Tank cost to +30 and leave Marines at -20.

Opinions?

My suggestion would be this:
Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -20 cost.)
Submarines & Naval Transport, (+1 range, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-1 defense, -1 range, +20 cost.)

Faster Marines and Advanced Helicopters
at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers
Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -30 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-2 defense, -1 range.)

Written by T.Atheist, 10.03.2012 at 19:06

And about the bombers nerfing?
To be realistic we'll need to at least remove -2 range, not -3, so it will match the Helicopters range.
And not mess around with the attack/defense.
Or to give them -1 attack, and -2 range +20 cost, or this -1 defense, -2 range, +20 cost.

I also want to bring up the Marines, probably -30 cost, this will make them 130 funds, 10 less than the Tanks.
Tanks are still usable with the +1 attack compared with the marines, and stronger.
Or maybe to increase Tank cost to +30 and leave Marines at -20.

Opinions?

I agree that matching Helicopter with Bomber range would be fine. My main reasoning behind the -3 was just to make helicopters as fast or a bit faster. If they both have 13 that is good because it keeps the ability to match with transports for both. As far as attack or defense, I think attack would be more effective. It would highlight helicopters as being offensive, and give bombers the use of being defensive. -1 attack makes it 5 attack bombers 7 attack helis, while -1 def makes them both have the same def. So I think -1 attack -2 range +20 cost is much better than -1 def because it makes them more differentiated without wiping out the use for bombers completely.

Written by Tundy, 10.03.2012 at 20:09

Faster Marines and Advanced Helicopters
at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers
Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -30 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-2 defense, -1 range.)

Why do you think -2 defense to bombers and -1 range? Personally I disagree, my reasoning is in the above paragraphs. -1 range still makes them faster than helicopters. I don't see how -2 defense would be a better downside than -1 attack either.

For adding +30 to tanks and -30 to marines, I agree. I definitely agree to the -30 on marines, because it further highlights them as the main land unit of the strategy. Also, as atheist said, tanks are still usable. So the +30 would do good to discourage purchasing them further.

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -30 cost.)
Submarines & Naval Transport, (+1 range, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-3 range, +20 cost.)

So far we agree on the +30 Tanks, -30 Marines.
As for the -attack on bombers and making the range same as helicopters i agree with Houdini, also Tunder if you could explain why do you think that your stats are best would be nice, and why have you removed the Submarines & Naval Transport off the list?

Desert Storm

Advanced Stealth Operations and Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -30 cost.)
Submarines, (+1 range, +50 cost. +1 cap)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-1 attack -1 range +20 cost)

Why not to decrease just range by -1 if you add +20 of cost and -1 attack, bombers are useless now, why to let range -2? bombers cant be slower than helicopters, that is unrealistic.
Helicopters are slow for a reason, they kill militia and infantry in a ratio of 3 kills 1 death (if you have lucky bastard). with this Strategy the ratio is 4/1.
You need bombers to defend your helicopters from another bombers, why to decrease -2 range.?

And About Submarines, why you need naval transports? if you have marines you dont need naval transports,You need Submarines to make ambush,
Helicopters+Marines+Submarines = Vietnam or Middle East Operations. That sound perfect.
why to add price and speed to naval transports, we know about that on real life, they take their time, and you need bombers to defend them.

so why you guys think?
we should make bombers useless to attack, but regular to defend?
or make helicopters the faster air unit on the strategy? (ALL UNREALISTIC)

and about submarines, with +1 cap, and +1 range, i dont care about +50.

This Strategy Is Goin To Be like Imperialist And Perfect Defense togheter, with the disventages of Iron First and Naval Commander xD?
no, i dont think on that.

THIS IS ORIGINAL!

Written by Tundy, 10.03.2012 at 21:40

Why not to decrease just range by -1 if you add +20 of cost and -1 attack, bombers are useless now, why to let range -2? bombers cant be slower than helicopters, that is unrealistic.
Helicopters are slow for a reason, they kill militia and infantry in a ratio of 3 kills 1 death (if you have lucky bastard). with this Strategy the ratio is 4/1.
You need bombers to defend your helicopters from another bombers, why to decrease -2 range.?

First, I think you did the math wrong again, Tunder. You need to closely check before you post that what you're posting is right. With -2 bombers are NOT slower than helicopters. They have the SAME range, which accomplishes what you want in reference to bombers being able to defend with helicopters. So, that's also not a reason to give them -1 over -2. The reasoning behind -2 is to have them at the same range as helicopters.

The bombers aren't useless at -1 attack, they have higher defense than helicopters, while also having bonuses offensively against helicopters themselves. They have a distinctive use. Having them at equal range is better than having bombers faster. Realism isn't an argument in afterwind. We have mechs, nukes, it takes 6+ weeks to cross oceans. The game isn't meant to be a copy of real life military operations.

Written by Tundy, 10.03.2012 at 21:40

And About Submarines, why you need naval transports? if you have marines you dont need naval transports,You need Submarines to make ambush,
Helicopters+Marines+Submarines = Vietnam or Middle East Operations. That sound perfect.
why to add price and speed to naval transports, we know about that on real life, they take their time, and you need bombers to defend them.

and about submarines, with +1 cap, and +1 range, i dont care about +50.

I agree on this, taking out sea transports and adding +1 capacity to submarines would compliment the marines in this strategy. I didn't see the exact reasoning for transports getting a bonus in the first place, so taking it out for an extra capacity seems like a good idea that works with the entire strategy as a whole.

Written by Tundy, 10.03.2012 at 21:40

we should make bombers useless to attack, but regular to defend?
or make helicopters the faster air unit on the strategy? (ALL UNREALISTIC)

Helicopters wouldn't be faster with what I proposed, they would be the same as bombers.

Written by Tundy, 10.03.2012 at 21:40

This Strategy Is Goin To Be like Imperialist And Perfect Defense togheter, with the disventages of Iron First and Naval Commander xD?
no, i dont think on that.

It's nothing like imperialist or perfect defense, no extreme reduced cost to all units and no bonuses at all to infantry.The disadvantages are balanced against the advantages, really weak tanks for faster and weaker marines with better subs, weaker bombers for stronger helicopters. IF's downside is -2 across all units, so it's not really like that either. Yes same tank downside as naval commander but that's balanced out with the buffs to marines and subs.

Plz implement this, because i will rape you all with mos stealths ok

Quote:

I agree on this, taking out sea transports and adding +1 capacity to submarines would compliment the marines in this strategy. I didn't see the exact reasoning for transports getting a bonus in the first place, so taking it out for an extra capacity seems like a good idea that works with the entire strategy as a whole.

I also think naval transport shouldn't get range bonus, it was my intention, but it only makes the strategy more complex. instead its good with the submarines and i think the +1 cap is good idea.

Latest update:
Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -30 cost.)
Submarines, (+1 range, +1 cap, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+1 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost.)
Bombers, (-1 attack, -2 range, +20 cost.)

I think Tunder would agree with these changes, his concern was that Helicopters would be faster than bombers which is not the case, they got the same range.
But i still think helicopters should have +2 attack, i know +5 movement is a big change, but still they should have bigger attack than the Tanks.
We got alot of - attack nerfing, im not sure if the Helicopters covers it up for all.

I know it would be to much, but we might balance it out with taking some -1 ARB, and giving +2 attack, instead just +1 attack.
And instead of -50 cost, to reduce it to -40, making them cost 160 funds.
The prices would be the following:
Marines: 130 funds.
Tanks: 150 funds.
Helicopters: 160 funds.
Bombers: 180 funds.
Submarines: 250 funds.

Helicopters, (+2 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -1 ARB, -40 to cost.)
Its the main air unit for this strategy.
I mean look at the destroyers at naval commander, they got huge attack and even bigger ARB than Helicopters.
Not to mention stealths at MoS.

By the way what are the default no strategy stealth unit stats?
I still havn't collected enough sp to unlock them.

Written by T.Atheist, 11.03.2012 at 00:12

But i still think helicopters should have +2 attack, i know +5 movement is a big change, but still they should have bigger attack than the Tanks.
We got alot of - attack nerfing, im not sure if the Helicopters covers it up for all.

Its the main air unit for this strategy.
I mean look at the destroyers at naval commander, they got huge attack and even bigger ARB than Helicopters.
Not to mention stealths at MoS.

By the way what are the default no strategy stealth unit stats?
I still havn't collected enough sp to unlock them.

I agree that +2 attack would be fine.I dont think they need a nerf for it though. Also I was talking to Thomasmer and Arbitrator about this earlier and we all agreed that SM and MoS air units would absolutely rape this strategy. I think that the -2 def on stealths/bombers should be removed so that it has less of a direct counter. Otherwise all this would do is increase SM/MoS use.

Written by Houdini, 11.03.2012 at 01:42

I agree that +2 attack would be fine.I dont think they need a nerf for it though. Also I was talking to Thomasmer and Arbitrator about this earlier and we all agreed that SM and MoS air units would absolutely rape this strategy. I think that the -2 def on stealths/bombers should be removed so that it has less of a direct counter. Otherwise all this would do is increase SM/MoS use.

Latest update decided by the players.

Desert Storm

Advanced Helicopters at the cost of weaker tanks and bombers.

Tanks, (-1 attack, -1 defense, -1 range, +30 cost.)
Marines, (-1 attack, +1 range, -30 cost.)
Submarines, (+1 range, +1 cap, +50 cost.)
Helicopters, (+2 attack, +5 movement, +1 defense, +1 view range, +1Hp, -50 to cost, removing the -2 defense if attacked by bombers or stealth.)
Bombers, (-1 attack, -2 range, +20 cost.)

I personally think this is the best from all previous updates, in the end in comes to the admins .
~regards.

Well the way it got implemented now, it is just a worse version of SM.
Helicopters should get +1 capacity for either infantry or marines and +1HP, but only +2 range. This would make the strategy unique and not just a cheap copy of SM.

It's range is +3, not +5. And we need to test it a little more before suggesting nerfs/buffs.