4/25/12: SM without TBing = Unbeatable?

Alright, let's keep this short and sweet: I simply do not like this update at all.

1. SM is the only good strategy now, because it can cover so much land so fast, and it's attack is extraordinary. You may think Blitzkrieg would do well here, well...i'm not sure how BZ wuld do honestly, haven't tested it yet, but it seems SM is extremely OP because of this.

2. The no-TB rule has made me as a player incapable of winning a single battle against an SM user, as they always have more money and troops, and I can't save my ass from invasion by using TBing like normal, now it's all or nothing.

3. Since they have more troops and I can only attack stacks that have half or under my stack, i'm defenseless, not to mention Garrisons don't even work anymore (Neither do regular city walls (Firebases), it seems).


I simply cannot play this game until No-TB is an option, it took an SM player one rein week to utterly destroy me. Me and LilD did a test match with the SM v Anything principle, and I couldn't even save my cap because he annihilated all of my funds and units so quickly because of low-spread:


I request this update be removed entirely; it has no beneficial qualities at all. Not to seem paranoid...but why do the mods worship this update it seems? I don't, doesn't matter. Remove it; it makes the game literally unplayable for me.

"(Neither do regular city walls (Firebases), it seems). "

I haven't seen that much in-game yet, but the rest of the things about the update seemed pretty legit.

Written by goodnames679, 25.04.2012 at 14:38

"(Neither do regular city walls (Firebases), it seems). "

I haven't seen that much in-game yet, but the rest of the things about the update seemed pretty legit.

Regular city wall = Tight-wall/Wedge-wall/3-wall/Tri-wall

SM needs to be rebalanced for this update is all.

Written by scud, 25.04.2012 at 15:30

SM needs to be rebalanced for this update is all.

Written by scud, 25.04.2012 at 15:30

SM needs to be rebalanced for this update is all.

Exactly.

Written by Pinheiro, 25.04.2012 at 16:15

Written by scud, 25.04.2012 at 15:30

SM needs to be rebalanced for this update is all.

Exactly.

So does every other strategy then; a lot relied on TBing. Btw Pin, I love your new pic ^^

Written by Garde, 25.04.2012 at 16:20

So does every other strategy then; a lot relied on TBing. Btw Pin, I love your new pic ^^

We will see. But the main thing is that we all want the best, including the devs, and I'm sure we will find a solution. (and thanks, by the way )

All the butthurt around here is classic. all i can think of is counter strike, whenever that game gets a big update their are way to many people who "I'm done forever". we need to have more fair in our developers. and ultimately if people really have a problem with it they can go may one of the may other strategy games.

Written by Pinheiro, 25.04.2012 at 16:25

Written by Garde, 25.04.2012 at 16:20

So does every other strategy then; a lot relied on TBing. Btw Pin, I love your new pic ^^

We will see. But the main thing is that we all want the best, including the devs, and I'm sure we will find a solution. (and thanks, by the way )

Well, the main problem with a lot of people is a loss of a major strategical option; it's like being the leader of an army, and all of your airplanes spontaneously combusting all at once. With me, it's mainly the fact that I entered a few games, and was dead in about 3 turns. SM is built on conquest far and fast, with the addition of strong attack and good money. It's always been OP, and now it defeats everything. Some strategies are also useless now, anything that can't move very fast that is. I'm not certain, but I would guess IF or GC are very useless now.

Written by Garde, 25.04.2012 at 16:49

Well, the main problem with a lot of people is a loss of a major strategical option; it's like being the leader of an army, and all of your airplanes spontaneously combusting all at once. With me, it's mainly the fact that I entered a few games, and was dead in about 3 turns. SM is built on conquest far and fast, with the addition of strong attack and good money. It's always been OP, and now it defeats everything. Some strategies are also useless now, anything that can't move very fast that is. I'm not certain, but I would guess IF or GC are very useless now.

SM before the update wasn't that OP but it was one of the best strats all around. Its only weakness was tb. Also SM's attack is standard to that of a regular strategies tank with 8 attack. It used to be all a SM player had to fear was turn block and how to avoid it. The update caused that window of SM oppression to vanish. Any nerf I can really think of would just kill the strat completely. Range nerf like IF = never gonna be used again. Attack nerf = no good for expansions so no use for it. And ARB nerf = weak units so nothing can really attack or defend.

Written by Deray YG, 26.04.2012 at 22:04

Written by Garde, 25.04.2012 at 16:49

Well, the main problem with a lot of people is a loss of a major strategical option; it's like being the leader of an army, and all of your airplanes spontaneously combusting all at once. With me, it's mainly the fact that I entered a few games, and was dead in about 3 turns. SM is built on conquest far and fast, with the addition of strong attack and good money. It's always been OP, and now it defeats everything. Some strategies are also useless now, anything that can't move very fast that is. I'm not certain, but I would guess IF or GC are very useless now.

SM before the update wasn't that OP but it was one of the best strats all around. Its only weakness was tb. Also SM's attack is standard to that of a regular strategies tank with 8 attack. It used to be all a SM player had to fear was turn block and how to avoid it. The update caused that window of SM oppression to vanish. Any nerf I can really think of would just kill the strat completely. Range nerf like IF = never gonna be used again. Attack nerf = no good for expansions so no use for it. And ARB nerf = weak units so nothing can really attack or defend.

Exactly, one of my points is that the whole strategy system is even MORE fucktarded now than it was before. SM dominates everything, and there's no possible way to nerf it, because then Blitz would dominate, then the cycle would continue until the only decent strat is LB, or until they make another game-breaking update.

I think the only thing that makes Sky Menace OP is the high defense of bombers, but that I'm saying since every attack units defense was nerfed, save for the bombers.
People are even using them as defensive units, when they want to defend a spot, they just fly in bombers from half across the map. Now I always tryed to not turn block people, though occasionally I did, but I never had big problems with Sky Menace. So what scud said is true. It's always the same when changes hit a game, people start to cry about this and that without really looking into how to deal with things. Ask Mea Culpa about it Gard, he used to fly stacks of 200 or more bombers into my lands all day every day and I didn't even bother to turn block them, but still always overcame him. Theres many other ways to deal with this, other than turn blocking. One just has to be a little creative.

Written by learster, 27.04.2012 at 03:38

I think the only thing that makes Sky Menace OP is the high defense of bombers, but that I'm saying since every attack units defense was nerfed, save for the bombers.
People are even using them as defensive units, when they want to defend a spot, they just fly in bombers from half across the map. Now I always tryed to not turn block people, though occasionally I did, but I never had big problems with Sky Menace. So what scud said is true. It's always the same when changes hit a game, people start to cry about this and that without really looking into how to deal with things. Ask Mea Culpa about it Gard, he used to fly stacks of 200 or more bombers into my lands all day every day and I didn't even bother to turn block them, but still always overcame him. Theres many other ways to deal with this, other than turn blocking. One just has to be a little creative.

But your case only considers WW games. SM is crazy OP in smaller maps like Europe.

Written by learster, 27.04.2012 at 03:38

I think the only thing that makes Sky Menace OP is the high defense of bombers, but that I'm saying since every attack units defense was nerfed, save for the bombers.
People are even using them as defensive units, when they want to defend a spot, they just fly in bombers from half across the map. Now I always tryed to not turn block people, though occasionally I did, but I never had big problems with Sky Menace. So what scud said is true. It's always the same when changes hit a game, people start to cry about this and that without really looking into how to deal with things. Ask Mea Culpa about it Gard, he used to fly stacks of 200 or more bombers into my lands all day every day and I didn't even bother to turn block them, but still always overcame him. Theres many other ways to deal with this, other than turn blocking. One just has to be a little creative.

When people are tight on cash they spam Infantry to get more units than could with bombers. Overall if you have enough Infantry does just as well on defence as said number of bombers.

Written by Deray YG, 27.04.2012 at 17:55

Written by learster, 27.04.2012 at 03:38

I think the only thing that makes Sky Menace OP is the high defense of bombers, but that I'm saying since every attack units defense was nerfed, save for the bombers.
People are even using them as defensive units, when they want to defend a spot, they just fly in bombers from half across the map. Now I always tryed to not turn block people, though occasionally I did, but I never had big problems with Sky Menace. So what scud said is true. It's always the same when changes hit a game, people start to cry about this and that without really looking into how to deal with things. Ask Mea Culpa about it Gard, he used to fly stacks of 200 or more bombers into my lands all day every day and I didn't even bother to turn block them, but still always overcame him. Theres many other ways to deal with this, other than turn blocking. One just has to be a little creative.

When people are tight on cash they spam Infantry to get more units than could with bombers. Overall if you have enough Infantry does just as well on defence as said number of bombers.

i agree with learster on this. the update made large maps better but smaller map worse.

Suggestion : better than nerfing... just upgrade anti-aircraft units ?

Lessen their cost, up their base def.... some sort of specialized defensive unit...

First test, drastic change : cost 80, base def 6 and same city bonus as infantry, bonus vs air unit down to +4

AA units being pretty useless (and their upgrade too) it would be a good test to up their usefullness. (attack to 3 like militia too, perhaps....)


I don't have the truth, it could be one way between many other.

Written by LiodaGobert, 28.04.2012 at 03:10

Suggestion : better than nerfing... just upgrade anti-aircraft units ?

Lessen their cost, up their base def.... some sort of specialized defensive unit...

First test, drastic change : cost 80, base def 6 and same city bonus as infantry, bonus vs air unit down to +4

AA units being pretty useless (and their upgrade too) it would be a good test to up their usefullness. (attack to 3 like militia too, perhaps....)


I don't have the truth, it could be one way between many other.

What, to help combat SM? The problem isn't that SM has air superiority, it's that it can spread like AIDS through Europe in 2 turns, then bash you in the head with countless waves of god-knows-what, usually not Bombers or stealth, just air trans.

Not only to counter SM, but mainly to make AA units usefull.

Written by LiodaGobert, 29.04.2012 at 01:18

Not only to counter SM, but mainly to make AA units usefull.

Well honestly, there isn't much you can do to make AAs useful, except boost the attack and defense against it's designated units. Although I do agree, they need to be reworked. I like your idea as a helpful fix to AAs, but not to nerfing SM or anything of the like.

Written by Garde, 29.04.2012 at 18:04

Written by LiodaGobert, 29.04.2012 at 01:18

Not only to counter SM, but mainly to make AA units usefull.

Well honestly, there isn't much you can do to make AAs useful, except boost the attack and defense against it's designated units. Although I do agree, they need to be reworked. I like your idea as a helpful fix to AAs, but not to nerfing SM or anything of the like.

I've actually had a lot of success with AAs, though they could be buffed a tad more. I'm saying this because with PD, an infantry unit has 7 defence, compared to 8 of an AA... on the other hand, if AAs were buffed premium players would become almost immune to SM players if they use AAs right. So there needs to be a balance.

As for the success story... I was playing as South America in a world game and after a failed campaign in Africa, I was being invaded on all front along with my ally who owned most of North America (I had the rest). I had walled every city in Mexico, Texas, and in most of Central America. China, who was invading in that area, was obviously an SM player and a massive faceroller who knew little more than to turnblock and spam bombers. That tactic didn't really work out. All I did was create a couple of transports, fill them up with AAs, and move them to the city walls. Same for infantry. The guy never managed to take Mexico City. In the end (after 30 weeks and having repelled all attacks from Africa and on Central America from Australia) I managed to take the offensive after annihilating multiple bomber stacks and kicked him out of America. At this point (week 65, ) he was too tired to go on and ally ended it. I could never have successfully invaded him, but my defence was surpisingly effective. He did hold on to Texas for several weeks though, but then again, he only got as far as establishing himself well in USA: Mountain. Held on for a while, but after having over 400 bombers destroyed at the hands of my combined AA and infantry stacks on my walls, he just ran out of money I guess. I was playing Great Combinator.

Written by YOBA, 29.04.2012 at 19:03

Written by Garde, 29.04.2012 at 18:04

Written by LiodaGobert, 29.04.2012 at 01:18

Not only to counter SM, but mainly to make AA units usefull.

Well honestly, there isn't much you can do to make AAs useful, except boost the attack and defense against it's designated units. Although I do agree, they need to be reworked. I like your idea as a helpful fix to AAs, but not to nerfing SM or anything of the like.

I've actually had a lot of success with AAs, though they could be buffed a tad more. I'm saying this because with PD, an infantry unit has 7 defence, compared to 8 of an AA... on the other hand, if AAs were buffed premium players would become almost immune to SM players if they use AAs right. So there needs to be a balance.

As for the success story... I was playing as South America in a world game and after a failed campaign in Africa, I was being invaded on all front along with my ally who owned most of North America (I had the rest). I had walled every city in Mexico, Texas, and in most of Central America. China, who was invading in that area, was obviously an SM player and a massive faceroller who knew little more than to turnblock and spam bombers. That tactic didn't really work out. All I did was create a couple of transports, fill them up with AAs, and move them to the city walls. Same for infantry. The guy never managed to take Mexico City. In the end (after 30 weeks and having repelled all attacks from Africa and on Central America from Australia) I managed to take the offensive after annihilating multiple bomber stacks and kicked him out of America. At this point (week 65, ) he was too tired to go on and ally ended it. I could never have successfully invaded him, but my defence was surpisingly effective. He did hold on to Texas for several weeks though, but then again, he only got as far as establishing himself well in USA: Mountain. Held on for a while, but after having over 400 bombers destroyed at the hands of my combined AA and infantry stacks on my walls, he just ran out of money I guess. I was playing Great Combinator.

Impressive, but I assume with that amount of income you had many AA's, which in most games isn't possible for effectiveness. Like you said, you couldn't have taken the offensive most likely on him. Still, impressive.

I often forget about premium ... sorry

(Sorry for the bump, but I had to say something here. )
I gotta agree with you on this one Gard.
The only thing that made SM really fightable was the fact you could prevent them from steamrolling you with 100 bombers by blocking them with 1 militia, giving you some time to defend.
Nowadays, whenever I realize that the people I'm playing against are using SM, I consider if it's worth trying to fight them. I know that there's pretty much no way to stop them with the new update, and eventually any SM user can just steamroll right over you and move on to the next poor soul.

Written by YOBA, 29.04.2012 at 19:03

Written by Garde, 29.04.2012 at 18:04

Written by LiodaGobert, 29.04.2012 at 01:18

Not only to counter SM, but mainly to make AA units usefull.

Well honestly, there isn't much you can do to make AAs useful, except boost the attack and defense against it's designated units. Although I do agree, they need to be reworked. I like your idea as a helpful fix to AAs, but not to nerfing SM or anything of the like.

I was playing Great Combinator.

Great Combinator infantry are way supperior to AA. i support YOBA that GC has best Infantrys

Well I just played against a SM in world in EURASIA.

At first Ichoose ireland and killed my ally in europe after diplomacy broke down.

What I started to do was blitz china (only caps) and japan (same dude) with marines and stealth from MOS. a stalemate ocurred because all i was ever able to do was intercept his units with ALL of my units. I would take chengdu, he would take chengdu and so on. I could have beaten him but it wouldve taken many more hours. he had 500 units and i was close behind with stealth on auto produce at 400. It seems you can only beat SM with loads of cash, time and smarts. SM is OP because it lets the enemy spam bombers and overcome the TB % EVERYTIME. Now you have to guess where he is going and attack hm there. If the bomber are not atacking a city, well then your screwed

Written by Jim Jimmies, 18.05.2012 at 00:34

Well I just played against a SM in world in EURASIA.

At first Ichoose ireland and killed my ally in europe after diplomacy broke down.

What I started to do was blitz china (only caps) and japan (same dude) with marines and stealth from MOS. a stalemate ocurred because all i was ever able to do was intercept his units with ALL of my units. I would take chengdu, he would take chengdu and so on. I could have beaten him but it wouldve taken many more hours. he had 500 units and i was close behind with stealth on auto produce at 400. It seems you can only beat SM with loads of cash, time and smarts. SM is OP because it lets the enemy spam bombers and overcome the TB % EVERYTIME. Now you have to guess where he is going and attack hm there. If the bomber are not atacking a city, well then your screwed

That's the exact problem. SM can just keep spewing units at you and you can't stop them with the traditional 1 unit TB.

I don't understand you guys it's here on the game. guess what i think i will complain about it. NO you should use it as a advantage while it is still here or stays here use it don't have it save up for cost 10k not much i love this new update to the strategy believe that it shouldn't be taken down. Cause if you know how to use a startegy then you can win with it. also SM is not the best for everything now there other stuff to use them SM not any good in africa South america or small countries. if you want to use SM then you should take it as a Advantage nothing else nothing more.

Written by FitzGibbon, 18.05.2012 at 21:07

I don't understand you guys it's here on the game. guess what i think i will complain about it. NO you should use it as a advantage while it is still here or stays here use it don't have it save up for cost 10k not much i love this new update to the strategy believe that it shouldn't be taken down. Cause if you know how to use a startegy then you can win with it. also SM is not the best for everything now there other stuff to use them SM not any good in africa South america or small countries. if you want to use SM then you should take it as a Advantage nothing else nothing more.

You obviously don't understand what Gard's trying to get at here.
The problem is that with the new update, SM can win every single game with pretty much no effort at all. With no turn-blocking SM is pretty much unstoppable.

Written by Gking19, 18.05.2012 at 23:11

Written by FitzGibbon, 18.05.2012 at 21:07

I don't understand you guys it's here on the game. guess what i think i will complain about it. NO you should use it as a advantage while it is still here or stays here use it don't have it save up for cost 10k not much i love this new update to the strategy believe that it shouldn't be taken down. Cause if you know how to use a startegy then you can win with it. also SM is not the best for everything now there other stuff to use them SM not any good in africa South america or small countries. if you want to use SM then you should take it as a Advantage nothing else nothing more.

You obviously don't understand what Gard's trying to get at here.
The problem is that with the new update, SM can win every single game with pretty much no effort at all. With no turn-blocking SM is pretty much unstoppable.

I do understand that if it is unbeatable and that isn't the case it is beatable if you know hot to go up againts it.