Planning for Strategy Update 2019 #2

Written by Mauzer Panteri, 11.01.2019 at 17:38

Why not to nerf imper with +10 cost for inf or -1 range for them. 40 cost for imper infs, which have normal range and def would be fine.

Why not to add 10 cost to pd militia? 20 pd m. have bigger range then normal militia, also better def.

After nerfing : blits, sm, lb, ds, gw... Boring spam strats deserved to be nerfed too.

But if imp and pd nerfed boss unit strategies (sm lb nc hw and etc) will gain even more power over them. It's necessary to have useful strategy for countries with minor starting funds

90% players play pd or imp in 90% their games. Why would so many players play that if other strats have some "special powers" against them? Other strats are ruined and real problem is in pd/imper.

Rest strats are just so expensive or have other kind of handicap, compared to two named strats.

Nerf ra - no one play ra now.... Maybe low ranks who doesnt even know what strats mean.
Ds: expensive, bad def,.easy to tb land units after last update. Marines carry for hels is big deal, even for ds haters that doesn't look like it is. Who play ds now?
No one.
Gw : sad def.
Blits : raped after last change.

Whats next? AW will be 2 units game (inf and tank) and two strats game (already is)...

Even admins make aw two units/strats game, I think mostly of current players wouldn't care about that. So why not to do that? In that case there will be : less lag, no need to make editor and rest complications.

Written by Mauzer Panteri, 11.01.2019 at 18:05

90% players play pd or imp in 90% their games. Why would so many players play that if other strats have some "special powers" against them? Other strats are ruined and real problem is in pd/imper.

Rest strats are just so expensive or have other kind of handicap, compared to two named strats.

Nerf ra - no one play ra now.... Maybe low ranks who doesnt even know what strats mean.
Ds: expensive, bad def,.easy to tb land units after last update. Marines carry for hels is big deal, even for ds haters that doesn't look like it is. Who play ds now?
No one.
Gw : sad def.
Blits : raped after last change.

Whats next? AW will be 2 units game (inf and tank) and two strats game (already is)...

Even admins make aw two units/strats game, I think mostly of current players wouldn't care about that. So why not to do that? In that case there will be : less lag, no need to make editor and rest complications.

People play Imp and PD because those usually are the only viable strategies for broken coutnries. Nerfing them would'nt help because there would'nt be any eligible alternative. If you want to help the infantry based situation add more relevant strategies to small maps

Written by Rock Lee, 11.01.2019 at 17:47

Written by Mauzer Panteri, 11.01.2019 at 17:38

Why not to nerf imper with +10 cost for inf or -1 range for them. 40 cost for imper infs, which have normal range and def would be fine.

Why not to add 10 cost to pd militia? 20 pd m. have bigger range then normal militia, also better def.

After nerfing : blits, sm, lb, ds, gw... Boring spam strats deserved to be nerfed too.

But if imp and pd nerfed boss unit strategies (sm lb nc hw and etc) will gain even more power over them. It's necessary to have useful strategy for countries with minor starting funds

Point is sm is raped, blitz is raped ra is raped, now lb is raped

Written by Black Swans, 11.01.2019 at 18:10

Point is sm is raped, blitz is raped ra is raped, now lb is raped

It's because they were designed for world map which ai'nt a thing anymore. In small maps they were too autistic and had to be nerfed for the essence of the game. I agree we need more fun and intersting strategies but bringing back something that does'nt work is as it sounds not gonna work.

Some suggestions: 1. Add GC's tank capability to carry 1 militia. 2. Cut SM's bomber range by 2 and add 2 range to militias and 1 def to infnatry. 3. -1 attack -10 cost to mos infnatry 4. Idk about RA let me thing about it.

The thing is you gotta acclimitize to the stream instead of ruining the game for everyone because it's hard to beat Turkey (country with 80 spawn) in just 3 turns.

Written by Rock Lee, 11.01.2019 at 18:16

Written by Black Swans, 11.01.2019 at 18:10

Point is sm is raped, blitz is raped ra is raped, now lb is raped

It's because they were designed for world map which ai'nt a thing anymore. In small maps they were too autistic and had to be nerfed for the essence of the game. I agree we need more fun and intersting strategies but bringing back something that does'nt work is as it sounds not gonna work.

Some suggestions: 1. Add GC's tank capability to carry 1 militia. 2. Cut SM's bomber range by 2 and add 2 range to militias and 1 def to infnatry. 3. -1 attack -10 cost to mos infnatry 4. Idk about RA let me thing about it.

The thing is you gotta acclimitize to the stream instead of ruining the game for everyone because it's hard to beat Turkey (country with 80 spawn) in just 3 turns.

Alright I was wrong... Why to have so many units and strats (like tanks, who need them... They just making mess and confusion) when we can only spam infs.

Also lets remove strats for rushers and make things like this :

1. Pd (normal one like its now).

2. Nerfed pd1 for non prem players, with -3 range for all rare units ( which they can got cuz n prem).

And pd on steroids which will unlock bomber as extra unit. To use this special strat, everyone will have to paid 200 pcs per game.

People spam Inf as it is. Whether it's PD, Imp, LB, or None, it's almost impossible to stop. With the possible exception of DS Helis, there are no standard attack units strong enough, in manageable numbers, to take down a big stack of Infs. This is particularly true with PD, where they gain +1D across the board, and then +1D bonus against Tanks (and only cost 50 with a range of 6 w/upgrades).

I suppose that, for most warfare in history, Infantry are the primary driving force of a military. Tanks, Bombers, etc., are support for the Infantry - softening opponent's strongholds and knocking down walls with Bombers, then bringing in the Tanks to add some extra punch to wave after relentless wave of Infantry.

My ideas and attitudes shift a little bit as I gain experience with the game and participate in these discussions. Sometimes I think that Imp is too strong, insofar as the -30 cost reduction is pretty significant for the -1A across the board. With the Inf upgrades, you're talking about a 3A and 6D unit with a range of 7 and a cost of 30!! That's insane. Of course, that depends on the economics. Someone spawning in Africa or South America can see Imp as a lifesaver, while spawning in wealthier locations with high production capability can make Imp seem op.

It would be awesome to create custom strats for a map. It would be great for experimentation to see what sorts of deviations from the standard strats make the difference. And, just for fun, as well.

Ok so I havent play this for a long becouse no updates and no players but lets see

In the terms of strategy i wont say anything since havent play for a long.

On the other side this game needs a lot of changes.First of all costum maps should go away.Why? Becouse a lot of them are not playable becouse random ppl makes them.Make some sort of survey what map should stay like Ancient world or some, than take them, modify to fit historical events and release.This game should be more history oriented. Recreate WW1, WW2 and some other battles in history. We should create scenes based on events that are important.Also extending it to movies or anime maps is fine but dont do something that is not interesting and dont allow comunity to make them.Lord of the Rings is fine since it has a lot of battles and comunity is pretty good. But Naruto on the other side is not. Naruto has a lot of battles and wars but community for that is poor.

Also Roleplay game should be better.Map we have is good just it needs some developers thouch on it. People can enter and go rogue as they want.Also Low levels picking Russia = kick instantly so it obviously need some more rules and balance and it will be good.

Second thing is comunity. As we should eliminate toxic stuff we alse should bring more and more players.Maybe less and less people are interested in this kind of games but with updates and changes it can be changed.Advertise this game and more people will try it.Make events and giveaways to make people interested.Make rank based tournaments that is ranks from 0-4 from 5-7 from 8-11 and 11+ or something like that and rewards should be interesting to both premium and non premium members.

I know there are duels to make people compete in a way but that sistem can be better becouse only high ranks play duels and players that play for a lot of time and have some exp in the game.So makeing some sort of leagues would be good.I feel that keeping elo is good but make leagues or groups depending on elo.Same for coalitions.

Coalitions should have bigger impact on their members.Yes keep cw alive but give more rewards for players. I know this game doesnt have skins of any kind but some sort of rewards in terms of titles of banners of some sort when you win it would be good.

It would be also good to find some people that would work with you on lets say advertising, designing maps and stuff. I know its a lot to do for a small team but you should consider hireing some people that wants to contribute to this.This game is good just make it work with more and more updates and content.

For once i agree with mauz, solid points.
Also to rock lee.......please.......

Written by 4nic, 13.01.2019 at 06:40

For once i agree with mauz, solid points.
Also to rock lee.......please.......

You gotta be kidding me right?

All I see is mauzer fucking up the diversity between strategies and making this game more p2w and less-noobfriendly by just spamming some gibberish things

I am glad nobody takes him serious at this point.

I'm with Roi here, most people play PD and ra because they are none premium and you start with them, and imp is only 100 sp. I'll iterate again this game is about 5% comp playing cws and 3v3s with about two dozen elitists talking shit and bullying one another. You have to consider the ramifications of nerfing the only strats available to new players. You'll just make it harder for them to fight premium strategies by listening to the old men from illyria and mk. Which is the loudest voice here on forums as most players dont use forums. You should make community wide forum posts into notifications so others know these things exsist.

Written by Waffel, 13.01.2019 at 06:52

Written by 4nic, 13.01.2019 at 06:40

For once i agree with mauz, solid points.
Also to rock lee.......please.......

You gotta be kidding me right?

All I see is mauzer fucking up the diversity between strategies and making this game more p2w and less-noobfriendly by just spamming some gibberish things

I am glad nobody takes him serious at this point.

You realise his last post was sarcasm, serbs are 2smart4u

Today i played one game with ds. Day before lb. Rip both strats, till some buff.

In my opinion I think its time revise almost all strats, as everything has been stagnating for a while. Ill just pretty much quote everything that we already discussed in the Laochra's strategy topic.

1. LB - +10 cost is way too much, strategy is dead. Instead I favor the -4 critical. Even though we've discussed that anything less than -5 critical will make almost no impact, I believe the -4 is just the perfect balance to stop the total outrageous rolls such as 35 LB killing 30 PD units or 15 LB units winning the battle when 22 PD units are attacking as well.
2. DS - -1 capacity does nothing, leave it or reverse it back we don't care. -1 def to choppers is the real needed nerf.
3. Blitz - +1 range. Blitz became useless with its ironic defense once the city bonus was reversed. At least let give people a chance to totally over-expand before their defense gets slaughtered.
4. GW - 220 cost to naval transport. Don't know who introduced it but its idiotic, makes no sense. Leave the range nerf just reduce the costs.
5. HW - +1 capacity to air transport. The strategy is already twisted at it is, this will add another interesting factor in its mix.
6. IF - +1 range to militia. This is a must, I don't need to mention all the reasons.
7. RA - +1 attack to militia. Small boost, currently the strat is useless, hopefully this brings a bit of life back to it.
8. MOS - -10 cost to infantry. MOS has a very week defense, at least this way it can buy more infantries to defend.
9. GC - +1 def to infantry against tanks, -1 def to tanks against infantry. This finally completes the mix that infantry becomes sole defense unit with small attacking power, while tanks become sole attacking units with low defending power.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

1. LB - +10 cost is way too much, strategy is dead. Instead I favor the -4 critical. Even though we've discussed that anything less than -5 critical will make almost no impact, I believe the -4 is just the perfect balance to stop the total outrageous rolls such as 35 LB killing 30 PD units or 15 LB units winning the battle when 22 PD units are attacking as well.

Yes.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

2. DS - -1 capacity does nothing, leave it or reverse it back we don't care. -1 def to choppers is the real needed nerf.

Marines carry is important, without it, ds is boring to play. Ds is strat which can be played with only few countries so i dont see big need for nerf.
That -1 def as nerf is acceptable and ppls wont cry much if that happen.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

3. Blitz - +1 range. Blitz became useless with its ironic defense once the city bonus was reversed. At least let give people a chance to totally over-expand before their defense gets slaughtered.

In that case, cost for at should be +500 and for naval trans +250.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

4. GW - 220 cost to naval transport. Don't know who introduced it but its idiotic, makes no sense. Leave the range nerf just reduce the costs.

Better to buff gw inf def or militia.


For rest i dont care D

I haven't even bothered with this thread. I already took the time to compile a thread of the most popular and sensible ideas/suggestions. Note the emphasis on sensible. In spite of this, all the suggestions were disregarded in favour of changes that nobody asked for. I am yet to see an explanation as to where the 2 applied changes originated from and why.

It's safe to say both changes have failed in their goals. The issues presented by ds weren't addressed and lb was made totally redundant restoring a nerf to the strat that existed in 2013-2015 and that we already knew was too much.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

In my opinion I think its time revise almost all strats, as everything has been stagnating for a while. Ill just pretty much quote everything that we already discussed in the Laochra's strategy topic.

1. LB - +10 cost is way too much, strategy is dead. Instead I favor the -4 critical. Even though we've discussed that anything less than -5 critical will make almost no impact, I believe the -4 is just the perfect balance to stop the total outrageous rolls such as 35 LB killing 30 PD units or 15 LB units winning the battle when 22 PD units are attacking as well.
2. DS - -1 capacity does nothing, leave it or reverse it back we don't care. -1 def to choppers is the real needed nerf.
3. Blitz - +1 range. Blitz became useless with its ironic defense once the city bonus was reversed. At least let give people a chance to totally over-expand before their defense gets slaughtered.
4. GW - 220 cost to naval transport. Don't know who introduced it but its idiotic, makes no sense. Leave the range nerf just reduce the costs.
5. HW - +1 capacity to air transport. The strategy is already twisted at it is, this will add another interesting factor in its mix.
6. IF - +1 range to militia. This is a must, I don't need to mention all the reasons.
7. RA - +1 attack to militia. Small boost, currently the strat is useless, hopefully this brings a bit of life back to it.
8. MOS - -10 cost to infantry. MOS has a very week defense, at least this way it can buy more infantries to defend.
9. GC - +1 def to infantry against tanks, -1 def to tanks against infantry. This finally completes the mix that infantry becomes sole defense unit with small attacking power, while tanks become sole attacking units with low defending power.

Agree with all except gc and ra.Ra militia buff is useless again and gc tweaking will make its tanks literally with 1def as most players play with infatry so tanks will have 1def.

Written by Permamuted, 14.01.2019 at 17:18

I haven't even bothered with this thread. I already took the time to compile a thread of the most popular and sensible ideas/suggestions. Note the emphasis on sensible. In spite of this, all the suggestions were disregarded in favour of changes that nobody asked for. I am yet to see an explanation as to where the 2 applied changes originated from and why.

Um, I read your thread. I didn't do everything on there but the 2 I did do came from your thread.

Written by Dave, 14.01.2019 at 17:40

Um, I read your thread. I didn't do everything on there but the 2 I did do came from your thread.

Well this just explains everything.

Written by Permamuted, 14.01.2019 at 18:23

Written by Dave, 14.01.2019 at 17:40

Um, I read your thread. I didn't do everything on there but the 2 I did do came from your thread.

Well this just explains everything.

^^ this

Not that I even owe you an explanation, but I did read the whole thread. Plus I had already got a shit ton of messages from people asking me to do something about LB one way or the other. Sultan's post wasn't the deciding factor but it's the best compromise and least controversial solution of all suggested.

Written by Permamuted, 14.01.2019 at 17:18

I haven't even bothered with this thread. I already took the time to compile a thread of the most popular and sensible ideas/suggestions. Note the emphasis on sensible. In spite of this, all the suggestions were disregarded in favour of changes that nobody asked for. I am yet to see an explanation as to where the 2 applied changes originated from and why.

It's safe to say both changes have failed in their goals. The issues presented by ds weren't addressed and lb was made totally redundant restoring a nerf to the strat that existed in 2013-2015 and that we already knew was too much.

So who died and appointed you the god of strategy changes? Just because you didn't get your way this time, don't go around saying I intentionally disregarded you, like your way is the only correct way to do things? If I don't happen to follow your wishes it's not like I sat around saying "gee, what can I do today to intentionally piss off Laochra today?" Get over yourself.

Note to everyone else reading this: the way to persuade me is to make a reasonable argument. I'm open minded and happy to listen, as long as you leave the attitude at the door.

Written by Dave, 14.01.2019 at 18:26

So who died and appointed you the god of strategy changes? Just because you didn't get your way this time, don't go around saying I intentionally disregarded you, like your way is the only correct way to do things? If I don't happen to follow your wishes it's not like I sat around saying "gee, what can I do today to intentionally piss off Laochra today?" Get over yourself.

Note to everyone else reading this: the way to persuade me is to make a reasonable argument. I'm open minded and happy to listen, as long as you leave the attitude at the door.

Yea don't try and make this about me. I'm not interested in "getting my way". This isnt a laochra ego issue or anything of that sort at all. Like always what I want is the best for the game but sometimes I don't know why I bother.

Perhaps the accusation that you intentionally disregarded me would be unfair if you had explained why you applied those changes and where exactly they originated from. There was plenty in the way of "reasonable argument" in that thread. I even addressed and dismissed sultans suggestion with "reasonable argument" and no rebuttal. And yet we still ended up with the previously abandoned(for good reason) 2013 metas for ds and lb restored. And now here we have another goddamn thread asking for suggestions on top of the 1 i created as if it never existed. And you wonder why I'm annoyed.

W/e. You don't have to take my word for it at all. I give up.

Thank you for being cautious with change. Many players get annoyed when repeatedly beaten by a certain strategy, but they should try different tactics or a different strat. Please do not change too much. This is a great game.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

In my opinion I think its time revise almost all strats, as everything has been stagnating for a while. Ill just pretty much quote everything that we already discussed in the Laochra's strategy topic.

1. LB - +10 cost is way too much, strategy is dead. Instead I favor the -4 critical. Even though we've discussed that anything less than -5 critical will make almost no impact, I believe the -4 is just the perfect balance to stop the total outrageous rolls such as 35 LB killing 30 PD units or 15 LB units winning the battle when 22 PD units are attacking as well.
2. DS - -1 capacity does nothing, leave it or reverse it back we don't care. -1 def to choppers is the real needed nerf.
3. Blitz - +1 range. Blitz became useless with its ironic defense once the city bonus was reversed. At least let give people a chance to totally over-expand before their defense gets slaughtered.
4. GW - 220 cost to naval transport. Don't know who introduced it but its idiotic, makes no sense. Leave the range nerf just reduce the costs.
5. HW - +1 capacity to air transport. The strategy is already twisted at it is, this will add another interesting factor in its mix.
6. IF - +1 range to militia. This is a must, I don't need to mention all the reasons.
7. RA - +1 attack to militia. Small boost, currently the strat is useless, hopefully this brings a bit of life back to it.
8. MOS - -10 cost to infantry. MOS has a very week defense, at least this way it can buy more infantries to defend.
9. GC - +1 def to infantry against tanks, -1 def to tanks against infantry. This finally completes the mix that infantry becomes sole defense unit with small attacking power, while tanks become sole attacking units with low defending power.

I really like this!

What if in RA all units had +1 att and -1 or -2 def so it didnt matter what you attacked with?

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

1. LB - +10 cost is way too much, strategy is dead. Instead I favor the -4 critical. Even though we've discussed that anything less than -5 critical will make almost no impact, I believe the -4 is just the perfect balance to stop the total outrageous rolls such as 35 LB killing 30 PD units or 15 LB units winning the battle when 22 PD units are attacking as well.

For what it's worth, I'm totally cool with everything in your post except this. I agree that the Militia should not have been +10 because it's a financial disaster to the point that I can't see why anyone would use it. However, Infantry should keep the +10 so that the strat isn't spammed - yes, you get luckier rolls, but it'll cost you. I see nothing wrong with that tradeoff - particularly since the cheap infantry upgrade would cancel out the LB nerf.

The whole point of LB is to increase the odds of causing critical damage, so the results of a battle, all else being equal, should be noticeably more favorable a majority of the time. Therefore, you should need fewer units to achieve your goals, so the cost goes up. Makes sense to me.

What does need to be corrected in LB, while we're at it, is to drop the critical on Tanks -1 now that there is a +1crit upgrade.

And, as everyone else has pointed out, I cannot fathom why the Heli capacity was removed from DS. The general consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the -1D to Helis as you stated in your post. IMHO, I think it would be worth seeing what difference that ends up making.

Written by ise-kun, 14.01.2019 at 20:57

What if in RA all units had +1 att and -1 or -2 def so it didnt matter what you attacked with?

And do the opposite to PD? -1A and +1D to all units?

Me ilke

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 00:08

Written by ise-kun, 14.01.2019 at 20:57

What if in RA all units had +1 att and -1 or -2 def so it didnt matter what you attacked with?

And do the opposite to PD? -1A and +1D to all units?

Me ilke

thatd be sexy

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 00:08

Written by ise-kun, 14.01.2019 at 20:57

What if in RA all units had +1 att and -1 or -2 def so it didnt matter what you attacked with?

And do the opposite to PD? -1A and +1D to all units?

Me ilke

thatd be sexy

I dont think giving blitz +1 range will fix it.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

In my opinion I think its time revise almost all strats, as everything has been stagnating for a while. Ill just pretty much quote everything that we already discussed in the Laochra's strategy topic.

1. LB - +10 cost is way too much, strategy is dead. Instead I favor the -4 critical. Even though we've discussed that anything less than -5 critical will make almost no impact, I believe the -4 is just the perfect balance to stop the total outrageous rolls

Why not make it +5 cost instead, since you said yourself that the crit change wouldn't matter much? if it was up to me, LB would be only playable in the situation where a rich country needs to hit a contested target and no where else, but people apparently like it even if it takes away a lot of the strategy from the game

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

In my opinion I think its time revise almost all strats, as everything has been stagnating for a while. Ill just pretty much quote everything that we already discussed in the Laochra's strategy topic.


2. DS - -1 capacity does nothing, leave it or reverse it back we don't care. -1 def to choppers is the real needed nerf.

Agreed, but restore the capacity. Without the marine cap it 1. makes it unplayable for players without the heli cap up and 2. limits its expansion

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

3. Blitz - +1 range. Blitz became useless with its ironic defense once the city bonus was reversed. At least let give people a chance to totally over-expand before their defense gets slaughtered.

I'm not sure, it might be worth a shot to test it out.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

4. GW - 220 cost to naval transport. Don't know who introduced it but its idiotic, makes no sense. Leave the range nerf just reduce the costs.

It's because the concept of guerrilla warfare is largely land-based. However, I agree, 220 is way too much. Reduce it by 100.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

5. HW - +1 capacity to air transport. The strategy is already twisted at it is, this will add another interesting factor in its mix.

Why not, might make the strat more playable. Also, please, for the love of God, make HW a 10k SP strat max. It's way, way, way too expensive.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

6. IF - +1 range to militia. This is a must, I don't need to mention all the reasons.

YES

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

7. RA - +1 attack to militia. Small boost, currently the strat is useless, hopefully this brings a bit of life back to it.

This could be quite interesting.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

8. MOS - -10 cost to infantry. MOS has a very week defense, at least this way it can buy more infantries to defend.

MoS isn't as weak as people think, besides, boosting inf doesn't go with the theme of the strat. If you're gonna to anything, boost marine or stealth plane defense. Maybe add a (very weak) stealth defense unit at most. But again, mos is fine.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

9. GC - +1 def to infantry against tanks, -1 def to tanks against infantry. This finally completes the mix that infantry becomes sole defense unit with small attacking power, while tanks become sole attacking units with low defending power.

GC is fine as it is, but this could make it interesting. Test it and if it's too OP nerf it back. I do think this would be too OP though.

----------------------------
Most of these suggestions can be implemented without much debate.

also, Lao means well. His direct approach may throw people off, but I really believe he has the game's best interest in mind.

But please, don't do Mauzer's earlier suggestion and nerf imp and pd. doing that would wreck the strategy balance again. We need to go forward with slight tweaks like the ones above. Nerf PD or IMP and you make a lot of competitive unplayable. I'm not biased on this, I'd love for NC UK (or mos uk hehe) to become the norm, but that would ruin a lot of things we've built up.

My two cents anyway.