Planning for Strategy Update 2019 #2

MoS EU can beat or put up a very good fight against any strat combined with Asia.
Same can be done vice versa if Africa can be passed with subs, but this is obviously not the case.
I challenge anyone to beat my MoS Europe in an income balanced eurasia map.
Hell I will even do it on 4 min turns.

Now I am reckoning that people are going to say, but that's just a niche. How is DS then different from this? DS is mediocre up to bad outside of Eu+ Ukraine and yet people want it nerfed.
This topic is full of opinions which focus on a single setting.
Stop trying to turn a good lategame strategy for larger maps into a EU+ strategy. It won't work without making it too strong on a larger scale map, unless you want to buff it's militia to insanity.

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 10:36

Written by The_Empirezz, 20.01.2019 at 10:14

LB: roll back on the +10 cost for secondary defense (militia) , keeping just the +10 for main defense (infantry).

How about the opposite. normal cost infs and +10 cost milita, it will place its own spot as an expensive clutch strat because of the militas being too expensive to be viable.

No. Nerfing the militia will have a very low impact. If not infantry, then nerf the tanks. They're the most broken thing the strat has.

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 06:50

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

Why is it retarded? IF is still heavily hindered by the range of its infantry and tanks. Would allowing it to make walls or be able to take some Balkans with militia retarded??? The militia would have less range than imp militia.

Go chess go

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 14:43

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 06:50

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

Why is it retarded? IF is still heavily hindered by the range of its infantry and tanks. Would allowing it to make walls or be able to take some Balkans with militia retarded??? The militia would have less range than imp militia.

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 14:43

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 06:50

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

Why is it retarded? IF is still heavily hindered by the range of its infantry and tanks. Would allowing it to make walls or be able to take some Balkans with militia retarded??? The militia would have less range than imp militia.

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

If it's so strong, then why don't you see it played as often?

You know what, reading this thread. Sometimes i wish Unleashed bought atwar and banned everyone like he said he would.


Dave once again, dont listen to the majority about strat decisions, even when they get upvoted, most of the time the upvotes are also by noobs (the hard majorty of atwar players) instead listen to the few elite highrank players who have done the walk AND the talk. The majority have no idea what theyre talking about.

Here ill name who they are so we can make all of this easier.

Valuable Competitve opinions:
•Eagle
•Mauzer
•Laochra
•Witch Doctor
•Chess
•Grom
•Acquiesce
•Eagles
•JF
•Heat-Check
•Nations
•Cold Case
•and myself

Valuable World game and scenario opinions:
•The Empirezz
•Sirivan
•Brianwl

Buff ra maybe even just slightly

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 15:11

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 14:43

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 06:50

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

Why is it retarded? IF is still heavily hindered by the range of its infantry and tanks. Would allowing it to make walls or be able to take some Balkans with militia retarded??? The militia would have less range than imp militia.

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

If it's so strong, then why don't you see it played as often?

Ancient world has high range milita so IF can wall with them
consequently have you seen how many people play IF
nearly all premium players will go IF. some pd and some nc but most will IF

Written by Chess, 20.01.2019 at 13:55

MoS EU can beat or put up a very good fight against any strat combined with Asia.
Same can be done vice versa if Africa can be passed with subs, but this is obviously not the case.
I challenge anyone to beat my MoS Europe in an income balanced eurasia map.

Deal. Open a casual duel please.

Yeah sure, I am looking forward to cancerous RP walls.
Certainly, casual games are the right way to determine balance.

Written by Chess, 20.01.2019 at 18:08

Yeah sure, I am looking forward to cancerous RP walls.

Do you mean to say that mos only wins because i dont have time to micro all my units and shutdown your stealth movements?

What a great niche for a strat. You need nobody near you, low turn times and an entire rich continent to yourself for it to be strong.

Written by Chess, 20.01.2019 at 13:55

Stop trying to turn a good lategame strategy for larger maps into a EU+ strategy.

Stop trying to relegate fun strategies to obscure niches which nobody plays.

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

Don't be ridiculous. Ironfist is a hard strategy and barely ever played in competitive games even by top tier players Lelouch is right. I don't deny its' strength but giving it the ability to wall isnt going to be gamebreaking.

Besides what are you so afraid of. Dave appears to be taking a very tentative approach to strat changes. This idea has floated around since 2012. Just let it get beta'd. I'd like to see more ironfist played.

Written by The Tactician, 19.01.2019 at 16:14

And yet the MoS boost remains unanswered.

Sub/stealth 20 cost reduction or marine 10 cost reduction + increasing marine defense + gen: marine attack upgrade?

other than that, I really hope changes to IF, RA, GW, HW (pls make it cheaper as well) and DS are made as proposed in Eagle's post. Also trim the LB nerf slightly, as pointed out earlier.

The -10 cost to mos has been the most supported change in both my thread and this.

Sub cost reduction is a waste of time. Don't even bother with that. Addresses none of the strats issues.

stealth plane cost reduction? Are you crazy? thats 150 cost invisible planes with 9 attack. Cancer. They were already accidentally boosted by ivan/amok when the cheaper stealth plane upgrade was added. For sky menace this got fixed but mos was overlooked.

Marine cost reduction? Maybe. I prefer it for the infantry though. The ability to defend is more important for mos right now. Its usually too expensive to generate the offensive power needed for recaps on the lower fund settings even with 100 cost marines.

You already know my opinion on marine defence.

Gen marine attack also affects gw. I already know what witch doctor will say if you suggest adding that.

I won't respond to Laochra in this topic anymore.
I am just going to list the points that I have made in the past so Dave can have a look at them.

Quote:

MoS is at this point a very mobile and offensive strategy.
Including upgrades, submarines have very high range and a capacity of 4.
Stealths are thanks to the -30 cost upgrade almost as cost efficient as SM Bombers and have identical range. Marines are almost as cost-efficient as GC Tanks.

I suggest rather balancing around MoS militia, which won't change MoS lategame significantly while still boosting it in a Europe+ setting.
MoS is a very hard strategy to balance, since it's already a powerful world game strategy.

Therefore I suggest giving militia a +2 def boost and reducing it's range to 1 and increasing cost to 40.
This will punish anyone who lets MoS take cities even if they are small ones. If turkish cities such as Izmir get taken, Turkey has to deal with killing 8*6 def units which will hurt his economy in a major way. Also late moving will be very beneficial with MoS. I think this boost is justified and doesn't make MoS super strong in world games. A -10 cost infantry will do nothing and just improve MoS lategame in world games. Furthermore, it will be a weaker GC with stealth capabilites in Eu+ with an infantry cost decrease. My suggestion rewards more creative gameplay than rather turning another strat into a infantry spamming strategy.

With 50 cost MoS infantry, Master of Stealth will have the second most cost-efficient attack infantry, which is a naive solution to it's problem and the strategy won't be able to fit it's name.

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 15:11

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 14:43

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 06:50

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

Why is it retarded? IF is still heavily hindered by the range of its infantry and tanks. Would allowing it to make walls or be able to take some Balkans with militia retarded??? The militia would have less range than imp militia.

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

If it's so strong, then why don't you see it played as often?

Because most of the (competitive) people that are around, aside from the few exceptional players who actually explored other strategies, have this mindset to play the best strategy possible to get you a win, 9/10 times its the broken strategies, like LB/DS/GW-Meta, or the same old PD/IMP, you name it. I can't blame them, but exactly comments like this are the results of it.

Written by Chess, 20.01.2019 at 18:29

I won't respond to Laochra in this topic anymore.
I am just going to list the points that I have made in the past for Dave.

Quote:

MoS is at this point a very mobile and offensive strategy.
Including upgrades, submarines have very high range and a capacity of 4.
Stealths are thanks to the -30 cost upgrade almost as cost efficient as SM Bombers and have identical range. Marines are almost as cost-efficient as GC Tanks.

I suggest rather balancing around MoS militia, which won't change MoS lategame significantly while still boosting it in a Europe+ setting.
MoS is a very hard strategy to balance, since it's already a powerful world game strategy.

Therefore I suggest giving militia a +2 def boost and reducing it's range to 1 and increasing cost to 40.
This will punish anyone who lets MoS take cities even if they are small ones. If turkish cities such as Izmir get taken, Turkey has to deal with killing 8*6 def units which will hurt his economy in a major way. Also late moving will be very beneficial with MoS. I think this boost is justified and doesn't make MoS super strong in world games. A -10 cost infantry will do nothing and just improve MoS lategame in world games. Furthermore, it will be a weaker GC with stealth capabilites in Eu+ with an infantry cost decrease. My suggestion rewards more creative gameplay than rather turning another strat into a infantry spamming strategy.

With 50 cost MoS infantry, Master of Stealth will have the most cost-efficient attack infantry, which is just a naive solution to it's problem and the strategy won't able to fit it's name.

I do agree with Chess on this case.

You guys are turning every strategy that takes actual skills, into an easier to use infantry-spamming strategy, just for the sole purpose that more people can play it.

Mos Ukraine is bad it's played exactly like gc only difference is using sometimes infantry to help marines attack and that your units lack that 1 HP gc has.Basically it's a weaker gc.

Written by Permamuted, 20.01.2019 at 18:17

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

Don't be ridiculous. Ironfist is a hard strategy and barely ever played in competitive games even by top tier players Lelouch is right. I don't deny its' strength but giving it the ability to wall isnt going to be gamebreaking.

Besides what are you so afraid of. Dave appears to be taking a very tentative approach to strat changes. This idea has floated around since 2012. Just let it get beta'd. I'd like to see more ironfist played.

Be real here, as Hypercube pointed out, on ancient 99,99999% pick IF because they have the ability to wall, what will make it different in scenarios or eu+ or any other smaller world map preset?

Written by Waffel, 20.01.2019 at 18:33

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 15:11

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

Written by Lelouch., 20.01.2019 at 14:43

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 06:50

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

Why is it retarded? IF is still heavily hindered by the range of its infantry and tanks. Would allowing it to make walls or be able to take some Balkans with militia retarded??? The militia would have less range than imp militia.

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

If it's so strong, then why don't you see it played as often?

Because most of the (competitive) people that are around, aside from the few exceptional players who actually explored other strategies, have this mindset to play the best strategy possible to get you a win, 9/10 times its the broken strategies, like LB/DS/GW-Meta, or the same old PD/IMP, you name it. I can't blame them, but exactly comments like this are the results of it.

Right now, I'm thinking that the problem might actually be Ukraine's ability to abuse strats and not the strats themselves. DS and formerly GW are ok strats until Ukraine uses them. In west, it's harder to use more expensive strats.

Lao already has experience using mos europe vs my imp asia. Don't try to take him on when he doesn't play a troll strat on asia.

Written by Permamuted, 20.01.2019 at 18:24

Marine cost reduction? Maybe. I prefer it for the infantry though. The ability to defend is more important for mos right now. Its usually too expensive to generate the offensive power needed for recaps on the lower fund settings even with 100 cost marines.

You already know my opinion on marine defence.

Okay, at least the -10 to marines is something we can agree on. In no way does boosting infantry fit the fundamental aspects of the strategy. 100 cost 8 attack invisible offensive units sounds pretty good to me. Again, if you give these units some capacity to defend when it matters, then you're making the strat even stronger. But let's agree to disagree on that last point.

Written by Permamuted, 20.01.2019 at 18:17

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

Don't be ridiculous. Ironfist is a hard strategy and barely ever played in competitive games even by top tier players Lelouch is right. I don't deny its' strength but giving it the ability to wall isnt going to be gamebreaking.

Besides what are you so afraid of. Dave appears to be taking a very tentative approach to strat changes. This idea has floated around since 2012. Just let it get beta'd. I'd like to see more ironfist played.

yes, 100%

Written by Chess, 20.01.2019 at 18:29

I won't respond to Laochra in this topic anymore.
I am just going to list the points that I have made in the past so Dave can have a look at them.

Quote:

MoS is at this point a very mobile and offensive strategy.
Including upgrades, submarines have very high range and a capacity of 4.
Stealths are thanks to the -30 cost upgrade almost as cost efficient as SM Bombers and have identical range. Marines are almost as cost-efficient as GC Tanks.

I suggest rather balancing around MoS militia, which won't change MoS lategame significantly while still boosting it in a Europe+ setting.
MoS is a very hard strategy to balance, since it's already a powerful world game strategy.

Therefore I suggest giving militia a +2 def boost and reducing it's range to 1 and increasing cost to 40.
This will punish anyone who lets MoS take cities even if they are small ones. If turkish cities such as Izmir get taken, Turkey has to deal with killing 8*6 def units which will hurt his economy in a major way. Also late moving will be very beneficial with MoS. I think this boost is justified and doesn't make MoS super strong in world games. A -10 cost infantry will do nothing and just improve MoS lategame in world games. Furthermore, it will be a weaker GC with stealth capabilites in Eu+ with an infantry cost decrease. My suggestion rewards more creative gameplay than rather turning another strat into a infantry spamming strategy.

With 50 cost MoS infantry, Master of Stealth will have the second most cost-efficient attack infantry, which is a naive solution to it's problem and the strategy won't be able to fit it's name.

Again this doesn't fit MoS in any way and only makes it closer to GW defensively and more expensive offensively. If you want to address defense, and you don't want to boost marine defense, then make units cheaper, so you can afford more/better defense. Not only is MoS an offensive strategy, but it is a stealth strat. It's like boosting infantry in SM (mind you, they're nerfed).

Written by Nations, 20.01.2019 at 18:42

Mos Ukraine is bad it's played exactly like gc only difference is using sometimes infantry to help marines attack and that your units lack that 1 HP gc has.Basically it's a weaker gc.

It's played like GC yes, and it's slightly weaker yes, but the difference is mobility. MoS has increased mobility due to marine range and stealth planes, which makes it an even bigger threat on offense. With reduced cost or miscellaneous other boosts it can be brought up to par or very close to GC ukr.

Written by Ghostface, 20.01.2019 at 10:29

I'm 100% full with Laochra on this one , the tactician ratwar and anyone else who thinks MoS is decent make dozen duels with him , me or any decent player.
I can pick RA in some random world game vs noobs and win too , then claim in forums RA is op ... nonsense

You're completely missing the point. I said it needs a slight boost, but I said it's still playable nonetheless. Also, EU+ isn't where MoS thrives, as has been made clear time and time again, but DESPITE that fact it's a fun alternative that can be played and pack a punch when the opponent isn't expecting it. Again, it needs a boost, but not to infantry........

I wonder if people actually thoroughly read the comments before they spew whatever they want.

Can someone actually explain how an infantry or militia boost makes sense in the master of stealth strategy?

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 19:03

Be real here, as Hypercube pointed out, on ancient 99,99999% pick IF because they have the ability to wall, what will make it different in scenarios or eu+ or any other smaller world map preset?

In Ancient the ranges are boosted way more than just allowing walling. IF can actually move. Besides, there are land carriages as well to help with that.

I still have no one who wants to contest my MoS Europe. I still only see opinions regarding MoS in Europe+ without considering what impact new implementations might have on other settings.
Competitive Eu/Eu+ playerbase is small compared to the rest of the playerbase, yet you guys want to make a decision that will affect the whole playerbase.

MoS is a lategame/world strategy not an EU+ strat.
Create another one if you guys would like to play with marines in EU+

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 19:03

Written by Permamuted, 20.01.2019 at 18:17

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:07

If you dont know how to chain stacks for range thats your problem, IF is fine. It needs the milita at 0 range to curb it. imagine playing imp and need to break IF walls when every single one of your units is needed to be able to rush or defend anything IF tries to take. IF will just be retardedly strong.

Don't be ridiculous. Ironfist is a hard strategy and barely ever played in competitive games even by top tier players Lelouch is right. I don't deny its' strength but giving it the ability to wall isnt going to be gamebreaking.

Besides what are you so afraid of. Dave appears to be taking a very tentative approach to strat changes. This idea has floated around since 2012. Just let it get beta'd. I'd like to see more ironfist played.

Be real here, as Hypercube pointed out, on ancient 99,99999% pick IF because they have the ability to wall, what will make it different in scenarios or eu+ or any other smaller world map preset?

Most scenarios will have 0 range IF militia.

Written by Chess, 20.01.2019 at 18:29

I won't respond to Laochra in this topic anymore.
I am just going to list the points that I have made in the past so Dave can have a look at them.

Quote:

MoS is at this point a very mobile and offensive strategy.
Including upgrades, submarines have very high range and a capacity of 4.
Stealths are thanks to the -30 cost upgrade almost as cost efficient as SM Bombers and have identical range. Marines are almost as cost-efficient as GC Tanks.

I suggest rather balancing around MoS militia, which won't change MoS lategame significantly while still boosting it in a Europe+ setting.
MoS is a very hard strategy to balance, since it's already a powerful world game strategy.

Therefore I suggest giving militia a +2 def boost and reducing it's range to 1 and increasing cost to 40.
This will punish anyone who lets MoS take cities even if they are small ones. If turkish cities such as Izmir get taken, Turkey has to deal with killing 8*6 def units which will hurt his economy in a major way. Also late moving will be very beneficial with MoS. I think this boost is justified and doesn't make MoS super strong in world games. A -10 cost infantry will do nothing and just improve MoS lategame in world games. Furthermore, it will be a weaker GC with stealth capabilites in Eu+ with an infantry cost decrease. My suggestion rewards more creative gameplay than rather turning another strat into a infantry spamming strategy.

With 50 cost MoS infantry, Master of Stealth will have the second most cost-efficient attack infantry, which is a naive solution to it's problem and the strategy won't be able to fit it's name.

That's a very interesting alternative to my suggestion of increasing Marine defense in cities. I could see that working.

This is exactly my point, as well: "My suggestion rewards more creative gameplay than rather turning another strat into a infantry spamming strategy.
With 50 cost MoS infantry, Master of Stealth will have the second most cost-efficient attack infantry, which is a naive solution to it's problem and the strategy won't be able to fit it's name."

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:43

You know what, reading this thread. Sometimes i wish Unleashed bought atwar and banned everyone like he said he would.


Dave once again, dont listen to the majority about strat decisions, even when they get upvoted, most of the time the upvotes are also by noobs (the hard majorty of atwar players) instead listen to the few elite highrank players who have done the walk AND the talk. The majority have no idea what theyre talking about.

Here ill name who they are so we can make all of this easier.

Well, gee, I'm sure Dave is just elated to have The Anointed One tell him the handful of players whose OPINIONS are relevant in a game that has hundreds of users that have helped keep the game alive for many years with daily playing and premium accounts, like myself. I'm so happy to be put in my place! I guess I should resign from my Supporter role right away and start playing RPs, since I have no value here. Thank you so much for making me see the error of my ways!!

Written by Ghostface, 20.01.2019 at 10:29

I'm 100% full with Laochra on this one , the tactician ratwar and anyone else who thinks MoS is decent make dozen duels with him , me or any decent player.
I can pick RA in some random world game vs noobs and win too , then claim in forums RA is op ... nonsense

The point is that atWar is not limited to the sandbox (EU+). It's a whole universe of cleverly created maps, many of which are pretty well balanced, including large (Lunatis, Strangereal), very large (Song of Ice and Fire), and small (Dreamworld, Destoria, Symmetric Europe). What works in one setting might not work in another, no matter the skill of the player.

IDGAF if MoS is not the choice of EU+ CWs. It doesn't have to be. There is more to atWar than EU+.

Written by Chess, 21.01.2019 at 12:52

Competitive Eu/Eu+ playerbase is small compared to the rest of the playerbase, yet you guys want to make a decision that will affect the whole playerbase.

MoS is a lategame/world strategy not an EU+ strat.
Create another one if you guys would like to play with marines in EU+

Written by RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:44

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 15:43

You know what, reading this thread. Sometimes i wish Unleashed bought atwar and banned everyone like he said he would.


Dave once again, dont listen to the majority about strat decisions, even when they get upvoted, most of the time the upvotes are also by noobs (the hard majorty of atwar players) instead listen to the few elite highrank players who have done the walk AND the talk. The majority have no idea what theyre talking about.

Here ill name who they are so we can make all of this easier.

Well, gee, I'm sure Dave is just elated to have The Anointed One tell him the handful of players whose OPINIONS are relevant in a game that has hundreds of users that have helped keep the game alive for many years with daily playing and premium accounts, like myself. I'm so happy to be put in my place! I guess I should resign from my Supporter role right away and start playing RPs, since I have no value here. Thank you so much for making me see the error of my ways!!

Youre not anywhere near making strat decisions on this game, look at the guys ive named, all of them have easily over 50k+ turns played theyre all experts at any strat and any settings.

Now lets compare you to them and see how your 6k turns played rank 7 are more valuable then all of them? Is it because youre a supporter? A role that was basically given out to whoever signed up first?

Yes your opinion doesent matter, because you havent had a glimpse into how some strats should be played or able to master them properly, when i had 6k turns played like you, i damn well didnt even comment in the forums let alone in a strategy thread....instead i kept busy trying to learn the strats and ask people what my next upgrade should be. Anyway sorry for coming off mean but thats how it is.

Written by RatWar, 21.01.2019 at 21:48

Written by Ghostface, 20.01.2019 at 10:29

I'm 100% full with Laochra on this one , the tactician ratwar and anyone else who thinks MoS is decent make dozen duels with him , me or any decent player.
I can pick RA in some random world game vs noobs and win too , then claim in forums RA is op ... nonsense

The point is that atWar is not limited to the sandbox (EU+). It's a whole universe of cleverly created maps, many of which are pretty well balanced, including large (Lunatis, Strangereal), very large (Song of Ice and Fire), and small (Dreamworld, Destoria, Symmetric Europe). What works in one setting might not work in another, no matter the skill of the player.

IDGAF if MoS is not the choice of EU+ CWs. It doesn't have to be. There is more to atWar than EU+.

Ah the old eu+ meme. Fun fact mos sucks on all the maps you just mentioned particularly asoiaf.youd know this if you actually played them rather than echoing Mr cantankerous chess and attempting to patronise players far more experienced than you. The only way mos will be good on a random map/scen is if there's high income and Marines are buffed in some way on the map.