SM needs buff, or PD needs nerf, or am I crazy?

Kirjutas Guest, 06.09.2015 at 17:45

Kirjutas Permamuted, 06.09.2015 at 17:38

Kirjutas Guest, 06.09.2015 at 17:05

Kirjutas Permamuted, 06.09.2015 at 16:53

I mailed amok to reverse the effects of the change. The original values which we spent 4 years balancing the strats around will be restored.

No need to "implement" the bug again, just nerf PD it's gonna be the same lol.
I much more prefer PD being nerfed + the bug being fixed than no bug fix + offensive units being OP (specially RA).
I don't know what you're talking about dude, even you admit RA was too strong and "gamebreaking" before the bugfix. I can't understand how nerfing PD and keeping the bugfix is worse than reverting the changes.

there was an ra revamp being discussed before all this happened along with a few other small changes. Keeping the bugfix would mean we would have to start from scratch with all the strats. PD was the most affected strat since it gained +1 to its militia and +2 to its inf. But all the strats got affected. All the strats would need a rework if we kept this. And why go to that bother when we'll just end up balancing it back towards what we had 2-3 days ago over a period of another few years.

Why would all strats need a rework?
It's basically only PD that is op because it has a +2 bonus in own city on top of the +1 def bonus. At least for me, I don't find other strats' infs being too strong. They have 7 def and 8 with gen compared to 8/9 of most offensive units.
And if for some reason all infs are still too strong (why?), just add some kind of new mechanic for offensive units to have a little bonus or something, there's no need to rework all strats.
If you revert the bugfix you will have incorrect information and tricky mechanics, I'm pretty sure it was a bug and it was not intended and provided an advantage in unwanted and unneeded situations.

Its not being reverted, the original values are being restored. just -1 def to standard inf and a further -1 def to the pd inf city bonus. These are the values we have been working with the past 4 years. Do you realise the implications of this change? With defence being so weak why would you go offensive, or even play offensive strats. SM, MoS, and GC all suffer with this change. weaker offensive strats like imp and gw take a major hit. GW atm is known as the comeback strat, well not anymore since it will trade equally with standard inf, nvm pd inf.

Kirjutas Guest, 06.09.2015 at 17:44

50 cost for 10 def vs 130 cost for 8 attck. Is this not illogical?

Let me remake the question for you.

130 cost for 8 attack and 17 range , vs 50 cost for 9 defense and 6 range. As you can see, SM almost doubles PD's range. Not to talk that your ATS can carry one extra troop that comes in hand quite well. Do you still think it is unfair?

Almost every strategy can expand faster and far than PD, maybe with the exception of LB and IF.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 18:03

Kirjutas Guest, 06.09.2015 at 17:44

50 cost for 10 def vs 130 cost for 8 attck. Is this not illogical?

Let me remake the question for you.

130 cost for 8 attack and 17 range , vs 50 cost for 9 defense and 6 range. As you can see, SM almost doubles PD's range. Not to talk that your ATS can carry one extra troop that comes in hand quite well. Do you still think it is unfair?

Almost every strategy can expand faster and far than PD, maybe with the exception of LB and IF.

so you support the current effectiveness of each strategy?

Kirjutas Guest, 06.09.2015 at 18:09

so you support the current effectiveness of each strategy?

Yes. I personally think the game should had encouraged the defense more in the past (glad this bug does that for now...). All the offensive strategies are costly, sure, but beside the cost they also have other unique characteristic that separates them from the rest.

---

At 70 cost, you have GW marines. They have just 7 attack, but they're stealth.

At 90 cost, you have RA Tanks with 9 attack and 8 range. For its range and attack, it does wort every cent of its cost.

At 110 cost, you have MoS marines with 8 attack and 7 range. -1 more than RA but they are stealth units (unique characteristic).

At 120 cost, you have Blitz and IF Tanks respectiverly. One of them have 10 range (with which you can do wonderful attacks) and the other have +2 HP (Can beat PD on its current form).

At 130 cost, you have DS helicopters. Arguably the strongest solution not only against Infantries, but also Militias, due to its 8 attack and -2 def to infantries / -1 to militias. Reducing your enemy's roll is far better than increasing yours for the reasons that I've said in another thread.

At 130 cost, you also have SM bombers - as already said, with their bigger range and relatively cheap transports (-150 cost!!!), they can expand pretty far with big attacking power.

At 170 cost, you have Destroyers - the strongest unit of the game. You also have submarines - 8 attacks and can also carry marines.

At 200 cost, you have Stealth. Strongest Air unit and they're also hidden from your enemy.

And of course, at 50 cost we have the PD infantries - relatively weak unit for attacking, but with 9 defense (10 vs tanks) and just 6 range.

---

Now, those are only the stats. Let's take a look at the gameplay. Currently you can only perform 4 actions, from which I will name 3:

1) Attack neutrals, Offensive units have the edge here.
2) Attack players. Offensive units have the edge here.
3) Defend from attack. Defensive units have the edge here.

The fact that offensive units dominates 2 of those 3 fields gives you the biggest and wider options to perform your gameplay. You can either expand or attack efficiently, defensive stats can only defend efficiently.

---

Units and strategies?

We have 13 units:
7 of them were made with offensive purposes. (Tanks, Marines, Bombers, Stealth, Helicopters, Destroyers, Submarines)
4 of them were made for support. (Submarines, sentries, Air Transports, Sea transports)
3 of them were made with defensive purposes. (Infantries, Militias, Anti-Air).

We also have 13 strategies:

RA, MOS, GW, DS, LB, SM, PD, GC, IF, HW, NC, IMP, BLITZ

12 out of those 13 strategies boost at least one offensive unit.

5 of them were made with nearby-purely offensive purposes. (RA, MOS, GW, DS, BLITZ)
5 of them boost both attack and defense (IF, GC, LB, GW, IMP)
2 of them have support role but are used more for offensive purposes( SM, NC)
1 of them doesn't boost offensive units in any way (PD).

Imperialist is an special case. Due to the amount of players I've see using IMP Tanks, I've put it along with 'Boost attack and defense'.

---

Gameplay?

Not going deep just for not making this post longer. PD only have the edge in high income, high reinforcements areas with relatively low starting funds (which also happened to be the countries that are the top 5 in West europe). Everything else PD is outmatched by another strategy. In continental battles though, where the location doesn't makes much impact, PD is as strong as the proportion of income / reinf in that country (which happened to give the edge to reinforcements, in default map). It is also a lot of time-consumption. PD only have real chances of winning a continental battle in fair groung when extra cities are enabled.

---

For sum up: I think every strategy is effective in one specific role. PD is the only strategy made purely for defensive purposes. PD is not efficient(speaking for both cost and reinf here) when it comes to expansion. Its only niche are high reinf, high income countries (which happened to be 5 of the 8 standard picks in Europe+). At the very minimal they should have a strong defense for a cheaper cost. Being able to match the most common attack for an offensive unit with their def(8) is not too much to ask for.

Here's an screenshot of my tests, 9 MoS vs 8 PD infs. They do perform almost equally. I never send 8 vs 8 nor 9 vs 8 against infantries (too risky). I'd prefer my 10 vs 8 or a mix of units (Ex: 7 SM bombers 3 infs vs 8 infs).

8 battles, 4 win 4 loses for both strats.

Seems a perfectly reasonable roll to me.

Do not touch anythijg. It seems okay atm

Nerf pd now.

30 sm bombers cant kill 20 infs, that is crazy.

Kirjutas Mauzer Panteri, 07.09.2015 at 17:47

Nerf pd now.

30 sm bombers cant kill 20 infs, that is crazy.

Some one gets it

Kirjutas clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 18:03

Kirjutas Guest, 06.09.2015 at 17:44

50 cost for 10 def vs 130 cost for 8 attck. Is this not illogical?

Let me remake the question for you.

130 cost for 8 attack and 17 range , vs 50 cost for 9 defense and 6 range. As you can see, SM almost doubles PD's range. Not to talk that your ATS can carry one extra troop that comes in hand quite well. Do you still think it is unfair?

Almost every strategy can expand faster and far than PD, maybe with the exception of LB and IF.

Wow yeah exept bombers cant rake city's. You forgot to mention it

Kirjutas Mauzer Panteri, 07.09.2015 at 17:47

Nerf pd now.

30 sm bombers cant kill 20 infs, that is crazy.

there is no way for ukr to win vs turkey pd

But Stalins Martians already op:cool:

Nerf pd!

I dont see why we don't just remove the +1 def in cities, imo everything was balanced (apart from RA) before that...

I dont see the problem with PD?

Here is an SS of tests clovis and I did.


Isn't the point of PD >PERFECT DEFFENSE? I mean that 10 bombers dont win vs 10 PD INFS DEFFENDING is pretty normal roll. Okey on the SS you see 1 with 4 and 1 with 3, but we all know sometimes that rolls reach out from their normal path and go crazy once in a while.
I mean most are 1 which I think is a normal roll. Bombers have only +1 more attack and -1 deffense, so I think that is pretty much balanced. Same goes for the other strategy 10 v 10 screenshots.

All I got to say for the rest of this idea is:

Kirjutas Mauzer Panteri, 07.09.2015 at 17:47

Nerf pd now.

30 sm bombers cant kill 20 infs, that is crazy.

Actually boost sm not nerf pd but still

Kirjutas Richthofen, 08.09.2015 at 04:32

But Stalins Martians already op

Inf and 4 SM bombers failed against 5 neutral militias in Hungary, today... Buff SM !

Kirjutas Mauzer Panteri, 15.09.2015 at 15:02

Inf and 4 SM bombers failed against 5 neutral militias in Hungary, today... Buff SM !

...

remember your rolls in london against zone in our last cw?

He had op rolls...

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:20

Now all the sudden its ok to buff SM? Why not buff Helicopters with SM like a proposed.. It would fix this issue since heli's do more to Inf.

no, sm already is more mobile than pd don't make them stronger to the point that u can't defend ur cap with pd, i mena he could of kept slow rolling.

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:51

Kirjutas Htin, 15.09.2015 at 15:45

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:20

Now all the sudden its ok to buff SM? Why not buff Helicopters with SM like a proposed.. It would fix this issue since heli's do more to Inf.

no, sm already is more mobile than pd don't make them stronger to the point that u can't defend ur cap with pd, i mena he could of kept slow rolling.

Im just saying if SM is getting a buff it should be Heli's (IMO)

why helicopter? when they are Desert Storm.Helicopter is low altitude unit not high altitutude like bombers

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 16:00

Kirjutas Htin, 15.09.2015 at 15:54

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:51

Kirjutas Htin, 15.09.2015 at 15:45

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:20

Now all the sudden its ok to buff SM? Why not buff Helicopters with SM like a proposed.. It would fix this issue since heli's do more to Inf.

no, sm already is more mobile than pd don't make them stronger to the point that u can't defend ur cap with pd, i mena he could of kept slow rolling.

Im just saying if SM is getting a buff it should be Heli's (IMO)

why helicopter? when they are Desert Storm.Helicopter is low altitude unit not high altitutude like bombers

Lol there is a whole argument about this on the forums I made a while back, "SM should include Helicopters".
There were 2 sides.. The one your on and the one that Heli's are just too weak. So I wont get into this again (no offence).

helicopter have 8 attack against infantry if u didn't know if u boost heli attack then it would be better than bomber

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 16:30

Kirjutas Htin, 15.09.2015 at 16:28

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 16:00

Kirjutas Htin, 15.09.2015 at 15:54

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:51

Kirjutas Htin, 15.09.2015 at 15:45

Kirjutas Darkmace, 15.09.2015 at 15:20

Now all the sudden its ok to buff SM? Why not buff Helicopters with SM like a proposed.. It would fix this issue since heli's do more to Inf.

no, sm already is more mobile than pd don't make them stronger to the point that u can't defend ur cap with pd, i mena he could of kept slow rolling.

Im just saying if SM is getting a buff it should be Heli's (IMO)

why helicopter? when they are Desert Storm.Helicopter is low altitude unit not high altitutude like bombers

Lol there is a whole argument about this on the forums I made a while back, "SM should include Helicopters".
There were 2 sides.. The one your on and the one that Heli's are just too weak. So I wont get into this again (no offence).

helicopter have 8 attack against infantry if u didn't know if u boost heli attack then it would be better than bomber

Better against INF (thats my point) Gives a reason to use heli's over bombers in some situations.
Lol you proved my point exactly.

If u haven't play sm ukraine, as turk Pd u don't know what you are thinking.bombers has huge range.u could slow roll a cap stacker to death u got full range of balkan and btw pd is revverted to it's original state without +2 defence in cities.

4 gw marines + 2 inf failed against 5 neutral militias in poland..