Desert Storm Improvements

Kirjutas Permamuted, 20.11.2013 at 02:19

Kirjutas The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 23:34

SM is DS's natural counter, dont change that.

strats shouldnt have counters, in an ideal utopian atwar world all the strats would have their strengths and weakness yet not one would be op to another.

thats the whole point of the constant strategy tweaks and changes, to strive to achieve this balance.

Kirjutas Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:25

Kirjutas Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:17

I don't think helicopters should get better defence, it's ok. But infantry defence nerf should be removed, just like SM.

Another point is that maximum helicopter attack is 10, and maximum PD infantry defence is 10 too, but infantries are much cheaper. Against IMP, infantries cost 30 and have 8 defence, but they're MUCH cheaper.

And BY THE WAY, helicopters should be cheaper and make the DS cost buff a little slighter. I mean, if you go turkey imp/pd, against ukraine PD, it's almost impossible to cap him, even with all those op reinfs. Tanks would be even better than helis in this case, much cheaper and same attack (+1 with gen).

Oh alex where have you been this is the real shit totally agree bro <3

Just what you think about helis defense against bombers, especially in case of SM ?

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 06:13

Kirjutas Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:25

Kirjutas Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:17

I don't think helicopters should get better defence, it's ok. But infantry defence nerf should be removed, just like SM.

Another point is that maximum helicopter attack is 10, and maximum PD infantry defence is 10 too, but infantries are much cheaper. Against IMP, infantries cost 30 and have 8 defence, but they're MUCH cheaper.

And BY THE WAY, helicopters should be cheaper and make the DS cost buff a little slighter. I mean, if you go turkey imp/pd, against ukraine PD, it's almost impossible to cap him, even with all those op reinfs. Tanks would be even better than helis in this case, much cheaper and same attack (+1 with gen).

Oh alex where have you been this is the real shit totally agree bro <3

Just what you think about helis defense against bombers, especially in case of SM ?

Helis have 5 defence, +1 against bombers, and +1 with gen. Total is 7, while bombers are 8 (9 if gen) not a big difference, while maximum bomber def is 6 and helis 8. That's balanced imo but DS infs should not have the defence nerf. I don't think infantry capacity will solve this, the problem is that they're very bad defending.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 06:20

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 06:13

Kirjutas Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:25

Kirjutas Guest, 19.11.2013 at 20:17

I don't think helicopters should get better defence, it's ok. But infantry defence nerf should be removed, just like SM.

Another point is that maximum helicopter attack is 10, and maximum PD infantry defence is 10 too, but infantries are much cheaper. Against IMP, infantries cost 30 and have 8 defence, but they're MUCH cheaper.

And BY THE WAY, helicopters should be cheaper and make the DS cost buff a little slighter. I mean, if you go turkey imp/pd, against ukraine PD, it's almost impossible to cap him, even with all those op reinfs. Tanks would be even better than helis in this case, much cheaper and same attack (+1 with gen).

Oh alex where have you been this is the real shit totally agree bro <3

Just what you think about helis defense against bombers, especially in case of SM ?

Helis have 5 defence, +1 against bombers, and +1 with gen. Total is 7, while bombers are 8 (9 if gen) not a big difference, while maximum bomber def is 6 and helis 8. That's balanced imo but DS infs should not have the defence nerf. I don't think infantry capacity will solve this, the problem is that they're very bad defending.

I believe it's -2 reduced to -1 against bombers alex, am I wrong ?

Kirjutas Tik-Tok, 20.11.2013 at 01:52

Kirjutas Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 15:27

Kirjutas The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 14:22

Yea -2 is too much,-1 is good. All round you have balanced it ends, well done.

I mean, how does a general have one attack whilst militia have 3 In fact any stats apart from bonuses. They are definitely not individual units or troops whilst you only have one general which does not even have an 1/8 of the attack power of a tank.

Because of game mechanics. If a General had a higher attack, he would attack first and would die. It makes perfect sen to have 1 attack and 1 defense so that the General survives and is the last survivor.

Kirjutas Xenosapien, 20.11.2013 at 06:26

Kirjutas Tik-Tok, 20.11.2013 at 01:52

Kirjutas Xenosapien, 19.11.2013 at 15:27

Kirjutas The Tactician, 19.11.2013 at 14:22

Yea -2 is too much,-1 is good. All round you have balanced it ends, well done.

I mean, how does a general have one attack whilst militia have 3 In fact any stats apart from bonuses. They are definitely not individual units or troops whilst you only have one general which does not even have an 1/8 of the attack power of a tank.

Because of game mechanics. If a General had a higher attack, he would attack first and would die. It makes perfect sen to have 1 attack and 1 defense so that the General survives and is the last survivor.

No I mean why doesn't it have 0, because you only have one general in a unit whereas you have multiple tanks or infantry in other units. They are plural. And a general would not even have one attack compared to that.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 06:23

infantries should not get the defence nerf, that's it ^_^

Tsiteeri:

Tsiteeri:

Tsiteeri:

yes thats why i am saying dont take bomber defense nerf.

Strategies shouldn't have a counter strategy ...that should be the whole point of balancing strategies doesn't it.

Kirjutas Goblin, 20.11.2013 at 07:55

You are talking bullshit tact ...that way this game would turn to ...who got lucky and picked rock while his opponent picked scissors. Think about that for a bit.

btw. fuckin PD is not the best strategy, its the easiest one, ...stop saying that you all. I dont even play PD anymore or rarely.

Kirjutas Goblin, 20.11.2013 at 07:55

btw. fuckin PD is not the best strategy, its the easiest one, ...stop saying that you all. I dont even play PD anymore or rarely.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 07:37

Everything else suggested sounds good on paper but its actually useless in the battlefield.
> ftw militia to defend, even weaker than helis lal

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 14:03

However (and this is the clever bit) The militia have a lower defense than the Helicopters, and therefore the Helicopters will still defend first, if they remain in the same city. Therefore they would have to leave the city or stay outside it in order to have any effect, and otherwise the helicopters would still defend first, and therefore die.
This would counterbalance the advantages of not requiring building a more expensive marine to take cities, and the fact it costs nothing to transport militia on helicopters to the front lines from captured cites.
This suggestion is a slight boost, allowing DS some free extra defense in captured cities, but with the penalty, that if the helicopters are turnblocked in the city, they will die first.

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 20.11.2013 at 10:27

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 07:37

Everything else suggested sounds good on paper but its actually useless in the battlefield.
> ftw militia to defend, even weaker than helis lal

If you had read my post, you would know that the fact that militia defense is weaker than helicopters is the point
If you're to lazy to find it again:

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 19.11.2013 at 14:03

However (and this is the clever bit) The militia have a lower defense than the Helicopters, and therefore the Helicopters will still defend first, if they remain in the same city. Therefore they would have to leave the city or stay outside it in order to have any effect, and otherwise the helicopters would still defend first, and therefore die.
This would counterbalance the advantages of not requiring building a more expensive marine to take cities, and the fact it costs nothing to transport militia on helicopters to the front lines from captured cites.
This suggestion is a slight boost, allowing DS some free extra defense in captured cities, but with the penalty, that if the helicopters are turnblocked in the city, they will die first.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 10:39

If you haven't notice, the problem of DS is not defending cities, is holding them...

How are you gonna hold a city that you just conquer, when you lack any decent unit to defend your helicopters.... Militia? Lol i can spam that unit on all my cities and my helicopters will still die, then my milita get rape.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 10:39

Exactly, is a stupid idea that dosn't solve the problem of helicopters having nothing to defend with.

>me wasting resources in militia with no range
>when i could stack the city with infantry (quantity > quality) without needing to waste helicopter capicity.

If you haven't notice, the problem of DS is not defending cities, is holding them...

How are you gonna hold a city that you just conquer, when you lack any decent unit to defend your helicopters.... Militia? Lol i can spam that unit on all my cities and my helicopters will still die, then my milita get rape.

• DS requires a continuous advance to work properly.
  
• This means that cities have to be attacked when it is not reinforcement turn.
  
• The militia are not intended to be a use of unused resources, but a use of the militia in cities back from the front lines that helicopters built there can easily carry as they move to the front (it is highly unlikely you are going to put a marine on every helicopter).
  
• These militia can be used to put a higher defense in cities behind the main stacks, preventing a counterattack for a short space of time by which time the helicopters should have advanced successfully far enough for these cities to not require defense.
  
• The penalty to that is the fact any helicopters in the city will be killed first, and thus they should try to escape.

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 20.11.2013 at 10:55

DS is only slightly weak

Kirjutas Klabauter, 20.11.2013 at 11:07

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 20.11.2013 at 10:55

DS is only slightly weak

DS isn't only slightly weak. Try to play with DS on a world map in Europe for example, battling against the USA which uses MoS, NC or SM... On oceans you will not have the slightest of a chance, if you play against a decent player... On smaller maps it also isn't that great, because on smaller maps you mostly play with lower funds and DS is pretty damn expensive. The only places where it's decently to play with are maps like Eurasia (+ Africa), for example, if you play it with higher funds, imo, and even there it isn't really that great, especially due to its Infantry nerf.

I for one think that it really could get this Inf boost. The only concern I have in this matter, would be that Perfect Defence would look pretty old against DS then...
But like I already suggested earlier, could this easily get balanced by boosting the Anti-Aircraft in PD, which would fit perfectly to this strategy, anyway.

Kirjutas Klabauter, 20.11.2013 at 11:07

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 20.11.2013 at 10:55

DS is only slightly weak

DS isn't only slightly weak. Try to play with DS on a world map in Europe for example, battling against the USA which uses MoS, NC or SM... On oceans you will not have the slightest of a chance, if you play against a decent player... On smaller maps it also isn't that great, because on smaller maps you mostly play with lower funds and DS is pretty damn expensive. The only places where it's decently to play with are maps like Eurasia (+ Africa), for example, if you play it with higher funds, imo, and even there it isn't really that great, especially due to its Infantry nerf.

I for one think that it really could get this Inf boost. The only concern I have in this matter, would be that Perfect Defence would look pretty old against DS then...
But like I already suggested earlier, could this easily get balanced by boosting the Anti-Aircraft in PD, which would fit perfectly to this strategy, anyway.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 20.11.2013 at 14:49

an interesting idea, but then in extension if you boosted pd anti aircraft then you would weaken sm vs pd

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 15:15

DS in world games REALLY?

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 15:15

And no, PD AAs buff is not a good idea.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 15:15

Europe is pretty rich, and in world games, you get more reinforcements than income (overall, whole map has enough reinfs so you can't spend them all with infantries)

Kirjutas Klabauter, 20.11.2013 at 16:11

Kirjutas Permamuted, 20.11.2013 at 14:49

an interesting idea, but then in extension if you boosted pd anti aircraft then you would weaken sm vs pd

Yea, that's one thing, which will annoy many here apparently (although I for one wouldn't see a problem with it). If not this, then perhaps just boosting AA for everyone? Many people seem to want this anyway. This would also nerf every strategy which depends on air units a bit at the same time.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 15:15

DS in world games REALLY?

Are you trying to kid me or something? I can do that myself, you know.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 15:15

And no, PD AAs buff is not a good idea.

No because no huh? Ok.. great argument..!

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 15:15

Europe is pretty rich, and in world games, you get more reinforcements than income (overall, whole map has enough reinfs so you can't spend them all with infantries)

Europe is rich, but not rich enough for this strategy, imo. At least not if you play on smaller maps with low funds. There are much better strategies for smaller maps. Only thing DS would be good for on smaller maps, would be to take countries which are very far away from you, but what do you get from this, if you can't even decently defend them? You will immediately lose them again. I could do the same with Blitzkrieg, and this is even pretty good for low funds. Only situation DS would be good for smaller maps would be if you play against PD player, but who will gamble on this? The part there about reinforcements, I didn't really get what you were trying to say there. You mean DS is decently playable on world maps or what?

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

DS Helis have no good range compared to bombers, and SM is MUCH better in those cases.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

PD infs are still going to be better unless you make AAs extremely good.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

And nope Europe is rich for every strat, even LB. Even with low starting funds, DS is ok.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

DS is not good against PD, it's a 1:1 ratio while infs are cheaper and easier to stack.

Kirjutas Klabauter, 20.11.2013 at 18:11

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

DS Helis have no good range compared to bombers, and SM is MUCH better in those cases.

I know, that's one of the main reasons why it sucks in world games.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

PD infs are still going to be better unless you make AAs extremely good.

Overall, the infantry is better of course, but there are often situations were AAs just come better, like when you have to defend a city against air units for example, and have enough money to afford it. Better spend on AAs, instead of losing the city.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

And nope Europe is rich for every strat, even LB. Even with low starting funds, DS is ok.

Well, if you say so... I always had the feeling that DS needs a lot of funds to be playable, but perhaps that's just me though.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 17:16

DS is not good against PD, it's a 1:1 ratio while infs are cheaper and easier to stack.

Infantries are cheaper, yes, but helis have a better range, especially combined with marines. On smaller maps, probably not so much, but if you have enough funds, this easily can become a problem. They are also better for expanding. That it's easier to stack isn't really that dramatic, except if you play very fast games perhaps. Apart from this do PD infantries only have 7 defence in cities, in this case, while helis have still 8 attack all the time, so with good funds you have a good advantage there with DS. Plus, it is also very easy to TB PD because it is very dependent on transports. But yea, the Inf are still pretty strong there, I guess I underestimated this a bit.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 18:34

Please explain, exactly WHEN are AAs are better lol.

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 18:34

PD Infs = 7def + 2OnCity + gen = 10.
DS Helis = 8 + 2BonusAgainstInfs = 10.
But look at the damn prices

Kirjutas Klabauter, 20.11.2013 at 19:57

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 18:34

Please explain, exactly WHEN are AAs are better lol.

I already explained this to you "lol".

Kirjutas Guest, 20.11.2013 at 18:34

PD Infs = 7def + 2OnCity + gen = 10.
DS Helis = 8 + 2BonusAgainstInfs = 10.
But look at the damn prices

Yes, PD is still pretty good against DS, but I find it still strange that you say DS would be playable on lower funds, while at the same time bragging about how easily PD actually could beat DS because it's so cheap. That's very contradictory, and sounds to me like DS actually is not good for small maps if PD has such an advantage towards it...

Kirjutas Guest, 21.11.2013 at 10:09

even with a rich country using PD you will rarely use EVERY reinf.

Kirjutas Guest, 21.11.2013 at 10:09

What does starting funds have to do here? With DS you can have the rich part of europe in no time like I said, and with the inf defence nerf removal, DS could defend against PD.

Kirjutas Klabauter, 21.11.2013 at 10:39

Kirjutas Guest, 21.11.2013 at 10:09

even with a rich country using PD you will rarely use EVERY reinf.

On PD, AAs are probably redundant the way they are now, yea, but with other strategies, there are definitely situations from time to time, where you can use them efficiently. I for one, am mostly able to use all of reinforcements with higher funds, as long as I don't own a whole continent. And when I use them, then also mostly only to defend cities which I'm sure will get attacked by air units next turn. But anyway, this thread isn't about AAs.

Kirjutas Guest, 21.11.2013 at 10:09

What does starting funds have to do here? With DS you can have the rich part of europe in no time like I said, and with the inf defence nerf removal, DS could defend against PD.

Well, you made clear that strategies like PD have a pretty huge advantage against DS, because they are so cheap but still have almost the same strength in their defence like DS in offence. If you play on smaller maps, which mostly only got 5K or 10K starting funds, even with a rich country, it will become very hard to use DS efficiently against this. If you play against a good player, you will be broke in no time (especially if he also has a rich country). If you have 25K or 50K funds on the other hand, your chances to win are much better. With the Inf boost, DS perhaps could be playable on smaller maps, yea, but the way it is now, I doubt it very much.

Kirjutas Klabauter, 21.11.2013 at 10:59

I sadly can't read what you wrote, Mr. Alex. People who can't have a discussion without constantly ridiculing others and laughing at them get on my ignore list.