New strategy suggestion: Onslaught Attack

With Blitz and RA dead and the common defensive-spam tactics flourishing I though that the offensive side of the game needed a fresh new strategy.



Suggested name: Onslaught Attack
Strategy's theme: "Powerful, yet less durable units"

Boosts: +1 attack, +5% critical hit to all units
Nerf: -1 HP to all units

Description:

It's based on theses circumstances where the armies put everything they have to perform better. Contrary to reduce their defense it reduces their durability ( i.e when they consume heroin, cocaine and other type of drugs to perform better, but they suffer afterward).

In gameplay, there was an interesting comparison between attack/defense and HP which I'm unable to find now. Generally speaking though, the strategy would encourage the quality fight or big battles in which you're in attack position (here the stacking bonus would compensate the HP lost).

Do note that there isn't any Nerf to defense (contrary to what everybody usually thinks, ++ attack -- defense). But the HP Nerf should make it's work in big stacks battles.

Sounds too close to Relentless Attack, make better name please

Maybe in dominican rep. and other shitty states they consume drugs to perform better in an army but not in the rest of the world.

Kirjutas Acquiesce, 26.05.2016 at 09:03

make better name please

Didn't found anything better

Kirjutas Acquiesce, 26.05.2016 at 09:03

Sounds too close to Relentless Attack

In-name only.

Kirjutas Evic, 26.05.2016 at 09:05

Maybe in dominican rep. and other shitty states they consume drugs to perform better in an army but not in the rest of the world.

Yup, generally in Africa and South America.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:06

Yup, generally in Africa and South America.

In africa they probably drink goat pee and blood instead...

Kirjutas Evic, 26.05.2016 at 09:09

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:06

Yup, generally in Africa and South America.

In africa they probably drink goat pee and blood instead...

Oh look, Germany too..

http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/18-11-2008/106714-psychotropic-0/

1. This wont fit into the current meta at all and will have no niche

2. And blitz and ra arent dead. You even use blitz in duels and it is one of the most popular strats. RA is going to get a boost soon.

3. Since when is this game defense orientated. The stats of the most powerful defensive land units(pd inf) are surpassed by mos marines and sm bombers. The gameplay of most of the europe+ country/strat combos is defensive, you complain about this setting yet talk like it is the only one.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:11

1. This wont fit into the current meta at all and will have no niche

Elaborate, please.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:11

2. And blitz and ra arent dead. You even use blitz in duels and it is one of the most popular strats. RA is going to get a boost soon.

Both useless in their current form, can be greatly bypassed in a wider range of settings that once where their niche. Blitz for example is no longer useful in big maps.

Also I do hope that you aren't using our duel as reference. I just exploited your lack of knowledge.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:11

3. Since when is this game defense orientated.

Fact #1: "In case of tie, the defender would win the battle" <<< this is gg on is own.

Fact #2: No attack bonus exist, yet defense bonus does. While if you want to boost an unit's defense you can add it a bonus, for boosting another's unit attack it won't have the same impact to put a negative defensive bonus on the defensive unit*

Fact #3: All across the default map and even in several custom maps / scenarios, the quality isn't a factor. You can buy a german infantry and it will perform just as good as a Nigerian infantry. This and the lack of units with high att/def stats flavor the spam-style strategy which are mostly dominated by defensive units.

Fact #4: It's common logic that is easier to defend than attack. Not only in atWar, but also in the real world. The infantry is the backbone of every army for a reason.

RA and blitz are dead... Only the inexperience use them. Infantry is the King of AtWar. Cost to stat ratio is amazing. PD has no rival.

I'd like to see a strategy that is identical to PD in every manner just with tanks. Atk = PD def. Attacking city bonus and 50 cost. That is a rival to PD

Kirjutas Black Dragon!, 26.05.2016 at 09:31

Infantry is the King of AtWar.

They're the king of the world as well. I'm afraid this strategy won't change that.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Elaborate, please.

Why do i need to elaborate. Explain to me where this strat will be the optimal choice over other strats. I can't find any situation rn.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Both useless in their current form, can be greatly bypassed in a wider range of settings that once where their niche. Blitz for example is no longer useful in big maps.

Also I do hope that you aren't using our duel as reference. I just exploited your lack of knowledge.

Blitz was never good on big maps. Yet it is still played there anyway. You can't have it everyway. A strategy that dominates every setting is the definition of overpowered. Like old RA.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Fact #1: "In case of tie, the defender would win the battle" <<< this is gg on is own.

Fact #2: No attack bonus exist, yet defense bonus does. While if you want to boost an unit's defense you can add it a bonus, for boosting another's unit attack it won't have the same impact to put a negative defensive bonus on other.

Fact #3: All across the default map and even in several custom maps / scenarios, the quality isn't a factor. You can buy a german infantry and it will perform just as good as a Nigerian infantry. This and the lack of units with high att/def stats flavor the spam-style strategy which are mostly dominated by defensive units.

Fact #4: It's common logic that is easier to defend than attack. Not only in atWar, but also in the real world. The infantry is the backbone of every army for a reason.

I don't understand the relevance of fact 1 and 2.

I dont understand the nigerian infantry reference in fact 3 but you are correct that the meta does favour spam style strategies.

Fact 4 is completely wrong. Steve mentioned this in the blitz thread and was completely correct, the attacker dictates the flow of the game. Once a player is on top of you and forcing you to guess where to defend it is extremely hard to turn that around. There are so so many examples of this. And since when are infantry the backbone of a gw army.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Elaborate, please.

Why do i need to elaborate. Explain to me where this strat will be the optimal choice over other strats. I can't find any situation rn.

Anywhere where your mission is to help your allies out. Poland, Italy. Even in Ukraine-Germ combo it could put the pressure on Turkey. It could probably become the strategy capable of doing the rush when funded.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Blitz was never good on big maps.

I think that you missed the definition of mobility. For the sake of this thread I won't debate it.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Fact #1: "In case of tie, the defender would win the battle" <<< this is gg on is own.

Fact #2: No attack bonus exist, yet defense bonus does. While if you want to boost an unit's defense you can add it a bonus, for boosting another's unit attack it won't have the same impact to put a negative defensive bonus on other.

Fact #3: All across the default map and even in several custom maps / scenarios, the quality isn't a factor. You can buy a german infantry and it will perform just as good as a Nigerian infantry. This and the lack of units with high att/def stats flavor the spam-style strategy which are mostly dominated by defensive units.

Fact #4: It's common logic that is easier to defend than attack. Not only in atWar, but also in the real world. The infantry is the backbone of every army for a reason.

I don't understand the relevance of fact 1 and 2.

I dont understand the nigerian infantry reference in fact 3 but you are correct that the meta does favour spam style strategies.

Fact 4 is completely wrong. Steve mentioned this in the blitz thread and was completely correct, the attacker dictates the flow of the game. Once a player is on top of you and forcing you to guess where to defend it is extremely hard to turn that around. There are so so many examples of this. And since when are infantry the backbone of a gw army.

Fact 1 and 2 are pure game mechanics. The simplest example I could find are that, if two units with the same attack/def are fighting, the defender's win chances would'be higher than 50% which you would expect.

If you can't understand them on your own there's nothing I can do.

As for Steve's reference about attacking conducing the flow of the game, that would only make some sort of sense in a game in which every city have the same importance. You would also have to remove the walls from the game. All I can say is that I didn't expected anyone to take it serious.

Is something quite obvious really. You must be joking.

Kirjutas Xenosapien, 26.05.2016 at 10:08

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 10:07

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Elaborate, please.

Why do i need to elaborate. Explain to me where this strat will be the optimal choice over other strats. I can't find any situation rn.

Anywhere where your mission is to help your allies out. Poland, Italy. Even in Ukraine-Germ combo it could put the pressure on Turkey. It could probably become the strategy capable of doing the rush when funded.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Blitz was never good on big maps.

I think that you missed the definition of mobility. For the sake of this thread I won't debate it.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Fact #1: "In case of tie, the defender would win the battle" <<< this is gg on is own.

Fact #2: No attack bonus exist, yet defense bonus does. While if you want to boost an unit's defense you can add it a bonus, for boosting another's unit attack it won't have the same impact to put a negative defensive bonus on other.

Fact #3: All across the default map and even in several custom maps / scenarios, the quality isn't a factor. You can buy a german infantry and it will perform just as good as a Nigerian infantry. This and the lack of units with high att/def stats flavor the spam-style strategy which are mostly dominated by defensive units.

Fact #4: It's common logic that is easier to defend than attack. Not only in atWar, but also in the real world. The infantry is the backbone of every army for a reason.

I don't understand the relevance of fact 1 and 2.

I dont understand the nigerian infantry reference in fact 3 but you are correct that the meta does favour spam style strategies.

Fact 4 is completely wrong. Steve mentioned this in the blitz thread and was completely correct, the attacker dictates the flow of the game. Once a player is on top of you and forcing you to guess where to defend it is extremely hard to turn that around. There are so so many examples of this. And since when are infantry the backbone of a gw army.

Fact 1 and 2 are pure game mechanics. The simplest example I could find are that, if two units with the same attack/def are fighting, the defender's win chances would'be higher than 50% which you would expect.

If you can't understand them on your own there's nothing I can do.

As for Steve's reference about attacking conducing the flow of the game, that would only make some sort of sense in a game in which every city have the same importance. You would also have to remove the walls from the game. All I can say is that I didn't expected anyone to take it serious.

Is something quite obvious really. You must be joking.

elaborate, how would this strategy help your allies out, why would it be better than other strats? Still not seeing a niche.

Blitz hasnt lost any mobility, it is as mobile as ever, but you just stated you cant play it on big maps. I stated it was never good on big maps. you countered mentioning its' mobility, wut?

i understand them dear, but i fail to see how those facts are relevant to this strategy. You added attack and crit but reduced hp which weakens the units offensively and defensively. SM gc mos and ds will outperform this strat wherever you think it is you can play it.

If it's relevent, the comparison that I worked out from a long time ago is that adding or removing 1hp from a unit is approximately equivalent to increacing or decreacing it's max attack or defence by 1/7 (assuming the unit has 7 hp). It seemed to work decently well, but not perfectly when tested.

I don't know if the effect could be made more accurate now knowing more about the battle mechanics, however.

Offensive strategies should be nerfed and bad for two reasons:
1: without the inf upgreades, tanks are much more powerful and a vital part of attacking for low ranks.

2: attacking doesnt require as much skill as defending. to guess, wich country out of 10 an enemy might attack is a lot more difficult than guessing, wich 5 countries out of 10 your enemy wont stack enough for your 50 tank stack to burn trough. sometimes this is the capital, because many strategies couldnt even defend against a RA stack from ukraine before the nerf. its just mindless rushing in my opinion, it didnt even matter what your enemy did, you could just rush city after city.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 10:21

-

Sorry about the facts. It was just to counter your argument about the game not being defensive-oriented, to which I strongly disagree.

Anyway ya I should'be focused in the strategy. I'll first explain what I wanted to create then retake my argument about it's niche.


There are many strategies with many original boosts, and I remember that the Rebel strategy was rejected due to it's similarity with other strategies. Since Eu players principally likes, to paraphrase learster, "Move big stacks of infantries from A to B like the fist of god" I though that a strategy that boost the infantries offensively would'be great. More than that I wanted to create a strategy that gives a singular boost, and +1 attack to all units seemed just great.

I'm fully aware that the -HP affect it's offensive and defensive capacities. I originally though +2 attack -2 HP but the Nerf looked way too heavy. Simply +1 attack -1 HP makes the strategy weaker, so I came up with the currently proposed boost. I've ran some calculators and faced the current None infantry with the newly OA infantry, and despite having fewer HP it does perform better in attack position. There was a comparison that I missed somewhere in the forums (Thanks Ends for posting it!). Another possibility would also be +1 attack at the cost of -1 defense and lower critical. But that is more Blitzkrieg-tier strategy, hence the minus HP proposal.

The strategy's boosts and Nerf are completely original. It's gameplay can be helpful when it comes to 2vs1 situation or just suicidal attempts due to it's increased attack and critical (which, again, according to my calculators bypass it's HP Nerf offensively). Ideally this strategy should'be the best at abusing the battle stacking bonus as the HP is not taken into account at the calculation of those. It would also become fairly good at 1vs1vs1 battles since it's original defense is not decreased. The boost can be reworked in case the minus HP proves to be stronger than the offensive boost.

Cases where I think that this strategy would'be useful:

- UK-France combo (for UK, since it can afford to go offensive against germ).
- UK-Spain-Turkey combo (for Spain, since it can afford to go offensive vs france).
- Ukraine-Germany combo (For Ukraine, since it can afford to go offensive against Turkey, even rush when funded)
- Italy and any non-standard 3rd pick, when the mission is to go suicidal. You can afford going full offensive with every single unit and you even have a bonus by doing it.

Outside of Europe (anywhere where attacking matters more than defending like):

- Latin America
- North America, for picks like USA Midwest against USA Northeast, or Mexico against USA Midwest.
- For Prussia in WW1, where Prussia Mission is just to kill Russian conscripts.

+ Units comparison:
- Tanks with 9 attack and 120 cost, would place it as the 2nd strongest tank strategy after IF and a little above HW.
- Infantries with 5 attack aren't to be underestimate.
- Militias with 4 attack and 30 cost can do the trick when chained with sea transports.

+ Possible bad points:
- Not consistent (due to it's dependency on +att +crit to roll higher, you will do bad if the luck is not in your side).
- Can be expensive (like None)
- Bad for defense (still better than Blitz, at least when the unit's usual defense is lower than 7 which is the case for most units in the default map. In those case, -1 defense is a bigger Nerf than -1 HP +5% critical).
- Since is bad for defense, is also bad for lategame where you usually have to go both attack and offense.

idk if I missed anything else...

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 26.05.2016 at 10:27

If it's relevent, the comparison that I worked out from a long time ago is that adding or removing 1hp from a unit is approximately equivalent to increacing or decreacing it's max attack or defence by 1/7 (assuming the unit has 7 hp). It seemed to work decently well, but not perfectly when tested.

I don't know if the effect could be made more accurate now knowing more about the battle mechanics, however.

Hey thanks for posting it. I've been looking for it quite a while.

One question though, imagine the attack/defense is X and the HP is set at 7.

At which point adding 1 attack would'be the same as adding 1 HP? At which point adding attack would not be as much as adding def? and vise-versa?

Any formula for proportion rate? I mean, to know when adding attack is better than adding HP when both values are variables...

Kirjutas Tirpitz406, 26.05.2016 at 10:37

Offensive strategies should be nerfed and bad for two reasons:
1: without the inf upgreades, tanks are much more powerful and a vital part of attacking for low ranks.

2: attacking doesnt require as much skill as defending. to guess, wich country out of 10 an enemy might attack is a lot more difficult than guessing, wich 5 countries out of 10 your enemy wont stack enough for your 50 tank stack to burn trough. sometimes this is the capital, because many strategies couldnt even defend against a RA stack from ukraine before the nerf. its just mindless rushing in my opinion, it didnt even matter what your enemy did, you could just rush city after city.

I had actually got pissed and wrote a long reply about this... but since I don't want to deviate the point of this thread I'll just leave a picture and move on.



P.S: would you rather want me to write "Because omg, I'm at the offensive so my attack must be unpredictable" ?

Or maybe... "omg dude you attacked hungary, that's completely unpredictable! omg you proved your point gg I can't guess where you will hit now!".

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 11:22

Hey thanks for posting it. I've been looking for it quite a while.

One question though, imagine the attack/defense is X and the HP is set at 7.

At which point adding 1 attack would'be the same as adding 1 HP? At which point adding attack would not be as much as adding def? and vise-versa?

Any formula for proportion rate? I mean, to know when adding attack is better than adding HP when both values are variables...

7 max attack/ defence would be the point, because 1/7 of 7 is 1. That's why we experience adding 1 hp being very similar to adding 1 attack/defence for tank attack and inf defence.

Formula is simply HP/max attack. If the result is greater than 1 it is better to increace attack, if it is less than 1 it is better to increace HP.

Kirjutas EndsOfInvention, 26.05.2016 at 11:40

Formula is simply HP/max attack. If the result is greater than 1 it is better to increace attack, if it is less than 1 it is better to increace HP.

I'll make sure to add this in my new upcoming guide, thanks!

So the strategy would technically make Militias and Infantries stronger offensively, as I planned to be. Helicopters and bombers would'be slightly boosted. Marines and stealth would remain the same.

Tanks and destroyers would become technically weaker offensively, I'm unsure if the +critical boost is enough to compensate that. They would still add the firepower when needed though, as they inflate the stacking bonus.

I guess for tanks and destroyers we can consider change the HP penalty for minus defense.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:00

-snip-

its a good idea but what about cost and range?
you specify nothing about this is is just like none?

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 10:21

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 10:07

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Elaborate, please.

Why do i need to elaborate. Explain to me where this strat will be the optimal choice over other strats. I can't find any situation rn.

Anywhere where your mission is to help your allies out. Poland, Italy. Even in Ukraine-Germ combo it could put the pressure on Turkey. It could probably become the strategy capable of doing the rush when funded.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Blitz was never good on big maps.

I think that you missed the definition of mobility. For the sake of this thread I won't debate it.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.05.2016 at 09:38

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:21

Fact #1: "In case of tie, the defender would win the battle" <<< this is gg on is own.

Fact #2: No attack bonus exist, yet defense bonus does. While if you want to boost an unit's defense you can add it a bonus, for boosting another's unit attack it won't have the same impact to put a negative defensive bonus on other.

Fact #3: All across the default map and even in several custom maps / scenarios, the quality isn't a factor. You can buy a german infantry and it will perform just as good as a Nigerian infantry. This and the lack of units with high att/def stats flavor the spam-style strategy which are mostly dominated by defensive units.

Fact #4: It's common logic that is easier to defend than attack. Not only in atWar, but also in the real world. The infantry is the backbone of every army for a reason.

I don't understand the relevance of fact 1 and 2.

I dont understand the nigerian infantry reference in fact 3 but you are correct that the meta does favour spam style strategies.

Fact 4 is completely wrong. Steve mentioned this in the blitz thread and was completely correct, the attacker dictates the flow of the game. Once a player is on top of you and forcing you to guess where to defend it is extremely hard to turn that around. There are so so many examples of this. And since when are infantry the backbone of a gw army.

Fact 1 and 2 are pure game mechanics. The simplest example I could find are that, if two units with the same attack/def are fighting, the defender's win chances would'be higher than 50% which you would expect.

If you can't understand them on your own there's nothing I can do.

As for Steve's reference about attacking conducing the flow of the game, that would only make some sort of sense in a game in which every city have the same importance. You would also have to remove the walls from the game. All I can say is that I didn't expected anyone to take it serious.

Is something quite obvious really. You must be joking.

elaborate, how would this strategy help your allies out, why would it be better than other strats? Still not seeing a niche.

Blitz hasnt lost any mobility, it is as mobile as ever, but you just stated you cant play it on big maps. I stated it was never good on big maps. you countered mentioning its' mobility, wut?

i understand them dear, but i fail to see how those facts are relevant to this strategy. You added attack and crit but reduced hp which weakens the units offensively and defensively. SM gc mos and ds will outperform this strat wherever you think it is you can play it.

lao i challenge you to play blitz vs me on eu best of 3 games if you beat me i will agree blitz is fine if you lose you most reconsider your stance deal?

Kirjutas 1GodofWar1, 26.05.2016 at 12:29

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:00

-snip-

its a good idea but what about cost and range?
you specify nothing about this is is just like none?

I'm unsure, I just wanted the strategy to be fresh, original.

But both cost and range can be considered if the strategy proves to be weak offensively.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 12:37

Kirjutas 1GodofWar1, 26.05.2016 at 12:29

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 09:00

-snip-

its a good idea but what about cost and range?
you specify nothing about this is is just like none?

I'm unsure, I just wanted the strategy to be fresh, original.

But both cost and range can be considered if the strategy proves to be weak offensively.

i like any idea that could counter pd and gw that for now are the 2 strongest strategys on the maps i play

Kirjutas Evic, 26.05.2016 at 09:05

Maybe in dominican rep. and other shitty states they consume drugs to perform better in an army but not in the rest of the world.

US Air Force, Army, Marines all are given drugs. The Airforce uses 'Go pills' to bring pilots from sleepiness to full on gung-ho shoot 'em all types in just seconds.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 26.05.2016 at 12:37

There should be a cost reduction, else I'd rather go LB or IF.
Also, nice picture for the strat (Warhammer 40k)