Revamping Relentless Attack
Postitused: 95
Külastatud: 223 users
I'd like to bring up a discussion on Relentless Attack as I think it is too reinforcement efficient at the time.
First of all, RA is a nice strategy. In the beginners room everyone uses RA, since it is excellent for newbies - tanks are incredibly strong with 9 attack, they capture cities, and they have the highest priority in unit selection, so you don't have to do much in terms of micromanagement - just click and drag your way to victory.
Even for defense, you don't even have to think about what to build, since tanks have the same defense as infantry (5) and even the same cost. The fact that infantry don't have city bonus makes the unit even more useless. All you need to build is tanks.
This makes for a very hard to counter strategy and very easy to play at the early ranks. My experience playing PD against RA is that I'm always on the losing side, scrambling for units and trying to make the best ferries to boost the front lines. With IMP it's the same thing, perhaps worse since the often 50k starting games completely nullify imp's advantage. When I use RA I don't even need to wall off anything, just build tanks and attack other players. Seriously, I recommend everyone to just try it and see that it feels much easier than the other strategies.
What could be done
Obviously we don't want to mess with Perfect Defense, because then it would just open a can of worms on team games. And we don't want to nerf it into oblivion making it an auto lose strategy like Blitzkrieg. What I propose for RA is that we buff the range of attack units and make them cheaper, while making defensive units more expensive and less efficient, making it sort of a halfway to Blitz.
First nerfing tanks:
Remove the +1 attack from Tanks
This should bring Tanks into a less reinforcement efficient territory, making it hit a more visible wall against PD and increase the number of tanks needed to capture a city.
Remove the +1 defense from Tanks and add -1 defense
I don't think Tanks having good defense is a good idea. Removing the +1 defense will add the need to decide between creating defensive or offensive units.
Then, pushing the contrast between defense and offense
Add +1 range, -30 cost and -1 defense to bombers, destroyers, helis, stealth and subs
This would keep in with the idea of making offensive units more efficient.
Add -1 defense to militia and keep the +10 cost. Add -3 defense to Anti Air and +30 cost. Keep infantry nerfs.
Making defensive units less useful.
With these changes we position the strategy as very offensive, while diversifying its options and tools to fulfill that role, and make it less of a one unit wonder that it is today. Thoughts? What do you guys think?
First of all, RA is a nice strategy. In the beginners room everyone uses RA, since it is excellent for newbies - tanks are incredibly strong with 9 attack, they capture cities, and they have the highest priority in unit selection, so you don't have to do much in terms of micromanagement - just click and drag your way to victory.
Even for defense, you don't even have to think about what to build, since tanks have the same defense as infantry (5) and even the same cost. The fact that infantry don't have city bonus makes the unit even more useless. All you need to build is tanks.
This makes for a very hard to counter strategy and very easy to play at the early ranks. My experience playing PD against RA is that I'm always on the losing side, scrambling for units and trying to make the best ferries to boost the front lines. With IMP it's the same thing, perhaps worse since the often 50k starting games completely nullify imp's advantage. When I use RA I don't even need to wall off anything, just build tanks and attack other players. Seriously, I recommend everyone to just try it and see that it feels much easier than the other strategies.
What could be done
Obviously we don't want to mess with Perfect Defense, because then it would just open a can of worms on team games. And we don't want to nerf it into oblivion making it an auto lose strategy like Blitzkrieg. What I propose for RA is that we buff the range of attack units and make them cheaper, while making defensive units more expensive and less efficient, making it sort of a halfway to Blitz.
First nerfing tanks:
Remove the +1 attack from Tanks
This should bring Tanks into a less reinforcement efficient territory, making it hit a more visible wall against PD and increase the number of tanks needed to capture a city.
Remove the +1 defense from Tanks and add -1 defense
I don't think Tanks having good defense is a good idea. Removing the +1 defense will add the need to decide between creating defensive or offensive units.
Then, pushing the contrast between defense and offense
Add +1 range, -30 cost and -1 defense to bombers, destroyers, helis, stealth and subs
This would keep in with the idea of making offensive units more efficient.
Add -1 defense to militia and keep the +10 cost. Add -3 defense to Anti Air and +30 cost. Keep infantry nerfs.
Making defensive units less useful.
With these changes we position the strategy as very offensive, while diversifying its options and tools to fulfill that role, and make it less of a one unit wonder that it is today. Thoughts? What do you guys think?
|
Umm we do want an ra nerf, thats pretty obvious. RA is OP and should be nerfed/revamped same thing. It all means tweaking it to make it weaker. Also about the poll thing: when a big fraction of players in AW use RA every single game and win most of the times because it's noticeably stronger than all the other strats, they will all obviously vote to keep it so they keep winning. In a case like this numbers don't matter, but logical argument does, and the admins should read the final arguments and do what they see best. Which is why I made the former comment of people just saying no support and not saying why. Also 19 players voted they were sick of RA, and 15 not, if by your logic ''a pretty good part of the community is sick of RA topics'' then I could also say a pretty good part of the community is not sick of RA topics. The difference is just 4 players. Also one of the former threads you listed was Eagle crying with no logical argument, you could dismiss that. The other was a poll which like I said is pointless because of the point I made above. One was a mathematical breakdown of how RA tanks are stronger than their rivals, and yes had a suggestion. This Revamping RA thread is the only one that directly states the problem, proposed solution, and invites the community to discuss the topic. I don't see why not debate RA here since it IS a big issue in our community now. and obviously the threads about ra will be made by people who want to tweak it, the others wont make a thread saying ra is op hurrahurra suck it... and when someone makes a comment like the one you quoted el crey, dont be surprised youre called trolls. It has no logical reasoning whatsoever and is basically saying that a fraction of the community influence the admins into change which is preposterous. Logic does, and it's not a coincidence these players seem to be influencing the game because they (idk who 'they' are) bring the most logical reasoning and well written arguments. Now my proposal isn't necessarily nerfing it as much as it is making it harder to play. I propose (and many others before me) making it fit the theme of relentless ATTACK and not relentless TANKS. Remove the 90 cost for tanks, and add a +1 attack to bombers and destroyers. PD isn't a one unit strat, why should RA its opposite be.
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation? 
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
I like this idea and I think it's on the right track. But with other strats the boost is not only in attack or defense numbers but in cost as well. So I'd say leave the cost where it is but remove the defense boost...then remove another. They should not have any defense. They are there to attack. And give other main attack units more attack and less defense.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
What does that prove... RA not being able to win a battle against PD stack general? RA not being able to take out 2 militias that one time? Your "experiments" are always manipulative... instead if you only tried to play a few games using RA you would see the real power of RA tanks CLOLvis.
---- 
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
I didn't mean you're all trolls, I meant if people against RA are making comments like that I wouldn't blame people to think you're trolls. And I remember reading your results, and I believe I was sufficient enough saying: ''Exactly! Hell, the same happens to IF. No matter how much inf and tanks you make RA still produces more to suicide on you (because that's all they do, rush) and then when your inf hold they just make some more tanks. I'm not saying there's no counter, but the counter is a bigger difference of skill than it should be. Meaning someone with just lesser skill than I do would beat me 3.5/5 times with RA. It's a ONE UNIT strat, at least nerf tank cost and give bombers/destroyers a boost to fit the theme.'' I understand head to head PD infantry vs RA tanks can hold, and cost less, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm arguing the EASINESS of playing RA because it only focuses on one unit, and that one unit is all you need, while for your opponent to overcome you there needs to be a bigger gap of skill than what two normal strats would need. What I proposed is keeping the strat more or less the same power -maybe a little weaker- but harder to play. Meaning it requires more units to achieve full efficiency, and only works in certain situation like any other strat. I proposed removing 90 for tanks and making it 110 like it formerly was, and giving bombers and destroyers a boost. Don't you agree that it would balance out the skill level needed to play the strat whilst still making it strong? Now what I want to know is what you (someone fairly objective who doesn't use RA every single game) oppose to my suggestion?
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
Keep comparing RA only to one strategy Clolvis... never mind it rapes the shit out of everything else. But, that's the thing with you who are obsessed with PD and 3v3 games... can never see the bigger picture.
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
you should include this point, there are several points supporting the "revamp ra" goal. Clovis completely disregarded the results of the tests i posted of large ra vs pd battles in favour of accusing all of us ignoring him and the "community" purely on the basis of arrogance. He and the others who are so noisily supporting the ra boost have not brought any worthwhile arguments to the table. Like goblin said any data they have provided has been manipulative. They do not employ logic and reason which is why they are not listened to. You should probably not waste your time responding to him. Notice how he has already began editing and deleting his posts which reflect badly on him. I am still trying to figure out what "ad vacuum" is supposed to mean. Interestingly its the exact same players who complained so loudly about the blitz nerf that are doing so once again about RA. They seek a replacement for their favourite strat, not to actually try and balance the current metagame. Lets just be clear on what has been established so far. RA is op in its current form, it needs a nerf. For anyone who is not clear on why i can summarize once again. What we are now trying to decide upon, is how to fix ra.
---- 
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Yeah I agree with this. In Clovis' defense though, he PM'd me and we found out he proposed exactly what I have (boosting bombers and destroyers, nerfing tanks a little) before and Tophats disagreed with him because he 'liked' the one unit strat. Whatever, that was fine back then but now since that one unit is boosted further more and has become OP we need a fix. My final proposal is +1 range and attack for bombers, +2 attack to destroyers, and bring the tanks back to 110 cost. (this is actually very op for world games). Now how about we all discuss this logically and nobody comes in with ''RA is fine u just cant beat it'' or ''RA is unbeatable halp'' comments. I don't necessarily agree with the OP's ideas of adjusting it, since cost is the big issue. I agree with the principal though, contrast offense and defense.
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Then I make a thread to allow us to ignore mods, you lock it  http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=20367I deleted my posts because I recognize I spoke to Tact bad, and I even PM him. We both agree tophat's opinion is outdated and RA should indeed, boost other units. As human I have patience, don't expect me to hold all the stuff you write about me...
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
If you want to lead this thread somewhere, you should probably add the following two to the original thread:
Maybe after the 5th page, when all the possible Nerf are made, you (or anyone) can make a poll, to see which Nerf the community likes more.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
RA was originally created back when the old TB system was effective. I believe we have to update the strategy to make it more attrition warfare based, hence the lower cost. However, I never believed that tank should be able to stand in as infantry. I believe that defending with tanks should be foolish, so when I was picturing this strategy, I was expecting people to be walling to protect their tank stacks. I can see that the community is divided on this suggestion. So, how about we take little baby steps? We start with -2 def to tanks, and if it to weak or strong, we will adjust again.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
How about -1 defense... I think -2 def doesn't fit in the "baby step" category.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Fair enough, -1 defense
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
Then again I just noticed this strategy already costs more for inf and militia. So if you increase the cost of tanks you should remove the increase cost of inf and militia. Come to think of it just leave it alone. This is getting rediculous and it's not OP. People still lose with it everyday. If it was OP they wouldn't lose.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
EASY. Tanks cost 90 for 9 attack in RA. PD cost 50 for 10 defense vs RA. PD cost 40 less and it has more defense.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
if you read some of my previous posts you'd see the point I'm making isn't that RA is OP stat wise (even though it is, you just can't compare everything to PD) but it's TOO EASY to play because of it's focus on one very strong unit. Attack? Tanks. Defend? Tanks. Long range attacks? Tanks. Short skirmishes? Tanks. As you see above I didn't suggest necessarily weakening RA but making it harder to play, so the skill difference to overcome it is similar to the skill being played.
For you very few people defending RA with logical explanations, this is why people think you're all trolls.
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
The big difference is that attacking and expanding gives you more cash and reinforcements while defending and stacking does not. 1 RA tank can kill up to 3 militia 1 PD infantry is lucky if it can kill 1 militia Also stop comparing RA to PD, compare it to something like Great Combinator or Desert Storm for instance
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
Well, if there will be any change, it need to be less controversial than -1 defense. It will probably help if we avoid any big change, as they are most likely more controversial than small ones. My proposal are: 1) +5 cost. A middle version of 100 and 90 cost Tanks. While tanks are still cheap you cannot spam as much as before. Some people think +5 is useless when, in fact, sometimes you cannot buy an unit by just ~2 coins. 2) -1 range. This makes lot of sense. With Tanks having the same range as General, and with Movement Range both units have 9 range. Some facts:  RA Tank can go from Munich to Rome. RA Tank can go from Khaviv to Moscow, and even can be mixed with troops from dnep, still reach Moscow. Allows you to get Moscow without trans as RA Ukr. RA Tank with General can go from Kiev to Bucharest (useful when rushing romania). RA Tank with General can go from Belgrade to Warsaw (imo best ra serbia move in 3k). 3) -2 critical. This is one of the weakest Nerf we can give to RA. I can't really find any reason that would make anyone disagree with this.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
I do not support this. This strategy is support to give advantage to tanks. That's the point of RA. I'm ok with nerfing defense but don't change pro attacking features which is what the strategy is called. Relentless ATTACK.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Where does it exactly include 'range' as attack? It's ok to give your opinion, but do not state them. I've provide facts to support the proposal, and you are just discarding them because if we remove one range from Tanks, they would be weaker for attack? If you were talking about HP, Crit, or even more obvious, ATT, I would understand your point but...
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Range is a perk just like attack power. This perk does allow easier attacking. This perk applies to the main attack unit. It doesn't have to be that complicated.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
Yeah it's about powerful attack... But not OP attack, currently it is OP. Needs nerfs and just minus defence won't do it, the biggest factor of all is cost really.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
I'm all for a decrease in defense on tanks. Thats about all I think is needed.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
It needs more, because the strat only focuses on one powerful unit. That means you don't even need defensive units, and it requires the least skill possible, because of it's one unit nature. My proposal is not making RA WEAKER but making it HARDER TO PLAY. There's a big difference. Nerf the tanks' cost and boost bombers and destroyers. It fits the theme of Relentless Attack.
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
You are free to request the forum be re-opened. The author requested it be closed, and as there were no objections, i saw nothing wrong with the request... are you requesting it be unlocked?
----  
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Do we know Clovis was lying? What would you like done exactly?
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Well glad that's cleared up... So what would you like done Goblin?
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Ok fine... gona make a "i feel sorry for being an idiot to that one mod" topic 
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
|
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
