Master of Stealth and Guerilla Warfare

It seems to me that the bonus of MoS to marines is too small compared to the dirt cheap GW marines, while the transportation nerfs do hurt GW, MoS simply has no transportation buff for subs to make up for expensive and only slightly stronger marines. I do not take 5/5 militias into account because they are ok as it is I believe.

Discuss the comparison, this is a discussion thread but it may turn to a balance suggestion.

MoS has, actually, a buff to submarines. Also, GW users need to use their buffed militias since they can't afford the use of nerfed infantries, wich MoS doesn't have.

Yes, I use GW and I think we have advantages in the early part of the games, but it can change in the middle and
specially in the late game, where the 'small' bonus does a lot of difference.

MoS, just as SM, are the most powerfull strategies in my opinion, their problem is how to begin, and they need higher incomes to lead them to the victory, I don't think we need a balance on this one, but this is my point of view, let's see what others think.

I think it's fine the way it is.

The balance is that Guerrilla warfare just isn't a viable strategy in any game outside of africa/latin america/middle east.

And I guess I could see it possibly working in europe, but only if there were some alliances/teams involved.

Napisano od Pinheiro, 21.04.2011 at 11:09

MoS has, actually, a buff to submarines.

My first clause was:

Napisano od Aristosseur, 21.04.2011 at 07:42

It seems to me that the bonus of MoS to marines is too small compared to the dirt cheap GW marines

They get +1 attack and +1 movement, -20 cost. The mainline unit (don't tell me it's the submarine here because it can't even capture coastal cities) of every other strategy has many more boosts and a bigger discount.

Napisano od Aristosseur, 21.04.2011 at 11:59

Napisano od Pinheiro, 21.04.2011 at 11:09

MoS has, actually, a buff to submarines.

My first clause was:

Napisano od Aristosseur, 21.04.2011 at 07:42

It seems to me that the bonus of MoS to marines is too small compared to the dirt cheap GW marines

They get +1 attack and +1 movement, -20 cost. The mainline unit (don't tell me it's the submarine here because it can't even capture coastal cities) of every other strategy has many more boosts and a bigger discount.

1 - SUBmarines are not the same as marines.
2 - MoS has buff to SUBmarines AND marines.
3 - Yes, SUBmarines can't capture cities, but they can carry marines, did you know that, right? So a combined atack with buffed SUBmarines carrying buffed marines is a great atack, since both are stealth too. (master of STEALTH, get it?)
4 - You complaining about SUBmarines is the same as a SM user complains about bombers, but they have even another problem, they need to use transports scouted by the bombers, what slow their movement, while SUBmarines doesn't have this problem.

Hope you understand my point now.

Napisano od Pinheiro, 21.04.2011 at 12:12

Napisano od Aristosseur, 21.04.2011 at 11:59

Napisano od Pinheiro, 21.04.2011 at 11:09

MoS has, actually, a buff to submarines.

My first clause was:

Napisano od Aristosseur, 21.04.2011 at 07:42

It seems to me that the bonus of MoS to marines is too small compared to the dirt cheap GW marines

They get +1 attack and +1 movement, -20 cost. The mainline unit (don't tell me it's the submarine here because it can't even capture coastal cities) of every other strategy has many more boosts and a bigger discount.

1 - SUBmarines are not the same as marines.
2 - MoS has buff to SUBmarines AND marines.
3 - Yes, SUBmarines can't capture cities, but they can carry marines, did you know that, right? So a combined atack with buffed SUBmarines carrying buffed marines is a great atack, since both are stealth too. (master of STEALTH, get it?)
4 - You complaining about SUBmarines is the same as a SM user complains about bombers, but they have even another problem, they need to use transports scouted by the bombers, what slow their movement, while SUBmarines doesn't have this problem.

Hope you understand my point now.

LOL I need glasses.

Hey guys, I have neither of these but I will discuss their weaknesses

GW is for che guevara loving commies while MoS is more for people who use ghost on call of duty: black ops

More people using one strat = more good ppl
more good ppl = more ppl winning with that strategy
more ppl winning with that strategy = OMG NERFS NERFS!!

Napisano od Vespre, 21.04.2011 at 11:15

I think it's fine the way it is.

The balance is that Guerrilla warfare just isn't a viable strategy in any game outside of africa/latin america/middle east.

And I guess I could see it possibly working in europe, but only if there were some alliances/teams involved.

I would like to point out that the most common place GW is used to day is easter europe.

Fake, Pakistan is where GW is at.

Napisano od BASED Ironail, 24.04.2011 at 10:41

Fake, Pakistan is where GW is at.

true, played pakistan with GW and took control of asia, then europe, total domination. ALLAHALALALALALAH

I love GW in China. You can push your vast marine army west and take India and then nothing can stand in your way as you gobble up the rest of Europe and the Middle East.