Modifications to GW and MOS

I'm sure I have been the person that most played GW in AW and I can say that, for sure, it's not overpowered. I rarely play it anymore, since I found out that strategies like PD, IF and even IMP are better than GW in most cases.

1: MoS is worse than GW early game
2: GW is easy counterable by other strategies and worse than MoS late game and on bigger maps

How nerfing GW will help with making MoS more balanced with the other strategies?

Napisano od Herpus Derpus, 06.11.2011 at 03:09

+30 cost for marines (110) and -1 attack for militia will be enough.

Overnerf.

Napisano od Caulerpa, 05.11.2011 at 10:26

-1 attack and +10 cost on militia?

Overnerf.

Napisano od Herpus Derpus, 06.11.2011 at 03:09

The GW faceroll has become too blatant: People are using Germany GW, 10K GW, in fact, if you SUSPEND GW FOR A DAY YOU WILL SEE RANKINGS CHANGE ABRUPTLY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL SHITPLAYERS CAN DO LIKE [no name, no ban].

I'm really concerned about some arguments in those balancement threads. IF, GC, SM, PD and even TG are strategies more suitable than GW 10k in Germany. If you can't handle one tactic don't blame the system, please.

Napisano od tophat, 06.11.2011 at 09:13

> put marines 130 cost (120 with the upgrade) This still makes the strategy expensive like IF and GC but at least its playable without using too much infantry like SonyHaxor had said.

Agreed.

Napisano od tophat, 06.11.2011 at 09:13

> make stealth planes 160 cost and bombers 200 cost. This boost will make players use only stealths since it is "Master of Stealth" and not SM.

Over buff and no sense. MoS Stealths are already way better than it's Bombers, if the players can't recognize it it's not a system fault.

Napisano od Guest, 06.11.2011 at 09:16

Napisano od tophat, 06.11.2011 at 09:13

> make stealth planes 160 cost and bombers 200 cost. This boost will make players use only stealths since it is "Master of Stealth" and not SM.

iLike.

Thank you sir

OK Pinheiro says TG is better starting strategy than GW in Germany 10K. Pinheiro seems to be forgetting that every empty city (Which one has to empty because of expansion) a GW spammer takes is 5-6 free, highly mobile, and offensive militia he gets for absolutely nothing.

What I'm seeing is, my friends, a GW stalemate, people won't play anything else since everyday a new strategy gets destroyed but GW remains untouched.

+30 cost for marines (110) and -1 attack for militia, who's with me?

Also, Master of Stealth isn't really that weak, you might want to make Marines 10 cheaper and it would restore it's glory.

Napisano od tophat, 06.11.2011 at 09:13

GW

> +10 cost to militia (30 cost) This is all that GW should be nerfed. Anything else would make it underpowered.

MoS

> like Pinheiro had mentioned, making marines cheaper would resemble it too much to GW.
> put marines 130 cost (120 with the upgrade) This still makes the strategy expensive like IF and GC but at least its playable without using too much infantry like SonyHaxor had said.
> make stealth planes 160 cost and bombers 200 cost. This boost will make players use only stealths since it is "Master of Stealth" and not SM.

Oooooooo... I dont think that would be a good idea. I'd love it but that would make MoS very, very powerful.

I honestly don't get this hate for MoS. People aren't using it right.

Napisano od Tik-Tok, 06.11.2011 at 20:18

I honestly don't get this hate for MoS. People aren't using it right.

Agreed.

Also, it looks like many players don't understand how minor changes to a strategy can change it drastically. First reaction when Ivan said he was going to decrease the PD Infantries movement range by one was "OMG THIS IS NOT ENOUGH, 1 MOVEMENT WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING PD OVERPOWERED". It's fun how nobody says PD is overpowered nowadays.

Now, I see this:

Napisano od Herpus Derpus, 06.11.2011 at 19:14

+30 cost for marines (110) and -1 attack for militia, who's with me?

Yes, if you want to nerf a strategy that has already more expensive and slower transports, air transports, weaker and slower infantries and weaker tanks by increasing the price of marines (that have no buff compared to any other strategy) and reducing the stats of it's only buffed unit... go with him!

Napisano od Pinheiro, 07.11.2011 at 04:36

It's fun how nobody says PD is overpowered nowadays.

PD is overpowered, just people moved onto GW which, as a GW player, I can safely say is overpowered as well.

Perfect Defence is strong, maybe we could all agree just -1 attack to militia and +5 cost. I know it's the only buffed unit but hell they get a lot of them!

Napisano od Herpus Derpus, 07.11.2011 at 13:43

Perfect Defence is strong, maybe we could all agree just -1 attack to militia and +5 cost. I know it's the only buffed unit but hell they get a lot of them!

You must mean gw...

Heres one: more powerful marines for GW ad cheaper units for MOS

I Can Teach You How To Rap For Rep

GW does'nt need any buffs. It also annoyed me recently that I lost a game merely because I was using MoS when if I had been using GW I would have won.

Caulerpa's suggestion is fine, -1 att +10 cost. Now it's costing 20 and you get 0,25 attack per gold, that is more than TG tanks (3rd best attack/cost, 0,081 recurring) and they have next to no def and no free units when you capture stuff and no snowball stacking due to that. Funny enough 2nd best attack/cost is GW marines (!) for 0,0875. If militia receive what Caulerpa said it'll be 0,13 with the 3 recurring, fine for a unit with same as IF infantry movement range, 5 defence and 6 in own cities and that you get it for free whenever you cap something leading to an easy snowballing.

For a comparison:
GW Militia: 5 att 5 def 1 arb 4 range 20 cost
PD Infantry: 4 att 7 def 2 arb 5 range 60 cost

Now PD has no cheap marines, no free good units everytime you capture something and gets nerf in bombers and destroyers.

Referring to stats:
GW Militia 5/20=0,25
GW marines 7/80=0,0875
TG tanks 9/110=0,081
NC destroyers 11/170=0,065
SM bombers 8/130=0,061
MoS marines 8/140=0,057
MoS submarines 9/160=0,056
MoS stealth 9/200=0,045

As you can see MoS is at the bottom and receives no HP boosts to make their huge cost and low attack/cost more worthy therefore at least one of its units needs a buff. Before you tell me that reinforcements are limited and the base values of GW are low, money is limited too, to get equal attack values in a single stack of GW militia and any other units there is not really much difference:
1 GW militia= 0,625 MoS marine in attack (5/8)
7 GW militia= 1 MoS marine in cost (140/20)
Which means that for 140 cost GW gets 35 attack with less range and no stealth while MoS gets 8 attack with stealth and more range...
In same attack terms (40) it's 8 GW militia and 5 MoS marines, in cost it's 160 GW and 700 for MoS, lol. MoS saves 3 reinforcements for more range and stealth while GW saves 540 gold (wastes 3 reinforcements? not really since some of them GW militia are free when you capture any city) which can be used to buy 6 marines (480 gold) and 3 militia (60).
1 GW militia= 1,25 PD infantry in attack (5/4)
1 GW militia= 0,66 PD infantry in defence (6/9) (values in city)
3 GW militia= 1 PD infantry in cost (60/20)
For defence, in equal cost (120) you get: 2 infantry and 18 defence, 6 GW militia and 36 defence. In equal defence (18), it needs 3 GW militia and 2 PD infantry, GW pays 60 and PD pays 120.
PD has no other offensive units (bombers tanks destroyers get nerf, marines are expensive, gw gets cheap marines no nerf on bombers or destroyers) and still needs to expand, so taking GW's supposedly secondary unit you can see it is better than PD infantry except in defence (only arguably though because infantry is cheap in cost but while in same given budget it's bad compared to GW) and range (-1 difference)

That is if only GW player is making militia, if he makes marines it is:
1 GW marine= 1,14 MoS marine in attack (8/7)
1,75 GW marine= 1 MoS marine in cost, or 7 GW marines= 4 MoS marines, and in terms of attack in equal cost (560) this goes 49 GW marine attack are equal cost with 32 MoS marine attack.
In terms of equal attack (56) you need 8 GW marines and 7 MoS marines, but in costs GW needs 640 and MoS needs 980, or ~35% more for MoS (340 profit for GW or 4 GW marines and 1 militia if spent) and only saves 1 reinforcement and gets +1 range...

Now it is obvious GW needs a nerf on militia (caulerpa's -1 attack +10 cost or stats unchanged but with a drastic HP nerf to show in battles ) and possibly though not necesarily a small cost increase on marines, while MoS needs a buff either of less cost or +1/2 HP or +1 attack.

Thank you Aristo for doing the math that I already knew in my head but was too lazy to type out.


After thinking about it more

**my personal preference is +10 cost no attack nerf.**


The attack nerf will already require an extra militia on every attack the GW player makes on attacks under 5 units, and also also an extra militia for ever 5 units in the stack, basically a 20% nerf as is expected.

So that already raises the cost to GW player by roughly %20 per battle.

current cost to kill 6 untis on defense, 6 militia atatcking = $120 cost

new cost with just attack nerf $140.

at most +5 to cost would be enough
7 units x $25 = $175

other option is no attack nerf and + 10 cost.
6 units x $30 = $180

**my personal preference is +10 cost no attack nerf.**

-1 attack and +10 cost makes it $210 dollars to kill 6 militia with 7 militia.

7 x 30 = $210 -

using some bigger numbers.

trying to kill 12 militia on defense will require 14 militia with -1 attack
new cost 14 x 30 = $420
original cost 12 x 20 = $240

too much of a nerf imho.


As for MoS , give marines +1hp, nuff said.

Napisano od the99percent, 07.11.2011 at 20:50

GW does'nt need any buffs. It also annoyed me recently that I lost a game merely because I was using MoS when if I had been using GW I would have won.

Which is why MoS and GW are used in different scenarios.

And like I said, if you have a problem with MoS. You probably aren't using it right. In MoS, I usually build more infantry and Stealths than marines. Seeing as stealths are so powerful that they always hit first which means you can play like SM, except stealth.

Its expensive but powerful.

Dude, Aristo just showed how statistically it is crap, did you even read his post? I don't care how many noobs you beat in world games with it, when your playing a CW, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when using MoS.

Napisano od the99percent, 08.11.2011 at 12:40

Dude, Aristo just showed how statistically it is crap, did you even read his post? I don't care how many noobs you beat in world games with it, when your playing a CW, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when using MoS.

Ad Hominem

Insult the poster and not their argument.

Your fault is building more infantry, if you want you can use SM for it, bombers have better attack/cost (and cost much less by themselves only for -1 attack but more def).

Napisano od the99percent, 08.11.2011 at 12:40

Dude, Aristo just showed how statistically it is crap, did you even read his post? I don't care how many noobs you beat in world games with it, when your playing a CW, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when using MoS.

Aristosseur
Favorite strategies: Iron Fist, Sky Menace, Master Of Stealth

>Master Of Stealth
....shocking

Tik Tok, stop arguing with me cause you have a different perspective. I like my strats to not put me at a disadvantage when playing equal or superior opponents, you obv don't' share this view.

I'm just going destroy your argument. How is it both expensive and powerful, what do you mean when you say *powerful* ? Cause i can spend less and get better attack rates on different strats, which most people would say is more powerful. In the end this is a game that is won mostly by the numbers, when skill is similar, this is why out expanding your opponent leads to victory, and having more units and more attack for less cost will allow you to expand quicker.

Does this need any further explanation?

Damn kids.

Napisano od the99percent, 08.11.2011 at 13:02

Tik Tok, stop arguing with me cause you have a different perspective. I like my strats to not put me at a disadvantage when playing equal or superior opponents, you obv don't' share this view.

I'm just going destroy your argument. How is it both expensive and powerful, what do you mean when you say *powerful* ? Cause i can spend less and get better attack rates on different strats, which most people would say is more powerful. In the end this is a game that is won mostly by the numbers, when skill is similar, this is why out expanding your opponent leads to victory, and having more units and more attack for less cost will allow you to expand quicker.

Does this need any further explanation?

Damn kids.

You claim it is numbers you are also ignoring speed. One of the reasons I prefer MoS is because it's damn fast, ATs are cheaper, stealths are fast, marines are fast, infantry are faster than miilitia. I can pull together my infantry and stack them quickly, I can adapt quicker.

Now if it was Europe, I'd go with GW. Speed isn't as important when cities and territory are so close. But in bigger maps, speed and expansion are important. GW is great but I prefer MoS. It's different.

Strats are different. If you want to give me 1hp extra or make my stealth's cheaper, by all means. I wont be complaining, old man. I'm just telling you that you are playing it wrong but then again, you probably play Europe CWs so i's understandable if you prefer GW.

Now your talking about GW vs MoS, in my post i mentioned that MoS is weak compared to other strats, not just GW. you want fast? SM is faster, and has better units, ie bomebrs.

Napisano od the99percent, 08.11.2011 at 14:46

Now your talking about GW vs MoS, in my post i mentioned that MoS is weak compared to other strats, not just GW. you want fast? SM is faster, and has better units, ie bomebrs.

AM is only great where there is more cities asia won't do very nice with it. MoS just needs more money to support. If you use it right you'll win everytime.

Napisano od Aristosseur, 08.11.2011 at 12:50

Your fault is building more infantry, if you want you can use SM for it, bombers have better attack/cost (and cost much less by themselves only for -1 attack but more def).

Yes, but aren't you forgetting the main advantage of the Stealth vs Bomber comparison? The unit name speak for itself. Having a powerful offensive unit (9 atk, 17 range, 200 cost) that is stealth and can combine attacks with marines to capture cities is a powerful advantage.

SM and MoS are totally different strategies and they should be played totally different.

Of course if you wan't to play SM style there is no reason to pick up MoS. Same works with GW. MoS works better in high cash starting places and it can be a lot better than GW in a inter continental war.

He's doing it SM though.

Napisano od Tik-Tok, 08.11.2011 at 12:54

Napisano od the99percent, 08.11.2011 at 12:40

Dude, Aristo just showed how statistically it is crap, did you even read his post? I don't care how many noobs you beat in world games with it, when your playing a CW, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when using MoS.

Aristosseur
Favorite strategies: Iron Fist, Sky Menace, Master Of Stealth

>Master Of Stealth
....shocking

>complains about ad hominem
also I've hardly ever used MoS past level 5 and numbers can't really lie.

Napisano od Aristosseur, 08.11.2011 at 15:18

I've hardly ever used MoS past level 5 and numbers can't really lie.

>use GW at least since his comeback, regularly making use of it before as well
>numbers can't lie

Napisano od YOBA, 08.11.2011 at 17:34

Napisano od Aristosseur, 08.11.2011 at 15:18

I've hardly ever used MoS past level 5 and numbers can't really lie.

>use GW at least since his comeback, regularly making use of it before as well
>numbers can't lie

A number once told me I was straight.

Napisano od YOBA, 08.11.2011 at 17:34

Napisano od Aristosseur, 08.11.2011 at 15:18

I've hardly ever used MoS past level 5 and numbers can't really lie.

>use GW at least since his comeback, regularly making use of it before as well
>numbers can't lie

Why are you so καθυστερημένος and μαλάκας;
I use neither.

MoS strong, needs no buff so only I can be master of MoS and nobody else uses, so I Can be cool and stuff

I think if you made the upkeep for militia higher, they probably couldn't spam them so much at low income.

>write all this in detail
>check visited by
>no ivan

Napisano od Aristosseur, 08.11.2011 at 15:18

Napisano od Tik-Tok, 08.11.2011 at 12:54

Napisano od the99percent, 08.11.2011 at 12:40

Dude, Aristo just showed how statistically it is crap, did you even read his post? I don't care how many noobs you beat in world games with it, when your playing a CW, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when using MoS.

Aristosseur
Favorite strategies: Iron Fist, Sky Menace, Master Of Stealth

>Master Of Stealth
....shocking

>complains about ad hominem
also I've hardly ever used MoS past level 5 and numbers can't really lie.

That wasn't Ad Hominem.