Revamping Relentless Attack

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?

Why u make this dis complicated?

Cry more

When you guys mess with the strats, you tend to fuck up.

RA as-is fills the slot of strategy that is more click and drag then anything else, and your changes would make it more complicated. Also, RA is fairly strong, and does not need to be tweaked (except that annoying +10 cost to mili thing)

Napisano od Al Fappino, 09.07.2015 at 11:09

When you guys mess with the strats, you tend to fuck up.

Which is why I brought this to General Discussion so the community can come up with a better solution.

Napisano od dinoscout, 09.07.2015 at 11:11

RA as-is fills the slot of strategy that is more click and drag then anything else, and your changes would make it more complicated. Also, RA is fairly strong, and does not need to be tweaked (except that annoying +10 cost to mili thing)

Yes, that is the point - to make it more complicated to match its strength or to weaken it to match its simplicity. PD requires much more micromanagement and strategy compared to RA.

RA should have 1 purpose to strenghten attack dis just aint doing that

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 11:17

Napisano od Al Fappino, 09.07.2015 at 11:09

When you guys mess with the strats, you tend to fuck up.

Which is why I brought this to General Discussion so the community can come up with a better solution.

I have a solution.

Dont mess with it, if its the newbies default strat, let them have it, at least they'll get more SP and rank up faster if they spam tanks like fags lol

Napisano od mate2709, 09.07.2015 at 11:20

RA should have 1 purpose to strenghten attack dis just aint doing that

Cheap offensive units + buffed range = strong attack. Does not need 9 attack tanks to fulfill the role of a click and drag strategy

Napisano od Al Fappino, 09.07.2015 at 11:20

I have a solution.

Dont mess with it, if its the newbies default strat, let them have it, at least they'll get more SP and rank up faster if they spam tanks like fags lol

We should promote strategy diversity not this

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 11:23

Napisano od Al Fappino, 09.07.2015 at 11:20

I have a solution.

Dont mess with it, if its the newbies default strat, let them have it, at least they'll get more SP and rank up faster if they spam tanks like fags lol

We should promote strategy diversity not this

Tell that to the rank 2's

Nice thread, before someone comes and disqualify our argument because we are inferior to him I'll add my two cents on this thread.

---

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 10:57

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.

Wow disagree, every strat requires micromanagement. See the point below. I quote this part because I wanted to know what do you mean with "highest priority in unit selection" to drag troops?

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 10:57

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.

Wise spart says: "RA without militias? then you are doing it wrong nurb".

Why would someone buy infantries or tanks when militias have 4 def and cost 40 :/
If you have enough money to buy destroyers (7def) or bombers (6def) then why buy tanks or infantries to defend :/ It must be a very specific situation (i.e: lack of range) if you have to buy infantries or tanks to defend....

Also, infantries cost 10 less to anyone who have expandable infantries. This point doesn't makes sense unless you really need to defend.... (because +10 cost for +4 att, crit and range is very good). But purely to defense, then yes infantries are a better option than tanks.


After clarifying that I'll put my inputs about the changes.

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 10:57

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.

I disagree, RA Tanks are already weaker than IF Tanks in terms of attacking power (+2HP > +1 att, some crit). Making it perform even worsen would completely dismiss the point of having one strategy that only boost one unit (blame tophats for this....).

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 10:57

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.

Seems legit.... support...

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 10:57

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.

Support, I suggest to boost other offensive units in the past but TopHats say he like RA to boost a single unit.

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 10:57

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.

Full support !

Napisano od Guest, 20.06.2015 at 20:18

anyways RA didn't really need the extra -10 for it to be "playable" though I can see why everyone likes it. It seems like the only nerf we could agree on would be -1 defense to tanks.

Rather than -2 def to tanks, we should discuss about -1 defense. 3 defense tanks would make them very useless hue.

you must be going crazy !
we have pics were PD is shown obvious the most op and most used strat ever and yet you guys want to bash all the other strats to make PD even more OP, this is pure nonense!

http://prntscr.com/7qqqin ok now why is this happening, muting all that is related to PD but then keep proposing to nerf other strats, like you did with blitz

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 11:21

Napisano od mate2709, 09.07.2015 at 11:20

RA should have 1 purpose to strenghten attack dis just aint doing that

Cheap offensive units + buffed range = strong attack. Does not need 9 attack tanks to fulfill the role of a click and drag strategy

If u do this its just like making something between blitz and imp and we dont need that cuz then we have no +1 for main attack in any strategy . Also i think that -30 price should be removed and maybe put -10

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Wow disagree, every strat requires micromanagement. See the point below. I quote this part because I wanted to know what do you mean with "highest priority in unit selection" to drag troops?

Compared to PD and IMP, you don't have that much micromanagement - buy tanks, move tanks, profit. The highest priority means when you drag you'll always drag tanks.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Wise spart says: "RA without militias? then you are doing it wrong nurb".

Why would someone buy infantries or tanks when militias have 4 def and cost 40 :/
If you have enough money to buy destroyers (7def) or bombers (6def) then why buy tanks or infantries to defend :/ It must be a very specific situation (i.e: lack of range) if you have to buy infantries or tanks to defend....

Also, infantries cost 10 less to anyone who have expandable infantries. This point doesn't makes sense unless you really need to defend.... (because +10 cost for +4 att, crit and range is very good). But purely to defense, then yes infantries are a better option than tanks.

The idea is to push the difference, to make the player have to choose what unit to build. If tanks have the same defense as militia, that would work since one costs 50 less than the other. However I'm trying to think of ways to balance the three basic strategies for the Beginners' Room, so militia SP cost would have to be reworked as well, doesn't make sense 2k SP.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

I disagree, RA Tanks are already weaker than IF Tanks in terms of attacking power (+2HP > +1 att, some crit). Making it perform even worsen would completely dismiss the point of having one strategy that only boost one unit (blame tophats for this....).

Last I tested, +1 hp = +1 attack and +1 defense. I wanted the unit to be not so much reinforcement efficient, since the range buff means a lot of tanks can be brought into play faster. IF makes sense to be reinforcement efficient since they theoretically shouldn't expand as fast as the other strategies.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Napisano od Guest, 20.06.2015 at 20:18

anyways RA didn't really need the extra -10 for it to be "playable" though I can see why everyone likes it. It seems like the only nerf we could agree on would be -1 defense to tanks.

Rather than -2 def to tanks, we should discuss about -1 defense. 3 defense tanks would make them very useless hue.

It shouldn't go into GC territory of shitty defense, but I like the idea of glass cannons. Would push even further the need to build militia.

Napisano od Azula., 09.07.2015 at 11:42

you must be going crazy !
we have pics were PD is shown obvious the most op and most used strat ever and yet you guys want to bash all the other strats to make PD even more OP, this is pure nonense!

http://prntscr.com/7qqqin ok now why is this happening, muting all that is related to PD but then keep proposing to nerf other strats, like you did with blitz

I wasn't involved with either the blitz nerf or the muting of that thread

STOP COMPARING RA TO PD WHEN IT COMES TO BALANCE.
START COMPARING RA TO OTHER STRATS

RA currently destroys everything but PD and IF

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 12:57

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Wow disagree, every strat requires micromanagement. See the point below. I quote this part because I wanted to know what do you mean with "highest priority in unit selection" to drag troops?

Compared to PD and IMP, you don't have that much micromanagement - buy tanks, move tanks, profit. The highest priority means when you drag you'll always drag tanks.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Wise spart says: "RA without militias? then you are doing it wrong nurb".

Why would someone buy infantries or tanks when militias have 4 def and cost 40 :/
If you have enough money to buy destroyers (7def) or bombers (6def) then why buy tanks or infantries to defend :/ It must be a very specific situation (i.e: lack of range) if you have to buy infantries or tanks to defend....

Also, infantries cost 10 less to anyone who have expandable infantries. This point doesn't makes sense unless you really need to defend.... (because +10 cost for +4 att, crit and range is very good). But purely to defense, then yes infantries are a better option than tanks.

The idea is to push the difference, to make the player have to choose what unit to build. If tanks have the same defense as militia, that would work since one costs 50 less than the other. However I'm trying to think of ways to balance the three basic strategies for the Beginners' Room, so militia SP cost would have to be reworked as well, doesn't make sense 2k SP.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

I disagree, RA Tanks are already weaker than IF Tanks in terms of attacking power (+2HP > +1 att, some crit). Making it perform even worsen would completely dismiss the point of having one strategy that only boost one unit (blame tophats for this....).

Last I tested, +1 hp = +1 attack and +1 defense. I wanted the unit to be not so much reinforcement efficient, since the range buff means a lot of tanks can be brought into play faster. IF makes sense to be reinforcement efficient since they theoretically shouldn't expand as fast as the other strategies.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Napisano od Guest, 20.06.2015 at 20:18

anyways RA didn't really need the extra -10 for it to be "playable" though I can see why everyone likes it. It seems like the only nerf we could agree on would be -1 defense to tanks.

Rather than -2 def to tanks, we should discuss about -1 defense. 3 defense tanks would make them very useless hue.

It shouldn't go into GC territory of shitty defense, but I like the idea of glass cannons. Would push even further the need to build militia.

yet mods (not saying you) keep locking PD nerf proposals, so how would you feel as common member when you see a mod make a nerf RA tread after other mods closed all PD nerfing discussions.

Support ra revamp. Although i dont think we need to nerf the militia and aa too, the inf is fine. Nothing wrong with RA having at least some defensive power.

The main issue with most players suggesting boosts/nerfs is that they dont consider all the factors that make a strategy balanced within the current game dynamic.

- Unit costs
- Unit power
- Unit Range/maneuverability
- How it fares vs the other strats
- Expansion stealing power
- versatility
- Stealth capabilities

So no, you cant simply post singular examples of op rolls, directly compare unit costs or cry that you see it on all the maps you play(when you only play europe/ancient) and scream "NERF/BOOST!".

Napisano od Azula., 09.07.2015 at 13:26

yet mods (not saying you) keep locking PD nerf proposals, so how would you feel as common member when you see a mod make a nerf RA tread after other mods closed all PD nerfing discussions.

This is fair enough, i dont know why the pd thread was locked. It for the most part was a fairly healthy discussion. I'll reopen it.

Pd > ra no joke

Pd=RA stop bitching jesus

Finally someone talking sense here, huge support

Napisano od The Tactician, 06.07.2015 at 05:46

How about this, even though RA is a one unit strat that requires less skill than any other strat, and is slightly more overpowered vs the rest of strategies; the world of strategies is the most balanced at this moment. Adding MORE changes to the game would just create another weak strategy and make another one stronger and require further more tweaking. Just leave it how it is, and let the admins finish html5 in peace.

Having (re)said that, if a strategy must be tweaked it should be RA. I like the idea of making it fully attack oriented. Besides, it's not called relentless tanks its called relentless attack.

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 12:57

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.07.2015 at 11:42

Napisano od Guest, 20.06.2015 at 20:18

anyways RA didn't really need the extra -10 for it to be "playable" though I can see why everyone likes it. It seems like the only nerf we could agree on would be -1 defense to tanks.

Rather than -2 def to tanks, we should discuss about -1 defense. 3 defense tanks would make them very useless hue.

It shouldn't go into GC territory of shitty defense, but I like the idea of glass cannons. Would push even further the need to build militia.

well the differences between a GC and a RA tank are way too big even if their defense is closer. A small comparison of Tanks defense with strategies that boost tanks.

RA tanks - focused only to tanks - 4 defense (my proposal, just removing the +1 def).
Blitz Tanks - focused to all the units - 3 defense.
GC Tanks - focused to Tanks and Infantries - 2 defense.
HW Tanks - focused to many units - 1 defense.

If this doesn't convince you and you still think about a -2 defense to tanks then all I can say, is that you should at least include -1 def in the OT, so players can opine about it.

Napisano od notserral, 09.07.2015 at 12:57

The idea is to push the difference, to make the player have to choose what unit to build. If tanks have the same defense as militia, that would work since one costs 50 less than the other. However I'm trying to think of ways to balance the three basic strategies for the Beginners' Room, so militia SP cost would have to be reworked as well, doesn't make sense 2k SP.

350 SP is a good prize.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=20155

Just nerf all other strategies but pd, so you will have 100% guaranteed victory

Napisano od Guest, 10.07.2015 at 03:44

Just nerf all other strategies but pd, so you will have 100% guaranteed victory