SM IS KILLING THIS GAME

In my experience, everyone can win at least 2 on 3 games with sm, if he doesn't encounter another normal sm player - but if that happens the two sm players usually (it's reasonable) ally. I don't want to repeat what was said about many other times, but I'm very disappointed and bored to be confronted with this enourmously overpowered strategy, I don't want to become a sm player because I consider to win with it as a childish satisfaction, so I try to suggest some fundamental downgrades for this strategy.

So: is not reasonable nor realistic to add the strenght advantage to the cheaper cost, so that you can buy bomber and stealth like an Imperialist player but attacking with strenght levels like no others.

And is not reasonable, nor realistic, to add the cheapest cost of air transports (-200!) to both their own strong (attack, and above all defense and crit.) and their own capacity. It means that with 1200 I can have 2 airpl and carry 8 land forces, the sm player can buy 3 airpl carrying 15 land forces!

Balance it pls, or the game will be no more various and interesting, as it could be.

SM is a weak strat these days, actually.

Napisano od Fruit, 29.03.2013 at 18:04

SM is a weak strat these days, actually.

ikr, when i used to be rank 5, SM was a beast, it got a lot of nerf and yet, its op.

you all pro player ask: why?
well, turn blocking a air transport is really, really hard.

i guess SM must get a extra -1 in the bombers defense.
or -1 Air Transport Movement.

Lol deal with it. SM is good.

Sm is weak

Lol have you tried PD inf spam?

N'importe quoi...

"N'importe quoi" is a better french expression for: nonsenses ; bullshit; rubbish. You can know here people writing with neiher reasons nor Reason. They only "vote" for their own (supposed) prejudices.

Napisano od Goblin, 31.03.2013 at 10:29

...nostromo SM might be strong against lower ranks ...but against skilled players later on, it's just another strategy with no advantage. Trust me.

I don't usually agree with Goblin (since he took my alt acc name) but this time he's right. SM is fine.

I'm sorry but I have to say that "trust me" is not an argument, once more. I understand that sm players are interested in mantain the op strategy, but pls don't try to childish deny the reality. What reality? If someone want not/cannot see it during games, all are able to learn it having a look at the figures on FAQ-Units.

Ugh this is an age old argument and weather you support it or not SM isn't changeing. Although I am all with you. I think SM needs some kind of a nerf. 15-50k games are just unplayable now becuase of it. Although I would go on and say it has been nerfed quite a bit and I am not sure what else they can do. It is just a very op strategy and it isn't changeing. Air superitority in this game as in real life is an expensive and very dominant force and that is that. Please note my signature. War isn't fair.

Napisano od Wildchild92, 31.03.2013 at 23:11

15-50k games are just unplayable now becuase of it.

There's your problem.

Stop playing games where you're meant to spam everything anyway. Don't play 50k or 25k starting cash. Even 15k games are initial spam fests(though manageable). If SM was nerfed, everyone can just move onto MOS stealths spamming in high money games, even IF bomber spamming is absolute domination.

Sky Menace is not over powered at all. It just has a range advantage, and with that range advantage, you're able to gather units(bombers) from all your spawn points easily. People that play SM all the time don't realize how restricted their play is compared to something like Guerrilla Warfare, Imperialist, Perfect Defence, or even Master of Stealth. It's basically OMGF.. THESE BOMBERS GO FAR.

As Pulse said above, your problem is you play these high starting money games where you basically spam the most expensive units and never run out of money. Try playing with low starting cash. These games have actual economies per player and it makes you want to protect your economy as well as advance your forces. Take away the initial money, just start 5k/10k games with actual economies, and Sky Menace actually fairly weak.

There are things that can counter SM easily.
As a bit of an SM player myself, i can say that PD can take out SM at any given time, no matter the costs. Might seem that SM gets way more of a capability in taking land and advancing. But a PD player, though not being able to maybe gain land that quickly, still is a threat, since it can make SM hit a stone wall at one point.
Also, even though SM is versatile, it is just a tad OP in 50k games in my opinion. It's hard to stop an SM player there, because you can't even abuse it's greatest weakness (the need for supplies, in that case, rich countries) against it. Other than that, it's perfectly fine. People have made better 10k Ukraine PD openings nowadays than with 10k Ukraine SM, so ... i hope it makes a little point.

Napisano od Desu, 01.04.2013 at 00:28

Stop playing games where you're meant to spam everything anyway. Don't play 50k or 25k starting cash. Even 15k games are initial spam fests(though manageable). If SM was nerfed, everyone can just move onto MOS stealths spamming in high money games, even IF bomber spamming is absolute domination.

Sky Menace is not over powered at all. It just has a range advantage, and with that range advantage, you're able to gather units(bombers) from all your spawn points easily. People that play SM all the time don't realize how restricted their play is compared to something like Guerrilla Warfare, Imperialist, Perfect Defence, or even Master of Stealth. It's basically OMGF.. THESE BOMBERS GO FAR.

As Pulse said above, your problem is you play these high starting money games where you basically spam the most expensive units and never run out of money. Try playing with low starting cash. These games have actual economies per player and it makes you want to protect your economy as well as advance your forces. Take away the initial money, just start 5k/10k games with actual economies, and Sky Menace actually fairly weak.

pls stop writing so much bullshit,u suck.


and no , PD is op,not SM.

Napisano od Shayke, 01.04.2013 at 01:09

Napisano od Desu, 01.04.2013 at 00:28

Stop playing games where you're meant to spam everything anyway. Don't play 50k or 25k starting cash. Even 15k games are initial spam fests(though manageable). If SM was nerfed, everyone can just move onto MOS stealths spamming in high money games, even IF bomber spamming is absolute domination.

Sky Menace is not over powered at all. It just has a range advantage, and with that range advantage, you're able to gather units(bombers) from all your spawn points easily. People that play SM all the time don't realize how restricted their play is compared to something like Guerrilla Warfare, Imperialist, Perfect Defence, or even Master of Stealth. It's basically OMGF.. THESE BOMBERS GO FAR.

As Pulse said above, your problem is you play these high starting money games where you basically spam the most expensive units and never run out of money. Try playing with low starting cash. These games have actual economies per player and it makes you want to protect your economy as well as advance your forces. Take away the initial money, just start 5k/10k games with actual economies, and Sky Menace actually fairly weak.

pls stop writing so much bullshit,u suck.


and no , PD is op,not SM.

PD ain't even close to OP. Its basically a strategy you can play at any starting fund. You have 50 cash Infantry with all upgrades. What do you mean by he sucks he gave a valid reason to why SM is balanced. You are just starting a flame war you see, he did not even mention you name next time say something more to why you think he is wrong. Nonsense like "pls stop writing so much bullshit,u suck." is the real bullshit.

Meester they're from the same coalition, that's why I don't think it's a flame war starting up

We have been aware of the situation for about a half year now.

Personally I believe SM is pretty balanced on maps like EU+ but our game statistics suggest otherwise.

In all games played on the default map since 1st Oct. 2012, players using Sky Menace maintain a winratio of 47%
while the second most successful strategy is Relentless Attack with a ratio of only 26%. So basically we can say
SM players are twice as successful as the usual AW player.

We hoped that problem might solve itself after the introduction of the balance changes this january but the overall winratio
remained stable on ~44%.

We discussed internally how we want to deal with that situation in the future taking into account the various complaints
and the general opinion of SM in the community and we came to the conclusion to remove it from the game completely
for balances sake.

This is the LAST week you will be able to play SM. Until the weekend Amok is going to introduce a new strategy that will take
the its place. Currently we are still busy testing out the last bits but what I can tell you so far is that new strat focusses on the use
of both a new air unit and a new naval unit. I will not tell you what it is to spoil the excitement but some of you might have guessed it already.

So please all calm down now and exploit enjoy the strength of SM the next days

Cheers!

Napisano od VRIL, 01.04.2013 at 14:45

We have been aware of the situation for about a half year now.

Personally I believe SM is pretty balanced on maps like EU+ but our game statistics suggest otherwise.

In all games played on the default map since 1st Oct. 2012, players using Sky Menace maintain a winratio of 47%
while the second most successful strategy is Relentless Attack with a ratio of only 26%. So basically we can say
SM players are twice as successful as the usual AW player.

We hoped that problem might solve itself after the introduction of the balance changes this january but the overall winratio
remained stable on ~44%.

We discussed internally how we want to deal with that situation in the future taking into account the various complaints
and the general opinion of SM in the community and we came to the conclusion to remove it from the game completely
for balances sake.

This is the LAST week you will be able to play SM. Until the weekend Amok is going to introduce a new strategy that will take
the its place. Currently we are still busy testing out the last bits but what I can tell you so far is that new strat focusses on the use
of both a new air unit and a new naval unit. I will not tell you what it is to spoil the excitement but some of you might have guessed it already.

So please all calm down now and exploit enjoy the strength of SM the next days

Cheers!

I am immune to April Fools. Better luck next year.

Napisano od VRIL, 01.04.2013 at 14:45

We have been aware of the situation for about a half year now.

Personally I believe SM is pretty balanced on maps like EU+ but our game statistics suggest otherwise.

In all games played on the default map since 1st Oct. 2012, players using Sky Menace maintain a winratio of 47%
while the second most successful strategy is Relentless Attack with a ratio of only 26%. So basically we can say
SM players are twice as successful as the usual AW player.

We hoped that problem might solve itself after the introduction of the balance changes this january but the overall winratio
remained stable on ~44%.

We discussed internally how we want to deal with that situation in the future taking into account the various complaints
and the general opinion of SM in the community and we came to the conclusion to remove it from the game completely
for balances sake.

This is the LAST week you will be able to play SM. Until the weekend Amok is going to introduce a new strategy that will take
the its place. Currently we are still busy testing out the last bits but what I can tell you so far is that new strat focusses on the use
of both a new air unit and a new naval unit. I will not tell you what it is to spoil the excitement but some of you might have guessed it already.

So please all calm down now and exploit enjoy the strength of SM the next days

Cheers!

I am immune to April Fools. Better luck next year.

Napisano od Meester, 01.04.2013 at 09:47

Napisano od Shayke, 01.04.2013 at 01:09

Napisano od Desu, 01.04.2013 at 00:28

Stop playing games where you're meant to spam everything anyway. Don't play 50k or 25k starting cash. Even 15k games are initial spam fests(though manageable). If SM was nerfed, everyone can just move onto MOS stealths spamming in high money games, even IF bomber spamming is absolute domination.

Sky Menace is not over powered at all. It just has a range advantage, and with that range advantage, you're able to gather units(bombers) from all your spawn points easily. People that play SM all the time don't realize how restricted their play is compared to something like Guerrilla Warfare, Imperialist, Perfect Defence, or even Master of Stealth. It's basically OMGF.. THESE BOMBERS GO FAR.

As Pulse said above, your problem is you play these high starting money games where you basically spam the most expensive units and never run out of money. Try playing with low starting cash. These games have actual economies per player and it makes you want to protect your economy as well as advance your forces. Take away the initial money, just start 5k/10k games with actual economies, and Sky Menace actually fairly weak.

pls stop writing so much bullshit,u suck.


and no , PD is op,not SM.

PD ain't even close to OP. Its basically a strategy you can play at any starting fund. You have 50 cash Infantry with all upgrades. What do you mean by he sucks he gave a valid reason to why SM is balanced. You are just starting a flame war you see, he did not even mention you name next time say something more to why you think he is wrong. Nonsense like "pls stop writing so much bullshit,u suck." is the real bullshit.

me and desu are good friends,and i am extremely mature,i will not flame.

Napisano od VRIL, 01.04.2013 at 14:45

We have been aware of the situation for about a half year now.

Personally I believe SM is pretty balanced on maps like EU+ but our game statistics suggest otherwise.

In all games played on the default map since 1st Oct. 2012, players using Sky Menace maintain a winratio of 47%
while the second most successful strategy is Relentless Attack with a ratio of only 26%. So basically we can say
SM players are twice as successful as the usual AW player.

We hoped that problem might solve itself after the introduction of the balance changes this january but the overall winratio
remained stable on ~44%.

We discussed internally how we want to deal with that situation in the future taking into account the various complaints
and the general opinion of SM in the community and we came to the conclusion to remove it from the game completely
for balances sake.

This is the LAST week you will be able to play SM. Until the weekend Amok is going to introduce a new strategy that will take
the its place. Currently we are still busy testing out the last bits but what I can tell you so far is that new strat focusses on the use
of both a new air unit and a new naval unit. I will not tell you what it is to spoil the excitement but some of you might have guessed it already.

So please all calm down now and exploit enjoy the strength of SM the next days

Cheers!

Evidences about SM op are now unquestionable. I think that we have to appreciate the in-depth analysis an professionalism of AW's staff. Wise decision, positive solution for our fun.

That isn't what I am getting at. I am an avid GW player. The lower the income the better my advantage. I don't play 15-50k games. I was simply makeing the point SM ruined those large income games. Although I guess with all that income you don't really need any skill and pick any strategy.

Napisano od Desu, 01.04.2013 at 00:28

Stop playing games where you're meant to spam everything anyway. Don't play 50k or 25k starting cash. Even 15k games are initial spam fests(though manageable). If SM was nerfed, everyone can just move onto MOS stealths spamming in high money games, even IF bomber spamming is absolute domination.

Sky Menace is not over powered at all. It just has a range advantage, and with that range advantage, you're able to gather units(bombers) from all your spawn points easily. People that play SM all the time don't realize how restricted their play is compared to something like Guerrilla Warfare, Imperialist, Perfect Defence, or even Master of Stealth. It's basically OMGF.. THESE BOMBERS GO FAR.

As Pulse said above, your problem is you play these high starting money games where you basically spam the most expensive units and never run out of money. Try playing with low starting cash. These games have actual economies per player and it makes you want to protect your economy as well as advance your forces. Take away the initial money, just start 5k/10k games with actual economies, and Sky Menace actually fairly weak.

I would also like to add another one of my inputs. If you compare SM to other stragies, in this example Blitz and RA. Well SM can expand like blitz and attack like RA. (I know you trolls will eat it up but esentially yes it can do both.) Now I think the infantry on SM should have their defence nerfed ATLEAST. Compared to RA and blitz. They can expand fast and attack hard and both have bad defencive nerfs that even it out. I feel maybe SM infantry should be the same. -1 def or atleast take away the +1 bonus for cities and def lines. That sounds perfectly fair and alittle more balanceing. Becuase with SM you can expand fast and attack hard but still defend good? That is ridiculous even for the higher cost. I feel what I have suggested is a very balanceing suggestion.

Napisano od Shayke, 01.04.2013 at 01:09

Napisano od Desu, 01.04.2013 at 00:28

Stop playing games where you're meant to spam everything anyway. Don't play 50k or 25k starting cash. Even 15k games are initial spam fests(though manageable). If SM was nerfed, everyone can just move onto MOS stealths spamming in high money games, even IF bomber spamming is absolute domination.

Sky Menace is not over powered at all. It just has a range advantage, and with that range advantage, you're able to gather units(bombers) from all your spawn points easily. People that play SM all the time don't realize how restricted their play is compared to something like Guerrilla Warfare, Imperialist, Perfect Defence, or even Master of Stealth. It's basically OMGF.. THESE BOMBERS GO FAR.

As Pulse said above, your problem is you play these high starting money games where you basically spam the most expensive units and never run out of money. Try playing with low starting cash. These games have actual economies per player and it makes you want to protect your economy as well as advance your forces. Take away the initial money, just start 5k/10k games with actual economies, and Sky Menace actually fairly weak.

pls stop writing so much bullshit,u suck.


and no , PD is op,not SM.

This is a good sample of denegation by op players that refuse to admit the truth, in bad or in "good" faith.
When they say that sm is more expensive than other strat, they omit to say that it's ALSO much more profitable. In AW most important is not the cost itself, but the balance of costs-benefits. So the clause "PD is op, not SM" can only remind some Hitler's statements.

Yeah the argument that SM is weak becuase of it's cost is extremely invalid. It isn't that it is over buffed it is just under nerfed. If you look at a strat like blitz, which you can expand extremely fast and build up a good economy fast. Well SM does that just as easily with their bombers who go faster then Blitz tanks and have same attack and only costs 10 more. So that argument is invalid. Also SM doesn't nearly have the nerfs it should as I keep saying they need to lower the defence of SM infantry if it is going to expand like blitz it should have atleast the similar nerfs. Even DS has a nerf on it's infantry and it isn't nearly as playable as SM and it's helicopters have almost the same starts and LESS range then SM bombers yet they feel it needs that infantry nerf. So why doesn't SM have it!? This could really bring balance to this strategy.

P.S. I might add that bombers alone can't take cities alone and they need an air transport with them. That is something I felt I might add becuase you SM noobs would argue that is why it doesn't need a nerf and that is also invalid as SM air transports are a lot cheaper then regular ones. You also only need to get one per each stack of bombers and load it with some militia so it's cost burdon still pays for itself.

I never wasted the SP on it. I don't need to play it to see it is clearly under nerfed and really throws off the balance of the game. Did you read any of what I wrote about SM compared to other strats like DS, blitz, and RA. SM can expand like blitz (no defenceive infantry nerfs like blitz which makes blitz hard to play) Attacks like RA, again no defencive nerfs. DS the other Air strat whos helicopters can't even expand like SM bombers does infact have that -1 def on infantry and it isn't even as strong. I understand your points. SM isn't all powerful and the ultimate evil in the universe. It is just a stategy on a game BUT you can't deny it is the strongest and least balanced one at the moment.

SM cannot expand like blitz. Although the bombers have higher range, this just gives you more options (which is nice, but beside the point). In blitz and RA, it is incredibly easy to break stacks into what is needed, so that you can take several cities in a turn from one large original stack. With SM, your city taking capability is your Air Transport, and you can't split one air transport into several stacks. You can build more air transports, but they're roughly 3 times as expensive as a bomber, and each one takes away from your offensive power you could have built in that city. If you have the units, and two cities were in a straight line from each other, you could drop one militia off at a city and then move the transport with a second militia into a second city to take 2 in one turn. However, this is both time consuming (with time being a valueable asset which is not to be underestimated) and requires ideal conditions. Then afterwards you'd have to build another air transport in that city anyways to get your units out.

You keep saying that SM has massive expansion power, and it doesn't. It's good in PvP in equal footing with enough cash to sustain both armies (like when you just start off if you have plenty of cash left), but it's a slow expander.

Napisano od Guest, 15.04.2013 at 01:09

Napisano od zombiekiller, 14.04.2013 at 23:38

You keep saying that SM has massive expansion power, and it doesn't. It's good in PvP in equal footing with enough cash to sustain both armies (like when you just start off if you have plenty of cash left), but it's a slow expander.

Woah woah woah there, I agree its not as fast of an expander but it is in no mean a slow expander. I'd say its the second fastest expander! The problems with SM expand you pointed out stand but you must also weigh in with SM it is much easier to expand terrain wise. It is harder and slower for all strategies (except bltiz) to expand across seas. Even NC which is fast in the seas has to use the sea for transport. With SM is it incredibly fast and easy to expand back and forth across such places at the Mediterranean.

I'll agree with you for Seas, but SM is horrible if you're trying to get an income base by taking all cities in a country. If you just want to blitz on through and worry about economics later, then yeah, sure, it's good.

No support. Even though I don't have SM currently, I have not encountered any major problems with the enemy using it.