RA revision, end of RA as a tank noob strat

This is ridiculous, RA is meant to be a general attack strat, not like tank general, it is meant to be the counterpart of PD, focusing on the 2 primary and secoundary defense units. RA should focus on both tanks and marines. I say that instead of the current RA we have these bonuses/nerfs:

Tanks

[*+1 attack] [*+1 range] [*+2 view] [*-30 cost] [+1 attack towards inf] [+1 defence in own city/defence line] [+2 critical]

Marines

[*+1 attack] [*+1 range] [*-1 defence] [+1 critical]

Nerfs to other units
Inf

[*-2 defence] [*+30 cost] [*-1 range] [-1 HP] [-4 view]

Bombers & helis

[*-1 defence]

AA

[*-2 bonus against air units]

Post any tweaks if you kinda support it.

Edit: Okay I kinda failed trying to put bullet points in...

Edit no.2: if PD bonus against tanks is gone then also RA bonus against inf, also getting rid of +defence in city or defence line, this is an attack strat.

Way to make RA OP lol. giveing tanks 11 attack against infantry, even PD infantry and giveing them defence bonuses in cities. Sorry but I don't see anything seriously wrong with the strategy and especially nothing to warrant such a drastic change.

I like the idea of a stronger RA(right now its more or less useless) that combine both Tanks and Marines.
However I would say cost decrease should only be by -20(so PD can still make two Infantry per Tank) and the attack bonus +1 or bonus vs. Infantry removed.
PD as it stands now is just OP, it can outspam Tanks completely, rendering them useless, while in combat they should win any equal battle against them.
Personally I want this 'spam-to-win' tactic gone, as atWar just rely too much on quantity over quality.

Napsáno Pyrrhus, 27.09.2013 at 02:04

I like the idea of a stronger RA(right now its more or less useless) that combine both Tanks and Marines.
However I would say cost decrease should only be by -20(so PD can still make two Infantry per Tank) and the attack bonus +1 or bonus vs. Infantry removed.
PD as it stands now is just OP, it can outspam Tanks completely, rendering them useless, while in combat they should win any equal battle against them.
Personally I want this 'spam-to-win' tactic gone, as atWar just rely too much on quantity over quality.

Well, the only reason I put inf bonus there is because inf has bonus against tanks with PD :| against tanks it has 10 defence, +1 PD bonus +2 in wall/city (added one for PD) +1 against tanks. Tell me how this isn't ridiculous and completely OP, I don't really want bonus against inf, but if PD inf bonus against tanks still stands RA must have bonus against inf. Cost is fair (your changes). I too want this spam to win gone, this is right up there with ally fagging.

Napsáno Wildchild92, 27.09.2013 at 01:50

Way to make RA OP lol. giveing tanks 11 attack against infantry, even PD infantry and giveing them defence bonuses in cities. Sorry but I don't see anything seriously wrong with the strategy and especially nothing to warrant such a drastic change.

There is a lot wrong with the strat, I have added changes to it if PD is nerfed as well. RA must match PD at all times, they are the two base strats.

Napsáno Wildchild92, 27.09.2013 at 01:50

Way to make RA OP lol. giveing tanks 11 attack against infantry, even PD infantry and giveing them defence bonuses in cities. Sorry but I don't see anything seriously wrong with the strategy and especially nothing to warrant such a drastic change.

You say this is OP put against PD it will lose, 2 PD imp for around the same price as one tank, 20 defence in comparison to 11 attack in terms of money, which is usually the problem, not reinforcements. PD is OP and this version of RA is not as OP as PD.

Napsáno Xenosapien, 27.09.2013 at 06:38

Napsáno Wildchild92, 27.09.2013 at 01:50

Way to make RA OP lol. giveing tanks 11 attack against infantry, even PD infantry and giveing them defence bonuses in cities. Sorry but I don't see anything seriously wrong with the strategy and especially nothing to warrant such a drastic change.

You say this is OP put against PD it will lose, 2 PD imp for around the same price as one tank, 20 defence in comparison to 11 attack in terms of money, which is usually the problem, not reinforcements. PD is OP and this version of RA is not as OP as PD.

Actually I have tested this in a scenario where Cavalry(Tanks) had 10 attack instead of 8 by default, and despite the player was using Imperialist he still killed my PD Infantry despite being outnumbered.
Could of course be due to to crits, but I don't know, I personally liked the Cavalry as they were usable instead of the unit you would dismiss and just spam Infantry instead of.

How many times did you try this? The battles can be very erratic and unpredictable.

Napsáno Permamuted, 27.09.2013 at 10:03

I would support a price nerf to tanks of -10 and +1 attack to marines, RA as it stands needs a boost, theres no doubt

It's not just balance it's the whole basis of what the strat is, right now all it is is tank general, which I can't find in the units/php table for some reason. Tanks shouldn't have any defense bonus and it should also include marines, +1 attack to marines just isn't enough to use them in this strat, they need just as (if not more) importantly more range. This is a different style of using marines, it is much like how I use them in blitz as a SECOUNDARY unit which is what they are when not a stealth strat. They can't keep up if they don't have enough range and when not using them as primary you are still advancing.

Trust me, I find it hard enough without blitz to keep up with marines, you can't just set 'em up for a massive taking like you do in stealth strats. Unless your enemy is far far away. Doing this requires you to take a defensive on your front which is not what this strat is about and it nerfs it hard.

Yeah in hindsight RA could use alittle bit of a boost. I am not exactly sure where my mind was last night. Although I still don't fully support such a drastic change. Atleast to the tanks. I would support cheaper tanks as it is 110 is still pretty expensive and can be outspammed. As for the marines...maybe we should boost bombers instead. I am just not fond of stronger marines too with RA.

You do understand that PD infantry has +1 def againts tanks? +1 def in stack, +2 def in city?

I like the idea. +2 to tank attack might be a little too much though. Maybe increase crit to +3 instead?

DOWN WITH PD, DOWN WITH GENERALS.

Napsáno Grimm, 27.09.2013 at 15:31

I like the idea. +2 to tank attack might be a little too much though. Maybe increase crit to +3 instead?

Hmmm yeah prob, it's undermining NC destroyers, which PD inf also undermine...

RA is relentless attack means offence units shouldn't u add a bonus for destroyers and bombers and all the other attack units or maybe u can just boost tanks and then boost all other units with a +1 attack

It's a land strat, just like PD, if you want good air units SM or good naval NC.

Instead of trying to boost RA to counter PD why not just nerf PD? If one strat is too strong don't boost another to counter it. What if someone isn't PD and your opponent is sending tanks with 10+ attack against you? That is pretty hard to counter. Maybe just take away the +1 def against tanks with PD?

That's what I'm pushing for XD Wasn't I clear about that? Even as it is it is UP against other strats. Od course tanks should be pretty hard to counter attack is meant to be its strong point, and defense its weak point so they should go on the offense against them. I can't think of any strat where is is really, really, not possible to attack at all apart from LB which is the worst strat ever. The +2 yeah might be bit too much so maybe add more crit.

Here's an idea. Instead of +2 attack (or +1 atk & more crit), RA tanks could have +1 atk AND +1 atk vs. infantry. That way, RA would be a good counter to PD.

I still think keep the tanks actual stats the same but lessen the cost by an additional -10 makeing them 100. That way you could spam tanks alittle better to counter PD and take the +1 against tanks off of PD. That seems excessive. I think that is the most balanced solution to this. This way neither one of them becomes too powerful against each other or different strats.

Hmm, how about a really high crit and no changes to anything other than range/viewrange, as well as making the cost 100, that would make an unpredictable high attack but not a constant one you can rely on to crush enemies. It does need some attack boost. I see a problem with it though, there aren't any seperate crits for attack and defense, there should be.

Napsáno Wildchild92, 29.09.2013 at 20:45

I still think keep the tanks actual stats the same but lessen the cost by an additional -10 makeing them 100. That way you could spam tanks alittle better to counter PD and take the +1 against tanks off of PD. That seems excessive. I think that is the most balanced solution to this. This way neither one of them becomes too powerful against each other or different strats.

This.
Its really hard to keep up a good income with RA

Napsáno The Taliban, 30.09.2013 at 07:44

Napsáno Wildchild92, 29.09.2013 at 20:45

I still think keep the tanks actual stats the same but lessen the cost by an additional -10 makeing them 100. That way you could spam tanks alittle better to counter PD and take the +1 against tanks off of PD. That seems excessive. I think that is the most balanced solution to this. This way neither one of them becomes too powerful against each other or different strats.

This.
Its really hard to keep up a good income with RA

So is it with SM, it should be similar, in that it is powerful but finance is one of its weak points. But not as bad as it is currently. SM bombers get advantage of big range and attack, tanks only have attack AND they have more expense. It should be balanced between the 3. Whilst not leaning to the SM range side of things, therefore I do believe that tanks should have either; strong attack and slightly lower expense, good attack, good range, only slight decrease in cost or a slight improvement in all. It MUST have better attack in some form though as that is what this strat is. I also don't really like the slight improvement in all thing because that would be more like tank general. But then you guys are forgetting something. Marines, they are the secoundary attack and should have a place in it as well, its big weakness imo is not its defense, but its short range, you cannot viably move them anywhere without your tanks overtaking and out-performing everywhere and weakening the surprise. So IMO A good thing would be +1 increase in attack and range for both tanks and marines and 2 higher crit, lower cost for tanks. Not decreasing cost too much as that is meant to be a weak point. Also maybe -10 for marines as with tanks straining on your income you really don't need marines doing that as well so that would discourage use.

Napsáno Xenosapien, 30.09.2013 at 08:48

Napsáno The Taliban, 30.09.2013 at 07:44

Napsáno Wildchild92, 29.09.2013 at 20:45

I still think keep the tanks actual stats the same but lessen the cost by an additional -10 makeing them 100. That way you could spam tanks alittle better to counter PD and take the +1 against tanks off of PD. That seems excessive. I think that is the most balanced solution to this. This way neither one of them becomes too powerful against each other or different strats.

This.
Its really hard to keep up a good income with RA

So is it with SM, it should be similar, in that it is powerful but finance is one of its weak points. But not as bad as it is currently. SM bombers get advantage of big range and attack, tanks only have attack AND they have more expense. It should be balanced between the 3. Whilst not leaning to the SM range side of things, therefore I do believe that tanks should have either; strong attack and slightly lower expense, good attack, good range, only slight decrease in cost or a slight improvement in all. It MUST have better attack in some form though as that is what this strat is. I also don't really like the slight improvement in all thing because that would be more like tank general. But then you guys are forgetting something. Marines, they are the secoundary attack and should have a place in it as well, its big weakness imo is not its defense, but its short range, you cannot viably move them anywhere without your tanks overtaking and out-performing everywhere and weakening the surprise. So IMO A good thing would be +1 increase in attack and range for both tanks and marines and 2 higher crit, lower cost for tanks. Not decreasing cost too much as that is meant to be a weak point. Also maybe -10 for marines as with tanks straining on your income you really don't need marines doing that as well so that would discourage use.

Tanks Range is already good, if tou want to use marines go play MoS.

11 Attack is op, 9 attack is enough.

I still want Infantry to have +1 Attack in RA. I think that would be a very good improvement.

Napsáno The Taliban, 30.09.2013 at 08:57

Napsáno Xenosapien, 30.09.2013 at 08:48

Napsáno The Taliban, 30.09.2013 at 07:44

Napsáno Wildchild92, 29.09.2013 at 20:45

I still think keep the tanks actual stats the same but lessen the cost by an additional -10 makeing them 100. That way you could spam tanks alittle better to counter PD and take the +1 against tanks off of PD. That seems excessive. I think that is the most balanced solution to this. This way neither one of them becomes too powerful against each other or different strats.

This.
Its really hard to keep up a good income with RA

So is it with SM, it should be similar, in that it is powerful but finance is one of its weak points. But not as bad as it is currently. SM bombers get advantage of big range and attack, tanks only have attack AND they have more expense. It should be balanced between the 3. Whilst not leaning to the SM range side of things, therefore I do believe that tanks should have either; strong attack and slightly lower expense, good attack, good range, only slight decrease in cost or a slight improvement in all. It MUST have better attack in some form though as that is what this strat is. I also don't really like the slight improvement in all thing because that would be more like tank general. But then you guys are forgetting something. Marines, they are the secoundary attack and should have a place in it as well, its big weakness imo is not its defense, but its short range, you cannot viably move them anywhere without your tanks overtaking and out-performing everywhere and weakening the surprise. So IMO A good thing would be +1 increase in attack and range for both tanks and marines and 2 higher crit, lower cost for tanks. Not decreasing cost too much as that is meant to be a weak point. Also maybe -10 for marines as with tanks straining on your income you really don't need marines doing that as well so that would discourage use.

Tanks Range is already good, if tou want to use marines go play MoS.

11 Attack is op, 9 attack is enough.

Lol wut? I never said 11 attack. With upgrade inf is same range as tanks. Marines are secoundary attack. If this strat shouldn't boost secoundary attack then PD shouldn't boost militia, secoundary defense. The +1 would be the same as now, so 9 attack. Or we could do as has been suggested before that tik tok has brought up is make both tanks and inf powerful attack units, whilst nerfing the secoundary units quite a bit.

I still think my suggestions is the most balanced SM is fine as is. If you take the +1def against tanks off of PD and the -10 additional cost for tanks and militia (as it is milita is +10 for RA) that would make thing more equal. You still have to consider what if someone else is isn't useing PD? Then you could be OP. We can't compromise balance for the sake of a strategy name change which was only changed to accomidate custom maps. It is still essentially tank general.

Napsáno Wildchild92, 30.09.2013 at 13:01

I still think my suggestions is the most balanced SM is fine as is. If you take the +1def against tanks off of PD and the -10 additional cost for tanks and militia (as it is milita is +10 for RA) that would make thing more equal. You still have to consider what if someone else is isn't useing PD? Then you could be OP. We can't compromise balance for the sake of a strategy name change which was only changed to accomidate custom maps. It is still essentially tank general.

Wait what? RA IS tank general but with a name change? o.O

Well going with this idea it does seem good, I still think PD is OP though (going a bit off-topic) it shouldn't make militia better as well as inf that's just unfair, units you get for free on takeover that has 6 defense in city? OPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOP as hell. This is like normal inf without city bonus, you get 8 and boom you have 48 defense, add PD inf and well...

Napsáno Wildchild92, 30.09.2013 at 13:01

If you take the +1def against tanks off of PD and the -10 additional cost for tanks and militia (as it is milita is +10 for RA) that would make thing more equal.

^this
Although instead of nerfing PD, just make RA tanks +1atk vs. infantry.

Napsáno Grimm, 30.09.2013 at 16:41

Napsáno Wildchild92, 30.09.2013 at 13:01

If you take the +1def against tanks off of PD and the -10 additional cost for tanks and militia (as it is milita is +10 for RA) that would make thing more equal.

^this
Although instead of nerfing PD, just make RA tanks +1atk vs. infantry.

No, both of these is not fair on any other strat. Blitz f.e. tanks are the only real power you have in quick encounters. Yet against PD you only get 7 attack. PD doesn't even nerf tanks cost so really all it's doing is bringing everyone down to their level of 7 attack. :| PD OP, you can use tanks with it easily.