Strategies 2017.

I agree on the change for Desert Storm but unsure on the others, for Blitkrieg i think it's good the way it is, maybe this change will be too much, but i'm still only rank 4 so not very sure about all of this.

SM often has trouble because it is stuck using arguably the worst infantry in the game. The way the game works relies on you having a single strong defensive stack to defend your capital. If your defensive unit (infantry) is practically the worst out of any strat, then you will end up with a bunch of dead weight units. The reason having a good "infantry" unit is so important is because infantries are the most cost and range effective units in the game. They can be used to expand and defend. If your infantry is bad at defending or attacking and you have no suitable replacement for them, then your strat is significantly weaker.

Lets look at why SM infantry is the worst. All the strats are separated into three distinct classes.. Here are the strats ranked by how good their defense unit is in each category.
Strats that should not defend.
1. Blitz: Shouldn't really be defending.
2. RA: Shouldn't really be defending.

We're going to ignore these since their play style is very different from SM because they are focused on pure offense.


Strats that uses militia to defend
1. GW: Uses buffed militia for defense.
2. DS: Uses buffed militia for defense.

Militia takes over the roles of infantry in these strats so we'll ignore them.


The last class of strats is where the majority of strategies and SM fall in.

Strats that uses infantry to defend
1. IF: Strongest infantry in the game. Good at attacking and defending.
2. PD: Infantry is cheaper at -10 cost and have strong defense, especially versus main attack units. Standard 4 attack.
3. LB: Powerful infantry that can attack and defend and have regular range. Too dependent on crits and often unnoticable performance wise from regular infantry due to lack of crits.
4 Tied Imp and GC: WIth low income Imp beats out GC due to sheer amount of cheap infantry. GC wins with higher income since +1hp boost to infantry. Both their infantries are equal attack wise although imp edges out GC slightly in attacks. Both are so similar that they are tied.
5. HW: Only strat where infantry is focused on pure defense. -10 cost and +1 defense is good for defending. Garbage at attacking.
6. Tied with MOS, NC, and NONE: Standard infantry. 4 attack 6 defense normal range. Boring, but reliable.
7. GARBAGE tier SM: Full price 60 cost infantry with 3 attack and 6 defense. Absolute garbage. As strong as imp infantry, without the cheap production. Very bad at attacking and expanding on their own. SM militia are often used to attack so you don't waste these expensive infantry units. Combination of -1 att and no cost reduction makes sm inf the worst.

What's the big deal you might say? SM infantry is only 60 cost. Well, there is a MASSIVE difference between infantry costing 50 or less than ones that cost 60. This is because most of your infantry will be in your general stack to defend your capital. The general cost upgrade allows your general to reduce the upkeep cost of all the units in his stack by 5. The way upkeep works is that for every 10 cost a unit has, it requires 1 coin a day to maintain. If a unit has 50 or less cost, then the general is able to COMPLETELY nullify it's upkeep cost. This means that 50 cost infantry are infinitely more upkeep efficient than 60 cost infantry.

To show how much impact this makes, lets imagine a game where you keep 40 infantry in your capital for 4 turns and defend until reinforcement turn.
A strat like PD will have 0 upkeep over the 4 turn for the defending infantries.
SM will have a total of 160 upkeep paid. That is enough to buy 5 more militia, another bomber, or 2 more infantry. The upkeep adds up more and more the longer the game goes on. It doesn't help that SM infantry have bad attack, full price, and you need to use 130 cost bombers to expand. This makes money management harder for SM than say... PD or GC.


There is a huge difference between having 50 LB infantry defend your capital and 50 SM infantry defend even though they cost the same. The LB infantry are actually threatening because they can be used to attack and rush and they are actually quite strong at doing so.

Rambling over:
TL:DR SM inf are shit.

Написао Witch-Doctor, 02.01.2018 at 22:20

To show how much impact this makes, lets imagine a game where you keep 40 infantry in your capital for 4 turns and defend until reinforcement turn.
A strat like PD will have 0 upkeep over the 4 turn for the defending infantries.
SM will have a total of 160 upkeep paid. That is enough to buy 5 more militia, another bomber, or 2 more infantry. The upkeep adds up more and more the longer the game goes on. It doesn't help that SM infantry have bad attack, full price, and you need to use 130 cost bombers to expand. This makes money management harder for SM than say... PD or GC.

You are right about SM inf is the worst.. but the strat is fine, just to put a example there is the upkeep you say , the SM AT have -200 cost (that mean -80 upkeep per reinf) so after buying 1 SM AT you save 200 money + the 20 upkeep per turn compared whit other strats, also whit sm you save more money because the high range and capacity of ATs make spam less this units... The high range of bombers compesate so far their 130 cost, and the militias can be full used thanks to the ats flexibility. A boost in sm is going to make this strat too OP.
In my opinion SM stats are fine.
PD: sorry for bad english.

Написао Permamuted, 28.12.2017 at 13:46

I know i said i was going to step away from any strat changes but doing so just because of the flaming/harassment from a small number of loud players is a poor reason. Players are asking for a few changes and I know nobody else will do it. I was going to wait until the buildings are live but Ivan tells me thats a few months away yet because coding is required and clovis is busy with the mapmaker. Here is what we've got so far.

Desert Storm:

-1 defence to helicopters.

Many players are asking for this. It's hard to deny that it's needed. It is also a pretty minor nerf and will fix that issue where you send a mixed stack of inf/helis at a city to contest expansion and the helis defend randomly instead of the infantry due to them both having the same defensive stat.

not a good reason for -1 def you can send 1 marine with the stack and make sure that your hellies wont hang on
after -1 def for ds militias this new nerf will make it unusable strategy.

Написао Conscious Huarck, 03.01.2018 at 01:50

Написао Permamuted, 28.12.2017 at 13:46

I know i said i was going to step away from any strat changes but doing so just because of the flaming/harassment from a small number of loud players is a poor reason. Players are asking for a few changes and I know nobody else will do it. I was going to wait until the buildings are live but Ivan tells me thats a few months away yet because coding is required and clovis is busy with the mapmaker. Here is what we've got so far.

Desert Storm:

-1 defence to helicopters.

Many players are asking for this. It's hard to deny that it's needed. It is also a pretty minor nerf and will fix that issue where you send a mixed stack of inf/helis at a city to contest expansion and the helis defend randomly instead of the infantry due to them both having the same defensive stat.

not a good reason for -1 def you can send 1 marine with the stack and make sure that your hellies wont hang on
after -1 def for ds militias this new nerf will make it unusable strategy.

thats exactly what i want

Написао BigAssGoth, 02.01.2018 at 23:04

Написао Witch-Doctor, 02.01.2018 at 22:20

To show how much impact this makes, lets imagine a game where you keep 40 infantry in your capital for 4 turns and defend until reinforcement turn.
A strat like PD will have 0 upkeep over the 4 turn for the defending infantries.
SM will have a total of 160 upkeep paid. That is enough to buy 5 more militia, another bomber, or 2 more infantry. The upkeep adds up more and more the longer the game goes on. It doesn't help that SM infantry have bad attack, full price, and you need to use 130 cost bombers to expand. This makes money management harder for SM than say... PD or GC.

You are right about SM inf is the worst.. but the strat is fine, just to put a example there is the upkeep you say , the SM AT have -200 cost (that mean -80 upkeep per reinf) so after buying 1 SM AT you save 200 money + the 20 upkeep per turn compared whit other strats, also whit sm you save more money because the high range and capacity of ATs make spam less this units... The high range of bombers compesate so far their 130 cost, and the militias can be full used thanks to the ats flexibility. A boost in sm is going to make this strat too OP.
In my opinion SM stats are fine.
PD: sorry for bad english.

The money you save from ATs nowhere near makes up for the cost of infantry

Написао Witch-Doctor, 03.01.2018 at 02:36

Написао BigAssGoth, 02.01.2018 at 23:04

Написао Witch-Doctor, 02.01.2018 at 22:20

To show how much impact this makes, lets imagine a game where you keep 40 infantry in your capital for 4 turns and defend until reinforcement turn.
A strat like PD will have 0 upkeep over the 4 turn for the defending infantries.
SM will have a total of 160 upkeep paid. That is enough to buy 5 more militia, another bomber, or 2 more infantry. The upkeep adds up more and more the longer the game goes on. It doesn't help that SM infantry have bad attack, full price, and you need to use 130 cost bombers to expand. This makes money management harder for SM than say... PD or GC.

You are right about SM inf is the worst.. but the strat is fine, just to put a example there is the upkeep you say , the SM AT have -200 cost (that mean -80 upkeep per reinf) so after buying 1 SM AT you save 200 money + the 20 upkeep per turn compared whit other strats, also whit sm you save more money because the high range and capacity of ATs make spam less this units... The high range of bombers compesate so far their 130 cost, and the militias can be full used thanks to the ats flexibility. A boost in sm is going to make this strat too OP.
In my opinion SM stats are fine.
PD: sorry for bad english.

The money you save from ATs nowhere near makes up for the cost of infantry

sm inf or mil + 1 def against inf
problem solved!
also you forgot that it needs balance as its guaranteed to get tbed as sm if you want to take your militia with you(they dont get grabbed along etc)

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

The bad side is that it isn't LB

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 19:03

Sm is still my primary go to ukraine in duels. I notice people like witch, acqui and mauz still use it and for more than just mindless rushing.

Me too

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:21

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

not if u buff they up 1 att, they wont be weaker

Написао Enigma Code, 03.01.2018 at 07:22

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:21

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

not if u buff they up 1 att, they wont be weaker

and your geniusness strikes again.
Harvard be like: nigga wanna scholarship ?
D

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:23

Написао Enigma Code, 03.01.2018 at 07:22

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:21

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

not if u buff they up 1 att, they wont be weaker

and your geniusness strikes again.
Harvard be like: nigga wanna scholarship ?
D

he asked if u removed it... and u replied they would be weaker... ma bad

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:21

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

Infs weaker than others? They should be. Hint in the name.
If you're talking about weak strategy overall, 8att 17range 130 cost are shit stats for a main unit of sm?

Was hoping it would die out, to bad its promoted now..

I support Steve! <3

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 07:30

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:21

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

Infs weaker than others? They should be. Hint in the name.
If you're talking about weak strategy overall, 8att 17range 130 cost are shit stats for a main unit of sm?

it is shit since GC tanks and ESPECIALLY LB tanks do the job cheaper and better but that's just me bro.

Написао Witch-Doctor, 02.01.2018 at 22:20

Rambling over:
TL:DR SM inf are shit.

Yes agree but we know sm infantry are weak but on the other hand we have 17 range 130 cost bombers and cheaper 6 capacity ats. It's hard to justify removing the strat's primary weakness when its' stengths are so powerful. That is no small change @ a 33% attack boost. Are you saying though that you do feel sm could use a boost regarding the infantry?

Написао Conscious Huarck, 03.01.2018 at 01:50

not a good reason for -1 def you can send 1 marine with the stack and make sure that your hellies wont hang on
after -1 def for ds militias this new nerf will make it unusable strategy.

Thats not why i made that point. I only mentioned it as an additional benefit to the change. If you send enough infantry with the helis that will almost never be a problem. But a strat cant go from op to unusable with such a small change.

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

Yes and i spoke to him. He is biased and he even admits that himself.

What about just decreasing the cost of SM inf instead of increasing their attack? This way the infantry are still shit but it doesn't take as heavy a toll on SM users economy to defend capital. And more finance can be used for bombers (at the discretion of the player). Ideally the user will be forced to do a cost/benefit analysis between using rienf to build bombers vs infantry, instead of simply being able to spam infantry/mixed with a few bomb stacks for attacking until his economy improves.

Написао Permamuted, 03.01.2018 at 08:29

Написао Witch-Doctor, 02.01.2018 at 22:20

Rambling over:
TL:DR SM inf are shit.

Yes agree but we know sm infantry are weak but on the other hand we have 17 range 130 cost bombers and cheaper 6 capacity ats. It's hard to justify removing the strat's primary weakness when its' stengths are so powerful. That is no small change @ a 33% attack boost. Are you saying though that you do feel sm could use a boost regarding the infantry?

Написао Conscious Huarck, 03.01.2018 at 01:50

not a good reason for -1 def you can send 1 marine with the stack and make sure that your hellies wont hang on
after -1 def for ds militias this new nerf will make it unusable strategy.

Thats not why i made that point. I only mentioned it as an additional benefit to the change. If you send enough infantry with the helis that will almost never be a problem. But a strat cant go from op to unusable with such a small change.

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

Yes and i spoke to him. He is biased and he even admits that himself.

Honestly i'm split 45/55 buff/don't on sm, but if you do buff it should be slight cost reduction like -5 if it doesn't break the game.

I'm really not a fan of bombers tbh. They are like bad tanks with big range. AAs are their direct counter and tanks are cheaper and arguably more powerful. Few AAs will shut down bombers pretty hard and there are no direct counter to tanks.

Написао Witch-Doctor, 03.01.2018 at 09:19

..Few AAs will shut down bombers pretty hard..

Without stack bonus, AA aint gonna stop shit. D

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 09:22

Написао Witch-Doctor, 03.01.2018 at 09:19

..Few AAs will shut down bombers pretty hard..

Without stack bonus, AA aint gonna stop shit. D

If you had 1 more aa you would have won

Написао Witch-Doctor, 03.01.2018 at 09:55

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 09:22

Написао Witch-Doctor, 03.01.2018 at 09:19

..Few AAs will shut down bombers pretty hard..

Without stack bonus, AA aint gonna stop shit. D

If you had 1 more aa you would have won
if you didnt lose you would have won

.l.

DS: Idc I almost never play it...

MoS: I agree with that change even if it means a weaker solo expansion. It would make better your initial expansion when people picks beside you in big maps games. Support.

GW: If that inf defense bonus will be surely removed I agree with -1 range to marines.

Blitz: Totally +1 att to tanks or standard militia defense. More range doesn't make sense for me...

IF: +1 def for mili nope. I think +1 range on mili just for walling purposes is totally good.

Написао Witch-Doctor, 03.01.2018 at 07:56

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 07:30

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 07:21

Написао Steve Aoki, 03.01.2018 at 06:27

Написао Black Swans, 03.01.2018 at 06:20

Написао Permamuted, 02.01.2018 at 18:43

Steve is a well known sm player and his opinion should be held in high regard. This is also true of witch doctor. But i should point out i have also consulted other players who have not commented in this thread. Players like mauzer, acquiesce etc. Id love an sm boost. It's 1 of my favourite strats. But if we are being objective the reality is it probably doesn't need it.

Mauzer never stops complaining about how sm needs boost. So as far as we know you consulted with your fellow mods (or yourself)

If you remove -1 att on inf, whats the bad side of picking sm in a game?

expensive as fuck, weaker than others

Infs weaker than others? They should be. Hint in the name.
If you're talking about weak strategy overall, 8att 17range 130 cost are shit stats for a main unit of sm?

it is shit since GC tanks and ESPECIALLY LB tanks do the job cheaper and better but that's just me bro.

and 5 bombers can't take city

This thread is irrelevant since it is now 2018.

Написао Alexis, 03.01.2018 at 12:06

DS: Idc I almost never play it...

MoS: I agree with that change even if it means a weaker solo expansion. It would make better your initial expansion when people picks beside you in big maps games. Support.

GW: If that inf defense bonus will be surely removed I agree with -1 range to marines.

Blitz: Totally +1 att to tanks or standard militia defense. More range doesn't make sense for me...

IF: +1 def for mili nope. I think +1 range on mili just for walling purposes is totally good.

just a question but would rc and rnw t1 with 1 at as gw be impossible then cause then thats a serious nerf

Написао Enigma Code, 04.01.2018 at 00:32

Написао Alexis, 03.01.2018 at 12:06

DS: Idc I almost never play it...

MoS: I agree with that change even if it means a weaker solo expansion. It would make better your initial expansion when people picks beside you in big maps games. Support.

GW: If that inf defense bonus will be surely removed I agree with -1 range to marines.

Blitz: Totally +1 att to tanks or standard militia defense. More range doesn't make sense for me...

IF: +1 def for mili nope. I think +1 range on mili just for walling purposes is totally good.

just a question but would rc and rnw t1 with 1 at as gw be impossible then cause then thats a serious nerf

good, now we can see the gw crutch players shit themselves.

Написао boywind2, 04.01.2018 at 00:59

Написао Enigma Code, 04.01.2018 at 00:32

Написао Alexis, 03.01.2018 at 12:06

DS: Idc I almost never play it...

MoS: I agree with that change even if it means a weaker solo expansion. It would make better your initial expansion when people picks beside you in big maps games. Support.

GW: If that inf defense bonus will be surely removed I agree with -1 range to marines.

Blitz: Totally +1 att to tanks or standard militia defense. More range doesn't make sense for me...

IF: +1 def for mili nope. I think +1 range on mili just for walling purposes is totally good.

just a question but would rc and rnw t1 with 1 at as gw be impossible then cause then thats a serious nerf

good, now we can see the gw crutch players shit themselves.

i dont play gw that often just saying