|
We need to buff RA a little but not buff the tanks we should buff the RA inf give them a +1 att and +1 range this way they can attack they are kind of like a secondary attack unit that are cheaper and have a -10 cost upgrade for tanks or put that into RA either way is fine. I see this as the best way to buff RA making it more usable if this isn't accepted then i don't what will.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
I would motify it to give secondary attack +1 attack, remove the -1 defense from infantry and just make militia weaker, because if you think about it, the attacking of tanks and inf in a relentless war campaign should make a home militia army basically useless.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
From my personal experience, RA main problem is economic and it's a worse problem because of militias and infantries cost, not tanks. So, if I had to change anything on the strategy to give it a small buff, it would certainly be reduce infs and militias cost.
----
"Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear and another hand reaches out to take up our arms".
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
I was going to make an essay. It was called: Relentless Attack: The most powerful strategy for 1vs1vs1?
then I noticed tanks with +2 def suddely where lowered to +1 def without any advise.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
RA is fine as is. As an early strategy that has disadvantages and limits, it encourages new players to develop and experiment with the other strategies.
{Then once they mastered them all, they can go back to PD}
----
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Написао brianwl, 09.09.2014 at 13:41
RA is fine as is. As an early strategy that has disadvantages and limits, it encourages new players to develop and experiment with the other strategies.
{Then once they mastered them all, they can go back to PD}
Yes, they need to learn the power of PD's faggotry
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|