Rimuv Insurrection

First, I'd like to talk about the general AtWar meta.

Attacking is inherently more powerful than defending. When attacking and taking a city, you take a city, you get some militia, and perhaps some reinf, plus you killed your enemies troops. Why do you think, people attack with infantry at all, even though they are better at defending? Additionally, units that are better at attacking, can simply be bought and be used to take some city you want, all in one turn, and they will die doing what they are best at (attacking) or take a vital city (think of UK spamming tanks at berlin, either you get what you wanted, which is attacking your enemies units and destroying them, or you get the city, or both).

Now with defending you get none of that. You don't get militia, you don't get new reinforcements, or income. All you get is some dead units for your opponent. And this is only even an advantage as long as defending units are more powerful in regard to their cost than the attacking units. Additionally, you can't simply choose to defend, you cant just move your units to some vital city and know your enemy is going to attack it. You have to try your luck and predict what your enemy will do, where he might attack, and that is the only situation in which you even can defend, which makes defensive units even more useless. So not only do you not get anything from defending in itself, without a defender's advantage, but you also need prediction skill, and a bit of luck to get to use any defenders advantage that might exist. This means, that defending is skill based, while attacking, simply moving tanks to Berlin, isn't, and it's also simply worse, than attacking, because you don't get cities or mil from it, quite the contrary, you lose population from it.

All of this is currently being compensated by a fair and decent defenders advantage. I liked the PD days, because back then, the defenders advantage was larger, which made the game more skill based in my opinion. If you don't believe me and want to shrink the defenders advantage further, be my guest to play some shitty game of thrones RP, that doesn't have one. I like my Atwar, especially competitive Atwar, skill based, and it has been skill based for the last 9 years, because defending was cheaper and stronger than attacking.

I used to consider GW as especially cancerous in this regard by the way. You got op Militia, that are 4 atk, 5 def, iirc, and you get cheap Marines, that are purely offensive.
Basically, it didn't have a defenders advantage at all. But what made it even worse, when attacking you got these crazy op militia, so the advantage attacking has is boosted to even more ridiculess levels.

Enter Insurrection
We now got this batshit crazy strategy, that takes the cake. 6 Attack 5 def mil, and the rest of the units is shit. Basically you are incentivized to spam milita, predicting nothing at all, because in a ins vs ins or ins vs gw scenario, the one who attacks first wins. You shouldn't even try to predict where your enemy will defend and where he wont, because you want to be the attacker and attack as much as possible. The winning strategy for Ins is attacking the largest enemy stack and praying that you tb it. It's spammy, it's reliant on tb luck and it doesn't require much skill to use at all.

PLEASE REMOVE INS. Or maybe you could change the mil to be 4 atk and 7 def, so they would be like cheaper low range inf. That way ins would be a strategy heavily reliant on one unit type, with very expensive low range transports and shit everything else. I actually like that idea.

How about
6 att 1def milita 40 cost
1 att 6 def inf 40 cost

then there will be a way to outmanuever it by rushing milita stacks and people will think twice to spam either inf or milita, all in all itd have more strategy in it.

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 08:45

How about
6 att 1def milita 40 cost
1 att 6 def inf 40 cost

then there will be a way to outmanuever it by rushing milita stacks and people will think twice to spam either inf or milita, all in all itd have more strategy in it.

You need a defender's advantage for every strategy, in order to keep Atwar skillbased. This is not a defender's advantage :/
I still kinda like your idea, and maybe 4/4 mil at 40 cost and 2/7 inf at 40 cost would do the trick

In my opinion as a nub scenario player the problem with INS isn't that it relies in TBs since tb could be controled to a certain extent or that it doesn't gives a deffender advantage since if you romove deffense to an offensive strat it becomes weak like Blitz or RA. The real problem of INS is that makes militia better costwise than any other unitand any battle will end benetiting the INS side since it will lose less money on it. Also I honestly think as a GW fan that 3/5 GW Militia is more than enougth since givig more than 1 point on attack for 10 cost is a little bit too much.

Eshkruar nga Tirpitz406, 13.02.2019 at 09:31

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 08:45

How about
6 att 1def milita 40 cost
1 att 6 def inf 40 cost

then there will be a way to outmanuever it by rushing milita stacks and people will think twice to spam either inf or milita, all in all itd have more strategy in it.

You need a defender's advantage for every strategy, in order to keep Atwar skillbased. This is not a defender's advantage :/
I still kinda like your idea, and maybe 4/4 mil at 40 cost and 2/7 inf at 40 cost would do the trick

theres no defenders advantage where did you come up with that?

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 11:38

theres no defenders advantage where did you come up with that?

Infantry costs 60 and has 7 def, Tanks cost 120 and have 8 atk. Thats a defenders advantage.

Eshkruar nga Tirpitz406, 13.02.2019 at 12:08

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 11:38

theres no defenders advantage where did you come up with that?

Infantry costs 60 and has 7 def, Tanks cost 120 and have 8 atk. Thats a defenders advantage.

inf has 6 def*
Cost effectiveness isnt an advantage for defense for a 50k fund game, if there were an advantage people would spam only infs in 50ks dont ya think? the stats are clearly in attack units favor, /helis/bombers/tanks/destroyers/stealth planes/marines.
Meanwhile you only get infantry and anti airs for defense.

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 12:35

Cost effectiveness isnt an advantage for defense for a 50k fund game, if there were an advantage people would spam only infs in 50ks dont ya think? the stats are clearly in attack units favor, /helis/bombers/tanks/destroyers/stealth planes/marines.
Meanwhile you only get infantry and anti airs for defense.

Of course cost effectiveness isn't relevant in 50k, thats why you don't play competitive games in 50k, because it isn't balanced. Cost effectiveness is relevant in (almost) every competitive game.

Also, Inf under most circumstances has 7, right? In cities and defensive lines, or was that removed?

Eshkruar nga Tirpitz406, 13.02.2019 at 13:50

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 12:35

Cost effectiveness isnt an advantage for defense for a 50k fund game, if there were an advantage people would spam only infs in 50ks dont ya think? the stats are clearly in attack units favor, /helis/bombers/tanks/destroyers/stealth planes/marines.
Meanwhile you only get infantry and anti airs for defense.

Of course cost effectiveness isn't relevant in 50k, thats why you don't play competitive games in 50k, because it isn't balanced.

Also, Inf under most circumstances has 7, right? In cities and defensive lines, or was that removed?

yes we dont play in 50ks, because att and def units arent balanced properly, for reasons said above. But we competitives have worked around that and decided 10k has the most strategy in it.
The bonus for infs was removed, gw milita had it but it was also removed a few months ago.

Eshkruar nga 4nic, 13.02.2019 at 13:57

yes we dont play in 50ks, because att and def units arent balanced properly, for reasons said above. But we competitives have worked around that and decided 10k has the most strategy in it.
The bonus for infs was removed, gw milita had it but it was also removed a few months ago.

Why is a game where you can't spend that much money the most balanced? Why is this the most competitive kind of game in atwar? Because it has a defensive meta. In 3v3 EU+ defending is better than attacking. Capitals are only important because defending is better than attacking. If attacking was better than defending, losing your cap would be a good thing, because it would mean, you could crush a load of your enemies' units in one spot.

Keep it, just nerf it... - 1atc +10, - 1def - 2 atc def, 5/5... Many options.

It can be good if we balance it.

Eshkruar nga Tirpitz406, 13.02.2019 at 07:09

... I liked the PD days, because back then, the defenders advantage was larger, which made the game more skill based in my opinion. ....

Just a side note... Amok tried to bring back the city defense which was lost in the html transfer. He wanted the game to have a defender advantage for this reason - it does take more strategy (i can't recall many mods agreeing with him, but i was one) . The issue was clan wars, which after the reduced city defense made a lot of other strats viable and playable, and so there is no turning back. But in addition, many players just want a faster paced game, so reducing defense accomplishes this. Would still like to see it return as an option though - (i.e. Turn on city defender advantage: +1 def for infantry in cities.)

As for removing the insurrection strat, it has been nerfed, and i've played a few 3k games with it and can't say it's OP in those games. It is a simple, offensive strat as you say, but some players want to play a simple game and why shouldn't there be a strat for them? It's defensive ineffectiveness has made it even more vulnerable with the nerf, and it is readily exploitable for any experienced player (much like the old RA).

Finally, it's only here for a short time, and is still considered a 'trial' strat. Before removing it, let's see if we can tweek it a bit more for situations in which it is truly OP.

It's a strategy that needs to be nerfed. Right now I can see it being an alternative to Imperialist for Turkey. Turkey is in it's current state stuck with Imp, while Insurrection can change that.
Ins current weakness is low mobility which means you can out expand it quite easily and then just beat it with an income and reinforcement advantage. For it to be on the same level with other strats you could nerf it's defence furthermore so more units that would usually be used for expanding have to be utilized for defending your capital. We have so many strategies for mid-high income areas. We need another one for low income regions.

Eshkruar nga Chess, 14.02.2019 at 11:13

It's a strategy that needs to be nerfed. Right now I can see it being an alternative to Imperialist for Turkey. Turkey is in it's current state stuck with Imp, while Insurrection can change that.
It's current weakness is low mobility which means you can out expand it quite easily and then just beat it with an income and reinforcement advantage. For it to be on the same level with other strats you could nerf it's defence furthermore so more units that would usually be used for expanding have to be utilized for defending your capital. We have so many strategies for mid-high income areas. We need another one for low income regions.

Chess, I respect you a whole lot, but did you really read what I wrote? A strategy with EVEN LESS defence is just mindless spamming and praying for tb's and offensive battles. It's stupid. You don't have to defend your capital with a strategy that has an attackers advantage. To the contraty, you shouldn't. You should wait until your opponent tries to defend something like your own capital and attack that.

Eshkruar nga brianwl, 14.02.2019 at 11:08

Just a side note... Amok tried to bring back the city defense which was lost in the html transfer. He wanted the game to have a defender advantage for this reason - it does take more strategy (i can't recall many mods agreeing with him, but i was one) . The issue was clan wars, which after the reduced city defense made a lot of other strats viable and playable, and so there is no turning back. But in addition, many players just want a faster paced game, so reducing defense accomplishes this. Would still like to see it return as an option though - (i.e. Turn on city defender advantage: +1 def for infantry in cities.)

Yea, I loved the 7 def infantry we used to have.
But I would claim, that the strategies we have now are strategically much more bland. Predicting where your opponent will attack has become much less important, and what has come instead is a weird spammy meta, that gets worse because of strategies like ins. I guess it's fine to have strategies that are stupid and don't require strategy, like ins, but only as long as they are completely uncompetitive.

Eshkruar nga Tirpitz406, 14.02.2019 at 11:22

A strategy with EVEN LESS defence is just mindless spamming and praying for tb's and offensive battles. It's stupid. You don't have to defend your capital with a strategy that has an attackers advantage. To the contraty, you shouldn't. You should wait until your opponent tries to defend something like your own capital and attack that.

It's mindless spamming if you mindlessly spam.
Insur gets most of it's power from expanding. If you don't think ahead and prepare your units for reaching strategically important cities you will get out expanded. I outlined this as a weakness.
If you don't think ahead and invest too many units into attacking you will get cap rushed.

Ds, ra,blitz,ins,gw is all 'spamming' of attack units. i dont see a problem with ins being an atc strategy.

Maybe -1 att and -1 def for mil would do for ins.

Also increasing the range of naval transp with 1 and maybe cutting a slight the cost of naval and air transp if the above changes will be added.

I am sure most of you guys forget that you receive free militias for taking over neutrals. Tirpitz has a point that there should be a more defending factor in the strategy, afterall the range for the militias combined with the free militias is just to overpowered.

Eshkruar nga JF., 14.02.2019 at 18:30

Ds, ra,blitz,ins,gw is all 'spamming' of attack units. i dont see a problem with ins being an atc strategy.

Then Nerf INS Militia deff. because 5 deff and getting it for free is quite a good defence.