New Strategy: Conqueror of the Skies

Under Construction but so far this is what we have come up with:

Fighers (buildable):
.attack: 7 (+1)
.defense: 1 (+8 vs other air units)
.cost: $130

Helicopters:
.attack: 4 (+2 versus infantry and militia)
.defense: 6
.range: 13
.cost: $130

Destroyers:
Defense: 7 (+2 vs air units)

All ground units: -1 defense, -1 attack, except Anti Air

Well done bro this will change the way to play the game

The problem with Sky Menace is that it's a one dimensional strategy. If we add a strategy that counters air units, there's no use for SM anymore. And I don't think it's a good idea adding a strategy that is an exact counter to another - it will be crippling to both. It would be completely useless against GC for instance.

Also, being a Conqueror of the Skies would imply having air superiority and it would be a bit redundant with SM. Not to say that the main unit of the strategy is the anti aircraft, a premium unit.

The only thing I like about the strategy is the name, sorry bro.

Általa írva notserral, 09.05.2013 at 10:10

The problem with Sky Menace is that it's a one dimensional strategy. If we add a strategy that counters air units, there's no use for SM anymore. And I don't think it's a good idea adding a strategy that is an exact counter to another - it will be crippling to both. It would be completely useless against GC for instance.

Also, being a Conqueror of the Skies would imply having air superiority and it would be a bit redundant with SM. Not to say that the main unit of the strategy is the anti aircraft, a premium unit.

The only thing I like about the strategy is the name, sorry bro.

I disagree with the fact that Sky Menace is one-dimensional for starters. Plus, most people when they play any strategies(especially on bigger maps) use bombers and ATs at some point or another. And yes, the strategy is weak against other strategies. Every strategy has some strategies it is good against and others it is weak against.

Secondly, you also forget that DS is also an air based strategy. As for being redundant, am I the only one who thinks HW is redundant? And there are many premium based strategies, so the main unit being a premium unit should not be a problem. Also, if you play MoS and do not have Stealth units, the game lets you use them anyways.

And the name is pretty OP. I am good like that.

Either way, thanks for the feedback, Pulse! Agree or disagree, always glad to have some.

Általa írva Spart, 09.05.2013 at 10:59

I disagree with the fact that Sky Menace is one-dimensional for starters. Plus, most people when they play any strategies(especially on bigger maps) use bombers and ATs at some point or another. And yes, the strategy is weak against other strategies. Every strategy has some strategies it is good against and others it is weak against.

It's one dimensional because, contrary to other strategies such as MoS and HW, SM relies on a single unit for the bulk of the damage (AT is also an obligation, not an option). I think the goal of a strategy should be a change in how you play, but the goal should be the same - kill your enemy. This strategy right now only fits that if the enemy is SM or DS.

Idézet:

Secondly, you also forget that DS is also an air based strategy. As for being redundant, am I the only one who thinks HW is redundant? And there are many premium based strategies, so the main unit being a premium unit should not be a problem. Also, if you play MoS and do not have Stealth units, the game lets you use them anyways.

Yes, I forgot DS but while it forces you to play with only helis and marines, still is less one dimensional than SM. And I brainfarted on the redundancy - I meant that if a strategy is to be used for air supremacy, it has to use air units and in my opinion using air units for air supremacy and not being SM is a bit of a wtf.

I think the name is pretty kewl, but we should pick a few units and focus on them. Like, buildable fighters with buffed stealth bombers and helis defense and attack, while nerfing defense and attack of ground units. Perhaps helis could have buffed defense and fighters a buffed offense, in a way this could be an Air Unit GC. How does that sound?

Általa írva notserral, 09.05.2013 at 11:22

I think the name is pretty kewl, but we should pick a few units and focus on them. Like, buildable fighters with buffed stealth bombers and helis defense and attack, while nerfing defense and attack of ground units. Perhaps helis could have buffed defense and fighters a buffed offense, in a way this could be an Air Unit GC. How does that sound?

Would Amok and Ivan allow us to make buildable fighters as part of the strategy? If so, I like where this is headed.

Well, if not, the strategy could use bombers instead.

Fighters (buildable):
.attack: 7 (+1)
.defense: 1 (+8 vs other air units)
.cost: $130

Helicopters:
.attack: 4 (+2 versus infantry and militia)
.defense: 6
.range: 13
.cost: $130

Destroyers:
Defense: 7 (+2 vs air units)

All ground units: -1 defense, -1 attack, except Anti Air

I like this idea if fighters can be buildable. Not a fan of the substitution of the bomber. Becomes too similar to SM then. Good thinking Pulse. I will add this to the top as the primary changes of the strategy so far. Also, maybe give the fighter a +2 boost rather than +1 since we are not giving this strategy a AT boost like SM?

Actually it is too similar to GC, SM and DS without bringing anything new to the table.

Általa írva notserral, 09.05.2013 at 12:06

Actually it is too similar to GC, SM and DS without bringing anything new to the table.

just like hybrid warfare.

Általa írva Goblin, 09.05.2013 at 14:11

Seems like this is a strategy idea for fighting SM and not useful for anything else besides that ...possibly not even for that.

actually, it seems this strategy will annihilate SM,Blitzkrieg,DS,None,Imp, at the long run.

i can see a bunch of suggestions to nerf it in the future.