Jump to content

The new update and military meta ​?​


Herb
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

This has been a huge update in a recent while, and we all have been shook by it. This derives us to a new era of uncertainty;

"What is the meta for military now?"

The stock market has already reacted strongly, and aluminum is expected to fall heavily, while steel is set to be triumphantly rising. I am bringing my dime into the conversation, as an old raider and a current man of living peacefully. Alliances are wondering what minimum military requirements to enforce now.

Planes took a hit, but they aren't completely useless. With enough of a land army, you can obviously 'zerg rush' your opponent's airforce down, as someone with a ground control now has the ability to kill enemy aircraft with tanks. Values are referenced below.

download.png

It'd be fair to propose that 3 - 4 hangars per city provide sufficient airforce for defense, since they are going to be less used in the entire length of the war.

Instead, tanks and soldiers have gained a huge emphasis on warfare, and keeping enough of them might be enough to overpower your opponent's airforce. 3 - 4 tank factories are good for defense and don't bloat your score anymore.

Ships can be airstriked still to a bad effect, but they take less damage from naval battles. 2 to 1 drydocks are sufficient for defense.

Barracks? 5. They're cheap and they're the main component of your army, you need some meat bags to rush forward. ?

==========================================================================================
New nature of Warfare

We can expect the initial phases of battles to include devastating airstrikes, until the fight breaks down to infantry.

Ground control will be everyone's first priority, a raider's, a defender's and a war fighter's. Airforce no longer has the top spot.

Gathering tanks, and rushing to beat your opponent's ground army could become the new meta. We'll see how this affects raiders. While their old threat, airforce is obsolote, their ground superiority could change as many others will focus on ground armies aswell.

Thank you!

- Herb of Sehnsucht

What do you think of my column? I could write more in the future. 

I could be completely wrong or someone could have an entirely different point of view. Please share and comment your opinion!

Edited by Herb
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Herb said:

We'll see how this affects raiders. While their old threat, airforce is obsolote, their ground superiority could change as many others will focus on ground armies aswell.

Well from the raider perspective the changes to ground are overshadowed by the score range change:

  • now people with max mil + comparable city count can declare on people with soldiers only = huge imbalance
  • there are far far fewer inactives in range so we'll need to resort to attacking more active targets
  • the pirate project won't be of much use as not enough inactives in range + you cant realistically attack 6 actives at once

Effectively its very difficult to justify running full military as a pirate due to the costs involved; now people can rock up with maxed out ground/air/naval and you don't have a hope in hell of beating them - previously the score balance at least gave you a fighting chance ?

Unfortunately the primary beneficiary is whales: previously raiding was the best way for a newer player to grow -> lower tier is fine but unfortunately above that its difficult to attempt to match whale income with the drastically reduced number of inactives.

Given the history of orbis is undoubtedly richer for the presence of alliances like Arrgh I sincerely hope @Alex will reconsider the balance of the score range changes; even if the intention is to nerf raiding ( ?) the military element to score still needs to be rebalanced -> simply put it hands too much of an advantage to the side which is able to maintain max military, in global conflicts this sadly reduces the likelihood of a turnaround / underdog victory which imo is not conducive to a more balanced game.

On a more positive note the +10 base increase as a means to nerf 0 score offshores is a very welcomed change. But the score range changes as a whole are unfortunately alarming to say the least.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think we are going to see a swap in the war system. Tanks are now the new aircraft and aircraft are the new tanks. 

The damage aircraft do to tanks shouldn’t have been nerfed that much. 

Not to mention aircraft damage to aircraft shouldn’t have been changed tbh

 

Edited by lightside
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Swedge said:
  • now people with max mil + comparable city count can declare on people with soldiers only = huge imbalance

This isnt the only problems: Due to tighter restrictions, one cannot downdeclare or updeclare as well. 
While you might see it as a welcome change, remember that this essentially pushes us into a war of tiers situation. 
If your enemy has more members in a particular tier, no matter what you do, you will lose. This is going to help dogpiles immensely. Just get 100 people at 10 cities and then hit some alliance with 10 people in the 10-15 city range and all rest above it. 

These updates have just transformed the game into a game of numbers rather than a game of skills. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

yeah this has always been a game of numbers...

Not always
If you are good enough, numbers are only a hinderence at best.
Unless your opponent has you outnumbered 2 to 1, you could still come out on top, even in a defensive war

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfectly balanced game , numbers (assuming equal activity) would always be the main determining factor , PnW is not a perfectly balanced game, warchest, and military count, and numbers should be determining factors, any effort to change that would be met with everyone using the same strategy as those winning against all odds and the result would be the exact same. 

Groups with the better strategy numbers, activity, warchest and military having an advantage is never an excuse to not make a more balanced game. 

Also i do find it hilariously ironic that raiders are complaining that once they reach c30+ they have to fight people who fight back .

 

 

Edited by Grave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.