Hybrid Warfare: New Strategy

Написано Dbacks, 29.01.2013 at 06:12

Isn't arb's suggestion much like GC (idk since i've never played it but it sounds like it)

Написано Soul, 29.01.2013 at 14:13

I'm not really liking it, all I'm getting is GC/GW/Imp combined to be a idk waste bucket, yes I know this is not constructive criticism I'm just not seeing how this would work. I like the original better that Arbitrators to say the least, but dislike both, I just dislike Arbitrators version more than the first one lol.

Написано Goblin, 29.01.2013 at 16:28

Написано Roncho, 29.01.2013 at 14:27

That title reminds me porn :s but good idea : )

What kind of porn are you watching Roncho damn. D:

Написано Goblin, 29.01.2013 at 16:49

Написано Roncho, 29.01.2013 at 16:34

Написано Goblin, 29.01.2013 at 16:28

Написано Roncho, 29.01.2013 at 14:27

That title reminds me porn :s but good idea : )

What kind of porn are you watching Roncho damn. D:

xaxaxa it's not about the porn I watching, I saw the word hybrid in a porn site first that's why

What kind of sick twisted porn site is that D: ....

Написано tophat, 29.01.2013 at 14:26

Написано Soul, 29.01.2013 at 14:13

I'm not really liking it, all I'm getting is GC/GW/Imp combined to be a idk waste bucket, yes I know this is not constructive criticism I'm just not seeing how this would work. I like the original better that Arbitrators to say the least, but dislike both, I just dislike Arbitrators version more than the first one lol.

you may dislike the strategy, but it doesn't mean it can't fit well in AW. It's balanced and, hey, it's a new strategy.

For example, I hate relentless attack, but it's a viable strategy that goes well into AW and that is somewhat balanced. Same goes with HW.

Not everyone likes certain strategies, this is why players have their "favorite strategies", which they play regularly.

It's not a waste bucket, and you may say it's a combination of GC/GW/IMP but that's exactly what Hybrid Warfare is. A mix of various tactics of war such as conventional and irregular warfare. It's not like if it has grand combination of other strategies that it will become OP. Not at all, the admins will implement it to be balanced and that is why we need some constructive criticism.

Написано nonames, 28.01.2013 at 16:27

When i think Hybrid warefare, i think hybrid of every strat, just slightly nerfed, so you can play around.

here i am thinking hybrid land (just a brainstorm, a load of crap most likely hopefully you will see ideas you like i guess.)

so here we go

new unit stats (change only)
Land
Infantry 1 atk(-3) 7 def(+1) 85 cost (+15)
Tank 9 atk(+1) 1 def(-3) 135 cost(+15)
Marine 6 atk(-1) 2def(-1) 60 cost(-100) + loses defence in city bonus. (so overall -2 def)
Militia: 4 atk(+1) 3 range(+1) 35 cost(+5)
Subs 5 atk(-2) 3 def(-2) 3 cap (+1) 175 cost(-25) (delib made it so subs can't help take city)

major nerfs
bombers 4 atk(-2) 4 def(-2)
stealth 5 atk(-2) 4 def(-2)
transports 350cost(+100) 7 range(-2)
Air trans 750cost(+150) 11 range(-2)
Helicopters get no bonuses against militia/infantry


Possibly all units -1 range +1hp -2view for dat IF feel too, who knows.

Написано themartinmcfly, 30.01.2013 at 07:48

I really like the idea of this strategy. Although I am sure Hannibal Barca (and he wasn't the first) is rolling in his grave having it described as not being famous until after the American Revolution .

However the ideas for buffs etc do not seem to match the idea of Hybrid Warfare as you described it. Perhaps if this strategy could be more of a rock paper scissors affair where the units used depends on the situation. Some units good for defence in cities, some out in the countryside where ambushes can destroy. Some units good for warfare out in the open but require specialised troops to take cities.

Militia & Infantry - Your irregular but trained force to hold the enemy up until help comes. Militia are useful than regular militia, but more costly due to the extra training. Infantry weaker in attack but can move farther for a mobile defense force.

Marines - Highly trained but independent troops that are good in attack and defense (because they use the environment to their advantage) but are no good in conventional warfare, i.e. taking and holding cities. Perhaps high atk and defense but large penalty to attacking cities and no bonus defending a city.

With these as the bulk of your army you still need conventional troops to carry out large operations such as taking a city. Which gives us:
Tanks - Although in real life not good at taking cities, now they are called main attack (or ground attack or whatever) they are your conventional shock troopers used to take heavily defended fortified positions. Good attack, low defense and bonus when attacking cities.

Bombers - These carry biological and other shock weapons to really destroy the enemies support base. In AW only population is modelled so they could kill population, lots of population. Stronger attack than normal but very bad defense as Hybrid warfare uses a irregular style of defense.

Написано Mathdino, 30.01.2013 at 09:27

I fully support the new idea, as every unit now has its use in a way.

I wonder what they'd put as the mini-description of the strat.

Написано tophat, 30.01.2013 at 09:48

No, we're keeping Arb's suggestion.

I will try to add a few of martin's ideas into it later.

Написано Guest, 30.01.2013 at 09:37

themartinmcfly is a smart guy, have to say this. Somebody now put his suggestions into balanced unit-stats and we will have a whole new kind of strategy, which also perfectly fits the description of 'Hybrid Warfare'.

Написано Mathdino, 30.01.2013 at 19:20

It's not Imp, we don't want everything to be cheap. I think we should keep the tank as it is in Arb's suggestion- a strong and moderately expensive attack unit.

@sandtime- You have to remember, that a tank with 110 cost and 7 attack isn't as cost effective as the normal tank, meaning it's basically as useless as the normal tank. Increasing attack and cost (to an extent) keeps the tank as a usable unit.

On the topic of balance, seeing as all the land units are now more or equally cost effective, nerfing bombers won't do all that much, and with the cheap trans upgrade, air transports are still affordable. Perhaps to keep the player more stuck to land, decrease capacity of air transports by 1, and transports by 3?