Let's discuss about AWDS unit ballance

Well I've created this topic with the only goal to discuss about the general unit balance based on our personal tougths, observations and general knowledge on Turn Based Strategy games.

To start the discuss, I will talk about few units then as more replies goes on here would comment the given asks  and new propositions.

Infantry: OP cheap meatshield, would say it's the most OP unit in the whole AW with it's original price of 1000 funds. It's kinda absurd to think that an infantry has about the same defensive stats againist tank units by costing 7 times less than a tank does. On maps that are rich of bases it was obvius that the meta was spamming infantries and following them with indirect fire, but as I'm seing on AWBW there are as much 2-3 bases on most maps, forcing players to build more decent units likely tanks are.

B.Copter: Before entering to AWBW I was blaming about why did Day's of ruin's nerfed B.Copters at creating a 13.000 funds counter that can't be harmed by B.Copters and about some other minor stats lowering. But in the few league like matches could notice they were TOO BADASS for their 9000 funds cost and a must to rush on some kind of league maps because their huge capacity of avoiding A.Airs and range of harass on the map and that buying an A.Air to counter the new B.Copter is an expensive desition.

Md. Tank: well, compared to Neotanks this one is really inferior in all terms even on movility, but its the cheapest heavy armor unit that can easly counter a spam of tanks. I tought all this time that Neotanks were "op" (even considered them more cost efficent than megatanks) but Md.Tank does its roll of heavy tank for a really accesible price. Still I don't like building heavy tanks at all and less if I see a map has airports, but this made me to consider more the Md.Tank than Neotanks.

Missiles: being the slowest vehicular unit, it's a unit I always respected and I'm seing that on ABWB its too underrated for most people. Its not so cost efficent (even below the cost efficiency), but on some particular cases the unit is worth for its price mainly on FoW games. 4 movement is a really anoying fact considering it uses tires, because this it can't move a forest + a plain in the same turn... affortunally on Days of Ruins this unit obtains an incredible buff of 3-6 range and 5 movement which makes it really worth on more occations.

The lack of online support means pretty much no one understands just how high-level AWDS works. It's pretty much only Gipface, the two or three people he tested games with, and the small maps/low prop count ruleset they put together. But I still see a lot of things wrong here so what the heck.

I was blaming about why did Day's of ruin's nerfed B.Copters at creating a 13.000 funds counter that can't be harmed by B.Copters and about some other minor stats lowering.

Days of Ruin didn't nerf helicopters, though, it increased their base damage against tanks and made them a more solid counter against them. In AWBW, their strengths are comparatively few. Sure, it's still nice to flank things over water and be immune to tank and artillery shells, but given its unimpressive attack power you're usually just building it because it's +1 unit count and doesn't require a base to field.
I'm not a big fan of the whole "well I forced them to build an antiair" argument. After killing or deterring the helicopter, the antiair can still be marginally useful for its high base damage against infantry.

Md. Tank: well, compared to Neotanks this one is really inferior in all terms even on movility, but its the cheapest heavy armor unit that can easly counter a spam of tanks. I tought all this time that Neotanks were "op" (even considered them more cost efficent than megatanks) but Md.Tank does its roll of heavy tank for a really accesible price. Still I don't like building heavy tanks at all and less if I see a map has airports, but this made me to consider more the Md.Tank than Neotanks.

Well, you're halfway there. A medium tank can go toe to toe with a neotank so long as it has some meatshields to compensate for the movement disadvantage. But neither of these units are very good for their cost. Both get ripped apart by indirects and struggle against helicopters. The medium tank doesn't have enough of a firepower advantage over the regular tank to warrant the price point; it needs a CO boost to one-shot an infantry on all but the worst terrain and will almost never one-shot anything else. The neotank's a little more reliable, since it's guaranteed to kill infantry up to 120 defense without a CO boost, and, if boosted, it can snipe unguarded tanks and artillery.
What AWDS games I've seen didn't last nearly long enough to necessitate that kind of concentrated power, and in AWBW they'll simply drown in artillery fire. The slightly more expensive black bomb, when allowed (I don't get why so much of AWBW is scared of it tbh), is a better option when it comes to busting walls since it enables all your other units to run in and score kills, whereas a neotank can only hit one enemy per turn.

Missiles

Hoo boy. Missiles can be useful on non-standard/gimmick maps, or in fog if your opponent is a classic Eagle newb ("He specializes in air units? Better dump ALL my money into them!"). They're less durable, less economical, and much, MUCH slower than their better half, antiair. Even as Grit I'd stick to antiair unless the other guy thinks he's funny and builds a bomber.

eudjcn wrote:I'm not a big fan of the whole "well I forced them to build an antiair" argument. After killing or deterring the helicopter, the antiair can still be marginally useful for its high base damage against infantry.

I didn't say A.Airs are useless when there are no B.Copters, but I mean as ground to ground unit on the field it is a way too cost inefficent unit. It's really grateful doing over 100% to standard infantries on roads/plains and taking less damage from mechs using A.Airs, appart that they are still strong counters of recons (but ... how many recons would we see on a standard game? not so many). Still I enjoy building really few of them in whole matches on ground only maps-

eudjcn wrote:Missiles
Hoo boy. Missiles can be useful on non-standard/gimmick maps, or in fog if your opponent is a classic Eagle newb ("He specializes in air units? Better dump ALL my money into them!"). They're less durable, less economical, and much, MUCH slower than their better half, antiair. Even as Grit I'd stick to antiair unless the other guy thinks he's funny and builds a bomber.

If they were not THAT cost inefficent would been am atractive to build. Even with the respects I have to this unit I preffer building A.Airs because they can atack ground units alike. And that on most cases the A.Airs have more range threat to B.Copters than Missiles does on most ocations. I find A.Airs a more cool unit than tanks are on some campaign like maps seen on AWBW I tend to build more A.Airs combined with artilleries/rockets than tanks because their specialized role is pretty atractive to me.

Well opening a new discussion


Recons: I'm not sure at all, but I see these as too cost inefficent for most ocations without FoW. I ocationally buy few of these if I'm seing too many rockets and infantries by someone and if the field is rich of roads. When comparing 2 recons or owning a tank + an intrantry the 2 recons way looks me really awful because no decent firepower againist tanks at all and THIS is vital. I would buy more oftenly these "jeeps" if they had a fair price of 3500's and better stats againist infantries. Something I liked to see in AWDR is that recons had the same stats againist B.Copters than tanks againist B.Copters, decreasing their cost inefficency on atleast a particular unit ... but compared to Bikes I REALLY preffer by a lot the Bikes because they can even capture and for some reasson bikes does even more damage to anti tanks than recons does :/