GC boost

Give GC its original stats back:

+1 def to infantry, + 1 HP -3 attack.
+1 attack to tanks + 1 HP -3 defense.

Right now, GC is just a weaker IF, with more range.

Yes please fix this nerf

To make it fair, boost GC to +2 att +2 hp +1 range and -3 def tanks, +2 defense, +2hp +1 range and -3 att inf
That would make it fair

Or:

Infantry +1 defense +1 HP -3 attack -20 cost.
Tanks +1 attack + 1 HP -3 defense -10 cost.

Support

作者： Permamuted, 19.06.2014 at 13:46

作者： Eagle, 19.06.2014 at 11:27

To make it fair, boost GC to +2 att +2 hp +1 range and -3 def tanks, +2 defense, +2hp +1 range and -3 att inf
That would make it fair

is this trolling? you basically added almost 5 attack and 5 defense to the tanks and inf. a +1 hp boost on 7hp units with values of 8 att/deff or greater is better than +1 att/def.

just restore the original stats lol, you people adding extra boosts are crazy, you do realise the +1 def and +hp makes the inf stronger than pd inf

and the +1 attack + 1hp on the tanks makes them almost as powerful as nc destroyers lol.

Perfect defense isn't good due to the infantry defense, but due to the infantry spam and attack
GC infantry have no attack value, it would be suicide to use them to attack, it would be like attacking with sentry planes.

Dont support

作者： Tundy, 19.06.2014 at 13:53

作者： Permamuted, 19.06.2014 at 13:46

作者： Eagle, 19.06.2014 at 11:27

To make it fair, boost GC to +2 att +2 hp +1 range and -3 def tanks, +2 defense, +2hp +1 range and -3 att inf
That would make it fair

is this trolling? you basically added almost 5 attack and 5 defense to the tanks and inf. a +1 hp boost on 7hp units with values of 8 att/deff or greater is better than +1 att/def.

just restore the original stats lol, you people adding extra boosts are crazy, you do realise the +1 def and +hp makes the inf stronger than pd inf

and the +1 attack + 1hp on the tanks makes them almost as powerful as nc destroyers lol.

Perfect defense isn't good due to the infantry defense, but due to the infantry spam and attack
GC infantry have no attack value, it would be suicide to use them to attack, it would be like attacking with sentry planes.

yes, but you dont play gc like pd. its a slowroll strat. with gc you defend, you jew, you reinforce the cities you cap with the inf, you wear your opponent down.

if you restore the original stats itll be very powerful at this style of gameplay. further boosts to the strat after that are insane.

Adding HP is basically contradicting the defense nerf on inf/attack on tanks since HP affects both attack and defense. Which is why GC is only +1 and -3. Could reinforce the strats theme by making it +2 def(inf) +2 attack(tanks) and then throw in the -3, and keep the -10 cost on tanks. Id see more people playing GC by then.

GC was nerfed because it's previous stats were a threat to PD op. Therefore it is unlikely we'll get them back.
Instead, reduce the cost so GC can afford the tanks it needs.

Tanks -20 cost (16% reduction)
Inf -10 cost (16% reduction)
Then add a +1 range to both Tanks and Inf, giving a slight mobility advantage that would give it the edge it needs to redeploy its limited numbers of units rapidly.

This imo would make it level with most strats.

作者： The Tactician, 19.06.2014 at 14:51

Adding HP is basically contradicting the defense nerf on inf/attack on tanks since HP affects both attack and defense. Which is why GC is only +1 and -3. Could reinforce the strats theme by making it +2 def(inf) +2 attack(tanks) and then throw in the -3, and keep the -10 cost on tanks. Id see more people playing GC by then.

not exactly, 1 hp does not equal 1 attack/defense, ive seen a few people say this. to give a gc tank with 1 defense the equivalent of 2 defense, youd have to give it +7 hp lol. in the case of units with 7hp, it is only units with 7 attack/defense or higher that a +1 hp boost is >= an equialent +1 attack/defense.

an example

7 ra tanks have 63 attack(7X9)
7 gc tanks have 56 attack(7X8) but +7hp, which is the equivalent of another tank so almost like 64 attack

its why we say a gc tank is slightly stronger than an ra tank.

作者： EndsOfInvention, 19.06.2014 at 15:50

GC was nerfed because it's previous stats were a threat to PD op. Therefore it is unlikely we'll get them back.
Instead, reduce the cost so GC can afford the tanks it needs.

Tanks -20 cost (16% reduction)
Inf -10 cost (16% reduction)
Then add a +1 range to both Tanks and Inf, giving a slight mobility advantage that would give it the edge it needs to redeploy its limited numbers of units rapidly.

This imo would make it level with most strats.

you must understand, gc isnt THAT weak in its current form, people occasionally use it in cws. and it works well as a slowroll strat in the right hands. but atm the nerfs out-weigh the boosts, your cost boosts sound great, but range boosts are too much.

No support for range advantage either, although that idea would make the strat pretty strong. +1 range and a 16% cost reduction makes the strat have PD tier cost boosts (when i say that i don't mean it costs as much as pd, rather deducts costs as much) and RA tank range.


EDIT: also yea i agree with lao on this one that gc isn't that bad anyway, just needs a slight boost so people play it more.
EDIT2: I get it now, although the 1 hp will still have an affect to an extent (an extent = 1/10). HP also helps in big numbers, again to an extent.
EDIT3: Here, if 8 inf were 1 attack each that would mean 8 v 12 (3 neutral militia), but HP did make a difference even if slight that caused me to win the battle.

作者： The Tactician, 20.06.2014 at 02:52

No support for range advantage either, although that idea would make the strat pretty strong. +1 range and a 16% cost reduction makes the strat have PD tier cost boosts (when i say that i don't mean it costs as much as pd, rather deducts costs as much) and RA tank range.


EDIT: also yea i agree with lao on this one that gc isn't that bad anyway, just needs a slight boost so people play it more.
EDIT2: I get it now, although the 1 hp will still have an affect to an extent (an extent = 1/10). HP also helps in big numbers, again to an extent.
EDIT3: Here, if 8 inf were 1 attack each that would mean 8 v 12 (3 neutral militia), but HP did make a difference even if slight that caused me to win the battle.

GC not bad? Lol the strat is completly shit. I rather use IF if I want to have strong units.

HP is not equivalent to attack/defense as Lao stated, it's quite dependent in the rolls of your opponent.

What's wrong with GC having PD tier cost boosts? Oh I get it now... It's all about keeping PD op for all Pd fags to enjoy.

Haha Tunder, I am the first person you'd find against PD being most played strat border-lining only played strat. I know HP is not equivalent as attack/defense as i stated in my former post if you've read it, I said I understood Lao now and said HP still matters. If you've even read my post that is. The wrong thing about GC having PD tier cost boosts is that you now have a strat that gives close to pd defense with close to the same cost, AND RA tier tanks that are cheaper. Now you have stronger, and cheaper units. Now where is the nerf if you can afford both your strong offense and defense?


PS: GC is not completely shit,but you just don't know how to play it. As I said it just needs a slight boost to get more people playing it.

作者： The Tactician, 20.06.2014 at 10:30

Haha Tunder, I am the first person you'd find against PD being most played strat border-lining only played strat. I know HP is not equivalent as attack/defense as i stated in my former post if you've read it, I said I understood Lao now and said HP still matters. If you've even read my post that is. The wrong thing about GC having PD tier cost boosts is that you now have a strat that gives close to pd defense with close to the same cost, AND RA tier tanks that are cheaper. Now you have stronger, and cheaper units. Now where is the nerf if you can afford both your strong offense and defense?


PS: GC is not completely shit,but you just don't know how to play it. As I said it just needs a slight boost to get more people playing it.

Tell me, in which country GC is better than IF or PD, tell me because I am curious. ukraine? Lel its too expensive for ukraine.

GC infantry can't be use to expand, due to their shitty attack, Perfect Defense infantry can be use to expand and are cheap, let's nerf Pd infantry attack then, that way it goes by its name of Defense.

RA tanks have 5 defense....

GW militia are equal to infantry but cheap.

GC infantry where meant to be strong like PD, but useless to attack, in order to force the player to use RA tanks that need to be defended by GC infantry.

作者： Tundy, 20.06.2014 at 12:34

作者： The Tactician, 20.06.2014 at 10:30

Haha Tunder, I am the first person you'd find against PD being most played strat border-lining only played strat. I know HP is not equivalent as attack/defense as i stated in my former post if you've read it, I said I understood Lao now and said HP still matters. If you've even read my post that is. The wrong thing about GC having PD tier cost boosts is that you now have a strat that gives close to pd defense with close to the same cost, AND RA tier tanks that are cheaper. Now you have stronger, and cheaper units. Now where is the nerf if you can afford both your strong offense and defense?


PS: GC is not completely shit,but you just don't know how to play it. As I said it just needs a slight boost to get more people playing it.

Tell me, in which country GC is better than IF or PD, tell me because I am curious. ukraine? Lel its too expensive for ukraine.

GC infantry can't be use to expand, due to their shitty attack, Perfect Defense infantry can be use to expand and are cheap, let's nerf Pd infantry attack then, that way it goes by its name of Defense.

RA tanks have 5 defense....

GW militia are equal to infantry but cheap.

Go ahead, undermine all the rest that I've said.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be better than IF or PD, but its just a matter of style. GC combines your strong tank attack to crush your opponent and then hold and defend your stacks of tanks with infantry. Which is why sometimes a GC player loses if he lets his tanks vulnerable. Its called Great Combinator for a reason. The strategy exerts a certain style on your game ya know. GC is playable as Ukraine btw, funds aren't a problem if you expand correctly. GC is also playable as Italy, Germany (old school players used to do that, I believe it can still be done), and I play GC France(probably only me xaxa) in 1v1's. Yes it isn't played a lot which is exactly why I'm supporting a slight boost. You act like I've disagreed with it needed to be boosting. You're just trying to find holes in my posts because I've said GC is playable.

Tripitz agrees

作者： Permamuted, 19.06.2014 at 16:30

you must understand, gc isnt THAT weak in its current form, people occasionally use it in cws. and it works well as a slowroll strat in the right hands. but atm the nerfs out-weigh the boosts, your cost boosts sound great, but range boosts are too much.

Since I can't actually use GC being non premium, I shall trust your judgement here.

Support, bring back GC, it died after the nerf, I have not seen GC Spain since the nerf or GC Ukraine, no one uses it anymore ;_;