Hybrid Warfare: New Strategy

This is the second time I try to bring this idea along, I'll try my best to convince you to love this new strategy and I will attempt to make it as balance and as interesting as possible.

What is Hybrid Warfare? or HW?

It's a military strategy that mixes various forms of warfare such as conventional and irregular warfare, which fits well with the current units that AW consists of. Hybrid Warfare (HW) also blends different types of warfare such as biological and cyber warfare but those wouldn't work well with what AW currently is. So lets just stick with a blend of conventional and irregular warfare tactics.

Hybrid Warfare originally became famous after the American Revolution, where it was used by generals like George Washington. Basically said, hybrid warfare was a combination of large armies of expendable and decently trained militias forming perimeters to fight various fronts, while having a stronger core of infantry units guarding the center where the general was. Thus, using tactics such as stealth and the use of conventional weapons.

The part that makes it hybrid, is the mix between conventional and irregular warfare. In AW terms, we would therefore compare these tactics with the units the game currently amounts of. For example, a bonus to infantry defense in cities would fit well with the HW principles. A boost to militia attack and range would be needed. And finally, having very cheap marine units with a slight boost to defense at the cost of a much lower attack would fit very well in Hybrid Warfare's "irregular" form of warfare.

Arbitrator's Suggestion (IMO better)

new unit stats (change only)
Land
Infantry 1 atk(-3) 7 def(+1) 85 cost (+15)
Tank 9 atk(+1) 1 def(-3) 130 cost(+10)
Marine 6 atk(-1) 2def(-1) 80 cost(-80) + loses defence in city bonus. (so overall -2 def)
Militia: 4 atk(+1) 3 range(+1) 30 cost
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
Anyways this is it. Please comment and discuss it. I believe it is pretty balanced, so there shouldn't be other boost/nerf suggestions, unless you think of something better. But I don't want people changing the point of this strategy. Modifying it is fine, but changing it is not.

Have fun!

It leans a little too far in both direction, such as marines being more like too expensive now since they have worse defensive stats than militia and terrible attack stats, also marines are easy to detect if they're within the stealth detection line-of-sight.

Never mind about the militia thing, I was thinking of Guerrilla warfare, which you might as well use instead of this. No one mixes marines with tanks or infantry, or infantry with militia. Also, in the strategies where militia or infantry are stronger, one is weaker, such as stronger militia at the cost of weaker infantry (with the exception of perfect defense).

It's a 'no' from me because it's unbalanced. Sorry man. If you can balance it more, then sure, it's a yes.

But for now, it's a "no".

Hmm, very interesting strategy with good balance of units. I think there might be too many of those "useless nerfs" they don't really add much to it. maybe removing +30 cost to destroyers.

Support.

Cool idea.

Seems like a lot of boosts and nerfs though. My head hurts just thinking about this strat let alone playing it.

Escrito por Acquiesce, 25.01.2013 at 21:40

Cool idea.

Seems like a lot of boosts and nerfs though. My head hurts just thinking about this strat let alone playing it.

This is what makes it different, it's extremely versatile. However it's not that difficult to learn, attack with marines mostly. (you can spam these because of low cost) and defend them by cycling infantries from city to city (similar to GC infs)

Whilst militia is a good cheap alternative to infantry. Militia and inf having same attack but the difference is the range vs cost. Therefore you would use militia for spamming defense, and infantry for moving high amounts of defense from city to city.

As for nerfs, maybe I'll remove a few useless ones that might be confusing people for nothing.

Escrito por Sinjid, 25.01.2013 at 21:39

It leans a little too far in both direction, such as marines being more like too expensive now since they have worse defensive stats than militia and terrible attack stats, also marines are easy to detect if they're within the stealth detection line-of-sight.

Never mind about the militia thing, I was thinking of Guerrilla warfare, which you might as well use instead of this. No one mixes marines with tanks or infantry, or infantry with militia. Also, in the strategies where militia or infantry are stronger, one is weaker, such as stronger militia at the cost of weaker infantry (with the exception of perfect defense).

It's a 'no' from me because it's unbalanced. Sorry man. If you can balance it more, then sure, it's a yes.

But for now, it's a "no".

I will have to disagree, it's mean't to be different and not your typical strategy. What's wrong mixing marines with infantry, if infantry are on land and not in a city, there's nothing wrong with using them to defend marines. And that's not even what a normal HW should use. Marines should always be attacking whilst transferring infantries to cities to defend them. Militia in this case are just an alternative to infantry, (cost over quality)

One doesn't have to be necessarily weaker, it's called Hybrid Warfare, which blends military warfare.

Escrito por tophat, 25.01.2013 at 21:50

Escrito por Sinjid, 25.01.2013 at 21:39

It leans a little too far in both direction, such as marines being more like too expensive now since they have worse defensive stats than militia and terrible attack stats, also marines are easy to detect if they're within the stealth detection line-of-sight.

Never mind about the militia thing, I was thinking of Guerrilla warfare, which you might as well use instead of this. No one mixes marines with tanks or infantry, or infantry with militia. Also, in the strategies where militia or infantry are stronger, one is weaker, such as stronger militia at the cost of weaker infantry (with the exception of perfect defense).

It's a 'no' from me because it's unbalanced. Sorry man. If you can balance it more, then sure, it's a yes.

But for now, it's a "no".

I will have to disagree, it's mean't to be different and not your typical strategy. What's wrong mixing marines with infantry, if infantry are on land and not in a city, there's nothing wrong with using them to defend marines. And that's not even what a normal HW should use. Marines should always be attacking whilst transferring infantries to cities to defend them. Militia in this case are just an alternative to infantry, (cost over quality)

One doesn't have to be necessarily weaker, it's called Hybrid Warfare, which blends military warfare.

Like the premium strategies, I feel this one doesn't fit in correctly anyways. I'm for the old ways (well, except for custom maps, I love 'em).

SUPPORT!

(Y)

This is my opnion, but i support the strategy

Boosts:
Infantry: +2 defense in city (is normally +1)
Militia: +1 attack, +1 range (30 cost)
Marines: 50 cost, +3 defense,

Nerfs:
Infantry: +10 cost (because expensive and elite units)
Marines: -3 attack (making them 4att and 6 def for 50 cost)
Air transports: -3 range
Naval transports: +20 cost
Tanks: -3 attack, -2 defense
Destroyer Nerf
Bomber Nerf

I also suggest that Naval transports get +3 range

Escrito por Tundy, 26.01.2013 at 14:13

I also suggest that Naval transports get +3 range

I don't mid your first idea. It actually fits well with what the strategy consists of.

But adding +3 range to naval transport does not fit well and is extremely OP. We have NC for this......

The purpose of the strategy is that it's weak side of it is the transportation. So it will remain -3 range.

Just make marines cost 60.
Bcuz high rank player have cheaper marines upgrade. So marine cost will be 40 for us. And it is not good idea i think.

I like the idea, but I think we have enough strats as it is.

Escrito por tophat, 26.01.2013 at 14:15

Escrito por Tundy, 26.01.2013 at 14:13

I also suggest that Naval transports get +3 range

I don't mid your first idea. It actually fits well with what the strategy consists of.

But adding +3 range to naval transport does not fit well and is extremely OP. We have NC for this......

The purpose of the strategy is that it's weak side of it is the transportation. So it will remain -3 range.

oh i expected Hybrid Warfare to be Land Units moving in Water.

Hmm mm.... Ivan can you do that.
That would be really cool and new.

What is Hybrid Warfare? or HW?

No.

Escrito por avatar, 27.01.2013 at 13:46

What is Hybrid Warfare? or HW?

It's a military strategy that mixes various forms of warfare such as conventional and irregular warfare, which fits well with the current units that AW consists of. Hybrid Warfare (HW) also blends different types of warfare such as biological and cyber warfare but those wouldn't work well with what AW currently is. So lets just stick with a blend of conventional and irregular warfare tactics.

Hybrid Warfare originally became famous after the American Revolution, where it was used by generals like George Washington. Basically said, hybrid warfare was a combination of large armies of expendable and decently trained militias forming perimeters to fight various fronts, while having a stronger core of infantry units guarding the center where the general was. Thus, using tactics such as stealth and the use of conventional weapons.

I like this strategy and support it

I was thinking more of getting to choose 2 strategys and get have the bounses and weakness of both strategys like NC and PD. having a strong infantry and ships but really weak tanks

Escrito por tophat, 25.01.2013 at 21:24

Here's what I suggest for this strategy:

Boosts:
Infantry: +2 defense in city (is normally +1)
Militia: +1 attack, +1 range (30 cost)
Marines: 50 cost, +1 defense,

Nerfs:
Infantry: +10 cost (because expensive and elite units)
Marines: -2 attack (making them 5att and 4 def for 50 cost)
Air transports: -3 range
Naval transports: +20 cost
Tanks: -3 attack, -2 defense
Destroyers: +30 cost
Bombers: +10 cost

Have fun!

I'm sorry but you are making marines cost only 10 more than imperialist infantry, but they will have 2 more attack and 1 more range AND they are invisible, meaning they are less likely to need to defend, they just have to make first move out of city, lose the city and hit on counter attack.
You have also made it even more so that marines STILL won't ever have to defnd heavy situations because you have improved infantry to have +1 defence for only 10 more cost, again massive improvement.
You have also nerfed tanks, which is pointless because they is no way in hell a competent player would use normal tanks with this strategy anyways, they are already obsolete and don't need a nerf.
you also nerfed transports, but less than GW, making them still useable.

This is far too OP, without a doubt, it seems like a hybrid of imperialist and GW and has much stronger features than both of them.

not supported.

I had the exact same initial reaction as Arbitrator: more cost effective than GW and Imp in both attack and defence, while the nerfs don't cancel out the strengths. Assuming no upgrades here, HW marines get 5 attack for 50 cost, while GW marines have 7 attack for 80 cost. Also, adding cost to infantry makes them no less cost effective; with or without HW, infantry are still 10 cost for 1 defence, the only difference here being you can buy more defence. Near GW-tier militia doesn't make things any better.

I'll stop bashing now. Here are my suggestions based on cost effectiveness and balance:
60 cost for marines (you don't want them better than GW and MoS)
+50 cost for transports (20 is nothing), +100 cost for air transports
-1 attack for infantry (I feel this strategy would be far too strong with infantry as a main unit)

Let me know what you guys think.

I have to agree with Arbitrator in this one, specially because it's introdution wouldn't lead to any new playing style, just a variation of GW, using militias and marines as main units while nerfing it's transportation.

Not supported.

I agree with you Arbitrator, now that I see it.

But for those who simply say "not supported" at least add some constructive criticism and maybe suggest a few things. This thread isn't meant to choose to support or not to support, the point is to have a new strategy implemented and for people to suggest and modify things to improve it.

That being said, marines will be 4 attack, 3 defense (instead of previous 5 att and 4 def) and 50 cost or 60 without upgrade (instead of previous 40/50 cost)

and naval transports now +40 cost

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.

Escrito por 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.

Support in every way possible.

I will add your exact suggestion below mine. (although yours is much better)

We need more people to have a look at Arbitrator's suggestion and comment, just to make sure it's balanced and useful enough. If everyone agrees, then we'll implement it.

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

Excellent, we have lots of supporters.

Tell your friends and it might be implemented!