Detachments and Coalition Discussion

[Abhorsen]

Good evening,

I was curious with the changes to coalitions in war - if we could potentially debate the removal of troop limitations in detachments to help with creating more viability in different troop formations. The restrictions in 68 troops per detachment puts more limitations on how to go about selecting what coalitions to use for each war.

It would be nice if we could have all our troops benefit in attack speed or extra damage - we can plan more strategies for attacking these days.

@Harlems369th @TheWise

 

[King Crimson]

Good evening,

It would be nice if we could have all our troops benefit in attack speed or extra damage

So essentially you're asking for a buff for offense again?
Then what's the point of the recent rebalance?

 

[Abhorsen]

So essentially you're asking for a buff for offense again?
Then what's the point of the recent rebalance?

I mean technically yes it would be a buff for everyone even defenders that are helping to attack. I mean last time I checked defenders are doing just fine again and this wouldn’t be a big boost to attackers unlike lego had.

Attackers are already being pushed into a new meta so I can’t really say this is a rebalance for the player base? We just got shifted to new units. A true rebalance would have been every player having a bunch of attack style to try out. It’s just the same cycle in this game we went from A to B for troop attack.

Where it would be a better system if we went from A to B,C,D, and E.

Still mostly a bottle neck system - the only true winners of this change is the company as we now have to buy all new councils and museum gear to revamp HI and AH until a couple of years later when they revamp another unit and make us restart all over again.

All we got was APC / AH and bombers.

Lego does okay against low end defenders and O bases but it’s mainly hurting too.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not trying to go back to us dominating every 3D base. I just think we could have more different variety in experimenting with synergy of troops with different builds.

You want to make a HP build - Try out Cherokee and detachment B.

You want to make a pure dmg build - Aztec with detachment A.

You want to try out an attack speed build - Mongol with detachment C.

Again, this isn’t just for attackers to benefit from only - defenders can do so too instead of needing to scout all the time or go bombers only to aid in battle nor do I see this as a total shift to annihilating strong 3D bases either and bringing about time wars again.

We already see the shifting battle of wars now and so far I have only witnessed one war that has reached all bases cleared so far.

 

[King Crimson]

I mean technically yes it would be a buff for everyone even defenders that are helping to attack. I mean last time I checked defenders are doing just fine again and this wouldn’t be a big boost to attackers unlike lego had.

Attackers are already being pushed into a new meta so I can’t really say this is a rebalance for the player base? We just got shifted to new units. A true rebalance would have been every player having a bunch of attack style to try out. It’s just the same cycle in this game we went from A to B for troop attack.

Where it would be a better system if we went from A to B,C,D, and E.

Still mostly a bottle neck system - the only true winners of this change is the company as we now have to buy all new councils and museum gear to revamp HI and AH until a couple of years later when they revamp another unit and make us restart all over again.

All we got was APC / AH and bombers.

Lego does okay against low end defenders and O bases but it’s mainly hurting too.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not trying to go back to us dominating every 3D base. I just think we could have more different variety in experimenting with synergy of troops with different builds.

You want to make a HP build - Try out Cherokee and detachment B.

You want to make a pure dmg build - Aztec with detachment A.

You want to try out an attack speed build - Mongol with detachment C.

Again, this isn’t just for attackers to benefit from only - defenders can do so too instead of needing to scout all the time or go bombers only to aid in battle nor do I see this as a total shift to annihilating strong 3D bases either and bringing about time wars again.

We already see the shifting battle of wars now and so far I have only witnessed one war that has reached all bases cleared so far.

I think we all agree there should be a variety of strategies and I don't feel sorry for end game players who have blindly focused on one troop or combo for years when they've had ample opportunity to experiment after 10+yrs. Anyway, to play devil's advocate:
If helis were once OP and then nerfed and now viable again, why are players having to start over? Same question for bombers.
Wouldn't players have kept their previous builds? You don't necessarily delete your munitions cos a troop was nerfed - same for councillors, arftifacts, etc. I'm sure the smart ones held on.

You said I just think we could have more different variety in experimenting with synergy of troops with different builds. but then you said
You want to make a HP build - Try out Cherokee and detachment B.
You want to make a pure dmg build - Aztec with detachment A.
You want to try out an attack speed build - Mongol with detachment C.

Isn't that the definition of variety? We've all said having a one-size-fits-all like lego - destroying almost any base is bad - now players have a chance to experiment with different combos. Surely having a choice of attack strategies, against the varied bases out there, is a good thing.
Or are you saying that the coalition changes can't be used with players existing combos?

I can't speak from experience but from what I can see and from what I'm hearing bhg have finally given people some different strategies to choose from - if they'd just take the time to experiment.
The company I work for has a motto: one experiment is better than a 1,000 expert opinions. Seems like we have more than enough opinions on the forum already. Time to get experimenting.

 

[Abhorsen]

I think we all agree there should be a variety of strategies and I don't feel sorry for end game players who have blindly focused on one troop or combo for years when they've had ample opportunity to experiment after 10+yrs. Anyway, to play devil's advocate:
If helis were once OP and then nerfed and now viable again, why are players having to start over? Same question for bombers.
Wouldn't players have kept their previous builds? You don't necessarily delete your munitions cos a troop was nerfed - same for councillors, arftifacts, etc. I'm sure the smart ones held on.

You said I just think we could have more different variety in experimenting with synergy of troops with different builds. but then you said
You want to make a HP build - Try out Cherokee and detachment B.
You want to make a pure dmg build - Aztec with detachment A.
You want to try out an attack speed build - Mongol with detachment C.

Isn't that the definition of variety? Players now have a chance to experiment with different combos.

I can't speak from experience but what I can see and from what I'm hearing bhg have actually given people some different strategies to choose from - if they'd just take the time to experiment.

Lastly, are you saying that the coalition changes can't be used with players existing combos? Do players necessarily have to start over?

I guess to add first - not all of us have played for 10 years on this game nor was the museum available for 10

I think we all agree there should be a variety of strategies and I don't feel sorry for end game players who have blindly focused on one troop or combo for years when they've had ample opportunity to experiment after 10+yrs. Anyway, to play devil's advocate:
If helis were once OP and then nerfed and now viable again, why are players having to start over? Same question for bombers.
Wouldn't players have kept their previous builds? You don't necessarily delete your munitions cos a troop was nerfed - same for councillors, arftifacts, etc. I'm sure the smart ones held on.

You said I just think we could have more different variety in experimenting with synergy of troops with different builds. but then you said
You want to make a HP build - Try out Cherokee and detachment B.
You want to make a pure dmg build - Aztec with detachment A.
You want to try out an attack speed build - Mongol with detachment C.

Isn't that the definition of variety? We've all said having a one-size-fits-all like lego - destroying almost any base is bad - now players have a chance to experiment with different combos. Surely having a choice of attack strategies, against the varied bases out there, is a good thing.
Or are you saying that the coalition changes can't be used with players existing combos?

I can't speak from experience but from what I can see and from what I'm hearing bhg have finally given people some different strategies to choose from - if they'd just take the time to experiment.
The company I work for has a motto: one experiment is better than a 1,000 expert opinions. Seems like we have more than enough opinions on the forum already. Time to get experimenting.

Things to note -

1) Most people haven’t been playing this game for a straight 10 years. Have you? I played when it first came out in 2015 and quit around 2017. I came back during Covid in 2019.

2) The museum wasn’t released until 2018 - 3 years after the game came out and a lot of library research wasn’t set up for farming the museum accurately nor was it easily to get fragments

3) Yes - the goal is to have variety of troops for attacking and defending. If you agree that detachments are a good way to introduce - new strategies. I agree. So why do you think it’s going to hurt the variety if we take off the limitations of troop space in detachments? I’m not asking for more troop or airstrip troop slots. I’m asking for the same amount of troops and airstrip troops with just limitation of troops in each detachment eliminated.

4) The limitation of fragments with the museum and war and main hall events splits the ability to allocate those fragments on multiple builds.

5) Museum gear revamp recently has change the game of how to farm gear now with the possibly of gaining gear with 5 of the same lines and different percentage.

Your argument makes it sound like we had all the time in the world to prepare for these changes with ease. Yeah - we can keep all the gear we want but museums had limited space to hold gear for so many years too.

So those are all the factors, King.

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

Good evening,

I was curious with the changes to coalitions in war - if we could potentially debate the removal of troop limitations in detachments to help with creating more viability in different troop formations. The restrictions in 68 troops per detachment puts more limitations on how to go about selecting what coalitions to use for each war.

It would be nice if we could have all our troops benefit in attack speed or extra damage - we can plan more strategies for attacking these days.

@Harlems369th @TheWise

I think that's going to be too powerful.
The option to assign all troops in a single detachment reduces the number of necessary O coalitions to 1 or 2 (Mongols plus perhaps Americans for APCs/HI and paratroopers).
That would make red/general rallying and detachment rallying equivalent, thereby doubling their effectiveness.

However, I would sreally like to see the limit raised from 68 to 72, as that would be a multiple of the usual troop sizes.

 

[Abhorsen]

I think that's going to be too powerful.
The option to assign all troops in a single detachment reduces the number of necessary O coalitions to 1 or 2 (Mongols plus perhaps Americans for APCs/HI and paratroopers).
That would make red/general rallying and detachment rallying equivalent, thereby doubling their effectiveness.

However, I would sreally like to see the limit raised from 68 to 72, as that would be a multiple of the usual troop sizes.

Increase the limits would be fine too. I could agree with that functionality too.

 

[King Crimson]

I guess to add first - not all of us have played for 10 years on this game nor was the museum available for 10



Things to note -

1) Most people haven’t been playing this game for a straight 10 years. Have you? I played when it first came out in 2015 and quit around 2017. I came back during Covid in 2019.

2) The museum wasn’t released until 2018 - 3 years after the game came out and a lot of library research wasn’t set up for farming the museum accurately nor was it easily to get fragments

3) Yes - the goal is to have variety of troops for attacking and defending. If you agree that detachments are a good way to introduce - new strategies. I agree. So why do you think it’s going to hurt the variety if we take off the limitations of troop space in detachments? I’m not asking for more troop or airstrip troop slots. I’m asking for the same amount of troops and airstrip troops with just limitation of troops in each detachment eliminated.

4) The limitation of fragments with the museum and war and main hall events splits the ability to allocate those fragments on multiple builds.

5) Museum gear revamp recently has change the game of how to farm gear now with the possibly of gaining gear with 5 of the same lines and different percentage.

Your argument makes it sound like we had all the time in the world to prepare for these changes with ease. Yeah - we can keep all the gear we want but museums had limited space to hold gear for so many years too.

So those are all the factors, King.

Giving the detachment boosts to all troops takes away the need to experiment with the current gameplay.
The state of things are here to stay. Give it a chance, try some strategies THEN a few months down the track make informed suggestions. That's my point.
Been playing since 2015 and have multiple combos BUT I've had multiple combos for years. I never blindly used the easy combos - l always experimented when l could. So even if you're not a veteran there's no reason not to have a few combos at hand. No reason and no excuse.

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

Giving the detachment boosts to all troops takes away the need to experiment with the current gameplay.
The state of things are here to stay. Give it a chance, try some strategies THEN a few months down the track make informed suggestions. That's my point.
Been playing since 2015 and have multiple combos BUT I've had multiple combos for years. I never blindly used the easy combos - l always experimented when l could. So even if you're not a veteran there's no reason not to have a few combos at hand. No reason and no excuse.

Big words from someone who claims he doesn't play war. Yeah, in MP I have like 20 working combos. You can throw together all sorts of troops and still succeed, because most people in MP haven't leveled up their Museum defense stats that much. There are plenty of bases with traps disabled, the generals and alliance troops are often disabled, and the sporadic blessings don’t have the same effect as 3D coalitions.
Even if we stuck with one troop combination, the focus in the war museum has changed in recent years e.g. from E-HP to DST, from HP to DMG, and so on. There was a steady change / optimization in artifacts.

 

[King Crimson]

Big words from someone who claims he doesn't play war. Yeah, in MP I have like 20 working combos. You can throw together all sorts of troops and still succeed, because most people in MP haven't leveled up their Museum defense stats that much. There are plenty of bases with traps disabled, the generals and alliance troops are often disabled, and the sporadic blessings don’t have the same effect as 3D coalitions.

I used to war years ago and early on I had at least 2 working combos to draw upon - so if a part time novice like me can do it, it's not impossible.
In any case, I'll ask you this question: As a veteran who wars, are you saying it's difficult to have more than one viable combo if you've been playing for years?
I mean, what do people do with the money they loot?

Even if we stuck with one troop combination, the focus in the war museum has changed in recent years e.g. from E-HP to DST, from HP to DMG, and so on. There was a steady change / optimization in artifacts.

And I'll ask you this question for an existing viable combo: Has the latest update made previously effective combos suddenly ineffective?