GW VS MoS

I'm unsure of which one to make my specialty.
Points towards MoS:
It has submarines and stealth planes that are cheaper so I can transport marines easily.
The submarines can support coastal attacks and the stealth planes are able to attack and provide aerial support.

---

Points towards GW:
The marines are more powerful (going by the cost required to buy them)
GW cost = 80
attack = 6
MoS cost = 120
attack = 7
LCM(80,120) = 240
240 / 80 = 3
240 / 120 = 2
3 * 6 = 18
2 * 7 = 14
Overall, GW marines are more powerful.
GW militas are more powerful.
To illustrate how good this is, let me quote something from learster's guide

Qu0t3:

Manged to take US Atlantic, instantly reinforced it with infantry. Then I went for my Schwerpunkte and send all troops standing by into his capitals, leaving out Los Angeles.

As you can see it all went pretty well. The next thing I do is instantly move my marines out of all cities. Doesn't matter where to, maybe close to your next target. But for now I want to see what he does the next round. Also, marines are a terrible defense. He actually managed to retake New York with 30 Militia vs my 25 Marines, 2 Subs and 8 Militia.
From there on, it was pretty much a low scale war once again. He would retake some of his states, then I'd take them back, and so on. The game isn't even over yet and I still didn't manage to take all of the US, but he never recovered from that blow and it's a nice SP gain. So let's focus on other things. What was going on in Asia all the time?

Would he have needed to reinforce with infantry and would it be a low stakes war if the milita he got from capturing all that territory were as OP as those from GW?

I once captured turkey with four marines vs 40 milita.
The 40 milita were walling the capital with no troops actually inside.
nearby cities also had 0 troops in it
So I used the marines to capture the cities before reinforcing the capital with the milita I got.

This would have never happened in MoS.

---

So to summarize, I'm asking
Is the extra power of the marines and milita more useful...
Or the Advanced submarines and stealth planes?

I prefer Guerilla Warfare myself, but it really depends on your playstyle, i dont use stealth planes for example.

In world war 50k you can to play MoS, in maps like europe or asia 3,5,10k GW

GW is much stronger in low funds games and very powerful lategame too. Mos is better in high funds and is stronger than gw in early game

Thanks for the replies everyone!

MoS is for very long games, Gureilla warfare provides you extra power in small scales wars like balkans or in poor areas like africa.

Gw>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mos

Wr1tt3n by 4nic, 01.12.2016 at 13:06

Gw>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mos

nice generalization nub

Wr1tt3n by Checkmate., 01.12.2016 at 17:21

Wr1tt3n by 4nic, 01.12.2016 at 13:06

Gw>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mos

nice generalization nub

Just saying how it is

Wr1tt3n by LukeTan, 26.11.2016 at 11:18

I'm unsure of which one to make my specialty.

In my opinion, a more appropriate question is: "What is appropriate for the given circumstances?"

As others have noted, it depends primarily on the map, including the income and geography (relative sizes of oceans, rivers and landmasses; distance between cities), as well as things like where you are with respect to other players. It's worth trying different strategies in different situations.

There are 4 strats that modify Marines: GW, MoS, DS and HW. Desert Storm is available with Premium. Hybrid Warfare is best if you have most of the various unit upgrades, including all ground unit enhancements and most of the economic upgrades.

Regardless, as others have noted, it is a wise strategy to prioritize moving the Marines out of newly-occupied cities in case of counter-attack. They are weak defense, and it's really annoying to get wiped out without taking much from the attacker.

Also, when it comes to prioritizing upgrades, the same upgrades improve all of these stealth-centric strats (lucky, fast and cheap Marines, fast and high-capacity Submarines).

GW is very cost-effective, as you noted, giving the greatest boost to Militia of any strat, and cutting the cost of Marines in half without sacrificing performance. The lack of any range increases makes it more difficult to expand and to move troops from one place to another. This is particularly true considering that the Naval and Air Transports are nerfed significantly, where Naval cost 400 and only move 8 (instead of the standard 10), and Air cost 800 and only move 11 (instead of 13). They are still beneficial because you can fill them so cheaply, but the going is slow. The spacing of cities is a stretch, except for most of Europe and some parts of Africa and eastern USA.

MoS cuts the cost of Marines by a quarter while increasing their range (+1) and attack (+1). It also cuts the cost of Subs by 20% while increasing the attack (+2), defense (+1), critical chance (+2), range (+2) and capacity (+1). And of course, it cuts the cost of Air Stealth by a third, increases the attack (+2) and the range (+2). It is more balanced in that regard, where air, land and sea all have enhanced units. Also, it leaves the Militia and Infantry alone, so your defense remains viable, and it only nerfs Tanks and Destroyers (you won't buy Tanks, anyway, when the MoS Marines have the same attack (8), range (7) and cost (120) of standard Tanks). Transports remain standard range and cost, so you can bring along plenty of Infantry and Militia expeditiously to back up your Marine/Sub/Stealth attack.


Another important question would be: "What works for me?"

My preferred strat is MoS, when conditions warrant it. I like it, it makes sense to me, and I win more often than I lose with it. Most maps that I play are wealthy enough (World Map, Lunatis, etc.) to make it viable. Like all the strats, there are vulnerabilities to balance out the advantages. It's a set of compromises that works with my style of play.

Keep experimenting, and good luck!

Wr1tt3n by RatWar, 08.12.2016 at 02:09

Wr1tt3n by LukeTan, 26.11.2016 at 11:18

I'm unsure of which one to make my specialty.

In my opinion, a more appropriate question is: "What is appropriate for the given circumstances?"

As others have noted, it depends primarily on the map, including the income and geography (relative sizes of oceans, rivers and landmasses; distance between cities), as well as things like where you are with respect to other players. It's worth trying different strategies in different situations.

There are 4 strats that modify Marines: GW, MoS, DS and HW. Desert Storm is available with Premium. Hybrid Warfare is best if you have most of the various unit upgrades, including all ground unit enhancements and most of the economic upgrades.

Regardless, as others have noted, it is a wise strategy to prioritize moving the Marines out of newly-occupied cities in case of counter-attack. They are weak defense, and it's really annoying to get wiped out without taking much from the attacker.

Also, when it comes to prioritizing upgrades, the same upgrades improve all of these stealth-centric strats (lucky, fast and cheap Marines, fast and high-capacity Submarines).

GW is very cost-effective, as you noted, giving the greatest boost to Militia of any strat, and cutting the cost of Marines in half without sacrificing performance. The lack of any range increases makes it more difficult to expand and to move troops from one place to another. This is particularly true considering that the Naval and Air Transports are nerfed significantly, where Naval cost 400 and only move 8 (instead of the standard 10), and Air cost 800 and only move 11 (instead of 13). They are still beneficial because you can fill them so cheaply, but the going is slow. The spacing of cities is a stretch, except for most of Europe and some parts of Africa and eastern USA.

MoS cuts the cost of Marines by a quarter while increasing their range (+1) and attack (+1). It also cuts the cost of Subs by 20% while increasing the attack (+2), defense (+1), critical chance (+2), range (+2) and capacity (+1). And of course, it cuts the cost of Air Stealth by a third, increases the attack (+2) and the range (+2). It is more balanced in that regard, where air, land and sea all have enhanced units. Also, it leaves the Militia and Infantry alone, so your defense remains viable, and it only nerfs Tanks and Destroyers (you won't buy Tanks, anyway, when the MoS Marines have the same attack (8), range (7) and cost (120) of standard Tanks). Transports remain standard range and cost, so you can bring along plenty of Infantry and Militia expeditiously to back up your Marine/Sub/Stealth attack.


Another important question would be: "What works for me?"

My preferred strat is MoS, when conditions warrant it. I like it, it makes sense to me, and I win more often than I lose with it. Most maps that I play are wealthy enough (World Map, Lunatis, etc.) to make it viable. Like all the strats, there are vulnerabilities to balance out the advantages. It's a set of compromises that works with my style of play.

Keep experimenting, and good luck!

Thank you very much!

I think GW is better then MoS for most games, at least for me with all upgrades, didnt use much HW yet