Improving Lucky Bastard: Making it luckier

Alright, I've been using LB for awhile now, it's really not that bad. It's like GC with regular infantry really (for me at least) anyways it is lacking just a bit though, I say to compensate the +2 view range should be removed (doesn't have to) and have +5 turn priority added. Turn priority? The likeliness of your attack actually attacking instead of the other persons- say, you move a tank 1st move- but someone blocks it 1st move as well. With higher move priority instead of both players having a 50% chance of their move working, the LB player has 75%. What do you think?

No. Too lucky.

Wr1tt3n by Runway1R, 30.10.2011 at 14:29

No. Too lucky.

Hence the namesake...

Although I can't really comment, having only tried the strategy once myself I have heard from many people that it is one of the weakest, most underpowered strategies around. Based on that, I have to agree.

Looking at the statistics, I can even see a player playing without a strategy at all beating a Lucky Bastard player. Hence, like Naval Commander it needs a big-time buff.

Wr1tt3n by YOBA, 30.10.2011 at 15:02

Wr1tt3n by Runway1R, 30.10.2011 at 14:29

No. Too lucky.

Hence the namesake...

Although I can't really comment, having only tried the strategy once myself I have heard from many people that it is one of the weakest, most underpowered strategies around. Based on that, I have to agree.

Looking at the statistics, I can even see a player playing without a strategy at all beating a Lucky Bastard player. Hence, like Naval Commander it needs a big-time buff.

I really like Lucky bastard, but then again all I use are tanks armada's and buffed up city's lol, so it fits perfectly for me.

How about add luck to finding special units ?

Wr1tt3n by reckoner., 30.10.2011 at 18:17

How about add luck to finding special units ?

I don't see how this would help at all, in fact it might be too risky (aka find a shitton of heavy artillery every attack)

Wr1tt3n by reckoner., 30.10.2011 at 18:17

How about add luck to finding special units ?

most people play w/o specials anyway, try making it more balanced with all game types pls

True, but would turn the strategy more attractive (This strategy has nothing to offer)
and not add to 100% chance of finding, about 10% more would already be good

Wr1tt3n by VAGlNEER 2.0, 31.10.2011 at 08:58

Wr1tt3n by reckoner., 30.10.2011 at 18:17

How about add luck to finding special units ?

most people play w/o specials anyway, try making it more balanced with all game types pls

I still don't see how specials improve anything. Like when you get a special on an island (Taiwan) and you mistake your transport for a bomber and kamikaze it. Yes I know there are some that can fly like Fighters. I only like to use partisans though. The rest are useless to me. Unless they happen to be a Nuke. I don't think LB is that lucky even though I never had it.

I still stand by increasing turn priority to 75%, no other strat does this and it would make LB much more appealing to those who don't necessarily plan there attacks in advance, just rush.

Not 75%

Maybe 65%

75% is too high

Wr1tt3n by KYBL, 08.11.2011 at 20:25

Not 75%

Maybe 65%

75% is too high

Why so? When it's 50/50 and all you do is spam tanks (something LB is suprisingly good for) your chances are mainly down to around 30% because nostrat is involved, making it very hard to win. If it's at 75% it brings it to balance with all the other strats.

75% is quite high though, I find that 65, or even 70% would be better, and more balanced.

Wr1tt3n by KYBL, 08.11.2011 at 20:35

75% is quite high though, I find that 65, or even 70% would be better, and more balanced.

I choose 75% because of the 3/4 rounding, making it maybe easier to implement, and because anything lower isn't as much of a boost. Plus you have to consider, 75% is only a number- there's still ARB to be thrown in. So that 75% could vary depending on differing factors. But if it's possible, I guess 70% could be better.