How is throwing out 7 decoys supposedly more skillful than using 7 sabos?

[Master Contrail Program]

They last 3 times as long. They can occupy even more buildings if they're crammed together, in addition to troops. They pop traps which is something sabos don't do. The only real concern with them is antitank guns but that's somewhat negated by the fact that they only take one space. And, of course the real kicker, the lag they create on a fair amount of devices.

I'm not calling for any action from Nexon/BHG. Even though the idea of a balloon that can't be popped by artillery shells and can be spammed everywhere while consistently fooling people who've seen it hundreds of times is ridiculous, it's just a game. No better or worse than magical healing, shield or betrayal spells. Just trying to figure out what their tortured logic is for favoring this tactic and nerfing several others.
​​​​​

 

[yemen]

In an ideal setup with all tactics one space, and no decoy lag, I would carry 1 betrayal, 2 sabotage and 4 decoys.

Because of lag, before the change I found the best was just sabotage and betrayal.

I never found protect all that great, with the distributed attacks needed for fast times in war. I know many people used (and still use) it, but it didn't make sense to me. Doubling the space of it and betrayal took them completely off of my useful list.

In the current game with doubled space and the risk of decoy lag, carrying 7 decoys. Even with the risk of lag, there is no competition with doubled space. The only exception is facing bazooka bases, they are still stupidly unbalanced and allowing them to shoot at all is too much of a risk.

I think the change was made back when generals and SH troops could be prevented from spawning with a sabotage. Now that they have "fixed" that, I don't see the reasoning at all.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I find betrayals useful on bases with EA stuffed strongholds, of course someone has to be a sacrificial lamb to find that out first. Unless the alliance name is in Cyrillic, then it's a safe bet. I liked protect, but like you said, since splitting forces to deal with silos is pretty much mandatory now it's utility isn't so great. Casting it on just your squishies doesn't do that much.

For awhile all my many, many Brit allies were using demo with Mongols coalition. However, max Egyptian level 3 silos take 5 or 6 max Mongols demos, so that's been dropped. First aid only seems ok for heavy tank builds. I loved Barrage until EA when it's effectiveness declined drastically. It needs a uni buff in the worst way, but even then it's probably a lost cause unless they buffed it to specifically wreck stronghold troops or something.

Going back to the ''debate''(debates require a back and forth exchange of ideas, which damn sure didn't happen there) over the original tactics nerf I like the idea of limiting the amount of any one tactic that can be carried if they really wanted to promote diversity. Say, two of each for sabo, protect, decoy, betrayal the others are worthless unless used in bunches.

 

[Bedlam]

7 demoltions for me

 

[yemen]

I used 4 demolition for a while in industrial. It worked well against bases with underpowered mortars, especially in war when I had coalitions and they didn't. Comparatively worthless in atomic when trying for high level opponents with Egyptians.

Damage has gone up much slower than HP on mortars, especially with 30% University boost and ten percent alliance perk boost on mortars, vs 10% University boost and no alliance perk on demo.

 

[poop_]

Oh... you are even worse than I thought...

Stop commenting until you learn to play the game.

 

[Bedlam]

Ha...sure thing poop