HW vs GW vs MOS/strongest points and weakest

Can someone compare it by detailed, which one is better where and why

GW is good for low fund game's
GW is supreme late game strat because of the low cost defence and attack units but it has weak expansion do to useless infantry.
MOS is good for high fund game's and 50k
MOS allow's for a strong early expansion because of 8 attack Marines.
Don't know enough about HW to comment

Gw>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mos

Hw sucks balls is what i hear

Skrevet av boywind2, 11.02.2017 at 15:07

Hw sucks balls is what i hear

did u try it, its my fav stealth strategy

Well from watching Don in cw today, I can say that HW Ukraine at least, when played well, is strong af

Skrevet av Darth., 12.02.2017 at 11:05

Well from watching Don in cw today, I can say that HW Ukraine at least, when played well, is strong af

yeah, don is good at hw ukr but gc ukr > hw ukr

GW: Known as very strong. Cheap attack, get useful mils from taking neutral. It is what it is, efficient. It uses all the units it has from the get go. Can fight in a weaker position, definitely the "Comeback-Strategy". Vulnerable to early rushes, or rushes in general, latemoves, and weak in the transportation side (Expensive ats/trans).

MoS: All in all, its a better None strategy. Nothing much else to say; however, after you get faster marines, you have marines with ra tank range which is quite nice and allows for some impressive expansions.

HW: An odd-ball. It's a strategy that is overpriced (Please change) at 30k+ sp, but allows for what I say a mix of PD/GW/GC. You have PD strength infantry, GW priced marines, and some strong tanks (10 atk with gen!). If you want to know more, ask Don or Sultan .

Skrevet av Universali, 12.02.2017 at 13:00

GW: Known as very strong. Cheap attack, get useful mils from taking neutral. It is what it is, efficient. It uses all the units it has from the get go. Can fight in a weaker position, definitely the "Comeback-Strategy". Vulnerable to early rushes, or rushes in general, latemoves, and weak in the transportation side (Expensive ats/trans).

MoS: All in all, its a better None strategy. Nothing much else to say; however, after you get faster marines, you have marines with ra tank range which is quite nice and allows for some impressive expansions.

HW: An odd-ball. It's a strategy that is overpriced (Please change) at 30k+ sp, but allows for what I say a mix of PD/GW/GC. You have PD strength infantry, GW priced marines, and some strong tanks (10 atk with gen!). If you want to know more, ask Don or Sultan .

sultan is known for hw

Skrevet av Chess, 14.02.2017 at 22:54

HW sucks.
No expanation needed.

Don is not pleased with this expression

Skrevet av Chess, 14.02.2017 at 22:54

HW sucks.
No expanation needed.

disagree

#MakeStrategiesGreatAgain!

We shall make HW better

I don't know about HW.

Guerrilla Warfare has a few very strong points.
> Cheap: Guerrilla warfare has very low cost marines with buffed militia, making your offensive and defensive tactics not demand as much funding.
> Thrives in the long run: Because of GWs low cost, you have the potential to outnumber and outmaneuver your opponent (outmaneuvering because you will definitely have marines all over the map)

Likewise, it has its weak points.

> Vulnerable to Rush: GW cannot survive a calculated rush. That's true for two reasons. First, early on in the game you NEED to expand well as GW. Some people are clever enough to know that GW is a very short range strategy, so unless you're new to it or dumb you're going to stay in a very predictable expansion range. enemies will abuse that by hitting those same places. GW units stacked against just about any other strategy's units are out performed. A GW Marine vs PD Inf is a loss for GW. GW militia vs PD militia same. You'd need a 2:1 ratio with militia to militia and a 3:1 ratio with GW Marine to any other unit besides militia. Early in the game, there's no way you can predict your opponent's stack size against yours if you even think they're rushing you anyways. Meaning you're going to fail on the cities your opponent rushed you on.

The second reason being that GW can't return to its capital in time. The shitty distance, the over priced transports (air/naval) definitely stop you from preventing a rush on your capital. This wouldn't be such a problem all the time if it weren't for the fact that some strats like Desert Storm or Iron Fist or just plain old PD can just rush you outright.

Say as Germany vs Turk. PD / IMP / Blitz turk has double the units it starts with in 10K if you buy all your available reinf t1. A strat like blitz doesn't need to wait, it already has ALL the units it needs. Any expansion just makes it that much better.

So buy t3 Turk has 45 + gen in poland, serb/hung/romania/greece. Berlin unwalled. That's GG, even if you did get all your units back to berlin, you'd need 60 some units with a good blend of 20 militias and 40 marines WITH ALL OF THE UPGRADES FOR MARINES/MILITIA/GENERAL.

Otherwise, you just can't win that.

Skrevet av Cthulhu, 19.02.2017 at 03:30

#MakeStrategiesGreatAgain!

We shall make HW better

support, i hope so, i wold be satisfied with viewing range and moving range

Duel ?
i will play with hw ofc

Tophats is trolling AW from the grave with HW... the madman

Skrevet av Don, 25.02.2017 at 17:57

Duel ?
i will play with hw ofc

and thats why youre not in the top 5!

Hw is great imo, i like it. Speaking as ukraine, i wouldn't ude it anywhere else