Difference between guerilla warfare and master of stealth

I don't understand what is the difference between them, although I have been winning more with Guerilla warefare.

Can someone tell me the difference and how you play with both of them?

GW = low cost for stealth , less power , weak infantry , militia stronger .
MOS = powerfull stealth , high cost

MoS is more made for actual stealth, better for subbing across maps, using stealth planes, ect

GW is more for generally annoying your opponent and overwhelming with numbers

Mos is better then gw in world games.

As has been mentioned, GW is a low cost strategy, typically allowing the player to use up a higher percent of reinforcements than others. The Militia are enhanced at the cost of infantry and Militia are half price at the cost of weak tanks. Transports are also far more expensive. MoS, on the other hand, is a high cost strategy, using amplified Marines, Stealth bombers and Submarines. It is orientated around Offense, particulary suprise attacks.

With GW, you also get good marines, which are as good as tanks most of time (when using GW), but cheaper, and stealth. You can also use the militia you get from each captured city to take over nearby cities, making it useful for areas with dense populations.

MoS is plain, flat out, expensive (in my opinion). If you want to use this, then make sure you get cash cities soon, and cap countries fast.

To me the difference is:

MOS is good when i choose a country in the richest region. MOS few expensive great units.
GW is good when i choose a country in the most populate region. GW uses lots of inexpensive average units.

Both use almost the same strategie, I choose the place where the battle takes. Both in attack, because the attack is undetected, and defense with militas and infantry.

GW with hard use of militias, bombers, marines and subs
MOS with hard use of marines, subs, stealths and infantry.

MOS require flexibility and high manueverality of units, GW require mass and numbers.

MoS = Quality
GW = Quantity

Napisano przez clovis1122, 20.02.2013 at 21:37

The Difference is thad Mos is stronger and GW is cheaper -.-


A)If you have an economy over 3k+ per turn them MOS.
B)If you have 1-2.9k economy them both work GW or MOS.
C)1k or less them GW.

1)If you get(neaby) 25 reinf+ Them GW.
2)If you get 15-24 reinf Them both work GW or Mos.
3)If you get less thad 14 Them MOS .

If you dont Know what to take Them GW

Every factor you mentioned isn't taken into consideration until after you've chosen your country-
so whatever strategy you had selected at the time is used.

That means your advice don't really help =/

----------
My opinion on the matter is that GW is used to overpower the enemy and bug them.
GW has the ability to surprise and annoy your opponent, which leaves them second guessing or over-compensating. In the case of a PD User, it hurts them more to over-compensate during a turning point in the game.

GW is cheaper, works just about anywhere. I would say GW is better, but that is only because I can't play MOS**.

MOS requires a good of mount of funds, however it is very powerful and I think it is better than GW in respect to world games and stealth usage. MOS is an actual stealth strategy and it can make a heavy impact in any game as long as you know how to use it*.

I recommend GW, mostly because I am not some MOS expert.
You should ask learster about MOS.

Napisano przez clovis1122, 09.05.2013 at 19:05

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 18:26

Every factor you mentioned isn't taken into consideration until after you've chosen your country-
so whatever strategy you had selected at the time is used.

That means your advice don't really help =/

----------
My opinion on the matter is that GW is used to overpower the enemy and bug them.
GW has the ability to surprise and annoy your opponent, which leaves them second guessing or over-compensating. In the case of a PD User, it hurts them more to over-compensate during a turning point in the game.

GW is cheaper, works just about anywhere. I would say GW is better, but that is only because I can't play MOS**.

MOS requires a good of mount of funds, however it is very powerful and I think it is better than GW in respect to world games and stealth usage. MOS is an actual stealth strategy and it can make a heavy impact in any game as long as you know how to use it*.

I recommend GW, mostly because I am not some MOS expert.
You should ask learster about MOS.

GW ANONYING?
MOS is anonying. GW not. and my fact are correct, because you can know how much income you will have went you see where you picked - unless you set for allyFAGGGG.-

Why GW not anonying? because they totally depend of reinformed. MOS depend of income as well. I see people using MOS from america and taking malta just for hazarding EU players ;) . Mos is a lot more surprize thad GW, specially went MOS sub are the 3th most strong unit of atwar

Why you think GW is anonying? because MOS people of theses times only know how to spam stealt and dont know thad submarines and marines are strong too!.

You can see how MOS is anonying went someone latejoin in iceland GW have a big lack of range comparate to MOS ( submarines so cool ok)

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 18:26

So the main point you're driving at is:

- MOS is annoying when you late join or use high income countries

GW is annoying anywhere you go. That's in fact why it's annoying. If I'm Sky Menace and I cap your major income cities you're going to go for ages on low income until eventually you just can't sustain yourself. There are plenty of counters to stealth units, and considering it requires high income starting places- a GW turkey who is well versed in GW can actually beat MOS. It's just about understanding how to keep you bogged down in a general area and send a bulk of your units behind front lines.

and unlike your precious MOS, my marines are cheaper and still effective enough to take MoS down. I'm not saying I can beat a guy like learster or something- I'm saying MoS isn't this god-like strategy. There's always a fault.

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 19:48

Napisano przez clovis1122, 09.05.2013 at 19:05

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 18:26

Every factor you mentioned isn't taken into consideration until after you've chosen your country-
so whatever strategy you had selected at the time is used.

That means your advice don't really help =/

----------
My opinion on the matter is that GW is used to overpower the enemy and bug them.
GW has the ability to surprise and annoy your opponent, which leaves them second guessing or over-compensating. In the case of a PD User, it hurts them more to over-compensate during a turning point in the game.

GW is cheaper, works just about anywhere. I would say GW is better, but that is only because I can't play MOS**.

MOS requires a good of mount of funds, however it is very powerful and I think it is better than GW in respect to world games and stealth usage. MOS is an actual stealth strategy and it can make a heavy impact in any game as long as you know how to use it*.

I recommend GW, mostly because I am not some MOS expert.
You should ask learster about MOS.

GW ANONYING?
MOS is anonying. GW not. and my fact are correct, because you can know how much income you will have went you see where you picked - unless you set for allyFAGGGG.-

Why GW not anonying? because they totally depend of reinformed. MOS depend of income as well. I see people using MOS from america and taking malta just for hazarding EU players ;) . Mos is a lot more surprize thad GW, specially went MOS sub are the 3th most strong unit of atwar

Why you think GW is anonying? because MOS people of theses times only know how to spam stealt and dont know thad submarines and marines are strong too!.

You can see how MOS is anonying went someone latejoin in iceland GW have a big lack of range comparate to MOS ( submarines so cool ok)

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 18:26

So the main point you're driving at is:

- MOS is annoying when you late join or use high income countries

GW is annoying anywhere you go. That's in fact why it's annoying. If I'm Sky Menace and I cap your major income cities you're going to go for ages on low income until eventually you just can't sustain yourself. There are plenty of counters to stealth units, and considering it requires high income starting places- a GW turkey who is well versed in GW can actually beat MOS. It's just about understanding how to keep you bogged down in a general area and send a bulk of your units behind front lines.

and unlike your precious MOS, my marines are cheaper and still effective enough to take MoS down. I'm not saying I can beat a guy like learster or something- I'm saying MoS isn't this god-like strategy. There's always a fault.

u kidding right?

MoS = Go enemy lines and steamroll the unprotected enemy.
Gw = spam, spam, spam, spam ,spma.

from my point of view:

mos is to annihilate the enemy when he is not expecting it.

gw is to defend a doomed to failure position the longest time possible meanwhile you spam a doom stack and expect your enemy to go bankrupt cuz he can't keep up with you.

Napisano przez Tundy, 09.05.2013 at 21:57

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 19:48

Napisano przez clovis1122, 09.05.2013 at 19:05

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 18:26

Every factor you mentioned isn't taken into consideration until after you've chosen your country-
so whatever strategy you had selected at the time is used.

That means your advice don't really help =/

----------
My opinion on the matter is that GW is used to overpower the enemy and bug them.
GW has the ability to surprise and annoy your opponent, which leaves them second guessing or over-compensating. In the case of a PD User, it hurts them more to over-compensate during a turning point in the game.

GW is cheaper, works just about anywhere. I would say GW is better, but that is only because I can't play MOS**.

MOS requires a good of mount of funds, however it is very powerful and I think it is better than GW in respect to world games and stealth usage. MOS is an actual stealth strategy and it can make a heavy impact in any game as long as you know how to use it*.

I recommend GW, mostly because I am not some MOS expert.
You should ask learster about MOS.

GW ANONYING?
MOS is anonying. GW not. and my fact are correct, because you can know how much income you will have went you see where you picked - unless you set for allyFAGGGG.-

Why GW not anonying? because they totally depend of reinformed. MOS depend of income as well. I see people using MOS from america and taking malta just for hazarding EU players ;) . Mos is a lot more surprize thad GW, specially went MOS sub are the 3th most strong unit of atwar

Why you think GW is anonying? because MOS people of theses times only know how to spam stealt and dont know thad submarines and marines are strong too!.

You can see how MOS is anonying went someone latejoin in iceland GW have a big lack of range comparate to MOS ( submarines so cool ok)

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 18:26

So the main point you're driving at is:

- MOS is annoying when you late join or use high income countries

GW is annoying anywhere you go. That's in fact why it's annoying. If I'm Sky Menace and I cap your major income cities you're going to go for ages on low income until eventually you just can't sustain yourself. There are plenty of counters to stealth units, and considering it requires high income starting places- a GW turkey who is well versed in GW can actually beat MOS. It's just about understanding how to keep you bogged down in a general area and send a bulk of your units behind front lines.

and unlike your precious MOS, my marines are cheaper and still effective enough to take MoS down. I'm not saying I can beat a guy like learster or something- I'm saying MoS isn't this god-like strategy. There's always a fault.

u kidding right?

MoS = Go enemy lines and steamroll the unprotected enemy.
Gw = spam, spam, spam, spam ,spma.

from my point of view:

mos is to annihilate the enemy when he is not expecting it.

gw is to defend a doomed to failure position the longest time possible meanwhile you spam a doom stack and expect your enemy to go bankrupt cuz he can't keep up with you.

Well if you're going to use a basic lower order level of argumentation,
I'd rather not waste my time here.




we're done here.

Napisano przez clovis1122, 10.05.2013 at 13:31

Napisano przez Dr Lecter, 09.05.2013 at 19:48

So the main point you're driving at is:

- MOS is annoying when you late join or use high income countries

GW is annoying anywhere you go. That's in fact why it's annoying. If I'm Sky Menace and I cap your major income cities you're going to go for ages on low income until eventually you just can't sustain yourself. There are plenty of counters to stealth units, and considering it requires high income starting places- a GW turkey who is well versed in GW can actually beat MOS. It's just about understanding how to keep you bogged down in a general area and send a bulk of your units behind front lines.

and unlike your precious MOS, my marines are cheaper and still effective enough to take MoS down. I'm not saying I can beat a guy like learster or something- I'm saying MoS isn't this god-like strategy. There's always a fault.

MOS vs GW in any battle went income is 1K or more = MOS win. and you know thad only in africa you will need all the countrys for get neaby it. MOS is anonying a lot more thad GW and there are some good players thad pick germany MOS in 3v3 and they still good at it
MOS vs GW is like Money VS Reinformed, Western EU vs easter EU, The Confederate vs The Union, ( USA), The Facist vs the Republicans ( Spain) and a lot more of examples were, winth the time, Money will beat Reinformed.

You said all this, because you only know typical MOS players, thad only aim for cap quickly. this is NOT how a real MOS player should do. MOS players aim for chaos. break wall everywhere and wallfuck important citys,( they know those will be heavy protected.) but what attack? lessed important citys like Finland, Greece or even all balkans! . thad is what I call "CHAOS "

My argument was that you took the strategy of out of strategy.
A mindless thing to do for anybody.

There is no particular way to generalize MOS. I can break walls with GW and contain an enemy just the same.

MOS has it's advantages, as does GW.

This thread, mind you, is the difference between them.
Perhaps you haven't seen how I and several others use GW.