Desert Storm

Has anybody played this strategy a good amount?

What is the best Country to start at using this strategy ((in each of the following: Europe, Europe+, Eurasia, Americas, World))

Should I wait on spamming helicopters untill I have conqured a few extra countries, or just spam them from turn 1 - with 3-6 marines to conqure stuff.

Is it possible to use this strat. in 10k games, or is it advised only to use it in higher starting cash games?

Any advice would be appreciated. I have played GW only ((MoS every 5 games or so, but only from Sweden)) since I unlocked it, and im not use to being broke from turn 1 - the rest of the game..

Lol desert storm strat sucks

Deser storm sucks

I have played this strategy only in europe / europe + games.

And for me this strategy works best in france or ukraine (in 10k games), but always remember by choosing a country, that it must be in an area of rich countrys (then less starting funds than more important is this). So this strategy will not work in africa, south amerika or australia.

this strategy can be played very similar to Sky Menance. The only difference is that you buy no air transporters because they are too expensive. that means that you attack one city after the next with support of helicopters.

Iran.

Hm, it seems to be a new strat... sounds kinda useless, though.

If you have Desert Storm in USA, or China, is no way to lose.

Its a very good strat when used right

Do you mind elaborating a little hunter.

The point behind me making this post wasnt wether it was a good strategy or not ((I like it either way)), it was asking for tips, and such.

Well first in a eursaia game i would start as south korea or china south. from south korea 5 helis can take out 5 militia so you atuo matically get manchuria and northkorea. you take your units form busan and take shangai. the sad thing is you cannot make it to tokyo with the helis in thew first turn. always try to pick a place with good economy. finland is good because russia and scandinavian economies. if played right and we get +1 marine transport this will be a verygood strat for 15k 15k games.

The rest up there are hatters cause MoS and SM

I have mainly played DS and found it quite good. My best sucesses were playing as Russia Central. In one 5v5v5v5 I ended up taking on a team of 4 by myself when I was only Lvl 4. I had Europe, Russia, the Middle East and was invading India. The other team was level 5, 7, 7, and 9. Luckily for me the Lvl 9 was based in Africa. The Level 7's were in the USA and China. The level 5 was in Spain.

To win I used Marines in Helicopters to attack and sometimes I would use Helicopters to move the marnines and then attack further on just with Marines. Defending was a problem especially since the US was using sky menace tactics. Instead of using defensive units I let them take cities and the counter attacked with marines and helicopters.

1st expand fast with heli-marine
2nd attack and counter-attack and worry less about defending.

Anyone calling DS shit is a fool. Its a very very, very powerful strat but expensive to use.

Like a few other strats, it's best used with constant aggression due to yuor weak defense. This is the one and only strat which tears through defense units. A PD player will get walked across. Its a strange strat that can use stealth tactics of marines combined with Helis as transports. Helis are your main offensive though.

The -2 defense when attacking Infantry really pays off.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 14.07.2013 at 20:17

Anyone calling DS shit is a fool. Its a very very, very powerful strat but expensive to use.

Like a few other strats, it's best used with constant aggression due to yuor weak defense. This is the one and only strat which tears through defense units. A PD player will get walked across. Its a strange strat that can use stealth tactics of marines combined with Helis as transports. Helis are your main offensive though.

The -2 defense when attacking Infantry really pays off.

My GW reins supreme.

I frequently play DS ukraine, and who ever says DS is bad is stupid its very powerful if your good at it. Funds is sometimes a problem

It's amazing against noobs: In particular, the combination of stealth and mobility makes it good for taking advantage of unprotected cities.
It's also very good against PD. Other strats can easily counter heli stacks using bombers though. It especially sucks against SM.

It is too powerful, the infantry defense bonus is lethal.

Napisano przez The Tactician, 21.09.2013 at 15:46

It is too powerful, the infantry defense bonus is lethal.

I don't think so. Heli defense sucks. Just build bombers to attack/TB heli stacks.

Napisano przez Grimm, 21.09.2013 at 16:05

Napisano przez The Tactician, 21.09.2013 at 15:46

It is too powerful, the infantry defense bonus is lethal.

I don't think so. Heli defense sucks. Just build bombers to attack/TB heli stacks.

You'll be lucky to get a TB.
The real method is playing into it's own weaknesses. Like income dependency. Or the fact that it's geared more to handle infantry-based strategies.

Then just play like any player. Do little things to weaken your opponent and then hit them there.

DS is still the best counter to PD, You can't attack the stack with tanks or bombers (Even SM bombers only have 8) effectivly. As you mentioned your helicopters are just expensive as their infantry is reletively cheap. That is the problem, statistically speaking helis are still the best for attacking infantry.

DS is even cheaper than SM cuz you don't need to buy air trans cuz you can just carry marines with helis , and better than PD against any other cuz of the infantry defense thing

No, SM best counter to PD, 2 of atwars most OP strats collide and cancel each other out. On smaller maps DS might be.

Napisano przez Permamuted, 25.09.2013 at 11:23

Personally i think ds requires a price nerf to the helicopters, say -10. while the infantry bonus is great vs normal strats, with pd it really isnt. pd infantry in a city/defense line with a general have 10 defense, 8 vs helis. which equals the helis attack but helis cost over 2.5 times that of infantry.

having used ds in 3v3s vs good pd players, it really is not a great counter vs that strat.

some might say im using it incorrectly etc, but im curious as to what others think about this?

I think the fact that helicopters can act as a transport for marines is why the price is the way it is.

Napisano przez Xenosapien, 25.09.2013 at 18:53

No, SM best counter to PD, 2 of atwars most OP strats collide and cancel each other out. On smaller maps DS might be.

SM can out range PD, so can DS. DS is cheaper yet out priced still by PD, DS strengthens land and air units unlike SM with some weak land units, DS helis have same attack and defense of bombers but can carry marines!

Hmm, well I don't have DS so I don't know how good the range is. It does seem good but SM just seems better for expansion, except in inf heavy lands then DS prob would be better. Air transports are rally only 400 with SM, less with upgrades, late game it's definitely worth it just to load up some miltia you have left over in some cases. They are very cheap and useful with SM.

SM has a more fast expansion thx to his high range.
And if it needs can make big stack of militia using his best transports, to protect his weak places.

DS suffers from bombers that are usable by all strategies.
I think it requires a price nerf and/or a transport capacity boost.

You do realise that nerfing means making it more expensive right? boosting it would be making it cheaper.

He probably means that, he means i think nerving the price which means taking off the price

Yes :°)

I would say for countries in the Middle East this strategy is really good (for world maps at least), because of the terrain. It is a terrain where you might be still dependent on good infantry, but especially you also need a possibility to get over all the water in this area. If you just had tanks as your main attack, you would be rather in disadvantage, but with the ability to transport marines and have helis which are really strong against other infantry, it is a very good way to use the terrain to your advantage. If you just would use transporter planes, instead, then this would be way too expensive, too.

If you play in Europe and have to play against Africa, then it also may be a good strategy for Europe, but in all other cases, I think there are definitely better strategies for Europe. It also is good for the Middle East, imo, because it is a very central location (in world maps), where you often have other players in all cardinal directions, more or less right near you. If you have strong marines in this situation, then you very good can make peace for example with one player, while attacking an other, and then still being able to send some troups to both of them, without them noticing it.

It is a very expensive strategy if you want to use it in its full extent, but at the start, if you just mainly produce helis for attack, and instead of filling them all up with marines, you rather just put one marine in a heli stack (to be able to take in cities), then it definitely really isn't THAT expensive. I also would advice perhaps to have the Anti-aircraft upgrade if you use this strategy, because fighting other airplanes is pretty much the greatest weakness of the helicopters.