kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Sure, but I still don't see the point in trying to be so adamant that the US is still worth it being the special snowflake it currently is. It may still be playable, but it just seems terribly unproductive pointing that out when people are trying to reshape the deck.
Not everyone agrees with your analysis of the US deck and the importance of "reshaping" it.
I intend to balance the conversation with, "US isn't as bad as it has been made out to be." because while I am an outlier, my results should be taken into account. I want to see Greyhound's results with US in 1vs1 as he is giving it a shot.
When many US/NORAD players rely
on the Longbow and quit immediately if it doesn't pay off something is wrong from a game play perspective. Much like the helicopter rush problem which has been addressed incrementally over time. I haven't said not to change US; I question the focus of the change.
I find it admirable that Eugene has been keeping US competitive almost across the board (from my perspective) and have looked forward to each patch they release. I don't think the same can be said of some previous Meta decks.
Coletrain wrote:They don't have good all-round motorized AA like the OSA and ROMB units, which are particularly powerful in the opening stages of the game.
With that said, I've been experimenting with using 4 cards of AA including PIVADS, Avenger, 55 point Chap, and 70 point chap. Foregoing the Patriot all together because it's such an expensive unit for 1v1. It's been working well so far.
Can you expand on that - what rank of play do you find yourself in and where do you see difficulty? I've had trouble with an avenger because it typically trades with a rocket pod helo. I also wondered about the 55 point chap but my problem has been dealing with planes - chaparral hasn't been reliable for me.