Blitz nerf was to strong? will we ever be able to play it again?

Napisano od Desu, 18.05.2016 at 11:25

I'm not stepping into the argument for now, but I just want to add some info: I've already asked for offensive bonus' before, but they can't be added. Or at least, it'd take a while to code into the game.

See the Blitzkrieg suggestion here from 2013: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6956
Keep in mind atWar was different and there have been many changes since then, just pay attention to the blitz idea and Cherse response a little down the page.

This is quoted from mod forum (was about the blitzkrieg idea in the above linked thread, as mods at the time asked admins for my changes):

Napisano od Amok, 24.01.2013 at 13:22

There's currently no way to ignore the defense bonus, unfortunately.

I might post about the suggestions in this thread later. Fun to read all these pages anyway.

Actually,your idea was nice
(but part of that calling blitz noob strategy because noobs are using it isn't good,just think how many pros lose to blitz,it is just other way of playing.)

Napisano od Oleg, 18.05.2016 at 11:37

Napisano od Desu, 18.05.2016 at 11:25

I'm not stepping into the argument for now, but I just want to add some info: I've already asked for offensive bonus' before, but they can't be added. Or at least, it'd take a while to code into the game.

See the Blitzkrieg suggestion here from 2013: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6956
Keep in mind atWar was different and there have been many changes since then, just pay attention to the blitz idea and Cherse response a little down the page.

This is quoted from mod forum (was about the blitzkrieg idea in the above linked thread, as mods at the time asked admins for my changes):

Napisano od Amok, 24.01.2013 at 13:22

There's currently no way to ignore the defense bonus, unfortunately.

I might post about the suggestions in this thread later. Fun to read all these pages anyway.

Actually,your idea was nice
(but part of that calling blitz noob strategy because noobs are using it isn't good,just think how many pros lose to blitz,it is just other way of playing.)

You dumbfuck, its funny how you put the fact of how many "pros lose to blitz", that doesnt make the blitz user pro, which is indicated in your sentence. Its still a noob strategy, and easy to play, was op. Simple as that.

Napisano od Steve Aoki, 18.05.2016 at 10:58

Then when you find its not perfect situation for ra, or you'll be in dissadvantage, dont play it.. I really dont know what to tell you anymore. Also you get extra reinf if you are smaller country and your enemy is bigger, said simply enough.

Forgive me then for my rudeness.

For the record, your infs are not useless t1, because it has the same attack as pd inf. So you can use them to expand.

That's what I find to be the problem, there is no perfect situation for ra. While I can still use blitz and I still think of it as a good option for certain situations, I can't say the same for RA because tanks aren't consistent enough to be able to confront other strategies.

Yes, I know that, but the extra reinf you get, even if they might be enough to balance things a bit in expansion terms, they leave you out of money on your 1st/2nd/3rd turn already... so what do you do from that point on? Spam inefficient infantries/militia without range which can get rekt even by PD inf at a higher price? All other units are quite expensive just for having to expand. PD can expand initially with inf but once its economy is stabilized, it can spam whatever offensive unit it wishes as well, giving it some offensive power as well. RA struggles to go beyond the point of being on 0 money after turn 2 or which ever it is and has no money to regain the land it could lose cause of the lack of defense.

Np, all solved

Use them to expand but what then? If you get tbed in your own city while expanding, they won't only stop your expansion, they'll also annihilate your army and capture your cities with huge ease. Tanks can't do much then cause they don't have that much attack to recap efficiently having in mind the strenght of PD militia and whatever other remaining unit.

RA is some sort of blitz where your only viable unit are tanks, and even those are not as strong as they would need to be for having a single viable unit

Napisano od RaulPB, 18.05.2016 at 12:21

That's what I find to be the problem, there is no perfect situation for ra. While I can still use blitz and I still think of it as a good option for certain situations, I can't say the same for RA because tanks aren't consistent enough to be able to confront other strategies.

Yes, I know that, but the extra reinf you get, even if they might be enough to balance things a bit in expansion terms, they leave you out of money on your 1st/2nd/3rd turn already... so what do you do from that point on? Spam inefficient infantries/militia without range which can get rekt even by PD inf at a higher price? All other units are quite expensive just for having to expand. PD can expand initially with inf but once its economy is stabilized, it can spam whatever offensive unit it wishes as well, giving it some offensive power as well. RA struggles to go beyond the point of being on 0 money after turn 2 or which ever it is and has no money to regain the land it could lose cause of the lack of defense.

Np, all solved

Use them to expand but what then? If you get tbed in your own city while expanding, they won't only stop your expansion, they'll also annihilate your army and capture your cities with huge ease. Tanks can't do much then cause they don't have that much attack to recap efficiently having in mind the strenght of PD militia and whatever other remaining unit.

RA is some sort of blitz where your only viable unit are tanks, and even those are not as strong as they would need to be for having a single viable unit

And there are no perfect situation for hw, in my mind. Not always a perfect situation for gc, or ds. If you like it, you gonna play it and figure a way. Sounds retarded but its almost impossible to change and make it balanced on every single setting. If you buff them it will make them unbalanced, almost sure about that. You lack power? If you buff RA in that way.. well, you know how it was. You buff defense, then RA isnt going to be only aggressive strategy. Its gonna have defensive potential with 90cost tanks.
..RA pressure as Poland on Germany, could be 1v1 or 3v3, possible t1 rush as ukraine on balkans. Maybe spain full rush rome.. And thats on europe.

Sorry but RA Poland is on my mind and cant figure out how you dont have money t1/2 or turn 3.

I know its not perfect, but there is almost always a way. When i was lower rank and played sm ukr, after t1 i had like 2k left. Mauzer told me to have at least 3k. I have no clue how to do it, i didnt even knew it was possible to expand normally and have that amount of money. But with couple of tips i've found a way and i can do perfectly reasonable expansion and to have 3.3k left after t1. Point is, after the nerfs, i saw no more than 5 games with those strategies in competitive games. Dont feel like anyone even tried.

Are you going to add a possibility of turnblock into this conversation? 'cause i dont feel like tbs have place here.

Napisano od Steve Aoki, 18.05.2016 at 13:03

And there are no perfect situation for hw, in my mind. Not always a perfect situation for gc, or ds. If you like it, you gonna play it and figure a way. Sounds retarded but its almost impossible to change and make it balanced on every single setting. If you buff them it will make them unbalanced, almost sure about that. You lack power? If you buff RA in that way.. well, you know how it was. You buff defense, then RA isnt going to be only aggressive strategy. Its gonna have defensive potential with 90cost tanks.
..RA pressure as Poland on Germany, could be 1v1 or 3v3, possible t1 rush as ukraine on balkans. Maybe spain full rush rome.. And thats on europe.

Sorry but RA Poland is on my mind and cant figure out how you dont have money t1/2 or turn 3.

I know its not perfect, but there is almost always a way. When i was lower rank and played sm ukr, after t1 i had like 2k left. Mauzer told me to have at least 3k. I have no clue how to do it, i didnt even knew it was possible to expand normally and have that amount of money. But with couple of tips i've found a way and i can do perfectly reasonable expansion and to have 3.3k left after t1. Point is, after the nerfs, i saw no more than 5 games with those strategies in competitive games. Dont feel like anyone even tried.

Are you going to add a possibility of turnblock into this conversation? 'cause i dont feel like tbs have place here.

Yes, I understand your points, I would never want RA to be too op nor to improve its defensive values. But its purpose is very limited to fast rushes to the natural expansion of your opponent so idk....

Well, if you play poland 10k, 3rd turn you'll be asked to send money and you will have buyed enough units to become nearly broke for the rest of the game (let's not forget that balkans won't give you much income). Unless you do a concentrated expansion to simply rush berlin, in which case you can probably save a lot of money from buying tanks. Problem is that you don't know if you will be able to cap him or if you will be able to keep it long enough to kill him due to the low defense. So your best hope is to kill germany by attacking same places he expands to...

Well... if you really think RA doesn't deserve a little buff I guess there's not much more I can say. I know you can do a concentrated expansion, use fewer tanks, etc. and save as much money as you can, but in contrast to SM, RA just has one main unit (only for attacking purposes) while SM has two, one for attacking and another for defending.

I'm just stating (imo) that RA is very vulnerable to certain lucky aspects of the game, such as tbs, guessing your enemy's expansion, being able to defend after a rush, etc.

Not only games r world maps, u must think wider, blitz is of no use in medieval maps, causeits so weak, and that shouldnt be, Ginghis made biggest empire on world with some form of blitz attack, and fear to xd

Napisano od MURAD IV, 22.05.2016 at 10:29

Not only games r world maps, u must think wider, blitz is of no use in medieval maps, causeits so weak, and that shouldnt be, Ginghis made biggest empire on world with some form of blitz attack, and fear to xd

We cant change every strat for every different map. This is why the worldmap/europemap is used as example, because it is the most balanced map.

tell me blitz is not nerfed to hard please!
those were mostly inf btw maybe 10 militia

Napisano od 1GodofWar1, 23.05.2016 at 14:35

tell me blitz is not nerfed to hard please!
those were mostly inf btw maybe 10 militia

GW vs blitz?

After a fight i had with Gow,and a duel with a blitz turkey,after also a duel with flume,I realised that blitz doest need any buff.Its ok.It has op range.I mean UK vs Ger and Uk rushes austria and chezch with 1trans.If he is also able to keep those 2 cities easilly then its gg.Point of blitz is attacking not defending.Also using gen in your stack actually removes -1def.RA is also an attack strategy thats why i agree to -1 for inf and mil,+10 cost for inf,but that +10 cost for mil is bad also tanks are weak as RA.

Napisano od Nations, 25.05.2016 at 04:44

Point of blitz is attacking not defending.

Napisano od Permamuted, 25.05.2016 at 05:46

Napisano od Nations, 25.05.2016 at 04:44

Point of blitz is attacking not defending.

Sure. But RA still is weak... so no toast until that's solved!

Napisano od Guest, 25.05.2016 at 03:12

Napisano od 1GodofWar1, 23.05.2016 at 14:35

tell me blitz is not nerfed to hard please!
those were mostly inf btw maybe 10 militia

GW vs blitz?

exactly my thought. gw gotten stronger because of city bonus.
Also, ra don't have anything useful to attack.
When I play ra, rushing Ankara was sucide, if your enemy defend it. pd was a lil effective. the old ra was tie with pd don turk, it's just that Ukraine have advantage

All I hear is me me me me, think about the people who got to change the strat? Just propose a trial for like 2 weeks to see if the change is ok, or way to op, or still need buffed. Ask how long it would take to buff the strat, and if needed afterwards to nerf it again to its current position?

To be honest in my opinion i dont think blitz is needed. I mean the people that dominated with those 2 strategies were a small group of people that it seems cant or dont play without those strats. There are enough people at this moment still playinng and dominating with those strats, for example Flume, heat check etc. So what I wonder is if they can do it why did you guys "the people that used to 'dominate' win with these strats" cant do it and just give up on it?

Napisano od Waffel, 26.05.2016 at 00:59

To be honest in my opinion i dont think blitz is needed. I mean the people that dominated with those 2 strategies were a small group of people that it seems cant or dont play without those strats. There are enough people at this moment still playinng and dominating with those strats, for example Flume, heat check etc. So what I wonder is if they can do it why did you guys "the people that used to 'dominate' win with these strats" cant do it and just give up on it?

That's not the case for RA........................................!!

Napisano od RaulPB, 25.05.2016 at 17:50

yes yes, before this thread was made we were alrdy discussing it on the modforum, there'll be a few tweaks soon, nothing major.

Sky menace beats blitz in world games because it has the same range, attack bonuses and defensive bonuses. I agree that INF should have a defense bonus in a city.

Napisano od NewTea, 27.05.2016 at 12:14

Sky menace beats blitz in world games because it has the same range, attack bonuses and defensive bonuses. I agree that INF should have a defense bonus in a city.

and then you add that and sm will still beat blitz in world games because blitz was never designed to compete with mos and sm on their niche.

Citat:

and then you add that and sm will still beat blitz in world games because blitz was never designed to compete with mos and sm on their niche.

What do you mean? I think blitz was designed to be a fast expansion strategy. Sky menace allows you to expand just as rapidly so you have just as many reinforcements as the blitz player. It would be cool to have all strategies equally viable on world maps.

Retards, learn how to quote.

I say NO TO YOUR BLITZ BUFF IDEA> I THINK IT"S STUPID AND WOULD MAKE BLITZ OP

Napisano od NewTea, 28.05.2016 at 01:17

Citat:

and then you add that and sm will still beat blitz in world games because blitz was never designed to compete with mos and sm on their niche.

What do you mean? I think blitz was designed to be a fast expansion strategy.

It is. But only players with experience at big maps can understand the true advantage of mobility, or how to use it at it's best potential.

Citat:

It is. But only players with experience at big maps can understand the true advantage of mobility, or how to use it at it's best potential.

I understand what you mean, but players who use Sky menace can expand with air units just as quickly, and Naval Commander and Master of Stealth can expand across water just as quickly because they have the same range as Blitz subs, destroyers and air transports. But the sky menace players have the advantage of cheaper planes and more attack points on each bomber. That's why I thought blitz infantry should keep their defensive bonus.

Napisano od NewTea, 29.05.2016 at 13:56

Citat:

It is. But only players with experience at big maps can understand the true advantage of mobility, or how to use it at it's best potential.

I understand what you mean, but players who use Sky menace can expand with air units just as quickly, and Naval Commander and Master of Stealth can expand across water just as quickly because they have the same range as Blitz subs, destroyers and air transports. But the sky menace players have the advantage of cheaper planes and more attack points on each bomber. That's why I thought blitz infantry should keep their defensive bonus.

NO, THEN DON'T PUT BLITZ INFANTRY IN CITY, ALSO BLITZ INFANTRY COST 60 BUCK WHEREAS BOMBERS COST 130
2 BLITZ INFANTRY DEFENCE IS 10 FOR 120 BUCK, but in city it's 8 defence for 120 bucks
BLITZ IS WAY CHEAPER THAN BOMBER in term in cost efficiency.
Bomber cost 130. 8 attack 5 defence.
2 Blitz infantry= 8 attack for 120 bucks.
Dayum blitz> sm. and more versatile. in close range blitz can rape sm.

Learn how to play blitz already. Stop whining like 13 years old girls on their periods.

Bump 2k17

Blitz wasn't even that OP of a strat to begin with

Not many will know of how great blitz was.

Eventhough blitz is weak strat..i still kick ass with it

RA and Blitz are both RIP