Blitzkrieg

I think blitzkrieg should be fixed
We know that strategy is named by german war strategy.
Infantry and bombers shouldnt have -1 defence everything else should stay same. Bombers are always bombers no matter are they defending or attacking.

AW doesn't need to be realist.

No,it does not,but if we are taking rl strategies,on my humble opinion, we should try to make them all realistic as much as posible, and equal as much as posible

If you dont give -1 defence to inf it will be too op

And what would be the nerfs? you just took none strategy and gave +3 range to inf and bombers.

and i believe blitzkrieg referred to rapid tank and bomber movement, not specifically inf.

but regardless gameplay balance > game being realistic

-1 defence to everything else is not nerf ?
i think at least infantry should not have -1 defence

Napisano od Permamuted, 31.12.2014 at 12:02

And what would be the nerfs? you just took none strategy and gave +3 range to inf and bombers.

and i believe blitzkrieg referred to rapid tank and bomber movement, not specifically inf.

but regardless gameplay balance > game being realistic

Tank-bomber oriented I think. The tanks ''blitzed'' so fast they had to wait for infantries to catch up

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 12:32

-1 defence to everything else is not nerf ?
i think at least infantry should not have -1 defence

It would be op since you don't defend w/ tanks

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 12:32

i think at least infantry should not have -1 defence

Why?

Napisano od Goblin, 31.12.2014 at 13:45

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 12:32

i think at least infantry should not have -1 defence

Why?

a)irl infantry wasnt weaker in defence than other armies surrounding germany (maybe even better)
b) u ever tried to defend with blitz? i mean any units except scenario bunkers and that shit,he is going thru cities like idk but so easy
c) rankist no yu dont defend with tanks,and when someone got your tanks you screwed up,or he is

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 14:21

a)irl infantry wasnt weaker in defence than other armies surrounding germany (maybe even better)
b) u ever tried to defend with blitz? i mean any units except scenario bunkers and that shit,he is going thru cities like idk but so easy
c) rankist no yu dont defend with tanks,and when someone got your tanks you screwed up,or he is

Oh but in real life ...german infantry troops could march longer, german bombers could reach longer, german tanks could drive further?

Have i ever tried defending with ...xD blitz is my favorite strategy ...and fuck me i didnt know i should only play it with germany ...cuz ubermensch i guess.

That shit under C) ...i have no idea what you said.

Napisano od Goblin, 31.12.2014 at 14:48

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 14:21

a)irl infantry wasnt weaker in defence than other armies surrounding germany (maybe even better)
b) u ever tried to defend with blitz? i mean any units except scenario bunkers and that shit,he is going thru cities like idk but so easy
c) rankist no yu dont defend with tanks,and when someone got your tanks you screwed up,or he is

Oh but in real life ...german infantry troops could march longer, german bombers could reach longer, german tanks could drive further?

Have i ever tried defending with ...xD blitz is my favorite strategy ...and fuck me i didnt know i should only play it with germany ...cuz ubermensch i guess.

That shit under C) ...i have no idea what you said.

Its not for you its for rankist sharck

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 11:28

No,it does not,but if we are taking rl strategies,on my humble opinion, we should try to make them all realistic as much as posible, and equal as much as posible

Well if you want to talk realistic the only problem with blitzkrieg was that the attacks would be so rapid that the supply lines normally couldn't keep up. This became a problem during Operation Barbarossa. Historians have said the major factor in the failure of the attack was the inability to get supplies to the troops on the front lines.

So think about it stretched supply lines would result in troops getting less ammunition, food, clothes, etc. Realistically speaking the troops would have lesser moral and thus make defending their ground much more harder. Furthermore the attack would be prone to flanking and attack from the inside further disrupting supply lines.

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 14:21

b) u ever tried to defend with blitz?

Yes...... please nerf blitz.

Napisano od Meester, 31.12.2014 at 21:26

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 11:28

No,it does not,but if we are taking rl strategies,on my humble opinion, we should try to make them all realistic as much as posible, and equal as much as posible

Well if you want to talk realistic the only problem with blitzkrieg was that the attacks would be so rapid that the supply lines normally couldn't keep up. This became a problem during Operation Barbarossa. Historians have said the major factor in the failure of the attack was the inability to get supplies to the troops on the front lines.

So think about it stretched supply lines would result in troops getting less ammunition, food, clothes, etc. Realistically speaking the troops would have lesser moral and thus make defending their ground much more harder. Furthermore the attack would be prone to flanking and attack from the inside further disrupting supply lines.

that actually could work
-1hp to all units

Napisano od clovis1122, 01.01.2015 at 06:50

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 14:21

b) u ever tried to defend with blitz?

Yes...... please nerf blitz.

It would be nice if you dont troll

I don't see the point to nerf blitzkrieg.

Napisano od Black Swans, 01.01.2015 at 18:26

Napisano od Meester, 31.12.2014 at 21:26

Napisano od Black Swans, 31.12.2014 at 11:28

No,it does not,but if we are taking rl strategies,on my humble opinion, we should try to make them all realistic as much as posible, and equal as much as posible

Well if you want to talk realistic the only problem with blitzkrieg was that the attacks would be so rapid that the supply lines normally couldn't keep up. This became a problem during Operation Barbarossa. Historians have said the major factor in the failure of the attack was the inability to get supplies to the troops on the front lines.

So think about it stretched supply lines would result in troops getting less ammunition, food, clothes, etc. Realistically speaking the troops would have lesser moral and thus make defending their ground much more harder. Furthermore the attack would be prone to flanking and attack from the inside further disrupting supply lines.

that actually could work
-1hp to all units

That would be worse than the -1 defense to all units.

Napisano od Black Swans, 01.01.2015 at 18:26

that actually could work
-1hp to all units

you should learn the aw game mechanics before you go proposing strat changes. This would be a heavy nerf to blitz. not only would that be worse defensively for blitz units, it would also weaken blitz offensively.