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

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:44

and yes RA is useless now.That +10 cost for mil and inf is rediculous.Remove it and add +1 att to tanks.

I don't think defensive units need to be buffed for RA, it is an ofensive strategy after all so defensive units are meant to be weak. Maybe militias shouldn't be +10 cause we get it all the time from conquered cities and it's a huge drawback. As for inf, I think it is logic for those to be more expensive.

The big issue here are tanks. They need a buff. Not sure if +1 attack is enough.

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 10:47

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:44

and yes RA is useless now.That +10 cost for mil and inf is rediculous.Remove it and add +1 att to tanks.

I don't think defensive units need to be buffed for RA, it is an ofensive strategy after all so defensive units are meant to be weak. Maybe militias shouldn't be +10 cause we get it all the time from conquered cities and it's a huge drawback. As for inf, I think it is logic for those to be more expensive.

The big issue here are tanks. They need a buff. Not sure if +1 attack is enough.

hmmm i have 2 options in mind.First one remove +10cost for all keep -1 def ad make tanks 4def and 9att.Second one keep +10cost for inf keep -1def for both mil and inf but make tanks 5def and 9att.In both cases i think +10cost to mil is extreme.It gets yoou bankrupt in no time.

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:49

hmmm i have 2 options in mind.First one remove +10cost for all keep -1 def ad make tanks 4def and 9att.Second one keep +10cost for inf keep -1def for both mil and inf but make tanks 5def and 9att.In both cases i think +10cost to mil is extreme.It gets yoou bankrupt in no time.

Then remove the +10 cost to militia, let inf the same with +10 cost.

My personal bet would be to give +1 att to tanks and an additional +1 att against inf. You may ask why? Cause I don't think relentless attack should have any defensive buff to tanks. It needs ofensive buffs instead! Some ofensive buff should be found to make it viable. Since it is suposed to be an extremely offensive strategy, what would be better than giving it a buff against defensive units?

Okay. Everyones talking nonsense so i should go for it. I think SM needs buff too. That strategy is just way too expensive and there is no defensive buffs on it. So i think adding +1 def to infs, or lowering their price by 10 would be a perfect choice to make that strategy playable. Its shit atm..

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 10:55

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:49

hmmm i have 2 options in mind.First one remove +10cost for all keep -1 def ad make tanks 4def and 9att.Second one keep +10cost for inf keep -1def for both mil and inf but make tanks 5def and 9att.In both cases i think +10cost to mil is extreme.It gets yoou bankrupt in no time.

Then remove the +10 cost to militia, let inf the same with +10 cost.

My personal bet would be to give +1 att to tanks and an additional +1 att against inf. You may ask why? Cause I don't think relentless attack should have any defensive buff to tanks. It needs ofensive buffs instead! Some ofensive buff should be found to make it viable. Since it is suposed to be an extremely offensive strategy, what would be better than giving it a buff against defensive units?

yep i like your idea.Sounds nice.After all inf has anyway +1 def bonus against tanks(!).That means that if you RA you need 8 90 cost tanks to pas 8 PD inf that cost 50coins(almost half money).

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 10:56

Okay. Everyones talking nonsense so i should go for it. I think SM needs buff too. That strategy is just way too expensive and there is no defensive buffs on it. So i think adding +1 def to infs, or lowering their price by 10 would be a perfect choice to make that strategy playable. Its shit atm..

stop trolling.

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 10:56

Okay. Everyones talking nonsense so i should go for it. I think SM needs buff too. That strategy is just way too expensive and there is no defensive buffs on it. So i think adding +1 def to infs, or lowering their price by 10 would be a perfect choice to make that strategy playable. Its shit atm..

how is buffing RA nonsense?

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 10:56

Okay. Everyones talking nonsense so i should go for it. I think SM needs buff too. That strategy is just way too expensive and there is no defensive buffs on it. So i think adding +1 def to infs, or lowering their price by 10 would be a perfect choice to make that strategy playable. Its shit atm..

Hm... is it talking non sense asking a buff for RA?

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 10:58

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 10:56

Okay. Everyones talking nonsense so i should go for it. I think SM needs buff too. That strategy is just way too expensive and there is no defensive buffs on it. So i think adding +1 def to infs, or lowering their price by 10 would be a perfect choice to make that strategy playable. Its shit atm..

Hm... is it talking non sense asking a buff for RA?

no idea.Some players just make so sense.Their ego is huge and they they think that even the community agrees in something they think that their opinion is more powerfull than the community opinion.Anyway this has no point laochra will never allow RA or blitz buff.He is acting like a dictator.

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 11:00

no idea.Some players just make so sense.Their ego is huge and they they think that even the community agrees in something they think that their opinion is more powerfull than the community opinion.Anyway this has no point laochra will never allow RA or blitz buff.He is acting like a dictator.

Even he needs to agree that RA needs a buff....

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 10:58

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 10:56

Okay. Everyones talking nonsense so i should go for it. I think SM needs buff too. That strategy is just way too expensive and there is no defensive buffs on it. So i think adding +1 def to infs, or lowering their price by 10 would be a perfect choice to make that strategy playable. Its shit atm..

Hm... is it talking non sense asking a buff for RA?

You know how ra was before this nerf? Are you gonna say that it wasnt legitimately op? You want it back on those stats?
Buffing def in RA is part of nonsense.

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 11:16

You know how ra was before this nerf? Are you gonna say that it wasnt legitimately op? You want it back on those stats?
Buffing def in RA is part of nonsense.

Okey... Steve, do me a favour and tell me when did I ask a buff to defense in RA. Just in case this helps:

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 10:55

Then remove the +10 cost to militia, let inf the same with +10 cost.

My personal bet would be to give +1 att to tanks and an additional +1 att against inf. You may ask why? Cause I don't think relentless attack should have any defensive buff to tanks. It needs ofensive buffs instead! Some ofensive buff should be found to make it viable. Since it is suposed to be an extremely offensive strategy, what would be better than giving it a buff against defensive units?

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 11:18

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 11:16

You know how ra was before this nerf? Are you gonna say that it wasnt legitimately op? You want it back on those stats?
Buffing def in RA is part of nonsense.

Okey... Steve, do me a favour and tell me when did I ask a buff to defense in RA. Just in case this helps:

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 10:55

Then remove the +10 cost to militia, let inf the same with +10 cost.

My personal bet would be to give +1 att to tanks and an additional +1 att against inf. You may ask why? Cause I don't think relentless attack should have any defensive buff to tanks. It needs ofensive buffs instead! Some ofensive buff should be found to make it viable. Since it is suposed to be an extremely offensive strategy, what would be better than giving it a buff against defensive units?

No, but you want 1att to tanks and +1att against infs? Wait, RA before nerf was +1 att on tanks, right? Idk..

Lmao, most that could be done without making RA op is lowering mil cost to 30, attack boost with 90 cost is just no.

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 11:22

No, but you want 1att to tanks and +1att against infs? Wait, RA before nerf was +1 att on tanks, right? Idk..

Before nerf, if I am not mistaken, tanks had +1 att and +1 def right? I do not want defensive units to be buffed. At most I would only consider removing the +10 cost of militias but I wouldn't support buffing tank's defensive stats since it is suposed to be an offensive strategy. Hence, the idea I proposed. It would grant that extra power that tanks lack right now. They are too weak for being the only reliable unit in RA right now... any thought on that?

Scris de Xenosapien, 16.05.2016 at 11:24

Lmao, most that could be done without making RA op is lowering mil cost to 30, attack boost with 90 cost is just no.

And why would you focus on improving militias for an ofensive strategy? Come on, where's the logic in having shity tanks in a strategy called "Relentless Attack"?? If you guys are so afraid of buffing its main source of damage, call it "Merciful Attack" instead.

Can you guys redirect all the RA's posts to this thread please >> http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=26071

Keep this thread to talk only about Blitzkrieg. Thanks!

Before change to RA, tanks had -10 cost (or maybe same cost) and +1/1. Now it's -30 cost and +0/0, if I am not mistaken. If PD infantry has 8 defense against tanks, why RA tanks don't have 10 attack against infantry? It seems legit to me with 120 or 110 cost, 40 cost to militia and unchanged defense.

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 05:18

Laochra

stop mentioning my name in your terrible forum posts please and take your own advice.

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:57

stop trolling.

Scris de Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 07:55

Scris de 1GodofWar1, 15.05.2016 at 23:39

case^

and point:i beat practically every *good* player here in cws or duels with other strats...
and so have the other known blitz players.
i beat you with RA twice in a row in 5k and then you made a cri thread about nerfing RA

Yeah I remember, it was just after RA got a strong buff. It was also the only two times you ever beat me in a duel. I wonder how many times I beat you before and after that? Hint: a lot more than twice (makes us ~17 - 2 actually). The truth is 75% of the players who relied on blitz weren't very versatile. While you played blitz and RA I was playing gw, pd, imp, sm, if, etc... sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.

you farmed me as a low rank your point is?

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 12:17

Scris de Xenosapien, 16.05.2016 at 11:24

Lmao, most that could be done without making RA op is lowering mil cost to 30, attack boost with 90 cost is just no.

And why would you focus on improving militias for an offensive strategy? Come on, where's the logic in having shity tanks in a strategy called "Relentless Attack"?? If you guys are so afraid of buffing its main source of damage, call it "Merciful Attack" instead.

Because just spamming even militia to use up reinfs is costly, with inf being expensive too. Upkeep costs as well. If we're really going to be all picky about the name (which doesn't really matter) then relentless attack surely implies continuous attack, not powerful attack. You can hardly call imp cost tanks without attack nerf shitty. +1 att with gen and now more crit too.
If attack were to be buffed the cost would definitely have to go up significantly to stop this being op, better value than gw marines. It's fine as it is really.

Scris de RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 12:15

Scris de Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 11:22

No, but you want 1att to tanks and +1att against infs? Wait, RA before nerf was +1 att on tanks, right? Idk..

Before nerf, if I am not mistaken, tanks had +1 att and +1 def right? I do not want defensive units to be buffed. At most I would only consider removing the +10 cost of militias but I wouldn't support buffing tank's defensive stats since it is suposed to be an offensive strategy. Hence, the idea I proposed. It would grant that extra power that tanks lack right now. They are too weak for being the only reliable unit in RA right now... any thought on that?

I dont felt like +1 def represented some problem tbh. Okay, your tanks are tehnically safer in terms of health and avoiding tbs i assume. But main problem with RA then was the ability of constant and constant attacks without too much risk. Most of the times your cap wasnt even worth of defending it, cuzz you could spam strong tanks to re it later anyways.
Btw .. > http://i.imgur.com/s7dL3HA.jpg "expensive" Old RA, on 5k. Turn before reinf turn. Imagine this being a normal RA. Add +1 attack, +1 attack vs infs, and infs are most used units in defensive manner of 90% strats for sure.. Too much? Not sure. Really not sure..

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:10

Scris de Sixtyfour, 16.05.2016 at 09:16

And sure, if you're going to modify some strategy, maybe RA since it is not a good strategy for the majority of maps. I remember tanks used to have +1 attack with RA, but that might be going too far the other way.

RA before nerf had 9att and 5def.It was such a nice strat Now its completely fucked up.You get bankrupt turn3 thanks to +10 cost for mil and inf,you cant defend shit thanks to -1def BOTH for mil and inf,and all you get is a -30 cost for tanks.Yet i still rape ukraines with RA.As for blitz i think it should get a slight buff.For RA i would say remove +10cost and add +1 att to tanks.Also i dont know why we keep discussing this since the poll is obviously in favor of buffing blitz.So laochra gtfo.

Very much too op for RA then mabey make stronger tanks for even more expensive inf or something as there attack (8) is equal to gw marines and more expensive

My main idea for a buff would be +1 defense for militia in cities and -1 range for militia that way it would even it out.
with blitz as it is now there is no point leaving any units in un walled cities since they will just die if the are attacked

When did blitz get nerfed?

Scris de Xenosapien, 16.05.2016 at 11:24

Lmao, most that could be done without making RA op is lowering mil cost to 30, attack boost with 90 cost is just no.

whil def boost with 50cost is ok,bro wtf

Scris de Permamuted, 16.05.2016 at 13:30

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 05:18

Laochra

stop mentioning my name in your terrible forum posts please and take your own advice.

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:57

stop trolling.

lol you so funny,be a right mod and listen to the community instead of making fun of it.Buff RA now.

I really cant understand how like 5 persons decide the fate of one strategy.Xenosapien ultimate troll saying 9att for 90 cost is too much WHEN PD GIVES YOU INFATRY WITH 8DEF 4ATT AND +1 AGAINST TANKS AT 50COINS.I start believe that some of you have brain problems........................

Scris de RebelLord, 16.05.2016 at 14:37

Scris de Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:10

Scris de Sixtyfour, 16.05.2016 at 09:16

And sure, if you're going to modify some strategy, maybe RA since it is not a good strategy for the majority of maps. I remember tanks used to have +1 attack with RA, but that might be going too far the other way.

RA before nerf had 9att and 5def.It was such a nice strat Now its completely fucked up.You get bankrupt turn3 thanks to +10 cost for mil and inf,you cant defend shit thanks to -1def BOTH for mil and inf,and all you get is a -30 cost for tanks.Yet i still rape ukraines with RA.As for blitz i think it should get a slight buff.For RA i would say remove +10cost and add +1 att to tanks.Also i dont know why we keep discussing this since the poll is obviously in favor of buffing blitz.So laochra gtfo.

Very much too op for RA then mabey make stronger tanks for even more expensive inf or something as there attack (8) is equal to gw marines and more expensive

"much too op for RA" looooooooooooooool,i dont even get your comparison.RA is shit and needs buff.Deal with it.You want to tell me you think 9att tanks with 4def at 90cost is op YET inf at 50cost with8 def AND +1 against tanks with 4att AND 7 critical isnt op?

Scris de Xenosapien, 16.05.2016 at 13:59

Because just spamming even militia to use up reinfs is costly, with inf being expensive too. Upkeep costs as well. If we're really going to be all picky about the name (which doesn't really matter) then relentless attack surely implies continuous attack, not powerful attack. You can hardly call imp cost tanks without attack nerf shitty. +1 att with gen and now more crit too.
If attack were to be buffed the cost would definitely have to go up significantly to stop this being op, better value than gw marines. It's fine as it is really.

The aim of RA is not spamming militia or inf, is to spam tanks... why would you be concerned about those units? There's life beyond spamming inf and militias. Use tanks to conquer back... that's the whole point of tanks being strong offensively and weak defensively.
Okey, rise the cost a bit if you want, but tanks right now are shitty, useless, weak, how ever you may call them. For fuck sake, why all the tank hate?? Can't there be more than infantries? It is NOT fine as it is. Play RA and you will freaking see why!