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

Napísal Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 14:25

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..

It represents a problem when you can spam tanks as defensive units instead of using inf... tanks should remain as an offensive focused unit, not as a replacement for infantries... think of it as blitz, weak defense but good potential to recap. That's all there is since Tanks are the main unit.... Idk why this idea is so hard for you to embrace, it kinda exasperates me.

And have you counted how many imp tanks, PD inf, IF inf, etc. can you spam in that same circumstance???? Come on, you're gonna base your entire reasoning on a single example?

And? What's your point? You're telling me that you don't want a unit that can counter deffensive units? Is that your valid argument?

If there's one thing I learned from years of this game: when the majority of the community wants something that's a pretty good sign you shouldn't do it.

So we went from blitz to RA?

Napísal RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 16:28

Napísal Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 14:25

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..

It represents a problem when you can spam tanks as defensive units instead of using inf... tanks should remain as an offensive focused unit, not as a replacement for infantries... think of it as blitz, weak defense but good potential to recap. That's all there is since Tanks are the main unit.... Idk why this idea is so hard for you to embrace, it kinda exasperates me.

And have you counted how many imp tanks, PD inf, IF inf, etc. can you spam in that same circumstance???? Come on, you're gonna base your entire reasoning on a single example?

And? What's your point? You're telling me that you don't want a unit that can counter deffensive units? Is that your valid argument?

No, i dont want a unit that can complete overpower strongest defensive unit.
Imp - low fund strategy. Play imp vs ra on 50k. Or 10k.. (This is the point of ra managing to make this amount of tanks on low fund map, while being sort off expensive strategy. Being strong on low, medium and high fund maps/settings..with your proposition to buff the tanks)
PD - low/medium fund strategy. Weak range. Same deal as imp.
If - medium/high fund strategy, sort of. Weakest range of all. Every single strat can overexpand vs this one.
There are 0 strategies that are strong on every single setting. Buffing RA like that will make it even stronger on high fund maps, while its gonna be invincible on lower fund settings. Theoritically, its 90 cost for 10 attack without gen? Yeah, i dont see problem in that.

Napísal Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 16:44

If there's one thing I learned from years of this game: when the majority of the community wants something that's a pretty good sign you shouldn't do it.

I am not majority, I am just myself so pls do???? I beg you to use your influence

Napísal RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 16:48

Napísal Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 16:44

If there's one thing I learned from years of this game: when the majority of the community wants something that's a pretty good sign you shouldn't do it.

I am not majority, I am just myself so pls do???? I beg you to use your influence

so we have 1 ex mod 1 mod and 4noobs that dont want buff for blitz.Rest want buff.What are we waiting for?

Napísal RaulPB, 16.05.2016 at 16:48

I am not majority, I am just myself so pls do???? I beg you to use your influence

Sorry babe I have no influence, just strong shitposting skills

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:53

so we have 1 ex mod 1 mod and 4noobs that dont want buff for blitz.Rest want buff.What are we waiting for?

Waiting for you to realize that just because you spam the forum doesn't mean anything is actually going to change

Napísal Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 16:56

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:53

so we have 1 ex mod 1 mod and 4noobs that dont want buff for blitz.Rest want buff.What are we waiting for?

Waiting for you to realize that just because you spam the forum doesn't mean anything is actually going to change

NIce.Im waiting for the time that 1 mod with huge ego and 3 butthurt eu fags will stop nerfing strategies because they just want to even if the community disagrees.

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:57

Napísal Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 16:56

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:53

so we have 1 ex mod 1 mod and 4noobs that dont want buff for blitz.Rest want buff.What are we waiting for?

Waiting for you to realize that just because you spam the forum doesn't mean anything is actually going to change

NIce.Im waiting for the time that 1 mod with huge ego and 3 butthurt eu fags will stop nerfing strategies because they just want to even if the community disagrees.

I feel like if any other mod or admin thought you were right about blitz or ra, he would responded in one of 13089238 threads about those strategies so far.

Being in numbers and being right are two different things.

Napísal Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 17:21

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:57

Napísal Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 16:56

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:53

so we have 1 ex mod 1 mod and 4noobs that dont want buff for blitz.Rest want buff.What are we waiting for?

Waiting for you to realize that just because you spam the forum doesn't mean anything is actually going to change

NIce.Im waiting for the time that 1 mod with huge ego and 3 butthurt eu fags will stop nerfing strategies because they just want to even if the community disagrees.

I feel like if any other mod or admin thought you were right about blitz or ra, he would responded in one of 13089238 threads about those strategies so far.

Being in numbers and being right are two different things.

they not being right though

Napísal Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 16:48

No, i dont want a unit that can complete overpower strongest defensive unit.
Imp - low fund strategy. Play imp vs ra on 50k. Or 10k.. (This is the point of ra managing to make this amount of tanks on low fund map, while being sort off expensive strategy. Being strong on low, medium and high fund maps/settings..with your proposition to buff the tanks)
PD - low/medium fund strategy. Weak range. Same deal as imp.
If - medium/high fund strategy, sort of. Weakest range of all. Every single strat can overexpand vs this one.
There are 0 strategies that are strong on every single setting. Buffing RA like that will make it even stronger on high fund maps, while its gonna be invincible on lower fund settings. Theoritically, its 90 cost for 10 attack without gen? Yeah, i dont see problem in that.

Why not? Afraid that you would have to change your play style? XD anyway, there's no offensive unit that even compares to the strongest defensive unit, which leads to the monotonous defensive play style we are used to with PD everywhere.... it's not my favourite strat at all but it is so strong in such a variety of circumstances that I have no other choice if I want to win.

Okey, and what setting does benefit RA right now? There's always a better choice than RA... cause RA's main unit (tanks) are too weak... I am not saying my proposal is the best but there's got to be something that could be done in order to make it viable and to put it at the same level as other defensive strategies.

Napísal Acquiesce, 16.05.2016 at 16:55

Sorry babe I have no influence, just strong shitposting skills

Then lend me your superpowers and shitpost for me and my cause, pls. I shall offer you human sacrifices

I remember blitz to be quite a bit popular even when it had -2 defence. I haven't tested it now so I can't tell how it is currently. But the strength of blitz should never be defence.

Napísal RaulPB, 17.05.2016 at 11:43

Napísal Steve Aoki, 16.05.2016 at 16:48

No, i dont want a unit that can complete overpower strongest defensive unit.
Imp - low fund strategy. Play imp vs ra on 50k. Or 10k.. (This is the point of ra managing to make this amount of tanks on low fund map, while being sort off expensive strategy. Being strong on low, medium and high fund maps/settings..with your proposition to buff the tanks)
PD - low/medium fund strategy. Weak range. Same deal as imp.
If - medium/high fund strategy, sort of. Weakest range of all. Every single strat can overexpand vs this one.
There are 0 strategies that are strong on every single setting. Buffing RA like that will make it even stronger on high fund maps, while its gonna be invincible on lower fund settings. Theoritically, its 90 cost for 10 attack without gen? Yeah, i dont see problem in that.

Why not? Afraid that you would have to change your play style? XD anyway, there's no offensive unit that even compares to the strongest defensive unit, which leads to the monotonous defensive play style we are used to with PD everywhere.... it's not my favourite strat at all but it is so strong in such a variety of circumstances that I have no other choice if I want to win.

Okey, and what setting does benefit RA right now? There's always a better choice than RA... cause RA's main unit (tanks) are too weak... I am not saying my proposal is the best but there's got to be something that could be done in order to make it viable and to put it at the same level as other defensive strategies.

My play style is as aggressive as it can get.. Trust me on that. If i am correct, pd inf has max 8 def vs tanks, without gen. While ra tank has max 8 attack. We can compare price, but we can also compare range of units. Defense of tank? Attack of inf.
You are talking about pd being everywhere, but pd is just one of the best suitable strategies for europe, and most of competitive games are played on eu map. East of europe is not pd oriented. West is, because you have high priced countries with lots of money, and you need strong units in term of defense to hold those.
Anyways, playing defensive is much harder than playing offensive. Cuzz you are not the one who is dictating tempo of the game. You have to predict, guess his attacks. If you have weaker defensive unit vs his aggressive in 1v1, thats gonna make your job much harder.

Okay, add +1 attack but make tanks expensive or something. Getting +1 attack for free there is just going to make RA op, in full meaning of that word.

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 12:43

My play style is as aggressive as it can get.. Trust me on that. If i am correct, pd inf has max 8 def vs tanks, without gen. While ra tank has max 8 attack. We can compare price, but we can also compare range of units. Defense of tank? Attack of inf.
You are talking about pd being everywhere, but pd is just one of the best suitable strategies for europe, and most of competitive games are played on eu map. East of europe is not pd oriented. West is, because you have high priced countries with lots of money, and you need strong units in term of defense to hold those.
Anyways, playing defensive is much harder than playing offensive. Cuzz you are not the one who is dictating tempo of the game. You have to predict, guess his attacks. If you have weaker defensive unit vs his aggressive in 1v1, thats gonna make your job much harder.

Okay, add +1 attack but make tanks expensive or something. Getting +1 attack for free there is just going to make RA op, in full meaning of that word.

According to your own words, why isn't Ukr RA played then? Or why isn't any other eastern country played RA? Something seems wrong when one doesn't consider such strategy viable on what would be a nice setting for it.

Building on what you say, if tanks and inf are equal in everything except for the range, why is the cost so different for both?? Why is the tank so much more expensive? Might want to think on that.

Sure, I simply ask for a balance between defensive and offensive units. I don't want a tank that can simply obliterate any unit standing in his way but as you may guess yourself, tanks are much inferior to infantries right now.
Either increase its attack or simply reduce the price I guess.

Napísal RaulPB, 17.05.2016 at 12:56

According to your own words, why isn't Ukr RA played then? Or why isn't any other eastern country played RA? Something seems wrong when one doesn't consider such strategy viable on what would be a nice setting for it.

Building on what you say, if tanks and inf are equal in everything except for the range, why is the cost so different for both?? Why is the tank so much more expensive? Might want to think on that.

Sure, I simply ask for a balance between defensive and offensive units. I don't want a tank that can simply obliterate any unit standing in his way but as you may guess yourself, tanks are much inferior to infantries right now.
Either increase its attack or simply reduce the price I guess.

Simple, those ra and blitz players are stupid. Not even trying to insult. As soon as ra and blitz got nerfed, 2 probably easiest strategy to play as ukraine, they couldnt find a way to outskill their opponent. Its like you are playing RP constantly, rank up to, lets say r12, decide to transfer to eu, lose vs rank 8, wonder whats wrong with the world.
Rest of east players have their own develop play style, even when those strats were op, they werent playing them more than.. lets say 10 times. They didnt had reason then, they dont have reason now.
Do i seriously have to explain difference in cost between tanks and infs or you could figure out what would the game look like if tanks and infs are 90, or 50? Tanks are aggressive, you are expanding with them. You will get to the money you need faster than infs, cuzz you use less of tanks to take country and you have higher range. You can take more, simple as that.

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 13:29

Napísal RaulPB, 17.05.2016 at 12:56

According to your own words, why isn't Ukr RA played then? Or why isn't any other eastern country played RA? Something seems wrong when one doesn't consider such strategy viable on what would be a nice setting for it.

Building on what you say, if tanks and inf are equal in everything except for the range, why is the cost so different for both?? Why is the tank so much more expensive? Might want to think on that.

Sure, I simply ask for a balance between defensive and offensive units. I don't want a tank that can simply obliterate any unit standing in his way but as you may guess yourself, tanks are much inferior to infantries right now.
Either increase its attack or simply reduce the price I guess.

Simple, those ra and blitz players are stupid. Not even trying to insult. As soon as ra and blitz got nerfed, 2 probably easiest strategy to play as ukraine, they couldnt find a way to outskill their opponent. Its like you are playing RP constantly, rank up to, lets say r12, decide to transfer to eu, lose vs rank 8, wonder whats wrong with the world.
Rest of east players have their own develop play style, even when those strats were op, they werent playing them more than.. lets say 10 times. They didnt had reason then, they dont have reason now.
Do i seriously have to explain difference in cost between tanks and infs or you could figure out what would the game look like if tanks and infs are 90, or 50? Tanks are aggressive, you are expanding with them. You will get to the money you need faster than infs, cuzz you use less of tanks to take country and you have higher range. You can take more, simple as that.

no blitz player disagrees about A nerf we disagree with the current nerfs that made these 2 strats practically not playable

Napísal 1GodofWar1, 17.05.2016 at 14:32

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 13:29

Napísal RaulPB, 17.05.2016 at 12:56

According to your own words, why isn't Ukr RA played then? Or why isn't any other eastern country played RA? Something seems wrong when one doesn't consider such strategy viable on what would be a nice setting for it.

Building on what you say, if tanks and inf are equal in everything except for the range, why is the cost so different for both?? Why is the tank so much more expensive? Might want to think on that.

Sure, I simply ask for a balance between defensive and offensive units. I don't want a tank that can simply obliterate any unit standing in his way but as you may guess yourself, tanks are much inferior to infantries right now.
Either increase its attack or simply reduce the price I guess.

Simple, those ra and blitz players are stupid. Not even trying to insult. As soon as ra and blitz got nerfed, 2 probably easiest strategy to play as ukraine, they couldnt find a way to outskill their opponent. Its like you are playing RP constantly, rank up to, lets say r12, decide to transfer to eu, lose vs rank 8, wonder whats wrong with the world.
Rest of east players have their own develop play style, even when those strats were op, they werent playing them more than.. lets say 10 times. They didnt had reason then, they dont have reason now.
Do i seriously have to explain difference in cost between tanks and infs or you could figure out what would the game look like if tanks and infs are 90, or 50? Tanks are aggressive, you are expanding with them. You will get to the money you need faster than infs, cuzz you use less of tanks to take country and you have higher range. You can take more, simple as that.

no blitz player disagrees about A nerf we disagree with the current nerfs that made these 2 strats practically not playable

I dont understand you.

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 14:36

Napísal 1GodofWar1, 17.05.2016 at 14:32

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 13:29

Napísal RaulPB, 17.05.2016 at 12:56

According to your own words, why isn't Ukr RA played then? Or why isn't any other eastern country played RA? Something seems wrong when one doesn't consider such strategy viable on what would be a nice setting for it.

Building on what you say, if tanks and inf are equal in everything except for the range, why is the cost so different for both?? Why is the tank so much more expensive? Might want to think on that.

Sure, I simply ask for a balance between defensive and offensive units. I don't want a tank that can simply obliterate any unit standing in his way but as you may guess yourself, tanks are much inferior to infantries right now.
Either increase its attack or simply reduce the price I guess.

Simple, those ra and blitz players are stupid. Not even trying to insult. As soon as ra and blitz got nerfed, 2 probably easiest strategy to play as ukraine, they couldnt find a way to outskill their opponent. Its like you are playing RP constantly, rank up to, lets say r12, decide to transfer to eu, lose vs rank 8, wonder whats wrong with the world.
Rest of east players have their own develop play style, even when those strats were op, they werent playing them more than.. lets say 10 times. They didnt had reason then, they dont have reason now.
Do i seriously have to explain difference in cost between tanks and infs or you could figure out what would the game look like if tanks and infs are 90, or 50? Tanks are aggressive, you are expanding with them. You will get to the money you need faster than infs, cuzz you use less of tanks to take country and you have higher range. You can take more, simple as that.

no blitz player disagrees about A nerf we disagree with the current nerfs that made these 2 strats practically not playable

I dont understand you.

Napísal Azula., 17.05.2016 at 14:38

you only play SM ukrain so pls shut up about being skilled

I dont agree with you but i dont feel like i should prove you wrong. So be it.

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 16:14

Napísal RebelLord, 16.05.2016 at 14:37

Napísal Nations, 16.05.2016 at 10:10

Napísal 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?

games re meant to favour the defender but i see ur point but with ra why shudnt inf and mil be more expensive?

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 13:29

Simple, those ra and blitz players are stupid. Not even trying to insult. As soon as ra and blitz got nerfed, 2 probably easiest strategy to play as ukraine, they couldnt find a way to outskill their opponent. Its like you are playing RP constantly, rank up to, lets say r12, decide to transfer to eu, lose vs rank 8, wonder whats wrong with the world.
Rest of east players have their own develop play style, even when those strats were op, they werent playing them more than.. lets say 10 times. They didnt had reason then, they dont have reason now.
Do i seriously have to explain difference in cost between tanks and infs or you could figure out what would the game look like if tanks and infs are 90, or 50? Tanks are aggressive, you are expanding with them. You will get to the money you need faster than infs, cuzz you use less of tanks to take country and you have higher range. You can take more, simple as that.

Okey, let's just say that you're exagerating a bit and generalizing a bit too much.... Anyway, why would the rest of players barely use those strategies if they were so strong? And why don't they use them now if it still seems fair for them as they are, according to certain people? Strategies are all about personal tastes don't you think?
Would you personally believe it is possible to win with RA in the east? Think of it as you were the one playing that strategy. Have you tried them? I'm not sure if you have thought that it is impossible to outskill your opponent because the strategy is simply too weak compared to other strategies.
Yeah, tanks are faster to expand but it's a less solid expansion since it can barely defend them and since they cost more, the money you get goes to buying more tanks and their manteinance so you actually end up losing money while with inf you can expand and rarely go out of money.

People laugh at me when i play blitz

Cituj:

Napísal RaulPB, 17.05.2016 at 19:09

Okey, let's just say that you're exagerating a bit and generalizing a bit too much.... Anyway, why would the rest of players barely use those strategies if they were so strong? And why don't they use them now if it still seems fair for them as they are, according to certain people? Strategies are all about personal tastes don't you think?
Would you personally believe it is possible to win with RA in the east? Think of it as you were the one playing that strategy. Have you tried them? I'm not sure if you have thought that it is impossible to outskill your opponent because the strategy is simply too weak compared to other strategies.
Yeah, tanks are faster to expand but it's a less solid expansion since it can barely defend them and since they cost more, the money you get goes to buying more tanks and their manteinance so you actually end up losing money while with inf you can expand and rarely go out of money.

Why they didnt used? Explained.
Do you know why i didnt used? Because i felt like i am cheating every time i've played it.
Do you want to know when did i figured out when blitz was op? When i played vs Acq as ukr vs his turk. I've won in 5-7 turns and i think and it was one of my easiest games ever. Obv not because Acq was bad, i always had problems playing vs him, problem in predicting his moves. He was/maybe still better than me (inactivity). With blitz? That wasnt a problem anymore. Didnt mattered.
Yes, i believe you can win with ra on east. Why you wouldnt? And ofc there are better strats than RA on ukr, for example. I can explain but lazy.

One question, do you think people ask to buff ra and blitz on previus stats because those strats are way too easy to play? Not even kidding. And you all want easy strats to be op so you could win vs skilled opponents without much effort, cuzz thats fun. Much fun. None of you asked to see buffed hw, or gc (not played enough, still strong strat, hard to play). Or any other strategy thats not in the first plan, cuzz there is always better strategies to play instead. But no, you all figured out what op blitz/ra can do, and you liked it. It made you feel like a good player. They took that away from you, you started crying and screaming about how you want it back. Do your game really depends that much on those two strategies?
Now i'll talk about world and other maps than eu. Pd will crush Ra there in expanding? I dont think so. Done with that.
As far i am concerned, i am not a ra played, but i can and maybe i could do something with it on ukraine. Maybe i would win, maybe i would lose. Try it more, figure out its weakness, strong points, play around that.

Anyways, i became tired of this..

Napísal Steve Aoki, 17.05.2016 at 20:05

Why they didnt used? Explained.
Do you know why i didnt used? Because i felt like i am cheating every time i've played it.
Do you want to know when did i figured out when blitz was op? When i played vs Acq as ukr vs his turk. I've won in 5-7 turns and i think and it was one of my easiest games ever. Obv not because Acq was bad, i always had problems playing vs him, problem in predicting his moves. He was/maybe still better than me (inactivity). With blitz? That wasnt a problem anymore. Didnt mattered.
Yes, i believe you can win with ra on east. Why you wouldnt? And ofc there are better strats than RA on ukr, for example. I can explain but lazy.

One question, do you think people ask to buff ra and blitz on previus stats because those strats are way too easy to play? Not even kidding. And you all want easy strats to be op so you could win vs skilled opponents without much effort, cuzz thats fun. Much fun. None of you asked to see buffed hw, or gc (not played enough, still strong strat, hard to play). Or any other strategy thats not in the first plan, cuzz there is always better strategies to play instead. But no, you all figured out what op blitz/ra can do, and you liked it. It made you feel like a good player. They took that away from you, you started crying and screaming about how you want it back. Do your game really depends that much on those two strategies?
Now i'll talk about world and other maps than eu. Pd will crush Ra there in expanding? I dont think so. Done with that.
As far i am concerned, i am not a ra played, but i can and maybe i could do something with it on ukraine. Maybe i would win, maybe i would lose. Try it more, figure out its weakness, strong points, play around that.

Anyways, i became tired of this..

Well, making you feel like its cheating is a personal feeling which shouldn't intervene in this decisions over a strategy

I have tried it not long ago, blitz still is plausible, RA isn't that much. Turkey easily outnumbers you and it doesn't matter how many tanks you buy, you'll hardly ever be in a position to outplay him since you won't be able to buy enough tanks easily while still wasting some money on defensive units to defend your cap at least. And those tanks don't even do enough damage to turn the game around against an imp or pd turkey. In the current form, RA's best chance is to directly rush Turkey's expansion, is that the strength you're talking about?

I personally am not a RA nor blitz player. I very rarely play them, only in very special conditions, specially RA. But I do find RA is a bit underpowered and that tanks should be a bit stronger than they are currently. I don't have anything to say about biltz.

I insist, I just played RA once or twice before the nerf, so that argument doesn't apply to me in particular, so don't generalize that much cause you could have easily offended me. You're simply trying to guess facts without evidences now and throwing accusations with no base whatsoever, which makes me feel like you're not taking me seriously and trying to insult me on a personal level. Stay on topic instead of looking down on me simply cause we don't know each other very well yet. Stop with the prejudices pls.

PD would crush RA later in world games, once RA has gone out of money. I also don't ask a buff to gc nor hw cause I barely ever play a game in which I think those strategies would fit my play style. I'm more of a NC and GW fan.

Napísal RaulPB, 18.05.2016 at 08:42

Well, making you feel like its cheating is a personal feeling which shouldn't intervene in this decisions over a strategy

I have tried it not long ago, blitz still is plausible, RA isn't that much. Turkey easily outnumbers you and it doesn't matter how many tanks you buy, you'll hardly ever be in a position to outplay him since you won't be able to buy enough tanks easily while still wasting some money on defensive units to defend your cap at least. And those tanks don't even do enough damage to turn the game around against an imp or pd turkey. In the current form, RA's best chance is to directly rush Turkey's expansion, is that the strength you're talking about?

I personally am not a RA nor blitz player. I very rarely play them, only in very special conditions, specially RA. But I do find RA is a bit underpowered and that tanks should be a bit stronger than they are currently. I don't have anything to say about biltz.

I insist, I just played RA once or twice before the nerf, so that argument doesn't apply to me in particular, so don't generalize that much cause you could have easily offended me. You're simply trying to guess facts without evidences now and throwing accusations with no base whatsoever, which makes me feel like you're not taking me seriously and trying to insult me on a personal level. Stay on topic instead of looking down on me simply cause we don't know each other very well yet. Stop with the prejudices pls.

PD would crush RA later in world games, once RA has gone out of money. I also don't ask a buff to gc nor hw cause I barely ever play a game in which I think those strategies would fit my play style. I'm more of a NC and GW fan.

If i've played 3.6k games and over 3k games are on eu map for sure, and only one strategy makes me feel like i am cheating, playing dirty, than thats not really just about personal feelings. It "felt" like that because it was too easy but still strong, which shouldnt exist in a strategy based game.

Rush t1 might be the only one legit good option. Have you ever seen ds Ukraine? Try to slowroll with it, not really a strong strat for that. Turn 1 rush tho? Super effective.

How to make tanks stronger and not to make them op. I asked you and i'll ask you again, did it feel like ra or blitz were op back then? Honestly, no matter you havent played it, you saw others. You cant buff it in the same way again, adding attack to tanks.

I was talking mostly about all blitz/ra players that played in that period, when those two strats were broken. "you" is not referring to you directly, was speaking to everyone. Like a speech on a mic in front a crowd. Hah

I am not 100% sure cuzz i am not a world map player, but i think you woudnt run out of money that easy with ra. Cuzz you can expand fast onto rich countries, preventing stagnation and going forward.
You want to buff it so you would (theoretically) play it on ukraine in a longer games. Not bad, okay. RA poland would be op. 9attack for 90 cost, definitely playable on lower fund maps. 'cause if i am correct, i saw ra there long time ago.

Napísal Steve Aoki, 18.05.2016 at 09:24

If i've played 3.6k games and over 3k games are on eu map for sure, and only one strategy makes me feel like i am cheating, playing dirty, than thats not really just about personal feelings. It "felt" like that because it was too easy but still strong, which shouldnt exist in a strategy based game.

Rush t1 might be the only one legit good option. Have you ever seen ds Ukraine? Try to slowroll with it, not really a strong strat for that. Turn 1 rush tho? Super effective.

How to make tanks stronger and not to make them op. I asked you and i'll ask you again, did it feel like ra or blitz were op back then? Honestly, no matter you havent played it, you saw others. You cant buff it in the same way again, adding attack to tanks.

I was talking mostly about all blitz/ra players that played in that period, when those two strats were broken. "you" is not referring to you directly, was speaking to everyone. Like a speech on a mic in front a crowd. Hah

I am not 100% sure cuzz i am not a world map player, but i think you woudnt run out of money that easy with ra. Cuzz you can expand fast onto rich countries, preventing stagnation and going forward.
You want to buff it so you would (theoretically) play it on ukraine in a longer games. Not bad, okay. RA poland would be op. 9attack for 90 cost, definitely playable on lower fund maps. 'cause if i am correct, i saw ra there long time ago.

Well, I have the opposite feeling that you have with RA... I feel it is useless cause people pick expensive countries/with tons of reinf and play it PD so basically they can spam inf which counters the little amount of tanks I can make since I need to pick cheaper countries/ with less reinf.

Yeah, that's true for sure.

Yeah, I've already told you, I do think blitz was strong, but I am not talking about blitz at all, I have no problem with that strat. As for RA, I feel it needs a buff but as you already said, idk what buff would make it viable without making it a killing machine. That's why I proposed the +1 att against inf possibility... but I guess it's not too atractive. Maybe modifying the HP or the critical chance of tanks would be another option, idk

You realize you were answering my comment right? What am I suposed to understand when you're building on what I said if you refer to someone as "you"? Obviously, I feel mentioned. Anyway, that's another war.

If you play RA, you either get a low reinf/cheap country, or else you run out of money really soon. The downside is that you get outnumbered by another player that picked a high reinf/expensive country which picked PD and has the initial inf plus the inf he recruited. Your initial inf is a waste of money and mostly useless to expand with.

Well... yes, kinda. At least to buff it in a way that you no longer would have that huge disadvantage when being outnumbered, which happens very often. But as I told you, I am not 100% sure whether there's an easy solution to this.

Napísal RaulPB, 18.05.2016 at 10:50

Well, I have the opposite feeling that you have with RA... I feel it is useless cause people pick expensive countries/with tons of reinf and play it PD so basically they can spam inf which counters the little amount of tanks I can make since I need to pick cheaper countries/ with less reinf.

Yeah, that's true for sure.

Yeah, I've already told you, I do think blitz was strong, but I am not talking about blitz at all, I have no problem with that strat. As for RA, I feel it needs a buff but as you already said, idk what buff would make it viable without making it a killing machine. That's why I proposed the +1 att against inf possibility... but I guess it's not too atractive. Maybe modifying the HP or the critical chance of tanks would be another option, idk

You realize you were answering my comment right? What am I suposed to understand when you're building on what I said if you refer to someone as "you"? Obviously, I feel mentioned. Anyway, that's another war.

If you play RA, you either get a low reinf/cheap country, or else you run out of money really soon. The downside is that you get outnumbered by another player that picked a high reinf/expensive country which picked PD and has the initial inf plus the inf he recruited. Your initial inf is a waste of money and mostly useless to expand with.

Well... yes, kinda. At least to buff it in a way that you no longer would have that huge disadvantage when being outnumbered, which happens very often. But as I told you, I am not 100% sure whether there's an easy solution to this.

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.

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):

Napísal 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.