Bringing Blitz to SM's level

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that Blitz isn't even doing it's original job anymore: To expand faster than anyone can keep up with while keeping it mid-priced

Why do I say this? Sky Menace. While I'm now learning to play SM and enjoy it as a strategy, I'd like if I could use my old favorite every once in a while.

First off, Sky Menace expands faster than Blitz. With the fact that bombers and air transports are high-distance units, SM actually has a much larger range than Blitz can keep up with.

Secondly, Sky Menace is meant to be an expensive strategy, but once you've gotten the areas you want in SM, you tend to not even need to worry about money as much as the average Blitz player. (I speak from experience)

Finally, there's the fact that SM is entirely unhindered by land/sea barriers while Blitz is.


So, what I'm saying is, SM does Blitz's job better while also having none of the weaknesses. I'm not suggesting a nerf for SM though; Just a buff to Blitz.

What do I suggest with this buff? +1 extra movement range to tanks (For a total of +3), -20 cost to tanks.

What does this offer? Firstly, it solves the problem of Blitz being more expensive than SM in many situations (It currently offers weaker units for a similar cost) Secondly, it allows Blitz to (hopefully) start expanding faster than SM again, giving it the edge that it was designed specifically for. Why tanks, you ask? Because tanks were the very unit that enabled the Blitzkreig to exist and caused the fall of much of Europe once the real-life tactic was developed. Also, among most players, tanks tend to be a bit of a joke because of how counterable they are. So they could use a little something

I'll be honest, I never play Blitz, but this sounds like a good idea from the armchair. What about something to counter the buff in another area, like -1 atk inf?

^Supported

Napsáno Guest14502, 19.06.2012 at 10:12

I'll be honest, I never play Blitz, but this sounds like a good idea from the armchair. What about something to counter the buff in another area, like -1 atk inf?

I could see that, sounds like a fair idea to me.

Blitz tanks tend to fail a bit in battles. And Infantry in blitz are almost useless due to low attack so maybe how about a +1 attack to both Tanks and infantry. After all what good is massive range if your units aren't very strong.

Napsáno Deray YG, 20.06.2012 at 09:50

Blitz tanks tend to fail a bit in battles. And Infantry in blitz are almost useless due to low attack so maybe how about a +1 attack to both Tanks and infantry. After all what good is massive range if your units aren't very strong.

I think that adding infantry power would run the risk of overbuffing it. Besides, Blitz players don't tend to use infantry for attacking as much.

Personally, I don't think the counternerf is entirely necessary for this buff as Blitz is already heavily disadvantages at defense, but if it'd satisfy other players it would be a good tradeoff

True lol.

Idea, why you die so easily? qq

Seriously though, consider this shit. <3

I use Blitz and SM a lot and I don't agree with this at all. Blitz expands a lot faster than SM and is doing its job.

SM has an effective range of around 17 with its main attacking unit, and militia walking out of transports can match it to cap. Blitz' main attacking unit, a tanks/inf mix, has a range of 25-26 (walking out of an air transport). Both strategies rely on air transports to supply land units, but with Blitz you can go as far as you can walk out of the transport. With SM you're bound by the distance from your source of bombers. SM is probably the second fastest by a good margin, but definitely not faster than Blitz. When I play Blitz I go much faster than with SM using air transports.

But you're also spending more on the air transports for Blitz as well, once again coming to the conclusion that SM doesn't seem to maintain it's original "high cost" criteria.

With Blitzkreig, if you want to invade you have to get all of your units inside of the transports to match the distance, meaning you're buying a lot more air transports at a cost that's 200 higher. Or you have to accept the distance without the air transports (much more common) which again leads to slower speeds than SM.

What about:
tanks: +1 attack +1 movement -20 price.
inf: -1 attack

remember
Blitz was made for a short war period. Germany was expecting to fight like a year or 2 in the war.

Napsáno Tundy, 28.07.2012 at 21:05

What about:
tanks: +1 attack +1 movement -20 price.
inf: -1 attack

remember
Blitz was made for a short war period. Germany was expecting to fight like a year or 2 in the war.

This is exactly the culmination of what's been suggested in the thread.

No, no, no all of this breaks the spirit of blitzkrieg. The strategy would be a lot more fun with +1 attack to ALL units, keep cost as is or it would be OP as fuck. If blitz can't into defence, at least it should be able to attack.

Tanks are already fast enough, they are expensive from the start and in my opinion tanks should cost 10 less in every strategy that uses them except GC and IF.

You can only select 1 buff or the strategy would be very OP. I suggest +1 attack, would help a lot in team games* and save a lot of units which in the end helps more your income than lowering unit cost. (see PD Infantry)

*Blitz is mainly usable for world games

Hm.

Well, honestly I think most Blitz players heavily depend on tanks, I really think that adjusting it for tanks would play better to it's strengths. Most players seem to support the original buff and counternerf, so I couldn't see it being all too OP.

Though I did realize that I accidentally accepted to the +1 atk that I didn't mean to.

Hm.

Well, upon reconsideration, maybe tank buffs aren't the proper way to handle Blitz. We do have a strategy focused on tanks (Tank general), after all.

I could see a +1 attack buff, but I'm not feeling like that would balance it up. I mean, it's pathetic defense just straight up kills it in most games. Even in world games, you have to be really careful to be on the offense at the end game, so you don't lose huge amounts of troops for no reason.

Was there ever a time where Blitz just had it's current stats with only -1 Defense where it needed farther nerfed or something?

Perhaps that would balance it back up, at the very least we could test it if it hasn't happened before?

No, it would be insanely OP and would lose it's singularity.

Sounds about right, just wondering if it had been tried before.

Hm.

Yeah, lets just boost Blitz with +1 attack on Tanks,Infantry,Militia.

Napsáno Tundy, 31.07.2012 at 14:32

Yeah, lets just boost Blitz with +1 attack on Tanks,Infantry,Militia.

Nope, bombers and destroyers too, every unit needs this buff for it to work.

I love blitz, and I think blitz strategy already is good with tanks that got -8 attack. However this is in world games, and in Europe+ 1vs1 I believe it would be tough (fail?), but it depends. Anyway, Back in the time, I never played blitz due to its defence, and now I really know how good it's because of its range and attack after i started experminting.

I never considered how blitz would match up against sm in world games. But I think you can say blitz is already very good. I believe I dont need to mention some pretty high ranked players who is known to dominates world games with ease.

This is what I wanted to say.

Napsáno Sixstars, 31.07.2012 at 19:15

I love blitz, and I think blitz strategy already is good with tanks that got -8 attack. However this is in world games, and in Europe+ 1vs1 I believe it would be tough (fail?), but it depends. Anyway, Back in the time, I never played blitz due to its defence, and now I really know how good it's because of its range and attack after i started experminting.

I never considered how blitz would match up against sm in world games. But I think you can say blitz is already very good. I believe I dont need to mention some pretty high ranked players who is known to dominates world games with ease.

This is what I wanted to say.

You know Fruit occasionally plays (and wins) games with Naval Commander, that still doesn't make it ok.

It is underpowered and should be given some attention... It's the strategy that costs the most SP.

If +1 attack results too much it will be nerfed just as quickly, but more likely there will be threads thanking about how this makes it completely more interesting to use...

I disagree, blitz expands the fastest by far. (remember militia range)

IMO, they should make militia 4 defence instead of 2. and infantry 5 defence instead of 4.

Citovat:

You know Fruit occasionally plays (and wins) games with Naval Commander, that still doesn't make it ok.

It is underpowered and should be given some attention... It's the strategy that costs the most SP.

If +1 attack results too much it will be nerfed just as quickly, but more likely there will be threads thanking about how this makes it completely more interesting to use...

Add +1 attack for tanks, and they will outpower all other strategies. Think about it.

Napsáno Sixstars, 08.08.2012 at 05:11

Add +1 attack for tanks, and they will outpower all other strategies. Think about it.

If that happens, the community will never stop with constant complaints about it, and it will be rather quickly nerfed back down. But as far as I can see, Blitz is rather incapable at most combat simply because if any of their units are caught on defense at all (especially tanks, which are already low enough on def), they're immediately killed off at ridiculous death tolls. If you're going to make blitz incapable of protecting itself, at the least it would be nice if it could get some more efficiency on offense.

I dont know where I stand with giving +1 attack to tanks (or all units), or +1 movement range to tanks, but I think just reducing the price of tanks by -20 would do wounders, seeing is how you lose so many in the course of a game by being attacked with their worthless defence.

I dunno about any nerfs to infantry though. I use alot of infantry as space fillers to conserve my money, because pumping pure tanks is very costly, but if tanks get a reduction in price I could see infantry being nerfed to compensate.

Citovat:

Napsáno Sixstars, 08.08.2012 at 05:11

You know Fruit occasionally plays (and wins) games with Naval Commander, that still doesn't make it ok.

It is underpowered and should be given some attention... It's the strategy that costs the most SP.

If +1 attack results too much it will be nerfed just as quickly, but more likely there will be threads thanking about how this makes it completely more interesting to use...

Add +1 attack for tanks, and they will outpower all other strategies. Think about it.

no

Napsáno FrancisL.Sampson, 09.08.2012 at 23:22

I dont know where I stand with giving +1 attack to tanks (or all units), or +1 movement range to tanks, but I think just reducing the price of tanks by -20 would do wounders, seeing is how you lose so many in the course of a game by being attacked with their worthless defence.

I dunno about any nerfs to infantry though. I use alot of infantry as space fillers to conserve my money, because pumping pure tanks is very costly, but if tanks get a reduction in price I could see infantry being nerfed to compensate.

You will run out of reinforcements and lose land, then be unable to regain land because of your lack of a strong attack unit.

Just add the +1 attack to tanks and infantry and lets see if that fixes the problem

Or better yet, all a person needs to do is lower the cost of air transport and transport. Keep the attack and defense the same. Blitz is about speed, so lets make it affordable to be fast.

Napsáno Cthulhu, 21.09.2012 at 03:23

Or better yet, all a person needs to do is lower the cost of air transport and transport. Keep the attack and defense the same. Blitz is about speed, so lets make it affordable to be fast.

Actually a very sexy idea. I like it.