Blitzkrieg: The beginner strategy?

I've been wondering why blitzkrieg attract the players more than the other strategies. After some though I conclude that doing the range maneuvers turns a lot easier with the boosted range than with the other strategies. If this is right, then a beginner player can play more efficient with blitzkrieg than with any other strategy.

Should we encourage low ranks to use Blitzkrieg?

Is there any drawback of this, specially when adapting to a low-range strategy?

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 08:22

After some though I conclude that doing the range maneuvers turns a lot easier with the boosted range than with the other strategies.

No shit... xD

For me i remember trying to choose between sm and blitz as a r4. I found sm too difficult to play, there was too much micro(filling/unloading tans, separating out units etc). I went with blitz and kept it to r8. The move to shortrange strats was difficult.

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 08:22

I've been wondering why blitzkrieg attract the players more than the other strategies. After some though I conclude that doing the range maneuvers turns a lot easier with the boosted range than with the other strategies. If this is right, then a beginner player can play more efficient with blitzkrieg than with any other strategy.

Should we encourage low ranks to use Blitzkrieg?

Is there any drawback of this, specially when adapting to a low-range strategy?

You should post this to the relevant forum. TuT TuT

''Game strategy and tips
Bestow your wisdom upon the less fortunate ones''

Never used blitz because I saw the -1 defense as a drawback so i choose RA instead. Good range, especially since you can spam tanks.

RP players use blitzkrieg the most, so no. End of discussion.

Blitzkrieg is probably why I'm still here, It was fun to use and it was easy to beat other players with, it was one of the first upgrades I bought.
I recommend it to lower ranks simply so they can have fun, gain sp, rank up and get other upgrades as a result of using it.
When I was rank 6 and soldier bought me to SA, that's when I started to learn PD, because I was being beaten by it and realized how strong it was, plus had someone to mentor me about how to use it and get over the range constrictions.. also taught me how to plan and the importance of ports and trans to get about.

But none of this is relevant because AW will be dead soon.

Blitz is probably my least played strat. SM all the way!

Написао Permamuted, 16.09.2015 at 11:10

For me i remember trying to choose between sm and blitz as a r4. I found sm too difficult to play, there was too much micro(filling/unloading tans, separating out units etc). I went with blitz and kept it to r8. The move to shortrange strats was difficult.

noob

Never chose blitz since I was already in SM before I had the decision of buying it... ended up being second to last upgrade to buy

Remember Genghis Khan. They won because of mobility.

I haven't read most of the replies in this thread, but for myself what you say seems to be true. Using Blitzkrieg as when I really began thinking in the game strategically and game doctrine into my playing style.

It's a stepping stone. I usually don't use Blitz now, but it helped me lot lots.

Blitz is cool

Написао blargh, 17.09.2015 at 07:43

Blitz is probably my least played strat. SM all the way!

I find money shortage a disadvantage for me to sm

I got discouraged early by blitz when it used to have -2 def. Nowadays I use it when I want to rush someone.

It seems like blitz is the main strategy that roleplayers use so it might be that

Blitz WAS my main strategy for world map and sometimes europe but in rank 6 someone taught me the good stuff of sm and the bad stuff of blitz.I never saw the ability of any strategy until rank 7.

I miss blitz italy in 1v1s at my glorious r5 days

I know, I'm a noob.
BUT: I can't help noticing that NOBODY talked about walling. Apart walling your main cities, maybe walling is a casual game thing only? Are you guys only playing quick games and don't have time to wall?
I only play casual games, and the fact that my militias have a big range helps me wall everything. Cities, spaces between cities, ennemy cities, stacks moving deep into ennemy territory, etc.
OK, on huge maps / world maps, I suppose it's easier to convince everyone that Blitz has its potential, but even on small maps ... on top of walling, militias can actually attack cities all the time! And they pop for free!
This being said, I'm not saying that PD or SM are less powerful ... but ... I would not say Blitz is weaker.

PS: the "new" -1 for Infantries in your own cities does give a hard blow to Blitz, though...
PPS: yes, as I said, I am a noob

Написао Noir Brillant, 08.11.2015 at 21:41

I know, I'm a noob.
BUT: I can't help noticing that NOBODY talked about walling. Apart walling your main cities, maybe walling is a casual game thing only? Are you guys only playing quick games and don't have time to wall?
I only play casual games, and the fact that my militias have a big range helps me wall everything. Cities, spaces between cities, ennemy cities, stacks moving deep into ennemy territory, etc.
OK, on huge maps / world maps, I suppose it's easier to convince everyone that Blitz has its potential, but even on small maps ... on top of walling, militias can actually attack cities all the time! And they pop for free!
This being said, I'm not saying that PD or SM are less powerful ... but ... I would not say Blitz is weaker.

PS: the "new" -1 for Infantries in your own cities does give a hard blow to Blitz, though...
PPS: yes, as I said, I am a noob

walling is easier with blitz.... never heard that before. walling is only a challenge in IF even then I mostly manage to wall with militia either by using gen or at . Walling as such has nothing to do with strategies. militias are important part of blitz in the sense that they can be used in rushes and also used in defending because range makes it very easy to move across.

Написао minusSeven, 09.11.2015 at 09:19

Написао Noir Brillant, 08.11.2015 at 21:41

I know, I'm a noob.
BUT: I can't help noticing that NOBODY talked about walling. Apart walling your main cities, maybe walling is a casual game thing only? Are you guys only playing quick games and don't have time to wall?
I only play casual games, and the fact that my militias have a big range helps me wall everything. Cities, spaces between cities, ennemy cities, stacks moving deep into ennemy territory, etc.
OK, on huge maps / world maps, I suppose it's easier to convince everyone that Blitz has its potential, but even on small maps ... on top of walling, militias can actually attack cities all the time! And they pop for free!
This being said, I'm not saying that PD or SM are less powerful ... but ... I would not say Blitz is weaker.

PS: the "new" -1 for Infantries in your own cities does give a hard blow to Blitz, though...
PPS: yes, as I said, I am a noob

walling is easier with blitz.... never heard that before. walling is only a challenge in IF even then I mostly manage to wall with militia either by using gen or at . Walling as such has nothing to do with strategies. militias are important part of blitz in the sense that they can be used in rushes and also used in defending because range makes it very easy to move across.

Well, I have done walling I could hardly have done with any other strategy in the following scenario:
- World map, typical clash in Middle East between the winner in Europe and the winner in Asia.
- You capture one or two cities at the front (e.g. in Afghanistan or Pakistan) that have already produced earlier, the only units left for you are the militias that pop up. Try to do the following with militias with another strategy: http://prntscr.com/90trtf.
That kind of walling with militias have brought me so many victories in the past. It slows the opponent down, and gives you time to wait for new production turns, or bring new armies to the front.

In my (noob) opinion, this scenario occurs very often in world games, and again in my (noob) opinion, you can't do that kind of walling with other strategies when you can't produce. If you CAN produce, you have to do it with Infantries ... which, probably, is not worth the cost, so you just don't do it.

http://prntscr.com/90u58d ... might be more convincing without building the air transports ... you capture Afghanistan, and you practically double wall in one turn, without building a single unit. This extra turn without danger is game changing, in my opinion, within the scenario described above.

Написао blargh, 17.09.2015 at 07:43

Blitz is probably my least played strat. SM all the way!

kek, i want you in a world game to see if ur Op planes can vs a bigger stack of PD Inf.

I did'nt bother to buy blitzkring until i was something like rank 7

I have noticed that more low ranks consistently use blitzkrieg.

I believe the answer as to why, is because it shows immediate effects. Other strats like PD and Imp don't really give the illusion Blitzkrieg does as the gameplay is seemingly unaffected. (We, obviously know that it indeed is, but new players may not realize this, nor realize how much of a difference -1 def. really makes.)

Plus, Blitzkrieg op in role play. A large number of new players play rp and may use things they learned from rp in outside rp games, usually ending in catastrophe but repeatedly making the same mistakes, causing them to stick with what they are comfortable with, roleplay.

Blitz was an amazing strategy before TB update. I was defeating high ranks because of tanks + air tran combo turn block. You can literally do anything you wanted as long as no one was near you. When the player discover chaining, blitz become less relevant when you can do the same with other strats. You can call all strats noob strats, but with the right mind, its even more powerful. The only reason I gave up blitz for pd, was that pd was more cheaper

Написао I_Hate_You_All, 09.11.2015 at 16:38

Написао blargh, 17.09.2015 at 07:43

Blitz is probably my least played strat. SM all the way!

kek, i want you in a world game to see if ur Op planes can vs a bigger stack of PD Inf.

no problem