Remove floating infantry in water

Let's face it, we know infantry or tanks or whatever cant float in the water and wall irl. I say remove that glitch and make only naval armies to wall.

>inb4 dont support

No support.

Full support. It makes sense to remove something that shouldn't even be there.

And Roncho, walking in shallows isn't the same as sitting in the middle of the Mediterranean sea.

No support.

Support people will start to use naval units

Kirjoittanut Desu, 01.09.2013 at 15:35

And Roncho, walking in shallows isn't the same as sitting in the middle of the Mediterranean sea.

o rly? thx desu

Full support making walls on water is like cheating as it makes Naval units useless because they can't break the walls. This is even more frustrating when using Naval Commander and someone do this.

This is long past due, really should have been fixed before at war was even released publicly. Now is the time.

Shouldn't this be reported as a bug, or has someone already done that?

instead of doing that introduce a new unit, you can assist me on the details. This is so that u don't go bankrupt on walling.
Unit: patrol boat
Max attack: 2
Max defence: 4
hitpoints:7
cost: 60
load limit: 2 units
critical hit 50% (or whatever u want)
Range: 9
Description: light warship use to patrol local waters. Can carry a small amount of units

I don't know. You're going to ruin a viable strategy.


By this logic, we should remove all walls in general. It's completely retarded to think 3 infantry (or even 3,000...) will make a perfect wall that cannot be penetrated until after it's broken.

While you're at it, we should remove the nerf on IF militia. I mean, really, irl your units are completely immobile.

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 01.09.2013 at 23:46

I don't know. You're going to ruin a viable strategy.


By this logic, we should remove all walls in general. It's completely retarded to think 3 infantry (or even 3,000...) will make a perfect wall that cannot be penetrated until after it's broken.

While you're at it, we should remove the nerf on IF militia. I mean, really, irl your units are completely immobile.

What bothers me is not that you can make walls on sea with land units, but the fact that ships cannot break them.

Kirjoittanut Pyrrhus, 02.09.2013 at 01:08

What bothers me is not that you can make walls on sea with land units, but the fact that ships cannot break them.

Pyrrhus has the right idea. I believe this will satisfies both sea wall supports and non-supporters.

Make sea walls made by land units breakable by naval units.

Support.

Support

Support

Please stop saying support and giving no fair reason for it.

Obviously, none of you have read the point I made:

Walls are generally retarded.

You can't use 3 damn infantry to make a full defense line that is completely impenetrable. That just doesn't work in real life, which is the argument you're all supporting.

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 02.09.2013 at 23:26

Please stop saying support and giving no fair reason for it.

Obviously, none of you have read the point I made:

Walls are generally retarded.

You can't use 3 damn infantry to make a full defense line that is completely impenetrable. That just doesn't work in real life, which is the argument you're all
supporting.

Walling is a huge part of atWar, especially 3-unit city walling. You could even say it's what separates the novice players from the experienced...a turning point for
every player's atWar career is learning how to wall. 3-unit wall. This was the case for me at least.

Now, as the admins have said a long time ago in other threads, each unit doesn't actually represent a single unit--it represents a whole group.

If you look at it through your perspective, then how can Infantry travel as far as Tanks? The reason why it can is because the Infantry unit is meant to be more
than just Infantry--it's also supposed to include an transport (this is a summarization of a topic where someone wanted land transports, not me bs'ing ).

Kirjoittanut Indurate, 03.09.2013 at 04:29

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 02.09.2013 at 23:26

Please stop saying support and giving no fair reason for it.

Obviously, none of you have read the point I made:

Walls are generally retarded.

You can't use 3 damn infantry to make a full defense line that is completely impenetrable. That just doesn't work in real life, which is the argument you're all
supporting.

Walling is a huge part of atWar, especially 3-unit city walling. You could even say it's what separates the novice players from the experienced...a turning point for
every player's atWar career is learning how to wall. 3-unit wall. This was the case for me at least.

Now, as the admins have said a long time ago in other threads, each unit doesn't actually represent a single unit--it represents a whole group.

If you look at it through your perspective, then how can Infantry travel as far as Tanks? The reason why it can is because the Infantry unit is meant to be more
than just Infantry--it's also supposed to include an transport (this is a summarization of a topic where someone wanted land transports, not me bs'ing ).

"in your perspective"

No. This isn't my perspective. I'm trying to use their logic against them. I don't care how large groups of infantry are, they don't make an impenetrable wall.

Their reasoning is that we should remove walls w/ infantry from the sea- which means several things would not work. France's counter to SM Spain would be ruined. Cheap walls would be totally destroyed. It would be pointless with such high cost destroyers.

Now, I can understand letting infantry walls be broken by naval units. I had no idea they couldn't be.

Removing any wall would really upset the balance of stuff, y'know.

Kirjoittanut Aetius, 01.09.2013 at 16:45

This is long past due, really should have been fixed before at war was even released publicly. Now is the time.

This.

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 02.09.2013 at 23:26

Please stop saying support and giving no fair reason for it.

Obviously, none of you have read the point I made:

Walls are generally retarded.

You can't use 3 damn infantry to make a full defense line that is completely impenetrable. That just doesn't work in real life, which is the argument you're all supporting.

Yes, it should be you need more units and the more you have the stronger it is and less likely to break, the less players can easily break and go past even same turn. Also the bigger it is the weaker it becomes as well. And yes naval units can't break land walls, very annoying in north EU around russia.

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 01.09.2013 at 23:46

I don't know. You're going to ruin a viable strategy.


By this logic, we should remove all walls in general. It's completely retarded to think 3 infantry (or even 3,000...) will make a perfect wall that cannot be penetrated until after it's broken.

While you're at it, we should remove the nerf on IF militia. I mean, really, irl your units are completely immobile.

Wf is also a viable strategy you know.....

I am tunder3, and i support removing infantry walls on water.
Help tunder and atwar by supporting this idea.

Kirjoittanut Skittzophrenic, 01.09.2013 at 15:14

we know infantry or tanks or whatever cant float in the water and wall irl.

Shit, lets face it ...no unit can make walls on land either.

btw. everyone stop saying "this is no realistic or that is not realistic" ...join the army if you whant realism.

Kirjoittanut Thunderballs, 01.09.2013 at 15:38

Img

No support.

Yeah.... How is he gonna aim.. And how much time he can swim without getting tired and dying? Oh, did i told you about the sharcks?

That grammar

Kirjoittanut Mr House, 03.09.2013 at 11:50

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 01.09.2013 at 23:46

I don't know. You're going to ruin a viable strategy.


By this logic, we should remove all walls in general. It's completely retarded to think 3 infantry (or even 3,000...) will make a perfect wall that cannot be penetrated until after it's broken.

While you're at it, we should remove the nerf on IF militia. I mean, really, irl your units are completely immobile.

Wf is also a viable strategy you know.....

I am tunder3, and i support removing infantry walls on water.
Help tunder and atwar by supporting this idea.

What?

I just put your whole argument to shit.

This is a ridiculous suggestion. We might as well remove walls as a whole by the logic you carry.

Units over waters are fine. If you remove land-unit defense lines over sea, then remove defense lines in general. It's the same damn concept, you're all just being babies about it.

One thing I do agree with is allowing naval units to break land-unit defense lines. That is only logical.

Besides that, if you support this and give no logical reasoning, I don't think you deserve to have your opinion acknowledged at all.

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 03.09.2013 at 18:13

Kirjoittanut Mr House, 03.09.2013 at 11:50

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 01.09.2013 at 23:46

I don't know. You're going to ruin a viable strategy.


By this logic, we should remove all walls in general. It's completely retarded to think 3 infantry (or even 3,000...) will make a perfect wall that cannot be penetrated until after it's broken.

While you're at it, we should remove the nerf on IF militia. I mean, really, irl your units are completely immobile.

Wf is also a viable strategy you know.....

I am tunder3, and i support removing infantry walls on water.
Help tunder and atwar by supporting this idea.

What?

I just put your whole argument to shit.

This is a ridiculous suggestion. We might as well remove walls as a whole by the logic you carry.

Units over waters are fine. If you remove land-unit defense lines over sea, then remove defense lines in general. It's the same damn concept, you're all just being babies about it.

One thing I do agree with is allowing naval units to break land-unit defense lines. That is only logical.

Besides that, if you support this and give no logical reasoning, I don't think you deserve to have your opinion acknowledged at all.

because infantry is not a naval unit.
we should allow destroyers to move in land!

Kirjoittanut Mr House, 03.09.2013 at 18:44

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 03.09.2013 at 18:13

Kirjoittanut Mr House, 03.09.2013 at 11:50

Kirjoittanut Dr Lecter, 01.09.2013 at 23:46

I don't know. You're going to ruin a viable strategy.


By this logic, we should remove all walls in general. It's completely retarded to think 3 infantry (or even 3,000...) will make a perfect wall that cannot be penetrated until after it's broken.

While you're at it, we should remove the nerf on IF militia. I mean, really, irl your units are completely immobile.

Wf is also a viable strategy you know.....

I am tunder3, and i support removing infantry walls on water.
Help tunder and atwar by supporting this idea.

What?

I just put your whole argument to shit.

This is a ridiculous suggestion. We might as well remove walls as a whole by the logic you carry.

Units over waters are fine. If you remove land-unit defense lines over sea, then remove defense lines in general. It's the same damn concept, you're all just being babies about it.

One thing I do agree with is allowing naval units to break land-unit defense lines. That is only logical.

Besides that, if you support this and give no logical reasoning, I don't think you deserve to have your opinion acknowledged at all.

because infantry is not a naval unit.
we should allow destroyers to move in land!

That's all I needed. One fair argument.

I support removing walls over seas with land units.

I liked the flower walls, bring them back.

Kirjoittanut Skittzophrenic, 03.09.2013 at 21:56

I liked the flower walls, bring them back.

This, a million, bazillion times. If we're gonna remove inf-sea-walls, bring back flower power.