How many games do you usually play at a time

2-3 at the moment but back when I played a lot I sometimes had as many as 8 running.

Most times I play one game and a front pioneer round for testing/fun.

For over 15 months, I have not played more than one competitive game at a time.

MontanaBB wrote:

For over 15 months, I have not played more than one competitive game at a time.

I've played anywhere from 1 game, up to 5, at a time. I've found the more you have going on, the more likely you are to miss something; and the more you are risking if you do not sign in in the mornings, on lunch breaks, etc.

Quasi-duck wrote:

I would find that very boring, I always have to have at least 2 games.

MontanaBB wrote:

It was stressful, and in retrospect it was challenging and fun, but it's also not conducive to a lifestyle that involves adult responsibilities, keeping one's job and paying the bills on time.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Lol, my tactic is usually just advance one or two provinces at a time so even if I don't come on for a day usually I'm fine because I have no huge salients.

1. Baiting, trapping and killing the opponent's air force early in the campaign, establishing effective air superiority.

2. Advancing into enemy territory, and hitting the opponent's front lines with a combination of tactical air, artillery, and appropriately composed ground unit formations for the terrain.

3. Using tactical air to pick off enemy ground units behind his front lines, while leaving enemy formations with high AA values to be killed by artillery, etc.

4. Using roaming hunter-killer fighter wings to hunt down any remaining or newly produced enemy aircraft squadrons.

5. Once the enemy's front lines are ripped open, employing fast-moving motorized ground units to quickly take the provinces in his rear areas, while using slow-moving non-motorized units to occupy and garrison newly captured provinces to prevent rebellions. If my fast-movers run into real resistance, then they can be reinforced within a few hours by my slow-moving ground-pounders.

6. I also prefer to capture enemy industrial complexes and other construction as intact as possible, so I don't typically rely on strategic bombers and rockets.

7. I also use massed naval gunfire against enemy ground units whenever I can.

8. Shock and awe, baby.

WiseOdin wrote:

I've found the more you have going on, the more likely you are to miss something; and the more you are risking if you do not sign in in the mornings, on lunch breaks, etc.

i've had up to 25 at once XD

Took me an hour+ to check them all

moosebobby wrote:

i've had up to 25 at once XD

MontanaBB wrote:

moosebobby wrote:

i've had up to 25 at once XD

Color me curious: what was your win-loss record in those 25 games?

still 200th in the world so i guess not bad

MontanaBB wrote:

My usual tactics against a human player include:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Tbh I don't actually run into many human players, since most of them quit before I get to them lol.

The most challenging (and most fun) games in which I've played were a couple of "starts when full" matches I set up on the 50-player Pacific map last year. In both games, we still had 40+ players active after Day 10, and a high percentage of the participants were relatively experienced (L 45+). We also had multiple competitive alliances in both. And several of the players just wouldn't die, even when their fate was a foregone conclusion. The outcome in the longer one was still in doubt at Day 90. If I hadn't gone all in to save my ally around Day 20, I would probably have been eliminated too.

MontanaBB wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Tbh I don't actually run into many human players, since most of them quit before I get to them lol.

I know. I've encountered the same problem in a number of games.

The most challenging (and most fun) games in which I've played were a couple of "starts when full" matches I set up on the 50-player Pacific map last year. In both games, we still had 40+ players active after Day 10, and a high percentage of the participants were relatively experienced (L 45+). We also had multiple competitive alliances in both. And several of the players just wouldn't die, even when their fate was a foregone conclusion. The outcome in the longer one was still in doubt at Day 90. If I hadn't gone all in to save my ally around Day 20, I would probably have been eliminated too.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Sounds pretty good, but I hate waiting for a starts when full match to fill up.

1-2 100p games and 2-3 smaller games.

MontanaBB wrote:

Trust me. If you're looking for stronger human competition, it can be worth the wait. And with the new limits on game creation, games don't take as long to fill as they used to. I'm pretty sure you can set a lower threshold than 100% for what constitutes "full" when you're the game creator, which I might recommend. Having a few AI countries helps grease the skids in the early going; it certainly contributes to having a functioning commodities market.

Quasi-duck wrote:

I'll probably get defeated though since I am so use to fighting AI at this point though haha.

And these blueprint games we're playing are a good way to . . . uh . . . get your feet wet again, if you'll pardon the joke.

MontanaBB wrote:

Go back and read your own forum advice and old comments, Duck. Some of it is pretty good. And K.Rokossovski's. And DxC's. And WildLobster's on SBDE. And Paramunac on aircraft attacks. I've learned a lot from reading those old forum comments, and hopefully I've payed some of it forward with my own forum comments and answers.

MontanaBB wrote:

And these blueprint games we're playing are a good way to . . . uh . . . get your feet wet again, if you'll pardon the joke.