Players League - Sign up for August

Redd Baron wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

But I don't know if anyone else out there plays quite like me. Surely there must be some.

Diabolical wrote:

Alas, I was one that vanished...I was literally surrounded by a coalition that engulfed me despite my best defensive posture.

Explain to me again why anyone would want to aspire to this mid range moderately good play level? To be the best you must be able to beat the best. Using up allies like you claim to do in your previous grandiose post doesn't seem to me to be an elite strategy at all. Sure you have proven you have some moderate level of skills, but as long as you think you are so much better than everyone else, you'll never learn and never improve your play.

You say I must beat the best to be the best. While that is seemingly true, you make one monumental error. You are implying that you, sir, are the best. I have yet to see you prove this.

You may continue to deride that strategy of mine that you've mentioned, sir. You claim it is "mediocre", but when it is appropriate to be utilized, to not do so would be foolish. But you should consider also that this is not my only strategy. It is simply one strategy that I have published because of it's flamboyantly descriptive and provocative nature.

Surely you don't really think that I know no other strategy? And, pardon my bluntness sir, but you haven't faced me since I was a relatively new player. So meet me again on the battlefield and learn whether my strategies are still "mediocre"...and I shall send you running home to your mama.

As I am sometimes fond of quoting -- from a former ego:

"You want to learn strategy? I'll give you strategy. Victory? I'll show you victory. But cunning? Meet me on the battlefield and I'll teach you cunning. (However, once you've met me on the battlefield, you will never dare speak of such things again.)"

However, since first quoting that particular spiel, I have since come to the conclusion that you just can't teach cunning to others. It must be bred. It must be built-in. You can't really learn it, though some can achieve a modicum of cunning through rote practice utilizing dynamic variables. However, if you aren't born with cunning, you will never understand it's true nature.

I have that kind of cunning. Do you?

ScareCrow wrote:

First, with all due respect to my friend Diabolical, i offer some insight from my point of view. I had created my own coalition ( I am France) which you decided not to join and created one of your own. I messaged both you and Lobster to team up and your offer was a claim on all surrounding territory and i would get a NAP. So i passed on that non-offer and instead ended up disbanding my coal to join Lobster who brought his alliance mate Poland into the fold. Poland ended up playing perhaps 10 minutes a day and his inactivity sealed his doom, not your actions. But to post in the newspaper that all our units were on your border was not just false, it attempted to sway other neighboring players into getting involved to 'avenge' your defeat which made you appear to be vindictive and manipulative. Im not saying you were, i am simply saying you appeared that way.

We were unable to get our troops to Poland in time to make much of a difference and ended up getting a NAP with the Ukraine,Sweden,Finland coalition that did nothing but cut off our eastern expansion opportunities soon after. I did not negotiate that NAP. And to be honest, this is the one time i have ever considered violating a NAP as it almost sealed the game for our opponents. We replaced Poland with the active player in Algeria and have since then expanded where we could.

That you didn't even bother negotiating for the low countries or Switzerland, but simply rejected my NAP offer out of hand, indicated a lack of foresight into your diplomacy. Sure, I could have done things differently, but you did jump to conclusions about my intent. Still, it was an enjoyable match for me, in that you offered a good challenge on my western front.

I have no delusions about the way things went. Wild Lobster took advantage of a unique and unfortunate diplomatic situation on my part. When I went searching for allies, I received only silence. Nothing I could have done would have changed that fact. That he surprised me by coming up through Austria was my mistake and I admit that for not planning for it. I gambled that he'd join you on the western front. I was away when Austria's west-most province fell so I wasn't even aware that I needed to pull any units back in time to defend Munich. That is my problem.

I would even go so far as to gamble that Italy might have spied my lands to see that I offered no resistance. But that would have been unnecessary. It is more likely that Wild Lobster simply (and rightfully) assumed that I had all defenses to the east and west...actually, I even had northern defenses against an unsure situation with UK and the Scandinavian opponents.

But I left my southern front unguarded. To my own credit, when I did return and saw the situation in the south, I knew it was already over. I didn't imagine that I'd "save the day". There was no help coming from anyone. I could have stayed holed up in my fortresses along your border and Poland's, but I would have only lasted slightly longer and I would have lost everything in the middle of my nation anyway. That I went for broke on all fronts was a "hail Mary". Sometimes, in spite of planning and strategy, you just have to rely on a little luck. And my luck ran out.

As for your opponents' victory being "sealed", perhaps you should talk with Wild Lobster about how the situation is not so dire. I'm sure he sees the advantages that you and he has. I've checked into the match a couple times recently and the current map configuration as I've observed at the last is such that both your alliance and the Scandinavian one could each dominate the other. And, given the players left, I'd still put my money on your alliance.

Diabolical wrote:

So meet me again on the battlefield and learn whether my strategies are still "mediocre"...and I shall send you running home to your mama.

Paramunac wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

So meet me again on the battlefield and learn whether my strategies are still "mediocre"...and I shall send you running home to your mama.

That was pretty bold. You should be careful about what you say here, for you will most likely be in a situation to have to prove it. Many people in PL were good at "talking", none of them survived the action.

Just my 2 cents on this whole discussion.

I played against Diabolical in first PL game and he is a decent player that sees opportunities and goes after them. At least he plays the game and tries to win unlike many others I have tried to team up with. Although he didn't best 4 nations on his own as he says...

I am watching Redd Baron play this round and see another player that aggressively plays the game and only goal is to win. Haven't met him in battle yet, but I respect what he is doing so far and expect a fun battle at some point.

The banter between them is funny and I would like to see more Hopefully they can meet in next months PL and settle it!

Well my first venture into the PL was short lived, I think I was both unlucky and outclassed. I hope I have learnt from the experience. Thank you guys I will try again.

killemall wrote:

Just my 2 cents on this whole discussion.

I played against Diabolical in first PL game and he is a decent player that sees opportunities and goes after them. At least he plays the game and tries to win unlike many others I have tried to team up with. Although he didn't best 4 nations on his own as he says...

I am watching Redd Baron play this round and see another player that aggressively plays the game and only goal is to win. Haven't met him in battle yet, but I respect what he is doing so far and expect a fun battle at some point.

The banter between them is funny and I would like to see more Hopefully they can meet in next months PL and settle it!

To be fair, I never said my war was entirely fought alone. However, in the earlier stages of the main war, I was alone on my southern and far-southern fronts. That being said, I did get lots of help from the Ontario player and we did make a good team. There were others, of course, but I can't mention everyone. Furthermore, towards the end of the match, seeing that I was not going to have enough time to get into the top three, I figured I could at least be a good ally to Ontario so I helped him and encouraged him to make it into 3rd. place. He was close already, and I sided with him. I have no animosity toward anyone in that match and it was a very fun match.

But I won't step down from saying that, if I'd had another week or so, I would have easily risen to the top three, and perhaps even first place. I play the long-game. I'm not into early-match Zergling rushes and I plan for -- and defend against -- them very well. But, the contest is settled, the time limit fixed (should it be?), and the match is over. That being said, I have suggested that the larger maps should be extended further than 4 weeks. But, I won't quibble [further] over the past.

I prefer to quibble over the future, instead.

Diabolical wrote:

Lesson 1.) You are my pawn. You do not realize that you are my pawn. I will give you certain concessions to let you feel like you are doing a good job while I reap the real rewards from your efforts.

Lesson 2.) You will lose. I won't back-stab you. But I will put you in a situation where my enemies will wear themselves out while defeating you or else I will supply you with an irresistible opportunity to back-stab me with a suitably lucrative bait. You will then declare war on me and I will then defeat you.

Lesson 3.) After you are gone, I will defeat your other enemies. You may check in later on and wonder how I was able to sweep through all that land that you thought was so well guarded or else you will see that I've totally wiped out the nation that got you. And you will wonder how I did it. You might even ask me. And I will tell you only vague answers without ever lying. Because I never lie.

Lesson 4.) You will later come across this posting or something else like it. You will assume that I'm talking only about Noobs and not you, because you've already reached level 40 and you've been playing for a few months now. Why, you just know that you are good. So, this clearly isn't about you. But, while you think this is not about you -- in fact -- it is exactly...about you.

Lesson 5.) Some of you will learn from this and become actual, bonafide, decent players. Later on -- In another match -- you will encounter me as a potential threat. You will be a real opponent that I must be concerned about. You will then be defeated by me after you've wasted half your forces on a new set of pawns...working for me. Thus, I win...again.

killemall wrote:

Just my 2 cents on this whole discussion.

...

The banter between them is funny and I would like to see more Hopefully they can meet in next months PL and settle it!

Diabolical wrote:

You are implying that you, sir, are the best. I have yet to see you prove this

[/quote]

Don't worry too much about Dia, he is 90% talk and 10% power.

Redd Baron wrote:

I made no claims implied or otherwise to my play skills. In fact last game my coalition won, and this game is winning, but the outcome is not settled yet. Lots more game to play. But you want to talk about being jumped on by 4? Well it sounds like excuses. It is quite common to be ganged up on in CoW. Right this very moment I am fighting 5 enemies at once and looks like it will be 8 at the end of the day. They could potentially even win. But if they do win, I can assure you I will congratulate them on a great game instead of crying on forums and making excuses.

I did not say that being "jumped on by 4" was anything of a problem. It was only an hindrence to my usual strategic timing...which is slower than most other players. As I've said in other posts, I play the long game. My strategic outlook reflects this. Thus these short one-month matches are actually quite challenging for me as I've had to adapt my strategies to match. In the next match, I look forward to applying what I've learned in the latest match I've won (yes, with allies) where we actually finished the map on day 11 (it was an unfair route, but I'll take any victory).

And I don't cry on the forums. This was brought up because of responses to responses to posts and to posts. I don't even remember why it came up. But, I did congratulate the [potential] winners of my last tournament match for their decisive victory against me. I have stated that I don't deny my loss. And, yes, getting ganged up on is not fair. But it tends to happen to me a lot due to my arrogant-sounding posts where I will play=act like a dictator. Thus I've gotten quite good at defending against multiple enemies, in general.

Redd Baron wrote:

To be absolutely fair, the post he made I object to is above. Even if he manages a win, using up allies like they are meat puppets is no way to play the game, and certainly not an "elite" strategy. Forming a team where everyone has an opportunity to win while all having fun is a sign of an elite player, win or lose.

"Forming a team where everyone has an opportunity to win while all having fun"....that is no sign of an elite player. That is only a sign of a nice player. I'm nice. I actually do make real allies. I tend to be quite loyal to my allies. But I also choose my allies very carefully. And if they abandon the match, their lands may end up getting swallowed up by me out of convenience. But, more often, lately, I tend to preserve and even protect their lands in case they should return to the match days and even weeks after abandoning.

Of course, letting a next-door AI metastasize for a few weeks and then kicking the inactive players to recruit a new ally can be hilarious. But that strategy can backfire if they are not loyal or if your other enemies create Right of Passage with my former allies (I actually lost a huge fleet of Nuclear Bombers which got wiped out on the ground by a small Tactical Bomber fleet while I slept one night because the bombers came down through AI-controlled Canada into my USA stronghold).

Indeed, I'll humbly admit how humiliating that particular news report was when I woke up the next morning. So, by admitting this, I can show just how rational my strategies can be. I am a great strategist, yet I can make mistakes. I could have easily flown those bombers to a safe airfield but I didn't. Am I making "excuses"? No! I've just shown you how significantly a tactical blunder (or someone else's near-genius maneuver) can make or break a match. As it is, since that opening salvo in the war that is currently happening in that match has occurred, we've been largely stalemated. Something for which I'm currently rectifying, but difficult since I'm technically outgunned by an economy more than twice my size.

To be fair towards Diabolical, I understand the underflow of what he is saying. Because of certain standard tactics the good/elite use in the game, there is little room for the long term player. I recognise this problem for myself as well. I usually want to be agressive early game, conservative midgame and agressive late game after building up both econ and a balanced army, using the early wins as a means to stay ahead economic output wise.

As I constantly see this approach being not meta effective, its often frustrating for long term players who recognise the fun and importance of an economy, instead of pillaging other peoples economic endevours - the core of the almighty zerg approach. This PL round I actually made a full anti zerg strategy, expecting Redd Baron to be the main adversary. And he was, but he too has changed his approach and surprised me with many things I didnt expect. Too bad I was outnumbered 4 to 1 in units (noob bumrushes can set you back!) and my allies not really in a position to offer much help. It was my best shot at the end victory in a long while in the PL and again I didnt have the chance to really test an effective anti zerg approach on equal(lish) terms against a good opponent.

@Diabolical you yourself recognise you have a certain way of speaking that could get you into trouble. Remember, a long term player is an excellent diplomat as well. It doesnt help if you trumpet everywhere that you use some or most of the people as human shields. The PL game I mentioned in the previous paragraph - that same diplomacy ensured that Redds team is now actually in trouble, because I rallied half the map against them even before the war started (sorry Redd!). Too late for me, but still I get a bit of satisfaction knowing I still havent lost my touch at diplomacy.

Though something tells me I was just the first sacrificial idiot in the fight-everyone-knew-had-to-happen-at-some-point, as the help came REALLY late from the 3rd team.

Oh well, hopefully I still get 2 points

miech wrote:

To be fair towards Diabolical, I understand the underflow of what he is saying. Because of certain standard tactics the good/elite use in the game, there is little room for the long term player. I recognise this problem for myself as well. I usually want to be agressive early game, conservative midgame and agressive late game after building up both econ and a balanced army, using the early wins as a means to stay ahead economic output wise.

As I constantly see this approach being not meta effective, its often frustrating for long term players who recognise the fun and importance of an economy, instead of pillaging other peoples economic endevours - the core of the almighty zerg approach. This PL round I actually made a full anti zerg strategy, expecting Redd Baron to be the main adversary. And he was, but he too has changed his approach and surprised me with many things I didnt expect. Too bad I was outnumbered 4 to 1 in units (noob bumrushes can set you back!) and my allies not really in a position to offer much help. It was my best shot at the end victory in a long while in the PL and again I didnt have the chance to really test an effective anti zerg approach on equal(lish) terms against a good opponent.

@Diabolical you yourself recognise you have a certain way of speaking that could get you into trouble. Remember, a long term player is an excellent diplomat as well. It doesnt help if you trumpet everywhere that you use some or most of the people as human shields. The PL game I mentioned in the previous paragraph - that same diplomacy ensured that Redds team is now actually in trouble, because I rallied half the map against them even before the war started (sorry Redd!). Too late for me, but still I get a bit of satisfaction knowing I still havent lost my touch at diplomacy.

Though something tells me I was just the first sacrificial idiot in the fight-everyone-knew-had-to-happen-at-some-point, as the help came REALLY late from the 3rd team.

Oh well, hopefully I still get 2 points

I completely agree with you on the Zergling stuff. And, yes, there are good defenses against it. As I've stated before, this tournament is hard on the long-term player strategies. Sure, we could all just zerg the heck out of it and the matches would be over in a week. But where's the fun in that? I don't want to "bum-rush" my opponents. I want to outmaneuver them and draw their forces into a trap and out-think them at every turn. That is what feeds both my ego and my addiction to strategy.

And to be fair, in the world of Call of War, aren't we ALL just a bunch of sacrificial idiots.

Vote for ITP

Vote Diabolical

Thanks

Though I must say, the last PL game (July) was a true test of diplomacy for me - there was so much happening in diplomatic sense that it was hard to keep track of everything, which also caused friction in my own team. Heck, even the backstabbing Africans (multiple times) were a fresh change of pace - since in my experience backstabbing is actually quite rare. From a strategists point of view, I can actually appreciate a well executed backstab, even though I never do it myself.

Though if you are going to do it, better do it in such a way that victory is near certain because of the backstab (in which the Africans back then, failed).

On a side note, I hope to one day find a similar game to this one that is even more strategic (as in: less micro stuff, more macro). This weekend I tried to find one. Took me a good few hours and I failed to find something. Either it was too complex, too simple, a poor interface or standard pay-to-win mechanics. I dont even really care what the setting is (though WW2 or Space have my preferences, Fantasy could be ok too).

miech wrote:

On a side note, I hope to one day find a similar game to this one that is even more strategic (as in: less micro stuff, more macro). This weekend I tried to find one. Took me a good few hours and I failed to find something. Either it was too complex, too simple, a poor interface or standard pay-to-win mechanics. I dont even really care what the setting is (though WW2 or Space have my preferences, Fantasy could be ok too).

Hm...for years, I've wanted to make my own strategy game...a space setting. I've come up with an awesome game engine concept for an entirely-3D universe that would allow for both efficient and complex full-scale 3D graphical and interactive game-play. To ensure universal and easy integration with any system, the whole engine would be coded in C# with a customized internal database and implemented with a SQL storage interface. I've already a core database design from another application I built a few years back and I've also got some of the game's structure coded.

My only big impediment is procrastination and a lack of focus (I have ADHD). But, someday, I hope to find some like-minded enthusiasts that will encourage me to continue and help me with some of the design details and graphical artwork. I was involved in another project a couple years ago, but my financial partner got disinterested and just quit attending meetings and such. So that project was lost in the weeds. Still, the potential to make a good application exists if anyone is willing to get serious about making a new game. That's how software businesses are born.

Vote for ITP

Vote Diabolical

Game 3 Day 16 update

one coalition eliminated, two coalitions down to just one province.

one coalition in severe difficulty due to banned player.

possible NAP violation, which could cause a total disruption of the entire balance of power.

WayneBo wrote:

one coalition in severe difficulty due to banned player.

miech wrote:

The PL game I mentioned in the previous paragraph - that same diplomacy ensured that Redds team is now actually in trouble, because I rallied half the map against them even before the war started (sorry Redd!). Too late for me, but still I get a bit of satisfaction knowing I still havent lost my touch at diplomacy.

Though something tells me I was just the first sacrificial idiot in the fight-everyone-knew-had-to-happen-at-some-point, as the help came REALLY late from the 3rd team.

Oh well, hopefully I still get 2 points

You posted as game admin in charge of making sure game rules were followed this in Newspaper:

"To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"

Now I don't know if you had a real NAP, or just an unwritten "understanding". But it is certainly clear by your own words you did in fact make a hidden alliance beyond the 3 player limit. Soft unenforceable rule i know, and I am happy to get the chance to try and beat 7( players at once with my coalition mates. I consider it a high honor that you felt I was that dangerous.

However, please don't do this again to anyone else. While common in regular games it certainly goes against the intended spirit for players league. Expected from a regular player maybe, but you were the mod for the game. Dancing that razors edge between what is allowed and what isn't. If anyone should follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules, it should be you. Or if everyone feels hidden alliances and military planning of joint ventures above the limit of 3 players, then don't post this as a rule in Newspaper, So everyone has the opportunity to be allied with 1/2 the map according to their diplomatic ability.

PS Multiple people did actually approach me in the hopes of doing the same. I rejected them and tried to figure out a way to do it within the spirit of the rules. Silly me.

Redd Baron wrote:

"To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"

Xarus wrote:

To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner, i.e. NAP partners must not use your land to attack other players and vice versa.

So, by making military plans with a NAP partner it is only considered using land for attacking third player. It is not forbidden to talk with other players about joint operaitons like mutual declaration of war against third party. That would be both impossible to enforce and stupid. After all, didn't our coalition in july match do similar things? We talked with other people, had different arrangements, sharing information about common enemies? That is all normal and expected.

ps. miech really loves turning other people against those who he considers the threat, or at least trying to do that

Yes para, I did say dancing the razors edge. But I would point out, I had thought this new rules "clarification" was to try and stop what you and me had done in the previous game where nothing like that was posted. I will also forget the personal conversation he had with me officially as game mod to make sure I was strictly following these "soft rules". Silly me. I will just call it an unfortunate phrasing of words. And be aware in the next round.

Redd Baron wrote:

You posted as game admin in charge of making sure game rules were followed this in Newspaper:

"To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"

Now I don't know if you had a real NAP, or just an unwritten "understanding". But it is certainly clear by your own words you did in fact make a hidden alliance beyond the 3 player limit. Soft unenforceable rule i know, and I am happy to get the chance to try and beat 7( players at once with my coalition mates. I consider it a high honor that you felt I was that dangerous.

However, please don't do this again to anyone else. While common in regular games it certainly goes against the intended spirit for players league. Expected from a regular player maybe, but you were the mod for the game. Dancing that razors edge between what is allowed and what isn't. If anyone should follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules, it should be you. Or if everyone feels hidden alliances and military planning of joint ventures above the limit of 3 players, then don't post this as a rule in Newspaper, So everyone has the opportunity to be allied with 1/2 the map according to their diplomatic ability.

PS Multiple people did actually approach me in the hopes of doing the same. I rejected them and tried to figure out a way to do it within the spirit of the rules. Silly me.

This is exactly what I faced in the July match...an unenforceable "soft" rule that even the mods won't really follow. And, like Baron, I stared down that barrel of opposition and said "pull your trigger".

It takes guts to take on so many opponents. In the July round, I defeated three other opponents before nearly taking down those other four. So, I can sympathize with what you are facing.

For once, I wish they'd decide EXACTLY what the rules are PRECISELY so that there can be no question as to what is and is not allowed.

Paramunac wrote:

Redd Baron wrote:

"To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"

That is not the full quote. Check this:

Xarus wrote:

To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner, i.e. NAP partners must not use your land to attack other players and vice versa.

So, by making military plans with a NAP partner it is only considered using land for attacking third player. It is not forbidden to talk with other players about joint operaitons like mutual declaration of war against third party. That would be both impossible to enforce and stupid. After all, didn't our coalition in july match do similar things? We talked with other people, had different arrangements, sharing information about common enemies? That is all normal and expected.

ps. miech really loves turning other people against those who he considers the threat, or at least trying to do that

To be fair, the full quote includes "i.e." which stands for "in example". THAT implies that the following is ONLY an example of what might happen but what CAN happen isn't necessarily restricted to the given example. If it is meant to show exactly what may be allowed but restrictive of any other interpretation, then it should be precisely written and not as a general example but as one that is indicated otherwise.

I brought up several of these types of questions during the early days of the match and barely got any responses by the tournament bosses. I guess you've got to make up your own rules and follow your own honor and code.

I guess that makes this tournament to be just like the Old West, but with bigger guns.