Rest in Peace COW (and Bytro in general)

Undaunted wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

you keep to saying ability is more important but you say you need 100k gold to join world at war map. LOL

As stated before;

In big maps - as WaW - one tends to meet more golders than elsewhere.

Since I don't like running away from golders, I enter WaW with a gold stash, just in case there is a golder that does not get beaten by others. My 100k will be worth 1 million of his.

That is more or less what was written, but which went beyond you apparently.

In the past WaWs I entered, there were always several golders. In the last WaW I was in 3 were even banding together, but they were ultimately beaten by everyone else going against them.

And in case there is no golder in the map, I will just keep my stash intact and build up. Not spending it when not needed for a golder or backstabber.

However, from your post I gather you must have millions collected by now, bc you win a lot and never-ever use it. You apparently don't need any gold at all vs golders (as can be understood from your post). Well, good for you mate! Bravo... (except that I don't think it is really so).

PS; I never need AT or AA. Only SPAA to keep up with the rest of the mechanized troops.

Early game there are few tanks and planes and low level. Level 2 Militia will deal with that. Late game level 3 or Elite Militia will do the AT + AA job just fine on def. Offense I play with different troops in which again AT has no place and AA would not be able to keep up.

Advising people to build AT and AA is leading them into wasting rss.

Lol, next you will tell players to built HT, I guess

PPS: all maps end with mopping up inactives... WaW is no exception. WaW and other big maps are often nice PvP, HWW/RtW/CoN are nice alternative history games. If one doesn't want to spent a month+ on an game, there is nothing wrong with playing a faster map. They can be as interesting. Now in a CoN with 7 active players mid-game, which is developing quite interestingly; at least much more interesting than a big map with 5 actives mid-game...

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

you keep to saying ability is more important but you say you need 100k gold to join world at war map. LOL

Understanding what one reads is thingy apparently.

As stated before;

In big maps - as WaW - one tends to meet more golders than elsewhere.

Since I don't like running away from golders, I enter WaW with a gold stash, just in case there is a golder that does not get beaten by others. My 100k will be worth 1 million of his.

That is more or less what was written, but which went beyond you apparently.

In the past WaWs I entered, there were always several golders. In the last WaW I was in 3 were even banding together, but they were ultimately beaten by everyone else going against them.

And in case there is no golder in the map, I will just keep my stash intact and build up. Not spending it when not needed for a golder or backstabber.

However, from your post I gather you must have millions collected by now, bc you win a lot and never-ever use it. You apparently don't need any gold at all vs golders (as can be understood from your post). Well, good for you mate! Bravo... (except that I don't think it is really so).

PS; I never need AT or AA. Only SPAA to keep up with the rest of the mechanized troops.

Early game there are few tanks and planes and low level. Level 2 Militia will deal with that. Late game level 3 or Elite Militia will do the AT + AA job just fine on def. Offense I play with different troops in which again AT has no place and AA would not be able to keep up.

Advising people to build AT and AA is leading them into wasting rss.

Lol, next you will tell players to built HT, I guess

PPS: all maps end with mopping up inactives... WaW is no exception. WaW and other big maps are often nice PvP, HWW/RtW/CoN are nice alternative history games. If one doesn't want to spent a month+ on an game, there is nothing wrong with playing a faster map. They can be as interesting. Now in a CoN with 7 active players mid-game, which is developing quite interestingly; at least much more interesting than a big map with 5 actives mid-game...

you play too much with beginners at x1 small maps and think like that but try to think with while you are fighting at 3 continent at the same time with many enemies , some of them sabotages your buildings you produce 120k war bonds everyday , some of them attacking your cities with strategic bombers , yes at speed servers everyone travelling around with 20 strategic bombers even they are not allies , so you need always anti airs at your cities even you dont use artillery or railroad gun , your planes may not save you , AT is not useless , especially with comintern countries which has 2 food and 2 good rural provinces and they have bonus damage , come and try to sleep in a real war

Bunch of crock.

When fighting on 3 continents, one is already well developped and ofc my armies will not consist of militia invading LATAM from Europe. I think there is that 'thingy' again, right?

Btw, I already told what my fighting corps preferably looks like and how I use them.

That blasts any airforce to smithereens and desintegrates any groundtroops.

1x speed, 4x, whatever...people play what they like. Speed is different from 1x. Hence you have to adjust. Speed is not the norm though. I play speed when I have time to do so. That means only when I have no other obligations. All I can gather from you comment about how great you are at 'speed' is that you have no other obligations ))

Have won several WaWs ... Not just coa-vics; also solo. Oh, and also in speed maps.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Bunch of crock.

When fighting on 3 continents, one is already well developped and ofc my armies will not consist of militia invading LATAM from Europe. I think there is that 'thingy' again, right?

Btw, I already told what my fighting corps preferably looks like and how I use them.

That blasts any airforce to smithereens and desintegrates any groundtroops.

1x speed, 4x, whatever...people play what they like. Speed is different from 1x. Hence you have to adjust. Speed is not the norm though. I play speed when I have time to do so. That means only when I have no other obligations. All I can gather from you comment about how great you are at 'speed' is that you have no other obligations ))

Have won several WaWs ... Not just coa-vics; also solo. Oh, and also in speed maps.

Undaunted wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Bunch of crock.

When fighting on 3 continents, one is already well developped and ofc my armies will not consist of militia invading LATAM from Europe. I think there is that 'thingy' again, right?

Btw, I already told what my fighting corps preferably looks like and how I use them.

That blasts any airforce to smithereens and desintegrates any groundtroops.

1x speed, 4x, whatever...people play what they like. Speed is different from 1x. Hence you have to adjust. Speed is not the norm though. I play speed when I have time to do so. That means only when I have no other obligations. All I can gather from you comment about how great you are at 'speed' is that you have no other obligations ))

Have won several WaWs ... Not just coa-vics; also solo. Oh, and also in speed maps.

try to win 73p map with hungary as solo next time

With a winrate of >70% after 109 maps and having won 'All countries all-in' as Tuva, Hungary in a 73p I either did that already or if I didn't, I don't see a problem; sorry. Literally every country can win if played well and not jumped by 3 early-game.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Bunch of crock.

When fighting on 3 continents, one is already well developped and ofc my armies will not consist of militia invading LATAM from Europe. I think there is that 'thingy' again, right?

Btw, I already told what my fighting corps preferably looks like and how I use them.

That blasts any airforce to smithereens and desintegrates any groundtroops.

1x speed, 4x, whatever...people play what they like. Speed is different from 1x. Hence you have to adjust. Speed is not the norm though. I play speed when I have time to do so. That means only when I have no other obligations. All I can gather from you comment about how great you are at 'speed' is that you have no other obligations ))

Have won several WaWs ... Not just coa-vics; also solo. Oh, and also in speed maps.

try to win 73p map with hungary as solo next time

The only maps I did not play much are Pacific and Homefront. All the others I have played multiple times, incl. speed, and all maps I ever played I have always also won.With a winrate of >70% after 109 maps and having 'All countries all-in' as Tuva, Hungary in a 73p I either did that already or if I didn't, I don't see a problem; sorry. Literally every country can win if played well and not jumped by 3 early-game.

Undaunted wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

you are obsessed with win rate but you can have even %90 win rate without gold it is easy , hard one is having high k/d and province ratio try to write it next time at your posts noone care your win rate

Golders generally are lazy (hence the need for gold), gold makes dumb (hence the need for more gold) and prevents needing to learn the game.

All that I would advise a dedicated player is Premium or High Command (as it was called before).

Notwithstanding all that is said, I do buy gold sometimes. This year 2x, while fighting a heavy golder or slashing a backstabber. But only when there is an exceptionally good offer and my stash is low. In any case I never spent more than 300€/yr on any game I play (currently 3 different games). With Premium included (4x14€= 54€/yr), that means I can spent 246€ on other things in this game. I have not reached that amount by far. Probably will not spent anything this year anymore either bc I have a stash of about 75k. That is enough to counter any backstabber and if I should meet a heavy golder, well, I will just lose since that cann't influence my my K/D or win rate much this year.

The few times I bought gold, that gold was spend on the game I was in, and ...it does not even mean I won that game.

I very well remember a WaW this year, figthing a group of golders on my frontline, where I did not stand a chance. But I did buy 50€ worth of gold, knowing it would cost them a multiple of that and slowed them down, while I gave my country to a neighbour with a good gold stash and willing to spent it. When he took over my country, he instantly became the biggest economy by far and that combined with his gold + being in a coa, made him win the game. Ofc my K/D took a small hit, ending the game being wiped out with a K/D of about 2. But now soon ending game 110 with another win and good K/D also that loss is simply insignificant on the total.

I assume that it may be difficult for you to understand all that, but I bought that gold to slow the group down and to make it as expensive as possible for them to win (which ultimately they did not even) and thát was my fun in that game.

So, even when I buy gold, it does not do anything significant for my win rate, as it not bought to secure victory.

Ofc unlimited gold is practically unbeatable, but there is no shame in losing to that and lots of fun in making it as expensive as possible for the golder (my record being a heavy golder spending 1600€ to beat me ).

Therefore once more:

Gold is not and was not-ever an issue!

Gold can make you lose only a few out of many games.

There are far more important factors that make a victory: dedication, game knowledge, general knowledge of strategy (plan) and tactics (skill, as in SBD, use of bonusses, chosing your battles and fighting them on your terms) etc.

And don't forget diplomacy! No amount of gold can stop a coalition of dedicated players, out to kill off a golder.

Furthermore ... gold makes for lazy players, thus generally heavy golders lack skill.

Complaining about gold are only those who have no stash, which equals a lack of dedication to their maps. Why? Because everyone active at the end of a map gets gold, so every dedicated player can have a stash.

Not having a stash thus means you always get wiped out or always go inactive and thát is nót due to golders, but due only to the player himself...

And who is obsessed with win rates? How can one even? One's win rate is just a result of how you play.

What I do care about is my K/D and as a result of that I win a lot; both in solo and in coa.

Those who claim K/D is not important are BS-ing themselves, bc K/D has a major economic influence and your economy is one of the keys to victory.

All players that just throw their troops into the meat-grinder, as WW1 generals did, have no clue of what that does to their economic and thus military efficiency.

Currently in a game where everyone has lost >100 units; even up to 185 units.

Guess who is the largest empire and what his K/D is?

Not coincidentally the now largest empire in that map has a K/D of close to 40, having lost 5 (say: F I V E) units...

(and ..yes.. blush blush ... ofc it is me ... and yes, we are winning).

Do you realize what it means economically to have lost 185 units or just 5? And I only have 130 units...

Do you realize what time and resources have been saved by not losing units and which incredible logistical timeloss has been prevented by not having to replace units in the frontline?

Do you realize what it means militarily that I did not lose 185 units, but merely 5? (135 minus 5 makes the 130 I have; conversely losing anything like >100 on 135, would have put me into ...nonexistence)

Thus the ONLY important thing to care about is your K/D.

When you maintain a large economy and keep your K/D low, you will win the game. Well, that is mostly so, if not being alone vs a coa with some skill and dedication or simply up against a better player ... or a super-heavy golder.

My overall K/D vs humans is going towards 2.7 after 109 games (ofc the first bunch being a noob with a horrid K/D, which takes a while to make up for).

My L/C (Prov Loss/Conquer) is only towards 8, because I do not care about losing terrain nor do I protect every useless prov against rebellion. Terrain you can reconquer, as long as ... you have troops. Thus giving up terrain to save and regroup troops may be bad for your L/C, but is great for your K/D. Further, many events ask you to conquer provinces, so, during events I love it when they rebel and can be taken again, again giving points.

The question now is how the last and upcoming updates will effect the game. It all smells like dumbing-down further in favor of P2W, fly-by, 12yr old phone-players.

Are people still playing this game?

The fact that they don’t even listen to their player community makes me not want to support them any longer.

BaseballFan46 wrote:

Are people still playing this game?

Whether I will be playing this game after the next update is written in the stars, though.

The dumbification updates in favor of fly-by 12yr old phone players are just heartbreaking for any dedicated player.

The worst is that they will not achieve their goals (mo' money faster) at all. This game, even when dumbified beyond liking for the dedicated players, will still be too complicated and too slow for their envisioned clientele. Yes, more will try it maybe, but none will stay. In the meanwhile they will have lost their dedicated players.

Btw, do you know of an at least equally good game?

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

The fact that they don’t even listen to their player community makes me not want to support them any longer.

The warbonds update was disgusting at start, but has been adjusted gradually, based on comments from the player community. Warbonds still are a bad thing, but the situation is now manageable.

So, they did listen, though it was a bit slow.

What can be adjusted with the next update still is the question. Removing 2 resources is simply what it is: it dumbifies the game considerably by simplifying the economy, which is a considerable part of the game.

BaseballFan46 wrote:

Are people still playing this game?

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

The fact that they don’t even listen to their player community makes me not want to support them any longer.

That is not entirely true.The warbonds update was disgusting at start, but has been adjusted gradually, based on comments from the player community. Warbonds still are a bad thing, but the situation is now manageable.

So, they did listen, though it was a bit slow.

What can be adjusted with the next update still is the question. Removing 2 resources is simply what it is: it dumbifies the game considerably by simplifying the economy, which is a considerable part of the game.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

The fact that they don’t even listen to their player community makes me not want to support them any longer.

That is not entirely true.The warbonds update was disgusting at start, but has been adjusted gradually, based on comments from the player community. Warbonds still are a bad thing, but the situation is now manageable.

So, they did listen, though it was a bit slow.

What can be adjusted with the next update still is the question. Removing 2 resources is simply what it is: it dumbifies the game considerably by simplifying the economy, which is a considerable part of the game.

Y’know a really good system may have been to have high command be able to cost gold, maybe like 1k a day, and so you’d have to watch ads every day to maintain if, pay money if you want, or accept it and use gold to spam instead or whatever… wouldn’t fix everything, but it would generate revenue and be less damaging. I recall some others suggesting this. Why didn’t it ever happen? Would too many subscribers stop paying and the ads not be enough to make up for it? Only reason I can think of.

Y’know perhaps we have another hope if Stillfront goes bust and a less predatory company buys out and saves Bytro? 1 in 1000 chance but basically best case scenario I can see going forward

Carking the 6th wrote:

Y’know a really good system may have been to have high command be able to cost gold, maybe like 1k a day, and so you’d have to watch ads every day to maintain if, pay money if you want, or accept it and use gold to spam instead or whatever… wouldn’t fix everything, but it would generate revenue and be less damaging. I recall some others suggesting this. Why didn’t it ever happen? Would too many subscribers stop paying and the ads not be enough to make up for it? Only reason I can think of.

Y’know perhaps we have another hope if Stillfront goes bust and a less predatory company buys out and saves Bytro? 1 in 1000 chance but basically best case scenario I can see going forward

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Y’know a really good system may have been to have high command be able to cost gold, maybe like 1k a day, and so you’d have to watch ads every day to maintain if, pay money if you want, or accept it and use gold to spam instead or whatever… wouldn’t fix everything, but it would generate revenue and be less damaging. I recall some others suggesting this. Why didn’t it ever happen? Would too many subscribers stop paying and the ads not be enough to make up for it? Only reason I can think of.

Y’know perhaps we have another hope if Stillfront goes bust and a less predatory company buys out and saves Bytro? 1 in 1000 chance but basically best case scenario I can see going forward

By chance, do you happen to know how much Bytro is worth?

Check Stillfront’s stock history. The company lost >90% of their stock value over the last 4 years.

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

Check Stillfront’s stock history. The company lost >90% of their stock value over the last 4 years.

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

Check Stillfront’s stock history. The company lost >90% of their stock value over the last 4 years.