Should I betray my coalition and try to go for a solo victory?

alaska looks like he has only starting provinces, be not afraid of him. I think you should be fair and stick with your coalition, since they are playing actively, maybe just kick the guy that is afking.

laaaaaaaaga wrote:

alaska looks like he has only starting provinces, be not afraid of him. I think you should be fair and stick with your coalition, since they are playing actively, maybe just kick the guy that is afking.

John C. Aquilino wrote:

Navy is best.

Lord Crayfish wrote:

John C. Aquilino wrote:

Navy is best.

Normally I'd say so, however in America: Home Front, a good 70% or more of victory points are not touching water (including the Great Lakes) and 90% are located on one landmass. Maybe employ a few battleships as monitors, but nothing more unless you plan to fight in the Carribean or something.

John C. Aquilino wrote:

Lord Crayfish wrote:

John C. Aquilino wrote:

Navy is best.

Normally I'd say so, however in America: Home Front, a good 70% or more of victory points are not touching water (including the Great Lakes) and 90% are located on one landmass. Maybe employ a few battleships as monitors, but nothing more unless you plan to fight in the Carribean or something.

i was using subs as monitors. i had like 3 battleships, 3 destroyers, 3 cruisers, and one aircraft carrier, but it got like shot down by artillery when i was offline

John. C Aquilino

The only way to find out if you can make a solo victory possible is to have

the courage to step up and go for it. Start making Heavy tanks asap.

My answer is Yes... Go Solo.

You should never betray a partner. If you want a solo win, don’t join a coalition.

I’m with you about inactive partners though. I struggle tolerating them.

John C Aquilino has posted; Should I betray my coalition and go for a solo victory?

If it is in the interest to make solo victory, then by any means possible John C Aquilino should do this. That does also mean that partnership is to expire, ultimately.

His game shall be reserved for his alone, and that John C Aquilino needs to make a real strategic timeframe abouts their movements. It is only that John C Aquilino is able to ensure any solo victory, for his alone can only determine the fate of such a campaign.

John C Aquilino; my advice is straight forward, and free.

- Invade Alaska, use Navy and those despiteful railguns.

- If AI counter attacks in northwest, hold Navy to coastline and make a bottleneck to the AI.

- Straight up; take out West Texas. If the other player has suspicions upon yours, they will not expect such movements, here they will be divided and your grounds to operate can mean the long term timeframe strategy towards air-force abilities for those VITAL gulf coastal cities (yeah, this is solo). Also that the partnership expired shall mean this; that you can divide their lands through West Texas, have their strategic condition more defined by AI at their eastern advance, and also be able to smash them with a good stack of light tanks and upgraded bombers.

6thDragon wrote:

You should never betray a partner. If you want a solo win, don’t join a coalition.

I’m with you about inactive partners though. I struggle tolerating them.

You stick with your mates though.

It's pretty low tho, like looking at the floor and then saying to yourself "I can go lower than you" kind of low.

You're essentially going back on your word for a +1 on a counter, a +1 mind you that you still would've gotten anyways, just on a different adjacent counter... in some random scuffed browser game...

Z. Sakki wrote:

It's pretty low tho, like looking at the floor and then saying to yourself "I can go lower than you" kind of low.

You're essentially going back on your word for a +1 on a counter, a +1 mind you that you still would've gotten anyways, just on a different adjacent counter... in some random scuffed browser game...

bigboss_ironfist wrote:

John. C Aquilino

The only way to find out if you can make a solo victory possible is to have

the courage to step up and go for it. Start making Heavy tanks asap.

My answer is Yes... Go Solo.

6thDragon wrote:

You should never betray a partner. If you want a solo win, don’t join a coalition.

I’m with you about inactive partners though. I struggle tolerating them.

bigboss_ironfist wrote:

John C Aquilino has posted; Should I betray my coalition and go for a solo victory?

If it is in the interest to make solo victory, then by any means possible John C Aquilino should do this. That does also mean that partnership is to expire, ultimately.

His game shall be reserved for his alone, and that John C Aquilino needs to make a real strategic timeframe abouts their movements. It is only that John C Aquilino is able to ensure any solo victory, for his alone can only determine the fate of such a campaign.

John C Aquilino; my advice is straight forward, and free.

- Invade Alaska, use Navy and those despiteful railguns.

- If AI counter attacks in northwest, hold Navy to coastline and make a bottleneck to the AI.

- Straight up; take out West Texas. If the other player has suspicions upon yours, they will not expect such movements, here they will be divided and your grounds to operate can mean the long term timeframe strategy towards air-force abilities for those VITAL gulf coastal cities (yeah, this is solo). Also that the partnership expired shall mean this; that you can divide their lands through West Texas, have their strategic condition more defined by AI at their eastern advance, and also be able to smash them with a good stack of light tanks and upgraded bombers.

Lord Crayfish wrote:

6thDragon wrote:

You should never betray a partner. If you want a solo win, don’t join a coalition.

I’m with you about inactive partners though. I struggle tolerating them.

This is ultimately a game and a frivolity. Deviousness and cunning are as much a part of it as aircraft or victory points.You stick with your mates though.

Z. Sakki wrote:

It's pretty low tho, like looking at the floor and then saying to yourself "I can go lower than you" kind of low.

You're essentially going back on your word for a +1 on a counter, a +1 mind you that you still would've gotten anyways, just on a different adjacent counter... in some random scuffed browser game...

(ive given every country that is not active RoW or shared intel. i think i just forgot to go through the trade embargo process before declaring war on Alaska and WBC)

John C. Aquilino wrote:

This is the current situation. I can no longer betray my alliance since the 3 of them combined have double my units and I am fighting wayyy too many AI countries that keep declaring war on me. My popularity is 17% but idk how to raise it, so I'm just fighting the AI countries. At this point I'll take a coalition victory.(ive given every country that is not active RoW or shared intel. i think i just forgot to go through the trade embargo process before declaring war on Alaska and WBC)

I swear I've seen something very similar to this on Reddit recently (it similarly involved a complaint about Alaska and was played by California). Are you this too?

Lord Crayfish wrote:

John C. Aquilino wrote:

This is the current situation. I can no longer betray my alliance since the 3 of them combined have double my units and I am fighting wayyy too many AI countries that keep declaring war on me. My popularity is 17% but idk how to raise it, so I'm just fighting the AI countries. At this point I'll take a coalition victory.(ive given every country that is not active RoW or shared intel. i think i just forgot to go through the trade embargo process before declaring war on Alaska and WBC)

I swear I've seen something very similar to this on Reddit recently (it similarly involved a complaint about Alaska and was played by California). Are you this too?