Unresponsive Players

I heard people in the past say they couldn't reply cause they were playing on a mobile device, apparently it didn't work. I guess with the new mobile version this problem will be resolved soon too.

It also has something to do with the player base I guess... I have noticed that people playing this game are not the most communicative.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

It also has something to do with the player base I guess... I have noticed that people playing this game are not the most communicative.

Its not just me, either; these players tend to ignore everyone.

I get not wanting to make your online time predictable, but that should be easily fixed by just not always replying around the same times....

Or, you know, they're just not interested. THe majority of players I come across are either not cooperative, reluctant or inactive within a few days anyway so I can see why people don't really care so much about diplomacy. Tanks speak louder than messages do.

Yeah, this is what I kinda figured. I was just wondering if there was a reasonable excuse that I wasn't considering. Well, besides language barriers, but Google Translate pretty much takes care of that one.

However, I am in a game right now with a player (I almost finished him off, just another day for wrap up) who didn't chat with me once and it is now Day 8, with us being at war since Day 5.

He joined the coalition I was part of, didn't talk to anyone in that coalition, didn't reply to my offers to split an AI Bot country that was between us, and just took advantage of a war I was in to grab a lot of tasty real estate that was next to my cores, and proceeding to put 5 stacks of 7 - 8 units each along my border. Nary a peep the entire time. And he was a Level 51...

Well, after I overran his country I did explain to him that the reason why he was in this spot was his complete lack of communication (no one in the coalition helped him and agreed to provide intel on his positions after I dropped from the coalition to attack him).

I was just annoyed, is all.

Well I'd say you're one example of well utilized communication.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Or, you know, they're just not interested.

I was very fortunate in my first game in that I fell in with a more experienced player as an ally, and the alliance made perfect sense from the standpoints of geography and complementary resources. We communicated a lot, mostly to my benefit, until I had to bail him out when he was simultaneously attacked by three other players. Many lessons were learned in that first game, including the importance of communicating with other players.

One other problem to consider is that there are more than a few non-English-speaking natives on the COW English server, and communications can be slow and stilted. If that's a problem I suggest using Google's online translator for most major languages (use simple, direct, present tense sentences written in the active voice for best translations). I also discovered from experience that sending all human players a friendly greeting message on the first day of the game facilitates later communications, as most players will respond to the greeting.

The most annoying communications -- to me at least -- are the offers of rights of way and share map alliances sent through the trade system with no prior or follow-up communications. The last ally I want is one who is unable or unwilling to communicate. Good communications are the key to good alliances, and I usually negotiate my terms with some specificity at the outset. It's one of the reasons, I believe, that I've never had an ally turn on me. Your mileage may vary.

If you want better communications from fellow players, I might also suggest that you try a "starts when full" game ---- players have to consciously and intentionally select those games, as opposed to raw newbies being automatically dumped into the first available 22-player map. You will also find more active players on the big maps now that they are all created by the system.

MontanaBB wrote:

The first couple of days for newbies can be a little overwhelming, as the system is constantly bombarding you with tutorial messages and solicitations.

MontanaBB wrote:

One other problem to consider is that there are more than a few non-English-speaking natives on the COW English server, and communications can be slow and stilted. If that's a problem I suggest using Google's online translator for most major languages (use simple, direct, present tense sentences written in the active voice for best translations). I also discovered from experience that sending all human players a friendly greeting message on the first day of the game facilitates later communications, as most players will respond to the greeting.

Also send RoW requests to all the ai bots while you are it until Bytro decides to nerf this scummy tactic.

MontanaBB wrote:

The most annoying communications -- to me at least -- are the offers of rights of way and share map alliances sent through the trade system with no prior or follow-up communications. The last ally I want is one who is unable or unwilling to communicate. Good communications are the key to good alliances, and I usually negotiate my terms with some specificity at the outset.

This is soooo annoying when I say 'hi' to someone at the beginning of the game just to open up a dialogue and shortly thereafter get a Shared Map offer. I always decline those politely.

The palm-to-face moment occurs when immediately after refusing a Shared Map offer they send you a RoW offer instead.

I have also taken to clarifying terms of alliances. I also, due to bad experiences with weak//inacive allies (that are in many ways WORSE than an enemy) no longer ally until after I see that the potential partner is reasonably active and reasonably competent. They don't have to be on 12 hours a day or have the strategic mastery of Napoleon, but I do need them to be online at least once (preferably twice) per day, able to reply to messages at least once every 24 hours, and be execute basic maneuvers.

MontanaBB wrote:

If you want better communications from fellow players, I might also suggest that you try a "starts when full" game ---- players have to consciously and intentionally select those games, as opposed to raw newbies being automatically dumped into the first available 22-player map. You will also find more active players on the big maps now that they are all created by the system.

Good advice!

Very interesting com strategy, of which I'll try to incorporate some aspects into mine.

I tend to be significantly more "pragmatic" rather than diplomatic, and will tend to turn to those I can ally myself with against a player I deem too aggressive/ambitious. But it remains as simple as "Country X seems to become dangerous, let's attack X soon". My communication with other players is much more of a cloncludent one in that my cooperation focuses on results (= conquests) foremost, diplomatic contact being the initiating factor more than anything (which mostly translates to a concludent "I don't attack you, you don't attack me"). It thus remains fairly basic, which I find is useful in that the inherent prudency acts as a failsafe against 'treason' (a different approach than yours, then).

Then again, I'm also careful to ally myself with weaker nations, which probably helps. If I happen to find a competent and loyal ally though, I'm guaranteed to stick to them and aid them.

Overall I'd have to say my communication remains scarse (due to reasons previously named), but effective. On bigger maps I'm much more communicative though, it's depends on the situation really.

Wait why am I quoted on stuff MontanaBB wrote lul

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Wait why am I quoted on stuff MontanaBB wrote lul

KingCongo wrote:

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Wait why am I quoted on stuff MontanaBB wrote lul

I do not know what you are talking about. All the quotes are obviously attributed to MontanaBB and not you, so you must be mistaken. xD

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Dude I swear to God on my screen the 3 quotes you wrote were attributed to me, with my profile pic and my name lol

That is the only explanation that does not involve a huge conspiracy theory involving me making a mistake and miss attributing a quote by MontanaBB to you, having you pointing it out, and then me sneakily going back and editing the post when no one was looking.

I mean, that is just crazy talk.

Virv, I stand by your side. I saw your avatars also yesterday, then they changed to Montana's soon afterwards, but I wasn't paying close enough attention to notice any other details. . I 'm not thinking conspiracy, just bug.

No bug, just the author of the post fixing it himself.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Virv, I stand by your side. I saw your avatars also yesterday, then they changed to Montana's soon afterwards, but I wasn't paying close enough attention to notice any other details. . I 'm not thinking conspiracy, just bug.

freezy wrote:

No bug, just the author of the post fixing it himself.

Keep this up and I will report you for, ummm, Criminally Masterminding and Conspiring the Propagation and Dissemination of Truthful Assumptions With Factual Support Without the Subjects Legal Consent.

With a charge that long-winded and impressive sounding you are bound to be convicted somewhere; especially if I convert it into Google Latin.

I'm sorry Congo, a dev outranks a mod...)))

I think I'm going crazy...

K.Rokossovski wrote:

I'm sorry Congo, a dev outranks a mod...)))

EDIT: Yeah, I just noticed freezy is a game designer. The orange highlight kinda hid the words in white. :-/

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

I think I'm going crazy...