I normally have about 4 games going at a time. I was just wondering how many games you usually have at a time. 
Please log in to post a reply.
...It's not exactly something I'm proud of, and it's a number I'm cutting down substantially. I used to run about 20 matches at a time, and would be active on all of them. Over about a year, I narrowed that down to about 12, and now that I've taken a nice, long 3 week break, I'm going to start at 2, and never go higher than 4.
Its actually 1-2 for me none of the choices there are right. 
If you are 1-2 just choose either 1 or 2-3
Who chose zero 
4-5, I mainly do that as I hate to wait and want to do more than what I can in a single game.
only 1 cuz i really am not that active 
who did 12+, how many games do you have exactly?
Scroll up bro, it was me.Killer8282 wrote:
who did 12+, how many games do you have exactly?
People who don't playKiller8282 wrote:
Who chose zero
lol
I used to have 20-30 at one time. I've tried cutting it down, and gotten down to 2. But every time I see a 1939 Historical map with 1-2 players, I can't resist joining.
One.
You are so much like me it's honestly scary.
DoctorDR1 wrote:
I used to have 20-30 at one time. I've tried cutting it down, and gotten down to 2. But every time I see a 1939 Historical map with 1-2 players, I can't resist joining.
Thats the right thing! Its hard to manage to many games because you end up losing all the other gamesDoctorDR1 wrote:
I used to have 20-30 at one time. I've tried cutting it down, and gotten down to 2. But every time I see a 1939 Historical map with 1-2 players, I can't resist joining.
I found that when I had four or more simultaneous games, I would always lose at least one of them, so now I'm sticking to my favorite number: 3.
I would normally have one or 2 because I have to focus intensely on that. Thats why I am still a techie 4th gradeLittle Racoon wrote:
I found that when I had four or more simultaneous games, I would always lose at least one of them, so now I'm sticking to my favorite number: 3.
I wanna get down to 3, but whenever I see a world at war with less than 10 players, or a historic with less than 5, I can’t resist joining. Now I’m at 5 games, and I wanna continue all of them. ARRRGGGHHHHHHH!Ryan04px2025 wrote:
I would normally have one or 2 because I have to focus intensely on that. Thats why I am still a techie 4th gradeLittle Racoon wrote:
I found that when I had four or more simultaneous games, I would always lose at least one of them, so now I'm sticking to my favorite number: 3.
bro... Control ya urges! I used to run 20+ games at a time, it ain't sustainable. I'd be active on all of em, and still lose. Join 4x rounds if you wanna be focused on one, otherwise be patient! XDKiller8282 wrote:
I wanna get down to 3, but whenever I see a world at war with less than 10 players, or a historic with less than 5, I can’t resist joining. Now I’m at 5 games, and I wanna continue all of them. ARRRGGGHHHHHHH!Ryan04px2025 wrote:
I would normally have one or 2 because I have to focus intensely on that. Thats why I am still a techie 4th gradeLittle Racoon wrote:
I found that when I had four or more simultaneous games, I would always lose at least one of them, so now I'm sticking to my favorite number: 3.
2-3 matches for me, keeps me entertained and occupied . 
One at a time for me, and then multitask on another game, WoT, Civ, PanzerCorps, etc, to keep the old brain active [social distancing pastime] 
Please log in to post a reply.
