Let's talk about games we won in very short periods of time.
What was your shortest game (that you actually won), or at least, survived in?
Please log in to post a reply.
13 days pacific conquest coalition round as North Manchukuo
Who else was in the coalition?
Maclique, Borneo and south mexico
Seems pretty strong. Has force in north Asia, the East Indies, and China & close enough to support each other, dominate Asia within a week, can keep a hand in America as needed.
Yeah it was super fun
As Germany a coalition and I managed to win a HWW in 12 days. Active majors can do things quick. Don’t remember the members of the coalition but they were majors. Major alliance games are pretty easy, which is sad cause I like having huge wars between majors instead. But hey quick easy win I guess lol.
Soon.
The coalition game amorite?Claudio NVKP wrote:
Soon.
14 days, had a great coalition
?Lord Crayfish wrote:
The coalition game amorite?Claudio NVKP wrote:
Soon.
Yeah. Day 4 has just started and we're already at 370/904 points.Lord Crayfish wrote:
The coalition game amorite?Claudio NVKP wrote:
Soon.
500*K.Rokossovski wrote:
Yeah. Day 4 has just started and we're already at 370/904 points.Lord Crayfish wrote:
The coalition game amorite?Claudio NVKP wrote:
Soon.
Ah right... I was looking at day 3's paper. 500/904, correct.
day 2.
Depends on the major. I've been in games with high-ranking players who just sit there doing nothing for most of the time, and when they do fight they turn out not to be that competent. Since it's possible to achieve high ranks just by being a long-term player, I tend to ignore peoples' ranks when checking their service records to see what I'm in for.Carking the 6th wrote:
Major alliance games are pretty easy, which is sad cause I like having huge wars between majors instead.
But yes, a clash of mighty empires would be much cooler than watching them gang up on weaker nations.
I prefer prolonging victories, which sometimes involves fiddling around deciding who's going to be in which coalition.
He is talking about not coalitions, but games in which two alliances fight.
Yes, those rank 120 players with a K/D of .25 and 3 wins out of 200 games are usually not very good most of the time, and also go inactive. With me though I like to end games as fast as possible; I don’t want to let a chance for a quicker victory to slip. Though it is fun getting Germany and then steamrolling half the planet…Lady Aragosta wrote:
Depends on the major. I've been in games with high-ranking players who just sit there doing nothing for most of the time, and when they do fight they turn out not to be that competent. Since it's possible to achieve high ranks just by being a long-term player, I tend to ignore peoples' ranks when checking their service records to see what I'm in for.But yes, a clash of mighty empires would be much cooler than watching them gang up on weaker nations.Carking the 6th wrote:
Major alliance games are pretty easy, which is sad cause I like having huge wars between majors instead.I prefer prolonging victories, which sometimes involves fiddling around deciding who's going to be in which coalition.
I'm the opposite; I recently left a very promising coalition that was thirty or so cities away from victory for the sole purpose of prolonging the game. I always feel dissatisfied if I had some long-term scheme I never get to carry out because of an early victory, and I'm willing to gamble away first place to have more fun getting there.Carking the 6th wrote:
With me though I like to end games as fast as possible; I don’t want to let a chance for a quicker victory to slip. Though it is fun getting Germany and then steamrolling half the planet…
I suppose it depends on whether you gain more satisfaction from the outcome of a plan, or the process of developing one.
I do love becoming a global spanning empire and trying to build infrastructure and other civilian buildings in the many cities I rule. It’s like, once I take over the world, I will reveal my secret plan! My great plan is to… MUHAHAHA, it’s to end world hunger, stop climate change, promote world peace, develop infrastructure and economic prosperity, battle racism and sexism, start a space program…Lady Aragosta wrote:
I'm the opposite; I recently left a very promising coalition that was thirty or so cities away from victory for the sole purpose of prolonging the game. I always feel dissatisfied if I had some long-term scheme I never get to carry out because of an early victory, and I'm willing to gamble away first place to have more fun getting there.Carking the 6th wrote:
With me though I like to end games as fast as possible; I don’t want to let a chance for a quicker victory to slip. Though it is fun getting Germany and then steamrolling half the planet…I suppose it depends on whether you gain more satisfaction from the outcome of a plan, or the process of developing one.
Your goals are a lot nobler than mine. I've never thought past becoming a vast continent-spanning power, and spend far more time on production facilities and industry than anything else.Carking the 6th wrote:
I do love becoming a global spanning empire and trying to build infrastructure and other civilian buildings in the many cities I rule. It’s like, once I take over the world, I will reveal my secret plan! My great plan is to… MUHAHAHA, it’s to end world hunger, stop climate change, promote world peace, develop infrastructure and economic prosperity, battle racism and sexism, start a space program…
I assume that my first duty as a ruler is to maintain the status quo for everyone to the greatest degree possible, even on front lines, which means stopping other nations from capturing too many cities, and I can worry about civilian-specific needs when I've established world peace and ensured that my infrastructure isn't going to get bombed in a week's time.
Please log in to post a reply.
