What are the signs of dangerous players in game?

I don’t agree

Larry is god lol lol wrote:

I don’t agree

alright I’ll give in.

for people who say stats matter, read my posts

Stats don't matter

yes they do bruh

stats do not matter

Stats reflect of certain "skills" however, the overall results of war may depend on a player's decision making and luck.

a lot of times i archive a game after joining it because lots of people go afk does this mean people will think im a noob even though i win most games i focus on?

see i told you, stats are too bad

stats are bad, too bad

Stats are bad but until you have the chance to see their army/navy compositions or see their tactics and strategy it is all you have to go on.

As far as the argument on solo wins vs coalition wins it is, like all other stats, subject to interpretation. For example, other than my first few games year ago, I play only the 100 player map. I have never sought a solo victory, but have one because my coalition members quit near the end. Playing alone or as a team is a strategic choice, so writing off coalition victories as reflecting a less dangerous opponent is foolish. If a team player can bring his team mates to bear that is just as effective (if not more) than just fighting solo. I would argue the team player, especially the de facto leader, is extremely dangerous.

BeorntheBold wrote:

I have never sought a solo victory

Both follow almost the same path up until pretty much the end of the game.

Firstly I'd like to point out that having fun is more important than stats.

Rank: in general the ranks doesn't tell you that much. There's high level players who aren't that good, there are new players who know what they are doing and there's experienced players that are starting over to get better stats. By rule of thumb you could argue that a player of level 50 and higher will be dangerous adversairies because they have the experience that comes with it. Even if their stats aren't that good, they will still be able to give you a good fight.

Kill vs Death ratio: This is an indication of the understanding of the game mechanics. A player with a KD of 0,80 loses more troops than he kills which isn't sustainable. Maybe he actually knows what he's doing but he got nuked in previous games or got defeated by a gold user. However if a higher level player still has a low KD then it means that he doesn't use the terrain to his advantage, doesn't use enough artillery or air force. Or he simply doesn't have a good understanding of the game mechanics. Players with a KD higher than 1,4 are in general players who know what they are doing. They know each troop type, they know the terrain penalties or bonuses, they stack their units and use both melee units, ranged units, airforce and navy. To get a KD of 3,83 like I have it demands a highly daily activity and micromanagement of the battles you fight. Retreating, regroup and fight in the terrain that is to your advantage. It's better to lose a couple of provinces until you give battle that is in your advantage. It demands in depth knowledge of each units strengths and weaknesses, bonuses and penalties. The same goes for the doctrines. Read the newspaper, what kind of units does my neighbour use? If you see in the newpaper that he only loses LT than it's because he only has those so you should make SP artillery and attack bombers. If you read in the newpaper that a unit was destroyed by the rocket artillery brigade or by the bombardment squadron, than you better start the production of mechanized infantry and interceptors. Knowledge is power.

Province retainment: This is a good standard to measure activity. If a player loses one province for every one that he takes it means that he's not online enough to prevent it. If a player has a province retainment of 10 that means that he only loses one province for every 10 that he takes. This means that the player is highly active and anticipates the enemies move.

Games joined vs Games won: This is the true indication of skill. If a player wins half of his games then you better get ready for war. If he has a lot of coalition victories you could offer to play with him. A player with a lot of coalition victories is the indication of a team player and someone that you can trust. A player with a lot of solo victories is someone that you cannot trust, be ready to be backstabbed and don't share maps with players like that.

Economical rank vs Military rank. Players with a high economical rank aren't a threat, they are players who invest a lot in their economy and remain neutral. If you have a neighbor with a high military rank then you better prepare for war.

Ratio of units produced vs killed: this gives you an indication of the units that they use. For example if you see that a player has killed way more LT then he has produced but on the other hand loses a lot of anti tank then you know that you will need to put motorised infantry in your stack with light tanks. If he has loses a lot of bombers and interceptors that means that he uses them a lot. If he hasn't produced a lot of Nuclear bombers or Nuclear rockets then that's because he doesn't use them often.

Alliance: Players of the same alliances are playing as a team. You shouldn't share maps with them in the first place and search allies to fight them. Or you could join their coalition if they have a space left. If you join a game then check every player in your continent and pay attention to the alliances they are in. If you find two players of the same alliance on your continent, there might be more.

There's a lot of information on the players profile and in the newspaper so use it to your advantage.

BMfox wrote:

A player with a lot of solo victories is someone that you cannot trust, be ready to be backstabbed and don't share maps with players like that.

And I would never have guessed on what you have to say about province retainment...

Do not trust players who are in the same alliance. I recently got betrayed by one

vietcong2005 wrote:

Do not trust players who are in the same alliance. I recently got betrayed by one

BMfox wrote:

vietcong2005 wrote:

Do not trust players who are in the same alliance. I recently got betrayed by one

Players of the same alliances are playing as a team. You shouldn't share maps with them in the first place and search allies to fight them. Or you could join their coalition if they have a space left.

yeh, BMfox did the comprehensive guide that is totally correct, also one minor thing, Players will have skewed stats when starting out, but if it's too good, one might Suspect that it is a smurf account.. but all in all, don't think you can Shut off your brain and conquer newer players, you have to be smart at all times or you will have a real chance of Losing (getting fully conquered)

Come to think of it, this is what I have observed in the game so far... and the summary of player stats in game.

1. Players with a lot of solo wins are dangerous but can be untrustworthy.

2. Players with a lot of coalition wins are good with war and diplomacy, they can be trustworthy.

3. Players with a favorable K/D ratio are efficient in killing units, not a guarantee in a long game slug fest.

4. Players with lower K/D ratio are willing to throw in units for victory.

5. Players with favorable province capture ratio are good with maneuvers and holding ground.

6. Players with lower province capture ratio could be turtles and are willing to sacrifice territory.

7. Players who invest on military are dangerous early game.

8. Players who invest in economy are weaker early game.

9. The most dangerous around must be those who are balanced with all aspects of stats. Nuff said...

Conclusion: At the end of the day, wars are won with numbers. You may get fancy toys and good stats the problem lies if you are ganged up early game. If you are not a gold player but has good stats you still get your behind handled. That's all for my analysis and have a good day everyone!