I have a question for you guys, I know gauging a player for his/her skill in game is important for waging war with them can either turn to victory or defeat. In picking an enemy or prey, how do you gauge the ability of a player and know how much percentage of your success in defeating them?
Please log in to post a reply.
Good summary, point 9 is only, what really counts.KriegMaker wrote:
Come to think of it, this is what I have observed in the game so far... and the summary of player stats in game.
Every other stats are only a sign, not a 100% true prediction.
the most dangerous player is the one I like to call THE ANIME PROTAGONIST. he is silent he does not respond to your messages, he does not talk in the newspaper and he does not join coalitions. and he always seems to know when your asleep truly a God among men.
In the end it all comes to activity and understanding of the game mechanics. If a player is actively online he's harder to beat and will likely have better stats. Same counts for the understanding of the game mechanics.
I'm offended!KriegMaker wrote:
1. Players with a lot of solo wins are dangerous but can be untrustworthy.
i am not so.whowh wrote:
I'm offended!KriegMaker wrote:
1. Players with a lot of solo wins are dangerous but can be untrustworthy.
Here's a tip to scaring all of your neighbors into submission even if you're trash. 
Play as a nation with good steel and oil exports, then run over a communist or allied neighbor. Make sure everyone can see you are making rapid wars. Grab land from all undefended positions as much as possible, do not dig into fortified positions, and generally try to be fast (pan-asian is good for that). Then, it is enough to suggest you are experienced at the game, even if you're not ahahahahahahahahahaha. Generally, for me, I do not do allies with anyone unless i have reason to believe them (for example, as Poland, attack Germany, not try to negotiate, same for soviets (Soviets are trash at beginning due to weak border defenses)). K/D isn't really important in this game, it's just that you can win the game. I saw someone win, and came out of the round with negative ratios. However, it took 5 days for that player to win. Basically, did a stunt and took all cities of AI and players as quick as possible, I don't even think they cared that most of their mainland was taken. Long story short: ratios and wins don't necessarily mean anything, so be cautious around everyone. A nice, charming, friendly Sweden could turn out to be a traitor and aggressor who attacks all Europe and turns the tables upside down.
Imma guessing your vast experience in this game tells you that.Alexandera Nevsky wrote:
Long story short: ratios and wins don't necessarily mean anything
Your call, Germany laughed at UK in the news and found overnight that Sweden captured Berlin (Sweden was me)
sorry hehehewhowh wrote:
I'm offended!KriegMaker wrote:
1. Players with a lot of solo wins are dangerous but can be untrustworthy.
oh please grand, you can't even defeat a newbie lvl 21 with 1.9 province ratio. (Fact is proven folks, I made one of my alliance members kaiteroo play against Comrade Genz)Comrade genz wrote:
@GrandEmpire same thing
i was sleeping, and overnight american troops landed at Hamburg, took Berlin, but then i contained them and Sealioned UK, And invaded the entirety of AmericaAlexandera Nevsky wrote:
Your call, Germany laughed at UK in the news and found overnight that Sweden captured Berlin (Sweden was me)
I wana join your games next time heheh
It's fine, I have enough people who make coalitions to kill me. Sounds sad, but merely people thinking they need 18 veterans to kill me is an honor.
I think having many solo wins isn't generally untrustworthy although it does show a bit of a lack in diplomacy.
Not necessarily solo winners usually have to be good cutthroats.AstonJamerson wrote:
I think having many solo wins isn't generally untrustworthy although it does show a bit of a lack in diplomacy.
Sorry but in my Rome thread did I do one action of a cutthroat?vietcong2005 wrote:
Not necessarily solo winners usually have to be good cutthroats.AstonJamerson wrote:
I think having many solo wins isn't generally untrustworthy although it does show a bit of a lack in diplomacy.
I'm just a bit annoyed by the cutthroat belief.
I'm not saying you, but I've seen some vicious people in this game. One game my two coaliton members betrayed me for no reason. They weren't even in the same alliance.whowh wrote:
Sorry but in my Rome thread did I do one action of a cutthroat?vietcong2005 wrote:
Not necessarily solo winners usually have to be good cutthroats.AstonJamerson wrote:
I think having many solo wins isn't generally untrustworthy although it does show a bit of a lack in diplomacy.I'm just a bit annoyed by the cutthroat belief.
Lol. That always sucks.
LoL I played as US in a coalition with Canada and Mexico v.s. pretty much everyone.
Well you have USA on your team. USA in a hands of a decent player is basically a free win.
Please log in to post a reply.
