Size of militaries

You can search a country on diplomacy and click the little i beside it to see more of the player stats. You can see their army every day, and the troops that they use.

I thought that the i button in diplomacy only shows you troops that are visible to you, not their entire military.

You're right.

I believe he's talking about reviewing their overall stats to see what it is they usually construct across all of their matches and keeping track there.

i.e., 'This guy's history suggests 50% of his military is composed solely of self-propelled artillery, therefore I can assume that will also be the case here.'

Thanks for clearing the muddy water

Hey, y'all.

I have a suggestion for you. If you want to understand, at least generally, what to expect from a potential game opponent (or ally, for that matter), spend a little time reviewing and analyzing their player statistics and awards. There is a lot of good intelligence buried in those statistics, awards and player history. For example . . . .

There is an award for enemy units destroyed by artillery, and it tells you exactly how many kills by arty they have. How many arty kills relative to total kills tells you how they use arty (but not including self-propelled arty). This is a key stat.

There is award for enemy units destroyed by tactical bombers, including exact number of kills. It should go without saying, but this is a key stat because effective tactical air represents the first level of sophistication in CoW gameplay.

There is an award for enemy units destroyed by armor class units, including exact number of kills. Relative to total kills, this tells you how much they rely on tanks in close combat. Check out the award for kills with heavy tanks -- this tells you they waste precious resources and production time on slow-moving targets for your tactical bombers.

There is an award for enemy units destroyed by infantry class units, including exact number of kills. Unless their arty kills are also high (non-SP arty is infantry class), and they have an overall kills-to-losses ratio in the neighborhood of 1:1, it suggests a heavy reliance on mass-produced armies and a willingness to accept a lot of casualties.

And while we're on the subject of kills-to-losses ratios, these may be important stats to your analysis. Players whose K/L ratio against human players are closer to 1:1 (and who've played more than a few games), suggest they have either played against very high-end competition (like Players League, Alliance matches, etc.), or they are just a very average player. Generally, a higher K/L ratio against human opponents suggests that you may be dealing with a better player.

Players who have a very mediocre K/L ratio against humans, but with a very high percentage of solo wins could suggest they are making up for mediocre gameplay with heavy gold use.

Take a look at the award for their rocket use, too -- if the number of rockets built is in the 100s per game, you probably have a spammer. Beware. Rocket-spamming also may suggest a willingness to use a lot of gold.

The closer their K/L ratio is to 1:1 against AI opponents, the more it suggests they are a mediocre and unsophisticated player. If their K/L ratio vs. AIs is under 1:1, they are complete idiots and you probably don't want them as an ally. A good player will always have K/L ratio against AI above 2:1, and you will find a lot of good players with AI K/L ratios above 5:1, 7:1, 10:1, etc. A good player knows how to pick apart AI opponents without heavy losses of their own. Even the new-ish enhanced AI for all games (a.k.a., the old "elite" AI) is fairly predictable in its various behaviors, responses and tactics for a good and experienced player.

Also take a look at their total wins. Do they have a high percentage of wins relative to the number of games entered? Do they have wins on the big 50- and 100-player maps? Guys who can win on the big maps are usually better players because the bigger maps are more challenging environments. If a player has a lot of wins on smaller maps (10 and 22-player games), it may suggest they are a decent player who enjoys feasting on newbies. Do they have wins as members of coalitions? Combined with other stats, it may suggest they are a good candidate for an ally.

I can go on, but you get the basic idea. There is a lot of excellent intelligence about a player's competence, skills, sophistication, game tactics, etc., buried in player awards and player statistics. Frankly, I never accept an offer of alliance with another player until I have spent some time parsing their stats. Their communication style and willingness to communicate and coordinate are also extremely important.

And I would sometimes prefer to have an ally who is smart, eager-to-learn and who is new-ish to the game, rather than an experienced but bull-headed a*****e who is going to cause nothing but problems for a multi-player alliance during a game. I can teach a smart noob who is willing to learn and do his homework, but I can't change the difficult/abrasive personality of some guys who just want to go it alone, come what may.

And let me leave you with one last thought: players who are good allies, and can select good allies, win more games.

A lot of my game wins are 2+ years old, before the game developers implemented in-game coalitions, which simplified team/alliance wins. But every one of my "solo" wins (except one) was supported by one or more loyal allies, and the majority of my other games, I was supporting another player who was the eventual winner as his ally and I finished second in those games. Having good allies is the primary key to victory. And if you want to have good allies, learn how to be a good ally.

Cheers. Good luck, and good hunting.

Thanks. Lots of useful info there!

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

Thanks. Lots of useful info there!

MontanaBB wrote:

A good player will always have K/L ratio against AI above 2:1, and you will find a lot of good players with AI K/L ratios above 5:1, 7:1, 10:1, etc. A good player knows how to pick apart AI opponents without heavy losses of their own. Even the new-ish enhanced AI for all games (a.k.a., the old "elite" AI) is fairly predictable in its various behaviors, responses and tactics for a good and experienced player.

MontanaBB wrote:

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

Thanks. Lots of useful info there!

Hey, @WascallywabbitCDN, that's why I'm here: I drink and I know things.

Not only that, he owns the t-shirt factory.

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

It would be nice to see it broken down to % of land, air, and sea units, in relation to the rest of the world's countries, if possible.

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

So every 4 days everyone gets to see each country's % of the world's military. It would be nice to see it broken down to % of land, air, and sea units, in relation to the rest of the world's countries, if possible.

gusv wrote:

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

So every 4 days everyone gets to see each country's % of the world's military. It would be nice to see it broken down to % of land, air, and sea units, in relation to the rest of the world's countries, if possible.

In my typical game, my breakdown is approximately as follows: 80% land units, 10% air units, and 10% sea units. This seems to work for me ...

Killer8282 wrote:

I think it kind of depends what country you”re playing. If an island, then you probably want a bit more naval and air units. If land locked, you only will need land and air at the start.

gusv wrote:

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

So every 4 days everyone gets to see each country's % of the world's military. It would be nice to see it broken down to % of land, air, and sea units, in relation to the rest of the world's countries, if possible.

In my typical game, my breakdown is approximately as follows: 80% land units, 10% air units, and 10% sea units. This seems to work for me ...

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

On every map? Even Pacific which looks to be very navy orientated?

gusv wrote:

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

On every map? Even Pacific which looks to be very navy orientated?

Have not played Pacific one yet ...