Unbalanced game

where do i lose a lot?

you are not even in the stats yet, so I can only assume by your complaints that you must be unhappy => unhappy players tend to have lost games.

looking forward to see your stats appear soon when everything is going great...

or: are you playing under a different name than your forum name?

Orkhepaj wrote:

oh no again this skill crap

_Pontus_ wrote:

Orkhepaj wrote:

oh no again this skill crap

the fact that you call it 'this skill crap' is rather self-explanatory to the origin of your problems in the game

Eh, I'll take one as well.

wardawg8 wrote:

a cafe` mocha vodka valium latte, to go

Extra-large for me. Skill is really, truly all that matters.

LT are so vulnerable to TAC. My first human enemy had 50 or 70 provinces and he spammed me with light tanks. I went around them with AC, muddied up his morale, lost a lot of AC, came back with my own LT and tac (to pick off the stragglers) and he lasted 5 days. I had to work 2 12 hour days and make a long car trip in that 5 days. After 3 waves of AC his economy was reduced to nothing. He continued making his LT for about 3 days then couldn't afford anything except militia. He tried using tac also but I countered them with fighters and AA guns.

The game isn't balanced. No matter what your enemy does you have countermeasures.

And attacking fleets with nav bombers is just silly. They're for stragglers and subs used as spotters not a head to head battle. I love nav bombers. They blind the enemy. Let fleets deal with fleets.

And too much of any unit in a stack is gonna give you a crowding penalty not to mention you are easy to counter.

In your original battle you had almost all specialty troops. You had infantry, good defending vs infantry and AT good defending vs tank but only a few MT which are more versatile. Your AT have few HP. You needed to accompany them with units that had good HP. That being said I am still amazed you lost. He had to have had better research levels.

purplepizza117 wrote:

Extra-large for me. Skill is really, truly all that matters.

Azkazan wrote:

purplepizza117 wrote:

Extra-large for me. Skill is really, truly all that matters.

After 44 games of playing you only have 4693 military points and 8684 economy points.

Azkazan is my ingame name. I left 2 games after a few days since there were less than 4 people left. 3 games finished, 3 games ongoing.

Vigor555 wrote:

The game isn't balanced. No matter what your enemy does you have countermeasures.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Vigor555 wrote:

The game isn't balanced. No matter what your enemy does you have countermeasures.

meaning: it IS balanced and the determining factors are: SKILL + TIME

Okay, I was also a little confused but I get what you meant.

@ Vigor

Happy to see so many positive comments from people who do see through the bottlenecks and tackle them, instead of complaining about them.

That is, after all, one of the challenges of the game.

I am still learning and that is 1 of the things that I do enjoy about CoW!

yep. to me the whole point is to learn to solve the problem you're faced with.

I've read that the first strategy game in recorded history was made in 4000BC by a chinese emperor who had a retarded (not an insult just a technical matter of distinction) son. He made the game to teach his son how to be emperor. It was called "Go" and it worked. his son became a good emperor.

'Go' is one hell of a game. So simple by its looks and so incredibly deep when playing it.

It is the absolute game for learning strategy.

You have to think beyond the simple crossings on the board and think in 'spheres of influence' that you want to radiate and ultimately possess. I love it, though I haven't played it for a while.

I apply of bundle of 'Go' knowledge in CoW and s1914.

I've never played it. Now I would like to.

If you get the chance, you should

Wasn't it Sun Tzu who created Go?