I would also just point out to them that some of the other maps can be a bit more competitive.
Do You Guys Solo?
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
I will do that."Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC
-
Building hospitals (and bunkers) in cities with low pop can also speed up end of game, because it speeds up city growth.
Not much, but anything helps. -
Thanks I will pass it along."Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC
-
bobqz wrote:
Kalrakh wrote:
Not sure how reducing the VP required, stops people from going afk in the first 2 weeks
Also, you could all just quit playing this game and move on to another (individually or as a mentor-plus-trainees group) (Nobody is declared the winner so long as none of the dropout revive their positions).
Also, your two allies could stop playing actively (just log in once every couple of days) while you finish pushing the VPs high enough for a win. It shouldn't take long to rack up another 472 VPs.
I think you all have good options - You just need to get the other two players to think a little about what they want to accomplish in this one game, and in future games. -
Honestly I would like for them to stay in for the coalition win. For me it’s no big thing but I know my first one was a big deal. I think they will stay in and probably keep playing just to see more. We are really close to the end."Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC
-
PerigeeNil wrote:
Does anyone else solo the entire way through? I've been doing this almost exclusively for a long while now.
There are a couple of reasons:
1) My real life circumstances don't always predictably allow me to stay constantly/continuously active in every game;
2) I enjoy the challenge of "everyone versus me" more;
3) I tend to stay more actively engaged in the game if I'm on my own;
4) It's difficult to find reliable partners anymore.
Every once in awhile if i am on my main account and a new person shows genuine interest in learning, I'll team with them to provide better guidance. For the most part, though, it's just more comfortable and more fun for me to play alone from start to finish. Are any of the rest of you doing this?
so i plan to solo but i am not against teaming with someone to learn from and have some fun while doing it. when i team with people in the past i am always a team player and i turn my competitiveness in to just having fun. as long as people can have some fun, that is all that matters win or lose. i still try hard but my mindset switches from being too serious playing solo to having fun and making sure anyone i play with is having fun or at least enjoying the experience
what i learned so far in my first game and playing solo is that i have to learn to stop over analyzing and micro managing things because i noticed that is eating half my time in game. time is valuable to me so i know i need to learn to do this but being my first game, i can't help but try to soak in everything i can to be better...at least at first..... -
@dfrost
If you really want to get into it and be good, I suggest getting into the information and learning it. It sounds like this is naturally your thing and that you've already started it.
There are a lot of little details most public/casual players don't bother to learn or apply. Just off the top of my head, you'll want to learn about things like: Hard and soft targets; differences in and advantages of each Military Doctrine; terrain types; ranges; movement speeds; attack clocks; entrenchment; morale; etc. There's a lot more to this game than just "I have 22 infantry units and you have 20 infantry units, so I win!"
First learn how things work, then get familiar with the information so you don't have to look it up every time. Good information leads to good decisions later. And, I think, knowing and using all of this more nuanced game information particularly helps with defense, which I think is a little more important to a player who intends to solo. -
yea man thanks and i totally hear ya and agree. those little things people skip and not take notice add up to something bigger and a better strategy. i am slowly learning this in my first game. some things you just can't read about. you have to actually be in game and notice and learn these little things. it's about paying attention and being aware. i try to do this in real life too so i am not taking things for granted or missing things i should never have missed.
my problem is i learn SLOOOOOOOW. always have. i have a hard time comprehending things so i can apply it. it's why i always sucked in school and realized early on school wasn't for me so i dropped out and started my own business where i can go at my own pace. anyway, the struggle is real haha i have accepted the fact that i am slow in some areas and i will also tend to forget what i learned until i keep pounding the information in my head hoping i don't get information overload
what i actually want to do eventually is figure out a good offense and a good defense strategy at the same time. i see a lot of people focus on just offense or just defense but i like a more balanced approach. in sports though. i learned that defense wins games. if you can keep your opponent from scoring, it will be impossible for them to win. with this game, you have to attack and build up vp to win. yea, your morale helps to if just playing defense. my mindset though is limited to battlefield usa though as it's a smaller map. i am sure there is a whole different strategy on the bigger maps when your surounded by other territories and coalitions
my friend who introduced me to the game talked about my military doctrine and asked me what it was. i couldn't tell him. i ignored that part haha. he said it was important just like you said. so i guess i need to pay attention better next game. he said it gives you an idea of what you should be doing in the game with the best results.
knowing me, i will probably do better next game with a better strategy and lose hahaha. i feel confident that i will win this first game though with my soooooo many mistakes! -
As mentioned; where you fight is key. if attacking general rule of thumb need 2 to 1 troop advantage due to units def > units attack plus entrenched units receive 25 pct less damage. Also look at +/- damage based on terrain. So early on its not that bad to get attacked. If get bum rushed by a newb day 1. bunker down in city and let him come too you... dont try to cut them off as lose all your def bonuses. also a lvl 1 bunker cheap and fast build and will reduce another 33 pct of incoming damage.
Example: Nat guard get 50 pct def bonus in cities. so on paper 2 inf should smoke 2 NG; but if Inf attacks NG in a city the little NGs will win.
also since you like mob arty (personally too boring for me) but look at +/- as - 25 pct in jungle and + 25 pct in mtns so if possible setup artillery's in a mtn prov. So if a unit is 4 hp damage in jungle would be 3 hp damage and in mtns 5 hp damage which is big difference."And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "
aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp -
I'm probably this game's biggest subscriber to Military Doctrine. It's one of the keys to every single game I play now.
As for offense versus defense: You're right, you're not going to get very far if you just turtle at home all game. That's not what I'm talking about when I talk about being a defensive player. I consider myself a very defensive player, and I lead every game I play (I play public) in points by at least Day 5 through Day 10 (and then for the rest of the game). I'm not saying that to brag, I'm saying that you can play defensively and still expand plenty quickly. Defending is not the enemy of expanding.
So, what do I mean by playing defensively? Well, if you learn those little pieces of information I told you about earlier, you'll notice that there are a lot more defensive bonuses in the game than there are offensive bonuses. AND some units just defend better (or as well) than they attack. It depends on the specific circumstances and units of course, but, for the most part, If I can choose between attacking and defending, I'm probably going to choose to defend. In fact, a BIG part of my game is drawing my enemies into attacking me so that I can defend. I never leave my homeland cities completely undefended.
My favorite way to start a game isn't to aggressively invade another country. There are too many casualties and even exchanges that way. Instead, I would MUCH rather have an overzealous enemy attack me, defend in my homeland, let their forces "crash against the rocks" of my defenses, and then counterattack to invade their country after their forces are spent/exhausted. They've failed their attack, watched their troops die, and now are helplessly watching my troops claim their vulnerable lands. It's beautiful. Plus, if other players are paying attention and they see that happen, they're sometimes a little more hesitant to try to invade my lands later. -
PerigeeNil wrote:
I'm probably this game's biggest subscriber to Military Doctrine. It's one of the keys to every single game I play now.
As for offense versus defense: You're right, you're not going to get very far if you just turtle at home all game. That's not what I'm talking about when I talk about being a defensive player. I consider myself a very defensive player, and I lead every game I play (I play public) in points by at least Day 5 through Day 10 (and then for the rest of the game). I'm not saying that to brag, I'm saying that you can play defensively and still expand plenty quickly. Defending is not the enemy of expanding.
So, what do I mean by playing defensively? Well, if you learn those little pieces of information I told you about earlier, you'll notice that there are a lot more defensive bonuses in the game than there are offensive bonuses. AND some units just defend better (or as well) than they attack. It depends on the specific circumstances and units of course, but, for the most part, If I can choose between attacking and defending, I'm probably going to choose to defend. In fact, a BIG part of my game is drawing my enemies into attacking me so that I can defend. I never leave my homeland cities completely undefended.
My favorite way to start a game isn't to aggressively invade another country. There are too many casualties and even exchanges that way. Instead, I would MUCH rather have an overzealous enemy attack me, defend in my homeland, let their forces "crash against the rocks" of my defenses, and then counterattack to invade their country after their forces are spent/exhausted. They've failed their attack, watched their troops die, and now are helplessly watching my troops claim their vulnerable lands. It's beautiful. Plus, if other players are paying attention and they see that happen, they're sometimes a little more hesitant to try to invade my lands later.
so i hear what you're sayin' for sure! and i need to learn how to be more patient and more balanced and this will allow me not to deplete my resources so quickly either. it's just finding that balance i haven't figured out yet i plan on doing a sweep again soon but i am a lot better prepared for it. but you got me thinking what i was already thinking. how to i play defense when i do a huge sweep.
i have to think about this because i like the idea of goating someone to attack as well. i told this guy that he needs to get rid of mexico's right of way as his plane is his only unit left and circling my city non stop for 2 days. he said i better leave him alone and him alone or he will attack me. i think i may know how to set up some defense while i will have more time to build and get him to attack me instead. i will have to think about this more....
i am curious on your thoughts in starting a new game, would you set up bunkers first? and then this will allow you to build and get resources? -
Buckeyechamp wrote:
As mentioned; where you fight is key. if attacking general rule of thumb need 2 to 1 troop advantage due to units def > units attack plus entrenched units receive 25 pct less damage. Also look at +/- damage based on terrain. So early on its not that bad to get attacked. If get bum rushed by a newb day 1. bunker down in city and let him come too you... dont try to cut them off as lose all your def bonuses. also a lvl 1 bunker cheap and fast build and will reduce another 33 pct of incoming damage.
Example: Nat guard get 50 pct def bonus in cities. so on paper 2 inf should smoke 2 NG; but if Inf attacks NG in a city the little NGs will win.
also since you like mob arty (personally too boring for me) but look at +/- as - 25 pct in jungle and + 25 pct in mtns so if possible setup artillery's in a mtn prov. So if a unit is 4 hp damage in jungle would be 3 hp damage and in mtns 5 hp damage which is big difference.
thanks for that. i am definitely going to pay attention to that stuff in the future. perigee said something similar but more general in nature that i should be paying attention on the littler things people miss or skip over. i can definitely see how these things can lead to a better strategy overall. i have tried to pay attention to as much as i can but it's hard to notice everything and pay attention to everything at first. it's like information overload for me haha. makes my head spin. but that's why i want to be active in the forum so things can better soak in over time and i don't forget. i need to start writing this stuff down! thanks again! -
dfrost wrote:
Buckeyechamp wrote:
As mentioned; where you fight is key. if attacking general rule of thumb need 2 to 1 troop advantage due to units def > units attack plus entrenched units receive 25 pct less damage. Also look at +/- damage based on terrain. So early on its not that bad to get attacked. If get bum rushed by a newb day 1. bunker down in city and let him come too you... dont try to cut them off as lose all your def bonuses. also a lvl 1 bunker cheap and fast build and will reduce another 33 pct of incoming damage.
Example: Nat guard get 50 pct def bonus in cities. so on paper 2 inf should smoke 2 NG; but if Inf attacks NG in a city the little NGs will win.
also since you like mob arty (personally too boring for me) but look at +/- as - 25 pct in jungle and + 25 pct in mtns so if possible setup artillery's in a mtn prov. So if a unit is 4 hp damage in jungle would be 3 hp damage and in mtns 5 hp damage which is big difference.
-
PerigeeNil wrote:
Does anyone else solo the entire way through? I've been doing this almost exclusively for a long while now.
There are a couple of reasons:
1) My real life circumstances don't always predictably allow me to stay constantly/continuously active in every game;
2) I enjoy the challenge of "everyone versus me" more;
3) I tend to stay more actively engaged in the game if I'm on my own;
4) It's difficult to find reliable partners anymore.
Every once in awhile if i am on my main account and a new person shows genuine interest in learning, I'll team with them to provide better guidance. For the most part, though, it's just more comfortable and more fun for me to play alone from start to finish. Are any of the rest of you doing this?
one example of a recent game: day 18 im fighting 3 people, I have 3 mixed heli stacks and 2 mixed stacks of asf/nasf going up against: Tanks, Mechanized, Strikefighters, the occasional cute lvl 1 asf, and a grand total of 3 gunships, i think there also were like 3 towed in there
results: total losses of 1 Gunship (and one or two Inf i think? I dont really keep that much track of them), 5911 vs 54897 lost; tbh dealing with 10stacks when using aircraft always makes me wish i'd gone for arty instead
other guy messages me: "You jump from war to war and have enough troops to blow away everything, wild" and im more embarassed by it then anything cuz bullying people who dont have AA with aircraft is hardly that noteworthy
Ok now that i've done my bragging back to the topic:
1. ha filty 4x player; thats why i like 1x so much... put a mountain between you and the other guy and you easily have 6h+ of peace
2. tbh i think that challenge is more of an illusion simply because as i said earlier people are extremely easily scared/impressed by ppl with huge VP
3. ok fair i guess? noticed myself that when im playing with people i know that i can rely on then i tend to be a lot more laidback (cuz imo the map is pretty much already won imo)
4.get an alliance or just use discord and make friends in general; afaik you dont even need to join most alliances to be able to get on their discord and play with ppl from there
5. Sometimes i just grow bored and end up joining a coa to finally end the mapI am The Baseline for opinions -
Solo is fun if you want to (i) set yourself a tough challenge AND (ii) have the time for it, as with a coalition you have others watching your back (hopefully) when you're offline so can relax a bit. With solo x4 you need to be online most of the time (which can be stressful with other commitments). Of course with coalitions the problem is retards/noobies and you end up spending most of the chat telling them how to play and what to do! I kill them eventually but in the early days there is strength in numbers and I stick with members who have been loyal, assertive and good fun to chat to.
I did once have a coalition where the 3 of us were in perfect sync with each other and would immediately back each other up when our units came under attack. Our teamwork quite simply destroyed the other big coalition despite us being nuked about 7 times in that game (we didn't launch a single one). Even the other 2 guys were saying this coalition was on another level
In solo games I rush quickly because expansion makes you look big psychologically and others keep their distance because you're the big dog in the house. My toughest and best solos were as Israel and Morocco, although I did have 'friends/allies' from other coalitions. -
i am in my first game which is solo. i hear ya about how big people can perceive you if you push forward quickly, but i have soon realized there are drawbacks to that.... like spreading resources too thin, army units too thin, and morale too low. if i were to have done my current game over, i think i would have found a better balance where i work on economy and defense at the same time. if we are playing the psychology game then the opposite would be true. people would think i am weak when i really am not and if they attack me, good luck to them when i worked more on my defense rather than conquering territories. cripple the neighbor then go in for the kill muhahahaha
i dunno. there are so may ways you can play this game. it's what i like about it but it makes me think too much still. i know eventually i will get out of that stage and eventually find a general strategy i like using....but probably not until i make a ton of mistakes experimenting -
It depends a lot on the average activity aka danger in regards of other players on the map, how risky it is to spin your forces thinly
Air units are more mobile and therefore better for aggressive tactics then an heavy artillery build -
I really enjoy going solo. Some of my solo wins were such a challenge that at the end I wish I could just frame that victory screen.
The proudest game win I got (screenshot) is in Rising Tides against 2 coalitions. The remaining players were exactly me, the eastern coalition consisting of Turkey, Belarus and Syria and the American coalition of Quebec, Cuba and New Zealand. All of the players in both coalition out-ranked me. We were basically at a standstill, I need one more victory site to secure a solo win while the other two coalition need at least 3 for their coalition win. Both of the coalition came to the understanding that attacking the solo player is easier than attacking the other coalition so they gave each other right of way and start moving their troops around.
Seeing the writing on the wall, I knew that the longer the game dragged on, the higher the likelihood that I'm going to be crushed due to their number advantages. But I don't exactly have enough manpower to launch an assault on victory sites that are protected by 3-man coalition. I had to play dirty. I placed radars everywhere and struck pre-emptively whenever I see them moving their armies in transport units and being vulnerable in order to reduce their economic and number advantage and extend the game longer little by little. Quebec sent a bunch of transport planes to Belarus? Tango down. Belarus have transport ships with land units close by? To the bottom of the ocean they goes. I struck quick and struck hard, when they start their counter-attack with the remaining troops, my armies were already prepared with the defensive.
The standstill were finally broken when Syria ended up going inactive so Turkey and Belarus basically settled with just kicking him out and taking over his territories for the win. Quickly taking advantage of that situation, I launched a surprise attack on Quebec's victory site, claimed it and win the game before the 2-man coalition did.The post was edited 1 time, last by vynical ().
-
Just pulled off my first 'true' solo win - i.e. a solo win on a non 30 player map. Overkill 4x speed, Argentina. Check out KFGauss's Thread What's your OOB for the victory screen.Overkill is an Awesome Map!
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Similar Threads