Do You Guys Solo?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Do You Guys Solo?

      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?
    • Yes that is how most my games go. The strategic decisions are much more decisive going solo and are fraught with risky gambles that tickle my brain. Though usually by day 25-30 some up-and-coming player will express interest in learning (usually due to watching his allies getting beaten) and we’ll team up for the endgame showdown.

      Much more exhilarating than steamrolling everyone.
    • Do you (Aeneas and anyone else who cares to comment), think there's a significant difference in strategy for soloing and for effective teaming? I tend to play basically the same way whether on a team or solo, but I think I'm probably not the model team player. I probably tend to play both like solo games.

      I've seen coalitions do the thing where they divide up the major facets (navy, air, ground) between different countries. I try not to ever be that dependent on another player.
    • I have played with some really good players in the alliance Renegades and I can definitely say that 5 guys dividing builds will beat 5 guys who each build all-round. Because each guy only has to focus on one facet of the three military arms (ground, sea, and air,), the specific units become upgraded far more quickly.

      The catch is that everyone must work seamlessly together, whether that is providing air cover, covering sea lanes, clearing territories, trading extra resources (due to the fact that some builds will get a bit lopsided), allowing players who don’t have the capabilities to fight on land to get cities, etc, while expecting nothing for it. Each player must defend and protect his teammates units and cities as if they were his own. And the players preferably should be online at the crucial moments.

      Players in public matches who will commit to all this are few and far between.

      P.S. Here are some basic guidelines for a great team build that I have seen to be very effective.
      1. No armor units and generally no upgrades to infantry, save research for OOB
      2. No expansion until day 7-10. This way team can properly respond to allies being invaded before ready.

      OOB. We would have one solid Air Force guy (asf, choppers, awacs, airmobile infantry, national guard, maybe sf/bombers/ NPB etc), two ground artillery guys (towed artillery, rocket launchers, radar, anti air, Sams, national guard), and two navy guys (frigates and submarines/cruisers, national guard, gunship choppers, etc).



      Hope this helps :thumbsup:
    • I'm never so married to the idea of soloing that I wont team up... but soloing is def more challenging.

      In most of my coalitions (maybe all) I've been the leader... and I've picked my allies based on geography.

      It's another kind of satisfaction, where the challenge is getting your allies to trust and follow you, orchestrate campaigns and defensive positioning... etc.

      In my early games, I sought out allies that were obviously the best on the map... to create the winning coalition.
      As I became more competent/experienced I avoided allying with the best players on the map...

      Now I really enjoying watching players develop in the time frame of our game... learning mechanics, understanding repeatable strategies, and guarding against vulnerabilities.

      In my current WW3 game as Afghanistan I had planned on going for a rush-solo-win... taking the Middle East and Balkans by day 25 or so.... but the game didn't lend itself to this...
      Iran and Iraq had allied with China and Vietnam.... and they were courting India.... I knew this because India accidentally sent me a message intended for China....
      I reached out to Turkey as soon as this developed... and Turkey immediately joined with me.
      He was a private, but he took direction well... before too long we had pinched Iraq and Iran out and India joined with us...
      Turkey was completely willing to build what I said we needed... frigates en masse .... which I couldn't make any of having no coastal home cities.
      The EU coalition of Poland/Austria/Romania/Belarus was in the lead at this time... and had gotten there with air power...
      Turkey built 4-5 navy base 2s and was building frigates exclusively ... by this time The EU coalition had taken Greece and had their aircraft patrolling
      I had made enough ASF to handle the EU helicopters but not enough to handle their fixed wing...
      We positioned the frigates and set a time to declare war... the plan went flawlessly... and there was a great sense of loyalty and respect between us...
      From this victory we were able to gain Egypt and then later Russia to be a full 5 piece against the US coalition.

      I think I prefer working as a group just because it's more social... you get to share the success with team mates ... get to plan more elaborate operations... get to joke around and BS about whatever...
      Solo is just a little lonely
    • I have had games where interacting with a teammate or two was the most enjoyable part of that game for me. That being said, for me, I think it's more often the exception than the rule. Not to get too personal, but I'm not a terribly social person who gets very lonely in real life either, so maybe that bleeds into the game for me. I'm just someone who's often most comfortable being alone and doing things alone.

      Back to the gameplay itself, though. Smallsword's conversation above about playing as Afghanistan and having no coastal homeland cities reminded me that one of the reasons I've considered and brought up the difference between a solo mindset and a coalition mindset is that I keep hearing people opine that Chad is possibly the best country to play as.

      Now listen, I really like Chad, and I think it is in a strong and fun position. So, I get where these folks are coming from. I've purposely started lots of games as a landlocked countries specifically for that reason. But I don't know if I'd consider them the best countries for soloing, especially if they're not on the EuroAsian landmass. At some point, if you're Chad and you want to win the game solo, you have to leave Africa. Bolivia is one of my personal favorites to play, but same deal there. Even if we set "leaving the continent" aside, it's not long before you end up with a whole mess of coastline to defend. I think it's fair to say you're best served to annex a couple of coastal cities at some point, and try to build some warships that can get your ground units across some water. Even still, though, you're starting out with the disadvantages of having a later and smaller navy, and navy can be a bit unforgiving when it comes to advantage/disadvantage.

      For that reason, even though I do understand the appeal of the landlocked nations, and even though I have purposely chosen to solo with them myself, I wouldn't consider one of them to be potentially "the best country" if I was thinking in terms of that country just on its own merits and abilities.
    • playing with usa now; have coalition with canada but we are doing our own thing for most part. he is experienced and good not to fight big neighbor day 1.

      Had 2 or 3 others apply but havnt accepted them.

      Having a good record def put a target on my back. dudes declaring war from across the sea and even had to deal with spies day 3 ;)
    • I am coalition with 2 great guys that are doing their first game. They are doing really well and I am trying to help with the little that I know. The problem I am seeing is that we no longer have an adversary and now we are just farming for points to try and close the game. I am afraid they are really getting tired and I worry they will just not play another game. Maybe Dorado needs to reduce the amount of points required for a victory. I know this is not the thread for points but it is something I worry about (keeping new and competent players). Have a great day .
    • I think the problem that bobqz brought up about players getting tired pops up in most games. I don't want to get into it here, but I don't think reducing required victory points is the right answer. Although it is not something that is directly under any individual's control, I think the answer is when we have a greater number of competitive players in a game. In my opinion, nothing keeps players active like a formidable enemy. I think games most often go cold when one coalition has already dominated everyone who was willing to oppose them. The coalition gets board because there is no one left to kill, and the stragglers lose hope because they don't believe they can survive opposing the coalition.

      That's one of the reasons I really like soloing: the ends of my games are almost always the peak of the excitement. It almost always ends with the dominant coalition against me. Now, that obviously doesn't change the situation for the other coalitions and nations that last coalition already dominated, but it does usually eliminate that period of the game where the dominant coalition is wandering around collecting farmland points with no enemies to fight. They're the dominant coalition, and I'm rapidly approaching 1850, so our final showdown is probably going to put one or the other of us over the edge.
    • bobqz wrote:

      This is battleground USA. Honestly it’s not my favorite. I actually enjoyed regular flashpoint when I was really new. For some reason it just seems more worldly
      yeah flashpoint is a good map with good variety without taking 2 months to play. wish they had different tiers of games based on min rank. Even if a few and that would keep sharks out of baby pool.
    • Ah, then, I think you're kind of in a bad spot, because I think the map you prefer is intensifying the problem you're talking about.

      Battleground USA is the map where Conflict of Nations places brand new accounts. So on that map you're getting a lot of two types of accounts that aren't going to remain active:

      1) Actual brand new folks who just came in to see what Conflict of Nations was like and decided they didn't want to play it;

      and

      2) Experienced players like me who are just creating a new account and don't have an immediate interest in playing a game of Battleground USA (although I am currently playing one) at that moment.

      Aside from them, you also have the other new players who are truly new and who have decided they like the game, but have also decided they'd rather go see what some of the other maps are all about.

      So why does this seem worse than Flashpoint used to be? Well, at one time you couldn't play any map EXCEPT Flashpoint until you reached Rank 2. That means that any player who wanted to keep playing the game on that account (be they a truly new player or a new account for an old player) was forced to stay there and play at least a little way into the Flashpoint game before moving on to a different map. At that point, a lot more players probably just opted to finish out the game.
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      bobqz wrote:

      This is battleground USA. Honestly it’s not my favorite. I actually enjoyed regular flashpoint when I was really new. For some reason it just seems more worldly
      yeah flashpoint is a good map with good variety without taking 2 months to play. wish they had different tiers of games based on min rank. Even if a few and that would keep sharks out of baby pool.
      I would like to see some Rank-based separation too. It wouldn't have to be across-the-board definitive, but I'd like to see at least some options for limitation.

      Want to play Battleground USA? Okay, there's the Rank 1-5 game; the All Ranks game; or the Ranks 20+ game.

      Want to play Blood & Oil? Okay, there's the Rank 1-10 game; the All Ranks game; and the Ranks 20+ game.

      Want a big boys game? Fine. Weekly special event limited pop Rank 50+ game.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Ah, then, I think you're kind of in a bad spot, because I think the map you prefer is intensifying the problem you're talking about.

      Battleground USA is the map where Conflict of Nations places brand new accounts. So on that map you're getting a lot of two types of accounts that aren't going to remain active:

      1) Actual brand new folks who just came in to see what Conflict of Nations was like and decided they didn't want to play it;

      and

      2) Experienced players like me who are just creating a new account and don't have an immediate interest in playing a game of Battleground USA (although I am currently playing one) at that moment.

      Aside from them, you also have the other new players who are truly new and who have decided they like the game, but have also decided they'd rather go see what some of the other maps are all about.

      So why does this seem worse than Flashpoint used to be? Well, at one time you couldn't play any map EXCEPT Flashpoint until you reached Rank 2. That means that any player who wanted to keep playing the game on that account (be they a truly new player or a new account for an old player) was forced to stay there and play at least a little way into the Flashpoint game before moving on to a different map. At that point, a lot more players probably just opted to finish out the game.
      Flashpoint has a larger map or just seems to. . It seemed more worldly for a lack of anything more descriptive. I know it is the beginner map but I have played lots of games there and have seen some ranking players there. I like going across the world to fight . It just seems challenging but then again I rarely play in the bigger maps.
    • bobqz wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Ah, then, I think you're kind of in a bad spot, because I think the map you prefer is intensifying the problem you're talking about.

      Battleground USA is the map where Conflict of Nations places brand new accounts. So on that map you're getting a lot of two types of accounts that aren't going to remain active:

      1) Actual brand new folks who just came in to see what Conflict of Nations was like and decided they didn't want to play it;

      and

      2) Experienced players like me who are just creating a new account and don't have an immediate interest in playing a game of Battleground USA (although I am currently playing one) at that moment.

      Aside from them, you also have the other new players who are truly new and who have decided they like the game, but have also decided they'd rather go see what some of the other maps are all about.

      So why does this seem worse than Flashpoint used to be? Well, at one time you couldn't play any map EXCEPT Flashpoint until you reached Rank 2. That means that any player who wanted to keep playing the game on that account (be they a truly new player or a new account for an old player) was forced to stay there and play at least a little way into the Flashpoint game before moving on to a different map. At that point, a lot more players probably just opted to finish out the game.
      Flashpoint has a larger map. It just seemed more worldly for a lack of anything more descriptive. I know it
      You know Flashpoint still exists, right? I just saw it recently.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Not sure how reducing the VP required, stops people from going afk in the first 2 weeks
      I just know it is day 25 and we are 472 points away from a win . Yeah we will win because the game is actually over but everyone has quit except for us 3 . I love to win and having a win on my stats makes me want to play...I worry that my new guys here will not be of the same mindset. I will keep encouraging them because that is the future of this game.