OPINION REQUESTED: What happens, 1X guy VS 4X guy, various situations?

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

    • The Pale Rider wrote:

      The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      I mostly get bored and or have school and that's why I leave or go awol in games. That's why my K/D is not so good.
      Kind of proves my point about 4 x..lol
      But you have listed (Destroyer1.000)

      OK the Destroyer1 - 330 Games Spammed and 5 wins (no solos) neg prov ratio; neg win ratio. thats a 1.5 pct win ratio ;(
      Why you say 4x player only get bored, are lives are not based off of this game that's why we may get bored.

      Everyone is different 1x players get bored too you know why? We don't base our lives around CON because we all have lives to live Un like you, pale rider

      A lot of us have school and work and SLEEP. So that's why 4x and 1x players go awol because we have lives.

      So potentially puting 4 vs 1x players against each other is kind of impossible because we all have lives to live.

      1x and 4x both go awol and we all are different that's what I'm saying.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • The Pale Rider wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      My comment is similar to '@Opulon's.

      If you want to have a useful conversation about this, I think you have to stick carefully to a single scenario.

      Imagine the two players:
      • Have identical CoN knowledge, skills, and intuition,
      • Have identical total time to spend playing,
      • Have their free time at identical times of the day,
      • Live in the same time zone,
      • Sleep identical amounts,
      • Sleep at the same times of the day,
      • and etc.
      The only difference between the two is that one likes to usually play 4x games and the other usually likes to play 1x games.

      Now - With that level playing field (and Opulon's comments) in mind, you can avoid talking past each other.
      But thats not the case. . . .
      My suggestion is that if you disagree with the scenario I laid out, you should suggest a different list of assumptions.

      Without a common/agreed set of assumptions I've noticed that conversations like this one tend to chase their own tails forever while the participants endlessly talk past each other.

      YMMV
    • It just depends on the commander.
      4x commander is probably better at game mechanics. When it comes to tough wars micromanaging units gives so much more dimension to fights and that's possible for 4x matches but 1x matches you can't really micromanage and you don't see how the other player plays because you can't really be on your phone for 3 hours until your strike fighters finally land an attack and come back. A 4x commander can counter attacks by moving AA, sending ASF after them, sending bombers/ strike fighters or a missile at the airfield enemy aircrafts land and refuel in and timing it right.

      Honestly the only thing you should be building on 1x maps is tanks and SAM and cruisers/destroyers. Plus some choppers and some strike fighters. Just set your army on their path, go for a week long vacation and come back to see how it went.

      So to answer the question, a 1x player probably will not beat a 4x player on a 4x map. Unless the 4x player plays matches like youd play on a 1x with no reaction and no micromanagement of situations.

      I haven't played much 1x and never finished a 1x map because I can't just play a match for 2-3 months and still remember wth is going on and who's who. So idk how well 1x players do but I assume a lot of unnecessary casualties when offline. But the difficulty of micromanagement and reaction timing in a 1x map is definitely a handicap for a 4x player like myself. I would have to change my usual set ups and expect a different kind of stacks than I'm used to
    • KFGauss wrote:

      My comment is similar to '@Opulon's.

      If you want to have a useful conversation about this, I think you have to stick carefully to a single scenario.

      Imagine the two players:
      • Have identical CoN knowledge, skills, and intuition,
      • Have identical total time to spend playing,
      • Have their free time at identical times of the day,
      • Live in the same time zone,
      • Sleep identical amounts,
      • Sleep at the same times of the day,
      • and etc.
      The only difference between the two is that one likes to usually play 4x games and the other usually likes to play 1x games.

      Now - With that level playing field (and Opulon's comments) in mind, you can avoid talking past each other.
      The biggest problem (and really ONLY problem) I have with your scenario reordering is number 1. (Aside from the obvious impossibility of actual having equality in these 3 areas) I submit to you, that playing at these different speeds will always yield a different set of knowledge, and skill, and of course intuition is unquantifiable. The other points I kinda assumed in my original presentation, so they don't change anything for me.

      Now, that said, I believe there is more of an edge that would go to the 1X player on the 1X map than would go to the 4X player on the 4X map. Why? I believe the fundamental difference in who plays which is patience. I disbelieve the 4X player would be able to create that patience from nothing, while the 1X player merely has to ramp up the speed which he does things.

      Assuredly, in 1000 matches, it would probably be near equal, but I'm betting it would be something like this:
      1X vs 4X on 1X - 647W 1X / 353W 4X
      1X vs 4X on 4X - 551W 4X / 449W 1X
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Admira G1 wrote:

      It just depends on the commander.
      4x commander is probably better at game mechanics. When it comes to tough wars micromanaging units gives so much more dimension to fights and that's possible for 4x matches but 1x matches you can't really micromanage and you don't see how the other player plays because you can't really be on your phone for 3 hours until your strike fighters finally land an attack and come back. A 4x commander can counter attacks by moving AA, sending ASF after them, sending bombers/ strike fighters or a missile at the airfield enemy aircrafts land and refuel in and timing it right.

      Honestly the only thing you should be building on 1x maps is tanks and SAM and cruisers/destroyers. Plus some choppers and some strike fighters. Just set your army on their path, go for a week long vacation and come back to see how it went.

      So to answer the question, a 1x player probably will not beat a 4x player on a 4x map. Unless the 4x player plays matches like youd play on a 1x with no reaction and no micromanagement of situations.

      I haven't played much 1x and never finished a 1x map because I can't just play a match for 2-3 months and still remember wth is going on and who's who. So idk how well 1x players do but I assume a lot of unnecessary casualties when offline. But the difficulty of micromanagement and reaction timing in a 1x map is definitely a handicap for a 4x player like myself. I would have to change my usual set ups and expect a different kind of stacks than I'm used to
      No. That is simply not true.

      >not played 1x
      > „you only need to build x units and go afk“

      Considering wars (in 1x) can easily be decided in less than 24h, the statement that it doesn’t need micromanagement is simply not true
      Really actually the opposite; because of it being slower it actually favors reacting to the other guy and micro.

      In comparison to that 4x makes winning fight actually pretty trivial, add 4 times speed to the fact that even in 1x activity is vital and you catching the other guy offline is almost guranteed to be his demise.

      >2-3 months for a 1x game
      thats… extremely long for really any game to finish, i usually only need about 30 days maybe 40 at most
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      Admira G1 wrote:

      It just depends on the commander.
      4x commander is probably better at game mechanics. When it comes to tough wars micromanaging units gives so much more dimension to fights and that's possible for 4x matches but 1x matches you can't really micromanage and you don't see how the other player plays because you can't really be on your phone for 3 hours until your strike fighters finally land an attack and come back. A 4x commander can counter attacks by moving AA, sending ASF after them, sending bombers/ strike fighters or a missile at the airfield enemy aircrafts land and refuel in and timing it right.

      Honestly the only thing you should be building on 1x maps is tanks and SAM and cruisers/destroyers. Plus some choppers and some strike fighters. Just set your army on their path, go for a week long vacation and come back to see how it went.

      So to answer the question, a 1x player probably will not beat a 4x player on a 4x map. Unless the 4x player plays matches like youd play on a 1x with no reaction and no micromanagement of situations.

      I haven't played much 1x and never finished a 1x map because I can't just play a match for 2-3 months and still remember wth is going on and who's who. So idk how well 1x players do but I assume a lot of unnecessary casualties when offline. But the difficulty of micromanagement and reaction timing in a 1x map is definitely a handicap for a 4x player like myself. I would have to change my usual set ups and expect a different kind of stacks than I'm used to
      No. That is simply not true.
      >not played 1x
      > „you only need to build x units and go afk“

      Considering wars (in 1x) can easily be decided in less than 24h, the statement that it doesn’t need micromanagement is simply not true
      Really actually the opposite; because of it being slower it actually favors reacting to the other guy and micro.

      In comparison to that 4x makes winning fight actually pretty trivial, add 4 times speed to the fact that even in 1x activity is vital and you catching the other guy offline is almost guranteed to be his demise.

      >2-3 months for a 1x game
      thats… extremely long for really any game to finish, i usually only need about 30 days maybe 40 at most
      40-55 is usually my average, but I like to screw around a lot (do things not most efficiently for winning) to add some fun.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Teburu wrote:



      Considering wars (in 1x) can easily be decided in less than 24h, the statement that it doesn’t need micromanagement is simply not true
      Really actually the opposite; because of it being slower it actually favors reacting to the other guy and micro.

      In comparison to that 4x makes winning fight actually pretty trivial, add 4 times speed to the fact that even in 1x activity is vital and you catching the other guy offline is almost guranteed to be his demise.
      What if a player, due to RL, can’t spend 24 hours at a time? In the case that there is a time gap of 2-3 hours for him to spare (but not around the clock management), I think it is much easier to micro in 4x.

      I used to play only 1x, but with a change in my work schedule that drastically affected my playing hours, 4x became much easier to micromanage. I agree that this is not ideal, but given the circumstances, it IS more feasible…for me anyway.

      So to reiterate, in an ideal world, 1x is more conducive to micromanaging and strategy. However, for some of us, 4x is much easier to handle.

      @ DoD- When you know that you have only a single hour of playing time before a solid 8 hours offline, I’m sure you also would get “impatient” for your aircraft to finish an attack run or your ships to finish off an enemy fleet :D
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.
    • I'd like to point, as it came back a lot of time in the discussion, that K/D shouldn't be used as a reliable data to evaluate skill.


      I'm currently sitting around 10 K/D (against players, of course). Played 40 maps, which is a lot less than many players.

      I consider myself as a decent player, on the good side of the average. Nothing Fancy, Nothing to be ashamed of. My referential, however, is "competitive alliance battle".
      Had i been playing EXCLUSIVELY against my peers, i would probably have a 1.2 or 1.3 K/D.


      Last time i played a 4X, i fought 2-3 people (allied) that had a 4 K/D, but that i killed with 10 K/D nonetheless. Reason : Be it X1 or X4, i don't see a single world where a Heavy bomber + Motorised infantry build can be of any risk to me.

      I asked both of them "why do you play that", and their answer was straightforward : "usually it wins". Those people, i can't consider them skilled. Yet, it's 4 K/D.


      In X1, those people are the very well known "Strike Fighter + MBT" builds. They have refined their muscles into being incredibly specialised "farming tools" for their respective game mode "noob".

      And yes... Most of them can farm noobs up to 4 K/D . better players farm them 15 K/D, and hopefully, getting some slaps from my peers lowers my K/D :)


      As a result, i'm incredibly reluctant to use K/D to evaluate skill, in the same way that i usually don't give a single flying damn on "victory rates claim" : Does Flashpoint map really counts as a victory, if the goal is to use it to validate skill ? :D



      "A player doesn't reach 10 K/D by fighting good players"
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      I'd like to point, as it came back a lot of time in the discussion, that K/D shouldn't be used as a reliable data to evaluate skill.


      I'm currently sitting around 10 K/D (against players, of course). Played 40 maps, which is a lot less than many players.

      I consider myself as a decent player, on the good side of the average. Nothing Fancy, Nothing to be ashamed of. My referential, however, is "competitive alliance battle".
      Had i been playing EXCLUSIVELY against my peers, i would probably have a 1.2 or 1.3 K/D.


      Last time i played a 4X, i fought 2-3 people (allied) that had a 4 K/D, but that i killed with 10 K/D nonetheless. Reason : Be it X1 or X4, i don't see a single world where a Heavy bomber + Motorised infantry build can be of any risk to me.

      I asked both of them "why do you play that", and their answer was straightforward : "usually it wins". Those people, i can't consider them skilled. Yet, it's 4 K/D.


      In X1, those people are the very well known "Strike Fighter + MBT" builds. They have refined their muscles into being incredibly specialised "farming tools" for their respective game mode "noob".

      And yes... Most of them can farm noobs up to 4 K/D . better players farm them 15 K/D, and hopefully, getting some slaps from my peers lowers my K/D :)


      As a result, i'm incredibly reluctant to use K/D to evaluate skill, in the same way that i usually don't give a single flying damn on "victory rates claim" : Does Flashpoint map really counts as a victory, if the goal is to use it to validate skill ? :D



      "A player doesn't reach 10 K/D by fighting good players"
      But what is K/D for, if not winning arguments on the internet?
      Bigger K/D = more valid argument.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      I'd like to point, as it came back a lot of time in the discussion, that K/D shouldn't be used as a reliable data to evaluate skill.


      I'm currently sitting around 10 K/D (against players, of course). Played 40 maps, which is a lot less than many players.

      I consider myself as a decent player, on the good side of the average. Nothing Fancy, Nothing to be ashamed of. My referential, however, is "competitive alliance battle".
      Had i been playing EXCLUSIVELY against my peers, i would probably have a 1.2 or 1.3 K/D.


      Last time i played a 4X, i fought 2-3 people (allied) that had a 4 K/D, but that i killed with 10 K/D nonetheless. Reason : Be it X1 or X4, i don't see a single world where a Heavy bomber + Motorised infantry build can be of any risk to me.

      I asked both of them "why do you play that", and their answer was straightforward : "usually it wins". Those people, i can't consider them skilled. Yet, it's 4 K/D.


      In X1, those people are the very well known "Strike Fighter + MBT" builds. They have refined their muscles into being incredibly specialised "farming tools" for their respective game mode "noob".

      And yes... Most of them can farm noobs up to 4 K/D . better players farm them 15 K/D, and hopefully, getting some slaps from my peers lowers my K/D :)


      As a result, i'm incredibly reluctant to use K/D to evaluate skill, in the same way that i usually don't give a single flying damn on "victory rates claim" : Does Flashpoint map really counts as a victory, if the goal is to use it to validate skill ? :D



      "A player doesn't reach 10 K/D by fighting good players"
      But what is K/D for, if not winning arguments on the internet?Bigger K/D = more valid argument.
      If you were seeking opinions of how to hit a baseball who would you listen to? Ted Williams / Ty Cobb or someone who had a lifetime batting avg < .200?

      If you were seeking opinions on how to win a golf tournament who would you listen to? Jack Nicklaus or a guy who never won on the Tour?

      If you were seeking opinions on how win a football game who would you listen to? Bill Belichik or Hue Jackson

      --------
      4x players are spamming 300 games in the time some play 30 hoping something sticks and games they dont quit are probably just beating AI. (which yes you can tell by stats) or If OK in Ground K/D but suck in Air / Navy K/D that does say something. Anyone can ram a big stack over AI and "win".
      "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
    • The Pale Rider wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      I'd like to point, as it came back a lot of time in the discussion, that K/D shouldn't be used as a reliable data to evaluate skill.


      I'm currently sitting around 10 K/D (against players, of course). Played 40 maps, which is a lot less than many players.

      I consider myself as a decent player, on the good side of the average. Nothing Fancy, Nothing to be ashamed of. My referential, however, is "competitive alliance battle".
      Had i been playing EXCLUSIVELY against my peers, i would probably have a 1.2 or 1.3 K/D.


      Last time i played a 4X, i fought 2-3 people (allied) that had a 4 K/D, but that i killed with 10 K/D nonetheless. Reason : Be it X1 or X4, i don't see a single world where a Heavy bomber + Motorised infantry build can be of any risk to me.

      I asked both of them "why do you play that", and their answer was straightforward : "usually it wins". Those people, i can't consider them skilled. Yet, it's 4 K/D.


      In X1, those people are the very well known "Strike Fighter + MBT" builds. They have refined their muscles into being incredibly specialised "farming tools" for their respective game mode "noob".

      And yes... Most of them can farm noobs up to 4 K/D . better players farm them 15 K/D, and hopefully, getting some slaps from my peers lowers my K/D :)


      As a result, i'm incredibly reluctant to use K/D to evaluate skill, in the same way that i usually don't give a single flying damn on "victory rates claim" : Does Flashpoint map really counts as a victory, if the goal is to use it to validate skill ? :D



      "A player doesn't reach 10 K/D by fighting good players"
      But what is K/D for, if not winning arguments on the internet?Bigger K/D = more valid argument.
      If you were seeking opinions of how to hit a baseball who would you listen to? Ted Williams / Ty Cobb or someone who had a lifetime batting avg < .200?
      If you were seeking opinions on how to win a golf tournament who would you listen to? Jack Nicklaus or a guy who never won on the Tour?

      If you were seeking opinions on how win a football game who would you listen to? Bill Belichik or Hue Jackson

      --------
      4x players are spamming 300 games in the time some play 30 hoping something sticks and games they dont quit are probably just beating AI. (which yes you can tell by stats) or If OK in Ground K/D but suck in Air / Navy K/D that does say something. Anyone can ram a big stack over AI and "win".
      The point was that K/D is incredibly easily inflated.

      Judging given advice is incredibly easy on forum because you can just look at what other ppl have to say about it/ the same topic and the general credibility of the author.

      About your comparison: You’d trust the advice from these people because they are known AND their skill level is common knowledge.
      Nobody would go to average Joe scoring infinity to zero in a game of soccer against newborn.

      Because that’s essentially what your average public match is people with the average intelligence so high, even a toaster could beat them. Just look at all the times people complain about rogue state being too strong or motorized Infantry being OP because of the ranged attack.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Opulon wrote:

      I'd like to point, as it came back a lot of time in the discussion, that K/D shouldn't be used as a reliable data to evaluate skill.


      I'm currently sitting around 10 K/D (against players, of course). Played 40 maps, which is a lot less than many players.


      I consider myself as a decent player, on the good side of the average. Nothing Fancy, Nothing to be ashamed of. My referential, however, is "competitive alliance battle".
      Had i been playing EXCLUSIVELY against my peers, i would probably have a 1.2 or 1.3 K/D.


      Last time i played a 4X, i fought 2-3 people (allied) that had a 4 K/D, but that i killed with 10 K/D nonetheless. Reason : Be it X1 or X4, i don't see a single world where a Heavy bomber + Motorised infantry build can be of any risk to me.

      I asked both of them "why do you play that", and their answer was straightforward : "usually it wins". Those people, i can't consider them skilled. Yet, it's 4 K/D.


      In X1, those people are the very well known "Strike Fighter + MBT" builds. They have refined their muscles into being incredibly specialised "farming tools" for their respective game mode "noob".

      And yes... Most of them can farm noobs up to 4 K/D . better players farm them 15 K/D, and hopefully, getting some slaps from my peers lowers my K/D :)


      As a result, i'm incredibly reluctant to use K/D to evaluate skill, in the same way that i usually don't give a single flying damn on "victory rates claim" : Does Flashpoint map really counts as a victory, if the goal is to use it to validate skill ? :D



      "A player doesn't reach 10 K/D by fighting good players"

      Well, if Opulon is in the "average range", then I'm in the "sucks really bad" range, and a lot of other people I've played are in the "on life support because they are brain dead" range.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Again I must state I have no had enjoyed the honors to cross opulon of my bucket list...

      I did K_SVA once just to see if the top 1 player does any good...well i was disapointed.(just noticed he fell down to second place.so i must stalk luis cyfer now)

      Biggest highscore would be @germanico...I wonder if he would use Gold to not lose...
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Again I must state I have no had enjoyed the honors to cross opulon of my bucket list...

      I did K_SVA once just to see if the top 1 player does any good...well i was disapointed.(just noticed he fell down to second place.so i must stalk luis cyfer now)

      Biggest highscore would be @germanico...I wonder if he would use Gold to not lose...
      I was once in a coalition with K_SVA, I bowed to him (he is CON royalty).... lol
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris
    • Teburu wrote:

      Admira G1 wrote:

      It just depends on the commander.
      4x commander is probably better at game mechanics. When it comes to tough wars micromanaging units gives so much more dimension to fights and that's possible for 4x matches but 1x matches you can't really micromanage and you don't see how the other player plays because you can't really be on your phone for 3 hours until your strike fighters finally land an attack and come back. A 4x commander can counter attacks by moving AA, sending ASF after them, sending bombers/ strike fighters or a missile at the airfield enemy aircrafts land and refuel in and timing it right.

      Honestly the only thing you should be building on 1x maps is tanks and SAM and cruisers/destroyers. Plus some choppers and some strike fighters. Just set your army on their path, go for a week long vacation and come back to see how it went.

      So to answer the question, a 1x player probably will not beat a 4x player on a 4x map. Unless the 4x player plays matches like youd play on a 1x with no reaction and no micromanagement of situations.

      I haven't played much 1x and never finished a 1x map because I can't just play a match for 2-3 months and still remember wth is going on and who's who. So idk how well 1x players do but I assume a lot of unnecessary casualties when offline. But the difficulty of micromanagement and reaction timing in a 1x map is definitely a handicap for a 4x player like myself. I would have to change my usual set ups and expect a different kind of stacks than I'm used to
      No. That is simply not true.
      >not played 1x
      > „you only need to build x units and go afk“

      Considering wars (in 1x) can easily be decided in less than 24h, the statement that it doesn’t need micromanagement is simply not true
      Really actually the opposite; because of it being slower it actually favors reacting to the other guy and micro.

      In comparison to that 4x makes winning fight actually pretty trivial, add 4 times speed to the fact that even in 1x activity is vital and you catching the other guy offline is almost guranteed to be his demise.

      >2-3 months for a 1x game
      thats… extremely long for really any game to finish, i usually only need about 30 days maybe 40 at most
      You can not micromanage a 1x war the same level you can a 4x war unless you literally do nothing but play this game 20 hours a day. Every built has weaknesses and those weaknesses can be exploited. A 4x player if able to play for 5-10 hours in a very difficult fight can cover those weaknesses or counter them. That same time frame for a 1x player is 20-40 hours of activity straight and micromanaging and being active. If you think micromanaging units in 1x map is better or on the same level as 4x maps you are not good at micromanaging then
    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Considering wars (in 1x) can easily be decided in less than 24h, the statement that it doesn’t need micromanagement is simply not true
      Really actually the opposite; because of it being slower it actually favors reacting to the other guy and micro.

      In comparison to that 4x makes winning fight actually pretty trivial, add 4 times speed to the fact that even in 1x activity is vital and you catching the other guy offline is almost guranteed to be his demise.
      What if a player, due to RL, can’t spend 24 hours at a time? In the case that there is a time gap of 2-3 hours for him to spare (but not around the clock management), I think it is much easier to micro in 4x.
      I used to play only 1x, but with a change in my work schedule that drastically affected my playing hours, 4x became much easier to micromanage. I agree that this is not ideal, but given the circumstances, it IS more feasible…for me anyway.

      So to reiterate, in an ideal world, 1x is more conducive to micromanaging and strategy. However, for some of us, 4x is much easier to handle.

      @ DoD- When you know that you have only a single hour of playing time before a solid 8 hours offline, I’m sure you also would get “impatient” for your aircraft to finish an attack run or your ships to finish off an enemy fleet :D

      That is exactly my point about 4x being easier to micromanage. The vast majority of players can not be online to micromanage final wars or big coalition wars the entire day. 4x you can do that much easier. I can usually check my phone at work every few minutes if it's slow day and when it's busy I can't check for an hour.
      it takes something like 15 hours to send stack of ships from Peru to Spain, on a 4x map that's a little less than 4 hours and I can check every 10/15/30/60 minutes to make sure I don't run in trouble or if my land army is still alive and not caught to a random destroyer or gone under a patrolling or ferrying aircraft.

      The same thing on a 1x map takes the entire day and then I have to go to sleep after the 15 hours of checking and my ships will be there until I wake up.

      1x and 4x maps are played very differently. If you can play 20 hours a day the entire 1x map for the 30/40/50/60 days that the game goes on, alright you can match a 4x player on a 4x map and there probably are some players who do put that commitment in certain 1x maps especially for alliance matches but most players don't have that time
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Again I must state I have no had enjoyed the honors to cross opulon of my bucket list...

      I did K_SVA once just to see if the top 1 player does any good...well i was disapointed.(just noticed he fell down to second place.so i must stalk luis cyfer now)

      Biggest highscore would be @germanico...I wonder if he would use Gold to not lose...
      Fun fact, i often use K_SVA as an example of "rank doesn't mean anything" because K_SVA is ludicrously easiy to cross on the battlefield due to how much maps he does at the same time.

      So, all rookies can witness by themselves that after one week of serious training and understanding of the game, they actually are signficantly better in all regards to the #1
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.