playbabe wrote:
what do you mean? im expanding fine and stop making unit since day 3.
only unit in production is aircraft. the rest resources invested back to arms
Sounds fun
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
playbabe wrote:
what do you mean? im expanding fine and stop making unit since day 3.
only unit in production is aircraft. the rest resources invested back to arms
WalterChang wrote:
Sounds funplaybabe wrote:
what do you mean? im expanding fine and stop making unit since day 3.
only unit in production is aircraft. the rest resources invested back to arms
KFGauss wrote:
When you don't specify something else, I think most people who will reply to you here will base their replies on winning, not on "fun".
I understand both motivations.
I'm simply pointing out that conversations here are more useful if posters always let readers know when their comments are based on some goal other than a quick and decisive win.
WalterChang wrote:
Well. Building nothing but aircraft and Arms Industry upgrades after day 3? Is he playing to win or having a laugh with a lop-sided strategy? Does it work?KFGauss wrote:
When you don't specify something else, I think most people who will reply to you here will base their replies on winning, not on "fun".
I understand both motivations.
I'm simply pointing out that conversations here are more useful if posters always let readers know when their comments are based on some goal other than a quick and decisive win.
I don't know. I wouldn't normally do that, but it sounds like a fun thing to try.
The post was edited 5 times, last by The Pale Rider ().
The post was edited 4 times, last by The Pale Rider ().
The Pale Rider wrote:
OK Boys and Girls.... Do you want to win via conquest or Play Bob the builder Econ and hope for best? Stats Matter.
90 pct win ratio with 9 - 1 mil/econ ratio vs 20 pct win ratio with 1.5 - 1 mil/econ ratio. ( @Dealer of Death isnt that a really low on your patented aggressively index??)
Which method do you think is more successful?
We wont even get into K:d ratio or Prov win/loss
pr stats.jpgpb stats.jpg
The post was edited 2 times, last by The Pale Rider ().
The Pale Rider wrote:
OK Boys and Girls.... Do you want to win via conquest or Play Bob the builder Econ and hope for best? Stats Matter.
90 pct win ratio with 9 - 1 mil/econ ratio vs 20 pct win ratio with 1.5 - 1 mil/econ ratio. ( @Dealer of Death isnt that a really low on your patented aggressively index??)
Which method do you think is more successful?
We wont even get into K:d ratio or Prov win/loss
The Pale Rider wrote:
3. Does not factor in morale; pop growth etc
The post was edited 1 time, last by Gen Vader ().
Gen Vader wrote:
I'm just going to throw this out there to balance the discussion as i also have 90pct w/l ratio and other similar stats. I expand fast, but i also invest in my economy, including arms industry 5.The Pale Rider wrote:
OK Boys and Girls.... Do you want to win via conquest or Play Bob the builder Econ and hope for best? Stats Matter.
90 pct win ratio with 9 - 1 mil/econ ratio vs 20 pct win ratio with 1.5 - 1 mil/econ ratio. ( @Dealer of Death isnt that a really low on your patented aggressively index??)
Which method do you think is more successful?
We wont even get into K:d ratio or Prov win/loss
My general strategy depends on who i'll encounter in the map. An easy map with likely not much competition (most pub games nowadays) i'll focus on expansion more initially as it is by far the best way to increase resources, which i agree with, but against strong players/coalitions or heavy golders where i'll likely encounter stiff resistance, i'll consolidate my gains after a certain point (early/mid) and start working on my homeland with underground bunkers, other infrastructures and industries to increase ALL resources. I'll manage an increase in all and i'm only ever low on electronics to balance my supply and components for pretty tech which i make up for with annexing. It's also worth noting though that part of my strategy is playing the long game. The idea of steam rolling through a map asap i find a little boring once i reach a certain size as i like to research and use more than a handful of units, more out of personal preference, the challenge and enjoyment than a necessity.
Point being, in a game like CoN, stats DON'T matter for various reasons. There's more than one way to reach your objective of defeating your opponent or winning and there's usually more than one way to take out most units and all these things reflected in stats can vary depending on what you encounter or how you and others play. I've dealt with many players with a 10-1 k/d and high w/l ratio but don't know how to deal with late game fights and get their MRL stacks slaughtered when dealing with special forces that they can't track as just one notable example, in which there are many. I also come across players who have a 2-1 k/d but always push themselves and not concerned about winning, they're just in it for the challenge and very good players.
Although competitive, i don't care for stats and while they do tell a story, i always have new recruits play an assessment match as that gives me a better picture than their profile could, which you know, and i also know you're a competent player so while this isn't directed at you, i would much rather have a player that has been humbled by loss and learnt the lesson than one with good stats and still has to learn them.
Failure is one of the greatest teachers, unless you have a teacher... Which brings me to my last point.
The formula provided by playbabe should be considered along with expansion as it will have a noticeable effect on your resource income and returns from industry investment over the time of a match.The Pale Rider wrote:
3. Does not factor in morale; pop growth etc
There's more than one way to win this game.
The post was edited 4 times, last by The Pale Rider ().
The Pale Rider wrote:
And when we played together as a team on same game ... Gen V who had about 50 pct more VPs? Even though before we played you said very few in your alliance could keep up with you?? I think you said only 2 could come close to your pace. And I do believe the game we played I smoked you on VPs... @Cash108 could confirm. I know you weren't really tryingGen Vader wrote:
I'm just going to throw this out there to balance the discussion as i also have 90pct w/l ratio and other similar stats. I expand fast, but i also invest in my economy, including arms industry 5.My general strategy depends on who i'll encounter in the map. An easy map with likely not much competition (most pub games nowadays) i'll focus on expansion more initially as it is by far the best way to increase resources, which i agree with, but against strong players/coalitions or heavy golders where i'll likely encounter stiff resistance, i'll consolidate my gains after a certain point (early/mid) and start working on my homeland with underground bunkers, other infrastructures and industries to increase ALL resources. I'll manage an increase in all and i'm only ever low on electronics to balance my supply and components for pretty tech which i make up for with annexing. It's also worth noting though that part of my strategy is playing the long game. The idea of steam rolling through a map asap i find a little boring once i reach a certain size as i like to research and use more than a handful of units, more out of personal preference, the challenge and enjoyment than a necessity.The Pale Rider wrote:
OK Boys and Girls.... Do you want to win via conquest or Play Bob the builder Econ and hope for best? Stats Matter.
90 pct win ratio with 9 - 1 mil/econ ratio vs 20 pct win ratio with 1.5 - 1 mil/econ ratio. ( @Dealer of Death isnt that a really low on your patented aggressively index??)
Which method do you think is more successful?
We wont even get into K:d ratio or Prov win/loss
Point being, in a game like CoN, stats DON'T matter for various reasons. There's more than one way to reach your objective of defeating your opponent or winning and there's usually more than one way to take out most units and all these things reflected in stats can vary depending on what you encounter or how you and others play. I've dealt with many players with a 10-1 k/d and high w/l ratio but don't know how to deal with late game fights and get their MRL stacks slaughtered when dealing with special forces that they can't track as just one notable example, in which there are many. I also come across players who have a 2-1 k/d but always push themselves and not concerned about winning, they're just in it for the challenge and very good players.
Although competitive, i don't care for stats and while they do tell a story, i always have new recruits play an assessment match as that gives me a better picture than their profile could, which you know, and i also know you're a competent player so while this isn't directed at you, i would much rather have a player that has been humbled by loss and learnt the lesson than one with good stats and still has to learn them.
Failure is one of the greatest teachers, unless you have a teacher... Which brings me to my last point.
The formula provided by playbabe should be considered along with expansion as it will have a noticeable effect on your resource income and returns from industry investment over the time of a match.There's more than one way to win this game.The Pale Rider wrote:
3. Does not factor in morale; pop growth etc
As I recall you were a far distant 2nd place.. in fact could have won solo for 3 days. And still had way bigger economy with you having lvl 3+ arms and me lvl1 and VP and we won WW3 in what 26 days.
you saw with your own eyes... i dont change style and it works.
But no I in team
Gen V plays a Buckeye/ Pale Rider Lite game.
Dont get me wrong Gen V a VERY GOOD player ... he just came in distant 2nd when we played together ( maybe 50 pct was high but I had 2200+ and far beyond solo win and think he was 1500ish
The Pale Rider wrote:
And when we played together as a team on same game ... Gen V who had about 50 pct more VPs? Even though before we played you said very few in your alliance could keep up with you?? I think you said only 2 could come close to your pace. And I do believe the game we played I smoked you on VPs... @Cash108 could confirm. I know you weren't really trying
As I recall you were a far distant 2nd place.. in fact could have won solo for 3 days. And still had way bigger economy with you having lvl 3+ arms and me lvl1 and VP and we won WW3 in what 26 days.
you saw with your own eyes... i dont change style and it works.
But no I in team
Gen V plays a Buckeye/ Pale Rider Lite game.
Dont get me wrong Gen V a VERY GOOD player ... he just came in distant 2nd when we played together ( maybe 50 pct was high but I had 2200+ and far beyond solo win and think he was 1500ish
The post was edited 2 times, last by Gen Vader ().
The post was edited 3 times, last by To0oooop ().
playbabe wrote:
expansion is key: said while playing in the map that have city increased by minimum of 120
The post was edited 1 time, last by playbabe ().
1 Guest