Debunking the Arms Industry Myth

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      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
      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.

    • 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.


      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?

      I don't know. I wouldn't normally do that, but it sounds like a fun thing to try.

    • WalterChang wrote:

      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.
      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?

      I don't know. I wouldn't normally do that, but it sounds like a fun thing to try.
      It works - In many public games - By the end of the game you probably research and build a little more than just planes, but not much.

    • But if only building aircraft why do you need invested into Arms... which you dont; build more airbases and more aircraft instead. BTW Aircraft are units. What about Ships? THIS IS REALITY NOT THEOREY!

      Day 7 on Rising tides #1 economy and #1 VPS all with level 1 Arms. Why would i sink money into arms ind when dont need it. Another 5 days wont be able to spend all my RSS.

      54 Units: Havnt lost 1 yet

      19 NG lvl3 (actually now defend same as Inf and half the price)
      14 Inf - all free starting units - upgrade lvl2 for speed
      2 RCV - Free starting units (still useless)
      3 - Corvettes lvl1 (was indoneasia and needed early port defense)
      6 - Frigates lvl2 (7th building; will build officer after get missiles researched)
      6 - EAA lvl1 I ( in pacific not as useful so switching to bombers for range and missiles)
      3 - ASF (1 free) lvl2 (will build more but dont need now)
      1 - H bomber lvl1 (2ND ABOUT DONE)

      Starting Missile program in a few hrs and current Elite Bomber being.

      # 2 Economy is Russia and we are about tied but he started off bigger and has all lvl 3 - 4 Arms but I have 24 cities he has 14 so everyday will grow on him. He has fallen into the Arms Industry aka Playbabe trap of wasting RSS ;)

      Could have kept building planes and ships; but saving for missiles then map is over. Day 11 will have 3 Elite bombers and ballistic missiles.... ball game.

      rt JULY.jpg

      ALL WITH NO ADVANCED ARMS INDUSTRYrt JULY vp.jpg
      "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 post was edited 5 times, last by The Pale Rider ().

    • 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
      "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 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
      Playbabe

      You are wrong simply by virtue of using stats as an argument.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • well @Teburu you better start building more stuff as your econ ratio sucks. you are killing way too many things per wasted economics spent ;)

      I am sure that .230 hitter with 500 career hits was way better methodology/technique than ted williams or ty cobb.

      or

      The Investment broker who sounds good in talking but has a negative ROI.

      945e3c9c2b3539e211767386964b85ad9cdede236af9a114f3b9d656cfdfd994.jpg
      "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 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
      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.

      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 Pale Rider wrote:

      3. Does not factor in morale; pop growth etc
      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.
      Files
      ''Miseris succurrere disco''

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Gen Vader ().

    • Gen Vader wrote:

      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
      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.

      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 Pale Rider wrote:

      3. Does not factor in morale; pop growth etc
      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.
      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 ;)
      "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 post was edited 4 times, last by The Pale Rider ().

    • Why i invested into arm if the aircraft currently work so good?

      1. So i can have economy power to immediately shifted production to other things when my current army get counter.

      What you gonna do when your current big army suddenly becomes useless? you will have a moment of weakness and loss some land. leading to point 2.

      2. So my economy won’t immediately collapse when enemy captured some of my occupied city. Those occupied land are near impossible to defend, land you gain growth faster then amount of unit you have.

      Losing occupied land and city will always happen in fight with competent players, Without arms at homeland, you are risking economy collapse when your economy shirk.

      As for me I shrunk it off and can afford losing half of occupied land because i concentrated my production in homeland.

      Edit: Oh now you stats shaming? oh wow all my point is now wrong.
      look the sky is blue but my stats is bad so it must not blue.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • The Pale Rider wrote:

      Gen Vader wrote:

      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
      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.

      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 Pale Rider wrote:

      3. Does not factor in morale; pop growth etc
      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.
      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 ;)

      Thats not the point tho.
      Having to use „I have better stats and therefore I am right“ is a pathetic argument because only thing it does is telling everyone that you care more about „being right“ than the actual topic at hand.
      Your comparisons to professionals irl is also fairly misleading: They are at a high level because they compete against other professionals which validifies their rank, comparing con stats to that is utterly ridiculous because your average con game is the equivalent of said professional going to the kindergarten and winning against 5 year olds.
      Stats are nice to look at, but frankly they don’t really mean anything, I mean public matches ffs. Having 25 or 250 kills for each loss doesnt really matter in that sense.

      Regarding the economy topic: Honestly I think the one mistake you make is to base it on your own playstyle and experience.
      Your average Joe Schmoe simply doesn’t expand at the pace where Arms Industries are useless to him. While your initial math is very compelling and probably correct, your conclusion fails to account for that fact.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • 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
      Our rate of expansion was neck and neck for the first fortnight? Scrn is from day 7 and it was like that till about day 12 or 14 ish? but then i had a couple days of inactivity and you did pull ahead after.

      What i'm saying is that's where our economic strat changes. After a period of expansion, usually about a week or two i start building up industries and you keep that mobilization rate up, but both are viable.

      I personally would rather have a solid base rate of rss income concentrated in my homeland which will steadily climb over time that i'm going to be defending more than other areas anyway.
      Files
      ''Miseris succurrere disco''

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Gen Vader ().

    • @The Pale Rider (buckeyechamp lol) I have a guest account I use on my work laptop, it has a 100% win rate and a double-digit KD ratio (vastly better than everyone's here).

      Do you really think that says anything? lmao anyone can get Tom Brady/Michael Jordan-level stats in public cause the majority of lobbies are filled with tank rushers that build no navies and don't even know what seasonal units are.

      Gold use is also a huge factor, I could say I used 0 gold but very well used millions of bars, obviously, that helps out on stat numbers.

      Comparing that to this conversation on whether it's worth building arms industries to level 5 is the dumbest shit I've seen yet on this forum.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by To0oooop ().

    • Still the guy has some merit for briging this discussion. It's a very interesting hot take. For everyone who's not following everything the hot take for me at least is to balance your arms upgrade. Too often i see players rush arms industries and while it's good for production they get sooo behind in research. Especially when they upgrade their industries with bs rss like fuel which accumulate rapidly. Most of the time like lv 2 is enough for like components and supplies if you conquer many territories. So in summarry the main "lesson" of this post is about balance. At the start of the game you should be focus on conquering as much land as possible and too do that you need to research new units to help you on that. then later when you encounter more experienced players you should invest on upgrading your eceonomy in your homaland cities

    • obviously, using result in the map that fervor expanding due to higher city density to claim that expanding is better.
      where all the math is gone? i though we are gonna use something valid instead now it just 'but my experince'

      Edit: I see you posting more details in another thread, and even more point to shoot you down, 4x game is fervor the expanding with lower resources production but faster combat, and Overkill also have victory point to take to earn massive income which also fervor expanding. stop taking one specific map to apply logic to all the rest
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

      The post was edited 1 time, last by playbabe ().