what types of players do you hate the most?

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

    • david roro wrote:

      mettre à part les deniers mis en jeu au départ tous et une question de gestion des troupes on peut perdre du terrain en début de partie si c'est bien calculer pour faire perdre du temps al adversaire qui perd des unité de plus votre usine produise sans conter que si vous avez développé vos technologies sa lui fait une surprise sacrée quand vous contréPHOa466a260-c8cf-11e4-bac3-5be59eee9a01-805x453.jpgtéléchargement.jpg
      je ne parle pas
      "El experto en todos fue una vez un bêginara"

      "You didn't see me sneak under the door" :evil: :evil:

    • Well... I hate the players who, on the first day, declare war on the whole world and then become inactive.

      I experienced this in the current WW3 game. I play with Romania and I'm in an alliance with Norway, Spain and Poland. The game started very interestingly with the strategic formation of some alliances on each continent. But, shortly after, Saudi Arabia appears and declares war on everyone (more than 20 nations). Being at the beginning, there is no point in investing my resources in the effort to eliminate Saudi Arabia. It is too far for now. But what seems stupid to me, is that I have to bear the burden of the -2 penalty to the morale of all my cities, just because an idiot declared war on me and then left the game after 3 days. I tried to propose a peace treaty to him, but without success. Now probably Saudi Arabia has been taken over by AI. Meanwhile, I came into conflict with the insurgents, so the morale penalty became -4. Any new war takes it to -6.

      Basically, any noob can ruin the game of the others by the simple fact that he declared war on them and then disappears. And this is not funny at all! That's why I hate them the most! IMO, should be implemented a limit for a maximum number of countries that you can declare war simultaneously.
      "In times of peace, prepare for war." – Niccolò Machiavelli

    • Flavius Popa wrote:

      IMO, should be implemented a limit for a maximum number of countries that you can declare war simultaneously.
      For that to work, there would probably have to be a more straight-forward way of making peace with the AI, otherwise you might find yourself unable to declare war on a nation that is attacking your ally or something - which would be annoying. What sort of maximum number did you have in mind?

      In Call of War: 1942 you can get the AI countries to change their diplomatic status with you. You just have to change your status with them to the one you want, and wait a couple of days. If your 'infamy' score isn't too high, the AI will generally reciprocate; if it is too high, they won't. It works pretty well.

    • I am strictly referring to the action of officially declaring war on a nation. This should be limited to a maximum number, to avoid such situations. For example, it could be 5 (considering that you really can go to war with an entire alliance, which can have a maximum of 5 members). Theoretically, the action of officially declaring a war is done manually by that player. Invading the territory without the official declaration of war should not be quantified, considering that the player is active and practically attacked you.

      In the meantime, all I can do is to change my position towards Saudi Arabia from war to peace and to wait... hoping that AI will consider it useless and change its position like me, from war to peace. I saw today (we are on day 6 of the game) in the news panel, that Saudi Arabia has stopped the war with 2 nations, but still are in war with 19, including me.
      Saudi Arabia.jpg
      "In times of peace, prepare for war." – Niccolò Machiavelli

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

    • Ok, 10... or whatever... but what about I don't want to play anymore in this map and before to leave I declare war to all countries!? For those who have just started the game, I'll be for a long time a really pain in the ass for the morale of their cities. That's why, especially in the case of players who become inactive, there should be a possibility to make peace with the AI.
      "In times of peace, prepare for war." – Niccolò Machiavelli

    • Flavius Popa wrote:

      Well... I hate the players who, on the first day, declare war on the whole world and then become inactive.

      . . . Saudi Arabia appears and declares war on everyone (more than 20 nations). Being at the beginning, . . . But what seems stupid to me, is that I have to bear the burden of the -2 penalty to the morale of all my cities, just because an idiot declared war on me and then left the game after 3 days. . . .
      The important point you're overlooking is that the player declared war on everyone in the game (according to you).

      Therefore everyone received the same penalty/burden (just like everyone (sooner or later) receiving the at-war-with-insurgents).

      Therefore no one is receiving any more or less of a penalty than everyone else.

      In that sense everyone is 100% equal.

      So, your complaint about the about the -2% seems a little hollow.

      You don't get any VP for having perfect morale.

      The player's "contribution" to that game did suck, but it sucked equally for everyone.

    • Flavius Popa wrote:

      I am strictly referring to the action of officially declaring war on a nation. This should be limited to a maximum number, to avoid such situations. For example, it could be 5 (considering that you really can go to war with an entire alliance, which can have a maximum of 5 members). Theoretically, the action of officially declaring a war is done manually by that player. Invading the territory without the official declaration of war should not be quantified, considering that the player is active and practically attacked you.

      In the meantime, all I can do is to change my position towards Saudi Arabia from war to peace and to wait... hoping that AI will consider it useless and change its position like me, from war to peace. I saw today (we are on day 6 of the game) in the news panel, that Saudi Arabia has stopped the war with 2 nations, but still are in war with 19, including me.
      Saudi Arabia.jpg
      What is so annoying to you about the morale? It doesn't affect anything in my gameplay and i just ignore them. (Unless they are my neighbour.)



      Compared to many problems like backstabbing, coalition engine abusing and etc, this is a minor one, it just affects the morale and probably doesn't affect anything in the gameplay.
      National Guards Should Not Be Underestimated 8)

    • If your morale gets low enough , it makes it difficult to continue moving forward in assaults. Conquered cities and provinces are always on the edge of revolt tying down units needed to advance. I worry when my morale gets below 68 .
      "Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC

    • bobqz wrote:

      If your morale gets low enough , it makes it difficult to continue moving forward in assaults. Conquered cities and provinces are always on the edge of revolt tying down units needed to advance. I worry when my morale gets below 68 .
      Generally caused by:

      ICBM attacks.


      Oversized Civilian Casualties.


      Recent Occupation.


      Missile attacks.


      Headquaters' distance from other cities.

      Sometimes you really need to watch out with the morale by building some buildings that help the growth of the population and morale, like millitary hospitals or bunkers.


      For me, low morale can be easily avoided unless you don't have enough resources.


      Now we are going off-topic, please let's refrain from morale and focus in player types that people hate the most.
      National Guards Should Not Be Underestimated 8)

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

    • KoopKoopyGuy wrote:

      Flavius Popa wrote:

      I am strictly referring to the action of officially declaring war on a nation. This should be limited to a maximum number, to avoid such situations. For example, it could be 5 (considering that you really can go to war with an entire alliance, which can have a maximum of 5 members). Theoretically, the action of officially declaring a war is done manually by that player. Invading the territory without the official declaration of war should not be quantified, considering that the player is active and practically attacked you.

      In the meantime, all I can do is to change my position towards Saudi Arabia from war to peace and to wait... hoping that AI will consider it useless and change its position like me, from war to peace. I saw today (we are on day 6 of the game) in the news panel, that Saudi Arabia has stopped the war with 2 nations, but still are in war with 19, including me.
      Saudi Arabia.jpg
      What is so annoying to you about the morale? It doesn't affect anything in my gameplay and i just ignore them. (Unless they are my neighbour.)


      Compared to many problems like backstabbing, coalition engine abusing and etc, this is a minor one, it just affects the morale and probably doesn't affect anything in the gameplay.
      It does affect gameplay though. Morale influences: Construction time, Mobilisation time, taxation level, resource production, manpower generation, population growth and insurgency chance. Hover over the "i" icon above the morale number on a burning city & it will tell you.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Flavius Popa wrote:

      Well... I hate the players who, on the first day, declare war on the whole world and then become inactive.

      . . . Saudi Arabia appears and declares war on everyone (more than 20 nations). Being at the beginning, . . . But what seems stupid to me, is that I have to bear the burden of the -2 penalty to the morale of all my cities, just because an idiot declared war on me and then left the game after 3 days. . . .
      The important point you're overlooking is that the player declared war on everyone in the game (according to you).
      Therefore everyone received the same penalty/burden (just like everyone (sooner or later) receiving the at-war-with-insurgents).

      Therefore no one is receiving any more or less of a penalty than everyone else.

      In that sense everyone is 100% equal.

      So, your complaint about the about the -2% seems a little hollow.

      You don't get any VP for having perfect morale.

      The player's "contribution" to that game did suck, but it sucked equally for everyone.
      It's not a hollow complaint. That it affects everyone equally, is completely irrelevant to the fact that your game (as well as everyone else's) just became objectively harder.

    • xovault wrote:

      KoopKoopyGuy wrote:

      Flavius Popa wrote:

      I am strictly referring to the action of officially declaring war on a nation. This should be limited to a maximum number, to avoid such situations. For example, it could be 5 (considering that you really can go to war with an entire alliance, which can have a maximum of 5 members). Theoretically, the action of officially declaring a war is done manually by that player. Invading the territory without the official declaration of war should not be quantified, considering that the player is active and practically attacked you.

      In the meantime, all I can do is to change my position towards Saudi Arabia from war to peace and to wait... hoping that AI will consider it useless and change its position like me, from war to peace. I saw today (we are on day 6 of the game) in the news panel, that Saudi Arabia has stopped the war with 2 nations, but still are in war with 19, including me.
      Saudi Arabia.jpg
      What is so annoying to you about the morale? It doesn't affect anything in my gameplay and i just ignore them. (Unless they are my neighbour.)

      Compared to many problems like backstabbing, coalition engine abusing and etc, this is a minor one, it just affects the morale and probably doesn't affect anything in the gameplay.
      It does affect gameplay though. Morale influences: Construction time, Mobilisation time, taxation level, resource production, manpower generation, population growth and insurgency chance. Hover over the "i" icon above the morale number on a burning city & it will tell you.
      Solution: Recruiting offices + bunkers + millitary hospitals.


      Now let's shut up about this, i don't want this thread to be off-topic.
      National Guards Should Not Be Underestimated 8)

    • 1. Depends. If a player is doing the vast majority of the work and has earned more than the VP requirements for a solo win (1850 in normal WWIII) while his teammates are all stuck well below 1000 VPs and those players resemble the next few of the pet peeves on your list, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the player who has done all the work and earned his or herself a Solo win by VPs, to take it without any remorse for the dead weight ride-alongs and/or possible infiltrators.
      Now, if you are not a dead weight ride-along, nor an infiltrator, and you've pulled more than your own weight towards a coalition victory and still someone in your coalition attempts to steal themselves a solo victory in large part off the backs of your hard work, there are ways to deal with this. First, if you suspect they are planning this, or if they mention they are considering it (fishing for your reaction) tell them you are aware and you do not approve. The immediate next step is to station your troops in his cities, particularly empty ones, homeland preferably, as a deterrent. Tell them you are just guarding their cities for them, keeping them safe. They will get the idea. Keep shuffling around to empty cities if they match their units against your units, and if they keep matching, keep moving your troops to the next empty city, tell them you can do this all day.
      All of the scenarios listed above have happened to me, and I have been successful each time.

      2. Be careful about who you bring into a coalition. If they aren't working towards the goal chances are they are working against you.

      3. RoW "betrayals", also depends. First of all you should always be suspect of everyone and stay on your toes. Expect to be betrayed if you are not displaying strength. From the perspective of the betrayer however I think it is justified if the country being taken over was inactive or not expanding, or just weak, and the other player had been peaceful for a time but just noticed the other one just wasn't expanding or building. Use it or lose it.

      4. Jerks. See Answer #2

      The post was edited 1 time, last by RevolutionV1984 ().

    • shrek6satan wrote:

      I could be an hour here talking about this: for me it's the traitors of all kinds: those who leave the coalition at the end of the game to get the solo win, those who join a coalition only to leave immediatly after just to get info, those who gave you right of way only for them to attack you later... and even those who seemingly didn't do nothing wrong but might be frustrating to deal with. An example would be guys who are in the same coalition who when they get attacked they ask for help to their teammates only to then quit the game right after leaving you alone to protect his lands. Guys who are in a coalition but only think for themselfes not helping the teammates not communicating etc. Yeah these are examples but I'm sure you can find many more like this
      Couldn't actually agree regarding your assessment of what kind of player / players to hate the most as playing
      real time strategy for many years rather the onus is on the individual to navigate all situations regarding others
      on an online multiplayer rts and interactions with a degree of success.