Championship questions

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

    • So you finally accomplished it, I suppose. Poland and South Africa are out of the game.

      You achieved your mission goal, though is that a real win?


      Current standing:

      South Africa vs Argentina, Brazil, DR Congo, Saudi Arabia
      6'943 vs 20'615


      Poland vs Germany, Sweden
      16'807 vs 28'337


      I just feel sorry for our alliance mate, who seems like he got caught in this mess without having to do with anything.



      For clarification:

      Are we good now or do you want another bloody nose in September? ;)
    • Well, the high ratio you inflicted is precisely the reason why they attacked in group, i guess.

      You just demonstrated that they will need to do that again in order to have similar results, as the images i have in my head, when i see this kind of >2 ratio with the "overwhelming" number factor, is "1-1, no chance."

      It seems logical to me, in this regard, that they acted as they did, in order to counter you. It's pragmatical.

      Just continue to train. Next time, you'll probably make a >3 ratio, which is much better than winning this kind of game.

      Good luck for the remaining warriors between themselves.

      And don't be to fearful about individual skills. If you take the average Quizz TV-show, the dumbest are as much targeted than the smartest.

      ______________

      As an alliance leader, i take that as an operational proof of game understanding, from your alliance. This definitely make my brain put some labels on some things and people :p
      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.
    • well nothing you guys never did to others as well ! kinda sucks right ! and like you guys said to us ! we were the biggest threat. well now PK is/was so thats how every one responded. Every one wanted a bite out of you guys this game .
      "There are only two types of aircraft — fighters and targets."
      — Doyle 'Wahoo' Nicholson, USMC.

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

    • There is still a difference, Crang. We were about 11 against 7 of you, you were what? About 10 against 3 of us? Not sure if everyone who went against France was on the same team.

      Also we forced nobody to join the coalition against you. ;)


      Though as see it anyway as Opulon. If you are so afraid of us, I feel pretty flattered. :D

      The crimson phantom is always happy if he has more blood to spill.


      @ Opulon:
      And yes, next time I will be better prepared. My army this time was to effected by attrition sadly :D
    • Crang, srsly, there were 7 <SEVEN> TLL members who joined in a coalition size of 3.

      1. You are members of the #1 alliance, this already puts you at the advantage that you are not only experienced, but experienced in playing together and communication is no problem. On the other hand, we were 10, after 1 war day only 9, players that never played together as a group before.
      The war never exceeded a 7vs9, by the time 3 players joined, one of us pulled back from the frontline.

      2. Your strategic position was perfect. Algeria-Congo-S.Africa in Africa; Spain, Italy, France in W.Europe. And Canada. But Canada was free to go since the only other player in America was Colombia. With whom we had no or very little contact. He wasn't in.

      Now if you compare it to us:

      I
      We are 3 players. There were only 3 PK members on the map, going against 10. 3vs10. While you fought a 7vs9. I think there is a difference ;)

      II
      Out strategic position is not perfect at all. We aren't connected in any way and South Africa is very far away from France+Poland. France and Poland already have a difficult situation being surrounded.


      To Opulon,
      I remember what you said about 1vs5 as sparring to make your tactical plays perfect. And it is indeed how I'm going to take this map ;)

      Btw, note that the K/D above was achieved after I lost all my homeland cities. I had to retreat into the desert and give up my homecities without a fight xD
    • next time just bring more of your allies inside the game . if you can't bring in total of more than 3 and complain your enemy can gather more than you . who is too blame . if member start to attack you , just prove how people outside your allies hated you . i am disappointed to hear this kind of lame excuse about losing just because you cant arrange more of your allies to sign up. you are the championship champion for 2 time in the row ,make your own self reflection . at this moment just try to play monopoly while we are trying to finish up this game without you and your allies . :D :D :D :D
    • If i remember well, it's a singleplay tournament. Alliances and pre-made teams are forbidden.


      Erratum : my bad. Nowhere in the rules is it forbidden to make an alliance and to play together.
      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.
    • If War and hate could erupt between your alliances, it would prove benefical for Nelva diplomacy, but i think you are less emotional than that.
      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.
    • salim miaow wrote:

      next time just bring more of your allies inside the game . if you can't bring in total of more than 3 and complain your enemy can gather more than you . who is too blame .[...] losing just because you cant arrange more of your allies to sign up. [...]
      Look, this guy understood the championshipmap. What the Championship map is all about. Its all about getting as many friends in there as possible. You lose? What is to blame? You didn't get enough allies in here.

      Where is the winner of the championship map decided? On the battlefield? Perhaps on the battlefield using tactic-skills and diplomacy (to figure out ingame naps)? No! Not at all! The Winner of the championship map is decided already before! Whoever gets the most friends to participate wins!
      I want to win the next championship map, I know exactly how I'm going to do that. I will get 10 friends to participate! No, 15! Or perhaps even 20? Yeah, I will get 20 friends to participate! If I succeed to get 20 friends to play on my side every game from now on, I can rightfully call myself Champion of the CoNmunity Championship, by the end of this season! However, the toughest part will be finding 20 friends. Who would've thought that to win the Championship, the hardest challenge is to find 20 friends. Exactly the spirit of Conflict of Nations, how the game is supposed to be played. True CoN competitive, get as many friends in here to create the biggest mass alliances!

      I have a suggestion, change the name 'CoNmunity Championship' to something like 'Getting friends Championship', since thats exactly what this is all about. We don't want to create confusion and make other players think that there is actual skill on the battlefield involved, oh no!

      *sarcasm off

      Opulon wrote:

      Erratum : my bad. Nowhere in the rules is it forbidden to make an alliance and to play together.
      Exactly, thats why forbidding coalitions changes pretty much nothing in how the game is played.



      Now a serious suggestion:
      It is indeed possible to play without mass alliances. All you need to do is change some rules:

      - FIXED coalitions allowed with a max size of 3, 2 or 1. (I personally prefer 3) A max coalition size of one is like removing coalitions, but for the sake of simplicity I call it coalition size of 1.

      4 possibilities to have fixed coalitions:

      1. Once you join a coalition, there is no way out. (okay)

      2. Coalitions are pre-determined by countries. Example: Canada+USA+Mexico MUST ally and not ally with anyone else. (bad)

      3. Players sign up in teams up to '3'. Nation selection can be on or off, preferably on. (good)

      4. Players sign up in teams up to '3'. Each team gets randomly a fixed set of '3' countries assigned. The players must join as those countries. (okay)
      Example: N.America is a set. S. America is a set. Algeria-Congo-S.Africa is a set too. Players A, B and C sign up as one team. They randomly get assigned either N. America, S. America or Algeria-Congo-S.Africa. The players must pick countries of their region.
      I am willing to spend some time to get the most balanced 3-country-sets.


      - FORBID any forms of AGREEMENTS between coalitions. No word must be spoken between coalitions.
      Yes, this removes the diplomacy skill from the Championship, but only that way you can stop mass alliances. Even the possibilties of creating NAPs is allowing mass alliances. -> If 10 players have a NAP, they will attack the other 10 players. Not attacking each other but attacking other players is the definition of a (bad or good) coalition.

      - Every player must play for the victory. The only reason players may participate is to win the map, not to throw all his units at another player.

      Otherwise I will get 20 friends to join. Each friend will be designated 1 other player. The friends sole objective is to kill or at least hurt that player badly. I doubt that such behavior is even welcomed in publics, so why allow here. In fact, all that mass alliances is not welcomed in publics.
    • As i see it, here is a lot of discussion about nothing.
      I am playing as a single player most of my public games.
      Until i stumbled upon some cool guys, joined MED and we collected a bunch of cool people.
      There are other great guys as well, though i will always be a loyal MED member. ALWAYS.
      Apart of that, the CoN championship is a hornets nest as i experienced it from now.
      Trust? Loyality? Well...
      I dont get the whining about all this at all.
      Sometimes tactics work, sometimes they dont.
      So when they dont, we should take that as grown ups, remembering that the same stuff that held us back here, worked in our favour in the past.
      Profiting of "flaws" in the "system", and afterwards complaining about that same "flaws" since they dont work in our favour this time?
      Well... i just leave this discussion alone...

      ADD:
      From day 1 of the first game, this was about allies. And i guess it always will be about "allies", "friendship", worshipping", "fearing".
      Do i like it? nope...
      Though...
      Theres no way around it, no rules which can settle this as i see it.
      We are like this, the game is like this, we have to accept it i guess...

      I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.

      - Alexander the Great -

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

    • Drama is the proof competition is back :p.

      Alliances (especially managers) will learn with time how to deal with it diplomatically, and how to subtly lash their members who create it in favour of more subtle ways of actions. They'll also deal more "inter-alliances" wise to solve this kind of problem, instead of relying to public outroars.

      The competition is still young, don't worry, it will get better.


      There is a simple element that every alliance leader gets progressively, it's that when you intend to make an alliance that will stand the test of time, and live for 5,10, 15 (?) years... Winning once isn't worth ruining a long term standing, and if you really want another alliance dead, it's not through competition that you will achieve your goal.

      I met a traveller from an antique land,
      Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
      Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
      Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
      And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
      Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
      Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
      The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
      And on the pedestal, these words appear:
      My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
      Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
      Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
      Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

      The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

      (PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY)

      When an alliance disappears, 10 000 times world champion or not, it is forgotten within an year, except in the mind of some lore-masters ^^.
      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.
    • look chrimisu, I don't know how often I have to stress it, I complain about the rules that they allow such mass alliances the moment I realized that players would do such things. Regardless in whose favour it is. Do I need to share my DMs with Dr.L? To prove to you that on the very first Championshipmap I already complained, or at least shed light on this issue? Asking for it to be adressed?

      There are ways around it, see my serious proposal above. Implement it, supervise it, you have it.

      Abusing the flaws in the system in the 2nd round was to counter others, who abused it, and a bid to show Dr.L what problems his rules cause after he wouldnt listen in the first map.
    • no one is saying you did not do the Caaake ! but you also benefited from it in rounds 1 and 2. but not round 3 you are the leader so players wanted to hit you ! if it was GW leading they would be hit it is just that simple ! nothing about hating other players . just about getting the top players out nothing more !
      "There are only two types of aircraft — fighters and targets."
      — Doyle 'Wahoo' Nicholson, USMC.