NIl's No-Frills Drills

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

    • So, full disclosure: My Nigeria random game did not go as well. It's not over yet, but the end is coming, and I will be on the losing end of it.

      Essentially what happened was that I took some damage early in the game from which I had trouble recovering (I lost my one supplies city, which delayed my early building, units, and research). I kinda came back, but not enough to be dominant. My coalition was in the lead for nearly 40 days, but a strong and more active coaliton than us chipped away our weaker members until they had the advantage. Now, they're all descending on me and my one other strong coalition mate.

      Attached are some Day 41 screenshots, which is just after the other coalition has gained the upperhand and after their joint-country invasion of me has begun. It's going to be all downhill for me from here in this game.
      Files
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Big Geek wrote:

      For some reason I was banned for using other accounts, I did not participate in some games. And in the future, Yak banned the use of second accounts.
      So you're currently banned from the game? Were you banned from using someone else's account? Were you banned because someone else was using your account? I don't know the details of your banning, so I can't tell you what the difference was, but I can tell you what the policy is: Any player may create and use as many accounts as they like, as long as those accounts are not found to be shared or used in coordination with each other (i.e. the same game).
      My main account is not currently blocked, my second account is blocked. I received a warning for using multiple accounts. All accounts were only mine and only I had access. I did not use them in one game, I just tested new maps, units and tested other changes in the game. I asked Yak if I can use a second account, he categorically answered no to me. You write that any player can use any number of accounts. Can I use a second account without fear of a ban?
    • "My main account is not currently blocked, my second account is blocked. I received a warning for using multiple accounts. All accounts were only mine and only I had access. I did not use them in one game, I just tested new maps, units and tested other changes in the game. I asked Yak if I can use a second account, he categorically answered no to me. You write that any player can use any number of accounts. Can I use a second account without fear of a ban?"

      Yes. As long as you do not use the two accounts together, you should be able to maintain a second account without fear of a ban.

      Unfortunately, I was not a part of the original ban, so I'm afraid I can't explain why that account was banned.
    • Teburu wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      I like the 4x for flow and like some have mentioned but find I end up disrupting sleep to check on things.. Time to make the donuts after 4 hrs sleep to get new research / build/mobs going
      :D i played multiple 4x; but never finished one of themimo 4x replaces the focus of skill with a focus on activity

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      then biggest thing going from a 4x game then normal it does seem like moving is slow motion till get back into normal pace. but skill /strategy agree 1 x better off .. its just damn im going to be playing this world game for 2 months real time.

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Interesting. See, I was forced into a regular time game when I started the new account, and I've been thinking "Wow, this is MINDLESS!" because I feel like I can't string two actions together into a plan. I want to launch an attack at X, and then launch an attack at Y once the enemy units have started moving toward X. ...I check in 4 hours later... and my units have ALMOST made it to the next province... only 1.8 more DAYS until they get to destination X. ... ... so,... guess I'll mark that on my calendar?

      Seriously, how do you guys work timing in those games? I can be available for the next 45 minutes to get something done, but I might have something going on 2.5 hours from now.

      And what about active things like dog fights and combining missile launches with bomber strikes? Do you just sit there and watch your screens for hours at a time while your units slowly inch across?

      You guys mentioned that you think real time takes more skill. Why do you think that? That's not an argument; it's an honest question. I could see saying that 4x does because you have to think and act faster, but what about real time do you think requires MORE skill than 4X?

      For the record, I'm currently comfortably in first in my 1x game too (pic below). Yes it's Flashpoint, and yes I'm Germany, but I didn't choose either of those two things (and I'm playing without any of the other perks), and that's the only 1x I'm currently playing.
      Well, I wouldn’t say 4x replaces the other key elements of skill with activity, but the compressed timeframe relative to reality results in a significantly increased necessity for activity in order to maintain capability and action in game, fourfold presuming x amount of time spent per game day per real day. Therefore, 4x particularly requires increased activity to maintain the various aspects of production, although the amount of time required for executing complex operational fire and maneuver sequences is significantly reduced in nearly equal proportion, although the later occurs with considerably less frequency, thereby maintaining the higher activity threshold required overall.
    • no not really. think tuburu said.. i day at a time but we both know .. we both look ahead a bit.. I know what my plan is in immediate battle .. semi next battle... a bit on next (but that could change). trust me 1x is slow but less stressful and solves your offline issue so if playing multiple games maybe mix in different speeds. id rather mix in a 4 x flash point and knock that shit out in 3 - 5 days. But global maps do require a slow boil i think.. coalitions mix/swap and more long game... real battle doesn't occur till day 20ish. its more I need to get my house in order and my gang together to fight other 3 - 4 gangs.. regional maps just going to bust it out even if I have to drag my coalition to victory.. but im not that arrogant to think I can conquer a world map just on my will.
      "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
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      no not really. think tuburu said.. i day at a time but we both know .. we both look ahead a bit.. I know what my plan is in immediate battle .. semi next battle... a bit on next (but that could change). trust me 1x is slow but less stressful and solves your offline issue so if playing multiple games maybe mix in different speeds. id rather mix in a 4 x flash point and knock that shit out in 3 - 5 days. But global maps do require a slow boil i think.. coalitions mix/swap and more long game... real battle doesn't occur till day 20ish. its more I need to get my house in order and my gang together to fight other 3 - 4 gangs.. regional maps just going to bust it out even if I have to drag my coalition to victory.. but im not that arrogant to think I can conquer a world map just on my will.
      If I’m actually taking a game seriously, My plan is normally in decreasing levels of temporal distance proportional to the level of analysis; for example, in a WW3, I have a very high level long term plan for the entire game with very little detail, amounting to, for Thailand, “take Southeast Asia, expand into the Pacific, fortify it, get the rest of Asia, push into the Middle East, push through Europe.” That delineates into increasing levels of detail at the lower levels of planning as follows: “capture Southeast Asia.” That is accomplished by taking Myanmar and Vietnam. That plan becomes “fortify the West, ally with or conquer in the East.” Allied with Vietnam, that turns into, “Conquer Myanmar.” From that, there are plans on where my divisions will go over the course of the whole invasion of the country, along with SOPs, RoEs, Basic Drills, etc. for that section of the campaign. At the operational level, that’s how each attacking division applies combat power with unity of effort to achieve mission objectives. At the tactical level, that finally delineates to coordinating the fires and maneuvers of individual divisions and battalions for the decisive application of combat power in pursuit of operational objectives.
    • 737373elj wrote:

      I like 1x because I’m not online so often, so I don’t need to come back often to issue new orders. The amount of time needed is great; I can only login once a day. It’s also perfect for me as I require time to think through what I want to do; enough time to react quickly to changes, or cancel orders when I change my mind.
      Indeed, this summarizes the reason for playing 1X. If I can’t be online 24/7, I’m mostly going with 1X, not 4X. 4X is similar for me to real-time chess, while 1X is more like slow chess. The latter is the perfection of consummate strategy, the former is a synthesis of rapid reaction and strategic contemplation, the balance of which is complex at best and frequently unsustainable in the framework of also having real life to deal with.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      no not really. think tuburu said.. i day at a time but we both know .. we both look ahead a bit
      If I’m actually taking a game seriously, My plan is normally in decreasing levels of temporal distance proportional to the level of analysis; for example, in a WW3, I have a very high level long term plan for the entire game with very little detail, amounting to, for Thailand, “take Southeast Asia, expand into the Pacific, fortify it, get the rest of Asia, push into the Middle East, push through Europe.” That delineates into increasing levels of detail at the lower levels of planning as follows: “capture Southeast Asia.” That is accomplished by taking Myanmar and Vietnam. That plan becomes “fortify the West, ally with or conquer in the East.” Allied with Vietnam, that turns into, “Conquer Myanmar.” From that, there are plans on where my divisions will go over the course of the whole invasion of the country, along with SOPs, RoEs, Basic Drills, etc. for that section of the campaign. At the operational level, that’s how each attacking division applies combat power with unity of effort to achieve mission objectives. At the tactical level, that finally delineates to coordinating the fires and maneuvers of individual divisions and battalions for the decisive application of combat power in pursuit of operational objectives.
      Right, so what Stratieon wrote is a lot more like what I do. And when that's a more continuous effort, I can execute it. I have more trouble maintaining the same plan/sequence of objectives when each task takes one or two full real life days. I can remember what I was planning on doing 2.5 real days ago. I can't remember exactly what I was planning on doing 10 real days ago.
    • just keep simple.. secure area that threatens you .. early may be just make allies. then you take next threat A .. you get bigger that may lead you to next threats b and c.. etc. KISS.. Keep it simple stupid. take out immediate threat.. protect against that or secondary threat .. rinse and repeat. spread out. OK depend s on map. but lets assume world map my primary and only worry is secure continent... with eye on who is winning their continent. all those details in Asia will work themselves out by the time i get done with S America.. then im worried about n america.. still noticing big dog in Asia but not my primary focus.. hes not that stupid to sail here .. he has x threats around him. ok now n a nd south america locked down I have my 5 gang strong .. now game begins .. which is why Americas suck we have to go east and west. worry about Africa.. Europe.. Asia... yet I digress .. thats why like Asia .. i can lock down pacific .. head through mideast then to Europe. Ive never sen Africa win. point being need to approach long games in stages (day 1 - 5 .. beat or allie with neighbors); ( day 5 - 20 .. regional medium dogs/alliances) ; day 20 plus really dealing with continent v continents (so get best sub alliance ie -- ok Africa .. we Americas and you need to take out Asia and Europe etc.. people go with it but end of day only one of us can win.. its like game Survivor.. we need each other to beat other tribe but sooner or later we will have to beat each other. so point of the point take one stage at a time... if jump to just end game wont win intermediate or any stages. plan big but implement small.
      "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
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      just keep simple.. secure area that threatens you .. early may be just make allies. then you take next threat A .. you get bigger that may lead you to next threats b and c.. etc. KISS.. Keep it simple stupid. take out immediate threat.. protect against that or secondary threat .. rinse and repeat. spread out. OK depend s on map. but lets assume world map my primary and only worry is secure continent... with eye on who is winning their continent. all those details in Asia will work themselves out by the time i get done with S America.. then im worried about n america.. still noticing big dog in Asia but not my primary focus.. hes not that stupid to sail here .. he has x threats around him. ok now n a nd south america locked down I have my 5 gang strong .. now game begins .. which is why Americas suck we have to go east and west. worry about Africa.. Europe.. Asia... yet I digress .. thats why like Asia .. i can lock down pacific .. head through mideast then to Europe. Ive never sen Africa win. point being need to approach long games in stages (day 1 - 5 .. beat or allie with neighbors); ( day 5 - 20 .. regional medium dogs/alliances) ; day 20 plus really dealing with continent v continents (so get best sub alliance ie -- ok Africa .. we Americas and you need to take out Asia and Europe etc.. people go with it but end of day only one of us can win.. its like game Survivor.. we need each other to beat other tribe but sooner or later we will have to beat each other. so point of the point take one stage at a time... if jump to just end game wont win intermediate or any stages. plan big but implement small.
      an excellent summary of the concept. I find that making long term plans high level aids in unassisted long term memory of those plans.
    • Hidey ho, folks. I just got my 2nd coalition win (both 1st place finishes, both with over 1800 VPs) in 3 completed games, while playing according to the rules I made for myself in the original post. So far, obviously, all of the completed games have been 4x speed.

      (Note: Not that Rank is everything, but I just noticed that there were 7 other players in this game of Ranks higher than 80, and none of them were on my team.)
      Files

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

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Ahhh, see, for me, no SC makes a huge difference. I absolutely adore build/mobilization queuing and fire control. Random nation selection is not far from what I was already doing by purposely choosing challenging/unpopular countries to play. So, we're kind of opposites there. If you do it, I'll be interested to hear how your experience differs. So far, my restrictions have not hampered my in-game success much, but I'm still in the "early game" stages, and I'm an "early game" player by nature. I'm wondering if having to adapt to a random nation will cause you to be uncomfortable with your early game.

      Also, in the first two randoms I started, I got Germany (Flashpoint) and Turkey (WWIII), two relatively strong nations. This may have allowed me a more positive attitude going into the Nigeria game.
      Problem with queue is: I empty it regulary otherwise I lack the resources for research. I end up using the queue till exactly i no my researhc stops and I need this amount of ressources for next research...keeps me fit im calculating.
      If you could combine a research queue or define a holdback on resosources for research. Sadly Germanico doesnt like that idea...so this feature lack lots of improvements(like moving a new queue item quickly to the top of the list)

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      I play almost ONLY 4x. Regular speed feel too disjointed to me. I can't "get in the flow". In the regular speed games that I HAVE played, I find I come up with a plan/strategy one day, but by the time the next day rolls around, it has taken so long that I've forgotten what my plan was the day before.
      I need at least 6h sleeps and sometimes there is real life and work...so I kind of dont like investing lots of time just to come from work and see that a puncher wiped out all my effords of the past days while i was offline

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Interesting. See, I was forced into a regular time game when I started the new account, and I've been thinking "Wow, this is MINDLESS!" because I feel like I can't string two actions together into a plan. I want to launch an attack at X, and then launch an attack at Y once the enemy units have started moving toward X. ...I check in 4 hours later... and my units have ALMOST made it to the next province... only 1.8 more DAYS until they get to destination X. ... ... so,... guess I'll mark that on my calendar?

      Seriously, how do you guys work timing in those games? I can be available for the next 45 minutes to get something done, but I might have something going on 2.5 hours from now.

      And what about active things like dog fights and combining missile launches with bomber strikes? Do you just sit there and watch your screens for hours at a time while your units slowly inch across?
      Yeah it can be sometimes frustrating...but its also funny to watch. nothing bad then losing your airforce on 4x speed just because you ran into a SAM while you went to the toilette...;-)
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.