Is "Low Profile" a Strategy?

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

    • Is "Low Profile" a Strategy?

      One of the most frequent and damaging things I face in the game is my enemy's "spite". You see, as long as a player is trying to win the game themselves, there are certain things I can normally expect them to do, mainly defend and preserve their own nation. Some players, however, at whatever point they decide they have nothing left to lose, will just go nuts and do things that don't benefit themselves in any way.

      In one game a couple of days ago, for instance, I had two countries run everything they had at my country while I was asleep so that they could blow up some of my buildings in my homeland cities. Meanwhile, they left their own homelands almost completely undefended, took 6- or 8-to-1 casualties pushing into my country while I was offline, and didn't have any units left to hold the few cities of mine they took. In short, it was a complete suicide mission, and they were both immediately eliminated the next game day when i woke up and got online. They gained nothing. Their VPs didn't go up at all from one day to the next, they got eliminated from the game, and my VPs kept increasing (although I did have to rebuild some buildings) the whole time. I spoke civily to both players later (both very nice people) because I was curious why they did what they did. They said that they did it because blowing up my buildings would cause an inconvenience and a delay for me. They did this even though they knew it would mean the end of the game for them.

      I've been thinking about it a lot since then, because it's a strange mindset to me. If I was a player who was resigned to the fact that I had already virtually lost a game, I'd just leave and start a new one. I wouldn't waste time meaninglessly suicide attacking another player. I have noticed, however, that a LOT of people do go out of their way to attack me, even if it means killing themselves. When I consider why this might be, I can only guess that it might be because in most games I'm a noticeable player. I often lead my coalitions, I'm often at or near the top in VPs from very early in the game, etc.

      So, here's my question: Do you guys ever play it quiet or keep a low-profile in a game just to keep from being targeted by suicide attacks from crazy folks who don't care what happens to their own countries?
    • People want to go down in a blaze of Glory. Part I dont get is they didnt do anything with the firepower they had untill too late.

      Now running through a unprotected homeland is a strategy I have used when stretched thin and facing muliple attackers and now I can not bet them and hold cities at same time. but ill just end run 1 or two units to wreck havoc and stop their capability to produce more units. (by product may create insurgents for him to del with) But not throwing big stacks at it.. its more a diversion to get them to move troops back away from front then move up when they head back... more of a diversionary pincer move to force a withdrawal. and may only cost me two NG units.

      So benefits are:

      1. Diversion
      2. Suck out resources
      3. I blow up all there buildings on way through (No more enemies to be produced)
      4. It usually breaks their will.

      But again this is when I get to aggressive and stretched to thin on offensive not when someone is threatening me.
    • I was near these guys on the map, but I handn't overtly threatened them yet. And, what good does it do to slow down the opponent's production if he's going to take you out of the game the next game day? "I took out your Arms Industry in your one Homeland City, bro!" "Yeah, but... now you're out of the game, so...?"

      Anyway, the real question for this post isn't why people do it, but rather: Is there something I can do to avoid being targeted by it?
    • I never sit back....but I also dont rush out foolishly. Cautiously Aggressive ;) Its like being in prison.. do you want to run the yard or be someones bitch? To me just sitting back is inviting the later and best way to avoid that is to pop someone in the jaw day 1.. at least that what I have learned from Prison movies ;)

      From experience those who play passive almost invite attacks where as if they fear you a bit they stay away. Not too many animals attack a Lion or Shark. So I "try" to be a deliberate Apex Predator on map. To me its a big fish / little fish game. You eat to get bigger; which makes it easier to eat next round of bigger fish; this makes you harder to be eaten....etc.

      I will also usually scout out potential threats to both based on proximity / vulnerability in addition to how they are approaching game. If Follow CON and see two neighboring countries are engaged in a 1:1 war of attrition this makes them both ripe for the picking. And Id probably go after the stronger of the two first as easier to defeat now versus allowing time to recover.

      I have seen others say they don't like attacking. Which blows my mind its a war game not Sim city. I had to kick a guy out once as he refused to attack people as it was "mean" and I was evil for attacking countries in a WAR GAME. But have run into some odd folks ; some want to recreate some grand historical reclamation of the ottoman empire before or only want to conquer countries the vikings did??

      And If see an Experienced rank player stting back building up cities then will note as a target to take out before they can unleash later; especially if cities on coast. Like a few games ago was Algeria cleaning up and had no real plans to go over to Cuba/USA but kept eye on things and cuba was just building the crap out of cities but no Navy bases... so just to avoid issues later sailed some frggitte stack over there and just wrecked every city to avoid him being a threat later.

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

    • Hmmmm... okay, so a few of you are saying that you never get suicide rushed like that, which suggests to me that I am definitely doing something that inspires people to do that. I can't tell you how often someone goes out of their way to attack me in a way that's not at all advantageous for them. Does anyone have any guesses why? I find myself constantly thinking, "Now why on Earth would they have done that?"

      There is often the Day 1 suicide rush Teburu mentions, but this is different than that. I'm talking about people with already established countries that still (in my opinion) have viable options, but instead they are like, "This might cause me to lose, but I don't care, as long as I get to take a swing at this guy!" The example given above was on like Day 16. My coalition hadn't attacked theirs; I was approaching them but not all the way to them yet; they were not brand new players; and they essentially just both just threw in the towel in order to slow down my production.

      Buckeye's observation is interesting because I thought maybe the problem was that I was expanding so aggressively that it was causing people to react irrationally, but his post doesn't seem to reflect that his thinks being less aggressive works out any better.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Hmmmm... okay, so a few of you are saying that you never get suicide rushed like that, which suggests to me that I am definitely doing something that inspires people to do that. I can't tell you how often someone goes out of their way to attack me in a way that's not at all advantageous for them. Does anyone have any guesses why? I find myself constantly thinking, "Now why on Earth would they have done that?"

      There is often the Day 1 suicide rush Teburu mentions, but this is different than that. I'm talking about people with already established countries that still (in my opinion) have viable options, but instead they are like, "This might cause me to lose, but I don't care, as long as I get to take a swing at this guy!" The example given above was on like Day 16. My coalition hadn't attacked theirs; I was approaching them but not all the way to them yet; they were not brand new players; and they essentially just both just threw in the towel in order to slow down my production.

      Buckeye's observation is interesting because I thought maybe the problem was that I was expanding so aggressively that it was causing people to react irrationally, but his post doesn't seem to reflect that his thinks being less aggressive works out any better.
      I don't know do you build hospitals early? if u do there is a good chance I will attack u and even coordinate attacks with others.
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      I don't know do you build hospitals early? if u do there is a good chance I will attack u and even coordinate attacks with others.

      Exactly; If I check out a veteran player building up infrastructure and storing up for winter. To me thats a long term threat even if and sometimes more when passive. Im going to try take you out now or disable your cities vs sit back and wait for you to dictate when a war occurs. Now Ill do it with ships and Strike Fighters not rushing troops in which appears happened to Perigee (may have to call you Perogi as thats what pops in 1st ;-). so think people thinking same thing they are just poorly executing.

      Like my example with Cuba before .. I knew I could sail over with little threat or resistance/risk and lay waste to cities via Navy stack... but I would nt just rush troops only. Its like a preemptive strike or think of it as Bombing Germany Infrastructure/Manufacturing in WW2 pre D-Day or Desert Shield before Desert Storm .. yeah it didnt defeat them but it slowed them down and made invasion more manageble. In GW1 if they didnt bomb the living heck out of Iraq for 30 days before mainland invasion.. it wouldnt have been a 4 day land war.

      And even if I am not in position to take out a passive veteran builder. Ill use diplomacy to msg UK and say "hey ... hope all is going well. Look out for Ireland I noticed he is lvl 45 with some wins. He appears to be building up for a big invasion. If I were you Id take him out now or going to cause you trouble soon. Id help but I'm too far away and tied up with Spain" Do I give a shit about UK? no but if those two battle it helps me. If UK happens to win he is my friend. If he loses than Ireland is weaker. heck may send Ireland a similiar msg ;) .. would rather have them enemies than allies that I may have to deal with them together. UK would normally write back.. "thanks I hadnt noticed I think Ill get my troops ready" and he may not launch that day but he starts to take a look at that seed has been planted. Early on you always want to talk up some big player as a threat to the whole map (hes the bad guy...Im just looking out for you ;) )...keeps the focus off you (for a while anyways).

      The post was edited 7 times, last by Buckeyechamp ().

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      I don't know do you build hospitals early? if u do there is a good chance I will attack u and even coordinate attacks with others.
      And even if I am not in position to take out a passive veteran builder. Ill use diplomacy to msg UK and say "hey ... hope all is going well. Look out for Ireland I noticed he is lvl 45 with some wins. He appears to be building up for a big invasion. If I were you Id take him out now or going to cause you trouble soon. Id help but I'm too far away and tied up with Spain" Do I give a shit about UK? no but if those two battle it helps me.
      In the example I gave of my situation above, I considered this kind of scenario. I think that (being manipulated by a third party) is one of the most likely possibilities in that case.

      Thanks for confirming this as a possibility.
    • Teburu wrote:

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      Hospitals usually means an economy rush or a lot of gold so they get much stronger later. very high rot but also incredible roi.
      hospital could just mean that he actually wants to heal his units? :D
      those are hospitals on capitals for instance but hospitals in every city? it means he is either too good to afford it or too bad to pick hospitals over other buildings. ether way better to kill.
    • Oh, I think "hospitals in every city" is a holdover from when they provided a morale boost. I used to plop down a crazy number of hospitals (recruiting offices too) in newly conquered cities back then. They took the morale boost away from hospitals and recruiting offices, though, so I stopped doing it. I do still like to have hospitals in all of my major regions, though.

      As for "economic rush", I probably do fit that label, as I think I tend to pay more attention to economy/infrastructure than most players do.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Oh, I think "hospitals in every city" is a holdover from when they provided a morale boost. I used to plop down a crazy number of hospitals (recruiting offices too) in newly conquered cities back then. They took the morale boost away from hospitals and recruiting offices, though, so I stopped doing it. I do still like to have hospitals in all of my major regions, though.

      As for "economic rush", I probably do fit that label, as I think I tend to pay more attention to economy/infrastructure than most players do.
      yeah that morale made those two buildings so op. now bunkers are so good