what's the silliest thing you've seen in-game?

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

    • what's the silliest thing you've seen in-game?

      so yesterday i was amazed by (and posted a photo of) an inf stack crossing the desert at a speed of 0.07 because they had included an air inf in that stack... Today i've seen two more of those, and thought of starting this thread.

      Here is one killing his own units, which have never fought anyone, by rushing them. to go and kill... nobody.

      the other one is making a navy in the caspian sea... i guess he's thinking at some point he'll airlift his ships somewhere else...

      Let's entertain ourselves while we wait for the new season - what's the silliest thing you've seen (or done!) in-game?
      Files
      • seriously 1.JPG

        (198.71 kB, downloaded 17 times, last: )
      • seriously 2.JPG

        (126.94 kB, downloaded 17 times, last: )
    • Sgniappo wrote:

      so yesterday i was amazed by (and posted a photo of) an inf stack crossing the desert at a speed of 0.07 because they had included an air inf in that stack... Today i've seen two more of those, and thought of starting this thread.
      I've seen stacks with 0.01 speed

      Sgniappo wrote:

      Here is one killing his own units, which have never fought anyone, by rushing them. to go and kill... nobody.
      you cant actually kill them by rushing them; tho they'll be basically free kills
      I am the basline for opinions
    • The silliest thing I saw was yesterday when playing this game with my friends.
      It was a battleground US, and we loaded in with some extra friends (6 or so) and agreed not to help one another unless it was conceptual (we follow the rules, like good boys). We of course split into two coalitions, 3 people each. So the competition between us is fierce but very interesting. I am arguably the only competent one in my group (besides my in-game partner), and I found that out the hard way yesterday when trying to give my friend some advice, who's been playing for several months. We'll call my friend J.
      In the first image, it shows what the starting situation was for my friend J, who is across the map from me. He chose Illinois, and as it turns out, he had stationed himself right next to an active and high-level player, Iowa.
      Battlemapone.jpg (My friend J's starting position. He is on the right, the green, with Iowa being to the left)
      He had told us that Iowa was moving troops to his border and that Iowa was obviously planning an attack. Skeptical about what he should do, I helped him out (tried to help, at least) and identified the two main chokes in his area where Iowa may attack him from. First, I told my friend J that Iowa most likely was planning an attack through Davenport and through the ports north of Davenport. Considering this player was not new, J was going to need to plan ahead if he did not want to lose. Being a competent good friend, I drew up a "battle map" to help my friend decide how to attack.
      IMG_1842.jpg (Map of the battle plan that I recommended. This was drawn a day in advance of the attack).

      I told J that the best option was moving troops from Chicago into Rockford, and use the large battalion to make a push through the port. Nextly, take his troops from Peoria and station them in Springfield, then use that battalion to push into Davenport. The goal of this plan is to lock down both chokes, preventing any push from Iowa and as a result gaining the upper hand in the war. I told J, word by word, "Whoever controls those chokes in first day or two will win the war." I followed up with "If he is smart and knows what he is doing, this will also be his exact plan"

      My friend saw the reply and did not respond. He tends to be skeptical of my plans and why I think the things I do, which isn't a problem on its own except that he never has anything insightful to say about why he disagrees other than "gut feeling," which is not an effective way at playing this game. The next morning, J replied to our group chat, stating "Iowa attacked me" like it was some surprise. No Durr, J. No Durr.

      What's more is that Iowa did the exact thing I told J to do, which was to invade from both Davenport and the northern port. I called out the situation play-by-play a day in advance, and my friend ignored my warnings and advice.
      unnamed.jpg(Image showing locations attacked and where they were attacked from).

      I did not even think this was that difficult. I honestly thought it would be common sense. So now my friend is out and won't stop complaining about "gold players," as if gold had anything to do with it. When I asked him what his plan was, "I was going to wait and stack all my troops and go to his capital."

      Sorry for the mini-rant, but come on?? I don't feel like I am very pushy with my ideas. I'm pretty passive when it comes to how others play this game, and I like seeing new strats develop. What makes this situation even sillier is that he didn't see the flaw in his plan, and instead blamed "gold." I didn't try and explain it further.
    • StopThereCowboy wrote:

      The silliest thing I saw was yesterday when playing this game with my friends.
      It was a battleground US, and we loaded in with some extra friends (6 or so) and agreed not to help one another unless it was conceptual (we follow the rules, like good boys). We of course split into two coalitions, 3 people each. So the competition between us is fierce but very interesting. I am arguably the only competent one in my group (besides my in-game partner), and I found that out the hard way yesterday when trying to give my friend some advice, who's been playing for several months. We'll call my friend J.
      In the first image, it shows what the starting situation was for my friend J, who is across the map from me. He chose Illinois, and as it turns out, he had stationed himself right next to an active and high-level player, Iowa.
      Battlemapone.jpg (My friend J's starting position. He is on the right, the green, with Iowa being to the left)
      He had told us that Iowa was moving troops to his border and that Iowa was obviously planning an attack. Skeptical about what he should do, I helped him out (tried to help, at least) and identified the two main chokes in his area where Iowa may attack him from. First, I told my friend J that Iowa most likely was planning an attack through Davenport and through the ports north of Davenport. Considering this player was not new, J was going to need to plan ahead if he did not want to lose. Being a competent good friend, I drew up a "battle map" to help my friend decide how to attack.
      IMG_1842.jpg (Map of the battle plan that I recommended. This was drawn a day in advance of the attack).

      I told J that the best option was moving troops from Chicago into Rockford, and use the large battalion to make a push through the port. Nextly, take his troops from Peoria and station them in Springfield, then use that battalion to push into Davenport. The goal of this plan is to lock down both chokes, preventing any push from Iowa and as a result gaining the upper hand in the war. I told J, word by word, "Whoever controls those chokes in first day or two will win the war." I followed up with "If he is smart and knows what he is doing, this will also be his exact plan"

      My friend saw the reply and did not respond. He tends to be skeptical of my plans and why I think the things I do, which isn't a problem on its own except that he never has anything insightful to say about why he disagrees other than "gut feeling," which is not an effective way at playing this game. The next morning, J replied to our group chat, stating "Iowa attacked me" like it was some surprise. No Durr, J. No Durr.

      What's more is that Iowa did the exact thing I told J to do, which was to invade from both Davenport and the northern port. I called out the situation play-by-play a day in advance, and my friend ignored my warnings and advice.
      unnamed.jpg(Image showing locations attacked and where they were attacked from).

      I did not even think this was that difficult. I honestly thought it would be common sense. So now my friend is out and won't stop complaining about "gold players," as if gold had anything to do with it. When I asked him what his plan was, "I was going to wait and stack all my troops and go to his capital."

      Sorry for the mini-rant, but come on?? I don't feel like I am very pushy with my ideas. I'm pretty passive when it comes to how others play this game, and I like seeing new strats develop. What makes this situation even sillier is that he didn't see the flaw in his plan, and instead blamed "gold." I didn't try and explain it further.
      FAIL :) this thread was about "silliest", not "stupidest"
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      StopThereCowboy wrote:

      The silliest thing I saw was yesterday when playing this game with my friends.
      It was a battleground US, and we loaded in with some extra friends (6 or so) and agreed not to help one another unless it was conceptual (we follow the rules, like good boys). We of course split into two coalitions, 3 people each. So the competition between us is fierce but very interesting. I am arguably the only competent one in my group (besides my in-game partner), and I found that out the hard way yesterday when trying to give my friend some advice, who's been playing for several months. We'll call my friend J.
      In the first image, it shows what the starting situation was for my friend J, who is across the map from me. He chose Illinois, and as it turns out, he had stationed himself right next to an active and high-level player, Iowa.
      Battlemapone.jpg (My friend J's starting position. He is on the right, the green, with Iowa being to the left)
      He had told us that Iowa was moving troops to his border and that Iowa was obviously planning an attack. Skeptical about what he should do, I helped him out (tried to help, at least) and identified the two main chokes in his area where Iowa may attack him from. First, I told my friend J that Iowa most likely was planning an attack through Davenport and through the ports north of Davenport. Considering this player was not new, J was going to need to plan ahead if he did not want to lose. Being a competent good friend, I drew up a "battle map" to help my friend decide how to attack.
      IMG_1842.jpg (Map of the battle plan that I recommended. This was drawn a day in advance of the attack).

      I told J that the best option was moving troops from Chicago into Rockford, and use the large battalion to make a push through the port. Nextly, take his troops from Peoria and station them in Springfield, then use that battalion to push into Davenport. The goal of this plan is to lock down both chokes, preventing any push from Iowa and as a result gaining the upper hand in the war. I told J, word by word, "Whoever controls those chokes in first day or two will win the war." I followed up with "If he is smart and knows what he is doing, this will also be his exact plan"

      My friend saw the reply and did not respond. He tends to be skeptical of my plans and why I think the things I do, which isn't a problem on its own except that he never has anything insightful to say about why he disagrees other than "gut feeling," which is not an effective way at playing this game. The next morning, J replied to our group chat, stating "Iowa attacked me" like it was some surprise. No Durr, J. No Durr.

      What's more is that Iowa did the exact thing I told J to do, which was to invade from both Davenport and the northern port. I called out the situation play-by-play a day in advance, and my friend ignored my warnings and advice.
      unnamed.jpg(Image showing locations attacked and where they were attacked from).

      I did not even think this was that difficult. I honestly thought it would be common sense. So now my friend is out and won't stop complaining about "gold players," as if gold had anything to do with it. When I asked him what his plan was, "I was going to wait and stack all my troops and go to his capital."

      Sorry for the mini-rant, but come on?? I don't feel like I am very pushy with my ideas. I'm pretty passive when it comes to how others play this game, and I like seeing new strats develop. What makes this situation even sillier is that he didn't see the flaw in his plan, and instead blamed "gold." I didn't try and explain it further.
      FAIL :) this thread was about "silliest", not "stupidest"
      You'd think they'd go hand in hand, right?
    • Of course not, they never do. It's just something attempted by some retards to try to get teenagers to do their bidding.
      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.