Coalition member who leaves when they have enough VP to win solo

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

    • Depends how big difference in VPs and/or how likely are they going to attack you ;)

      Like if I have > 2k and other members 500 then yeah 'm not carrying people too long. Or against 1 or 3 strong guys in opposing coalition and know that my teammates wont help; case in point last rising tides were 3 main coalitions left. We were #1 with me doing 80 pct of work; Europe had 3 guys with strong navy / air; Europe had a weakened force.

      Europe was set to take out s america and win; s america knew they couldn't stop so they could tell I had almost enough for solo so they cut a deal to give me ROW to a Victory site. So I went solo (always leave like 23:55 so game ends tomorrow ) and ended game.

      s. America was happy as they kept most VPs / stats; I got the win. They were weak because i destroyed half their armies/navy when they tred to attack me (australia) but we had good respectful battle and left peace after a week long battle.

      Europe (russia/france/norway) where planning a surprise attack and after they caught on I was in S America they did attack me in central asia. I was able to hold defense but combined 3 v 1 fire power wouldnt be able to move forward. Plus could tell they had 2 other "friendly" countries so basically 5 v 1.

      All along Russia was playing both sides of street and offering me a 2 man win. Figured out he was going for Solo as was hiding fact he could have taken a Victory site.

      More than brute force can win a game and diplomacy
      "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
    • Teburu wrote:

      >enough VP to win solo
      >hard work put in by other members
      if that dude has enough VP to win solo; but your coa hasnt won yet ...

      and frankly; if i had to choose between going for the solowin and thus deny the oher coas their win or fightinng other coas with some randoms; solo win it is... not really any point in dragging out the game even longer and maybe even loosing when it could be ended

      and it really isnt a bug lol you're just mad that the dude with the most VP ditched you

      you even get like 24h warning that he's leaving also: dafuq do you expect random ppl on the internet to do? as soon as they have enough VP; them going for a solo win is something you should keep an eye out for
      Exactly. If you were able to claim a solo victory, and none of your coalition members could, then it likely wasnt an equal team effort. If you tow the line, you decide what kind of victory there will be.
    • Suggester Man wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      >enough VP to win solo
      >hard work put in by other members
      if that dude has enough VP to win solo; but your coa hasnt won yet ...

      and frankly; if i had to choose between going for the solowin and thus deny the oher coas their win or fightinng other coas with some randoms; solo win it is... not really any point in dragging out the game even longer and maybe even loosing when it could be ended

      and it really isnt a bug lol you're just mad that the dude with the most VP ditched you

      you even get like 24h warning that he's leaving also: dafuq do you expect random ppl on the internet to do? as soon as they have enough VP; them going for a solo win is something you should keep an eye out for
      Exactly. If you were able to claim a solo victory, and none of your coalition members could, then it likely wasnt an equal team effort. If you tow the line, you decide what kind of victory there will be.
      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      I am the best player of this game that was and ever will be
    • Dracula wrote:

      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      Totally agree; usually the only time I am in a fully committed coalition is if it's only 3 players. Even then, usually it's just 2. In WW3 especially, I tend to see an average of just 2 players consistently and actively playing. For example, in my Australia game, it's me, Ukraine, Italy, Afganistan (on and off) and Saudi Arabia (also on and off). On and off meaning there for like a day, leaves for 5 days, comes back, etc. Ukraine is actively playing (bit too cautious IMO, but everyone's playstyle is different), but Italy is just spamming CRV and infantry (on day 20!!!). I'm in 2nd place by total VP, Ukraine is first. Thankfully, there aren't any other players so we won't disintegrate the second 2 other enemies team up...
      "War does not determine who is right; only who is left."

      Always strive to be better
      Don't try and be the best
      A better world is always within out fingertips
      But Utopia just causes more stress.
    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      Totally agree; usually the only time I am in a fully committed coalition is if it's only 3 players. Even then, usually it's just 2. In WW3 especially, I tend to see an average of just 2 players consistently and actively playing. For example, in my Australia game, it's me, Ukraine, Italy, Afganistan (on and off) and Saudi Arabia (also on and off). On and off meaning there for like a day, leaves for 5 days, comes back, etc. Ukraine is actively playing (bit too cautious IMO, but everyone's playstyle is different), but Italy is just spamming CRV and infantry (on day 20!!!). I'm in 2nd place by total VP, Ukraine is first. Thankfully, there aren't any other players so we won't disintegrate the second 2 other enemies team up...
      Right, and in same games if you are focusing on building sophisticated stuff like ships and missiles to kill enemy troops than team members who focus mainly on ground troops like infantory and tanks get more vp even their contribution is less in defeating the enemy.

      Just having more cities doesn't mean a player is better than other you need to consider the number of the troops they killed and level of the enemy they defeated too. It is difficult to defeat a level 60 player with 15 cities than a level 15 player with 30 cities.
      I am the best player of this game that was and ever will be
    • Dracula wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      Totally agree; usually the only time I am in a fully committed coalition is if it's only 3 players. Even then, usually it's just 2. In WW3 especially, I tend to see an average of just 2 players consistently and actively playing. For example, in my Australia game, it's me, Ukraine, Italy, Afganistan (on and off) and Saudi Arabia (also on and off). On and off meaning there for like a day, leaves for 5 days, comes back, etc. Ukraine is actively playing (bit too cautious IMO, but everyone's playstyle is different), but Italy is just spamming CRV and infantry (on day 20!!!). I'm in 2nd place by total VP, Ukraine is first. Thankfully, there aren't any other players so we won't disintegrate the second 2 other enemies team up...
      Right, and in same games if you are focusing on building sophisticated stuff like ships and missiles to kill enemy troops than team members who focus mainly on ground troops like infantory and tanks get more vp even their contribution is less in defeating the enemy.
      Just having more cities doesn't mean a player is better than other you need to consider the number of the troops they killed and level of the enemy they defeated too. It is difficult to defeat a level 60 player with 15 cities than a level 15 player with 30 cities.
      As a public map player, you need to keep an eye out for your interests too. "No nation has friends[,] only interests."- Charles de Gaulle

      Missiles making you more useful than a person who actually builds an army? No, sorry.

      If you are a strong naval player you need to keep an eye on making at least a manageable army that can steamroll inactives without assistance from your allies, you can't just make ships and pray your team works on invading others
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • ewac123 wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      Totally agree; usually the only time I am in a fully committed coalition is if it's only 3 players. Even then, usually it's just 2. In WW3 especially, I tend to see an average of just 2 players consistently and actively playing. For example, in my Australia game, it's me, Ukraine, Italy, Afganistan (on and off) and Saudi Arabia (also on and off). On and off meaning there for like a day, leaves for 5 days, comes back, etc. Ukraine is actively playing (bit too cautious IMO, but everyone's playstyle is different), but Italy is just spamming CRV and infantry (on day 20!!!). I'm in 2nd place by total VP, Ukraine is first. Thankfully, there aren't any other players so we won't disintegrate the second 2 other enemies team up...
      Right, and in same games if you are focusing on building sophisticated stuff like ships and missiles to kill enemy troops than team members who focus mainly on ground troops like infantory and tanks get more vp even their contribution is less in defeating the enemy.Just having more cities doesn't mean a player is better than other you need to consider the number of the troops they killed and level of the enemy they defeated too. It is difficult to defeat a level 60 player with 15 cities than a level 15 player with 30 cities.
      As a public map player, you need to keep an eye out for your interests too. "No nation has friends[,] only interests."- Charles de Gaulle
      Missiles making you more useful than a person who actually builds an army? No, sorry.

      If you are a strong naval player you need to keep an eye on making at least a manageable army that can steamroll inactives without assistance from your allies, you can't just make ships and pray your team works on invading others
      Several times in games where I have dominated naval wise I have certainly struggled with having a sufficiently strong army.
      Overkill is an Awesome Map! :D
    • Bigtallnerd419 wrote:

      ewac123 wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      Totally agree; usually the only time I am in a fully committed coalition is if it's only 3 players. Even then, usually it's just 2. In WW3 especially, I tend to see an average of just 2 players consistently and actively playing. For example, in my Australia game, it's me, Ukraine, Italy, Afganistan (on and off) and Saudi Arabia (also on and off). On and off meaning there for like a day, leaves for 5 days, comes back, etc. Ukraine is actively playing (bit too cautious IMO, but everyone's playstyle is different), but Italy is just spamming CRV and infantry (on day 20!!!). I'm in 2nd place by total VP, Ukraine is first. Thankfully, there aren't any other players so we won't disintegrate the second 2 other enemies team up...
      Right, and in same games if you are focusing on building sophisticated stuff like ships and missiles to kill enemy troops than team members who focus mainly on ground troops like infantory and tanks get more vp even their contribution is less in defeating the enemy.Just having more cities doesn't mean a player is better than other you need to consider the number of the troops they killed and level of the enemy they defeated too. It is difficult to defeat a level 60 player with 15 cities than a level 15 player with 30 cities.
      As a public map player, you need to keep an eye out for your interests too. "No nation has friends[,] only interests."- Charles de GaulleMissiles making you more useful than a person who actually builds an army? No, sorry.

      If you are a strong naval player you need to keep an eye on making at least a manageable army that can steamroll inactives without assistance from your allies, you can't just make ships and pray your team works on invading others
      Several times in games where I have dominated naval wise I have certainly struggled with having a sufficiently strong army.
      There's something called naval artillery which should help you with your land issues
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • ewac123 wrote:

      Bigtallnerd419 wrote:

      ewac123 wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Dracula wrote:

      You need to play some public games and then tell us when was the last time all five members of a coalition equally contributed. Even if you get 2 active strong members it will be a blessing
      Totally agree; usually the only time I am in a fully committed coalition is if it's only 3 players. Even then, usually it's just 2. In WW3 especially, I tend to see an average of just 2 players consistently and actively playing. For example, in my Australia game, it's me, Ukraine, Italy, Afganistan (on and off) and Saudi Arabia (also on and off). On and off meaning there for like a day, leaves for 5 days, comes back, etc. Ukraine is actively playing (bit too cautious IMO, but everyone's playstyle is different), but Italy is just spamming CRV and infantry (on day 20!!!). I'm in 2nd place by total VP, Ukraine is first. Thankfully, there aren't any other players so we won't disintegrate the second 2 other enemies team up...
      Right, and in same games if you are focusing on building sophisticated stuff like ships and missiles to kill enemy troops than team members who focus mainly on ground troops like infantory and tanks get more vp even their contribution is less in defeating the enemy.Just having more cities doesn't mean a player is better than other you need to consider the number of the troops they killed and level of the enemy they defeated too. It is difficult to defeat a level 60 player with 15 cities than a level 15 player with 30 cities.
      As a public map player, you need to keep an eye out for your interests too. "No nation has friends[,] only interests."- Charles de GaulleMissiles making you more useful than a person who actually builds an army? No, sorry.
      If you are a strong naval player you need to keep an eye on making at least a manageable army that can steamroll inactives without assistance from your allies, you can't just make ships and pray your team works on invading others
      Several times in games where I have dominated naval wise I have certainly struggled with having a sufficiently strong army.
      There's something called naval artillery which should help you with your land issues
      You mean using ships to bombard cities? That is basic tactics, I was referring to expanding farther inland.
      Overkill is an Awesome Map! :D
    • Just finishing a WW3 as Australia. Had a decent navy and tore up the competition's navies pretty much. Had good luck against most air assaults with frigates and SAMS but really struggled with ground units. Decent infantry and mlrs . Not enough heavy armor . Shot down a good many high level strikers and bombers and most of those were stealth but still my game is in the drink. Good allies but the last 3 days all fighting has been me against 4 enemy countries. Those 4 have concentrated on me because not one single of them felt they could take me out. I hope my allies have been building and leveling up their units cause they are up next. I have took the fight to their homeland cites by missiles but still it just slowed them down not a knock out punch.
      "Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC