Search Results

Quote from Brando Dilla: “Which comes back to my suggestion: that the game should tell you what you're getting and what you're giving. ” Obviously, the game should be designed to minimize unfair exploitation of their players, but it's ultimately up to the players how they decide to conduct themselves.

Quote from Lady Aragosta: “1. This is a war game, so people are going to use dirty tricks to win. It's part it and those who can't handle this should probably find a different game to play. ” I disagree. Just because it's a war game doesn't mean we should accept "dirty tricks" as part of the game. Games have a community culture. It's up to the community to decide what that culture is. I do agree that the community is split on this topic which is unfortunate for those that like the game, but don'…

Here is the related comment: Right of way vs Peace

I tested this in a situation where I had row with the country and the province was owned by the country I had row with. I was able to attack an enemy without causing a war with my ally. I'm not sure about peace, but as long as the attack command is specific to the enemy I would guess it won't start a war.

By "more OP than melee" I meant that ranged units are more likely to be able to take advantage of this than melee since they are more likely to have other targets within 30 minutes of their current position. So melee having this ability would be less of a "big deal" than ranged units having it.

I've assumed melee units could attack after 60 seconds of finishing battle. I have a vague memory of seeing it but could be false memory. If anything, I'd think ranged units being able to do it is more OP than melee being able to so I don't see why they wouldn't have done that with melee also. Anyway, I look forward to your results

Quote from K.Rokossovski: “so close together that you can attack the second unit within moving 60s from the (defeated) first ” No, it would just have to be within 30 minutes to see if it works.

Quote from Erecon: “I havent scammed any people dude, and I dont really care about your opinion ( other then just replying to your msg because you paint a wrong picture of me ) Its a "diplomatic" game mechanic in the game. ” It is something you can do in the game, but it's still a deceitful predatory behavior. The problem is that it hurts the game, by people having to experience it.

Quote from 6thDragon: “Getting units to merge with a stack that is already in combat is not an exact science. ” This is one of the things that really turns me off about CoW. This stupid unpredictable behavior when reinforcing stacks in battle. They need to fix this. @Kolonnos I think you are asking what exactly happens if the reinforcing units attack, which they sometimes do, even though you usually don't want them to because you want them to merge with the stack that is already there. In any ca…

Quote from Carking the 6th: “*cough* chad *cough* ” What does "chad" mean?

Quote from Brando Dilla: “He always got in a fit when a noob created a thread about a topic that had a similar thread created a few years before... ” I don't mind that at all. I also don't mind people responding to very old threads which some people seem to have a problem with.

On the other hand, I do like to see people enjoying themselves on the forums, so I can live with it

Quote from Brando Dilla: “Quote from DxC: “Quote from Brando Dilla: “Unfortunately, the mods don't share our sense of humor. ” Nor do most users. ” Do you? ” Not if the the page of quotes isn't helping understand the response. I guess it bothers my OCD, like piles of trash and wasted space.

Quote from Brando Dilla: “Unfortunately, the mods don't share our sense of humor. ” Nor do most users.

Uuuhhhh, why on earth would you randomly bring artillery into this? It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Yes, there are many scenarios where a stack of 2 ACs will cause a longer delay than 2 stacks of 1 AC. I was trying to find a scenario where it was even or two stacks do better.

Quote from jubjub bird: “I know that ranged units only have to wait for 60 seconds to attack again after destroying a stack. Is the same true for land units? I don't think I've ever tested that. ” I think you are responding to something I added in an edit about spacing 6 km apart. I removed that before I saw your post because I realized that they attacker wouldn't actually have to wait 30 minutes as you point out. Quote from jubjub bird: “That all being said, if we're talking about a situation i…

Quote from Brando Dilla: “If the enemy stack can not deal enough damage to destroy one of the ACs in one iteration (but can damage an AC more than 50%), separate your stack. What could have taken the enemy 3 iterations to destroy if the ACs were together, will now take them 4. ” I tried to explain this above, but splitting like this doesn't cause more of a delay. Your 4 here is two battles 2 rounds each. Two rounds requires a 30 minutes wait, so a total of 60 minutes. Three rounds also requires …

Quote from jubjub bird: “As far as I know, the newspaper casualty numbers actually represent the lost manpower from units. ” Even if that is how they quantify casualties, it is probably not a good idea for a new player to think of it that way. I had the impression the OP was thinking that killing enemy units would reduce their pool of manpower surplus, which isn't the case. That being said, it does make sense to quantify casualties in terms manpower resource required for production since that is…

AA will give a bit more bang for the buck in terms of air defense, but they are slower. If you are hurting for food, sp aa could be an option. Hurting for oil (or iron to some extent), definitely go AA. If you are interested in defense against heavy armor than definitely AA.