Dead nation exploit

    • Chickenus wrote:

      So I hear there is some kind of awful exploit with dead nations whose players are still active.
      If a player still has units on the board, but has lost his last province, the player may remain active and continue to fight. Of course, with no provinces, the player has no money income, no resource production, cannot produce new units for himself, and his units have nowhere they can go to regenerate.

      I suppose an ally could continue to produce units for the player without a country, but why? Once an ally cannot support himself, he is a net burden, and the unit-producer can usually manage the new units at least as well as the ally without a country. . . .
    • Oil and food use of units play into this. A player with a big navy but no land could have an astronomical negative food and oil use per hour, but no land to revolt.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      Oil and food use of units play into this. A player with a big navy but no land could have an astronomical negative food and oil use per hour, but no land to revolt.
      Sure. But battleships and destroyers don't win games, because they cannot take and hold provinces. At the end of the day, a huge navy with no land forces (and no provinces) can only harass a common enemy to the benefit of an ally who still holds land and still hopes to win. Most players lose interest pretty quickly when they realize they have no chance of winning. If they remain active after losing their last province, it's usually to "kamikaze" their remaining units and exact revenge on another player who they believe has done them wrong.

      Otherwise, a player with a big navy, and no land units and no provinces (i.e., your hypothetical above) might as well transfer as many of his naval units to his ally or allies as they can, and call it a day.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Otherwise, a player with a big navy, and no land units and no provinces (i.e., your hypothetical above) might as well transfer as many of his naval units to his ally or allies as they can, and call it a day.
      Oh I agree, but in a recent game I did consider this:

      Had an ally get wiped out except for a couple provinces, he had a big navy. I considered selling him my navy for a while so I could get back to positive oil production and thus produce more ground units, and then we could trade ground units for navy so he could retake land. We did not have enough time to try it before the game ended though.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • Chickenus wrote:

      You get them to build up capitals and then farm it
      Ah, So your "ally" is just there for a morale booster. Seems more likely a multi-account way of doing things though, rather than a real player taking a morale hit for the team every day.


      MontanaBB wrote:

      It was a good plan. You're a good ally to have. Duly noted.
      Thank you. I try to conduct myself with Honor towards allies, which is rare indeed.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • Well, sometimes an ally with no more provinces can still be useful. For example: I was playing a 100 players map and at some point one of my allies was defeated and conquered by his main enemy. I was too far to help him, so I offered him one of my provinces telling him that he could rebuild his capital there. He declined the offer and became inactive (he hid his last few troops on my territory). Fast forward: some time after these events there were only two small coalitions left in the game (one was mine). Our opponents had a huge navy and we were finding difficoulties in invading their main territories so I had this idea: I asked my former ally to become active again, then me and the other 2 guys I was playing with started selling him a little part of our armies until he had a resonable number of troops. At that point we asked him to invade the core provinces of the leader of the enemy coalition: his core provinces were quite far from the territory where the main fights were and they weren't defended by a lot of ground troops (the problem was the navy).
      The plan was simple: he had no provinces so no spies could be used to find the position of his troops; nobody knew that he was active again; he wasn't at war with our enemy so he could pass through the wall of subs and ships of our enemies without being noticed (at least with a little luck).
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      If a player still has units on the board, but has lost his last province, the player may remain active and continue to fight. Of course, with no provinces, the player has no money income, no resource production, cannot produce new units for himself, and his units have nowhere they can go to regenerate.

      I suppose an ally could continue to produce units for the player without a country, but why? Once an ally cannot support himself, he is a net burden, and the unit-producer can usually manage the new units at least as well as the ally without a country. . . .
      Ah, but you forget, it's better to have an ally whose core provinces are producing at full capacity than for you to take them over and produce at a fourth capacity. If it is doable to restore an ally's core to them, it may be worth the unit expenditures to achieve this since you would be beating back an enemy, anyway. Though that's good strategy in principle, it's very rare in practice as the effort involved in achieving this is usually not worth it.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      Oil and food use of units play into this. A player with a big navy but no land could have an astronomical negative food and oil use per hour, but no land to revolt.
      Sure. But battleships and destroyers don't win games, because they cannot take and hold provinces. At the end of the day, a huge navy with no land forces (and no provinces) can only harass a common enemy to the benefit of an ally who still holds land and still hopes to win. Most players lose interest pretty quickly when they realize they have no chance of winning. If they remain active after losing their last province, it's usually to "kamikaze" their remaining units and exact revenge on another player who they believe has done them wrong.
      Otherwise, a player with a big navy, and no land units and no provinces (i.e., your hypothetical above) might as well transfer as many of his naval units to his ally or allies as they can, and call it a day.
      Since you can't transfer more than 10% of your military per day, only the prize units (i.e., carriers and battleships) might even get transferred and, without the support of their accompanying navies, this trade is usually illogical and a waste of said units.

      While I agree that you can't win a game with navy, it can be highly useful in shore bombardments and helping to secure a beachhead against enemy Tac Bombers (Cruisers are wonderful beach AA). And, in aiding an ally from the sea, they might be able to help you regain your cores and supply you with a few land units to achieve that goal. Sure, it's not ideal, but this scenario can turn the tide of war down the road.

      Marat666 wrote:

      Well, sometimes an ally with no more provinces can still be useful. For example: I was playing a 100 players map and at some point one of my allies was defeated and conquered by his main enemy. I was too far to help him, so I offered him one of my provinces telling him that he could rebuild his capital there. He declined the offer and became inactive (he hid his last few troops on my territory). Fast forward: some time after these events there were only two small coalitions left in the game (one was mine). Our opponents had a huge navy and we were finding difficoulties in invading their main territories so I had this idea: I asked my former ally to become active again, then me and the other 2 guys I was playing with started selling him a little part of our armies until he had a resonable number of troops. At that point we asked him to invade the core provinces of the leader of the enemy coalition: his core provinces were quite far from the territory where the main fights were and they weren't defended by a lot of ground troops (the problem was the navy).
      The plan was simple: he had no provinces so no spies could be used to find the position of his troops; nobody knew that he was active again; he wasn't at war with our enemy so he could pass through the wall of subs and ships of our enemies without being noticed (at least with a little luck).
      That's downright creative. I like it! :thumbup:
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3