How many games do you usually play at a time

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

    • How many games do you usually play at a time

      How many rounds do you play at a time? 64
      1.  
        1 (13) 20%
      2.  
        2-3 (33) 52%
      3.  
        4-7 (12) 19%
      4.  
        8-10 (2) 3%
      5.  
        11+ (4) 6%
      I play 10 games at a time and I'm wondering how I compare with other players so I'm taking this quick poll.

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      I would find that very boring, I always have to have at least 2 games.
      The most I have ever had going at once was three. At the time, I was somewhere around a level of experience that included about ten completed games. All games have slow stretches, in between major campaigns or defending major attacks, when you are either engaged in industrial construction, unit production or maneuvering units in preparation for the next big campaign, and the temptation is to start another game to fill the waiting period with some action. Of course, when I had three games going I encountered a two or three-day period when I had almost constant major battles raging in all three games at once, and I swore I would never do that again. I'm embarrassed to say I actually called into work and took a sick day during that time. It was stressful, and in retrospect it was challenging and fun, but it's also not conducive to a lifestyle that involves adult responsibilities, keeping one's job and paying the bills on time. For me, one competitive game, played against several other competent opponents, and in which I am fully engaged and determined to win, is more than enough for me.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      It was stressful, and in retrospect it was challenging and fun, but it's also not conducive to a lifestyle that involves adult responsibilities, keeping one's job and paying the bills on time.
      Lol, my tactic is usually just advance one or two provinces at a time so even if I don't come on for a day usually I'm fine because I have no huge salients. My units tend to end up in large stacks though, making large holes in my frontline, and I am too lazy to split them up usually so that can be a problem.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Lol, my tactic is usually just advance one or two provinces at a time so even if I don't come on for a day usually I'm fine because I have no huge salients.
      My usual tactics against a human player include:

      1. Baiting, trapping and killing the opponent's air force early in the campaign, establishing effective air superiority.

      2. Advancing into enemy territory, and hitting the opponent's front lines with a combination of tactical air, artillery, and appropriately composed ground unit formations for the terrain.

      3. Using tactical air to pick off enemy ground units behind his front lines, while leaving enemy formations with high AA values to be killed by artillery, etc.

      4. Using roaming hunter-killer fighter wings to hunt down any remaining or newly produced enemy aircraft squadrons.

      5. Once the enemy's front lines are ripped open, employing fast-moving motorized ground units to quickly take the provinces in his rear areas, while using slow-moving non-motorized units to occupy and garrison newly captured provinces to prevent rebellions. If my fast-movers run into real resistance, then they can be reinforced within a few hours by my slow-moving ground-pounders.

      6. I also prefer to capture enemy industrial complexes and other construction as intact as possible, so I don't typically rely on strategic bombers and rockets.

      7. I also use massed naval gunfire against enemy ground units whenever I can.

      8. Shock and awe, baby.

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Tbh I don't actually run into many human players, since most of them quit before I get to them lol.
      I know. I've encountered the same problem in a number of games.

      The most challenging (and most fun) games in which I've played were a couple of "starts when full" matches I set up on the 50-player Pacific map last year. In both games, we still had 40+ players active after Day 10, and a high percentage of the participants were relatively experienced (L 45+). We also had multiple competitive alliances in both. And several of the players just wouldn't die, even when their fate was a foregone conclusion. The outcome in the longer one was still in doubt at Day 90. If I hadn't gone all in to save my ally around Day 20, I would probably have been eliminated too.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Tbh I don't actually run into many human players, since most of them quit before I get to them lol.
      I know. I've encountered the same problem in a number of games.
      The most challenging (and most fun) games in which I've played were a couple of "starts when full" matches I set up on the 50-player Pacific map last year. In both games, we still had 40+ players active after Day 10, and a high percentage of the participants were relatively experienced (L 45+). We also had multiple competitive alliances in both. And several of the players just wouldn't die, even when their fate was a foregone conclusion. The outcome in the longer one was still in doubt at Day 90. If I hadn't gone all in to save my ally around Day 20, I would probably have been eliminated too.
      Sounds pretty good, but I hate waiting for a starts when full match to fill up.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Sounds pretty good, but I hate waiting for a starts when full match to fill up.
      Trust me. If you're looking for stronger human competition, it can be worth the wait. And with the new limits on game creation, games don't take as long to fill as they used to. I'm pretty sure you can set a lower threshold than 100% for what constitutes "full" when you're the game creator, which I might recommend. Having a few AI countries helps grease the skids in the early going; it certainly contributes to having a functioning commodities market.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Trust me. If you're looking for stronger human competition, it can be worth the wait. And with the new limits on game creation, games don't take as long to fill as they used to. I'm pretty sure you can set a lower threshold than 100% for what constitutes "full" when you're the game creator, which I might recommend. Having a few AI countries helps grease the skids in the early going; it certainly contributes to having a functioning commodities market.
      I'll try it soon so. Thanks for the info. I'll probably get defeated though since I am so use to fighting AI at this point though haha.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      I'll probably get defeated though since I am so use to fighting AI at this point though haha.
      Go back and read your own forum advice and old comments, Duck. Some of it is pretty good. And K.Rokossovski's. And DxC's. And WildLobster's on SBDE. And Paramunac on aircraft attacks. I've learned a lot from reading those old forum comments, and hopefully I've payed some of it forward with my own forum comments and answers.

      And these blueprint games we're playing are a good way to . . . uh . . . get your feet wet again, if you'll pardon the joke.

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