That was perfect opener!

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

  • hakijaa wrote:

    PFC having 20.000 gold? Thats suspicious.
    What a terrible comment; so void of meaningful content and so full of ignorance.

    First: What is suspicious about 20k gold?
    IMHO not even having 20k gold is suspicious, bc everyone can earn gold in-game. if one cannot gather 20k, it means:
    - one is spending his gold all the time and probably buys to get more. but that is a personal choice everyone makes for himself.
    or
    - or one neither earns anything nor buys gold ... and that I find suspicious

    Secondly: haakija, once you get your k/d over 1 and hopefully learn how to read and interpret player stats, you will notice that Vanhemar's stats do not point towards heavy gold use.
    Heavy gold users - in general (good players excluded) - have military points go before economic points, bc they produce more weaponry than industry could w/o gold and their conquest happens before industry is up to par to do so.
    Conversely, again in general, low gold spenders will have economic points go before military points, bc they first need the industrial infrastructure to produce resources and troops, before military conquest will happen.
    Excluding players with a relative low number of games and excluding the good players who have mastered the game beyond average, a military score of 50% or higher is a good indication of gold use.
    The amount of gold one has, however, says absolutely nothing; especially when it concerns a still limited stock of 20k.

    Third: Gold is legal and Bytro even lets you earn it in-game. However, its bought gold (and HC) that makes the game go round. Gold keeps game development and management going. For you and all of us.
    As Patton could have said if he were around: "It is foolish to mourn the games lost against bought gold! We should rather thank God these opponents exist".

    The post was edited 4 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

  • I absolutely agree! Many players get blinded by the K/D, which is IMHO a combination of skill, lack of good opponents, and gifts by inexperienced opponents (I am the first to admit that my K/D was helped enormously by two opponents who had the bright idea to send unprotected convoys), and ignore the much more important relation between Economic and Military index.

    Which (for me) is also a very good indication when I look for an ally.

  • Some skill, with a bit of gold.
    The k/d isn't suspicious, but the province ratio is.
    General Nightman

    Retired Hero


    "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

  • Although, it suffices that an ex-ally for some reason needs to go inactive and asks you to take over his provinces (if you take 70 provinces without resistance, you see the province ratio inflate extremely much).

    Also, he clearly plays the game to the end (level compared to games played).

  • BMfox wrote:

    Out of curiosity how would you interpret this profile?
    These stats concern a mere 2500 kills vs some 1000 deaths.
    That is not much - or simply not enough - to go on.

    The military/economic score ratio is simply a good first indicator. When that score is suspicious, one can look into the many other aspects in the player stats, like the k/d and prov win/loss ratio, but also units most lost (= the units most used) to determine play style. Studying the opponents stats mostly leaves no doubt. Double checking the army + eco stats trend in the newspaper also helps.

    With extreme military scores of a player on a good number of games, however, I don't even bother to check much further.

    Even though I get it right mostly, one can still totally misjudge the situation too. I have played w/ people who had very suspicious scores, but who then turned out to play with low manpower troops themselves (mainly planes, missiles and a few LT) and were just very active and thus achieved very good military scores with relative low investment.

    All in all, the military/economic score ratio is a good first indicator and should trigger a deeper probe.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

  • On second thought, his stats show a pretty good player.
    Balanced eco score with military score shows a lot. Morale isn't too impressive, but it's not bad.
    He controls 176 provinces, at least 6-8 countries worth. He's probably pretty active.


    _Pontus_ wrote:

    These stats concern a mere 2500 kills vs some
    However, one can totally misjudge the situation too. I have played w/ people who had very suspicious scores, but who then turned out to play with low manpower troops themselves (mainly planes, missiles and a few LT) and were just very active and thus achieved very good military scores.
    The real trouble is, when you underestimate them. Then you realize the cliff you have just gone off.
    General Nightman

    Retired Hero


    "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

  • The K/D is certainly inflated due to playing Tutorial maps (since he meets more inexperienced players). The 2500 kills for those maps are not bad at all - given the many expected dropouts.

    Overall the stats are quite ok though. With a tad of gold probably, but certainly not excessively.

  • atreas1 wrote:

    The K/D is certainly inflated due to playing Tutorial maps (since he meets more inexperienced players). The 2500 kills for those maps are not bad at all - given the many expected dropouts.

    Overall the stats are quite ok though. With a tad of gold probably, but certainly not excessively.
    The number of games (18) and kills (avg. 140/game) involved are simply to low to judge with certainty.
    I have had it more than once that I got a good scare, seeing multiple players with high military scores and only later noticing that they had few games played.
    It is nevertheless certain that this player has good potential, because he plays for keeps, as one can see from his province win/loss ratio. I would certainly like to see the stats after 30-40 games played :)

  • Very interesting analysis. Never considered the Economic vs Military ratio before. That'll help a lot.

    QQ Some of the stats mentioned (tutorial Maps played). Is that information only available with High Command or an assumption on your part?
    What other detailed information can you see?
    I've read in other threads more detailed stats like individual unit kills/loss breakdown? (e.g. can you see Tac Bomber vs AA ratio?)

  • mindfields wrote:

    Very interesting analysis. Never considered the Economic vs Military ratio before. That'll help a lot.

    QQ Some of the stats mentioned (tutorial Maps played). Is that information only available with High Command or an assumption on your part?
    What other detailed information can you see?
    I've read in other threads more detailed stats like individual unit kills/loss breakdown? (e.g. can you see Tac Bomber vs AA ratio?)
    Unfortunately, no for all your questions. I'm a really lazy dude, so I simply just look at the k/d of all my potential opponents/allies and ask them to be my allies/not.
    "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

    "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)

  • You can see on the top right the top-3 maps played - in the game you can hover and see if it is the standard 22 map or the tutorial. But since in this case it shows both, no real need for guessing.

    In the game you can see the number of units killed/destroyed per unit type. That can give an indication of the units used usually by a player, although with lots of caution. First of all, some maps are "short" so they usually finish early (like the 22 map) - then the absence of HT killed doesn't really mean the player will not use them in a bigger map. Same applies for other units as well (especially naval units).

    Same thing applies if you examine the buildings this player is usually constructing. The absence of nuclear plants in a player that mostly plays the 22 map doesn't really mean he will not go for nukes in the 100 map.

  • Very interesting analysis guys, thanks. Now stats aren't everything a player can have been attacked by nuclear, have been decimated by a multiple player attack.

    I've been a bad boy as it was my own profile :D

    There's no gold use in those stats, except for golding the occasional airbase because an ally needs it to assist. Nothing extensive anyhow.

    I've played a few tutorial matches as a beginner because i liked the double speed. For the same reason i archived a regular game on day one because i found it too slow. I've played a couple of private games with my students that count as a played game but are not in the stats as it's not a ranked game. Played a free for all event where I ended 2nd, two 100 player maps and some others. Soon those 22 player maps will be replaced by the amount 100p maps and homefronts.

    For the K/D ratio as every player i've made the mistake not to make an air force and discovered how strong tacticals are. I've experienced that a few subs or DD's are not sufficient to escort troops, got hammered and outclassed on a 100 player map by a coalition of senior players. At the other hand I've done some damage myself to convoys and players without air force or AA.

    Don't really get what would be suspicious about my province retainment though. Interesting to know about the relation between economic and military ranking. I usually only look at the province retainment and K/D ratio.
    BMfox
    Moderator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

    Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


    Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

  • Bad boy indeed.
    With a little strategy, subs, tactical bombers and light tanks, stats are pretty easy to keep up.
    Gold use for the airports is pretty common, I work the same way.
    Nukes help some, but they only last so long.
    Map type is also telling, but not too much. My last tutorial round, I was looking for an easy game. I found 5 players higher levels than I already sitting there, waiting. Experienced players and tough situations can be in any map.
    General Nightman

    Retired Hero


    "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

  • BMfox wrote:

    I usually only look at the province retainment and K/D ratio.
    That next to the number of games. The higher the number of games, the more reliable the intel you gather from the stats.
    But if then, next to the other info, the military score is 'too' high, you also know how the player got his stats and one can react appropriately after digging a little deeper. Luckily I know more dangerous players that do not use gold excessively, than that do

    Nevertheless, any player that takes provinces and manages to keep them, while achieving a good K/D ratio is a dangerous player, simply because that is the basis of winning.

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

  • _Pontus_ wrote:

    hakijaa wrote:

    PFC having 20.000 gold? Thats suspicious.
    What a terrible comment; so void of meaningful content and so full of ignorance.
    First: What is suspicious about 20k gold?
    IMHO not even having 20k gold is suspicious, bc everyone can earn gold in-game. if one cannot gather 20k, it means:
    - one is spending his gold all the time and probably buys to get more. but that is a personal choice everyone makes for himself.
    or
    - or one neither earns anything nor buys gold ... and that I find suspicious

    Secondly: haakija, once you get your k/d over 1 and hopefully learn how to read and interpret player stats, you will notice that Vanhemar's stats do not point towards heavy gold use.
    Heavy gold users - in general (good players excluded) - have military points go before economic points, bc they produce more weaponry than industry could w/o gold and their conquest happens before industry is up to par to do so.
    Conversely, again in general, low gold spenders will have economic points go before military points, bc they first need the industrial infrastructure to produce resources and troops, before military conquest will happen.
    Excluding players with a relative low number of games and excluding the good players who have mastered the game beyond average, a military score of 50% or higher is a good indication of gold use.
    The amount of gold one has, however, says absolutely nothing; especially when it concerns a still limited stock of 20k.

    Third: Gold is legal and Bytro even lets you earn it in-game. However, its bought gold (and HC) that makes the game go round. Gold keeps game development and management going. For you and all of us.
    As Patton could have said if he were around: "It is foolish to mourn the games lost against bought gold! We should rather thank God these opponents exist".
    It was meant to be a joke. Nevermind