Looking For Peace Players

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

    • Looking For Peace Players

      After v1.5 coming out, I think I can back to play few rounds again. The purpose is simple and clear. I 'm looking for players who don't attack active players. If have arguments when 2 players attacked a same place. We communicated first. If someone like to play peacely. Please give me a message or reply.

      And I may start to play game until v1.5 plane bug fixed, it's truely a deadly bug. V1.5 should have something new things to learned.

      I joined 6 games, 1 tutorial game(dropped), 5 defensive games, wins 2, losses 4, total played 494 hours.

      Province captured ratio: 1.91. Player K/D ratio: 1.73.
    • What is the point of not attacking active players though...That is the only thing to "challenge you" AI are not as hard as normal players...
      Ryan
      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Major General
      Training Alliance Leader

      Picture: Contagious Disease ward Wuhan.



      Good Luck Wuhan
      加油武汉
    • Nice idealism, but this is just a sophisticated and enhanced Risk type war-game ... Interesting that the developer has implemented a popularity factor to reduce surprise attacks- though this factor needs a bit of tweaking to reduce size of army as negative ... As for me, I'm just happy that nobody has been blown up by nukes in the 11 games I have played ... :tumbleweed:
    • At the beginning of the game it may be hard to avoid getting into a war, since all players are active ... Traditionally at the end of the game, when there may be only 4-5 active players, I try not to engage in war other active players- unless they have a large stack of umpteen units heading for me ... And I agree that game developer should give bigger gold rewards at end of game- to encourage people to stay until the end ... 8)
    • gusv wrote:

      At the beginning of the game it may be hard to avoid getting into a war, since all players are active ... Traditionally at the end of the game, when there may be only 4-5 active players, I try not to engage in war other active players- unless they have a large stack of umpteen units heading for me ... And I agree that game developer should give bigger gold rewards at end of game- to encourage people to stay until the end ... 8)
      Same here. Rarely do I attack an active player; but if I'm attacked I will fight hard. I usually just keep to myself at the beginning and build....infrastructure, troops, etc. Once a player goes inactive, they become free game for attacks. I play the game for fun, not the gold payout at the end. I just want to survive to the end of the game. Ergo, I RARELY go inactive unless I'm faced with a huge gold spender (huge is the key word here. They will ruin a game.) or a complete a**hole that takes all the fun out of the game.
    • Zippofish wrote:

      So what happens if all of the active players have destroyed all of the non active players and AI nations
      Obviously, at that point, I would expect the active players/coalitions to go at each other until somebody has enough points to win. Hopefully, the game (typically 35 days or less in my experience) will not last a year or two- which is a possibility.
    • Greetings,

      I am not sure I understand the meaning or reason for this post.

      If it helps, I will explain my game play philosophy.


      I am not an aggressive player. What I mean by this is that I don’t go out and attack or start wars with other active players. If I do Declare or attack other active players, there are very good reasons for these actions.

      • They Attack me or are starting to invade my country.
      • They are part of a coalition that one of their members has attacked me or is starting to invade my country. (Guilty by association)
      • They have helped a country that I am already at war with. (Allow them to attack me from their provinces, etc)
      • They attack another country that I am allied with.
      • They are a bully coalition. (Coalitions that have 2, 3, 4 or 5 all gang up and attack one smaller nation)
      • They are on my hit list. (This is a list of players from past games that has done something very wrong that I keep a list so if I see them again, I will take them out as quickly as I can)
      • They are rude, obnoxious or have a coalition flag or description that is offensive. (The coalition part is not that common but I do run into it here and there. While I understand I can always report it, I find it takes longer for it to be resolved than it takes me just to take out the leader)

      I have found that I do not have to be aggressive in this game. There are so many players that are aggressive that battles will find me. I find it humorous that players find out quickly they have bitten off more than they can chew and then when they start losing their troops and then provinces, they ask for peace. Let me state, it is too late for that. Those same players would not be asking for peace if they were winning.


      As for those of you that join coalitions in the opening days of a map. I believe this to be very foolish. You do not know who you are letting into your kitchen to help you cook that great feast. I like to give it time, normally, 15 plus days to start or join a coalition if I even join one. Not to mention, so many peeps go inactive and I also like to see who those peeps are. Remember, if you join a coalition and one of your members attacks me, I will see every member of that coalition as hostile and/or an enemy. If at that point your member that attacked me goes inactive, you will still be considered an enemy. If you leave the coalition in hopes of not getting attacked, guess what, you are still a hostile country for me. The ole adage is, Guilty by Association. It was your choice to join the coalition and your decisions will be held accountable. This may sound harsh, but keep in mind it is a war game. Again, I don’t consider myself to be an aggressive player and I do need you to fall into a category for me to attack you.


      I will end in this. My game play philosophy seems to work for me. It may not work for others. Everyone has their own way of playing. That is what makes head to head game play fun and interesting.


      With all due respect,


      General cdub
    • cerealnerd wrote:

      I RARELY go inactive unless I'm faced with a huge gold spender (huge is the key word here. They will ruin a game.) or a complete a**hole that takes all the fun out of the game.
      Actually I seem to get some pleasure taking out complete obnoxious a**holes ... I recall my first game in a 39 historical map where two obnoxious a**holes were in the same coalition (the leader as Italy and another one in Spain).

      It was mid-game, around 14-15 days in. I was Brazil at the time, allied then with Argentina and the UK. They took the UK mainland out early in the game, and shortly there after I was attacked in Belgian Congo by Italy, who had taken over a large chunk of French North Africa (Belgium had gone inactive by then-after been attacked by Italy and Spain). I took out Italy first, and then Spain- reducing their holdings to a few resourceless islands. Their third coalition member (Romania) went inactive, as did the other two.

      Unfortunately my original allies (UK and Argentina) went inactive. But my new allies (Turkey and Manchuria) and I managed to win the game- mostly taking over inactive countries by that time ... 8)
    • That is a very great question.

      Nice people do not wind up on my hit list. You have to have done something very bad to wind up there.

      I have to say though, once on it, you are always on it. But again, if you are a nice person, or what I call Good Peeps, you will not be on it.

      Everyone makes mistakes and I have no problem with that. In four years of playing, there are less than 15 people on my list. Six of them are from a Bully Coalition. Out of everyone that is on my list, I have had the pleasure of seeing 12 of them in other maps. Let me stress, It was an extreme pleasure to meet up against them.
    • I recall my last game in a 39 historical map, where I was Italy, there was an obnoxious a**hole playing Japan, who published threats in the World Herald- most of them aimed at the US. He formed an alliance with Canada and attacked the US. He succeeded at first in taking Hawaii, Alaska, most of NW US.

      In the meantime Japan collided with my Indian ally in China (my other ally, Germany, was busy with Russia, and later Scandinavia and the UK- all players inactive in the latter countries). I believed that Japan was weakened by this two front war- the US regaining lost ground and my bold Indian ally invading Japan. But India was repelled by a strong Japanese navy and army, and India started to lose Korea after many lost troops. India seemed vulnerable to get routed all the way back to New Delhi! I came to assist India all the way from Italy and I took the mainland (where Tokyo, Osaka, and Hiroshima are) and my Indian ally re-took Korea and the two smaller islands on southern Japan. Meanwhile the US took the northernmost island, where Sapporo is. That was the end of the obnoxious player in Japan.

      With about 24 hrs left in the game, the US sent a large fleet (several battleships, cruisers, destroyers, subs, and and two fully loaded carriers, with additional 11 troop transports) that was heading for Tokyo- claiming that he was going further south. Noticing that he was highest ranked player with 20+ solo wins, I did a pre-emptive strike on his large fleet- weakening it by about a third before he withdrew. In that case, I did not trust a non-coalition country aiming what looked like an invasion fleet headed to my most precious and valuable conquest (Tokyo alone was worth 25 VP's) ... 8)