How do you expand the quickest?

Donk2.0 wrote:

While you are doing that, it can't hurt to check their K/D ratio, which not only shows if they are active in their games but also shows skill. A high k/dr is above 2.0. An average is .75 - 1. If it's below .5, you have some really bad player or a game spammer on your hands.

jubjub bird wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

While you are doing that, it can't hurt to check their K/D ratio, which not only shows if they are active in their games but also shows skill. A high k/dr is above 2.0. An average is .75 - 1. If it's below .5, you have some really bad player or a game spammer on your hands.

One note on k/d ratio: I believe k/d ratios were much lower in the days of 1.0, when a 2-unit stack that drops to 50% health would become a 1-unit stack (and result in a lost unit). A player who's been playing for years with a 1.5-2 k/d ratio is much more dangerous than someone who has only played v1.5 games and has the same k/d ratio.

jubjub bird wrote:

when a 2-unit stack that drops to 50% health would become a 1-unit stack (and result in a lost unit).

simon wrote:

Gentlemen. In my years of playing this game I have employed many different strategies There is no "BEST" way to win, since every game is different. Flexibility is the key. If a player can adapt quickly to unforeseen circumstances, or recognize a golden opportunity, they have a much better chance than those who stick to 'one plan. EXAMPLE: In the 1939 semi historic world game, as Britain, I always start building up the navy and air force to protect the Island from surprize attack. It is costly and ground forces take a back bench. But each time I've played, European nations inevitably start land battles, and don't build naval units. They usually throw everything into the army, so with no naval race to contend with, I can now start building my land forces, far ahead of schedule. When your enemies quit or your allies, and you have to change your strategy, it helps to have a plan B, C, D, etc ready to go.

6thDragon wrote:

simon wrote:

Gentlemen. In my years of playing this game I have employed many different strategies There is no "BEST" way to win, since every game is different. Flexibility is the key. If a player can adapt quickly to unforeseen circumstances, or recognize a golden opportunity, they have a much better chance than those who stick to 'one plan. EXAMPLE: In the 1939 semi historic world game, as Britain, I always start building up the navy and air force to protect the Island from surprize attack. It is costly and ground forces take a back bench. But each time I've played, European nations inevitably start land battles, and don't build naval units. They usually throw everything into the army, so with no naval race to contend with, I can now start building my land forces, far ahead of schedule. When your enemies quit or your allies, and you have to change your strategy, it helps to have a plan B, C, D, etc ready to go.

I have to agree with Simon here. There is no one size fits all formula. You have to adapt to geography, opponents, and other variables.
Probably the best strategy for early expansion I’ve seen is strategic deception and working in secret with a partner. You can hide the fact that you’re cooperating by not forming a coalition and play your neighbors off against each other. Get maps shares of potential targets for your partner and feed them their troop locations. Convince an opponent you want to attack your partner together but attack them instead. Probably not the most honorable way to win, but it’s effective.

Donk2.0 wrote:

6thDragon wrote:

simon wrote:

Gentlemen. In my years of playing this game I have employed many different strategies There is no "BEST" way to win, since every game is different. Flexibility is the key. If a player can adapt quickly to unforeseen circumstances, or recognize a golden opportunity, they have a much better chance than those who stick to 'one plan. EXAMPLE: In the 1939 semi historic world game, as Britain, I always start building up the navy and air force to protect the Island from surprize attack. It is costly and ground forces take a back bench. But each time I've played, European nations inevitably start land battles, and don't build naval units. They usually throw everything into the army, so with no naval race to contend with, I can now start building my land forces, far ahead of schedule. When your enemies quit or your allies, and you have to change your strategy, it helps to have a plan B, C, D, etc ready to go.

I have to agree with Simon here. There is no one size fits all formula. You have to adapt to geography, opponents, and other variables.Probably the best strategy for early expansion I’ve seen is strategic deception and working in secret with a partner. You can hide the fact that you’re cooperating by not forming a coalition and play your neighbors off against each other. Get maps shares of potential targets for your partner and feed them their troop locations. Convince an opponent you want to attack your partner together but attack them instead. Probably not the most honorable way to win, but it’s effective.

I just wouldn't be able to win like that. There's no feeling of reward when all you do is manipulate people into winning. Betrayal is always a scumbag move. And it's not something I want to do to win. I have no respect for anyone who uses other people's trust for personal gain. If you need to betray people to win, you care more about winning then playing.

Donk2.0 wrote:

6thDragon wrote:

simon wrote:

Gentlemen. In my years of playing this game I have employed many different strategies There is no "BEST" way to win, since every game is different. Flexibility is the key. If a player can adapt quickly to unforeseen circumstances, or recognize a golden opportunity, they have a much better chance than those who stick to 'one plan. EXAMPLE: In the 1939 semi historic world game, as Britain, I always start building up the navy and air force to protect the Island from surprize attack. It is costly and ground forces take a back bench. But each time I've played, European nations inevitably start land battles, and don't build naval units. They usually throw everything into the army, so with no naval race to contend with, I can now start building my land forces, far ahead of schedule. When your enemies quit or your allies, and you have to change your strategy, it helps to have a plan B, C, D, etc ready to go.

I have to agree with Simon here. There is no one size fits all formula. You have to adapt to geography, opponents, and other variables.Probably the best strategy for early expansion I’ve seen is strategic deception and working in secret with a partner. You can hide the fact that you’re cooperating by not forming a coalition and play your neighbors off against each other. Get maps shares of potential targets for your partner and feed them their troop locations. Convince an opponent you want to attack your partner together but attack them instead. Probably not the most honorable way to win, but it’s effective.

I just wouldn't be able to win like that. There's no feeling of reward when all you do is manipulate people into winning. Betrayal is always a scumbag move. And it's not something I want to do to win. I have no respect for anyone who uses other people's trust for personal gain. If you need to betray people to win, you care more about winning then playing.

6thDragon wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

6thDragon wrote:

simon wrote:

Gentlemen. In my years of playing this game I have employed many different strategies There is no "BEST" way to win, since every game is different. Flexibility is the key. If a player can adapt quickly to unforeseen circumstances, or recognize a golden opportunity, they have a much better chance than those who stick to 'one plan. EXAMPLE: In the 1939 semi historic world game, as Britain, I always start building up the navy and air force to protect the Island from surprize attack. It is costly and ground forces take a back bench. But each time I've played, European nations inevitably start land battles, and don't build naval units. They usually throw everything into the army, so with no naval race to contend with, I can now start building my land forces, far ahead of schedule. When your enemies quit or your allies, and you have to change your strategy, it helps to have a plan B, C, D, etc ready to go.

I have to agree with Simon here. There is no one size fits all formula. You have to adapt to geography, opponents, and other variables.Probably the best strategy for early expansion I’ve seen is strategic deception and working in secret with a partner. You can hide the fact that you’re cooperating by not forming a coalition and play your neighbors off against each other. Get maps shares of potential targets for your partner and feed them their troop locations. Convince an opponent you want to attack your partner together but attack them instead. Probably not the most honorable way to win, but it’s effective.

I just wouldn't be able to win like that. There's no feeling of reward when all you do is manipulate people into winning. Betrayal is always a scumbag move. And it's not something I want to do to win. I have no respect for anyone who uses other people's trust for personal gain. If you need to betray people to win, you care more about winning then playing.

I feel compelled to further elaborate on the circumstances I did this under. Within hours of joining the game, another player declared war on me and quickly recruiting two of my other neighbors into a coalition before asking for peace. At that point I regarded him as the enemy. I’m not above deceiving someone I regard as the enemy.

6thDragon wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

I usually have 2-5 games open. 5 is difficult to manage. I don't recommend it. 1, however, will leave you a bit bored. I agree that some people obsess about ranks too much, and therefore, just join as many games as they can to get as much XP as possible. I find that some easy ways to check for this is seeing how many games they have joined vs how many they have won. 1 game won for every 10 joined is rather active, more than that is less active. While you are doing that, it can't hurt to check their K/D ratio, which not only shows if they are active in their games but also shows skill. A high k/dr is above 2.0. An average is .75 - 1. If it's below .5, you have some really bad player or a game spammer on your hands. If the person is level 70, for example, with only 15 games joined, that's someone to worry about. That means that they have participated quite a lot in each game. I'm level 59 with about 25 games joined. I'm average but trying to improve.

Right now, I'm about to hit level 70 on my 13th game. Current K/D rate of 7.4. I've seen a lot better than me.

Pilgrim2 wrote:

6thDragon wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

I usually have 2-5 games open. 5 is difficult to manage. I don't recommend it. 1, however, will leave you a bit bored. I agree that some people obsess about ranks too much, and therefore, just join as many games as they can to get as much XP as possible. I find that some easy ways to check for this is seeing how many games they have joined vs how many they have won. 1 game won for every 10 joined is rather active, more than that is less active. While you are doing that, it can't hurt to check their K/D ratio, which not only shows if they are active in their games but also shows skill. A high k/dr is above 2.0. An average is .75 - 1. If it's below .5, you have some really bad player or a game spammer on your hands. If the person is level 70, for example, with only 15 games joined, that's someone to worry about. That means that they have participated quite a lot in each game. I'm level 59 with about 25 games joined. I'm average but trying to improve.

Right now, I'm about to hit level 70 on my 13th game. Current K/D rate of 7.4. I've seen a lot better than me.

7.4 KD, I need to be more strategic instead of just hoarding into a territory.

6thDragon wrote:

Another idea for rapid expansion is to coordinate with players in your alliance to join the same game with countries that share a boarder. If you don't need to defend a boarder with one active player, you can quickly overwhelm others.

I just joined a game with one partner, but I have a bad feeling about it. To my east are five players with the same alliance, all have win ratios around 50%. I've won the last 11 games, but don't think I'll get this one. However, I'm not going down without a fight. I'm surrounded by a bunch of newbies and inactive players and three of them are about to come at me. Can't say I blame them, I'm clearly the biggest threat in their immediate vicinity.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Actually I think joining games with mates is kinda sleazy. It makes it too easy to win. I used to do that earlier, but I don't anymore; it feels like cheating a bit (yeah yeah I'm exaggerating but still).