WE NEED CHANGE TO SAVE CALL OF WAR

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

    • Agreed to the dysfunction of a coalition, yet, you can avoid that (in general, sometimes missing the boat could prove lethal) by being selective upon partners. With me you will find an active and knowledgeable player, still learning here and there and lacking experience on bigger games. yet mechanics ar mostly known to me. If one member of a coalition is underperforming we let them die off or one can step out.

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I'm not so sure. I'm currently playing as Japan. Korea and Manchukuo were both in my coalition and both demonstrated incompetence and cowardice, so as leader I backstabbed them. Players who did well — Mongolia, New Guinea — were not backstabbed. If a player's weighing it down, treachery is both expedient and justified.
      You shouldn't have taken them in to begin with. If you're having doubts about a players reliability, don't take in. Backstabbing even in that scenario still is not ideal.

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I'm not so sure. I'm currently playing as Japan. Korea and Manchukuo were both in my coalition and both demonstrated incompetence and cowardice, so as leader I backstabbed them. Players who did well — Mongolia, New Guinea — were not backstabbed. If a player's weighing it down, treachery is both expedient and justified.
      You shouldn't have taken them in to begin with. If you're having doubts about a players reliability, don't take in. Backstabbing even in that scenario still is not ideal.
      They probably would have invaded me and/or my colonies if I hadn't.
      It's a game isn't it?
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      So you knew they weren't really reliable but you took them in anyways cause your were scared they would attack? I don't think you're in a position to criticise cowardice.
      Maybe not, but they demonstrated this after having joined. Touche.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • The moment you give someone your word, you give them your word, their incompetency is irrelevant then, your word trumps that. You literally took them in because you got scared that they'd attack, then after they gave you their trust, you hacked them in the back.

      If you can't keep your word, don't give them out to people. If manchukuo and korea attacked you as a result, fight them. If you win, good for you. If you lose, join another game.

    • I think that this argument is now peripheral to the main thread and possibly distracting people, but nevertheless, I fight to win in a game. I did it because it was expedient to do so. Is not backstabbing and deceit as much part of the game as research or espionage? The Pan-Asian doctrine, especially, heavily favours it. A player who has not thought to counter perfidy, or to do them, is surely rash. Hide a knife behind a smile and all that.

      In real life, one should one's yes be yes and no no. But nobody is being offended against here who did not implicitly, through joining the game, accept the possibilities of defeat, including through perfidy. Nothing is lost but a game, and they and I have no obligations towards each other, and I would not grudge them to do the same.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      Is it really just a game tho? You backtracked on your word for it? Seems a pretty serious commitment for but a game.
      Well I do it in Risk as well. It is a tactic. Would you grudge a liar in Among Us?
      I'm done.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      The moment you give someone your word, you give them your word, their incompetency is irrelevant then, your word trumps that. You literally took them in because you got scared that they'd attack, then after they gave you their trust, you hacked them in the back.
      EXACTLY.
      "Never fail to honor your people. When a true leader's work is done and his aims fulfilled, they should say and believe 'We did this ourselves.'" - US Army General George S. Patton Jr. [1885-1945]

    • General Freiheit wrote:

      Z. Sakki wrote:

      The moment you give someone your word, you give them your word, their incompetency is irrelevant then, your word trumps that. You literally took them in because you got scared that they'd attack, then after they gave you their trust, you hacked them in the back.
      EXACTLY.
      Well that depends.

      If this person is collaborating with the enemy e.g. in such a scenario, or their afk, perfectly reasonable to backstab them.

      I mean if they are preparing to betray you, go ahead and betray them first.

      But it's not necessarily wrong to kick someone out of a coalition. But kicking then attacking while they are afk is dubious.

    • I'm playing since 2015 and i quit several times since the 1.5 thing. Sometimes I come back to see the old friends, few of them now. Just enter a new game and there are 70% inactive players and the other 30% goldenboys... it's impossible to have fun, strategy is over; it's another pay to win game. I ask bytro if they don't see almost all the players are new accounts....they start to play and quit...don't you realize the game is dead?
      I will pay gold to play a game without gold.
      It's over for me, again.
      (excuse my mistakes in english).
      Att. Capitán Somanta.
      Si no tienes posibilidades de vencer, es el momento de atacar.

    • Give them some tips on how to play a better game. Then warn them of their of their lack luster play or non-participation or effort. No compliance? Kick them out. You've done your job.
      But first, position troops in all their core cities. Take screen shots of all their troop positions. Then kick them out and declare war and ... Like magic you have become over-all leader in the game.
      BrutusOf7th :00008698: :00008674: :00008643: :00008566:
      Things are gonna change. I can feel it!
      :protest: :google: :unfair:

    • Gen. Smit wrote:

      I used gold for buying the top tiers of units.

      I use gold when people are being unpolitical, suspect twin accounts or commit themselves to lying/deceit in the game in order to win. If I want to be sure to win certain battles to punish such misleading/false behavior I feel it is justified in all senses, Malicious play should never be rewarded with victory.

      Real strategists I leave alone.

      But you can easily discern the malicious players. Some examples: wanting supply drops at no cost, do as if they are dumb and do not understand why "they attacked", hesitate and are in general very unclear on political goals in game, keep thinking for "days" about joining a coalition and scout around your territory, do not tell their relationships with others while they clearly gave ROW to an enemy (I am not stupid if I see a unit land and no war is started) and they still mention that they want to join the coalition but cant because of a "unknown cooldown time", game statistics and identity also indicate the type of player.

      So if I encounter such people I will not hesitate to drop a couple of cards (if needed) gained by watching commercials on the mobile. IRL it is already to easy to get away with mailicious behavior. In this game I have means to stop it ^^

      OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Old proverb stats...

      "All warfare is based on deception"

      If you don't understand that concept, you will not fare very well in games which have rules (and exceptions) woven into their very fabric, while you are oblivious to them. You will be playing while bound to a set of limiting rules, no one else is abiding to!

      Play by the same rules as everyone else and you will be on the same playing field. Otherwise you're the Indy 500, or F1 driver stopping for imaginary stop signs!

      I've found a group of guys who play by my rules and we are having some good games together. Namely:

      1. Alliance
      2. Coalition
      3. If you go AI, I kill you.
      4. Kill'em All

      There are groups/alliances who do not operate by these rules, it works for them and their standards are different. We don't really play with them.

      Figure out how you want to play, and be known. Find the group(s) who are like minded and enjoy.

      So long as everyone is keeping to the TOS agreement accepted when we all joined... the variety makes for interesting games.
      Technically he has given himself a mission. So in a sense he plays like you.

    • The Warsaw Pact wrote:

      General Freiheit wrote:

      Z. Sakki wrote:

      The moment you give someone your word, you give them your word, their incompetency is irrelevant then, your word trumps that. You literally took them in because you got scared that they'd attack, then after they gave you their trust, you hacked them in the back.
      EXACTLY.
      Well that depends.
      If this person is collaborating with the enemy e.g. in such a scenario, or their afk, perfectly reasonable to backstab them.

      I mean if they are preparing to betray you, go ahead and betray them first.

      But it's not necessarily wrong to kick someone out of a coalition. But kicking then attacking while they are afk is dubious.
      Unless it becomes an AI ?

    • Somanta wrote:

      I'm playing since 2015 and i quit several times since the 1.5 thing. Sometimes I come back to see the old friends, few of them now. Just enter a new game and there are 70% inactive players and the other 30% goldenboys... it's impossible to have fun, strategy is over; it's another pay to win game. I ask bytro if they don't see almost all the players are new accounts....they start to play and quit...don't you realize the game is dead?
      I will pay gold to play a game without gold.
      It's over for me, again.
      (excuse my mistakes in english).
      Att. Capitán Somanta.
      Or find a bunch of players to play with. Thats my ultimate goal