Again guys this isnt a blacklist thread but I am just curious if any of you have come across a player you would call the worst. My canidate is H4mp1, just watch.
To me it looks like he has a workable understanding of the game and tactics, but a very bad grasp of how likely certain attacks are to work. Take a look at Finland turn 3, he needs three attacks to complete the bonus and decides to use 1vs1, 1vs1 and 2vs2 (that's 18% success rate, another 18% and approximately 16.89% for a total of about 0.55%). Worse, the failed (doomed) attack on Lapland reveals he's in Finland; a successful attack would've opened an extra front on Orange before he knew what hit him.
H4mp1, if you're reading this:
- Use the "Analyse" button in the attack/transfer window to learn how likely it is for an attack to succeed.
- The idea of the game is that you usually have far fewer armies than you'd like. You can't fight and expand on all fronts; choose your battles and spend enough armies on the battles you *are* fighting to make sure you win them.
(Example, you spent 0 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 + 4 + 2 = 13 armies and 7 turns on capturing Finland. If you has only used 4vs2 attacks you'd have needed approximately 8 armies and 3 turns.)
Worst player ever? Not a blacklist thread!!: 4/16/2012 15:46:26
There's this one guy, at Warlight Camp, that is really really bad. His name is something like Crazy Military Man, and he's in a few clans. Hope I never have to play again with him.
Sorry, I lost the game link.
Worst player ever? Not a blacklist thread!!: 4/16/2012 20:27:02
