My Suggestions

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

    • My Suggestions

      Air Superiority


      Air Superiority needs to be able to escort other aircraft such as transport aircraft. Currently you can set it to patrol and then remember 10 mins later to get on again and update the patrol area but lets be honest no one wants to do deal with that.

      Trading


      Trade is currently underused and after thinking on my own and reading a few other posts I have summed up some of the great ideas regarding this.

      We need to be able to trade resources not just money for resources. I recall seeing another post regarding this and an admin/moderator said something like: We don't want to add that so people on multiple accounts can give each other resources as easily. I think if that's the reason then you might as well just disable the 'trade' feature all together. You need money to be able to buy resources on the stock market and in the end game no one needs money. Currently you can have your one account buy the unfavored resource and then the 'main' account buy the favored resource. Basically 'trading' the resources anyway. I think adding the ability to directly trade wont change much regarding the 'multiple account' problem but it will affect the people who actually play without cheating. It would also probably be better for tracking the accounts because you know that these two accounts meant to trade to each other and not just sell their resources to some random person.

      Trading units and peace/ceasefire/right of way (This idea isn't mine I found it on another thread)

      For example trading components for 5 infantry or for a peace arrangement. The peace arrangement would come with a major moral debuff if it was broken. Like the post I practically stole this from said, this would add a whole new level of diplomacy and make diplomatic exchanges so much more powerful in this game.


      Strategic mapping


      A feature to send 'mapping' to your coalition of where you want their units to go. Preferably with multi-color lines.

      [b][/b]I think it would be cool to be able to coordinate with your team and easier to give orders. Think of how awesome it will be to intercept an enemy's battle plans.

      There's two ways this can be implemented. They can code a whole thing for this and be able to send it in coalition chat or they could just add the ability to send images in coalition chat. We could take a screenshot, use ms paint, or almost any photo editor to do this ourselves. However, the first idea would require unnecessary developing which costs money. With the second idea you might have to deal with people sending inappropriate stuff and most of us don't want that.


      Reports (from units)


      For some reason it seems to really bother me how a ship for example can pass your unit and you wouldn't know. It feels incredibly unrealistic to me. There needs to be a 'reports' tab similar to the 'intel' tab. Where your units will report any hostile/neutral units that passed them. If you want to further branch on this idea you can have some sort of decoys or hire spies to lie to their superior. In world war 2 deception was crucial in D-Day. It would also be nice to set a UAV to fly over and fly back then report what they saw, or make it so any troops they pass on their way to the patrol destination will be reported.

      Ideally there would be no notifications for this, at least by default. These notifications could possibly be toggled, maybe an option for 'neutral units' and 'hostile units'.

      Also an idea to put out there. You can make the UAVs have no radar and they will be stealth by default but to get their intel you must wait for them to return to base. I see UAVs being mostly underused and this would buff them, maybe make more units detect the lower level UAVs such as Air Superiorities, etc. This would both buff and nerf the UAV, if it is shot down before it returns to base, you get no intel. Realistically this would have to be a piloted UAV.
    • Bleach45 wrote:

      Trading units and peace/ceasefire/right of way (This idea isn't mine I found it on another thread)

      For example trading components for 5 infantry or for a peace arrangement. The peace arrangement would come with a major moral debuff if it was broken. Like the post I practically stole this from said, this would add a whole new level of diplomacy and make diplomatic exchanges so much more powerful in this game.
      If they allow trading of units, I think the prices should be fixed by the game.

      Call of War used to have unit trading, but they abolished it because people were giving units away for free to allies or double-accounts. There was hardly any genuine "arms trade" - it was just being used to exploit the game. But if the CoN devs can find a way to introduce trading of units that really works, I think it'd give the game an interesting new dynamic.

      For that matter, I think maybe the resource market would work better if prices were fixed - or more controlled, at least. The market is very under-used as things are, and it grinds to a total halt after about Day 15-20 because none of the players want to trade any more and there aren't many AIs left.

      Expanding diplomacy to include things like time-limited ceasefires, trade embargoes (that are actually useful) and territorial settlements would be great - but it requires a system that can't be exploited too much.

      You are right that Diplomacy is virtually non-existent in Conflict of Nations - and I think that's a missed opportunity for the game. When I first started playing Supremacy 1914, back in the late paleolithic, diplomacy was what made the game fun. The warfare was pretty simplistic, but the freedom you got from the diplomatic options really made the game come alive. CoN is the opposite - much more complex and interesting warfare, but zero diplomacy. I think that's a bit of a shame, really.

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      Bleach45 wrote:

      Trading units and peace/ceasefire/right of way (This idea isn't mine I found it on another thread)

      For example trading components for 5 infantry or for a peace arrangement. The peace arrangement would come with a major moral debuff if it was broken. Like the post I practically stole this from said, this would add a whole new level of diplomacy and make diplomatic exchanges so much more powerful in this game.
      If they allow trading of units, I think the prices should be fixed by the game.
      Call of War used to have unit trading, but they abolished it because people were giving units away for free to allies or double-accounts. There was hardly any genuine "arms trade" - it was just being used to exploit the game. But if the CoN devs can find a way to introduce trading of units that really works, I think it'd give the game an interesting new dynamic.
      That's a pretty big bag of worms there. For example: What if someone sells you a level 6 MBT, and you only have the tech for level 1, or not at all?
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      That's a pretty big bag of worms there. For example: What if someone sells you a level 6 MBT, and you only have the tech for level 1, or not at all?
      Then you get a level 6 MBT without having researched it. What's the problem?
      IDK, just seems to me there is a lot more that goes into having a level 6 MBT, other than just owning it. The tech for making them is also the tech for maintaining them, and the buildings etc, depending on unit. To give an extreme example, say in real life, you sold a Nuclear Missile Sub to the People of Sentinel Island? How would they use it? Maybe not even as a floating house if they couldn't figure out how to work the hatch mechanism.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • It happens all the time, surely? Most countries don't develop their own military hardware, in fact. The UK has just bought a load of F-35s off the USA, and they didn't contribute to the development, I don't think. Turkey got into a row with the USA because it wanted to buy Russian surface to air missile systems despite remaining in NATO and having an American-built airforce.

      In gameplay terms, I'm pretty sure it's possible. An example from Call of War: I'm playing as France, and I capture a city from Germany that was in the process of building a tank. I don't destroy all the necessary production buildings in that city, so the tank production remains in place, and I get a free tank when it's finished. That tank might be higher level from my own, and it certainly will be from a different Doctrine (France = Allies Doctrine; Germany = Axis Doctrine) and have different stats to my tanks of the same type. But that's Ok. I can't upgrade it, and it counts as a separate unit if I put it into a stack with my own tanks; but I can still use it and it works fine.

      I'd have thought buying equipment that you can't build yourself would be the main reason for having unit trading in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point?

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      It happens all the time, surely? Most countries don't develop their own military hardware, in fact. The UK has just bought a load of F-35s off the USA, and they didn't contribute to the development, I don't think. Turkey got into a row with the USA because it wanted to buy Russian surface to air missile systems despite remaining in NATO and having an American-built airforce.

      In gameplay terms, I'm pretty sure it's possible. An example from Call of War: I'm playing as France, and I capture a city from Germany that was in the process of building a tank. I don't destroy all the necessary production buildings in that city, so the tank production remains in place, and I get a free tank when it's finished. That tank might be higher level from my own, and it certainly will be from a different Doctrine (France = Allies Doctrine; Germany = Axis Doctrine) and have different stats to my tanks of the same type. But that's Ok. I can't upgrade it, and it counts as a separate unit if I put it into a stack with my own tanks; but I can still use it and it works fine.

      I'd have thought buying equipment that you can't build yourself would be the main reason for having unit trading in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point?
      That really doesn't address my point as the US and UK can pretty much be said to have the same level of tech research.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • It wasn't even true, anyway! I've just been checking because I wasn't sure, and the British did in fact contribute to the F-35s development, along with other NATO allies!

      But beside that example, countries all over the world use military tech that they haven't had any part in the design, development or production of, and that they have nowhere near the capability to develop and build themselves. Countries that develop their own military tech are a tiny minority - the vast majority buy it from elsewhere. When you buy the hardware, you also buy the training to use it and the equipment to maintain it (that part could be abstracted if they added it to CoN!).
    • WalterChang wrote:

      It wasn't even true, anyway! I've just been checking because I wasn't sure, and the British did in fact contribute to the F-35s development, along with other NATO allies!

      But beside that example, countries all over the world use military tech that they haven't had any part in the design, development or production of, and that they have nowhere near the capability to develop and build themselves. Countries that develop their own military tech are a tiny minority - the vast majority buy it from elsewhere. When you buy the hardware, you also buy the training to use it and the equipment to maintain it (that part could be abstracted if they added it to CoN!).
      Forget it, you aren't getting my point
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      It wasn't even true, anyway! I've just been checking because I wasn't sure, and the British did in fact contribute to the F-35s development, along with other NATO allies!

      But beside that example, countries all over the world use military tech that they haven't had any part in the design, development or production of, and that they have nowhere near the capability to develop and build themselves. Countries that develop their own military tech are a tiny minority - the vast majority buy it from elsewhere. When you buy the hardware, you also buy the training to use it and the equipment to maintain it (that part could be abstracted if they added it to CoN!).
      Forget it, you aren't getting my point
      Apparently not. And what was your point?
      I'm not trying to argue with you for the sake of it, but the thing about Sentinel Islanders buying a nuclear submarine wasn't a point.

      Regardless of the level of industrial and technological development within a country, their armed forces personnel can still be trained to operate sophisticated modern equipment. In gameplay terms, there is no impediment to it either. As I see it, the only issue comes from whether or not it could be balanced so that players still have to make an effort to gain access to high-end kit.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Apparently not. And what was your point?I'm not trying to argue with you for the sake of it, but the thing about Sentinel Islanders buying a nuclear submarine wasn't a point.

      Regardless of the level of industrial and technological development within a country, their armed forces personnel can still be trained to operate sophisticated modern equipment. In gameplay terms, there is no impediment to it either. As I see it, the only issue comes from whether or not it could be balanced so that players still have to make an effort to gain access to high-end kit.
      Yes, it was, there is a considerable difference between the UK buying and using F-35s and a country with no naval tech whatsoever buying and using an aircraft carrier.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • WalterChang wrote:

      What is that difference? And how does it apply to Conflict of Nations?

      It would be a bit odd if a landlocked country bought a load of naval units, but so what? Why shouldn't it be possible?
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Teburu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      What is that difference? And how does it apply to Conflict of Nations?

      It would be a bit odd if a landlocked country bought a load of naval units, but so what? Why shouldn't it be possible?

      well mongolia does have a navy
      So does Switzerland
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Rozne Eltobliv wrote:

      no no it is a terrible idea to disable trade ! How will you get immediate resources when you're at war and need to produce a specific building or unit but don't have the resources? I won't really like to wait for hours for that .
      I agree, what I meant to communicate is they may as well disable the trade feature because currently almost no one uses it. With the exception of the 'private' resources everyone can purchase for themselves. Almost no one sells their resources to other players for money. Especially in the end game.

      I don't think they should disable it, but with how it is it may as well be non-existent.
    • Bleach45 wrote:

      Rozne Eltobliv wrote:

      no no it is a terrible idea to disable trade ! How will you get immediate resources when you're at war and need to produce a specific building or unit but don't have the resources? I won't really like to wait for hours for that .
      I agree, what I meant to communicate is they may as well disable the trade feature because currently almost no one uses it. With the exception of the 'private' resources everyone can purchase for themselves. Almost no one sells their resources to other players for money. Especially in the end game.
      I don't think they should disable it, but with how it is it may as well be non-existent.
      Roleplay games use it... A lot