More Suggestions

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

    • More Suggestions

      Hi everyone,

      Just wanted to make a few suggestions. I am a BIG fan of this game, and. also play Call of War and Tesla Wars 1919 (even New World Empires!).

      I would suggest the following:

      1. Gold: I would limitate the use of Gold for some cases. For example, Morale. You should not be able to raise morale by buying Gold. Another thing that I would limitate further is for Unit Health. Basically, I would limit the. use of Gold to areas where is actually realistic that you can improve or buy with Money in real life (construction, mobilizing, intelligence reports, etc).
      2. Real Forces: I would like to have a map, that is based on real life military power and capabilities for each. country. I know there are web sites that have public information about the size of each country's armys, navys and air forces. This can be a special map, based on real statistics en information. So, the idea is that at. the beginning of the game, each. country starts with a different size of armies, navies and air forces.
      3. More Real Provinces: The idea here would be to have a greater differentiation between provinces regarding size and man power and resource production. So you could have main cities, main provincies and small provincies. This would be based on real information from every country (also very easy to get).
      4. Market Makers: I believe, and from what I am reading most of us think the same, the market needs to be improved. It is very common and almost infalible that around day 10 there is no offers of Supplies or Rare Materials. I propose to have a Market Maker function from the system, that will make sure that there is always an offer of every material.
      5. Boosting Resource Production: I would recommend to improve the ability to boost resource production. The Arms Industry only improves a 10% each Level in the main cities. This I think is very poor and you always end up crying for lack of resources.
      6. Mobile UI: I believe you are already working on this, but there is a lot of information that you can see when you play from your laptop, that you don't when you. play from your mobile device. We should be able to see and access the same information.
      7. Game listing: It would be great if, when listing the games you are playing, you could easily see which country you are playing instead of only the number of the game.
      8. Diplomacy: Like a lot of comments from other players, I agree that diplomacy can be a lot better and a lot more flexible. You should be able to offer and trade more combinations of provinces, research, resources, and diplomacy states.
      9. Production Time: I think that there should be more differentiation of mobilization time for the different type of units. They usually take very similar of aroung a day and a day and a half. That take out part of the realism of the game.
      10. Alerts from Units: You should have a report from units that you leave patrolling, about the forces that were passing there. This was also suggested by other players.


      I really would like to collaborate with the thinking and planning of future updates to the game. I am passionate about strategy games, specially the ones involving military strategy.

      Thans in advance!
    • SAITAM78 wrote:

      Hi everyone,

      Just wanted to make a few suggestions. I am a BIG fan of this game, and. also play Call of War and Tesla Wars 1919 (even New World Empires!).

      I would suggest the following:

      1. Gold: I would limitate the use of Gold for some cases. For example, Morale. You should not be able to raise morale by buying Gold. Another thing that I would limitate further is for Unit Health. Basically, I would limit the. use of Gold to areas where is actually realistic that you can improve or buy with Money in real life (construction, mobilizing, intelligence reports, etc.)

      first of all if they restrict the gold , what is the purpose of it , people should just complain how will they make money out of the game . I don’t use gold but I disagree
      • “Wether if we are victorious or defeated what ever we lose hurts us”-hms bismarck
    • OK so I have a lot of things that I disagree about (no offense to you or anything, so don’t take this personally).

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      1. Gold: I would limitate the use of Gold for some cases. For example, Morale. You should not be able to raise morale by buying Gold. Another thing that I would limitate further is for Unit Health. Basically, I would limit the. use of Gold to areas where is actually realistic that you can improve or buy with Money in real life (construction, mobilizing, intelligence reports, etc).

      'Hms bismarck’ explains this above perfectly.

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      2. Real Forces: I would like to have a map, that is based on real life military power and capabilities for each. country. I know there are web sites that have public information about the size of each country's armys, navys and air forces. This can be a special map, based on real statistics en information. So, the idea is that at. the beginning of the game, each. country starts with a different size of armies, navies and air forces.
      That would be HELLA unbalanced, since USA, Russia, and China would all just ally and wreck everyone else. CoW has a game-mode called “Historic World War”, but it only works since the world's 7 great powers are mostly balanced and the only other playable nations are not located near other great powers.

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      3. More Real Provinces: The idea here would be to have a greater differentiation between provinces regarding size and man power and resource production. So you could have main cities, main provincies and small provincies. This would be based on real information from every country (also very easy to get).
      Love this idea, but it might be hard to implement (I assume you are talking about the HOI4 system).

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      4. Market Makers: I believe, and from what I am reading most of us think the same, the market needs to be improved. It is very common and almost infalible that around day 10 there is no offers of Supplies or Rare Materials. I propose to have a Market Maker function from the system, that will make sure that there is always an offer of every material.
      Again, great idea that is probably too hard to implement.

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      5. Boosting Resource Production: I would recommend to improve the ability to boost resource production. The Arms Industry only improves a 10% each Level in the main cities. This I think is very poor and you always end up crying for lack of resources.
      The more of your ideas I analyze, the more I feel you are a CoW player. (I am a level 64 player in CoW so don’t take this lightly).

      The biggest difference between CoW and CoN (other than the different timelines) is the economy. The economy is a HUGE factor in CoN, and in CoW this is not that big of a deal, especially since you don’t have to annex the cities to produce troops in them. The point of CoN is that eventually you will run out of resources, and so you must invade your neighbors to gain their precious resources.

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      6. Mobile UI: I believe you are already working on this, but there is a lot of information that you can see when you play from your laptop, that you don't when you. play from your mobile device. We should be able to see and access the same information.
      :thumbsup:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      7. Game listing: It would be great if, when listing the games you are playing, you could easily see which country you are playing instead of only the number of the game.
      :thumbsup:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      8. Diplomacy: Like a lot of comments from other players, I agree that diplomacy can be a lot better and a lot more flexible. You should be able to offer and trade more combinations of provinces, research, resources, and diplomacy states.
      Sadly, the reason that it is like this is that some players exploit this by giving all of their resources to a single player, and for them to steamroll over everyone else.

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      9. Production Time: I think that there should be more differentiation of mobilization time for the different type of units. They usually take very similar of aroung a day and a day and a half. That take out part of the realism of the game.

      Have a neutral opinion on this, but remember that if you build higher level Recruiting Offices it decreases mobilization time.

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      10. Alerts from Units: You should have a report from units that you leave patrolling, about the forces that were passing there. This was also suggested by other players.
      YES. I’m not sure of the specific thread, but I recommend anyone who reads it to search and find it.
    • SAITAM78 wrote:

      Gold: I would limitate the use of Gold for some cases. For example, Morale. You should not be able to raise morale by buying Gold. Another thing that I would limitate further is for Unit Health. Basically, I would limit the. use of Gold to areas where is actually realistic that you can improve or buy with Money in real life (construction, mobilizing, intelligence reports, etc).
      That's a losing battle in CoN...

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Real Forces: I would like to have a map, that is based on real life military power and capabilities for each. country. I know there are web sites that have public information about the size of each country's armys, navys and air forces. This can be a special map, based on real statistics en information. So, the idea is that at. the beginning of the game, each. country starts with a different size of armies, navies and air forces.
      Sounds like the Cold War map that @Pyth0n mentioned on a different post :thumbup:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Boosting Resource Production: I would recommend to improve the ability to boost resource production. The Arms Industry only improves a 10% each Level in the main cities. This I think is very poor and you always end up crying for lack of resources.
      You could try to use Hospitals to improve population and Bunkers to improve moral, those also affect resource production so Arms Industries are not the only way to do it.

      Pyth0n wrote:

      That would be HELLA unbalanced, since USA, Russia, and China would all just ally and wreck everyone else. CoW has a game-mode called “Historic World War”, but it only works since the world's 7 great powers are mostly balanced and the only other playable nations are not located near other great powers.
      Couldn't disagree more. I've won 1939 events in CoW playing as Yugoslavia and Tibet, it's definitely possible to win as a minor nation even if SuperPowers join in coalition. Would be the same situation here if you play as for example: Irak on a 2000's map.
    • -0- wrote:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Gold: I would limitate the use of Gold for some cases. For example, Morale. You should not be able to raise morale by buying Gold. Another thing that I would limitate further is for Unit Health. Basically, I would limit the. use of Gold to areas where is actually realistic that you can improve or buy with Money in real life (construction, mobilizing, intelligence reports, etc).
      That's a losing battle in CoN...

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Real Forces: I would like to have a map, that is based on real life military power and capabilities for each. country. I know there are web sites that have public information about the size of each country's armys, navys and air forces. This can be a special map, based on real statistics en information. So, the idea is that at. the beginning of the game, each. country starts with a different size of armies, navies and air forces.
      Sounds like the Cold War map that @Pyth0n mentioned on a different post :thumbup:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Boosting Resource Production: I would recommend to improve the ability to boost resource production. The Arms Industry only improves a 10% each Level in the main cities. This I think is very poor and you always end up crying for lack of resources.
      You could try to use Hospitals to improve population and Bunkers to improve moral, those also affect resource production so Arms Industries are not the only way to do it.

      Pyth0n wrote:

      That would be HELLA unbalanced, since USA, Russia, and China would all just ally and wreck everyone else. CoW has a game-mode called “Historic World War”, but it only works since the world's 7 great powers are mostly balanced and the only other playable nations are not located near other great powers.
      Couldn't disagree more. I've won 1939 events in CoW playing as Yugoslavia and Tibet, it's definitely possible to win as a minor nation even if SuperPowers join in coalition. Would be the same situation here if you play as for example: Irak on a 2000's map.

      Yes I agree to , usa and China can Allie but they can be bad players or you and other smaller nations can gang up on bigger nations and most of the time you will win if you play your cards right( I do not mean actual cards)
      • “Wether if we are victorious or defeated what ever we lose hurts us”-hms bismarck
    • Thank you very much for those who gave me feedback about my suggestions.

      I wanted to clarify a little more about the Gold bullet. I don't want to eliminate the use of it. I was just pointing out some of its use that looks very unrealistic. I am OK leaving all the other uses, but morale increase and unit health are factors that I believe should not depend on how much Gold you have bought. And, WITHOUT eliminating it, it could answer some of the complaints or critics that this game has.
    • SAITAM78 wrote:

      And Yes! I am Level 102 in CoW... : )
      Cool. Another CoW player for me to share my problems with :D .



      SAITAM78 wrote:

      I wanted to clarify a little more about the Gold bullet. I don't want to eliminate the use of it. I was just pointing out some of its use that looks very unrealistic. I am OK leaving all the other uses, but morale increase and unit health are factors that I believe should not depend on how much Gold you have bought. And, WITHOUT eliminating it, it could answer some of the complaints or critics that this game has.
      Probably not gonna happen, but maybe, just maybe. Wouldn’t keep my hopes up though.
    • SAITAM78 wrote:

      Thank you very much for those who gave me feedback about my suggestions.

      I wanted to clarify a little more about the Gold bullet. I don't want to eliminate the use of it. I was just pointing out some of its use that looks very unrealistic. I am OK leaving all the other uses, but morale increase and unit health are factors that I believe should not depend on how much Gold you have bought. And, WITHOUT eliminating it, it could answer some of the complaints or critics that this game has.
      I understand where you are coming from, but try to keep this in mind:

      CoN is F2P, Gold purchases are how the company pays the bills and salaries and server maintenences that allow it to be F2P. Suggesting ANYTHING that reduces the use of Gold, or inducing impetuses to purchase gold by players (for good or ill) is stupid. Now, I don't mean YOU are stupid, but such suggestions are because they are a threat to your own self. Reducing or promoting changes that reduce Dorado's ability to pay the bills and keep the lights on, only threaten the chance that you won't have this wonderful game to play, or that it least, it will have less chance to improve and grow.

      It is a regrettable necessity, that you can see your planning, skill and perfect execution thwarted by prolific expenditures, but, there is nothing to prevent you from moving on from such a game to a new one. It has been my experience that egregious spending is limited to a very small percentage of games played. Yes, I have been there, but I choose to deal with it using my own behavior rather than try to upset the apple cart and change others, particularly since we are all riding free on said apple cart.
      *** 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:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Thank you very much for those who gave me feedback about my suggestions.

      I wanted to clarify a little more about the Gold bullet. I don't want to eliminate the use of it. I was just pointing out some of its use that looks very unrealistic. I am OK leaving all the other uses, but morale increase and unit health are factors that I believe should not depend on how much Gold you have bought. And, WITHOUT eliminating it, it could answer some of the complaints or critics that this game has.
      I understand where you are coming from, but try to keep this in mind:
      CoN is F2P, Gold purchases are how the company pays the bills and salaries and server maintenences that allow it to be F2P. Suggesting ANYTHING that reduces the use of Gold, or inducing impetuses to purchase gold by players (for good or ill) is stupid. Now, I don't mean YOU are stupid, but such suggestions are because they are a threat to your own self. Reducing or promoting changes that reduce Dorado's ability to pay the bills and keep the lights on, only threaten the chance that you won't have this wonderful game to play, or that it least, it will have less chance to improve and grow.

      It is a regrettable necessity, that you can see your planning, skill and perfect execution thwarted by prolific expenditures, but, there is nothing to prevent you from moving on from such a game to a new one. It has been my experience that egregious spending is limited to a very small percentage of games played. Yes, I have been there, but I choose to deal with it using my own behavior rather than try to upset the apple cart and change others, particularly since we are all riding free on said apple cart.
      how much did they pay you for that?
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      how much did they pay you for that?
      LOL, nothing, not even a free SC for a month.

      I know it may seem like a paid Dorado shill piece, but it is more about people not taking the big picture into account and focusing only on "How does X impact ME"
      *** 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
    • I think we should actually see how much Gold spending occurs in Morale increase and in Unit health, as a percentage of the total Gold spending.

      I do not only think, but strongly believe that if these categories are not quite large, then they could and should limitate it. Just a thought! : )

      And that is another thing, they do not need to eliminate the chance of using Gold in those categories, just limitate that.

      And last but not least, we should take into considerations the. Gold they are losing from the players that feel that this game is very much a pay for win kind of game (which I do not think that, btw).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by SAITAM78 ().

    • 1. Gold: Not quite sure what limitation you want to put on gold usage, but it's naturally already limited.. err.. by the size of your wallet. I think the game as it is already maintain some sort of balance between free players and gold players. Me myself has wisely use gold for emergency, such as speed up capital building in the event of losing one, but not really to build or heal units.

      2. Real Force: totally against this, as already said, would highly unbalance the game.. in real world, the great force only mean to deter the enemy, but in the game you really lust for blood, your decision to declare war never give any consideration to your family that might be affected in real world lol.. you easily nuke your former homeland simply to recapture it..

      3. Real Province: guess already good as it is, the developer take great care to overall balance the movement. how more realistic can it be, there will be problem to draw the line of how realistic you want to go..

      4. Market: kinda agree but it has to be approached with extreme careful to ensure balance.. spawning limited resources to be sold at average price should be fine I guess.. also kinda hope there are more things you can do with having manpower and money..

      5. Boost Resource: patience is the name of the game here I guess.. I kinda like the slow pace, so really it's about strategy, short term and long term combined.. It's a really challenging yet entertaining game as it is.

      6. Mobile UI: yes, agree here that information displayed should be somewhat same between mobile and PC, especially in term of player statistic.

      7. Game listing: agree, need to show nation we're playing as lol..

      8. Diplomacy: certainly there are rooms for improvement

      9. Production Time: agree on this one

      10. Unit Alert: definitely, we need improvement on this one.. radar alert log for encounter with unidentified contact and also alert of attacks on coalition members.. the radar alert log can also put on intel to be shared..
    • Yes def number 10 and I think a waypoint for planes would be nice maybe like overnight you could say go patrol these 3 cities in this order then do a report on what you saw at what time so you can see when you get back on oh my planes saw that 3 hours ago there was an armored division leaving the city of Barcelona or whatever. Also to set a return journey back to an air base after an attack. I mean you don't want it flying over a stack of 10 sams why can't you have it take a detour around it then back.
    • SAITAM78 wrote:

      Market Makers: I believe, and from what I am reading most of us think the same, the market needs to be improved. It is very common and almost infalible that around day 10 there is no offers of Supplies or Rare Materials. I propose to have a Market Maker function from the system, that will make sure that there is always an offer of every material.
      They could maybe change it so that there is a pool of resources on the market, rather than individual sales. The price could fluctuate by a fixed amount set by the game each time someone makes a transaction.

      So, if you want to sell, you just choose the amount of the resource you want to sell and you can instantly get that sale at the current market price. If you want to buy, you again just choose the amount of the resource you want, and you pay the current market price. Each time someone buys, the price goes up by a fixed amount depending on the amount of resources involved; each time someone sells, the price goes down.

      That way players can't set the prices and maybe the market would be more stable and sustainable into the mid and late game?
    • WalterChang wrote:

      SAITAM78 wrote:

      Market Makers: I believe, and from what I am reading most of us think the same, the market needs to be improved. It is very common and almost infalible that around day 10 there is no offers of Supplies or Rare Materials. I propose to have a Market Maker function from the system, that will make sure that there is always an offer of every material.
      They could maybe change it so that there is a pool of resources on the market, rather than individual sales. The price could fluctuate by a fixed amount set by the game each time someone makes a transaction.
      So, if you want to sell, you just choose the amount of the resource you want to sell and you can instantly get that sale at the current market price. If you want to buy, you again just choose the amount of the resource you want, and you pay the current market price. Each time someone buys, the price goes up by a fixed amount depending on the amount of resources involved; each time someone sells, the price goes down.

      That way players can't set the prices and maybe the market would be more stable and sustainable into the mid and late game?
      While this would be nice and I would personally love it, I don't think people are getting the idea that things are intentionally set up the way they are to entice people to buy gold and spend it on resources. Why in the Hell would Dorado want to alter things so they make less money this way?
      *** 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:

      While this would be nice and I would personally love it, I don't think people are getting the idea that things are intentionally set up the way they are to entice people to buy gold and spend it on resources. Why in the Hell would Dorado want to alter things so they make less money this way?
      It is of course up to them. I presume they have the data to tell them how many people are spending gold, how much and on what.

      The only point I would make about that is (another, sorry!) comparison with Call of War. CoW uses the same system of gold usage as CoN does, but in my experience there is far less of it spent in public games in CoW on things like morale boosts, instant building/mobilization/research and on resource purchases, than there is in CoN. It just doesn't seem to happen as much, and the game is more enjoyable, from that perspective, as a result. I assume CoW works as a sustainable income for the company at least as much as CoN does? So I don't know. I'm not about to tell Dorado how to run their game, but I would point out that there are quite a lot of negative reviews on Steam precisely because CoN is perceived by many people to be "pay-to-win" - and that surely can't a good thing for Dorado, whether or not it is true. My view is that, in order for the game to be worth playing as a p2p online strategy game, then it should be players' strategy that determines their success, first and foremost. In my opinion, in certainly is worth playing on that basis, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. But that doesn't mean there aren't aspects that I think could be improved. I think it's a flawed argument to say that this gameplay system (the resource market) doesn't work very well from a gameplay perspective, but it shouldn't be improved because it encourages people to spend more real money on the game as it currently is. At the end of the day it's a gameplay mechanic, and its gameplay function isn't being served very well by its current implementation, in my opinion. I don't think it necessarily follows that improving the functioning of the in-game resource market will deter people from buying gold, or from spending that gold on in-game resources, if that's what they choose to do.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      While this would be nice and I would personally love it, I don't think people are getting the idea that things are intentionally set up the way they are to entice people to buy gold and spend it on resources. Why in the Hell would Dorado want to alter things so they make less money this way?
      It is of course up to them. I presume they have the data to tell them how many people are spending gold, how much and on what.
      The only point I would make about that is (another, sorry!) comparison with Call of War. CoW uses the same system of gold usage as CoN does, but in my experience there is far less of it spent in public games in CoW on things like morale boosts, instant building/mobilization/research and on resource purchases, than there is in CoN. It just doesn't seem to happen as much, and the game is more enjoyable, from that perspective, as a result. I assume CoW works as a sustainable income for the company at least as much as CoN does? So I don't know. I'm not about to tell Dorado how to run their game, but I would point out that there are quite a lot of negative reviews on Steam precisely because CoN is perceived by many people to be "pay-to-win" - and that surely can't a good thing for Dorado, whether or not it is true. My view is that, in order for the game to be worth playing as a p2p online strategy game, then it should be players' strategy that determines their success, first and foremost. In my opinion, in certainly is worth playing on that basis, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. But that doesn't mean there aren't aspects that I think could be improved. I think it's a flawed argument to say that this gameplay system (the resource market) doesn't work very well from a gameplay perspective, but it shouldn't be improved because it encourages people to spend more real money on the game as it currently is. At the end of the day it's a gameplay mechanic, and its gameplay function isn't being served very well by its current implementation, in my opinion. I don't think it necessarily follows that improving the functioning of the in-game resource market will deter people from buying gold, or from spending that gold on in-game resources, if that's what they choose to do.
      Doesn't the fact that they changed the gold model/options from CoW to CoN, at least suggest to you that the CoN model is more lucrative? I mean, I'm sure they researched it and just didn't risk doing something that would be disastrous for their bottom line, OR if they did, immediately change it early on?

      "I think it's a flawed argument to say that this gameplay system (the resource market) doesn't work very well from a gameplay perspective, but it shouldn't be improved because it encourages people to spend more real money on the game as it currently is. At the end of the day it's a gameplay mechanic, and its gameplay function isn't being served very well by its current implementation, in my opinion. I don't think it necessarily follows that improving the functioning of the in-game resource market will deter people from buying gold, or from spending that gold on in-game resources, if that's what they choose to do."

      Then I don't know how to put this, without seeming to sound offensive (not my intent), but your thinking is defective. It certainly ISN'T a flawed argument to say a currently functional revenue generating model shouldn't be changed. If the scarcity of resources weren't so integral to CoN, you wouldn't have a problem, Dorado wouldn't have enough money coming in and you'd be left with playing CoW. (which is fine if you like rehashing the past) It DOES also follow, that your suggestions would definitely deter people from buying gold to gain resources. Why? It would decrease their need. Why use real money to buy gold to get those Rares when Bob the Bozo just put them up on the market for in game fake money? Plus the one aspect you mentioned about upping the price when bought and lowering when put up for sale seems really illogical. Any completed transaction would just cancel each other out AND it would encourage hoarding, until nobody else has anything posted, just to get the best price.

      But what it really boils down to is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and Dorado knows much better than you or I if it is working for them, and as long as it works for them, we get this wonderful game to enjoy that doesn't have ancient WW 2 units.
      *** 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:

      Doesn't the fact that they changed the gold model/options from CoW to CoN, at least suggest to you that the CoN model is more lucrative? I mean, I'm sure they researched it and just didn't risk doing something that would be disastrous for their bottom line, OR if they did, immediately change it early on?
      I wasn't aware that they changed anything. To me it appears that the gold purchasing/spending options are very similar between the two games, if not identical. But ok, I take your word for it. I'm not suggesting they do anything that's disastrous for their bottom line - I was just just suggesting an improvement to a gameplay mechanic that - I think - would make it better from a gameplay perspective.

      If tweaking the in-game resource market so that buying and selling for in-game money is more of a feature throughout the lifespan of a match than it currently is - if that causes the company to collapse and for the game to disappear, then of course they shouldn't do it! But I personally think that's extremely unlikely to be the outcome.

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      But what it really boils down to is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and Dorado knows much better than you or I if it is working for them, and as long as it works for them, we get this wonderful game to enjoy that doesn't have ancient WW 2 units.
      Of course they know better what works for them - I'm not disputing that. I'm only giving my opinion on what works better for me, as a player. That's what a suggestions forum is for, after all. It's great that Dorado provides this for us to use so that we can give our input, and it's credit to them that they take it into account when making updates. But it's not up to me or you to debate or even consider how gameplay changes might affect the company's profit margin - that's none of our business. What is our business is how the game plays from the point of view of strategic engagement and fun - that's where we can give the devs useful input.

      I'm not going to get into a debate about whether CoW id better than CoN - not in this thread, anyway! I like both of them, but I'm playing this at the moment because I feel like I've kind of got the hang of CoW, whereas I definitely haven't got the hang of CoN yet! That makes it more interesting from my point of view, because I can still try out new strategies and get a more varied experience from new play-throughs than I can in CoW. But that's a very personal take on it. I like the WW2 scenario in CoW and I like some of the gameplay mechanics better in that game. But I also like the modern warfare scenario with its wider unit variety that CoN offers - I do think they could make a lot more of it, though, and that's why I choose to participate in these forum discussions to give my feedback.

      I appreciate that some gameplay mechanics might be designed to encourage Gold spending, and I don't have a problem with the principle of that. But neither you nor I have the information to make an informed comment on how proposed gameplay changes might affect overall Gold purchases, and it's not our place to do so anyway. We are players - we can comment and make suggestions on the gameplay only.