CoN: Academic Advantages and a Lack of Logistics

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

    • CoN: Academic Advantages and a Lack of Logistics

      Has anyone else thought about CoN games as educational tools?

      I'm sure most have improved in geography and topography... mathematical estimates and budgeting... critical thinking and reasoning... rhetoric and language... and of course everyone's a little more familiar with military technologies.


      I doubt many play for these benefits... but when your mom/wife/whoever says you can't play anymore you might have the diplomatic muscle built up with some serious rational ammo to win the battle.


      I think CoN should embrace this idea... build a game that can be used like a classroom.



      This being said, I favor realism over "fun factor"
      To me, the more accurate the game is, the more fun it is.

      My biggest complaint about the game is that there is no logistic system... only upkeep.
      Units never run out of ammo... they could be halfway around the world with no supply line other than the "upkeep magic"
      Planes can be airborne the entire game without refueling.
      Ships never need to port to resupply (Which makes Malta a silly little island instead of it's historical place as the key to the Med.Sea.)

      Disrupting supply lines is much of what warfare is.
      To have a strategic wargame without supply lines seems......... incomplete at best.

      I think the developers thought logistics would make the game less fun... but on the contrary!
      Strategic locations would affect military campaigns instead of just being VP.
      At the moment, home cities are the only things that really matter... it's the only part of the supply line that exists in the game.


      Give the players an ever evolving target of a supply line and they will love to attack it, disrupt it, prevent it, anticipate it, and hunt it.
      Make supply lines necessary and you'll see players devote themselves to strategizing how to create them, maintain them, improve them and defend them.

      I know this is a big ask of the developers, it's probably a lot of new code....but think of the payoff!
      A game that has both more realism and more gameplay....
      And that means more academic benefit, too.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Has anyone else thought about CoN games as educational tools?

      I'm sure most have improved in geography and topography... mathematical estimates and budgeting... critical thinking and reasoning... rhetoric and language... and of course everyone's a little more familiar with military technologies.


      I doubt many play for these benefits... but when your mom/wife/whoever says you can't play anymore you might have the diplomatic muscle built up with some serious rational ammo to win the battle.


      I think CoN should embrace this idea... build a game that can be used like a classroom.



      This being said, I favor realism over "fun factor"
      To me, the more accurate the game is, the more fun it is.

      My biggest complaint about the game is that there is no logistic system... only upkeep.
      Units never run out of ammo... they could be halfway around the world with no supply line other than the "upkeep magic"
      Planes can be airborne the entire game without refueling.
      Ships never need to port to resupply (Which makes Malta a silly little island instead of it's historical place as the key to the Med.Sea.)

      Disrupting supply lines is much of what warfare is.
      To have a strategic wargame without supply lines seems......... incomplete at best.

      I think the developers thought logistics would make the game less fun... but on the contrary!
      Strategic locations would affect military campaigns instead of just being VP.
      At the moment, home cities are the only things that really matter... it's the only part of the supply line that exists in the game.


      Give the players an ever evolving target of a supply line and they will love to attack it, disrupt it, prevent it, anticipate it, and hunt it.
      Make supply lines necessary and you'll see players devote themselves to strategizing how to create them, maintain them, improve them and defend them.

      I know this is a big ask of the developers, it's probably a lot of new code....but think of the payoff!
      A game that has both more realism and more gameplay....
      And that means more academic benefit, too.
      I can't "BOOOOO!!!!" this post enough. First you committed the unthinkable attrocity of suggesting MRLS needs taken down off it's perch in another thread, now you try to illogically say realism=fun, when the opposite is the case.
      *** 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
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Has anyone else thought about CoN games as educational tools?

      I'm sure most have improved in geography and topography... mathematical estimates and budgeting... critical thinking and reasoning... rhetoric and language... and of course everyone's a little more familiar with military technologies.


      I doubt many play for these benefits... but when your mom/wife/whoever says you can't play anymore you might have the diplomatic muscle built up with some serious rational ammo to win the battle.


      I think CoN should embrace this idea... build a game that can be used like a classroom.



      This being said, I favor realism over "fun factor"
      To me, the more accurate the game is, the more fun it is.

      My biggest complaint about the game is that there is no logistic system... only upkeep.
      Units never run out of ammo... they could be halfway around the world with no supply line other than the "upkeep magic"
      Planes can be airborne the entire game without refueling.
      Ships never need to port to resupply (Which makes Malta a silly little island instead of it's historical place as the key to the Med.Sea.)

      Disrupting supply lines is much of what warfare is.
      To have a strategic wargame without supply lines seems......... incomplete at best.

      I think the developers thought logistics would make the game less fun... but on the contrary!
      Strategic locations would affect military campaigns instead of just being VP.
      At the moment, home cities are the only things that really matter... it's the only part of the supply line that exists in the game.


      Give the players an ever evolving target of a supply line and they will love to attack it, disrupt it, prevent it, anticipate it, and hunt it.
      Make supply lines necessary and you'll see players devote themselves to strategizing how to create them, maintain them, improve them and defend them.

      I know this is a big ask of the developers, it's probably a lot of new code....but think of the payoff!
      A game that has both more realism and more gameplay....
      And that means more academic benefit, too.
      As a fellow lover of history and military sciences, I recognize that logistics is indeed one of the most important aspects of war. Blockading, sabotaging, intercepting, etc would add a new level to planning and strategy. I would be in favor of a system that could add this to the game as long as it does not require constant micromanaging (aka endless clicking) and does not bog down the more tactical side of the gameplay, a method that can avoid the work but retain the fun side of something as monotonous as transporting the 4 B’s (Beans, Bullets, Bandages, and Bad guys).

      Alas, I don’t know how that could be possible; if logistics becomes too important in relation to tactical battles the gameplay will become mundane. And if it is rather insignificant why implement it? Not to mention the steeper learning curve…

      And the majority of the community wishes to engage in the “fun stuff” rather than the real stuff, most do not necessarily want all the work associated non-flashy equipment like transportation and supply vehicles XD
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Has anyone else thought about CoN games as educational tools?

      I'm sure most have improved in geography and topography... mathematical estimates and budgeting... critical thinking and reasoning... rhetoric and language... and of course everyone's a little more familiar with military technologies.


      I doubt many play for these benefits... but when your mom/wife/whoever says you can't play anymore you might have the diplomatic muscle built up with some serious rational ammo to win the battle.


      I think CoN should embrace this idea... build a game that can be used like a classroom.



      This being said, I favor realism over "fun factor"
      To me, the more accurate the game is, the more fun it is.

      My biggest complaint about the game is that there is no logistic system... only upkeep.
      Units never run out of ammo... they could be halfway around the world with no supply line other than the "upkeep magic"
      Planes can be airborne the entire game without refueling.
      Ships never need to port to resupply (Which makes Malta a silly little island instead of it's historical place as the key to the Med.Sea.)

      Disrupting supply lines is much of what warfare is.
      To have a strategic wargame without supply lines seems......... incomplete at best.

      I think the developers thought logistics would make the game less fun... but on the contrary!
      Strategic locations would affect military campaigns instead of just being VP.
      At the moment, home cities are the only things that really matter... it's the only part of the supply line that exists in the game.


      Give the players an ever evolving target of a supply line and they will love to attack it, disrupt it, prevent it, anticipate it, and hunt it.
      Make supply lines necessary and you'll see players devote themselves to strategizing how to create them, maintain them, improve them and defend them.

      I know this is a big ask of the developers, it's probably a lot of new code....but think of the payoff!
      A game that has both more realism and more gameplay....
      And that means more academic benefit, too.
      There was already supposed to to be a lot of critical thinking and math in this game via troop stats, defensive stats, offensive boosts, etc. Problem is for ex: when you get a level 1 bomber to hit a level 1 infantry on your territory and the infantry walks away at 10 hp instead of 8 and then the devs say "because war isn't always exact." Then why would you use numbers to begin with? And then why do nations make these things called plans?
    • Haha ok.

      I figured if someone liked MRL they'd love a hypothetical artillery piece that could out gun them.
      I mean, there were only 3 railway cannons ever...



      I don't think real war is fun... to be clear.
      This is fake war... but I'd still rather be a good strategist in the realist way.... I don't like practicing bad habits... the point of this post was to illustrate how people can learn from the game... and it's a shame if they're learning false or half lessons.

      Maybe some people like training wheels and never want to ride a bike without them ... they don't have to balance and they can't fall and its more fun that way for them... makes sense to me.... but I'm not that way. I'd rather ride a bike.

      I'm not saying that the game as it is needs to change. People like training wheels... All good... I'm not trying to take that away from them nor could I.

      I'm hoping for a new advanced version to be offered.
      That's all.
      I'd play that one.
    • I can't really disagree with the post as it suggest what i love : more depth in logistics, but let's never forget the game is "massively multiplayer" in a niche market.


      Online Strategy Game : 25 000 000 potential player base.
      Online GRAND Strategy Game : 2 000 000 potential player base.
      Online grand Strategy Game about Cold War : 1 000 000 potential player base
      Online grand strategy game about Cold war, with real time mechanics : 300 000 potential player base.
      Online grand strategy game about Cold war, with real time mechanics, and a relatively deep multi layered system of air, anti-air, and missile : 150 000 potential player base
      Online grand strategy game about Cold war, with real time mechanics, and a relatively deep multi layered system of air, anti-air, and missile, with in-dept logistics system taking into account the harsh reality of warfare : 50 000 potential player base.
      Online grand strategy game about Cold war, with real time mechanics, and a relatively deep multi layered system of air, anti-air, and missile, with in-dept logistics system taking into account the harsh reality of warfare, as well as the economical system to make it relevant in simulation : 10 000 potential player base.
      Online grand strategy game about Cold war, with real time mechanics, and a relatively deep multi layered system of air, anti-air, and missile, with in-dept logistics system taking into account the harsh reality of warfare, as well as the economical system to make it relevant in simulation. It also features complex espionage, complex industry, and accurate depiction of how finance works : 2 000 potential player base


      Logistics, Ammo, and such, will not be implemented, at least as a "feature to increase depth", because it's contradictory to what the game needs in terms of mobile gaming and player base.

      In the past, there was attrition. Units losing HPs when they were crossing too hard terrains. There also was, in beta, a supply system ---> units that would be moving too long and too far of their bases would lose combat efficiency.

      What happened ? Those systems were removed or cancelled ---> The users hated it (in the meaning that the feedback was very negative, AND it was bringing less money for the company)
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • I understand the player base math well enough.
      I mean, that isn't economic realism... that's real.

      I still think that if there was an "advanced game" once a month it would fill up with active players.
      I mean, by that chart if you had 100 "advanced" games there wouldn't be an issue to fill it up.

      Now that there's an established community around this game... some of whom crave a more complex format.... developers might have better luck.
      Whether it's profitable, I couldn't say... but if you can keep players advancing for longer... offering them new challenges... your player retention would benefit...

      I started on Flashpoint... then played WW3... I'd want to play Flashpoint "advanced logistics" and then WW3 "A.L."

      Until then I'll appreciate the game as it is for what it is... and it is fun.
    • Yes, i agree, i would love to have special "game modes" with more depth and realism. Unlikely, though.

      We'll have to give money to the next DLC of HoI IV, it seems.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Also, I just want to say thanks for the responses.
      This game is great and I don't want to sound unappreciative.
      Now I have a clearer understanding for why it is how it is.

      If an advanced version is ever under consideration I'd be happy to help brainstorm/trouble shoot/beta test it.

      Other than that, I'll try to make suggestions that are more within it's current format and I hope that I can contribute to the community ... and not become annoying.