New System

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

    • Teburu wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      I don't actually play them all. Actually I usually only play one at a time for the most part. I enter games that are 63/64 players so a new game will respon so my allies and I can hopefully get first picks when it opens up. . . .
      Please stop doing that.
      Why? I'd rather wait 2 hours for a game to start up than 5. Plus, CON youtubers like the B2 are recommending doing it to start up new games if you want to be mad at me, be mad at them too. Sorry for not wanting to be north/south Korea, some small country in Africa, or some small country in the middle of Europe. Sorry for thinking strategically, woe is me. I'll do my best to set myself up for failure next time...
      I politely asked you to stop doing that because you are selfishly hurting the experience of everyone in those abandoned games just so that you can maybe get what you covet.Please stop doing that.
      people: wow it sucks that everyone is inactivealso people: join games just to fill to maybe get the nation they want next game
      Yes, because when I look at countries like South Korea, I think " Man, that's a winner right there! It has every advantage possible. Absolutely no one will attack this on day 1." Or maybe Austria, " Yes, the most defensible nation in the game. It has no enemies whatsoever. I will have all the time I need to build an economy to build decent troops (said no one ever). Lastly, how about Israel, "When I think of a dominating country, look no farther than it. It has no political or religious enemies in the area and none of that goes into effect in the game. Egypt and Syria are my BFF's forever! I'll totally make it past day 5! (again, said no one ever)." There's a reason why no one wants these counties and there's a reason why people pick them so new games will be made. Please be realistic. People don't skip games because it's fun. They do it to get to games that are fun.

    • Damn.
      What's your win/game ratio?
      Must be terrible.... at least 0/50.
      Of any stat that's the one I care about.

      I've opened games hoping for a particular country... if it's not available I just don't join... There's no stat damage and a new game opens up at some point.
      I usually just try to pick one that's available that I haven't played.

      I understand the difficulty of getting the USA.
      I think getting California in Battleground, USA is harder yet.

      Currently I'm playing two games.... one world map as the USA... and one battleground as California...first time as either.
      How'd I do it?
      I joined first in each.... I watched the new game screen.... That's how active players win the "choice".
      If you're going to play a game for a month or more it doesn't seem too much to wait 15-30 min.

      I'm not in an alliance, but the coalition that I won with in the previous game was trying to get in together as a North American coalition... didn't happen.
      Only one other member of the 5 piece was able to join at all... and he got Columbia.
      We ended up having to join separate coalitions in order to survive... Canada invaded me first day and Mexico seemed ready to blitz and pinch me out. Cuba allied with me and was a great threat to pressure Mexico to join us... all of his initial units were in a convoy stack ready to open a second front if Mexico declined. blah blah blah I digress... (I'll tell the rest if anyone's actually interested.)

      My point is that you have to play it by ear.
      You don't get to choose and get exactly what you want in a war game that has 64 players from all around the world.
      You have to accept and adapt to the circumstances. Maybe a member or few of your alliance is able to join...maybe not.
      Just start a game... tell them... and then play the game whatever happens.

      I also want to say that the USA is by far the most difficult nation I've commanded... You have all the problems of a large land mass with spread out cities... combined with all the problems of an island nation with spread out cities. It's slow. It's expensive to build enough infrastructure to make it efficient. Your nearest neighbors are all in a better initial position to launch an attack or muster a defense... When playing as most other countries you can look at the map and think "What city should I invade?"
      As the USA (without a gold strategy R. Reagan would admire), you have to consider what home cities you would be more willing to lose in the early game...or which you could actually defend.
      You have to exercise diplomacy with great effect to avoid an early game loss of territory.
      You don't have an option, I feel, of choosing between focusing on airpower or naval prowess... you must do both.
      If you've managed to ally with your neighbors in N. America... which you can't feasibly conquer in the early game anyway... then, later on you have to keep a defensive position in both oceans and you have to wait days for an invasion party to stack let alone reach the invasion point.

      So, careful what you wish for.... you may have joined 50+ games and finally got the USA... but you might not survive past day 12 anyway... and it's a long slow road to victory.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Smallsword ().

    • Job_ee wrote:

      Yes, because when I look at countries like South Korea, I think " Man, that's a winner right there! It has every advantage possible. Absolutely no one will attack this on day 1." Or maybe Austria, " Yes, the most defensible nation in the game. It has no enemies whatsoever. I will have all the time I need to build an economy to build decent troops (said no one ever). Lastly, how about Israel, "When I think of a dominating country, look no farther than it. It has no political or religious enemies in the area and none of that goes into effect in the game. Egypt and Syria are my BFF's forever! I'll totally make it past day 5! (again, said no one ever)." There's a reason why no one wants these counties and there's a reason why people pick them so new games will be made. Please be realistic. People don't skip games because it's fun. They do it to get to games that are fun.
      Please stop doing that.

      A hit dog barks.

    • Whoa, I didn't even see you mentioned Austria...
      That's my favorite nation to play.
      I've played it twice and won both times.... once as a solo and the other with a coalition.

      It sounds like Australia might be a good pick for you... if you're looking for time to build an economy... you just have to build a defense navy ASAP and then you get the luxury of peace and time.

    • Smallsword wrote:

      Damn.
      What's your win/game ratio?
      Must be terrible.... at least 0/50.
      Of any stat that's the one I care about.

      I've opened games hoping for a particular country... if it's not available I just don't join... There's no stat damage and a new game opens up at some point.
      I usually just try to pick one that's available that I haven't played.

      I understand the difficulty of getting the USA.
      I think getting California in Battleground, USA is harder yet.

      Currently I'm playing two games.... one world map as the USA... and one battleground as California...first time as either.
      How'd I do it?
      I joined first in each.... I watched the new game screen.... That's how active players win the "choice".
      If you're going to play a game for a month or more it doesn't seem too much to wait 15-30 min.

      I'm not in an alliance, but the coalition that I won with in the previous game was trying to get in together as a North American coalition... didn't happen.
      Only one other member of the 5 piece was able to join at all... and he got Columbia.
      We ended up having to join separate coalitions in order to survive... Canada invaded me first day and Mexico seemed ready to blitz and pinch me out. Cuba allied with me and was a great threat to pressure Mexico to join us... all of his initial units were in a convoy stack ready to open a second front if Mexico declined. blah blah blah I digress... (I'll tell the rest if anyone's actually interested.)

      My point is that you have to play it by ear.
      You don't get to choose and get exactly what you want in a war game that has 64 players from all around the world.
      You have to accept and adapt to the circumstances. Maybe a member or few of your alliance is able to join...maybe not.
      Just start a game... tell them... and then play the game whatever happens.

      I also want to say that the USA is by far the most difficult nation I've commanded... You have all the problems of a large land mass with spread out cities... combined with all the problems of an island nation with spread out cities. It's slow. It's expensive to build enough infrastructure to make it efficient. Your nearest neighbors are all in a better initial position to launch an attack or muster a defense... When playing as most other countries you can look at the map and think "What city should I invade?"
      As the USA (without a gold strategy R. Reagan would admire), you have to consider what home cities you would be more willing to lose in the early game...or which you could actually defend.
      You have to exercise diplomacy with great effect to avoid an early game loss of territory.
      You don't have an option, I feel, of choosing between focusing on airpower or naval prowess... you must do both.
      If you've managed to ally with your neighbors in N. America... which you can't feasibly conquer in the early game anyway... then, later on you have to keep a defensive position in both oceans and you have to wait days for an invasion party to stack let alone reach the invasion point.

      So, careful what you wish for.... you may have joined 50+ games and finally got the USA... but you might not survive past day 12 anyway... and it's a long slow road to victory.
      Sure, I don't have to get exactly what I want every time, but every once in while, why not? I have played the US (which was extremely hard to get in the first place. It took at least 4 hours of reloading the game and entering new games to get it) even when I lost, it was day 64 and to the hands of a golder who played as Russia, and even then, he didn't win without getting a nuked a few times and his siege lasted at least 10 game days before my defenses were weakened. I had gone full navy and air force, with nukes. It's hard to invade the US. Sure, you might get Hawaii or Alaska, but if the US reclaims it, you're as good as dead. You doubt good strategy. I have learned from the best and have proven to be quite resourceful.

      Sure, I might not be able to get exactly what I want, but I should be able to at least choose the continent I want. When a game is at 63/64 players, I really don't have much of a choice.

    • Smallsword wrote:

      Whoa, I didn't even see you mentioned Austria...
      That's my favorite nation to play.
      I've played it twice and won both times.... once as a solo and the other with a coalition.

      It sounds like Australia might be a good pick for you... if you're looking for time to build an economy... you just have to build a defense navy ASAP and then you get the luxury of peace and time.
      My bet is you had a coalition of 5 high ranking players and your allies probably included Germany, France, Italy, Poland, or the Ukraine, and/or you had to gold to live. Am I off?

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Yes, because when I look at countries like South Korea, I think " Man, that's a winner right there! It has every advantage possible. Absolutely no one will attack this on day 1." Or maybe Austria, " Yes, the most defensible nation in the game. It has no enemies whatsoever. I will have all the time I need to build an economy to build decent troops (said no one ever). Lastly, how about Israel, "When I think of a dominating country, look no farther than it. It has no political or religious enemies in the area and none of that goes into effect in the game. Egypt and Syria are my BFF's forever! I'll totally make it past day 5! (again, said no one ever)." There's a reason why no one wants these counties and there's a reason why people pick them so new games will be made. Please be realistic. People don't skip games because it's fun. They do it to get to games that are fun.
      Please stop doing that.
      A hit dog barks.
      Why? Give me one good reason.

    • The fact that you are right with the crippling problem of inactivity on maps, with newbies spamming maps they will never play, and taking countries they will never play either, isn't by any mean a ethical pass to do, you as a active and regular player, the same.

      "All those people that throw their junk in the streets, it disgusts me, but since they do it, i do it too".


      You have learned from the best. I hope this isn't in the package of what they taught you, i have faith they are better than "that". I see you are in the sinful alliance. I will contact your leader to exhange on this subject.
      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.

    • Job_ee wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      Whoa, I didn't even see you mentioned Austria...
      That's my favorite nation to play.
      I've played it twice and won both times.... once as a solo and the other with a coalition.

      It sounds like Australia might be a good pick for you... if you're looking for time to build an economy... you just have to build a defense navy ASAP and then you get the luxury of peace and time.
      My bet is you had a coalition of 5 high ranking players and your allies probably included Germany, France, Italy, Poland, or the Ukraine, and/or you had to gold to live. Am I off?
      (Hey, finally figured out this "quote" feature everyone uses!)


      No gold... well, I accidentally decreased the morale of a random inconsequential province (I was pissed about that) .

      I'm trying to remember my coalitions make up... but it wasn't a geographical thing.... I blitzed my neighbors early... I had all of Europe in both.... In one, I desperately needed an ally with a navy and the USA was the only available player with ships not already in a coalition. In the other one I annexed Italian cities to build a navy...
      I wish the archive feature really saved the games so I could review it.

      Austria is fun to play because it is right in the thick of things... the Balkans are the most city dense region of the game... it's also very mountainous which is great for artillery.... It's small but slow to invade without airmobile... and it's not like all of Europe decides to attack Austria, they're too busy fighting every other country that has easier terrain... if you invade Austria and you don't finish her quickly it's a quagmire.

    • Job_ee wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      Damn.
      What's your win/game ratio?
      Must be terrible.... at least 0/50.
      Of any stat that's the one I care about.

      I've opened games hoping for a particular country... if it's not available I just don't join... There's no stat damage and a new game opens up at some point.
      I usually just try to pick one that's available that I haven't played.

      I understand the difficulty of getting the USA.
      I think getting California in Battleground, USA is harder yet.

      Currently I'm playing two games.... one world map as the USA... and one battleground as California...first time as either.
      How'd I do it?
      I joined first in each.... I watched the new game screen.... That's how active players win the "choice".
      If you're going to play a game for a month or more it doesn't seem too much to wait 15-30 min.

      I'm not in an alliance, but the coalition that I won with in the previous game was trying to get in together as a North American coalition... didn't happen.
      Only one other member of the 5 piece was able to join at all... and he got Columbia.
      We ended up having to join separate coalitions in order to survive... Canada invaded me first day and Mexico seemed ready to blitz and pinch me out. Cuba allied with me and was a great threat to pressure Mexico to join us... all of his initial units were in a convoy stack ready to open a second front if Mexico declined. blah blah blah I digress... (I'll tell the rest if anyone's actually interested.)

      My point is that you have to play it by ear.
      You don't get to choose and get exactly what you want in a war game that has 64 players from all around the world.
      You have to accept and adapt to the circumstances. Maybe a member or few of your alliance is able to join...maybe not.
      Just start a game... tell them... and then play the game whatever happens.

      I also want to say that the USA is by far the most difficult nation I've commanded... You have all the problems of a large land mass with spread out cities... combined with all the problems of an island nation with spread out cities. It's slow. It's expensive to build enough infrastructure to make it efficient. Your nearest neighbors are all in a better initial position to launch an attack or muster a defense... When playing as most other countries you can look at the map and think "What city should I invade?"
      As the USA (without a gold strategy R. Reagan would admire), you have to consider what home cities you would be more willing to lose in the early game...or which you could actually defend.
      You have to exercise diplomacy with great effect to avoid an early game loss of territory.
      You don't have an option, I feel, of choosing between focusing on airpower or naval prowess... you must do both.
      If you've managed to ally with your neighbors in N. America... which you can't feasibly conquer in the early game anyway... then, later on you have to keep a defensive position in both oceans and you have to wait days for an invasion party to stack let alone reach the invasion point.

      So, careful what you wish for.... you may have joined 50+ games and finally got the USA... but you might not survive past day 12 anyway... and it's a long slow road to victory.
      Sure, I don't have to get exactly what I want every time, but every once in while, why not? I have played the US (which was extremely hard to get in the first place. It took at least 4 hours of reloading the game and entering new games to get it) even when I lost, it was day 64 and to the hands of a golder who played as Russia, and even then, he didn't win without getting a nuked a few times and his siege lasted at least 10 game days before my defenses were weakened. I had gone full navy and air force, with nukes. It's hard to invade the US. Sure, you might get Hawaii or Alaska, but if the US reclaims it, you're as good as dead. You doubt good strategy. I have learned from the best and have proven to be quite resourceful.
      Sure, I might not be able to get exactly what I want, but I should be able to at least choose the continent I want. When a game is at 63/64 players, I really don't have much of a choice.
      In my game I wanted to focus on economy and be ready for the late game with B-2s etc.... but Canada literally attacked with everything they had.... they tore straight down into the middle and then tried to enter cities by sea... In early game, Canada, Cuba, and Mexico have the advantage over the US... I didn't get to pursue the strategy I planned because it's a war game and not everything can be planned, sometimes you have to fight for the initiative day 1 to game's end... and you're constantly having to react, respond, and prepare for enemies that pushed you before you had two feet on the ground.

      I don't doubt "good strategy" but I know that a strategy that doesn't account for the actual state of conditions isn't good.

      I mean, everything is working out for me so far.... no B-2s .... but my coalition has all of the W. Hemisphere and we dominate the Atlantic and the Pacific...have nice claims in Africa, Europe, Aus/NZ, and Asia...we're going to win, I'm fairly sure.

    • Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Yes, because when I look at countries like South Korea, I think " Man, that's a winner right there! It has every advantage possible. Absolutely no one will attack this on day 1." Or maybe Austria, " Yes, the most defensible nation in the game. It has no enemies whatsoever. I will have all the time I need to build an economy to build decent troops (said no one ever). Lastly, how about Israel, "When I think of a dominating country, look no farther than it. It has no political or religious enemies in the area and none of that goes into effect in the game. Egypt and Syria are my BFF's forever! I'll totally make it past day 5! (again, said no one ever)." There's a reason why no one wants these counties and there's a reason why people pick them so new games will be made. Please be realistic. People don't skip games because it's fun. They do it to get to games that are fun.
      Please stop doing that.A hit dog barks.
      Why? Give me one good reason.
      Because people do play these countries... they aren't garbage.

      Some of them require an active ally... some of them require tactics/strategies you might not know of or appreciate ... but you're denying that active ally to someone else... you're creating the country somebody is messaging because they need the ally...and that country gives no response.

      Just join a game and play it.... you've already fucked your stats so might as well try to adapt and evolve as a player... might surprise yourself.

      It seems like your saying "The system needs to change" and everybody on this board is like "Maybe, but you should change first."

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Please stop doing that.A hit dog barks.
      Why? Give me one good reason.
      Because it's selfish and rude.
      more like:

      Because you make yourself part of the problem that way


      And also noob error No 1 in this game:
      Player with high rank means he knows the game well
      Players with high rank are mostly people who spam join games like you and hardly play any of them in depth
      Those people rarely care deeply about the mechanics of this game

    • Tumbler wrote:



      There should be a reward for actually playing the games vs just joining them.

      Based on how many players don't bother playing after first few days I think there needs to be an incentive to keep people coming back.
      I totally agree!!

      If it would be done smart (so you cannot easily cheat on this) it would make:
      - game more fun but harder same time with more active players
      - involve people in it more probably, so they play more, so they spend more, so Dorado earn more

      I would recommend to add mechanic with counts units built, building built, research made and fights done. If You are active in all of them, you get extra gold per every day of game, paid after the map.

      So there would be some levels of activity, for example 3 levels. If I'm active in all of them on 1st level of activity per day, I get 1st level award in gold for this day, at the end of the map. Most active would get 3rd level awards (more gold at the end).

      So log in is not enough, you need to play, spend time to bulid and fight.

    • Randomguy93 wrote:

      How about something like you get gold bonus if you join a map as one the last 5-10 players and last until the end of the game? That would encourage people to take on the challenge of actually playing as one of the last few countries that nobody wants.
      This is actually a pretty great idea! The idea of getting a gold bonus if you join a map late would encourage players to join the game even with less powerful nations and encourage players to play till the end of the game.


      Seroslav wrote:

      Tumbler wrote:

      There should be a reward for actually playing the games vs just joining them.

      Based on how many players don't bother playing after first few days I think there needs to be an incentive to keep people coming back.
      I totally agree!!... (shortened to prevent flooding)
      I can see in this game (and Call of War in which I have been playing for 2 years) that many intermediate level players don't have wins under their belt because they simply start focusing on another game that they recently. I think including how to win the game/objectives in the basic tutorial as a clear message to new players should significantly decrease map spam. A higher gold rewards must also be given by having the system distribute according to activity throughout the game (eg. amount of days the player logged on for at least 15 minutes w/ action etc. )


      A limit of (down to) 10-15 games would also make more sense. Reading back, the current 50 games is most likely not be humanly possible to be reasonably played .
      Ryan04px2025

      Conflict of Nations player

      Former Call of War Player
      CoW Forum General

      EN/FR/ES Forums

    • Can't argue. Maps being populated by newbies who give up on the game immediatly gives the very bad impression that the game is inactive or dead. It's not the case at all, to the contrary, it's a unintended consequence of successful acquisition of new players, but damn... is it boring for regulars.
      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.

    • Kalrakh wrote:

      So, when will we finally get play grounds for veteran players? @Opulon
      In the purest Star Citizen Style, a Road Map will be published mid 2022 to explain what couldn't be done in 2021.


      Joke apart, don't know. But i do encourage to continue to lobby and spread how general the dissatisfaction with the current situation is. Remain cordial, courteous, as always, but don't deny that it breaks the nuts of everyone that is actively playing the game, and that includes customers.
      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.