New map?

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

    • In the past when there have been new maps coming, they have announced them ahead of time and then released them some number of days later. Apparently, that is what is happening again this time. It's been a little more confusing this time, though, because the language of the announcement made it sound like the maps had already been made available (which they have not).

      Historically, they've not given the dates/times the maps would be available, but other new maps have previously started spawning on the weekends, at the beginning of a week, etc.

      What is also a little curious is that, in the past, I believe we've received more of an explanation of what a new map was going to be before it came out. There's been no description of "Global Conflict" yet; there's only been on vague line hinting about it:

      "In this map, power lies in your flexibility of strategy and commitment to your allies,..."

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      In the past when there have been new maps coming, they have announced them ahead of time and then released them some number of days later. Apparently, that is what is happening again this time. It's been a little more confusing this time, though, because the language of the announcement made it sound like the maps had already been made available (which they have not).

      Historically, they've not given the dates/times the maps would be available, but other new maps have previously started spawning on the weekends, at the beginning of a week, etc.

      What is also a little curious is that, in the past, I believe we've received more of an explanation of what a new map was going to be before it came out. There's been no description of "Global Conflict" yet; there's only been on vague line hinting about it:

      "In this map, power lies in your flexibility of strategy and commitment to your allies,..."
      That one line "In this map, power lies in your flexibility of strategy and commitment to your allies,..." I'm is the same one that appears at the description of the normal World War 3 game: "In this global conflict, power lies in your flexibility of strategy and commitment to your allies..." its literally the same

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      That one line "In this map, power lies in your flexibility of strategy and commitment to your allies,..." I'm is the same one that appears at the description of the normal World War 3 game: "In this global conflict, power lies in your flexibility of strategy and commitment to your allies..." its literally the same
      THANK YOU!! I did not notice that, nor would I have thought to look.

      Alright, that's a little disappointing in that we don't have any new information, but it's also a little comforting in that it may mean there's nothing too radically difficult coming up.

    • Considering the announcement states that you will be battling 63 other players, in addition to borrowing WW3's description, I think it's safe to say that the new map will be more of an update to the existing WW3 map, taking the current one's place.

      If that's the case, which I highly suspect that it is, I'm all for it - there are a lot of areas in which I'd like to see it changed. I just hope they make the changes I'm hoping for...

    • Pine of England wrote:

      an update to the existing WW3 map, taking the current one's place.

      If that's the case, which I highly suspect that it is, I'm all for it
      Interesting. I hadn't considered this. It does seem likely that you could be right, considering the lack of information and preview.

      I will be a little bit disappointed if that's the case, though. While I was hoping for something essentially based on the WWIII model, I guess I was also hoping for more of a variation than an update. Also, I think I was hoping for more of an alternative to WWIII than a replacement. I currently play WWIII 90% of the time, and I still enjoy it. Replacing it therefore has a substantial potential downside for me and a relatively limited upside.

      Still, I have to wonder how much change constitutes a "new map" if it's simply an updated replacement for WWIII. I mean, they didn't call it a "new map" when they added harbors all over the place or when they added city-islands in the strait between Korea and Japan. And according to the announcement, they're not increasing the number of countries. There can't be too many significant geographical changes if they are sticking with a current, realistic map model, and I hope they wouldn't completely replace the current WWIII map with another fantasy map.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by PerigeeNil ().

    • I could go for a WWIII-based map with an added playable Rogue State. According to the announcement, though, that would mean we'd have to get rid of one country. I'm not sure who that would be? Split Namibia up between Angola and South Africa?

      The most sensible location for an organized Rogue State, of course, would be the Middle East or Central Asia, but they wouldn't want to eliminate any of the current playable nations there, probably. You wouldn't want to completely eliminate Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq, I wouldn't think.

      I'm trying to think how else they could make a significant change to the map without adding countries. There are all kinds of great additions and divisions that could be made to current map, but if it's remaining limited to 64...

      Maybe Africa could be largely reworked?

      Maybe it's just an update/reshuffling INSIDE existing country borders? A few different cities and adjusted locations? Some modified travel routes? Such-and-such country goes from six cities to 7 cities, or vise-versa?

      Then I'm also trying to think of non-geographic changes that could make enough difference to take the change from "update" to "new map". I'm drawing a blank, there. I would think that if there were changes to the gameplay mechanics, that wouldn't apply to just one map.

      Maybe there's a change to the way that coalitions, teaming, and diplomacy work? That would be interesting, and you could apply it to just one map. That might be an appriopriate nod to the new name too. Perhaps an added layer of official cooperation between tight-knit coalition and one-on-one RIght of Way? Maybe something that looks like greater formal cooperation between coalitions? Coalition-wide Right of Way/Shared Intelligence? Some formal Union/Organization that ties coalitions together?

      THe addition of game mechanics that allow for embassies or guest country military bases?

    • Not that it couldn't/wouldn't happen, but I'd also be a little bothered if they replaced WWIII without any indication that it would no longer exist in that form. I kind of assume that WWIII is the base map for the game. It seems fundamentally departing from that would warrant a bit more (and more direct) warning than "We're introducing a new map!"

    • Anna Jija wrote:



      also since everyone would want to choose dat you would never get a chance?
      It would probably be popular at first, but that would be no different than the current popular countries in WWIII.

      Also, playable Rogue state has already existed in other maps, and it wasn't quite as popular after a lot of people tried it. Once people figured out that it was a relatively challenging way to try to play, a lot of people decided they weren't so interested in it.

    • Pine of England wrote:

      Considering the announcement states that you will be battling 63 other players, in addition to borrowing WW3's description, I think it's safe to say that the new map will be more of an update to the existing WW3 map, taking the current one's place.

      If that's the case, which I highly suspect that it is, I'm all for it - there are a lot of areas in which I'd like to see it changed. I just hope they make the changes I'm hoping for...
      I wouldn't mind if the new map it is almost identically to the normal World War 3 map, but with every nation having the same level of production, something like the World at War mode in CoW. That would be interesting to play, at least for me

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      I wouldn't mind if the new map it is almost identically to the normal World War 3 map, but with every nation having the same level of production, something like the World at War mode in CoW. That would be interesting to play, at least for me
      Ew. I'm not saying that *you* shouldn't find that pleasing, TheGENOC1D3R, but that would not please me at all. For me, that map would have almost no use.

      The ONLY scenario I can think of in which that would be preferable at all is if two players wanted to compare themselves to each other, but there would still be the variables of neighboring player skill, etc. It doesn't seem like it would be any more similar than two players playing the same country in different games. It would be good for Alliance games, I suppose, if everyone started out with even troops/resources.

      I understand the general idea of "all countries starting out equal", but suggesting that is necessary (in public games) is to suggest that the biggest/strongest/wealthiest countries usually win maps now, and I'm not sure they do. In public games, it's not like China/USA/Russia/etc. are dominating every game simply because they have more cities/resources.

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      I wouldn't mind if the new map it is almost identically to the normal World War 3 map, but with every nation having the same level of production, something like the World at War mode in CoW. That would be interesting to play, at least for me
      Ew. I'm not saying that *you* shouldn't find that pleasing, TheGENOC1D3R, but that would not please me at all. For me, that map would have almost no use.
      The ONLY scenario I can think of in which that would be preferable at all is if two players wanted to compare themselves to each other, but there would still be the variables of neighboring player skill, etc. It doesn't seem like it would be any more similar than two players playing the same country in different games. It would be good for Alliance games, I suppose, if everyone started out with even troops/resources.

      I understand the general idea of "all countries starting out equal", but suggesting that is necessary (in public games) is to suggest that the biggest/strongest/wealthiest countries usually win maps now, and I'm not sure they do. In public games, it's not like China/USA/Russia/etc. are dominating every game simply because they have more cities/resources.
      Yes, I get what you're saying, that is in part true. Its not the skill or the country that decides if you're are going to win. Having USA as your country doesn't make you the absolute winner of one particular game. Its your commitment to the game itself the real thing here, and one of the special kind.

      Coz, true be told, it wont matter you having the most powerful and rich country, nor the time you spend to check it every now and then, if the guy that has one of the Koreas has a bigger wallet than you, it will just be pointless. I mean, at the end of the day, this is a pay to win game; as far as I know, it has always been that way, and for what I can guess, it will always be. And thats fine by me, anyways, its just a game. If you lose, you lose, thats it. You'll just go and start another game; thats what I do on those ocations.

      So I dont think that "all countries starting out equal" would be much of a let down. I mean, for those that use gold it will be practically irrelevant. And for those who want a real challenge there will always be a Korea or a Bolivia or any other small country waiting for them at the normal games. So that will left only the kind of players who want to start in a game with equal opportunities for everyone, well kind of... as you say, there are many variables to take in note.

      But anyway, what Im trying to say here is that with that escenario I have presented, you'll have a "new" map (the whole equal production for every playable country) that its not actually that new, coz its practically the same layout of the WW3 game, except for some minor diferences, that for what we know, it pretty much will be the case, for the map and the mechanics of the game I mean, not the equal production thing, that is just my guess and hope

    • All of the countries in the WWIII map are intentionally inequal. Some are better suited to certain play styles, and others are simply more difficult due to a geographic disadvantage. Nations like New Zealand are so isolated that it’s hard to expand early on, and others border a ton of AI nations that can be taken easily. Larger nations such as Russia are going to be played differently than Greece, and that’s because they’re intentionally different. For me, that’s what makes each new round exciting. There’s always new countries to try out, and different ways to play even if you’re playing as the same country.
      The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. - George S. Patton

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Anna Jija wrote:

      also since everyone would want to choose dat you would never get a chance?
      It would probably be popular at first, but that would be no different than the current popular countries in WWIII.
      Also, playable Rogue state has already existed in other maps, and it wasn't quite as popular after a lot of people tried it. Once people figured out that it was a relatively challenging way to try to play, a lot of people decided they weren't so interested in it.
      which maps have this?? never heard of before
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija