.

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

    • Samuel wrote:

      There are many unplayable nations in Conflict of Nations. You can see them in every continent. In Europe, there is one example - Slovakia. City Ideas for the nation: 1. Bratislava - capital, 2. Košice - the second largest city, 3. Žilina, 4. Trenčín, 5. Nitra, 6. Banská Bystrica, 7. Prešov, 8. Trnava. There are smaller countries with less population which are playable. There are also many more unplayable nations in Europe, for example Moldova, Switzerland, Belgium and Netherlands. This is only in Europe. I noticed Somalia in Africa is also not playable anymore. The game developers add nations which do not even exist, like Uyghur, which belongs to China. They should focus in making unplayable nations playable. In that case, they should allow players to make larger alliances with like 10 or more members. This will also make the game more realistic.
      There are only 64 playable nations, so your plan would call for removing a nation. Also, I do not think you considered the balancing that goes into deciding whether to include another nation. For example, do we really need another country in Western Europe (Belgium)? It would have to be large enough to not get immediately taken over by Germany/France/UK (or why include it). Adding another country would also shift the balance of power even further toward Europe (it now has more VPs to capture).

      As for larger coalitions (10+) would be a really bad idea. I typically join games with 4 other members from my alliance and we rarely lose games (I cannot recall the last game I joined with 4 other alliance members and lost). Allowing 10+ allies would make it even easier for alliances to dominate public matches. I actually think it would be better to decrease the amount of allies to 3 or 4 for typical WW3 maps. A coordinated alliance using discord already has a massive advantage over 5 random players. Why permit the alliance to have even more players join the map.

    • Samuel wrote:

      In Europe, there is one example - Slovakia. City Ideas for the nation: 1. Bratislava - capital, 2. Košice - the second largest city, 3. Žilina, 4. Trenčín, 5. Nitra, 6. Banská Bystrica, 7. Prešov, 8. Trnava.
      Uggh... why...


      Samuel wrote:

      The game developers add nations which do not even exist, like Uyghur, which belongs to China.
      Some people (maybe Bytro/Dorado) support the #SaveUyghur movement... anyway, your idea of removing all AI states would create chaos, especially in certain areas of the globe. Take Hungary for example - they would be bordering 7 PLAYER nations at the start. Afghanistan and the Koryland Congo are not far behind with 6 each. Also, this would create unfair VP/resource distribution across the map. Central America would have at least 35 cities in your scenario (hundreds of VPs) while the Siberia area would still only have 2. I can't imagine how many cities there would be in Eastern Europe/Balkans if all those countries had 5 cities each. To sum it up, I highly doubt that there will be anyone on this forum (except maybe @Andilek7319 and @RadioActive) who would support this idea, and if you want to see more "powerful" AI countries, go play Call of War.
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:

    • Samuel wrote:

      Smaller countries can be united in large European coalitions and it will be more realistic since there is no limit in real life, like someone will say you only 5 members. Also you do not have to remove any nation, just make more nations playable. There are 100 nations in that 2050 world games, which are playable and do not even exist.
      “Realistic” does not improve the game. Again, it is already easy enough for an alliance of 5 to join a random WW3 game and win (I don’t consider myself a grand master of this game, but I cannot remember the last time I joined a game with my alliance mates and lost). Allowing more alliance members to join a game and team up only makes it easier. On the flip side, if you join a random game and team-up with random players, it is rare enough that your team 5 person team stays in tact. Usually what happens in you join a team, 3 or 4 of them go inactive, you try to recruit other nations, but the rest of the players have gone inactive or are part of another coalition (or just flat out suck and are not worth recruiting). Thus, expanding the coalition number benefits coordinated alliances and harms the rest of the random players joining games.

      Also, the proposal of more nations added to the regular WW3 game does not make sense when half the nations already go inactive within 3 days. It just creates more AI territories to conquer (which is not fun).

      I feel like you have not really thought through this plan and dreaming of a hypothetical world where half the games are not filled with new players that abandon the game instantly after joining.