More Cities. Not Less

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

    • More Cities. Not Less

      The most enjoyable part of CON to me has always been fighting with the army I mobilized and taking over new territory.
      With the recent update and the removal of countless cities, I feel that it hurts both how me and most people enjoy the game, and the meta in general.

      1. Lower resource production and less troop buildup.
      The removal of these cities has only created less territory for players to own, and by extension, less potential resource output. This both hurts troop production and slows down the game even more so than it can be, which I feel is a step in the wrong direction. Less troop buildup equates to me as being less fun, and I feel the majority of other players would agree.

      2. Balancing and Realism
      I believe this intended to balance the game, however, I think that it is unclear how it balances it. Nations like Norway are now weaker than nations like Peru and Mozambique, who are significantly weaker in real life. In addition, nations like Saudi Arabia or Turkey are significantly less powerful, especially when facing Iran. In this instance, it tilted the balance in one direction. And while the game probably doesn’t intend on providing the most realistic experience, I think that the lack of more cities is counter to most players notions of what the map should look like.

      3. Unclear how this improves the game
      Taking points from both 1 & 2, this update just makes the game more boring. It’s harder to generate more resources, and more difficult to mobilize mass amounts of troops. It doesn’t improve upon natural geographic rivalries, for instance France and the UK, it just makes them boring, less intense, and slows down the game.

      I’d hope that the cities would be added back but most likely they won’t, unless the game starts doing worse, which it probably won’t because of it’s already rising popularity.

      I’d also like two add two things that I’d think would greatly improve the game, with number 1 being something I believe every experienced player would love to see.

      1. A ranked/ level capped game mode.
      Often times when I join my typical WW3 4X server, there are only like 10 nations that actually play past day 6, or even at all. If there was a ranked mode, it would make it harder for someone to win, and provide that challenge that I think most of the community would want. In addition, I think that for a ranked mode to work, gold would have to be removed for this mode only. However, this would provide the community with a more competitive environment that would both bring back players who might’ve quit the game and keep players now who will most likely leave from the repetitive boredom and the unclear vision of the direction the game is going, especially with the recent update.

      2. Add more cities.

      This opinion I feel could greatly help the game. More cities = More resource production
      More cities & more resource production = more troops.
      And I believe that more larger armies would make the game a whole lot more enjoyable, as the fighting would be mass, chaotic, and intense. For instance, a redesign of the U.S could include the re-addition of San Francisco, as well as the addition of cities like Atlanta, Houston, and another. (Either Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Miami, etc.)
      This significant boost in the number of cities I feel could both help balance the game by making powerful countries in real life more dominant in game, and improving the speed and chaos the game provides.

      Hopefully these opinions will get taken into consideration and we could see some change, however with the new update, it seems the devs have chosen a direction already.

      ** Sorry for bad grammar or spacing, I’m on phone.
    • I think that the number of cities before the update was just right to be honest. While Nations with 8+ cities had an avantage over the others, you could still very much kill Germany as Austria if you did it right. I don't even know why they would change something like this, since most of the playerbase is complaining about the inactivaty of a lot of players, not strong irl nations being a bit stronger in the game as well.
    • Eren Yeager wrote:

      I think that the number of cities before the update was just right to be honest. While Nations with 8+ cities had an avantage over the others, you could still very much kill Germany as Austria if you did it right. I don't even know why they would change something like this, since most of the playerbase is complaining about the inactivaty of a lot of players, not strong irl nations being a bit stronger in the game as well


      yep I more or less agree with you. While I do think that the game should expand upon the number of cities in each nation, I do believe that the amount before the change was a lot more balanced and beneficial to the player base. Like I wrote before, Iran now has a big advantage over Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This did nothing but further imbalance the nations, I believe.
      Also, eluding to your point about inactivity, It’s exactly what I mean. Why make this change, when there is an obvious boredom coming from facing the same inactive opponents.
    • Jeremy_3022 wrote:

      deathfromabove wrote:

      how many cities does usa& russia and china have rn?
      Each have 9, which formerly USA and Russia had 10
      i think that is unfair i mean that gives an in contested advantage to them while Cuba only has 6 your making 9 troops in the time i make 6 i not gonna wait around for the second the Devs start a new game so i can get US that’s just a waste of time. Just cuz the US is extremely OP in real life (i love US) doesn’t mean it should be in the game.
    • That’s a fair argument, however you don’t have to play a WW3 game. The WW3 game mode paints itself as a somewhat realistic mode where the power lies in the “flexibility of strategy” and “commitment of your allies.”
      There are many other game modes for you to play instead of ruining the semi-realism of the WW3 geographic map.
      In addition, if you’re a good player you can beat just about any nation with the right strategy you can beat just about anyone. For example, I’ve won games with Bolivia, Israel, both South and North Korea, and New Zealand even though they are still heavily disadvantaged.

      Finally, this is a game mode with various nations that tries to mimic their realistic size. It wouldn’t be geographically or historically realistic if all nations were the same. Which mimics what I’ve previously said, but it’s true. Not every game mode is going to be 100% fair even if you have the same amount of cities. Some countries will just be more geographically viable than others. So if you don’t like WW3 then I’d kindly suggest trying out Battlegrounds USA.
    • CinnamonStick wrote:

      Jeremy_3022 wrote:

      deathfromabove wrote:

      how many cities does usa& russia and china have rn?
      Each have 9, which formerly USA and Russia had 10
      i think that is unfair i mean that gives an in contested advantage to them while Cuba only has 6 your making 9 troops in the time i make 6 i not gonna wait around for the second the Devs start a new game so i can get US that’s just a waste of time. Just cuz the US is extremely OP in real life (i love US) doesn’t mean it should be in the game.
      in response
    • CinnamonStick wrote:

      Jeremy_3022 wrote:

      deathfromabove wrote:

      how many cities does usa& russia and china have rn?
      Each have 9, which formerly USA and Russia had 10
      i think that is unfair i mean that gives an in contested advantage to them while Cuba only has 6 your making 9 troops in the time i make 6 i not gonna wait around for the second the Devs start a new game so i can get US that’s just a waste of time. Just cuz the US is extremely OP in real life (i love US) doesn’t mean it should be in the game.
      Well, they left Cuba now with 5 cities, so I dont think there will be a change at all, for the exception that is you chose Cuba you'll have a harder time collecting resources at the start of the game
    • Jeremy_3022 wrote:

      That’s a fair argument, however you don’t have to play a WW3 game. The WW3 game mode paints itself as a somewhat realistic mode where the power lies in the “flexibility of strategy” and “commitment of your allies.”
      There are many other game modes for you to play instead of ruining the semi-realism of the WW3 geographic map.
      In addition, if you’re a good player you can beat just about any nation with the right strategy you can beat just about anyone. For example, I’ve won games with Bolivia, Israel, both South and North Korea, and New Zealand even though they are still heavily disadvantaged.

      Finally, this is a game mode with various nations that tries to mimic their realistic size. It wouldn’t be geographically or historically realistic if all nations were the same. Which mimics what I’ve previously said, but it’s true. Not every game mode is going to be 100% fair even if you have the same amount of cities. Some countries will just be more geographically viable than others. So if you don’t like WW3 then I’d kindly suggest trying out Battlegrounds USA.










      Na man I love WW3 BGUSA is slow and rlly easy