Null

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

    • 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