Another way of play

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

    • Another way of play

      Hello everyone, and with respect!

      I am playing the game for a certain number of years now, and to be honest is going to be a boring stuff to do same thing all the time as "conquer around and win".

      What if we change a little bit the strategy?
      What about making "The victory" through the economy you have?

      I was thinking of removing the levels of the "Arms Industries" or any "industrial from provinces", also the "population level" so like that you can make unlimited level of it, and make victory points.

      Facts:
      • Like this it won't be necessary to attack anymore, but to defend yourself.
      • You can create a wide size of army based on the economy you have.
      • The players will survive and play the game longer than usual.
      • Better protection/defence of the army.
      • More realistic.
      THIS WOULD BE ONLY FOR THE HOMELAND CITIES AND PROVINCES!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Edward ().

    • I think you don't understand then...
      Do you think you would not have conflicts? WRONG!
      Contrary, you'll have many, lot even... because there would be others attacking you, "The aggressors" will never let "you in peace", what I try to say by this topic is that you can play in a defensive mode, and be more difficult and more interesting to see a huge country attacking a small country and lose, as in reality... don't you think that?

      The power would be based more on the economy of the country, and I didn't say you can't attack the others, I just said that would be interesting seeing a big country thinking about they're upperhanded and losing against small country.

      Remember the war of SUA and Vietnam!

      You need just be bit more open minded to accept things like this and not courd with small minds.

      Also, I know the truth about the situation of the game when 64 players starts the round and the 3rd day, they are not there playing anymore!
    • It would have the same military "theme", just the arms industries and population of cities will have no limitations.

      Definitely none of you understand.

      But also not coming either with some concrete arguments against it except the word "NO", which I tried to avoid completely...

      Seems people like this are everywhere, like mosquitoes in the summer, no matter how many you kill there would still be some to "suck you"!
    • No its definitely you who doesn’t understand.

      You literally said yourself that „it wont be necessary to attack anymore“.

      All of this reads like „dorado should tailor the game to me and my playstyle“; the „facts“ are also not as much facts as they are opinions and pretty far removed from actual reality:

      „it wont be necessary to attack anymore“ yeah uhm no, room for unlimited growth means that you have to conquer even more aggressively because
      a) mapcontrol is still key
      b) you dont want people to build up such an exteeme economy
      c) at the end of the day you still need vp to win; thats a wincondition i dont see changing in any game mode

      „you can create a wide size army“
      I can easily have about 100 units by day 20; your argument is invalid.
      Not having all unit types at the same time is very much point of the game; it forces you to prioritize and actually manage unit/resource investments

      „the players will survive and play longer“
      they wont; it doesn’t do shit for the high inactivity rate
      majority are new players that go inactive in the first couple of days for various reasons; rest are people that leave because they feel they dont have a chance because the other guy has so much more VP

      „better protection/defence of the army“
      same as earlier; learn some actual unit/resource management you dont need all the units in the game to keep your army alive

      „more realistic“
      I guess you run out of any actual arguments at that point? „muh realism“ isnt an argument and neither does con aim to be realistic


      Your suggestion read like the classic noob complaining about a lack of resources and then proposing some completely whack idea to „fix“ the „issue“; don’t be surprised you dont get any actual arguments why your idea is trash, when you dont give any real ones yourself.

      I mean just look at it, you literally wrote „facts“ as if your opinions on why it should be a thing were some great universal truth.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      neither does CON aim to be realistic
      And thank God for that, for both the world's and the game's sake.
      In the game, each country is necessarily geared toward active armed conflict (or else is not playing a role other than feedstuff for other players). The world at large is nothing like that (and civilization would've been eradicated otherwise).

      That's just how this game is. If you want otherwise, play a different game.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player
    • Edward wrote:

      I think you don't understand then...
      Do you think you would not have conflicts? WRONG!
      Contrary, you'll have many, lot even... because there would be others attacking you, "The aggressors" will never let "you in peace", what I try to say by this topic is that you can play in a defensive mode, and be more difficult and more interesting to see a huge country attacking a small country and lose, as in reality... don't you think that?

      The power would be based more on the economy of the country, and I didn't say you can't attack the others, I just said that would be interesting seeing a big country thinking about they're upperhanded and losing against small country.

      Remember the war of SUA and Vietnam!

      You need just be bit more open minded to accept things like this and not courd with small minds.

      Also, I know the truth about the situation of the game when 64 players starts the round and the 3rd day, they are not there playing anymore!
      Do you seriously think the USA lost the war in Vietnam because the Vietnamese defeated them?

      Sorry son, the USA was defeated in Vietnam by the only country capable of defeating the USA, the USA.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Edward wrote:

      The power would be based more on the economy of the country, and I didn't say you can't attack the others, I just said that would be interesting seeing a big country thinking about they're upperhanded and losing against small country.
      Again, you demonstrated that you have not thought through the implications of your suggestion.

      While ruining the game as it is, it would not change what you are saying here. Power is really based on economy already. And a well commanded small country can defeat a poorly led big one.

      Not that it has anything to do with reality (CON is not a simulation, nor should or could it be). In the actual world, real superpowers cannot be defeated by minor countries militarily. And there is no way any country (or even a coalition of them) would conquer much of the world, unlike the winning scenario in CON.
      As others have already pointed out, you are wrong about the Vietnam war example, too. The population of the USA lost the will to continue the war, but Vietnam did not really win. Although this, again, should not matter for a war strategy game like CON.

      But most importantly, in the actual real world the economy (and well being of people, in general) is much more important for most countries (including military superpowers) than raw military might. If you would try to imitate that in CON, it would totally lose its character as a war strategy game.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player