Scenario Idea Discussion

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

    • B-17 wrote:

      Could we create a cold war scenario? (NATO and Warsaw pact countries playable, the rest is for everyone to seize, and the game ends when one side destroys the other)
      Let me expand on that- what if you could buy client countries?
      In such a case, players would pay a fee in cash or another economic unit to buy the country and then control the country's military, and also take a percentage of its economic output if the client's production statistics are in the green/lose a percentage if they're in the red.
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation

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

    • Bacon230 wrote:

      Samuel PM wrote:

      I want to rephrase my idea.

      It's a bit ambitious and maybe it's impossible to create.

      But the idea follows:

      Create a World Map, with the maximum number of possible Countries, 193 would be ideal ... but I think the Map would be gigantic and very tiring to play ...

      But not all Countries would be playable ... only Countries that have some Economic and Military representation in the World Scenario.



      As Germanico previously stated, a 100 player map is in the making. But first they're revamping the current map up to 40-some players.
      Excellent.

      My idea is to have 193 countries but could be 100 playable and 93 NPCs of all sizes.
    • xbronykillerx69 wrote:

      I'd like Vietnaaaaaaaaaaaaaam as of right now. Smaller map so there's a good focus on helis instead of planes as it should be
      I'd kill for a Vietnam map... It would probably work best as a singleplayer or 2 player map (like the D-Day one with the english channel in COW). If other players are required, perhaps Cambodia? Or you could kinda merge two close-together wars, and add Korea to the mix too? IDK.
    • Bacon230 wrote:

      I'm for the big 100 player map entirely,but here are some ideas for future ones:

      1. Korean War- North and South Korea,with Japan and limited parts of China.
      2. Vietnam War-North and South Vietnam,maybe even other nations such as China,Laos,Cambodia and Thailand.
      3. Scandinavia-Emphasis on using terrain to your advantage.Norway,Sweden,Finland,Denmark and maybe Iceland/parts of Russia.
      4. Mediterranean-Focus on naval warfare. Italy,Spain,France,Greece,Turkey,Syria,Isreal,Egypt,Libya,Algeria,Tunisia and former Yugoslav states,with smaller nations as AI.
      5. Africa Continent-focus on land warfare.
      6. Europe with 20-50 playable nations. Good balanced warfare.

      cool idea!
    • Possibly also a middle east war on terror scenario, featuring some terrorist groups (ISIS, al-qaeda), western nations (air support only), as well as Saudi arabia, Iran, other middle east nations, southern russia, and Egypt. (Elaboration below)

      My idea of the terrorists is that they can be trained occasionally, and all of them are insurgents. They can capture things as the conquer territory, and rouge states automatically beome terrorists, but stay at low morale to provide more of a challenge for players. All terrorist territories & cities must be captured for players to win.

      Playable nations in the middle east are: Egypt (Saudi ally), Saudi Arabia, Syrian government (Iran ally), Syrian rebels (Saudi ally), Iraq (neutral, but fights terrorists), Yemen government (Saudi ally), Houthi rebels (Iran ally), Oman (neutral, but fights terror), Qatar (Saudi ally), UAE (Saudi ally), Kuwait (Saudi ally (?)), Iran, and Turkey (Saudi ally).

      Countries outside of the Middle east include: Russia (which has territory Rostov and south;Iran ally), US, UK, France, Germany (and just about every NATO nation), as well as Japan, China and Australia. They have airplanes and special forces (maybe some ships) at the beginning, and get an additional unit every time the terrorists get a important territory, or once every few days. They are all Saudi allies (except neutral China).

      Only certain nations can research nuclear weapons. Those are: US, Russia, UK, France, China, and Iran (maybe the US, Russia, UK, France, and China already have them researched, but Iran need to research it).

      All nations, including terrorists, have pre-researched technologies, particularly Russia and NATO and other off-map playable countries. Off-map playable countries might see a research pop up every week (unless it's too complicated to code).

      Saudis and allies all have pact, as well as Iran and allies. The two sides have trade embargoes on each other, but are sometimes at war (like syrian government and rebels, the same with yemen). Pacted countries must stay pact, and enemy factions can only be trade embargo or war. I guess this part is like alliance games.

      The objective is to eliminate terror, but the more your side participates, the more gold you get at the end. This is to make it even harder and encourage fighting between Iran and allies and Saudis and allies.

      How to earn points:

      -1 VP= 1 point
      -2 terrorists killed= 1 point.
      -Suffering 2000 casualties at the hands of the terrorists= -1 point.
      -At certain times (maybe bi-weekly), whoever's doing better gets a bonus.
      -Everyone on your team gets your team's points worth of gold at the end.

      Congratulations if you read to here. There's still a bit more. Also, feedback is welcome.


      Edit #1: Israel (only allied to NATO nations; trade embargo with iran and allies, but peace with saudis and allies), and Jordan (same as Israel) playable nations. I don't care if the west bank is added as a Palestinian territory (don't want to get into politics), or an Israeli one.

      Edit #2: Afganistan war. Almost forgot half the purpose of the post. Afganistan (saudi ally), Pakistan (neutral, but fights terrorists, not that good relations with India because of Kashmir conflict), and Western India (new Delhi and west, supports only NATO countries) playable nations. Turkmenistan AI.

      Edit #3: Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan. Saudi ally, but not Turkey's. Buff the insurgents a bit.

      Edit #4: Minor changes to the text (mainly the list of how to earn points for your team).

      The post was edited 4 times, last by B-17 ().

    • Germanico wrote:

      We are planning naval economy play as an expansion.

      @world with 193 countries: please consider before demanding things - So you are proposing to allow Andorra to be playable? Guys, I know game design is our job, but what good and benefit would any player take out of this? North Korea or such I can totally understand, but simply assuming because something is "real" it also must be fun is fundamentally flawed. Think about it this way: will you derive more fun from the game by conquering a country called Luxembourg instead of a province called Luxembourg?
      When discussing maps and scenarios we need to take this into consideration...
      Naval economy? What do you mean by this? I'm really enjoying the naval units and this caught my eye
    • I'd like to see some historical scenarios. Things like Able Archer '83 turned hot, the October '73 war in the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq War. Tom Clancy-esque scenarios might also be fun, especially Red Storm Rising, and the Hunt for the Red October. A third Battle of the Atlantic (USSR vs USN + RN) would be really interesting to play, as would a Soviet drive towards the Bay of Biscay.
      If you implement these scenarios, you should also change the victory conditions from "controlling 25% of the world's population" to something a bit more...nuanced. For example, in the October '73 war, Israel would win if they survive 40 days, while Syria/Egypt win by annihilating the country.
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation
    • RasczakRough wrote:

      I'd like to see some historical scenarios. Things like Able Archer '83 turned hot, the October '73 war in the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq War. Tom Clancy-esque scenarios might also be fun, especially Red Storm Rising, and the Hunt for the Red October. A third Battle of the Atlantic (USSR vs USN + RN) would be really interesting to play, as would a Soviet drive towards the Bay of Biscay.
      If you implement these scenarios, you should also change the victory conditions from "controlling 25% of the world's population" to something a bit more...nuanced. For example, in the October '73 war, Israel would win if they survive 40 days, while Syria/Egypt win by annihilating the country.
      I like this idea, but I think some ideas are too small for good scenarios. That's why I suggested my war on terror suggestion in the first place, allowing many features of the current game (research tree, rouge states, etc. to exist). Things like the Iran-Iraq war would only allow two players, therefore increasing the server load even more while only letting so much possible money gain for devs. That's my only concern for those scenarios, while otherwise, if they can have more players and be bigger, I'm all in.

      *******************************************************************

      Meanwhile I thought of a WW2 scenario. I'm fully aware of the suggestion by @Eternus , but that was only a sentence, so I'll make a whole other one.

      My plan is to have player nations UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland for the European theater, US, USSR and Canada for both, and Japan, China, Australia, India, and Thailand for the Far east theater. This will balance out nations' powers a little more (I don't want no one to be Poland just because of how quickly it was invaded in the actual war). However, the Axis will retain military superiority, Allies except USSR will have economic superiority, and the USSR will have lots of manpower generation (why not?).
      Needless to say, a new research tree will obviously be needed (B-1s would be way just a little too powerful to bomb London, and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the start would cause Japan to surrender immediately a minor disturbance.).

      Let me know your thoughts.
    • I really like the fight system this game uses,the upgrades make thing interesting.


      What I would love more than the current game was if this was a expandable world,where you started with one city and then built a empire.


      The way I envisioned the game is like this.


      You start with a basic city that you can name,it is your home city and it has all resource types produced.(this could be destructible but no one can capture it for the resources.


      After that you expand and build new cities and pick the resource it produces(or have based on a random resource for tile )


      This would be awesome and with random seas and oceans,maybe some navigable rivers ?.


      Now I know you guys need to make money and this would be the way. Players would see it as a investment because the game isnt going to end after 60 days or so and could go on for years.


      Random AI's would be fun but even if AI's took over players who quit it would work.
      Now you would break down the world into smaller regions so as not to crash the computers,but with fog of war I could see this working.




      Would love to hear everyone thoughts on this idea,I know I throw a $100 at a game like this.


      I played Tribal wars for years and I see this game as making that look sad.
    • XeNosdfo wrote:

      Couple Ideas:

      1. the ability to set starting resources and tech gotten at start of game. This would allow for a game to get to a huge war faster.
      2. a map that forces mostly navel battleing
      not sure i agree on the first part, but i agree they should add a SEATO Map it would be nice to play as north korea/south korea
      it makes me wonder why im still here
    • Private game premium feature, why not. I'm all in for giving people incentives to suscribe on a "per-month" payment
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • We have also a europe map. There you can have your own history. A map with fantasy Nations is not good.

      A middle east scenario map is a good thing. Not only between Saudi Arabia and Iran. All the important Nations must be there.
      The Kashmir Conflict (Pakistan vs India, Afghanistan and Nepal as NPC) is also good.
      „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)
    • Allow certain maps to be customized in certain ways:

      IE you can make starting units and research random or you can preset them. If you think about it not every nation is equal. The USA is far more advanced in tech than say, the Congo.

      I think a fun idea for a map would be that everyone starts with an inventory of 3 ICBM launchers and 15-20 nuclear warheads. One has to wonder how that game would play out.
    • Defcon, Everybody dies :D

      It's a good idea, i think, especially after a time. Now the game grows its user base, focus activiy. This kind of "premium" game would be fun as hell
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Dante4670 wrote:



      Middle East scenario and conflict between Saudi Arabia vs Iran (Iraq as NPC)

      Seele07 wrote:

      A middle east scenario map is a good thing. Not only between Saudi Arabia and Iran. All the important Nations must be there.
      I already have a post detaling a 'war on terror' scenario. Just look further up the page. I put as much detail as I could without spoiling the many possibilities of such a scenario.


      AGunslinger wrote:

      Allow certain maps to be customized in certain ways:

      IE you can make starting units and research random or you can preset them. If you think about it not every nation is equal. The USA is far more advanced in tech than say, the Congo.

      I think a fun idea for a map would be that everyone starts with an inventory of 3 ICBM launchers and 15-20 nuclear warheads. One has to wonder how that game would play out.
      Interesting. I also think preset researches should definitely be in a scenario. Just that some nations would have virtually the entire tree researched.
      With the ICBM map, maybe a peace period of not being able to use ICBMs against other players. Every nation should also have a city or two with a level 5 secret weapons lab and a few more with a level 4 one, with ICBM researched so they can go on immediately to produce more.