Scenario Idea Discussion

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

    • umm... yes.... :/ ... is that wrongy :?: that was one of my more rational scenario ideas... :huh: 8| . Ok. I will shut up now.

      ;(

      oh and btw, Holy google translate batman, I have to say for someone from France, who I can only assume english is at best your second language, you have amazing fluency. I know a lot of people on here, english is not their first language, and their posts reflect that. Nothing against them, I am sure if I wrote something in German, or Spanish, or whichever, I would be completely illiterate, so kudos to them, but wow man, It took me forever to figure out that you were French. Most Canadian francophones can't do english as well as you can. I took 9 years of french in school and outside of asking to go the bathroom and getting my face slapped in bars, I am pretty much pas de luck en francais
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • I have the privilege to work in the web : english is a must. But i have an horrible accent, in vocal :D.

      About scenarios, maybe long-term we'll get some wild things, but... to be pragmatic about the player base...

      ----> I would love a "city state" scenario, or your "rogue beginning" scenario. It sounds like the "nomad" map of Age of empires II, always great fun.
      ----> However, those maps would be deserted, as too hard, not sandboxy enough, by the majority of players.

      Due to the US marketbase of Conflict of Nations, i would advocate (first) for some "muricans" scenarios ^^
      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.
    • Opulon wrote:

      I have the privilege to work in the web : english is a must. But i have an horrible accent, in vocal :D.
      I can't believe you let that opportunity slip by... the proper answer was "Of course I am Franch you silly anglish kanigits! Why do you think I tawk with zis OUTRAAAGEOUS accent?"
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • I have an idea, THE COLD WAR! Two world superpowers, the USSR and the USA are extremely powerful, have lots of military units, and already have nuclear, chemical, and standard warheads. It would be set in the 1960s, it would have be a world map. So basically, the countries would have the military power that they had in the 60s and there would be actual units from the 60s, not like M1 Abrams driving around, and you would get like M60 Pattons and what not.
      "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." - Thomas Paine

    • Perhaps just a naval map? I think that would be really cool to see, where you get an island chain to start from (I.E. Hawaii or something like that) and you have to capture islands with Marines, use Subs, ASW Choppers, Naval Fighters, and things like that, and there would be a big focus on Naval units. I really just want to see a big focus on the Naval stuff in CoN.
      "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." - Thomas Paine

    • I think that would be cool, like Hunt for Red October. I used to play that with 3 other buddies of mine after I got out of the Corps. They had the followup of Red Storm Rising which I didn't get because I already had the Modern Wargaming Miniatures. But doing a "Naval" only (including planes also) could be where the ECM and ECCM aircraft could be limited to. As everyone knows, the more you see on the battle field, the better decisions you can make. And I know it was described somewhere else the ECM would shut down a units ability to clear fog of war, and ECCM would negate the enemies ECM effect. In this Naval scenario, VP's would be by "sea areas" controlled instead of cities and non city provinces.
      "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" -
    • After skimming through the 4 pages, I can say that Middle East was already proposed several times xD

      Yet, another middle east proposal:
      3 Teams(US&Allies vs. Iran&Allies vs. Islamist militants)
      Involving Isis, Isreal, Hezbollah, Hamas, Kurds, Free Syrian Army, but not Arabia nor Turkish involvement.
      With USA and Iran having a mostly supportive role (aircrafts, ships, special forces,...)
      Thus, there will be cities wich are infact military bases.

      As an idea, here is a screenshot taken from a different game, which features this war:
      prntscr.com/iokzcu

      As 1vs1:
      Ukraine vs Russia(only the South western part), highlighting Crimea^^

      South China Sea:
      Disputed by China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,... could be a mainly navalwarfare with very valuable ressources in the Sea (perhaps as "City-isles").
      prntscr.com/iol3e4

      Year 2050, Oil shortage.
      An economic nightmare, all fuel is used up! All countries used up their fuel sources, thus they start with 0 fuel city/province. There's only little fuel left, thats at the beginning neutral and scattered through the map, most arent easy to access. At least, all countries have huge energy reserves, so they can build and maintain units, but not for very long. So the war isn't the usual one about controlling huge langmasses, but to exert control over the last few remaining oil sources.

      Any civil war.
      But not with proper borders where you can say, "this area is safe from enemies". So nothing similar to the American civil war "North vs. South".
      For example this: prntscr.com/iol9pa
      The border between the factions would be very long and the enemy could attack anywhere, so could you. #CHAOS
    • I like the following ideas:

      1. A no gold or a gold diet option so that players cannot spend more than X in a given day or not at all.

      2. A variable time game where the game starts at maybe 4x for days 1-2 then 2x for days 3=10 then 1x there after.
      Young players have a short attention span therefore having days 1 and 2 at high speed allows them to dig in, then slow the game down so that the seriously committed can continue at a reasonable pace.

      3. Have a feature that allows for actual trades between players, maybe a Trade Pact combined with a fee for putting things on the open market while the Trade Pact deals are fee free.

      4. Like to have options for player created designs that can change the basic restrictions on:
      1. making alliances
      2. gifting provinces
      3. gifting forces
      4. trade of resources
      5. different speeds of the game
      6. higher or lower starting resources as
      7. Start up bonus time for research, seems odd that it is the year 2018 and we have to research atomic bombs or helicopters


      The more the players are allowed to create the more they may attract committed players
    • EZ D wrote:

      I like the following ideas:

      1. A no gold or a gold diet option so that players cannot spend more than X in a given day or not at all.

      2. A variable time game where the game starts at maybe 4x for days 1-2 then 2x for days 3=10 then 1x there after.
      Young players have a short attention span therefore having days 1 and 2 at high speed allows them to dig in, then slow the game down so that the seriously committed can continue at a reasonable pace.

      3. Have a feature that allows for actual trades between players, maybe a Trade Pact combined with a fee for putting things on the open market while the Trade Pact deals are fee free.

      4. Like to have options for player created designs that can change the basic restrictions on:
      1. making alliances
      2. gifting provinces
      3. gifting forces
      4. trade of resources
      5. different speeds of the game
      6. higher or lower starting resources as
      7. Start up bonus time for research, seems odd that it is the year 2018 and we have to research atomic bombs or helicopters


      The more the players are allowed to create the more they may attract committed players

      1) Sorry to have to say this, but many of those ideas will not work. The devs have said that they will not implement anything that takes away from the use of gold, because it's the way they make money off of this game, and so they have to keep it, or else they'll literally get no money from this game, and be unable to continue developing it. That being said, there ARE alliance challenge games with no gold.

      2) That'd be really interesting to see, actually. I'd be interested to see how that affects player retention in matches!

      3) Unfortunately, there are no plans to bring back resource or money trading, because people exploited it like crazy (ex: using a second account or having a friend give you all of their resources for very little money, and stuff like that. Same with giving other players soldiers or territory.

      But I do really like the idea of varied speed in matches! I'd be interested to hear some more feedback on that idea from other players or the devs.
    • @EZ D let me guess: You are an avid Call of War player?

      1) We have No Gold matches - we call them ELITE matches - they are available for Alliances with players level 25+

      2) that's an interesting one which I'll gladly take over into the backlog

      3) Resource Trading is allowed in Alliance matches (i.e. challenges) - not in public (Alliances can only create challenges in CON)

      "The more the players are allowed to create the more they may attract committed players"
      Wrong. The more players create the more there are empty games and players complaining about empty games. We actually have proof of concept for that due to our experiments where precisely this happened.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I just want to add to the idea of no gold in a match I get what @abradyson1is saying and I agree but I know I would pay gold to be in a match with no gold. I enjoy the game and have no problem paying to play and no gold creates a level playing field and for me makes the game more enjoyable. One of the main reason I prefer alliance matches and other games with no gold. I am not sure how much they should charge but If they have an idea of the average amount of gold per player per match what ever that number is charge that much gold to enter. Just a suggestion.
    • For a no in game "gold" game, they would have to average what they get per game now (in public matches) and then divide that average by 50 players (even though 64 could join, we know people still have to drop out, 14 being kind) and then I wonder what the per player amount would be...my guess would be about 50k gold per player.
      "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" -
    • Guys - we have no-gold matches - we call them ELITE and they are for Alliance players level 25+.

      Please accept that we are not interested in hosting public no-gold matches - even if tied to an initial payment.

      Kindly refrain from continuing the gold discussion: You also don't walk into your favorite pub and start shouting for a flat-fee for drinks - right?

      Thanks.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf