The Ultimte Starting Position

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

    • He is trying to say the best starting position a.k.a. best country to expand/defend from with having a good balance of resources.

      Any country is good, depends on your tactics,

      south america is a bit slower due to much jungle but can be fast if you use lots or airinfantry. same thing for vietnam area and oceania, need to be island hopping with airinfs..
      Any country with double fuel or double electronics is good, but same thing can be done with countries that have only singles of those..
      All in all the countries are very very well balanced out.

      Only when you play a country with vast expanses like russia it will go slower to invade, but defense is allot easier so it really is dependant on your adaptability to situations and strategic maneuvers and deployments
      - Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world -
    • My own experience tell me that South Africa is easy to defend in the beginning, enemies can't invade before having naval marines, and you can have boats to defend it, tho this becomes harder with time the more your coast expands..

      Sweden is a very good position, if you defend the navy by the Denmark, leave Norway and Finland be, you have good defense, can see when the enemy strikes by sea before reaching your land and you need just have troops ready.. Many countries has their befenits, i am not so sure if there is any better or worse positions. Many will say diffirent countries.

      I believe on of the best spawns is trying to play the same country much and then learn the way of defense which is best, ofcourse many players just focus on the land units, not giving much out to the navy.
      Have a nice following day
      - Luoniev

      Conflict of nations - PL Team Leader, EN Senior Moderator
    • Germany has a nice spawn as you can easily find allies near you, tho you have to beware as you got both France, Poland, Sweden and Italy very near, the worst case scenario is to be attacked from all of them, But i've seen some players that started with Germany alwasy succeded and got bigger with a nice army and such
      Have a nice day
      Mathex319

      Conflict of Nations - EN Game Operator
      Conflict of Nations - PL Team Leader
      Call of War - EN Senior Game Operator
      Thirty Kingdoms - PL Main Administrator
    • Im gonna steel a bit from @IshXIII I quite like starting in south America, particularly Argentina. Chile is an easy take with 2 cities while you want for brazil to kill off its early units. Ally or dont, once brazil falls it opens up. The issue is the jungles armor isnt very efficient. Id say use airborne units heavy bombers. Need good anti - infantry and it too small a battleground later on for gunships.

      You have no real threats from the coasts, and can just keep clearing south America then airborne drop through Caribbean.


      Australia is also nice, but for who ever recommended Sweden. That all goes well until you end up at war with Russia and end up being spread from Norway all the way to the berring strait :P
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Clearly there are some low hanging map related picks: Argentina, Canada, Sweden, South Africa, and even Algeria are pretty cool.

      For island players obviously the UK and Australia are good starters.

      Though please take note, that when dropping goodies and extra cities these nations did not always get their fair share to even things out a little.

      At the start of the game during nation selection, there is a written description for each country with our evaluation.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • the importance of starting resources is over enhanced by the penalty on annex city income,

      Why would anyone start with 1 oil when they can start with 2 [us/russ/algeria]

      I had to join alot of nation select maps to find one that didnt already have the top picks taken... the balance of starting resources shouldn't be this important... but when you cant get decent econ from growth that makes them too important and people start to spread out [a few in a round and many rounds] just to play their favorite nation... also guys figuring out that their homeland econ isnt balanced and growth is nerfed ... they dropout and go join/create another nearly empty map to get the nation they wanna start with.
      Only a pure balance [very hard to achieve] or allowing growth to benefit econ properly, will make the nation you roll at the start less important.
      Field Marshal Dan
      En Community Support | Bytro Labs
      New World Empires (CC) | Call of War (Former GO & staff trainer)
    • Dan,

      Actually we deliberately disbalanced the map in certain parts to create zones of contention.
      Cause a) perfect balance is very hard to achieve b) is boring as hell and leads easily to "same same but different" syndrome where it doesn't matter what I chose as it all feels the same anyway.

      I find it interesting that experienced players like you actually still look for the best position... Generally I expect the seniors to play some more challenging nations. Not interested to figure out how stuff works?

      Concerning your decent economy from growth? Correct me but didn't COW have "nerfed" returns from conquered provinces as well? But no - if you expect us to shower you with stuff like in COW late game where it's just about pumping out more tanks and fighter bombers with the gazillion resources you are sacking in, steamrolling across the world with doomstacks, then this is not what we are trying to provide.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Germanico wrote:

      Dan,

      Actually we deliberately disbalanced the map in certain parts to create zones of contention.
      Cause a) perfect balance is very hard to achieve b) is boring as hell and leads easily to "same same but different" syndrome where it doesn't matter what I chose as it all feels the same anyway.

      I find it interesting that experienced players like you actually still look for the best position... Generally I expect the seniors to play some more challenging nations. Not interested to figure out how stuff works?

      Concerning your decent economy from growth? Correct me but didn't COW have "nerfed" returns from conquered provinces as well? But no - if you expect us to shower you with stuff like in COW late game where it's just about pumping out more tanks and fighter bombers with the gazillion resources you are sacking in, steamrolling across the world with doomstacks, then this is not what we are trying to provide.
      Germanico makes a good point, CoW you were fighting 100 + tacs and light tanks a day.

      However I think insurgents causing economic issues.. well maybe just for me. , maybe I am still adapting to this insurgent thingy. But I cant actually annex a city because what ends up happening is insurgents take over when its being annexed. and with what little res I have, I cant annex again. Cant produce units to stop it from uprising, cant advance. And Insurgent stats against jets are too much
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • like in COW you can basically reduce the chance of insurgency in two ways:

      a) garrison a few troops (3-4) in the city until it goes above 33% morale (one morale tick usually)

      b) pay some gold to immediately up morale by 10% to 35%

      IF you are seeing frequent insurgencies with lets say 4 inf (you can also use armor as garrison) then that's a bug.
      Actually we massively REDUCED the insurgency / revolt chance vs COW because in CON you almost can ignore (I do) the insurgency chance in provinces. This is how we intend it to be - you roll through the provinces (rarely suffering an insurgency) but stay in towns until annexed.

      Should you not want to move troops in - chose the gold option. Simple. Same as COW.

      As to losing the city to insurgents: Then you don't have enough garrison troops in town.
      We again actually made it easier in CON vs COW because instead of simply taking over ALL units in the province AND flipping to some other country, CON simulates the insurgency with actual units you can fight and defeat. So the garrison not only lowers the insurgency chance - it also defeats the insurgents or at least takes up the fight until support arrives.

      All of the new mechanics where non existent in COW and the old auto-flip province/auto-defecting units factually led to situations such as me conquering several provinces with my units at game start just to find 3 of my 3 early game stacks gone after relog, the occupied provinces flipped and the game lost more or less at day 1. Granted that was a rare thing but it did happen. The amount of "bugs" reported such as: Where are my units? Why is my city/province gone? clearly justifies our cause. Since we implemented the insurgents NOT ONE bug has been filed for this actual feature anymore. I call that a success especially for players who never played COW and don't know the underlying mechanic.

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

      like in COW you can basically reduce the chance of insurgency in two ways:

      a) garrison a few troops (3-4) in the city until it goes above 33% morale (one morale tick usually)

      b) pay some gold to immediately up morale by 10% to 35%

      IF you are seeing frequent insurgencies with lets say 4 inf (you can also use armor as garrison) then that's a bug.
      Actually we massively REDUCED the insurgency / revolt chance vs COW because in CON you almost can ignore (I do) the insurgency chance in provinces. This is how we intend it to be - you roll through the provinces (rarely suffering an insurgency) but stay in towns until annexed.

      Should you not want to move troops in - chose the gold option. Simple. Same as COW.

      As to losing the city to insurgents: Then you don't have enough garrison troops in town.
      We again actually made it easier in CON vs COW because instead of simply taking over ALL units in the province AND flipping to some other country, CON simulates the insurgency with actual units you can fight and defeat. So the garrison not only lowers the insurgency chance - it also defeats the insurgents or at least takes up the fight until support arrives.

      All of the new mechanics where non existent in COW and the old auto-flip province/auto-defecting units factually led to situations such as me conquering several provinces with my units at game start just to find 3 of my 3 early game stacks gone after relog, the occupied provinces flipped and the game lost more or less at day 1. Granted that was a rare thing but it did happen. The amount of "bugs" reported such as: Where are my units? Why is my city/province gone? clearly justifies our cause. Since we implemented the insurgents NOT ONE bug has been filed for this actual feature anymore. I call that a success especially for players who never played COW and don't know the underlying mechanic.

      //G
      This just a bit of adjusting from CoW I think :P I have to get that CoW nonsense out of my blood, most of it is. Find it strange and stupid that troops can disemark and embark anywhere they like back in CoW.



      But yea, well gold aint for me, and Im gonna make another thread bout that in a few minutes. But this helps. It seems that it will slow down advances too, which is prob good. It stops people advancing too fast, like I have in one of my games. Advanced too far, then all major cities flip and my troops are stuck there :/... So this makes sense.

      Thks for clarifying, damn CoW mechanics still knocking around in my skull.
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • It's actually like in COW - where it is also around 4 units to more or less safely prevent rebellions from happening. So no big difference.

      Please adhere to our rules and regulations when posting about gold and gold-users: no criticism about the use of premium or us offering premium services please.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Germanico wrote:

      It's actually like in COW - where it is also around 4 units to more or less safely prevent rebellions from happening. So no big difference.

      Please adhere to our rules and regulations when posting about gold and gold-users: no criticism about the use of premium or us offering premium services please.
      In CoW I had less to worry about rebellion wise, and usually the rebellion wasnt including insurgents.


      I was suggesting that the use of gold does not suit me, for reasons not need to be mentioned. My other post which I didnt bother was a suggestion made by the CoW support staff regarding a replacement for gold rewards. However knowing CoW nothing happened.

      The idea was instead of receiving gold, you would receive camo/decals for units etc. However I think it can wait with the new 3 unit icon features.
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Germanico wrote:

      Dan,

      Actually we deliberately disbalanced the map in certain parts to create zones of contention.
      Cause a) perfect balance is very hard to achieve b) is boring as hell and leads easily to "same same but different" syndrome where it doesn't matter what I chose as it all feels the same anyway.

      I find it interesting that experienced players like you actually still look for the best position... Generally I expect the seniors to play some more challenging nations. Not interested to figure out how stuff works?

      Concerning your decent economy from growth? Correct me but didn't COW have "nerfed" returns from conquered provinces as well? But no - if you expect us to shower you with stuff like in COW late game where it's just about pumping out more tanks and fighter bombers with the gazillion resources you are sacking in, steamrolling across the world with doomstacks, then this is not what we are trying to provide.
      cool.. I got a personal reply just for me <3 8o <3
      its going to take me a while to try every single nation... because I dont play many maps at once. So far im finding that having a resource advantage in home land provinces [a better start] is a huge advantage, the result of this long term will be 'favorite nations' and a pattern of players seeking just those few ''disbalanced'' [imbalanced] nations over the others... many rounds with only a few people and dropouts.
      Im finding out how stuff works in my own time. [does this mean try every nation?]

      you are correct indeed Germanico, that COW has the same penalty on non-core [to use their term] provinces... it is no more popular there than it will be here.
      It is a far better game for econ focused players [and after time those that want to go max military] if econ can be expanded by growth or another way [nwe's example] of allowing non-homeland provinces to be converted to homeland at a cost and time requirement ... currently expansion is penalized and growth is merely a necessity to win that leaves players with the majority of their cities idle and only their homeland producing reasonable return on the cost of upgrading them.
      I merely add my feedback to the CoN zeitgeist [not directed purely to one dev] in the hopes that CoN can continue to improve upon its inherited mechanics , to forge ahead with proven popular ideas while cutting lose the unpopular ones.

      CoN has so far been developed into a superior game [sorry to my other bosses] by keeping what works and improving what doesnt... I am loving the development honestly.
      everything except keeping the dusty old cow system on non-core production penalty.... which just doesnt improve the game, it makes it less rewarding.

      my 2 cents ^
      Field Marshal Dan
      En Community Support | Bytro Labs
      New World Empires (CC) | Call of War (Former GO & staff trainer)
    • FMD wrote:


      CoN has so far been developed into a superior game [sorry to my other bosses] by keeping what works and improving what doesnt... I am loving the development honestly.
      Ill drink to that here here ** :thumbup:
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • @Oceanhawk: "The idea was instead of receiving gold, you would receive camo/decals for units etc. However I think it can wait with the new 3 unit icon features." Second that - we would love to replace the dusty old gold payout for victory with true value such as decals, skins etc. - Or even just add these to the gold rewards. Let's see when we get to it. But it's there - promise.

      @Dan: Thanks for the Kudos mate! But what do you mean with: "COW is a far better game for econ focused players [and after time those that want to go max military] "? Effectively what COW does is shower you with stuff mid/late and allow steamrolling in huge doomstacks across the map. I always had most of my play fun in COW early-mid tbh. because after that it turned into work, managing 200+ provinces in the bar and autogenerating mass-produced units by the truckload. We are trying to break this mold by for eg. allowing units to mature and keep their value etc.

      The main game design reason why COW and CON both limit the resources from conquered territories (no matter if provinces or cities) is no secret: If we'd allow players to keep the amount of conquered resourced flowing at 100% the player would literally drown in the flood, completely voiding their perceived value, voiding their market value and worst - allowing this player to become an unstoppable steamroller. Once a player would reach critical mass (somewhere around 2-3 nations probably) there would literally be NO way to stop this superpower, at least not for any individual player. Most RTS games as well as many other strategy games work with Pop-Caps for units to limit this imbalance, a fact much loathed by players for exactly the same reason players criticize our restriction. From a realism POV it isn't logical either, as conquered areas never in history turned out the same amount of resources unless built up long term and integrated for extraction (eg. Roman Empire). Let's not even discuss Nazi Germany in WW2 in this regard - or the Stalinist Soviet Union and it's plundering after the war.

      If we'd be a very complex Paradox game for single players we could allow an over time increase of plundered resources, with economy sinks such as increased production and maintenance costs to counterbalance the influx to a certain degree.

      Should you still perceive certain shortages attached to typical ways of playing the game as unfair or posing to large an obstacle, please tell us and we will analyze and potentially increase the specific income - like we've done in the past. Really the goal is to create a FUN balance between expansionist gameplay and limitation of strategic resources, requiring planning and military conquest. I am particularly interested for instance in Manpower over time perception or other drop-offs we are not picking up in our big data.

      Thanks for the assist!

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