Too many countries

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

    • Too many countries

      There are some countries I enjoy playing and some I don't. And I seem to really like the ones that EVERYONE else likes. That wouldn't be a problem except now we can't create anything besides the very limited 1990 map. Everything else is the autogen, which creates a new one when the old one fills up.

      The problem with that is there are countries that most people have no interest in playing. It seems that every time I have tried to join a game in the last two weeks on the 60 player map, there are between 4 and 10 slots left, and they are always the same crop of countries that nobody wants. Belarus, Cameroon, Chad, Kenya, Chile, Namibia, Nigeria...etc. So i dump out of it and wait to see if a new match starts, and hour goes by, I go off do something else, come back 3 hours later, still the same games with 4-10 spots waiting, then I give up for that day, and the next day a new game with the same 10 or so countries waiting on someone to suffer through.

      I feel we have gotten to the point with the combination of 60 player maps and not being able to start our own matches on anything but the 1990, the "popular" countries get snatched up in minutes of a new game launching (which seems to be at random), leaving other players to either play a match that they just aren't into, and so they drop after a few days, or not playing at all.

      Is it possible that we will ever get launching games ourselves back? Maybe even just for premium members? Or how about purging the bottom 10 countries in popularity. Or after a game reaches 45 players a new one starts? Please there has to be something to stope the endless parade of "island of misfit countries".
      ----------------------

      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.

    • So,
      I agree with him.
      One thing I think could work for the premium members being able to start games would be limiting the amount of games they can start per month.
      That way premium members wouldn't be abusing this feature.

      Personally like him I am not very fond of the 60 player maps, don't get me wrong I love the map. Just not the amount of players. I really use to like the I believe it was 24 player world map.
      But yes if you could please consider this?
      I think a lot of us would appreciate it.

    • We have some ideas for premium players in this regard. The problem with "limited" amount of maps is that we have a steadily increasing player base with tens of thousands of actives - some of which are premium obviously.
      Now if a majority of these players open only one map, we will be back to the old days of high server load, empty maps and single-player galore.
      But then, as I said we've identified the issue (simply by playing ourselves amongst other things) and are planning to give the premiums some "priority boarding" - so to speak.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

    • I was thinking of that right while reading this topic. Maybe in a more radical way. ---> On maps, greater powers are "premium by default", aka "if you're not, you can't play USA, France, UK, Russia, Germany... except if nobody took it for the first three days". Maybe it could be coupled with a "non-premium system" to organise the "river" of players.

      I mean, the map resources are not deeply unbalanced, but some countries are harder than others, due to geography, and so, they are given more cities and "raw power". Russia and USA for Example. You would expect, for a good game, that by default the "more powerful starting nations" are played by people with a minimum know-how.

      And there, i would take inspiration from something coming from the RP community. It's very usual that, in their private games, they organise the countries as follows :

      1°) Great Powers
      2°) Secondary Powers
      3°) Minor Powers

      It puts guidelines implying that "if you are a beginner with a too small activity, you won't play a Great power or a Secondary. You will play a minor"

      In your typical 64 players map, it would so have this repartition :

      Great Powers : US/Russia/UK/Japan etc... reserved either to players > 15 000 points (roughly 1 200 players, for what we see in the rankings), and of course, Premium (with premium boarding)
      Secondary Powers : Canada/Spain/Italy/Ukraine/Egypt/etc... reserved to players > 5 000 points ( roughly 5 000 players...), and of course Premium (with premium boarding)
      Minors : Namibia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Colombia, etc... open to all (without premium boarding)
      Hardcores : Israël, North Korea, Malte. Open to Premium.


      I know i'm quite obsessed with "Make Premium shiny", but i think this system would have a triple virtue :

      1°) Of freaking course, more support from the game and a more DIRECT incentive to get it. Either you are a relative new player and you don't wish to play a dozen of games to learn the games and be worthy of the United States, either you want a VIP treatment. In the two cases, you SUBSCRIBE (;) ;) ;) :p ) for the price of a beer (it's 5 euros in Paris...), and there you are.

      2°) Premium players are less careless about their activity, and tend to remain more active than free (or beginners counterparts). It's a good thing for great powers, and it also means that we would see the majority of "military coups" in... Africa... and... South America. Which is... well... nothing. (This neo-colonialist racism was offered you by the French Empire)

      3°) It would allow you to set up more parallel games, in order to have a more wide offer, because they just would fill themselves "by several doors".

      A bit like airplanes, now that i think of it.
      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.

    • I agree I am very excited to see what you guys come up with.
      ----------------------

      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.

    • Until such time as update to game starting/joining comes into effect, is it possible to find out what the decision matrix is for autostarting a new match? I just checked and currently there is one on day 2 and one on day 4, but everything else is older than that. Is it a starting a new one only when the previous one is full? I have tried at different times throughout the day and the most free spaces i have seen is i think 16 / 60
      ----------------------

      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'm curious why countries like the United States, Russia, the UK, Germany, etc should be valued over the others or be considered premium. Is it simply because they start with more cities and income? Although they start with more resources and units, they NEED to because their borders have such a large span, that they need to be able to have a fighting chance if they get attacked from multiple angles. In my very first game ever, I played as South Korea. Sure I start out with less resources and a smaller military, but I also didn't have as much territory to defend, nor as many cities to develop. I could get attacked from anywhere and quickly send troops to the location that is in danger within minutes or, at most, an hour or so. It didn't take long for me to be a force to reckon with against Russia and China.

      You listed Kenya as a nation that nobody wants to play, but I'm curious as to why. Most of the countries you listed have about the same size starting military and resources as these "major" european powers that were listed. In my current game, Chad is leading the world and still rapidly expanding. Besides starting landlocked, they have just as much opportunity as any "major" country. You simply have to play each one to the geography and political environment.

      I could see making a country with advantages premium, but then again that wouldn't make sense because premium players are highly active and experienced. If anything, it would be new players that need any advantages or handicaps available.

      Ultimately I guess my question is this: what makes that handful of countries undesirable to play when they are seemingly equal in starting power and opportunity to these other "major" powers? I've seen those countries do extremely well and I've seen the "major" powers the OP posted do mediocre to downright terrible.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Power is always dangerous. It attracts the worst. And corrupts the best. I never asked for power. Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up." - Ragnar Lothbrok

    • Well i think primarily most peoples first choice is their own country and i dare say, most players are in the US. I know for myself I have tried playing just about every country, and some of them just don't interest me. I was winning a game with chad and I abandoned it because it was just boring for me. If you look at the new game list, you will see the same countries over and over again as available.

      It also seems a lot of people want to play naval powers. Canada, UK,Italy, and Australia all seem to go very, very quickly.

      Other times I just find the surrounding terrain too annoying. I dont enjoy mongolia because you have to pass through mountains to get to any one pretty much, so you wait SO long to travel. Some countries also have too many potential enemies. Chad for example is literally surrounded and if you are not on it constantly you will get smacked.

      I also find I go through times when I want to play a certain tech, I have strategies or ideas i want to try out, and so I look for a country that interests me, and has the tech i want. A lot of the last pick countries are eastern tech, and I personally find it the most boring. It has a tendency to be a land power, and for whatever reason I really hate building and using tanks. Stupid I know...

      Resources also are a reason to prefer certain countries. If you are really into researching the later tech, a country with lower rare will get very tedious.
      ----------------------

      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.

    • xseniority wrote:

      I'm curious why countries like the United States, Russia, the UK, Germany, etc should be valued over the others or be considered premium. Is it simply because they start with more cities and income? Although they start with more resources and units, they NEED to because their borders have such a large span, that they need to be able to have a fighting chance if they get attacked from multiple angles. In my very first game ever, I played as South Korea. Sure I start out with less resources and a smaller military, but I also didn't have as much territory to defend, nor as many cities to develop. I could get attacked from anywhere and quickly send troops to the location that is in danger within minutes or, at most, an hour or so. It didn't take long for me to be a force to reckon with against Russia and China.

      You listed Kenya as a nation that nobody wants to play, but I'm curious as to why. Most of the countries you listed have about the same size starting military and resources as these "major" european powers that were listed. In my current game, Chad is leading the world and still rapidly expanding. Besides starting landlocked, they have just as much opportunity as any "major" country. You simply have to play each one to the geography and political environment.

      I could see making a country with advantages premium, but then again that wouldn't make sense because premium players are highly active and experienced. If anything, it would be new players that need any advantages or handicaps available.

      Ultimately I guess my question is this: what makes that handful of countries undesirable to play when they are seemingly equal in starting power and opportunity to these other "major" powers? I've seen those countries do extremely well and I've seen the "major" powers the OP posted do mediocre to downright terrible.
      Pure personal bias and desirability of one to play "his country" or "one more prestigious country". The Game is in majority US market base. Many of them want to play US over Kenya. It doesn't change the fact you're very right, from a gameplay point of view, and a good player will have no trouble to be good either with US or with Kenya (the differance isn't big in raw strength).

      Other want to play Russia because they want to fancy themselves Poutine, other countries for a reason, etc.

      it's just that from a selling point of view, Kenya will remain free more easily on games because very few people of the "casual customer base" will identify themselves as "desiring" to play Kenya, while US/Russia will be much more quickly filled. So, if there is a VIP price tag to put somewhere, it's on those countries.

      Pure storytelling marketing, in fact, lol.
      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.

    • I see. Thanks for the clarification. I guess I simply don't care what country I'm picking as long as it doesn't start completely underpowered and there is geographical variety.

      I'm from the US and I guess it would be fun to roleplay my country, but ultimately I'll take any country and make it a superpower haha. Just not sure I like the idea of premium countries. Only my opinion though :)
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Power is always dangerous. It attracts the worst. And corrupts the best. I never asked for power. Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up." - Ragnar Lothbrok

    • Yes, there is always pro and cons.

      Actually, i didn't play many games (i like to play them one per one), and i played... Norway... Spain...Thailand, France, and Colombia. I appreciated all of them.I must admit, however, that it always feel a bit silly to see absolute beginners to play countries flagged as "hard". Russia for example. It has more raw power, because it's an absolute pain to defend from multi theater front.
      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.

    • No matter what we do - we will definitely make sure that no country is "locked" behind a 40+ hours premium loot-box grind... hehe. Sorry EA, couldn't help the pun ;)
      All nations will be playable for free players of course - yet some may open up later than others or we will make first-picking a thing of experience and rank.
      Nothing is decided on this yet, but generally I like the idea to give players who really want to play a certain nation the opportunity to do so.
      A match without the US and Russia, China or even India just doesn't feel complete - and too often we see new players pick these powers for quite understandable reasons, just to be overwhelmed with the challenge, abandoning the map after a few days.

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

    • Germanico wrote:

      No matter what we do - we will definitely make sure that no country is "locked" behind a 40+ hours premium loot-box grind... hehe. Sorry EA, couldn't help the pun ;)
      All nations will be playable for free players of course - yet some may open up later than others or we will make first-picking a thing of experience and rank.
      Nothing is decided on this yet, but generally I like the idea to give players who really want to play a certain nation the opportunity to do so.
      A match without the US and Russia, China or even India just doesn't feel complete - and too often we see new players pick these powers for quite understandable reasons, just to be overwhelmed with the challenge, abandoning the map after a few days.

      //G
      In my current game, Russia did nothing all game and was inactive by day 6 or 7. Someone could still join as Russia if they wanted to right now. A lot of the countries that people love to snatch up so quickly go inactive after a few days.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Power is always dangerous. It attracts the worst. And corrupts the best. I never asked for power. Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up." - Ragnar Lothbrok

    • Opulon wrote:


      1. understand some despair but I think that eliminating countries is to eliminate reality is like saying Go to the United Nations and ask him to eliminate the independence of certain countries, also if referring to what indicates the friend Opulon I agree a few moments ago I entered a game and almost all the powers had children rats and I apologize for the word but it is the truth do not have even a minimum knowledge of RPG or an honor system simply expand and the final self-solve because they do not produce a fuck or use the diplomacy die by itself if the problem is not to cut countries if not increase and give the possibility of a higher type of order may generate a way in which the game does not start until a minimum of agreement in the schedule at the same time only certain players with demand enter the powers and Opolun I remind you that not all have the European currency or the American Dollar is very difficult for a Hispanic to have access to those currencies and I do not know why nobody plays Chile xD knowing that in real life it is a stable country economically hahaha and it is surprising that Venezuela many choose it despite living in hell.
      1.
      1.
      1.Yo entiendo cierta desesperacion pero considero que eliminar paises es eliminar la realidad es como decir Vaya a Naciones Unidas y pidale que se eliminen la independencias de ciertos paises, además si referente a lo que indica el amigo Opulon estoy de acuerdo hace momentos he entrado en una partida y casi todas las potencias las tenian niños ratas y me disculpan la palabra pero es la verdad no tienen ni un minimo conocimiento de juego de rol o un sistema de honor simplemente se expanden y a la final se autosuicidan porque no producen un carajo ni usan la diplomacia mueren por si solo en si el problema no es recortar paises si no aumentar y dar la posibilidad de un tipo mayor de orden tal vez generar una manera en que la partida no inicie hasta llegar un minimo de acuerdo en el horario a su vez que solo ciertos jugadores con exigencia ingresen a las potencias y Opolun te recuerdo que no todos poseen la monedad Europea o el Dolar Américano es muy dificil para un hispano tener acceso a esas divisas y no se porque nadie juega Chile xD sabiendo que en la vida real es un pais estable economicamente jajaja y es sorprendente que Venezuela muchos la elijan a pesar de vivir en el infierno.
      Spanish Player.

    • Leon, I think Chile is unpopular because as a long skinny country with rough terrain, it is next to impossible to defend. Venezuela meanwhile has ample growth opportunities, has a more mesh style layout, and has more than one pvp country it can attack easily.

      I did not intend to offend any person that is from a country that is not getting played, but simply to allow for new games to auto generate faster instead of waiting for them to fill. Incidentally, I saw a game on day 2 with 1 spot left, so I took it, without ever actually doing anything, hoping it would kick off a new game. It didn't so i checked back about every 5 minutes for an hour. still nothing. It would be nice to know when a new game is going to start
      ----------------------

      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.

    • 1.

      War-spite wrote:

      Leon, creo que Chile es impopular porque es un país flaco y largo con un terreno accidentado, es casi imposible de defender. Mientras tanto, Venezuela tiene amplias oportunidades de crecimiento, tiene un diseño de estilo más malla y tiene más de un país pvp que puede atacar fácilmente.
      1.
      No tenía la intención de ofender a ninguna persona que sea de un país que no se está jugando, sino simplemente permitir que los nuevos juegos se generen automáticamente más rápido en lugar de esperar a que se llenen. Incidentalmente, vi un juego en el día 2 con 1 punto restante, así que lo tomé, sin siquiera hacer nada, esperando que comenzara un nuevo juego. No fue así que volví cada 5 minutos durante una hora. aún nada. Sería bueno saber cuándo va a comenzar un nuevo juego
      1.Relax no problem... well Venezuela is a great country without any doubt after all it is my First country then this Spain, without a doubt I like both nations because you have all the possibilities of generating all kinds of units I like very much to play with all the toys although I admit that I have stopped building strategic weapons and threat due to a large growth of aggressive players and no idea of diplomacy, referring to Chile Point if it is true is Mountainous but at the same time is its strong because you can quickly position in certain strategic areas a defensive point in turn go through Asia from that point is a juicy dish, referring to what you indicate an hour would be good to be implemented and again add a poll or vote to decide the date of the start of the game and this decision is taken quickly by the most prestigious players.
      Spanish Player.

    • Actually I like Chile a lot - been there personally, grew up with a Chilean family myself. But then this is a game and the southern hemisphere is generally less liked than the north.

      Let's close this thread now, I think all has been said.

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