Releasign city or territory ownership

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

    • Releasign city or territory ownership

      Sometimes it comes up where a war happens, you come to terms but giving back territories and cities is an admin nightmare. You go right of way get out, then back to war, back to peace etc. Would a good function of every city thats occupied or territory that is occupied not be to release ownership back to its original owner? I am imagine there are exploits but for me this is sometimes quite annoying. I just want to let it go but can't.
      There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.Sun Tzu
    • Yeah so you can't just give land for free:you have to give some resources.

      You can only give maximum a quarter of your territory away.

      YOu know that kind of thing? Yeah why don't we implement it. Just like on the market you can't sell some resources for lower than 4 per unit(for example).Implement something similar here.
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "
    • We didn’t ban the users aka cars in your analogy, instead forbidding street racing aka trading of territories.

      I am sure you are an old Call of War player enjoying gifting New York to Spain or the like, and that’s fine there, but not on my watch in CON. Sorry.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Germanico wrote:

      ... I am sure you are an old Call of War player enjoying gifting New York to Spain or the like, and that’s fine there, but not on my watch in CON. Sorry.
      pretty much regression orientated, isn't it?
      You could instead make it this way you only can give Regions to the country that is directly bordering with you, and only as a tribute to a peace treaty. The game is afterall called "Conflict of Nations", not "War of Nations". The diplomatic factor is coming a bit short if you limit the way people could "solve" a conflict.

      No offense here, just my opinion :)
    • @pxlmnrch Our game surely isn’t called diplomacy of nations. For a reason.

      So please tell me when was the last time one of the nations in the game ceded a part of it to another one by peaceful means?

      How about the Crimea and east Ukraine?
      East Timor?
      Cashmir?
      South Sudan?

      Notice something? They all have one thing in common... war aka conflict.

      You just arrived a bit late to the party unfortunately - cause we had trading in the game and guess what: players were abusing it massively.

      Neither is it realistic nor is it fun except for the abusers. So spare me please.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Germanico wrote:

      Our game surely isn’t called diplomacy of nations. For a reason.

      So please tell me when was the last time one of the nations in the game ceded a part of it to another one by peaceful means?

      How about the Crimea and east Ukraine?
      East Timor?
      Cashmir?
      South Sudan?

      Notice something? They all have one thing in common... war aka conflict.

      You just arrived a bit late to the party unfortunately - cause we had trading in the game and guess what: players were abusing it massively.

      Neither is it realistic nor is it fun except for the abusers. So spare me please.
      I don't get why you have such an unfriendly tone. Is this how suggestions are handled?


      I get that people abuse mechanics in every way they can, but you are stipping off features of your game instead of fixing them so they are non-abusable.

      Also,
      here are a few IRL conflicts that have been solved diplomaticaly:

      • IRA/UK
      • Cold War
      • Korean War
      • India's independence


      Yes, a few of them involved actual war, or violence, but also a lot of diplomatic resolutions, even including a swapping, trading or gifting of regions. You can also look back at the medival times, where wars with many casualities have been solved by swapping, trading or gifting this or that region to this or that kingdom.

      A way is more than just shooting and killing, it is also trying to make as less casualities as possible. And you had that in the game already, so therefore all I see is regression. Don't get me wrong, the game is pretty nice anyway, but why are you even going on steam if you reverse-develop the game? You will get way way harsher critics once you launched on steam if you keep regressing the game.
    • sorry pxlmnrch - no insult intended. I appreciate your open and friendly reply and thus will gladly give you some more insight into the topic.
      As a matter of fact I've been through this discussion about 50 times before with other COW players, and as you can imagine I am quite weary of the "in COW this in COW that" discussions.
      So please excuse my snappy reply above...

      Point is we are not stripping features of our game, we are selecting which ones we believe fit the type of gameplay.
      Actually I would never have implemented something like province trading in the first place - so when we noticed the problems we opted to have it out.
      Some features turn out to be either toxic to the gameplay or broken inherently, neither fitting the setting nor the type of game. As is the case with territory swapping.

      Once you allow swapping or gifting, no matter how restricted, you will have RL players and or Multi-Accounters abusing it. That's what I mean by inherently broken.
      No matter what you do you cannot fix the problem without either evicting all players or turning off the feature.
      We had it in early beta and the first thing that happened was players started pushing themselves with "nice little presents" from their co-players.
      It wasn't unheard of to within the first 24h have 7 or more rare material cities all mysteriously swapping their allegiance across the map to support one player.

      From a historical/realistic perspective it is important to note that even in WW2 nothing was ever given for free, the US lend-lease was exactly that, a lease against future debt, as was the post war Marshall Plan.
      Territory swap did of course happen, but again, the last real swapping took place at the end of WW2 (mostly in connection to new borders and nations being drawn on the map).
      A good example for this is Poland which had half of its territory annexed by the USSR while being granted most of former German Eastern Prussia and Parts of Silesia.
      Now this obviously includes a Germany which just had lost a war - so it really wasn't peaceful at all.

      Some more recent examples can be found in the Balkans or the reunification of Germany and the splitting of Czech Republic and Slovakia, though all of these were again part of nations forming/reforming at the end of the cold war.
      Same with India/Pakistan - though they I believe have fought three wars since, amongst others about exactly these territorial claims.
      In in all honesty I would not know of any peaceful cessation of territory out of the top of my head without researching the matter further (not meaning it may not have happened, just that it seems to be extremely rare).

      Returning to the game features:
      If you are talking about for eg. say the opportunity to return conquered territory to its rightful owner, that's a different story and we already have a feature aiming in that direction (the liberation feature: liberating coalition members homeland provinces).

      Hope I was able to shed a bit more light on the topic,

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • No offense taken, I grew up in the interwebs and experienced all kinds of support "styles" ;)

      The the feature itself:
      Sure, it makes sense, it comes with a risk of abuse, but Multi-Accounting can also happen without this feature ;)

      Hearing about the "Liberation" feature, it sounds pretty fine and makes me think of some other feature I will try to explain some time soon in another thread.

      Thank you for the explanation, G. :D
    • Hi. Germanico unfriendly tone is the result of a friendly answer that has been "refined" by the same questions asked thousands of times, usually involving endless cycles of "gimme free stuff".

      I do agree with you on your points, especially for the sake of realism and diplomacy, but it's the direction that they choosed to take, and while not optimal, many of those choices (in terms of "fixing what is broken") depend on an already really full "road map", as well as the legacy code from CoW. Many "regressions" are in fact cuts in the features of another game, that the company doesn't see as interesting for its long term business.

      CoN, with time passing, tries to be very very "quick PVP-focus". Diplomacy, while a mean, isn't that organic to the gameplay --> Create/Find a coalition, team play against other coalitions, win/lose.


      EDIT : Damn... it's what happens when you leave the forum open for one hour before finishing your message.
      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.
    • Glad I could help.
      The liberation feature is indeed already in the game - albeit only for coalitions.
      And yes, you are right in regards to Multi Accounters, though we do take a different stance on this topic than say COW.
      In CON players are allowed to have as many accounts as they want, as long as they don't join the same match with them.
      We have IP checks in place and will bar entry, so the only way around this is VPN - but again we are looking into this with another system - leading to bans for cheating.

      The real issue with ceding cities actually wasn't so much the malicious Multi (although there were enough) but rather the RL alliance players.
      Most of them came from COW and thought it was perfectly legitimate to push themselves and their buddies in exactly this manner - each member ceding key territories to his cronies on a different map at gamestart.
      This of course put new and single/non-alliance players at a massive disadvantage, besides the fact that these matches felt absurdly out of reality.
      (Los Angeles suddenly declaring its allegiance to Mongolia? Seriously?)

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Laughing at Los Angeles to Mongolia. But yeah cheating does happen sadly. Maybe if this function was enabled so you couldn't just give it away for free(so like if I give a city with 6 population I recieve how many stuff in return.(2000 rare materials?))
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "
    • I agree with the no trading policy, but is there anyway we could make the liberation policy not limited to coalitions? Say Someone invaded an Ai nation, but only take a couple cities or something but the nation still exists, and you want to liberate that ai nation. (maybe its a buffer between you and somewhere else or something) since the ai can't join coalitions (for obvious reasons) then you couldn't use it as buffer region. This helps with Both AI nations, or for an RP purpose. This would be limited to only as a Liberation feature, and only gives the province to its original owner. I don't think this could be abused in terms of real life players, as it would only give land back to the person that originally owned it. I also think situations like this actually do happen in recent times as well.
      Once again I would like to say This wouldn't be trading.
      Thank you for taking your team looking at suggestions like these, and whatever you decide I will not argue with
      If you make a man a fire he will be warm for a couple hours, now light a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    • Germanico wrote:

      @pxlmnrch Our game surely isn’t called diplomacy of nations. For a reason.

      So please tell me when was the last time one of the nations in the game ceded a part of it to another one by peaceful means?

      How about the Crimea and east Ukraine?
      East Timor?
      Cashmir?
      South Sudan?

      Notice something? They all have one thing in common... war aka conflict.

      You just arrived a bit late to the party unfortunately - cause we had trading in the game and guess what: players were abusing it massively.

      Neither is it realistic nor is it fun except for the abusers. So spare me please.
      I will just speak to this, im an old player that has just gotten back into con actively again lately, i can plead guilty to the RL friends cheat. We would trade around cities for rss and so that ppl couldn't attack a city. Basically if they attack 'my' city that was currently in passion of a friend then we would have a reason to attack him AND we looked like we went cheating. I can say this now as i have been removed so far from the situation and i will let you know when the idea of removing this came out i lobbied for it.

      Its gone now and should not be returned to the game.
      As always just my 2 cents

      Use Helicopters, Special forces or Stealth. Use your head to play - not the missile button. - Germanico

      These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. - Marco Rubio
    • Last warrior wrote:

      c) Cold War was not end diplomaticaly, USSR was infiltrated and lost mind battle of common citizens. Ruined economy is not diplomatical key.
      Wow, seems likey someone really believes american propaganda.


      Last warrior wrote:

      a) Korean War is not solved till novadays.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
      Even stupid Wikipedia knows better.



      Last warrior wrote:

      b) India's Indepence was paid with world war second blood. British empire was not able have colonies any more.
      What is wrong with your history knowledge? Have you learned all that stupid stuff at a private school for US military propaganda?

      So, if you think you are right about indias independence, then I guess Mahadma Gandhi and the indian independence movement never existed. I guess the grand "All India Congress" never happened and George VI gave them the independence as a act of drunkness after a football match he won against some generals of his armies.


      You should really consider taking a class of history in evening school. Your extreme unaccurat and wrong history knowledge is very dangerous.
    • HEy guys-chill. And I think wikipedia's actually pretty good. But the KOrean war ended unofficially back in the 50s but officially it still continues. Some historians believe it is still ongoing.
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "