The arms market

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

    • @Germanico @Efreet @neuk @Mc_Johnsen

      I am sure that the transport of resources by carrier would be great and very beneficial for the game! We had talked about this discussion remember.

      General Feedback

      Perhaps the solution for your arms market problem would be to be able to delegate command of a battalion to a partner. I do not know how to define the limits but someone from his coalition or a player with an enemy in common with us ...
    • The difference to us from say a typical Paradox Game is that we are free 2 play and need to constantly adjust and fix stuff to ensure marketing is working, the browser isn't screwing up, the databases on cloud servers are not going bonkers (thanks google) and flexibly react to crazy shit, such as Facebook and their new rules being dropped with basically a days notice etc etc etc.

      Being a professional team with folks who've been in the industry for 20 years we do obviously plan our sprints and releases, but more importantly we have to ensure the health and maintenance of all of these systems for your enjoyment (and our income). Being a very niche title with a handful of devs means we often have to adjust and realign - lacking the manpower to simply throw a department at it once it happens. We are all that stands between the game and the real world of chaotic corporate development in the 21st century.


      I hope that explains why we do not publish extensive "sneak peeks" and early dev diaries - they change more often than not.
      This being said we promise to at least try and publish more about "behind the scenes" stuff from now on.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Quick list ( based on forum discussions with devs, sometimes funny : ) )

      Probable concepts ( around 1% chance and above : )
      - Playable roque state,
      - Army panel, list of units,
      - Coalition chat,
      - More readable game concepts (icons?),
      - Resource transports instead of classic trade,
      - Mine fields,
      - Territorial waters,
      - Mini-map,
      - Boost to Naval Air Patrol,
      - Airborne inf. strike from carrier.

      Popular or interesting concepts that currently won't pass for sure:

      - Gold cut off from the game or games without gold (and no comments),
      - Units, resource and territory trading known mostly from CoW (was implemented and cutted due to mass abuse),
      - Tributes, demands ( single player mechanisms, reminds Supemacy ),
      - To expensive annexation (isn't cheap in reality),
      - Producing transport ships and planes like any other unit (not the Transport Tycoon),
      - Change user name and avatar (?),
      - Queuing research (?),
      - Unit experience(some technical issues),
      - Air units ranged attack (balance, no ranged air units in a framework),
      - More research slots(gold reasons probably),
      - Cut off naval base requirement from naval SF, ASF and amphibious vehicle and naval patrol aircraft and ASW (gold reasons probably),
      - More gold from victory (gold reasons probably),
      - Patrol from point to point(?),
      - Stealth helicopters (not realistic, sf has stealth heli),
      - Paradrops (use airborne inf.),
      - Medic unit (units rotation is more realistic),

      no copyrights
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



      The post was edited 5 times, last by Efreet ().

    • Overview from DEV side:

      - Playable roque state

      DEV: Testing it atm on the beta version of Middle East Conflict Map (The Caliphate/ISiS)

      - Army panel, list of units

      DEV: Already working on it - mockup done, coding in early stage

      - Coalition chat,

      DEV: Coalition chat is done via messages which can be intercepted. This is intentional.

      - More readable game concepts (icons?),

      DEV: this is planned as a continuous addition to the tooltips

      - Resource transports instead of classic trade

      DEV: You misread - this is player 2 player unit and resource trading in coalitions (what the community is asking for) and is concepted and earmarked for development in one of the upcoming sprints

      - Mine fields,

      DEV: TBD

      - Territorial waters,

      DEV: NOPE

      - Mini-map,

      DEV: NOPE

      - Boost to Naval Air Patrol

      DEV: coming in the next update

      - Airborne inf. strike from carrier.

      DEV: estimated and earmarked for future development in an upcoming sprint

      Popular or interesting concepts that currently won't pass for sure:

      - Gold cut off from the game or games without gold (and no comments),

      DEV: Like asking a bakery to give away their cake for free because there is hunger in the world. In other words: NEVER

      - Units, resource and territory trading known mostly from CoW (was implemented and cutted due to mass abuse),

      DEV: See "Resource transports" - coming except territories.

      - Tributes, demands ( single player mechanisms, reminds Supemacy ),

      Resource transports

      - To expensive annexation (isn't cheap in reality),

      DEV: TBD that's balancing and we have ideas - but need to test them

      - Producing transport ships and planes like any other unit (not the Transport Tycoon),

      DEV: see Resource transports - those would be inteceptable

      - Change user name and avatar (?),

      DEV: already possible - contact your friendly CM

      - Queuing research (?)

      DEV: NOPE

      - Unit experience(some technical issues),

      DEV: TBD

      - Air units ranged attack (balance, no ranged air units in a framework),

      DEV: NOPE

      - More research slots(gold reasons probably),

      DEV: NOPE

      - Cut off naval base requirement from naval SF, ASF and amphibious vehicle and naval patrol aircraft and ASW (gold reasons probably),

      DEV: NOPE - give reason for buildings

      - More gold from victory (gold reasons probably),

      DEV: this is for events

      - Patrol from point to point(?),

      DEV: NOPE

      - Stealth helicopters (not realistic, sf has stealth heli),

      DEV: tbd

      - Paradrops (use airborne inf.),

      DEV: Nope - balancing and realism (small unit warfare only)

      - Medic unit (units rotation is more realistic

      DEV: NOPE we got hospitals



      DEV Addition:


      officer units - in design and earmarked for development soon
      Free Fire Setting - designed and earmarked
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Nice list guys. Maybe annex should stay the same cost but need production set to 100% its the only chance for 7 or less starting city nations, they could destroy more enemy units and add core cities to have a fait chance or maybe set the first 10 cities to 100% prod and every city after to 50%, this makes the nations with less then 10 cities more attractive because you can customize it.
    • Please no annex discussion - there are about 200 other ones on the forum. One thing players have to understand (especially those coming from COW) that unlike our other products we actually GIVE a bonus.
      In Call of War there is only 25% and that's that. By allowing players to ramp it up we essentially opened the box of pandora.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • @Germanico

      Wow... this was a very concrete answer. Too bad if It stays here forgotten. Almost ready to copy and paste to pinned threat called - let's say - "Before you suggest something" or "Current projects" or "Our workshop", and ready to discuss (or to not discuss) loved and hatred concepts over and over. As I know people - they won't read it anyway before add something. But could be important to community (if stay actual). Well, I guess someone responsible for contact with community should arbitrate is it worth any effort.

      One thing to precise:

      - change name and avatar - I mean custom in-game nation name and avatar like in Supremacy.

      And there are some controversy, for example - "give a reason for buildings", etc. But I think we are far, far out of topic already.

      Btw. officer units - hmm... interesting, commanders / heroes concept i guess. ( Are Chaos demigods will be available? (joke) )
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***