UPDATE: GOLD FREE ELITE CHALLENGE MAPS - REAL TIME STATS AND MORE

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

    • On this alas, i disagree, because it narrows too much what the alliances can do and try in the said challenges. I'm against starter units, and i prefer that the teams build their desired order of battle through peace period, and higher production to see more interesting things
      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.
    • Back to the topic, Maybe 10k is too high, i don't know.

      I do roughly ~2 200 points per game, so it would mean that you can access to this tier, if you joined an alliance, after playing 5 good, extended, long, rounds, where a good part of us give some money to the game.

      Maybe this consideration can be associated with some talk about "how points are earned", and statistical balance.
      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.
    • a) how many resources would you like on this map (22 player world map extra balanced for no-gold-competition)

      - Balanced. Neither much nor rare.

      b) would you like this map to be normal time?

      2X. But we should have options, it shouldnt be compulsory for all.

      c) would you like to have all researches available (no unlock day)?

      NO.

      d) would you like to have researches faster than vanilla (eg. 2x or 4x as fast)

      Could be.

      e) AI and Insurgents - how would you like them served? (not at all - only light/passive - full on aggro)

      - We are fighting against the enemy alliance, I dont want to deal with offensive ones. Of course some riots can come up but insurgents or aı shouldnt be offensive. In your terms, "only light/passive"
    • Hello,

      first of all a big thanks for taking your time and effort to give us such a great oppurtunity! ;)

      Here are my thoughts:

      Alliance matches are heavily competitive matches which are/should be taken very seriously. Especially with the no gold rule, what determines the winner of an alliance match are: activity, skill (strategic thinking) and knowledge of game and its mechanics. I believe we should amplify these 3 factors to the maximum. We want to give each player and every alliance the possibility to give their best, to put their most effort in it. To display their proficiency in those 3 fields to the fullest.

      A map that is designed exclusively for alliance matches should boost the players ability to demonstrate his capabilities in the 3 fields. And it shouldn't limit it by any means. The player must not be limited to anything by anything, an alliance must be able to show what they are capable of. Of all the skill and knowledge an alliance posesses, they should be able to use all of it. An alliance with a full variety of skill and knowledge should also be to access and make use of it in an alliance game. No skill or knowledge should remain unused by definition due to map settings.

      How does a map look like that promotes activity, skill and knowledge of the game?

      In my opinion, "mid-game" favours it the most. What defines mid-game though? // What map settings allow alliances to really come out?

      Settings that enable as much usage of skill as possible. Not only on the battlfield, but also concerning spies, economy and so on. Players can aim for whatever they want, that includes ICBMs, stealth Bombers, whatever fancy things they are thinking about. Please note, going for fancy stuff means making compromises elsewhere. Fancy stuff cost a lot of resources, thus you lack resources elsewhere.

      This is why I propose the following settings:

      - Speed: x1
      To make full use of activity, the game speed should be normal. So that while you work, sleep go to school, whatever you do, you don't miss out many crucial hours. It also makes micro managing a lot easier, another field where you can show off your skill. (In micro managing every second counts, not just minutes)

      - Research:

      Here is a counter proposal, it was implemented in CoW: At game start, instead of beginning at research day 999 (all researches unlocked), you begin research at day 10. That means at day 1, all researches until day 10(including) are unlocked. From there on the research goes forward normally. At game day 2, all reseraches until day 11(including) are unlocked, and so on. This way, the game is catapulted into mid game, giving the players the possibility to quickly reach mid game research levels without overresearching and reaching max. levels. This also means that researching newly unlocked technology during war remains part of the game.

      Why day 10? So that at the start of game, you can start researching any unit you want without having wo wait, all units are unlocked (except for some special units like stealth). And when the peace period is about to end which could be in 7-14 days, the game is in mid game, stealth units have only recently been unlocked (no stealth spam) and you shouldn't enter late game too early.

      Modifying the research speed won't be necessary. Catching up the research from day 0 to day 10 won't be a huge problem regarding the time, the resources are a greater factor.


      - AI:

      Currently, the AI doesn't allow for any skill -> there is little to none serious skill involved with AI. AI can be considered "empty", "nothing". You want to conquer AI? Go ahead, that little defence won't even bother you. The only skill you can show is how you use AIs territory better than your opponent does.

      AI is basically empty land where you can't build or defend until you have conquered it. Nothing else.

      From Supremacy1914 I am used to a much harder AI, especially in early game. Ai farming in alliance matches meant suicide. The only time where you conquer AI is for strategic purposes. The AI in CoN alliance matches should go to the same direction.

      Adding another field where you can show skill: "Is it really necessary/needed to conquer this AI?", evaluating whether conquering that AI is worth it or not. AI can then finally be a buffer, not just empty land where you walk through. All while the old "skill" remains where AI is territory where you can't defend and build until its conquered. (The word "skill" might be misleading, think of it as more strategic options!)

      The AI shouldn't be super aggressive declaring war on everyone and winning the map, no. But it must have defensive capabilities. It should build some bunkers, combat outposts, have a lot more units (in cities and in provinces). And over the time, it should get stronger (it builds many units), though not growing as strong as human players but just enough so it remains a (small) challenge even in late game. Going against AI must not be something you can take lightly, if not well prepared, you should get punished(loosing units).



      - Insurgents

      Preventing uprisings is easy, leave 1 Infantry unit behind and thats it. The focus in Alliance matches shouldn't be on preventing uprisings anyways. But something where you can show skill is to spark uprisings than annoy your opponent. This is where insurgents can be buffed. Rading through enemy territory and deliberately spawning insurgents should be impactful, especially in a way that you can't airstrike it once (which only costs you about an hour) and the threat is eliminated. Causing chaos, disruption and leaving a path of burning cities, provinces which leads to insurgents should be a form of warfare. All while not buffing insurgents too much, nobody wants to give insurgents more attention than enemy players. Annoyance and nuisance, not war against or defeat by insurgents.

      If possible:

      Buff their HP. Airstriking or shelling insurgents in a city always leads to civilian casualties. Insurgents with more HP need to be shelled for a longer time, leading to more civilian deaths (harms morale and the production once you conquer the city). Making you think twice whether you want to "destroy" your own economy. (Perhaps you will use more civilian friendly ways)

      In unguarded cities the chance of an insurgency should rise up to 90%, only in unguarded cities. That way preventing insurgents is as easy as it was before while raiding and leaving burning cities behind is more likely to spawn insurgents and thus annoy your opponent.


      - minimum rank requirements

      I don't see any need for that. It is called alliance vs. alliance, not many players vs. many other players. What counts is the alliance. You fight as one team, as if you are one single player, regardless of all the members. Whether one member might be "less skilled" or newer than others of his team, it shouldn't matter in an alliance fight. You win or lose as a team, you play as a team, there is no such thing as "single player", or "player on his own".

      If anything, there should be alliance requirements which alliances need to meet as a team.


      1/2
    • - resources

      I believe this is the most difficult topic. Incredibly hard to balance and a lot to talk about.

      You could say, there are 3 types of resources:

      1) Supplies, components, electronics. Essential resources for unit production.

      2) Fuel. Apart from building costs, fuel only plays a role in lategame when your units consume too much of it.

      3) Rare materials. Mainly used for research.

      Then, there are another 2 "types of resources":

      A) The resources you begin with

      B) Your own resource production at the beginning of the game



      A) Just a tiny bit more than in normal games. Especially more fuel. So you can get the building requirements fast to get up a good production.

      1 - B) This is the most important part. The resources you take for building units are mostly freshly produced. How many resources you produce is dependent on how many units you are supposed to be able to produce. Here is my idea:

      Players tend to specialize themselves, either in Navy, Ground or Air. They are heavy in components, supplies and electronics respectively.

      A player should be able to non-stop build 3-4 units of his field. If he wants to build more, he needs to trade. And this is where alliances can show skill once again, trade between players, the managament of the alliances' economy in its entirety, and not just player wise. Alliances with such skill will be able to produce a lot more units.

      (All units level 1)
      Components, Navy: 3 Units could be 2 destroyers and 1 frigate. That makes 7000 components per day or 292 components / hour.

      Supplies, Ground: 4 units could be 1 infantry, 2 mobile artilleries, 1 mobile anti air. That makes 5006 supplies per day. Adding various other things like research[3000; non-stop 1,5 researches] makes it ~8000 supplies per day, or 333 supplies / hour.

      Electronics, Air: 4 Units could be 2 Air Superiority Fighters and 2 Strike Fighters. That makes it 3782 electronics per day, or 157/hour.

      If you want to build more units. Trade! The Air player will certainly have components left over for the ground player ;)
      Want to build more buildings? Research more? Guess you will have to do compromises, one cannot afford everything, difficult choices have to be made! ;)

      2-B) Fuel production doesn't matter much. Need fuel for buildings? You will most likely use the starting fuel and the market and not wait for production. Especially once all buildings are built, you don't really need fuel that much until late game which you shouldn't reach that easily in an alliance challenge.

      3 - B) If my proposal for techs is accepted:
      The average cost of technologies are 65 rares / hour. If you can non-stop research 1,5 technologies it makes it 2340 / day, or 98/hour.
      Why 1.5 researches per day?(This actually means you can non-stop research 1.5 techs, you dont finish 1.5 researches per day). This allows everyone to research quite a bit of units without being able to research everything. You must prioritize your research well. You can still go for the fancy technology like stealth or missiles, but then you need to make compromises and research much less of other units. Many decisions ;)
      Everything is a possibility, you can go for whatever you want. But if you go for the most expensive, you will most likely lack basic units. Your choice!


      2/2 - actually reached a 10k limit
    • @Mc_Johnsen et all: thanks for the detailed listing. You will understand that by far not all of these are going to be in this mode and there are some that are completely impossible.

      Basically what you are asking for is a mod - that is not what we are going to create. It also in some cases collides with what your co-players have listed further up.
      This being said, there is a lot for trading in alliances etc - but again, we will only implement what is technically feasible.

      Concerning minimum rank requirements: Elite mode will require rank 25+ to play.
      About conditions: we will only even consider creating Elite Matches for serious alliances - there is no "right" or "privilege" to play Elite, we retain all powers and rights to decide if we will host a match under any circumstances.

      Presently we are planning to allow approximately 1 running Elite Match per Alliance at any given time - but this may change and is only to get started. It depends on many factors such as pickup, response, feedback, type of matches requested, amount of players involved, size of the Alliance etc.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • The only real problem is if these can only be created by CON, then alliances that are deemed "not worthy" of playing these matches will suffer because they cannot play any matches. This loop will repeat until eventually the alliance falls apart.
      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 are talking of a privilege, and something utterly counter intuitive for an business. Yes, alliances that will abuse will just be thrown out of the system. This means "deal with it", this possibility is already beyond any hope i had.

      But to be honest, if an alliance doesn't bite the hand that propose some candy, there is no reason for such "power" to be used. It's merely a precaution, exactly like in RP, assistance and moderation support is an privilege, not a right

      Ok for rank 25. Seems reasonable. In this regard, are you planning to raise a little bit how quick the score can be gained, for active players ?

      Additionnal question : if a new player purchases high command (or is gifted), would he be accepted in such elite tier, on the responsability of his alliance, upon the demonstration he is dedicated enough in the game to support 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.
    • If you rank restrict too much you will not grow the game as fast. Some players may not want to put the time into the game to get the features/options they desire and may pass on the game before giving it a true shot.

      Time should be a selectable option, we do not want 1000 teams all playing the exact way or the game becomes a script as the path to victory becomes basically the same. More options unlock different ways for a Alliance to play. Some Alliances may like a slow, strategic build, while others may want a fast, guns blazing approach.

      AI is a good feature, it adds a bit of a twist to the game, I'd explore a smarter AI stack to mimic players more.

      The more options you can give teams to play with, the more success CON will receive as it appeals more to everyone.
      - The Unknown -
    • Germanico wrote:

      We would need to know from you:
      a) how many resources would you like on this map (22 player world map extra balanced for no-gold-competition) - serious answers only
      b) would you like this map to be normal time?
      c) would you like to have all researches available (no unlock day)?
      d) would you like to have researches faster than vanilla (eg. 2x or 4x as fast)
      e) AI and Insurgents - how would you like them served? (not at all - only light/passive - full on aggro)
      f) being an Elite Competitive Mode - what should the minimum rank be?
      A.) 2x resource production per city compared to 28 player world map.
      B.) Yes. Actually, I would like to see 1/2 or 3/4 time. This would place the focus less on activity and more on tactics. I've seen a number of matches that were nearly decided in the first 3-4 hours after the starting truce ended, which really sucks if said truce ends around 3AM for 1-2 of your alliance members.
      C.) No
      D.) No. Enough resource production to utilize both research slots during the starting truce solves this issue.
      E.) I think A.I. should have more defensive forces in order to increase the cost of taking A.I. cities, especially if resource production is increased. The A.I. and Insurgents should be passive, however. Aggressive insurgents would simply encourage blitzing the opponent as opposed to more interesting tactics.
      F.) Rank 25 sounds good to me.
    • Why are you guys so keen on a starting truce of several days? In my mind this is to gear up... well how about providing said resources and units so you don’t need to delay. That is a real fun killer and a ver hard sell to any new player - at least in my mind. I do of course understand the need to wait until the forces / sides have joined. But that should be a day or such.

      „...and then there is ELITE Matches, where we all... err... wait around for stuff to happen for a week...“ not very enticing is it?
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Germanico ().

    • You need time to build building for troop production, time to research those troops and time to produce them. There is not much fun and tactic fighting with 'starting' troops, either. Also you need time to organize your team and make battle plans in detail, before everyone joined, you don't know, where they will be seated. (If not playing draft mode.) Also you need to watch your opponent, what does he plan to produce? Do I need to adapt?

      Troops also need a lot time to move around, even more ground troops like heavy artillery, tanks and AA who only learn air transport on a higher level.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kalrakh ().

    • Starting Truce is more about having some time to over look team placement and to build an attack plan. and time to post and receive those plans before any fighting starts . Time to move Units to your fighting locations as well.
      "There are only two types of aircraft — fighters and targets."
      — Doyle 'Wahoo' Nicholson, USMC.
    • So how long is the truce period generally?

      Here is the issue: If you guys decide on "house" rules for your alliance matches we cannot play cleanup afterwards if one or more players do not stick to them.

      Any screw up of these house rules and consequently the game being abandoned will result in the game being lost by the alliance which is committing the error.

      In the past we've been confronted time and again by requests of rectifying these human errors, so it is imperative to understand that alliances are themselves responsible for the actions of their members.

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