Day of the Militia

ChaosWarlord wrote:

..

What caused this and can it be recreated?

Restrisiko wrote:

Was caused by secret tests with the Philadelphia Experiment -- coming soon for everyone ..

Now THAT would play out well in the correct context of the back story of this game. Possibly the source of this mysterious force that wipes out half the standing armies? (50% of all standing units on the board, randomly chosen)

It would force people to rethink their strategy all over again.. and could even lead to a change in loyalties.

Certainly would be fascinating to see the results!

CoW has "upgraded" enough changes to the game that

are damaging the enjoyment of the game. Randomly wiping out

half the standing forces is likely something the downgraders

will seriously consider.

There seems to be a strong motivation to reduce the number

of long time users.

WayneBo wrote:

Randomly wiping out

half the standing forces is likely something the downgraders

will seriously consider.

You do realize that we are discussing a "hypothetical" GAME EVENT that incorporates this idea, right? If you have something to add to this discussion along those lines by all means please do so, if not then politely move along.

This is a really bad idea. I build and army and the game randomly wipe half it out just because. If someone spent gold on army are you going to refund it?

Or will the game wait till a player spends money, then wipe out their army just so they have to spend again?

Can people just choose to burn their money instead, seems at least to be a choice at that point.

I think some of you have just watched infinity war one to many times.

Albert wrote:

Humour (British English), also spelt as humor (American English).

People of all ages and cultures respond to humour.

Most people are able to experience humour — be amused, smile or laugh at something funny — and thus are considered to have a sense of humour.

Persons lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour inducing it to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational.

Though ultimately decided by personal taste, the extent to which a person finds something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context.

More sophisticated forms of humour such as satire require an understanding of its social meaning and context, and thus tend to appeal to a more mature audience.

Citizenkane wrote:

If someone spent gold on army are you going to refund it?

Why in the world would you spend gold on units if you knew there was a chance they would be eliminated during the "Game altering" event? That doesn't make much sense, now does it? The smart play would be to build units, spend gold on resources, buildings, upgrades, whatever you feel the need to spend gold on. Just NOT on units obviously, at least not until the " surprise" has happened.

This is a hypothetical situation that would create a massive element of uncertainty into a usually straight forward process... build, battle, eliminate... rinse and repeat. The entire goal of this event would be to shakeup the otherwise routine nature of a Call of War match.

If you can not appreciate an element of risk and surprise then obviously this event isn't for you.

I wouldn't spend on troops, i was just asking the question because to pay for something then have it randomly disappear would seem more like theft than a game dynamic.

In my job I would definitely kick questions like this to the corporate legal team because of certain nations fair trade laws.

Also I have no problem with risk but this event idea has no interest for me.

So i'm sure the Bytro team is all over it.

I definitely wouldn't play it. There's no satisfaction to building an army only for half of it to be wiped out just because. Still, I guess some people are masochists, so it isn't really up to me.

Citizenkane wrote:

certain nations fair trade laws

Okay then.. have a nice day

JesterTheSheep wrote:

masochists

A bit jaded aren't you?

Since when is an element of risk inserted into a game we play for fun masochistic?

I think you need to push back from the keyboard and re-examine your standards, that's just my opinion though.

ChaosWarlord wrote:

JesterTheSheep wrote:

masochists

A bit jaded aren't you?

Since when is an element of risk inserted into a game we play for fun masochistic?

I think you need to push back from the keyboard and re-examine your standards, that's just my opinion though.

Now, I understand that I could have said this nicer, and didn't, so I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I was only using Masochist in accordance to its definition and its context. I wasn't trying to be an ***hole.

JesterTheSheep wrote:

so I apologize if I hurt your feelings

No apology necessary, I don't get insulted very easily. I just found your sentiment to be rather caustic. Calling people masochists simply because they want to deviate from the standard game play scenario is simply uncalled for.

Again, if this is NOT your cup of tea then just politely move along. Don't post insults towards other players needlessly as that will only get you gang-banged in a match sooner or later.

That's my advice, take it or leave it.. choice is yours.

Why not:

A smaller map, like half the size of the tutorial 22

Every day at day change ALL units expire and are deleted. Or maybe every second or fourth day change.

Then, it is a matter of using what units you can produce or have coming out of production at exactly the right time to take advantage of that?

Yeah, I think maybe 4x speed, but at a certain hour of each 24 hour day, all units vanish. Clean slate: Start over.

VorlonFCW wrote:

Every day at day change ALL units expire and are deleted. Or maybe every second or fourth day change.

That's a lot more extreme an event than even I was thinking! LOL

My thought was a single "Game Changing" event along a Thanos finger snap reality changing event. Though someone above suggested we might incorporate the "Philadelphia Experiment" which would be a period appropriate plot line.

Wikipedia wrote:

Philadelphia Experiment

USS Eldridge (DE-173) ca. 1944

The Philadelphia Experiment is an alleged military experiment supposed to have been carried out by the U.S. Navy at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sometime around October 28, 1943. The U.S. Navy destroyer escort USS Eldridge was claimed to have been rendered invisible (or "cloaked") to enemy devices.

The story first appeared in 1955, in letters of unknown origin sent to a writer and astronomer, Morris K. Jessup. It is widely understood to be a hoax;^[1][2][3] the U.S. Navy maintains that no such experiment was ever conducted, that the details of the story contradict well-established facts about USS Eldridge, and that the alleged claims do not conform to known physical laws.^[4]

Origins of the story

In 1955, astronomer and UFO researcher Morris K. Jessup, the author of the just published book The Case for the UFO, about unidentified flying objects and the exotic means of propulsion they might use, received two letters from a Carlos Miguel Allende^[5] (who also identified himself as "Carl M. Allen" in another correspondence) who claimed to have witnessed a secret World War II experiment at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. In this experiment, Allende claimed the destroyer escort USS Eldridge was rendered invisible, teleported to New York, teleported to another dimension where it encountered aliens, and teleported through time, resulting in the deaths of several sailors, some of whom were fused with the ship's hull.^[6] Jessup dismissed Allende as a "crackpot".^[6]

In early 1957, Jessup was contacted by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Washington, D.C., who had received a parcel containing a paperback copy of The Case for the UFO in a manila envelope marked "Happy Easter." The book had been extensively annotated in its margins, written with three different shades of pink ink, appearing to detail a correspondence among three individuals, only one of which is given a name: "Jemi." The ONR labelled the other two "Mr. A." and "Mr. B."

I think it might have merits if it is done right.