Please criticize the hell out of this suggestion. I'd like to know why it could and couldn't work!
So, I was thinking we could make 1-3 new units:
"Trade convoy" (basically a slow unarmed airplane convoy style truck)
"Cargo plane" (slow unarmed aircraft)
"Barge" (slow unarmed ship)
1 New building:
"Commerce center" (a trading hub, of sorts...more on this later)
1 New relation:
"Trade" (between right of way and shared maps)
The idea is, once trade is established, each user would have to let the other know where their commerce buildings are, and once one is found and the trade unit is selected, instead of an attack option, it's a "trade" option. The unit proceeds to the designated site, then returns to it's origin. It gives a small cash bonus or random resource bonus, nothing too crazy. A random reward could be interesting.
This would be interesting to see users blockade trade routes, hit trade routes with submarines or to see users attach a navy, air force, or militarized convoy to their trade units.
This idea is definitely a work in progress, but I'd just like your opinion.
I tried not to make the additions too hard for the staff to implement, that's why they're sort of basic! Let me know what you think!
Thanks
Please log in to post a reply.
I only have one question.
What is the point?
We can trade already, having units to do it instead would make it harder.
I'm not saying its a bad idea, just seems like its more work for something that probably won't be used unless it is a RP game.
Could be fun. Sounds similar to "Civilization" trade routes.
Pretty decent but:
1. Are these checkpoints to be considered like provinces
2. Are the benefits one off or constant
3. Is this historical
A logistics hub which speeds up troop movement which can cause a drop in health if captured would be better
I would definitely like something like this to be implemented!
Still some comments:
- the "nothing too crazy" reward should still be worth your while of course.
- Still it should remain a side show; maybe the amount of trade units needs to be limited to prevent people from taking this over the top?
- I don't think we need trade planes, the goods needed for warfare weren't transported by air at the time, plus the speed would be like "too much"
- I'm not too sure about trade trucks either... sure it makes sense to trade with your neighbors, but just "driving across the border" doesn't sound like a very interesting trade system (nor very blockable by opponents). I think this whole thing would be most fun at sea, maybe just keep it there?
The main argument that I can think of against this idea is that it simply overcomplicates the game. I like the idea, but that's a pretty big argument against it and it would be very difficult to simplify this idea down to fit within the current game.
Well it is basically just a unit that you send out to a friendly place, rather than to attack an enemy. Not THAT complicated, really.
Then, please, explain how you would implement this into the game, since, it is "Not THAT complicated, really." i would like to hear how so.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Well it is basically just a unit that you send out to a friendly place, rather than to attack an enemy. Not THAT complicated, really.
Actually, making any new unit isn't that easy. You need the models, mechanics, and values all right, plus a ton of balancing to make sure it works well. This would also be incredibly hard considering that nothing like this exists yet, so it would be even harder to make the mechanics from scratch.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Well it is basically just a unit that you send out to a friendly place, rather than to attack an enemy. Not THAT complicated, really.
Actually, considering it, you would need to completely rework the trading mechanic, add a new building, and a new unit, and do all of those. That would not be easy for sure. The biggest difficulty would of course be changing the base code to allow something like this.
Futher more, you would need a new relation to allow trading units, but not military units, added to everything Donk has said. And trust me when i say, making NEW mechanics in a game are fairly hard, i myself used to create games with a few other people, often times we would have to only slightly alter the whole game, and we would slowly input what it was we wanted to add, but CoW is not the kind of game you can do that with, And as Donk said, balancing, these units would unbalance the game so much, most of the values would probably have to be reworked, considering there have not been new units in forever, so, with iron crossroads, and multiple points, this will have a 100% chance of being ignored by the people who could make it happen.Donk2.0 wrote:
Actually, making any new unit isn't that easy. You need the models, mechanics, and values all right, plus a ton of balancing to make sure it works well. This would also be incredibly hard considering that nothing like this exists yet, so it would be even harder to make the mechanics from scratch.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Well it is basically just a unit that you send out to a friendly place, rather than to attack an enemy. Not THAT complicated, really.Actually, considering it, you would need to completely rework the trading mechanic, add a new building, and a new unit, and do all of those. That would not be easy for sure. The biggest difficulty would of course be changing the base code to allow something like this.
DxC wrote:
Could be fun. Sounds similar to "Civilization" trade routes.
I would personally disagree on the basis that this is Call of War. C&C:RA and Civilisation are both enjoyable games, but use fundamentally different paradigms than CoW.
I do not think this concept is harmonious with CoW's current paradigm, which is heavy on engagement between military units of brigade-size and up, with a focus on improvement of individual provinces, and universal command of all troops by you, the leader.
I also think, just because other games have a feature, that CoW should not necessarily implement it.
This seems good. However, in the 1940s, horses and lorries were barely used for trade between countries, and seldom used in large numbers in a convoy. Railways were far more important by the amount of goods transported. Maybe change this unit to trains. It may need infrastructure (aka rails) to move. Then again railway guns seem to manage so probably not.CoolBreeze_ wrote:
"Trade convoy" (basically a slow unarmed airplane convoy style truck)"Cargo plane" (slow unarmed aircraft)
"Barge" (slow unarmed ship)
Lorries were used really to resupply units, which I've always assumed was implicit since land and air units represent large groups, not single vehicles or men, so maybe horses or lorries were included in units.
The transport plane would have a niche for some uses (the C-47 proved its mettle repeatedly, e.g. the USA and Commonwealth resupplying of China over the Himalaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump), but like the lorry would realistically be of little or not any use for international trade.
Ships are a good idea (maybe they would be a variant of the convoy, being improved by the same research) but "barge" seems not to fit an ocean-going ship.
I personally think that, if this were to be implemented, a different approach might be better. All trade ought to be conducted via routes, similar to those undertaken by units, first using the trains and then converting into sea convoys upon reaching the coast, then embarking again. I do not think trade buildings need exist; trade might be from the capitol, or simply to wherever. Trade units are never built, but spontaneously appear when needed like convoys.CoolBreeze_ wrote:
1 New building:"Commerce center" (a trading hub, of sorts...more on this later)
1 New relation:
"Trade" (between right of way and shared maps)
The idea is, once trade is established, each user would have to let the other know where their commerce buildings are, and once one is found and the trade unit is selected, instead of an attack option, it's a "trade" option. The unit proceeds to the designated site, then returns to it's origin. It gives a small cash bonus or random resource bonus, nothing too crazy. A random reward could be interesting.
I also think that, by default, all nations should in a state of trade with each other, rather than adding a relation. Only trade embargoes or war should stop this.
This would be fun! It would allow us to do naval blockades, which I for one would find interesting.CoolBreeze_ wrote:
This would be interesting to see users blockade trade routes, hit trade routes with submarines or to see users attach a navy, air force, or militarized convoy to their trade units.
All this being said...
Maybe this is simple. But nevertheless, as I replied to another user, I do not think this concept is harmonious with CoW's current paradigm, which is heavy on engagement between military units of brigade-size and up, with a focus on improvement of individual provinces, and universal command of all troops by you, the omniscient, all-seeing, instantly-obeyed player-leader. Essentially, Call of War is more simple than most games, and adding any one very complex feature (commanders, troop morale, rivers, infiltration, this, &c.) would throw the game's elegant simplicity off balance.CoolBreeze_ wrote:
I tried not to make the additions too hard for the staff to implement, that's why they're sort of basic! Let me know what you think!
Somebody here mentioned the Civilisation series of games. Civilisation in particular simulates the rise of a nation-state, being a turn-based 4X game featuring multiple facets. It can take thousands of years to finish a map. Healthcare, education, taxes, &c. are a feature.
Call of War is not like this. In the Grim Darkness of the Call of War 1940s, there is only war, and we are not governments but warlords. The only aspects of the game, really, are defence and economy (which in CoW, exists solely to enable further endless war). Call of War is set over to be played only for around 20-odd years, if that, and focuses exclusively on war.
In short, I like this idea. I just do not think it suits this game.
Please log in to post a reply.
