No renaming provinces, that would be awful.
And very confusing...
25 Nov 2015, 21:13
Locked
Comprehensive Suggestion List
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Call of War unofficial Comprehensive Suggestion List.
The goal of this thread is to list everything that has been suggested on the forums, and categorize them based on what players want. For now, there will be a simple 3 category system, but in the future I may rank some items depending on how important they are, or the frequency of discussion.
Items in the "Positives" section have a general support from most players, and some are very likely to be added in the future. Items in the "Negatives" section have been discussed and have been found to be a feature that should not be added to Call of War. Items in the "Undecided" category have mixed reviews and probably need more discussion to determine whether the majority of players want them or not. So, without further ado...
List of Suggestions for Call of War:
Positive Reviews:
- Aircraft no longer defending against ground troops when not moving on an airfield
- Disbanding Units
- Marines
- Paratrooper (sorry Bill)
- Trading technology
- Larger amount of men per infantry unit
- Pacific Map
- Faroe islands
- Tank Destroyers
- Coastal Guns
- Naval Bomber Buff
- Railroad gun buff
- Cancel all orders button
- Radio operators
- Breaking down buildings
- Commando rebalance w/ stealth
- Minelayers + sweeper ships
- Cruiser variants
- Corvettes/Patrol Boats
- Escort ships
- World Map
- Kiel Canal
- Group Conversations
- Intelligence Station building
- Ocean Zones (to incentivize island hopping)
- Other Maps (America, Middle East, Asia, etc.)
- Group Chat for nations
- Healing buildings
- Healing troops
- Farms/food rebalancing
- SAM (mix of bomber and fighter)
- Dynamic view range in different terrain
- Sort TRADE LIST provinces in alphabetical order
- Resource Sliders (like S1914)
- Buffing Infantry
- Less resource intake from building things (food, manpower, etc.)
- Tanks/mech inf only using oil when moving
- More specific types of bombers (subject to change)
- Multiple ports
- Old graphics
- Police
- Recruiting office
- Non-core production penalty removal
- Minimap
- Super Weapons
- play as small AI countries
- Retreating
- Renaming Provinces
- Province detail page
- Kicking active players for RP
- Prize Wheel (like S1914)
- Capturing planes
- Music
- Wonder Weapons
- Supply line logistics
- Different Monetization features
- Tank destroying aircraft
- Faster railroads
- Bunkers
- Limit on Nukes/Reactors
- Naming Regiments
- Province View
- Weather
- Encirclement debuffing troops/province
- Medals for First/Second/Third
- Choosing where to place airfields within provinces
- Rivers
- Gold-free games
- Gold limits
- Radar
- Deconstruction
I'm sure there's plenty of things that I've missed here, so feel free to include any suggestions I may have missed.
689 Replies
26 Nov 2015, 07:24
It would lower the standards for definite.
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
26 Nov 2015, 15:21
Completely. We have established this now. Next suggestion!
26 Nov 2015, 17:56 (edited)
Well i would like to slip in my "dynamic view range" idea that is explained on another thread
Forum Gang Divine Entity
Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.
26 Nov 2015, 21:40
Okay.
27 Nov 2015, 07:35
I seem to remember that never kicked off.
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
4 Dec 2015, 04:01
I know my last post was quite the wall and got no attention (page 11), but this one part is very important to me and I would like to see some traction on this:
Diabolical wrote:
I think allowing one non-Gold match at a time, per player, would ease the concerns of Bytro about cutting into their profit and I think it would be a reasonable compromise on Bytro's part to allow this change for the benefit of the hard-core strategists who just want a pure strategy game.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
4 Dec 2015, 17:54
Yea, with the rate of how often most players visit per day, I'd be much more open to ad revenue than some of the broken options we have for gold, or at least minimizing it a bit
"A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."
"Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."
"It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"
"Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."
"It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"
4 Dec 2015, 22:39
True...aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:
Yea, with the rate of how often most players visit per day, I'd be much more open to ad revenue than some of the broken options we have for gold, or at least minimizing it a bit
4 Dec 2015, 22:52
no ads in game
I think put them up in the main page and maybe the forum
think leaving them outta the game is ideal
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
12 Dec 2015, 17:33
The in-game ads are a fairly new thing and they are hugely annoying especially on smaller screens. Plus, when closed they periodically re-open and -- for some users -- can cause a seriously deficient gaming experience.
I actually support the use of Gold in moderation and I also encourage it's and the High Command's purchases for the sake of the game and it's servers. Bytro is in it for the money but we can't continue to enjoy this awesome free game without some way for it to be paid for.
That's why I am calling for a simple compromise that would make everybody happy. If each player had an option to have one of their current matches be a Gold-less match, then they won't feel bad if they lose to a Gold-spammer in another match. They can rely on their [hopefully] superior strategy to preserve their chances at victory in that match even though they may be destined to [die a most gruesome and horrible death and] lose in some of their other matches.
So, lets encourage Bytro to allow this one-non-Gold-spending-match-at-a-time idea to balance the game for those of us too poor or too strategically-minded to use Gold. If I could afford it, I would buy the High Command, myself just to support the game. But I would never be interested in purchasing Gold except as a defense against the Gold-spammers on rare occasions.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
12 Dec 2015, 18:40
ads on thr forums, as I recommened
not in game,
yep gold less games
also need more for HC
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
12 Dec 2015, 18:40
I wish this was not true, but compromises never make everyone happy.Diabolical wrote:
That's why I am calling for a simple compromise that would make everybody happy.
13 Dec 2015, 02:44
No compromise can please everyone. But that's not the point. Compromise requires sacrifice on all sides. Bytro must sacrifice a fraction of their potential profit. The gold players must sacrifice this one match. The strategy players must sacrifice their desire to reduce gold spamming across all matches that they play.
Compromises can never work unless all sides agree to sacrifice at least something. The problem is that Bytro has not shown a willingness to sacrifice anything -- in fact -- demonstrating a will to increase their efforts at the expense of playability by adding screen-waste that hurts users with smaller screens and portable devices (the in-game ads).
I think that if Bytro were to accede to my suggestion of allowing players to have a one-at-a-time Gold-less match, then they'd demonstrate a strong sense or shared community with the players and I think the goodwill shared by all would vastly improve. I also believe strongly that it would actually see an increase in revenue for Bytro because users are -- in fact -- customers and a happy customer is more likely to purchase premium features.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
13 Dec 2015, 03:21
There is a thread about the gold-subject where this discussion really belongs.
=> Realistic solution to toxic gold use (without removing gold)
14 Dec 2015, 03:31
Difficulties finding a province in the transaction list
Maybe you already found out, but I only just did:
When you type the first character of the province name you are looking for, the list gives you the 1st province starting with that character.
Type again and again that same first character and you - as it were - scroll through all the provinces with that first same character from top to bottom of the list until you have your province you were looking for..
And if you type fast enough, you can even specify the first 2 characters
This eases the effort of finding the province, though still not ideal.
Ideally, the list should be alphabetical ofc...
14 Dec 2015, 11:22
Devs, are you read this thread?
It will be great, if add option for disband units, soon 
It will greatly helps us with food issue on 100 players map.
Thank you.
15 Dec 2015, 09:00
I noticed that in the world map there are provinces with the same names. That IMO hurts the bigest argument against this suggestion. As long as you can only rename a non-core province once, and do so within 24 hours after you capture it, it's not as extreme an idea.purplepizza117 wrote:
No renaming provinces, that would be awful.And very confusing...
15 Dec 2015, 23:19
What does IMO mean?jackass01992 wrote:
That IMO hurts the bigest argument against this suggestion.
16 Dec 2015, 09:56
The extreme rarity of duplicate province names is the exception that proves the rule. It is so unlikely to be an issue that it proves there can be no argument in favor of renaming provinces. Besides, it would be vastly confusing for most players and it would screw up the World Herald. Also, what would be to stop a player from renaming all of their provinces with the same name which would defeat your reasoning in the first placse? And what if if they renamed their provinces with NEARLY the same name (to bypass anti-duplication rules) like prov1, prov2, prov3, prov4, prov5, etc., or with ridiculous names like "uRITYEIREOOIEOTIU", or with vulgar, hateful, or even libelous names?jackass01992 wrote:
I noticed that in the world map there are provinces with the same names. That IMO hurts the bigest argument against this suggestion. As long as you can only rename a non-core province once, and do so within 24 hours after you capture it, it's not as extreme an idea.purplepizza117 wrote:
No renaming provinces, that would be awful.And very confusing...
No, this is an idea that has far too much potential for problems and more problems. Bytro's developers would be wise not to even consider this one.
it's common chat/texting slang for "in my opinion". Also, IMHO means "in my humble opinion".purplepizza117 wrote:
What does IMO mean?jackass01992 wrote:
That IMO hurts the bigest argument against this suggestion.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
This thread is locked. No new replies can be posted.
