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:
I'm sure there's plenty of things that I've missed here, so feel free to include any suggestions I may have missed.
??Quasi-duck wrote:
You said RINT are jets. RINT stands rocket interceptor, which are quite clearly not jets, like you said. You make so many moronic statements it is a disgrace.oceanhawk wrote:
yes rockets are not jets...
lets just leave it here.. shall we
Seems like a case of selective blindness to me!oceanhawk wrote:
??
Germany had a good ground force during the second world war, but they did not control the seas.Redd Baron wrote:
I am aware of this. But I suspect the reason the Germans never developed one for carriers is they didn't ever complete their carrier. If they had completed their carrier, a rocket interceptor would have made perfect sense. The japanese actually had a design for one, even had a carrier based jet in the works, just never got off the drawing board and onto a ship. All the carrier producing countries were working on rocket assist. So it's not too big a leap.But since this game isn't 100% historical, but rather allows to to run your country a bit differently than the rest.......It is something a country could have done, if they were so inclined.
Exactly. Comes down to allocation of resources. Germany had rints but never completed a carrier. Other countries had carriers, but no operational rints. Thus it was never seen in the historical WWII a carrier based rint. However, we are playing a game where we get to allocate resources. It would seem to me that it wouldn't be too big a stretch to believe that a country allocating the resources to both carriers and rints to develope a carrier based rocket interceptor at the appropriate tech level of carrier and also having already developed rocket planes.Maximilien wrote:
Germany had a good ground force during the second world war, but they did not control the seas.Redd Baron wrote:
I am aware of this. But I suspect the reason the Germans never developed one for carriers is they didn't ever complete their carrier. If they had completed their carrier, a rocket interceptor would have made perfect sense. The japanese actually had a design for one, even had a carrier based jet in the works, just never got off the drawing board and onto a ship. All the carrier producing countries were working on rocket assist. So it's not too big a leap.But since this game isn't 100% historical, but rather allows to to run your country a bit differently than the rest.......It is something a country could have done, if they were so inclined.
After all, even Japan developed the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka rocket plane. Not much of a stretch to think they could have developed a carrier based rocket interceptor if they had allocated resources to its development.
Correct.Redd Baron wrote:
Exactly. Comes down to allocation of resources. Germany had rints but never completed a carrier. Other countries had carriers, but no operational rints. Thus it was never seen in the historical WWII a carrier based rint. However, we are playing a game where we get to allocate resources. It would seem to me that it wouldn't be too big a stretch to believe that a country allocating the resources to both carriers and rints to develope a carrier based rocket interceptor at the appropriate tech level of carrier and also having already developed rocket planes.After all, even Japan developed the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka rocket plane. Not much of a stretch to think they could have developed a carrier based rocket interceptor if they had allocated resources to its development.
If you think about it, that was a carrier aircraft, just not in the CV sense as it was deployed from a mothership.Redd Baron wrote:
After all, even Japan developed the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka rocket plane. Not much of a stretch to think they could have developed a carrier based rocket interceptor if they had allocated resources to its development.
Correct.Quasi-duck wrote:
If you think about it, that was a carrier aircraft, just not in the CV sense as it was deployed from a mothership.
Actually, wasn't the rocket interceptor not actually what the Germans were building? They created the world's first jet-powered aircraft...wholly separate from their advanced rocket technology. So...why aren't there any jet fighters, hm? Are we supposed to believe the Rocket Fighter is good enough? What if Germany had successfully held off the allies long enough to really expand their jet power? The war might have gone far differently had they been able to bomb allied ships and factories with controllable craft so fast that they'd never get shot down.
By definition, a Rocket Interceptor would be too fast to intercept moving targets with any seriousness. At best, they'd only make a super version of a kamikaze flying bomb...sort of a prototype to the guided missile. But the German's jet fighter was just slow enough and controllable enough to allow for maneuverability and repeated attacks. Also, a Rocket "Interceptor" would never be able to safely land on a return trip unless gliding without rocket power on landing.
Of course, I could be wrong. But it doesn't make sense to keep calling it thus.
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.We do have jet fighters and such, look at the last levels of the fighters/ Bombers. But the rocket interceptor is meant to be an early attempt as jet technology.
Look at the lvl 6 int.....Diabolical wrote:
So...why aren't there any jet fighters, hm?
Diabolical wrote:
By definition, a Rocket Interceptor would be too fast to interceptmoving targets with any seriousness. At best, they'd only make a super
version of a kamikaze flying bomb...sort of a prototype to the guided
missile. But the German's jet fighter was just slow enough and
controllable enough to allow for maneuverability and repeated attacks.
Also, a Rocket "Interceptor" would never be able to safely land on a
return trip unless gliding without rocket power on landing.
It does, Germany had a RINT, the Me 163.Diabolical wrote:
Of course, I could be wrong. But it doesn't make sense to keep calling it thus.
You do know that modern fighters fly at mach 1+ right?
level 6 interceptor has the picture of "Iljuschen Il-10". I don't recognize it. But it's clearly a propeller-driven aircraft and probably rated too fast at nearly 800KPH.
And modern fighters DO fly at mach +1 when they want to, but typically slow down for maneuverability. There are speed controls on them, you know.
Speed for bombing runs, maneuverability for dogfights...you can't max out both at the same time or the aircraft will rip apart shortly after the pilot's heart get's crushed by his rib cage and several of his organs get squished out of a rupture in his throat.
The question really is thus: how many G-forces can YOU withstand?
But remember, jet technology and rocket technology are completely unrelated paths though the results are somewhat similar...speed. But rocket technology has a preset speed that is eventually reached and remains at that speed until the fuel source is cutoff or depleted whereas jet technology has a speed that can be adjusted...and afterburners are adustible also.
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 Germans have 2, the US one.Diabolical wrote:
level 6 interceptor has the picture of "Iljuschen Il-10".
No one dogfights anymore, air-to-air missiles are used instead. The Americans made a plane for dog-fighting in Vietnam and got destroyed from air-to-air missiles.Diabolical wrote:
maneuverability for dogfights
A fighter pilot is about +/- 11 with a G-suit I believe.Diabolical wrote:
how many G-forces can YOU withstand?
Speaking of pictures for the technology levels...why are all the aircraft carriers based on Russian technology? There were more aircraft carriers build by the United States than most nations combined. The two top-most number of carriers built were the Essex class and the Independence class. But, even though this game pays homage to World War II era, not one of the pictures is representative of American interests nor the world's most prolific carrier of the era. Neither Essex nor Independence is represented when they ought to be the first pictures chosen to represent the carriers.
Well, that last paragraph WAS going to be my complaint of the day...BUT it occurred to me that since all the carriers listed were Russian or Soviet designed, I ought to check one of my games where I'm playing as America. So, to prevent further foot-in-mouth-ism-ness, I will state that for an American player, the Lexington, Yorktown, Essex, Liberty, Midway, and Forrestal classes are all represented. SO....hats off to Bytro for actually making the pictures relevant to the nation being played.
Still, it would have been nice to realize this BEFORE typing that first paragraph. BUT, if you -- the reader -- are wondering why I didn't just delete it, realize that I thought it might just make you smile to let it be seen.
Have a nice day.
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.Quasi-duck wrote:
The Germans have 2, the US one.Diabolical wrote:
level 6 interceptor has the picture of "Iljuschen Il-10".No one dogfights anymore, air-to-air missiles are used instead. The Americans made a plane for dog-fighting in Vietnam and got destroyed from air-to-air missiles.Diabolical wrote:
maneuverability for dogfightsA fighter pilot is about +/- 11 with a G-suit I believe.Diabolical wrote:
how many G-forces can YOU withstand?
I seem to remember Top Gun indicating that the dogfight skills -- when enhanced -- were what brought the United Stattes BACK ON TOP in the air war fighter vs. fighter campaigns. Missiles won't win everything if you can't get a lock. Slower speed higher maneuverability works when missiles fail.
Missiles are awesome. They have powerful guidance systems. They could even go all Skynet on us. But they still won't win the day when you run out of them in a dogfight.
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.That is why your plane should fly faster than theirs.Diabolical wrote:
But they still won't win the day when you run out of them in a dogfight.
Yeah, tactical egg. Do a vertical loop. Then fire missiles.Diabolical wrote:
I seem to remember Top Gun indicating that the dogfight skills -- when enhanced -- were what brought the United Stattes BACK ON TOP in the air war fighter vs. fighter campaigns
Missiles use Rocket Technology which is faster than jet technology. Thus you can't outrun a missile. It is FAR easier to outmaneuver a missile (even if you have to outmaneuver multiple times while it keeps re-acquiring the target until it runs out of rocket fuel).
Another benefit of jet tech over rocket tech...rocket fuel burns out far faster. So, if you can outmaneuver even the smartest of missiles for a few passes, it will eventually fall from the sky (or self-detonate, maybe).
A good pilot relies on all the above and knows when to employ what and for how long. His commander, back at the base where he's flying out of, can only guide him so much. The radar guys can only tell him so much.
A pilot is singly entrusted with a vastly expensive and ultimately powerful killing machine that requires the utmost of training and skills. He or she must have natural talent and coordination combined with an excellent spatial acuity. They must have highly intelligent reasoning yet unflinchingly act with the most daring of courageous maneuvers. They must take all of that skill and talent and training and approach it with a highly acute sense of professionalism and a total willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause.
But, in spite of all of that -- or in addition to -- a pilot's reasoning and decision-making skills must be absolutely trusted by those whom he or she is representing in the skies. Without that trust by those dependent on the pilot to perform his duty, he or she can not be fully successful in precision combat.
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.Whatever, I read about what I read from a USAF pilot in Vietnam, so I'm sticking to my guns. This isn't the place to talk about it either.Diabolical wrote:
Missiles use Rocket Technology which is faster than jet technology. Thus you can't outrun a missile. It is FAR easier to outmaneuver a missile (even if you have to outmaneuver multiple times while it keeps re-acquiring the target until it runs out of rocket fuel).Another benefit of jet tech over rocket tech...rocket fuel burns out far faster. So, if you can outmaneuver even the smartest of missiles for a few passes, it will eventually fall from the sky (or self-detonate, maybe).
A good pilot relies on all the above and knows when to employ what and for how long. His commander, back at the base where he's flying out of, can only guide him so much. The radar guys can only tell him so much.
A pilot is singly entrusted with a vastly expensive and ultimately powerful killing machine that requires the utmost of training and skills. He or she must have natural talent and coordination combined with an excellent spatial acuity. They must have highly intelligent reasoning yet unflinchingly act with the most daring of courageous maneuvers. They must take all of that skill and talent and training and approach it with a highly acute sense of professionalism and a total willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause.
But, in spite of all of that -- or in addition to -- a pilot's reasoning and decision-making skills must be absolutely trusted by those whom he or she is representing in the skies. Without that trust by those dependent on the pilot to perform his duty, he or she can not be fully successful in precision combat.
*Cracks knuckles*
I have a 2 ideas, that I know have been discussed before but here goes,
- The Ability to change a countries flag.
Would add more realism into roleplaying for a start in certain scenarios. Would be great to have this feature on the world map, because some of those flags are ugly *cough* Mongolia *cough*. Plus it makes the game more fun, little things like this are just really cool and should be in the game. We can even add a moderation system for it too, to avoid inappropriate images. (Cos' it's in S1914.. I think.)
- Change the name/title of a countries leader.
Maybe not the most demanded feature to be added, but an important one none the less. Once again, would add more realism for roleplaying and can be useful in any game really. (Once again, moderation system)
Didn't really go in-depth but didn't really need to, it's simple!
There's also a lot of problems with the world map when it comes to the spelling of provinces and even countries.
E.g the Caribbean is spelt Carribbean, and the flags when playing as the Caribbean are messed up. (Last I checked)
I'll add more when I remember.
As a programmer, I can tell you that implementing a name-changing feature or picture-changing feature is horribly complex in a server/client situation. The database that tracks statistics and order of objects would be broken with bad links to non-existent default names and whatnot.
Just the idea of trying to implement something like this would be daunting, but the users would find it confusing too. After all, when playing as a European nation in the World Map, and the News Reports indicate that an Atomic Bomber has been constructed in your neighbor's nation which he's just renamed "Voodoo Land", trying to figure out which nation and where that potentially devastating unit could be located becomes untenable.
That being said, having the ability to pre-edit names and game objects for a match would be interesting and more doable than on-the-fly editing, but that really falls under the pirvue of a modding system which -- as far as I know -- the developers at Bytro are not included to permit.
Believe me, I would love to get a hold of the source code and start "tweaking" it for fun. Who wants to see a modern day version of the game? ...Or a what-if scenario where Hitler never rose to power or the South won the Civil War or the Inca were never wiped out and are now the most dominate nation on earth? Or, who wouldn't want to see a futuristic mod of the game where aliens have landed and devastated humanity in an apocalyptic post-war era where humanity scrounges for the scraps of their alien overlords while secretly plotting a massive planet-wide rebellion?
The point is, that making those kinds of changes is very hard in an MMORPG on a dynamic basis. But, if you REALLY want to see the changes like what you are requesting, you should instead request of Bytro to release the source code (or an interface to protect their copyrights) which would allow the modding community to take this game to the next level...and the next...and the next...ad infinitum.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. If there are misspellings, and you aren't sure whether they are considered indigenously accurate, there is a section of the forum just for alerting the folks upstairs to the possible issue. The same is true for images, I think. Just check in the forums under:
Support & Feedback >> Bug Reports and Issues >> (sticky) Spelling and Grammar Checks: Ongoing Thread >>
There you can draw attention to all those misspellings and geographical problems that you've noticed.
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.And portrait!Not A Communist wrote:
*Cracks knuckles*I have a 2 ideas, that I know have been discussed before but here goes,
- The Ability to change a countries flag.
Would add more realism into roleplaying for a start in certain scenarios. Would be great to have this feature on the world map, because some of those flags are ugly *cough* Mongolia *cough*. Plus it makes the game more fun, little things like this are just really cool and should be in the game. We can even add a moderation system for it too, to avoid inappropriate images. (Cos' it's in S1914.. I think.)
- Change the name/title of a countries leader.
Maybe not the most demanded feature to be added, but an important one none the less. Once again, would add more realism for roleplaying and can be useful in any game really. (Once again, moderation system)
Didn't really go in-depth but didn't really need to, it's simple!
There's also a lot of problems with the world map when it comes to the spelling of provinces and even countries.
E.g the Caribbean is spelt Carribbean, and the flags when playing as the Caribbean are messed up. (Last I checked)
I'll add more when I remember.
