Comprehensive Suggestion List

Paramunac wrote:

No, it only means that most people register, try the game, and decide they don't like it. That is the case for most browser games. Including people who only play game for a day and in any statistics about player behaviour is pointless. If someone stops playing on first day, you can't include him in any calculation if you want it to be good.

Maybe the European maps could be kept with the troops as now and a larger range included for the more experienced player on world maps. I agree that the best games are those that are easy to learn but difficult to master, but boredom can creep in.

I play an interesting card game Dominion. You learn with a base set of cards, when you feel ready you gradually introduce more sets. If I had started playing with all the cards I play with now I would never have stuck with it. Some players stick with the base set for longer than others, it depends on what you enjoy. I see a parallel between the two games.

People, dont just quit cos they lose..

22 players, in my first game.. after 3 days there were only 8players..

Even if people, quit cos they lose.. (which isnt huge), I think that is of inferior importance, to the quality of the game..

This game, is becoming the same over and over..

we need 20 units added.. Tomorrow..

or like one a day, for 3 weeks..

The quality of the game does not matter if the devs close down the site because it is a drain on their funds.

I agree with Pablo here.

Quasi-duck wrote:

The quality of the game does not matter if the devs close down the site because it is a drain on their funds.

I agree with Pablo here.

cos a few players, leave..

if they game quality, improved, more people will play..

losing the game, isnt a reason to leave..

nobody is expecting to win, first time..

this game, can get very boring after a while, it just repeats its self, over and over..

if it wasnt for the World map, this game would prob be gone..

and it has soo much potential!

This game, needs more variables..

nobody knows everything about this game.. as it is!

there is an X-Factor, that nobody can predict..

so even if you are new or Wildl..

you still have a bit of leverage..

If people dont like the game, they leave

if people like the game, they stay..

people dont leave cos they lose, the first game they play.

this game isnt about winning..

its about enjoyment.. and trying hard, and thinking, and adapting..

yes, I guess if you are new, and somebody gold spams you, that might make a decision to leave

but making a simple boring game, so "we are all winners"

is a coward idea..

oceanhawk wrote:

it aint gonna drain their funds..

cos a few players, leave..

oceanhawk wrote:

I think, 20 more units should be added.. as well as a 3rd research slot.. (not from day 1)

or maybe even more than 20units.

more buildings, more skins, more maps

Oil rigs, fields, missile silos..

more can be added, as a simple game is boring, and easy..

This game is like chess.. as somebody said..

anyone can play, and people can win smaller maps, even if they are not very skilled..

but to become a brilliant player, it takes hard work..

But Im slowly, becoming tired, of the same old game play, over and over..

If it wasnt for the world map, I would have left this game, before X-Mas of last year..

I can't say I agree -- fully -- with 20 more units. I would like to see a few specialized units come in -- Paratroopers, Coastal Artillery, Mine Layer, to name a few -- but often enough that would be solved by fixing certain existing units.

• A separate research item could add "Paradrop" ability to Infantry (and not Militia) as an order that you can give to any Infantry (maybe morale must be 85% or higher) from an existing friendly airport and with a very limited range with that range getting a one-time boost with a second-tier research of a Paradrop Tier II branch.
• A separate research item could add "Lay Mines" ability to Destroyers (a process that would take a few hours to complete) at a sea-route nexus point.
• Regular Artillery should just have a stronger naval hit than they currently have for all levels (I address this disastrous lack of capability in another thread.

I do agree that the game does get repetitious after a while with similar outcomes and the same over-used strategies. I keep suggesting that the developers could implement a random map generator which I think would vastly improve the game play for those of use too used to this game as well as maintaining the level of simplicity needed to retain new and lesser-experienced players.

Pablo22510 wrote:

No, because by proving that, you prove that many people are simple-minded.

Some try out the game through an advert in Facebook. Some hear about it from others. Still some accidentally come across it via a Google search.

• Of all those people. Some try it...they don't get it...they leave. That's no big deal.
• Others try it...they do like it...they get it...they stay.
• Still others try it...they get it...they suck...they get obsessed and buy Gold...lots of Gold...the stay at least for a while.
• And then there's others who try it...they get it only a little...they find there is too much busy-ness in the game to be fully understood...they aren't simple...but it gets frustrating and the leap to expert user status is just beyond their reach...and they leave.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

it aint gonna drain their funds..

cos a few players, leave..

Look how many people leave as is, you said it yourself. Imagine how many would if they could not understand the game!

I think, that the enjoyment of the game,is driven from effort, tactics, and general straegy playing

not from having an easy win..

I like having to adapt, against my players, with new tactics

otherwise, this game would be boring..

and quote the full thing..

Few understand the full game

, and winning this game on small maps, can be done easy..

after 3 or 4 games, you can take the smaller maps..

we cant just hand out victories, to everyone,

then it would be worthless..

and boring

oceanhawk wrote:

leave cos gold spammers

oceanhawk wrote:

and quote the full thing..

Diabolical wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

I think, 20 more units should be added.. as well as a 3rd research slot.. (not from day 1)

or maybe even more than 20units.

more buildings, more skins, more maps

Oil rigs, fields, missile silos..

more can be added, as a simple game is boring, and easy..

This game is like chess.. as somebody said..

anyone can play, and people can win smaller maps, even if they are not very skilled..

but to become a brilliant player, it takes hard work..

But Im slowly, becoming tired, of the same old game play, over and over..

If it wasnt for the world map, I would have left this game, before X-Mas of last year..

I can't say I agree -- fully -- with 20 more units. I would like to see a few specialized units come in -- Paratroopers, Coastal Artillery, Mine Layer, to name a few -- but often enough that would be solved by fixing certain existing units.

• A separate research item could add "Paradrop" ability to Infantry (and not Militia) as an order that you can give to any Infantry (maybe morale must be 85% or higher) from an existing friendly airport and with a very limited range with that range getting a one-time boost with a second-tier research of a Paradrop Tier II branch.
• A separate research item could add "Lay Mines" ability to Destroyers (a process that would take a few hours to complete) at a sea-route nexus point.
• Regular Artillery should just have a stronger naval hit than they currently have for all levels (I address this disastrous lack of capability in another thread.

I also suggest that some issues could be relieved with the simple addition of a few more buildings. There are far too few buildings. But it wouldn't make much sense to add more features to existing buildings as much as to units IMHO. I've also started another thread exclusively for adding new buildings ideas.

I do agree that the game does get repetitious after a while with similar outcomes and the same over-used strategies. I keep suggesting that the developers could implement a random map generator which I think would vastly improve the game play for those of use too used to this game as well as maintaining the level of simplicity needed to retain new and lesser-experienced players.

Pablo22510 wrote:

No, because by proving that, you prove that many people are simple-minded.

Isn't that kinda insulting of most people? Think about this.

Some try out the game through an advert in Facebook. Some hear about it from others. Still some accidentally come across it via a Google search.

• Of all those people. Some try it...they don't get it...they leave. That's no big deal.
• Others try it...they do like it...they get it...they stay.
• Still others try it...they get it...they suck...they get obsessed and buy Gold...lots of Gold...the stay at least for a while.
• And then there's others who try it...they get it only a little...they find there is too much busy-ness in the game to be fully understood...they aren't simple...but it gets frustrating and the leap to expert user status is just beyond their reach...and they leave.

That last group is a surprisingly large number that will get much larger if the game gets much more complicated. But they aren't simple. They're just not that deep into strategy games. And that's OK.

I dont think, that we can have infantry, magically fly from here to there..

Yes, more buildings

I would rather, see specific mine units added..

like minsweepers. I think, more naval units are needed in the game. Very much so, to bridge the gap, between Cruiser, and Battleship.

But the games, enjoyment level, and level of gameplay,

out weighs, the loss of a few new players.

After a while this might end up like angry birds, just the same old game, that has your enjoyment for a week..

it needs to have variables, so each game will be different.

Like new player, maybe he likes art, maybe navy..

I dont think art guns need improvement for navy bombardment..

but we addressed that elsewhere..

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

leave cos gold spammers

All due respect, do you actually have stats for this? I know a guy who left because every game ended in everyone leaving when one person becomes powerful.

oceanhawk wrote:

and quote the full thing..

I'm sorry but, with all due respect, and I must be frank, I will not quote your full post as your formatting is a demon from Hell. Sorry.

I usually end up

typ

ing.......

like...

.. this. and I thingk its a pain

And, that is why, I am going to actually format better, cos when I read back it is a real pain.

But Id say, a few leave, cos they just get ticked off. Usually, when they voice their anger here in the forums, we tell them, its okay, we need gold, not every game there is a gold spammer. They can be between

and the rest.

But people, do not leave because, this game is complicated. Every thing new, takes time to learn

I agree with the new units. A quick list, perhaps?

Battlecruisers

Mine layers

Marines

Landing Craft

Engineers (unlike, say, snipers, they have full battalions for these guys)

Escort Carriers

F/A

There are more, I can't think of them and I am reading about bee-keeping so I cannot look.

Quasi-duck wrote:

I agree with the new units. A quick list, perhaps?

Battlecruisers

Mine layers

Marines

Landing Craft

Engineers (unlike, say, snipers, they have full battalions for these guys)

Escort Carriers

F/A

There are more, I can't think of them and I am reading about bee-keeping so I cannot look.

Rocket Submarines( yes again)

Cargo Planes

Interceptors- fighters new and distinction

Spy planes

Long range naval patrol aircraft

Airborne early warning

What can Engineers do?, Like what would their advantage be?

like AT Infantry?.. but weak vs other infantry?

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

I agree with the new units. A quick list, perhaps?

Battlecruisers

Mine layers

Marines

Landing Craft

Engineers (unlike, say, snipers, they have full battalions for these guys)

Escort Carriers

F/A

There are more, I can't think of them and I am reading about bee-keeping so I cannot look.

Escort carriers?

Rocket Submarines( yes again)

Cargo Planes

Interceptors- fighters new and distinction

Spy planes

Long range naval patrol aircraft

Airborne early warning

What can Engineers do?, Like what would their advantage be?

like AT Infantry?.. but weak vs other infantry?

oceanhawk wrote:

What can Engineers do?, Like what would their advantage be?

like AT Infantry?.. but weak vs other infantry?

Build forts?... we already have that.

maybe, Dragoons teeth? The anti-tank spikes

oceanhawk wrote:

Build forts?... we already have that.

oceanhawk wrote:

maybe, Dragoons teeth? The anti-tank spikes

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Build forts?... we already have that.

That isn't a fort, think WWI.

oceanhawk wrote:

maybe, Dragoons teeth? The anti-tank spikes

That too. Asparagus, ditches, temp. air strips, etc.

So what, trenches? I wouldnt like the idea, of adding this, to the game. Maybe they can build Dragoons teeth, and place sandbags or something, to give infantry a small bonus.. something like that. Really so far, I dont see enough uses. But I think, it is a step into something, that could be of interest, and great

oceanhawk wrote:

I wouldnt like the idea, of adding this, to the game. Maybe they can build Dragoons teeth, and place sandbags or something, to give infantry a small bonus.. something like that. Really so far, I dont see enough uses. But I think, it is a step into something, that could be of interest, and great

Engineers build forts on the road, making it simple as pie. Have you played HoI III? It would be like the dig-in feature of that.

How about we simplify it

Friendly - you and/or your coalition controlls all provinces

Enemy - Controlled by enemy, generally blocking you completely although some may let submarines through.

Neutral - You are neither friend or foe. Trade embargo blocks here.

Ok not that much simplifed but a little bit