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.
Here's some VERY comprehensive info... not sure as to the authenticity of the source but it's very detailed. 1942 secret tests, 1944 3 german subs actually installed themQuasi-duck wrote:
WWII model that saw combat please. We need a Soviet, American, and German one.FilipALFA wrote:
Submarines with rocket hatchesSome subarines have rocket hatches and that would be cool if we had like and carrier sub that carries rockets and then shoots them, only rockets above lvl1.
Very simple but very useful update is needed.
- in the "province list" or anywhere where MORALE is shown - there should be an arrow left or right - for "Falling" vs "Rising" or no arrow for "Stable"
At the moment you have to click on each province and then click the little "i" button to find if it's going up or down.
To see the trend is very helpful in determining when to build Fortresses... and I imagine is a very easy update.
Not to beat a dead horse...but the Nuclear vessels are to represent the invention of stuff in the 50's and early 60's. This game is meant to emulate a region of time from mid 1930's to mid 1960's, not just WWII.
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.I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but how about a server clock? I mean one that we can visibly see on screen.
Better yet, the option to adjust the clock to display your local time; this way the arrival times will be the player's local time.
Also, not sure if anyone mentioned it before.. lol
This is a bit of a vanity thing, but would be great if AFTER the game ends you could create an animation of the world with each frame representing a day - so that you can see how the game progressed at a glance. And brag/share with your friends. - not necessarily showing units, but provinces. would be enough to see the colors change. 
I actually really love that idea, on the world map that would be insane!Edward the 3rd wrote:
Also, not sure if anyone mentioned it before.. lolThis is a bit of a vanity thing, but would be great if AFTER the game ends you could create an animation of the world with each frame representing a day - so that you can see how the game progressed at a glance. And brag/share with your friends. - not necessarily showing units, but provinces. would be enough to see the colors change.
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??
So, you could be the weakest player in the game, but because you're part of the coalition with the winning player in it (or the top two players) you should also win? I think thats rather unfair.gunsofwar wrote:
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??
Team games already have this in it.
just saying if they are the last people standing anyway, there should be a possiblity to win. cause as i have seen so far, many coalition there is the players more or less equal or atleast in those games i have played. when coming to armies and land. so just meaning if there isnt any other players left than those in the coalition and more than 3 they should be able to win it without going to war against each other.. but that may just be me..TankBuster wrote:
So, you could be the weakest player in the game, but because you're part of the coalition with the winning player in it (or the top two players) you should also win? I think thats rather unfair.gunsofwar wrote:
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??Team games already have this in it.
I'm currently in a game that's full 100 coutrys and my coalition taken over everything, we're the last 6 countries.. 1 with 2500 stars, 3 with 800-900, and 2 with 300-400 stars. so I'm puzzled with what to do?? do I kick the bottom 3 players from the coalition and go after them?? seems like there's no choice but to turn on your own coalition which isn't rightgunsofwar wrote:
just saying if they are the last people standing anyway, there should be a possiblity to win. cause as i have seen so far, many coalition there is the players more or less equal or atleast in those games i have played. when coming to armies and land. so just meaning if there isnt any other players left than those in the coalition and more than 3 they should be able to win it without going to war against each other.. but that may just be me..TankBuster wrote:
So, you could be the weakest player in the game, but because you're part of the coalition with the winning player in it (or the top two players) you should also win? I think thats rather unfair.Team games already have this in it.gunsofwar wrote:
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??
Of course its right! Alls fair in love and war. They'd stab you in the back to win, so just make sure you can soundly defeat themEdward the 3rd wrote:
I'm currently in a game that's full 100 coutrys and my coalition taken over everything, we're the last 6 countries.. 1 with 2500 stars, 3 with 800-900, and 2 with 300-400 stars. so I'm puzzled with what to do?? do I kick the bottom 3 players from the coalition and go after them?? seems like there's no choice but to turn on your own coalition which isn't rightgunsofwar wrote:
just saying if they are the last people standing anyway, there should be a possiblity to win. cause as i have seen so far, many coalition there is the players more or less equal or atleast in those games i have played. when coming to armies and land. so just meaning if there isnt any other players left than those in the coalition and more than 3 they should be able to win it without going to war against each other.. but that may just be me..TankBuster wrote:
So, you could be the weakest player in the game, but because you're part of the coalition with the winning player in it (or the top two players) you should also win? I think thats rather unfair.Team games already have this in it.gunsofwar wrote:
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??
For the coalitions I think that it would be cool if two coalitions could ally with each other. I feel like this would make a lot of roleplays so much easier and more fun to play. Than we could have a lot of people in different coalitions fighting together against other coalitions. I feel like this could be a cool feature.
Suggestion:
Add a button where you can easily copy a city's name. This will allow the player to paste (ctrl - V) it in the chat, and coordinate attacks.
infantry should have multiple research lines. regular infantry have their rifles. heavy has bazooka so they are weaker against regular but stronger against armor and air.
also i think some sort of unit experience, i know rookie troops are usually going to lose against seasoned vets
I agree 100% a 6 player coalition on a 100 player map should be able to retire as victors after defeating everyone else. It is why except for team games I never form alliances with more than 2 others. Top 3 can retire ... 4 can't unless someone gets backstabbed. I know there are players out there that love the backstab a friend strategy. I personally don't. On the other hand there is no reason for large coalitions except on the 100 player map. So really to accomplish what you want...instead of a new coalition rule, just change the retire function on 100 player maps only. That should accomplish the same effect without changing the game play too much.gunsofwar wrote:
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??
PS I see there is a 50 player Pacific map now too. You could change the retire number on it as well.
TankBuster wrote:
Of course its right! Alls fair in love and war. They'd stab you in the back to win, so just make sure you can soundly defeat themEdward the 3rd wrote:
I'm currently in a game that's full 100 coutrys and my coalition taken over everything, we're the last 6 countries.. 1 with 2500 stars, 3 with 800-900, and 2 with 300-400 stars. so I'm puzzled with what to do?? do I kick the bottom 3 players from the coalition and go after them?? seems like there's no choice but to turn on your own coalition which isn't rightgunsofwar wrote:
just saying if they are the last people standing anyway, there should be a possiblity to win. cause as i have seen so far, many coalition there is the players more or less equal or atleast in those games i have played. when coming to armies and land. so just meaning if there isnt any other players left than those in the coalition and more than 3 they should be able to win it without going to war against each other.. but that may just be me..TankBuster wrote:
So, you could be the weakest player in the game, but because you're part of the coalition with the winning player in it (or the top two players) you should also win? I think thats rather unfair.Team games already have this in it.gunsofwar wrote:
this new coalition thing. i would suggest one should be able to win with the coalition otherwise there is really no point in having it. ofcause it shouldnt be like so everybody could join in and the map would be over. but more like there could be a max of players in a coalition depending on map. and if they are the last players/coalition standing they should be able to win the map... or is it just me??
Actually, I hate large coalitions but, in a long-winded match, many will drop out along the way (bored, life gets in the way, etc.).
It's sometimes pre-agreed upon that the top three remaining of a coalition will get it. But there's another solution: Any one player that reaches the winning threshold will end the game and the other (up to) 2 players that are in second and third place will also get Gold. Beyond that, the tinier players won't win, but the game can end quicker this way. The alternative is to invade your friends.
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.TankBuster wrote:
I actually really love that idea, on the world map that would be insane!Edward the 3rd wrote:
Also, not sure if anyone mentioned it before.. lolThis is a bit of a vanity thing, but would be great if AFTER the game ends you could create an animation of the world with each frame representing a day - so that you can see how the game progressed at a glance. And brag/share with your friends. - not necessarily showing units, but provinces. would be enough to see the colors change.
Actually, this would be simple to implement because the individual map summary in the World Herald already presents a frame. So the generating functionality is already there. But to do this on the main map would likely not be feasible.
This reminds me of the ending credits of some other games like the Civilization series.
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.Captain_Mo wrote:
Suggestion:Add a button where you can easily copy a city's name. This will allow the player to paste (ctrl - V) it in the chat, and coordinate attacks.
Actually, now you can copy on-screen text, so this isn't really a needed extra feature. Just select a city name on screen (Ctrl-C), and paste elsewhere (Ctrl-V).
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 could have a limited amount of people in coalitions, like 10 for the world map, 8 for 50 player map, 5 for 22 player map, 3 for 10 player map. In that case we would have more balanced acoalitions and the games would be fun. And than these little coalitions could get allied between echother and that would be great.
