Country Boost

It's a good idea, but the proper distribution of bonuses is a problem.

Why the German armor is better? Their technique is good, but the best quality metal was in Britain, their armor had the best properties. A Russian armored vehicles had to be penetrated worse, but it was very nice to drive what makes them effective. All these countries provide a bonus?

Why Britain bonus ships? Remember the battle of Bismarck and Hood and other battles on the water, where it is obvious that no advantage was not. Often, they have won at the expense of the numerical superiority. If you recall the submarines, it is obvious that the sea has to be a bonus from the Germans. But they had great difficulty in the construction of large ships. Maybe the UK should be a bonus in terms of construction of large ships? But America quickly built small ships, and Canada too quickly build commercial ships, Japan quickly build aircraft carriers. It makes no sense to give a bonus to some one.

What to do with minor countries? What do you give a bonus of Yugoslavia or Algeria?

Maybe let the player at the start of the game to choose a bonus?

In addition, if we have something to raise the bonus, we have to do something to reduce by a penalty.

Sandevot wrote:

It's a good idea, but the proper distribution of bonuses is a problem.

Why the German armor is better? Their technique is good, but the best quality metal was in Britain, their armor had the best properties. A Russian armored vehicles had to be penetrated worse, but it was very nice to drive what makes them effective. All these countries provide a bonus?

Why Britain bonus ships? Remember the battle of Bismarck and Hood and other battles on the water, where it is obvious that no advantage was not. Often, they have won at the expense of the numerical superiority. If you recall the submarines, it is obvious that the sea has to be a bonus from the Germans. But they had great difficulty in the construction of large ships. Maybe the UK should be a bonus in terms of construction of large ships? But America quickly built small ships, and Canada too quickly build commercial ships, Japan quickly build aircraft carriers. It makes no sense to give a bonus to some one.

What to do with minor countries? What do you give a bonus of Yugoslavia or Algeria?

Maybe let the player at the start of the game to choose a bonus?

In addition, if we have something to raise the bonus, we have to do something to reduce by a penalty.

The game has many players who start the game and become inactive. for something to avoid this we can motivate players to continue the game and play as best as possible with the help of the bonus, you are talking about. We can reward players bonuses if they are captured by the provinces more than the lost provinces.

eg:

if captured provinces is 10 times more than the lost - a bonus to infantry, tanks, ships, aircraft and nuclear weapons.

if 8 times more - a bonus to infantry, tanks, ships, aircraft

if 6 times more - a bonus for tanks, ships and aircraft

if 4 times more - a bonus to the ships and aircraft

if 2 times more - a bonus for ships

if the proportion of 1 to 1 - no bonuses and penalties

if 2 times less - a penalty for ships

If 4 times less - a penalty by ships and aircraft

if 6 times less - a penalty of tanks, ships and aircraft

if 8 times less - a penalty to the infantry, tanks, ships, aircraft

if 10 times less - a penalty to the infantry, tanks, ships, aircraft and nuclear weapons

it will be very good motivation

I like it. Reason for Germany is armor however is because it often took as many 7 M4 Sherman tanks to take down a single Tiger tank. Plus Germany basically wrote the book on modern tank warfare. Also Germany's meduim and light tanks should be faster because they were used in the Blitzkerig or Lighting War to very good effect. In fact early Cromwells armed with the 6-pound gun would bounce off the rear of a Tiger I.

Brits may have good metal but the tanks had thin armour easily penetrated and tiny guns. USA could build a BB in a week. I have thought of this idea but I don't really like it. Especially for the penalties and bonuses. Noobs join games with better players who know how to play which would give people like us a distinct advantage. Also, it would be very unfair if an ally betrayed you while you were already fighting someone since you would have to fight a two front war and if you start losing provinces you get significantly weaker.

The Americans couldn't build a BB in a week. However they could build a Liberty ship in about four days.

They did build a BB in a week but they only did it once.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Also, it would be very unfair if an ally betrayed you while you were already fighting someone since you would have to fight a two front war and if you start losing provinces you get significantly weaker.

Thats no fun.

not fan when players become inactive.

possible in RP you can trust a neighbor, but in other games it does not make sense

Me, personally, during the 3 years or so I've been playing S1914 and CoW, I've been betrayed only twice, one in each. In both cases I lost. I agree with Sandevot. Don't trust ANYBODY.

I've been betrayed multiple time and only won once. On the world map in S1914 I was betrayed by 2 of my 4 allies while fighting someone else.

I etrayed a person only ONCE. This was because playing as Morocco, I had sent alliance offers to everybody near me, thinking that at least one wouldn't accept. Everybody accepted so I had to betray Spain.

Haha, I remember one time when I betrayed someone, that's during my time in S1914, I betrayed people on 2 different occasion but with one reason why...they either try to hit me or there just weak to be any help to me. I don't normally betray and I can be quite steadfast and loyal, but when you show your weakness then you better watch out.