I heard it sounds like they are angry when they talk, but I'm not sure, I haven't heard it myself.MontanaBB wrote:
Good guess, QD. Basque is not one of those easy-to-learn Romance language in which everything is very similar to the previous Romance language you learned. In fact, Basque is really nothing like anything else, and even professional linguists don't really know where the hell it came from. It predates and survived the Roman occupation of the Iberian peninsula when no other extant language did.Quasi-duck wrote:
I doubt your Basque is any good either
How Call of War needs to expand
Call of War, like any decent game, needs to keep expanding, adding new things and implementing new stuff constantly, not only to attract more users, but also to make old players stay. Before I start, please take this as constructive criticism. I deeply appreciate what Call of War developers are doing, and they only need to take it as an advice to improve.
Call of War is doing all of the things I said before. To cut things short, it is expanding. But what I believe is in the wrong direction. It is adding new units. Some units (like tank destroyers) were good additions, but others, like nuclear carriers, were a complete waste of the devs' time. Pretty much no one uses them. However, their error is not only the fact that they have added useless units. No. Their error is adding units.
Unit-adding is necessary. I don't say the opposite. But once you have as many units as Call of War has, you get to a point where it isn't necessary to add any more. Right now, there are maximum 3 units I can think of that would be a good addition to Call of War: paratroopers, marines, and maybe, only maybe, frigates for convoy escorting. Units like missile submarines and missile destroyers are like nuclear carriers and nuclear battleships: only used by a handful. Unit-adding is simply adding 'depth' to the game. Call of War needs to expand in 'width'.
What do I mean by expanding in 'width'? I mean adding more game mechanics. I will probably be told off for mentioning Hearts of Iron 4. It is not in direct competence with Call of War, as Call of War is free, but they are similar games. First of all, let me just say that I do not expect Call of War to be as remotely complex as Hearts of Iron 4. No. That's why Hearts of Iron 4 is pay-to-play and Call of War is free. But what Call of War needs to do is to add some game mechanics similar, albeit more basic, to those seen in Hearts of Iron 4.
Before I start explaining what Call of War should add, let me do a basic run-through of what Hearts of Iron 4 has that makes it so desirable. It has complex mechanics on the economic, diplomatic, intelligence, military and political fronts. That was the run-through. Now, let me explain what Call of War should do. There are very few things Call of War can do to improve the military experience. Maybe add pre-planned attacks, front lines and offensive lines, but that isn't a priority. The diplomatic side of things is OK now, with coalitions and all. It's the intelligence, economic and political sides that Bytro should concentrate on.
On the political side, simply adding ideologies for countries (fascism, Communism and democracy/capitalism) and pros and cons for adopting one or another ideology would do a huge change. Maybe add political power, like in Hearts of Iron 4, or something similar, which would grow each day, depending on how many Victory Points you have, and advisors, both military and economical, that would be achieved using political power and would give small boosts to certain areas, e.g. military and economical. That is all.
The intelligence side of it doesn't need much work. Simply adding a few more types of missions for spies would be great.
Finally, the economic approach. It should be two-pronged. One of them should be buildings. Buildings like farms (to get wheat production), oil rigs (for oil) and others would make a big change. The other side of the approach should be research. The economy should have a research tree of its own, to improve stuff such as production and to improve the amount of production increase that buildings such as the proposed farms and oil rigs increase.
That is all.
Comments?
@Quasi-duck @Ellio_98 @Sir McSquiggles @MontanaBB @TankBuster @Paramunac
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
29 Replies
If you want an angry-sounding language, try Japanese in a samurai movie.
Hahahaha, I was about to make several inappropriate Japanese jokes. Their culture is great, in a bad/good way.
You just gave me quite the chuckleQuasi-duck wrote:
And add presidential races.vex03 wrote:
I think CoW definitely needs to expand its political, diplomatic and economic features.I feel as if Player to AI diplomacy could be expanded on.
I like the idea of a economic research tree, along with the political ideas mentioned above.

#Trump2016
'Twas the plan. Are we due another?vex03 wrote:
You just gave me quite the chuckleQuasi-duck wrote:
And add presidential races.vex03 wrote:
I think CoW definitely needs to expand its political, diplomatic and economic features.I feel as if Player to AI diplomacy could be expanded on.
I like the idea of a economic research tree, along with the political ideas mentioned above.
I have to say that upon reading this, I believe we both what CoW to move in the same way. However, I have one request that CoW must become before anything else: please become downloadable.
Reason: Games like War Thunder and World of Tanks are free to play, but require a download due to the size and complex style of the game. CoW is bound to a browser based code, meaning anything they do will have to abide by the code. Becoming downloadable would give the devs a huge new amount of play room. The game could remain free-to-play as it is, so they wouldn't make a loss on profit.
Another thing is that politics, economics and the minor combat changes you mentioned are going to be vital. I'm sure someone can sit there, at Bytro (when they stop coding crates- God, 'crates' are becoming a CoW meme) and research types of government features and apply reasonable pros-cons. Economy speaks for its self, i'm 80 days into a 100 player match and the only reason i'm not crashing is because I bought lots in the first month of the game. New buildings and a research tree would be incredible.
I'd love the ability to set my general staff, or group divisions under a certain leader. Of course, CoW needs to release that an 'Army' or 'Army group' would be better for that (but I shall stop going on about organisation, because its my pet hate) and economic advisers would be great: think of all the great industrialists that worked during the second world war? Or the inventors? We have untapped potential.
As for units, recently I've began using every unit in the game: NB for scouting for elite subs, even the Militia because Italy starts off half dead during the Med.41 map. I'd like paras and marines, along with new planes (fighter-bombers pls) and ships. However, I feel like we're going to get crates again....
Note: "Crates"- a CoW player term referring to a feature that no one asked for.
"Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher
"The 3 Requisites for Success โ Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher
Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW
Game Username: LordStark01
Bytro is a company who do brownser games, if you change that now you create HOI3 but in real time... i think is a bad idea, so is one of the best brownser games and no all the people can download games, with the HTML5 code you can do a lot of things, yes, the game engine is slower that a download game, but is enought to play, remember, is a strategy game, if you put a realist mode this game don't have the same essense.TankBuster wrote:
I have to say that upon reading this, I believe we both what CoW to move in the same way. However, I have one request that CoW must become before anything else: please become downloadable.Reason: Games like War Thunder and World of Tanks are free to play, but require a download due to the size and complex style of the game. CoW is bound to a browser based code, meaning anything they do will have to abide by the code. Becoming downloadable would give the devs a huge new amount of play room. The game could remain free-to-play as it is, so they wouldn't make a loss on profit.
Just let you know that games like hoi3 don't have a reaist mode, so we are playing the famous game "RISK" but in the brownser and in real time.
Nothing more to add.
It wasn't a goodbye, only a see you later.
Yes of course. I'm planning on launching another very very soon!Quasi-duck wrote:
'Twas the plan. Are we due another?vex03 wrote:
You just gave me quite the chuckleQuasi-duck wrote:
And add presidential races.vex03 wrote:
I think CoW definitely needs to expand its political, diplomatic and economic features.I feel as if Player to AI diplomacy could be expanded on.
I like the idea of a economic research tree, along with the political ideas mentioned above.
#Trump2016
Great!vex03 wrote:
Yes of course. I'm planning on launching another very very soon!
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.