I hope I am wrong... about 1.5 and Classic Maps

Current Rating 118. I will have been playing this game for 2 years come December.

Going to keep this simple and short...

Did I read that right? Eventually classic Maps are gone for good at some point? Terrible news... any semblance of strategy is out the window with 1.5 Maps.

In short, I will have to end playing this game should adjustments not be made... and I am sure that I am not the only one who feels this way.

The above statement simply expresses the fact that 1.5 is a shell of a game that "classic" held.

Classic 25, 22, 10 (12) provided a sense of challenge no matter the country of choice. Alliances were meaningful, and actions or inaction had consequences.

Although classic is imperfect, abandoning it completely certainly is a thumb in the face of seasoned players, player choice, and game design.

1.5 Offers very little in terms of positive game changes. I have played or currently playing about a dozen maps.

Positives:

Personally, the only upgrade I appreciated was the spreading out of resources across each nation's map.

Negatives:

100% about rushing to victory.

= no point in playing smaller countries

= no real strategy employed

= short term decisions vs long term strat

Economy plays no to little impact given games are usually determined within hrs to 2 days.

Most territory upgrades/ military/ econ are predicated on being able to log in 30 min to a few hrs. Again supporting short term and speed game play.

I can only assume 1.5 is the result of data mining in terms of what will drive more players to purchase gold ... pay to win. I do not mind gold users, it's their money. However, driving the entire player base towards the use of gold to win... seems cheap. An option sure, again I want the business to be supported. I understand you need to diversify income beyond ads.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

23 Replies

Anpere wrote:

1.0 and 1.5 has their positives and their negatives. Although, I have to disagree with the 1.0 hype train. 1.5 is better than 1.0 and they even stated this is the BEGINNING of what they have planned.
The 1.5 deserve an opportunity at least. In my humble opinion, is already very good. I played with 2 differents tactics in 2 differents maps the 100 and the new 22.

On the 100, I was Ontario and I reached to occupy Quebec and some states of the north of USA. Because of the impediments of North America to have a conquer policy in a long term (if you don't put enough time), I decided to do a coalition with 3 more, splitting the north continent in 4 equal parts. The tactic was due to the fierce of the enemies; protect the conquer land on the previous days, until the last men. This mean:

  1. Put every single resource on industry (mostly) and technology, making the cheaps units (land, air, sea) to protect the border. Mainly submarines.
  2. Once you reach some good points of tech' and improve to the maximum the industry, having your best posible economy stats, you begin to level up the border units. Becoming in more or less 4 days from there, a nation to be fear.
(This works perfectly, I fought with the second on the ranking and I didn't die, moreover, I was a headache for him).

On the 22, I was caucasus, allied with Russian Empire and Turkey. I used the first days to conquer a few resource's provinces and reach my top of economy, researching missiles, medium tanks, mechanized AA, and light mechanized infantry. The enemy took most Europe and North Africa. In a matter of days, our forces setoff theirs, and we win.

I think that I didn't used the Axis politics so is more easy encrease the economy first and then move to troops.

I hate the drain of materials in 1.5. I like the balancing more in 1.0

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions
Quick Launch