My proposal is to enhance the role play experience in Call of War. My proposal is to add a leader unit, such as a President unit or a Governor unit and so on, depending on the country. The leader can wear a suit, or a cultural costume depending again on the country the player owns. The player starts with the leader unit in their capital. They could move the leader unit where they please, as they do with regular units. When the players leader unit travels to another country's capital, a "diplomatic meeting" will occur and a report will appear in the newspaper as it does when a territory is conquered and when a building is built. The leader unit would have high health but same defense as regular infantry units. When a leader unit is destroyed, the player can either be kicked from the map, or have to produce another leader unit, which would cost a lot of resources (it is your choice to choose what happens) . I hope you agree with me that this would be fun!
-Platypus King
Please log in to post a reply.
The president unit will have a lot of flaws, the playstyle wont fit the game AT ALL, and the "kicked from the map" thing is just stupid, you don't get kicked if you lose your capital, so why should you get kicked for losing a president?
Because the President IS you.
still, the idea has quite a lot of flaws to it.....Platypus King wrote:
Because the President IS you.
Very well.
I agree with Draza, it has a lot of flaws.
Please name them so that I can edit it.
Please keep in mind that the Call of War game is organized on the level of regiments (infantry), brigades (armor), and squadrons (aircraft, and smaller warships). Each of these incorporates its own command structure, and we have no separate "headquarters" units for divisions, corps, or field armies.
Okay then.
Platypus King wrote:
1) My proposal is to add a leader unit, such as a President unit or a Governor unit and so on, depending on the country. The leader can wear a suit, or a cultural costume depending again on the country the player owns.
2) The player starts with the leader unit in their capital. They could move the leader unit where they please, as they do with regular units.
3) When the players leader unit travels to another country's capital, a "diplomatic meeting" will occur and a report will appear in the newspaper as it does when a territory is conquered and when a building is built.
4) The leader unit would have high health but same defense as regular infantry units.
5) When a leader unit is destroyed, the player can either be kicked from the map, or have to produce another leader unit, which would cost a lot of resources (it is your choice to choose what happens) .
What is the value / impact of a "diplomatic meeting"? Is it a prerequisite or bonus to relationship status changes or trade deals?
What is justification of health and defense of unit? As proposed, it becomes a strong (hard to kill) infantry unit. This has no precedent in WWII time frame that I am aware of.
What is justification of kick / expense for replacement? Several nations during WWII had leadership changes with negligible cost to the economy.
All in all, the proposal does not seem well connected to either of the twin pillars of a WWII simulation game. Either improve play-ability or add realism. Best proposals do both.
Within the context of the game, a Unit for a General might make sense. A General added to a stack would add a combat modifier to the stack he is with. If memory serves Fortress Europa had generals on the field of battle that did this.
oh boy, Zhukov vs. Steiner, that would be a bloody experiencePeter Mat wrote:
Within the context of the game, a Unit for a General might make sense. A General added to a stack would add a combat modifier to the stack he is with. If memory serves Fortress Europa had generals on the field of battle that did this.
I hope we don't get stuck with Monty or MacArthur.Peter Mat wrote:
Within the context of the game, a Unit for a General might make sense. A General added to a stack would add a combat modifier to the stack he is with. If memory serves Fortress Europa had generals on the field of battle that did this.
Thanks.Peter Mat wrote:
Within the context of the game, a Unit for a General might make sense. A General added to a stack would add a combat modifier to the stack he is with. If memory serves Fortress Europa had generals on the field of battle that did this.
Perhaps if the "General" unit also had a headquarters / logistic function.Peter Mat wrote:
Within the context of the game, a Unit for a General might make sense. A General added to a stack would add a combat modifier to the stack he is with. If memory serves Fortress Europa had generals on the field of battle that did this.
A generic general could handle leadership / supply functions for a group of X (10?) units, while named (cost more, build in Capitol, have tech tree for researching improvements) Generals can handle those same functions for more units and / or add combat bonuses for offense or defense.
This would incredibly complicate the game for the new player. The nubs already struggle with SBDE, resource development and idiosyncrasies with targeting using HC versus non-HC players.
Let's do it. ;P
Please log in to post a reply.
