My long list of suggestions and criticism

16 Jun 2015, 23:02

I am very pleased at the changes that occur in the game. We are all grateful to the developers for their work.

If a developer is interested, I would like to tell about wishes and ideas that I have. Some of them are very simple, and some on the verge of delirium. Maybe I'm not always right, criticizing the different solutions, but many of the items discussed with other players and get support.

(I do not speak English, so please forgive if there is a mistake in the text and the wording incorrectly)

1. Diplomatic status symbol.This is the first thing that caught my eye when I first started playing - this is a very small detail, but it causes irritation. In the diplomatic relations between the countries is possible to define five parameters "war" "embargo" "peace," "right of way" and "share map." All abstract icons, except the last. icon "share map" is the logo of the NATO alliance. I think it's very strange. This is not the place where you need the real characters. I have nothing against NATO, but I understand the logic of why NATO, not the flag such as the "European Union", "Union of the Warsaw Pact," "Shanghai Cooperation Organization" or "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf"? I ask you to make this place something neutral that it would be logical to look to all countries.

2. Neutral types of vehicles.Icons on the map troops (unlike s1914) now have a different design depending on the country of production, such as medium tanks on the map indicated by the German PzKpfw4, Soviet T-34 or American Sherman. That's very beautiful! but when it comes to other countries, it becomes strange. For example, the T-34 from Turkey, or PzKpfw4 in Sweden. Everything becomes even more strange when you see the tanks of non-fiction countries. The idea is that some countries have used a neutral kind of equipment that will not be like anything historical. It also does not seem to historicity, but that does not cause controversy. And it will be very useful in the future when new cards will be added.

3. The selection of the flag country of the existing options.I like the decision to abandon the download function of its flag for their country. In s1914 in these often abused, and some players flags were not cultural, it would probably kill them. But all the same a little freedom I would like to have. My idea is to allow the player to change the flag only on the real historical, 1 or 2 ready-made alternatives. For example, for Germany it is the flag of 1921-1933, 1933-1935 war flag or the flag of the president standard. For the Soviet Union it "stamp flag of the Russian Empire," "St. Andrew's flag" or coat of arms of the USSR. Or other options.

4. Fire over cities.Obviously much smoke realistically be used instead of open flame. Realistically, if the ships and planes at strong damage they smoke too.

5. The morale of the troops.In s1914 mechanism for determining the morality was very interesting! Originally morale of infantry in the production depends on the morality of the region, but war and the troops lost or added more moral and from the territory in which they reside. They lost morale in enemy territory or burning areas, and raises morale on his land in the developed regions. This is a very logical and correct! Experienced players often used it - sometimes in the defense of the withdrawal of troops in the rear, something to the enemy captured the city during the day shift was on the territory of low morale and lost a bit of morale of his troops, and the troops of the opposite player by changing the day raised their morale. This turns the game into a very cunning tactical game. They were attacks and counter-waste - it was very interesting! When I see how it happens in the CoW I get bored.

6. Morality and corruption in the region.In my opinion, morality in the regions of our countries are so easily lifted, that if at all canceled this option no one would have noticed the difference. I think that if you make it more complex, it will be interesting. This will force players to be more attentive to their country - those who are more attentive will have an advantage over those who ignore the country's development. You can increase the fine by their distance from the capital. Now the infrastructure is built only for raising resource extraction and construction of tanks - it looks like a separate island, and very ugly. If you increase a fine by the distance from the capital, the players will build a network infrastructure that is to have a quick way from distant regions to the capital. I'm sure it will be more correct. In addition to the regions you can add the corruption (as in s1914). It is very logical, if corruption in the city will be reduced if the city has a police.

7. Adding to the map of obstacles in the form of rivers.This idea occurred to many, like me. But it seems to me not worth it too complicated. simple blue strip overcome that spend some time. and then many fans geography will be happy.

8. Captivity and trophies.The idea is very simple: if a region or a city is completely surrounded by enemy territory during more than 48 hours, all the troops in the region are surrendering, and the technique is becoming trophies. This will make the game more tactical.

9. The adjustment of units and balancing

Police. She too large Number of cons - pros clearly not enough. I think the police should be instrument occupies in urban defense, but now it is contrary to its parameters.
Mechanized infantry. It does not make sense to use, because it is too late in development. Mechanized infantry becomes available on the same day as the nuclear bombers. It is not clear - is it armored truck so hard to make?
Heavy tank. Usually on the 24th day I accumulated quite a large fleet of medium tanks, and much more rational to hold them modernize and increase the time all power than learn a new tank. Well, that heavy tanks have a bonus to defense, but he was too clumsy for the front edge and too weak (50% power) for the city. All together it makes it useless. It may be quite appropriate for the 16th day, but even in this case there is any doubt.
Marine bomber. Naturally, the first thing these aircraft sent to search for submarines. Many times I have built these aircraft, but they did not kill anyone - why my submarines and destroyers do not give the enemy to approach the boats at sea flight distance bombers. He is too small radius of the flight and he scouts too little space. Cheaper to build a submarine that is a cheaper and more versatile.

Nuclear missile. I'm a little disappointed with atomic missiles. And the problem is not in the power of the damage (my missiles fall on the enemy and inflict 0 damage, but I am sure that such bugs will be closed quickly), and in its tactical and operational properties. They move around the country 25 times slower nuclear bombers, have a shorter range, they do not shoot at moving targets as nuclear bombers, and the flight can not be undone, and to study them need to spend much more time and resources. She does not have any advantage against nuclear bombers, and there is no sense to build them. In my opinion a good solution would be to make an atomic missiles infinite range of flight. Of course, there is an argument that you need to follow the proportions of the distances between realestichnost arms. But this game is not so important, because the game card built in a straight line projection and does not reflect the real distances. If you follow them, such a missile could fly from Canada to Russia, but not to Spain. In the game the contrary on the contrary, the distance to the Spanish two times less than in Russia. In any case, one of the aspects have to neglect the physics.
Nuclear battleship and a nuclear submarine. The parameters of these ships did not motivate them to build. their greatest advantage is speed, but at these stages of the game the player already has a large fleet, which covers a large area - the player is no need to rush somewhere, and speed is not the option that is needed. Very surprised by the weak air defense and the absence of advantages in firing range. In history there was no nuclear battleships ships that do not have missiles. It is clear that the missile firing range greater than that of the deck Artillery. A submarine similar situation - all combat nuclear boats had rocket or nuclear torpedoes. It is much more than what is in the game. My two cheap 4lvl boats that are available on day 18, easily drowned very expensive nuclear power boat, which is available for 40 days - this is an obvious imbalance.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

34 Replies

16 Jun 2015, 23:03 (edited)

10. The radius of the review of troops.Various forces in the game have a different radius of the review - it is right, but it does not work correctly on many weapons. For example battleship in 1932 (which had only binoculars) sees on this same distance as the nuclear battleship (which has the "over-the-horizon radar"). In reality, the difference in numbers greater than four fold. The same situation with the submarines - acoustic equipment for submarines in 1932 was armed with only the ears of a sailor, and in 1952 they had a long list of powerful equipment, including towed sonar station. The actual difference in distance almost 8 times. Similar discrepancies in aviation: marine bomber flying over water and fighter flying over the battlefield completely different amount of space. Marine bombers of the design was adapted to the purposes of the search over large areas, and fighter pilots were flying at much less then the heights and even without binoculars. It is clear that between them there is a big difference in the radius of the review and patrol the area.

11. Addition of new units:

Aircraft carriers. This topic comes up constantly.
Snipers. In all the major urban battles of the Second World wons always been snipers. It is very important composes urban warfare and mountainous terrain. Unlike commando snipers do not have the speed and agility, do not work well against armored vehicles, but have more strength in defense and against infantry
Mines field and naval mines. It is also a very popular service. They are actively used in land operations, and marine - like sea mines played a crucial in the war of Germany against Britain in the North Sea, and against the Soviet Union in the Baltic Sea. They are very uncomfortable to carry, but they are hidden from the enemy.
Sappers. A logical continuation of the preceding paragraph.
Medical Brigade (or building, "the hospital"). Recover a gradual troop morale.
Trade transport. The idea is that when you buy resources from other countries, this resource is not charged to the treasury before they have not yet come to the capital. Transportation is carried out by trucks and cargo ships. It will implement many historical scenario and fill the road and sea traffic, which will make the game more interesting.

12. Add the new buildings.

Warehouses. In s1914 was a limit on storage resources. You can make the likeness of the system, but allow players to expand the limit of restriction. If captured by the enemy warehouse - warehouse of resources that go to the enemy
Strengthening the coastline. Structure which will slow down the unloading of enemy troops.
Embassy. Diplomatic relations with the countries only if you have an embassy in this country. For example, the embassy can not be obtained without the status of a "right of way". Perhaps surprising number of embassies is limited to 10. Then the player will have to think through in advance geopolitical perspectives
Production of electricity and the setting of the resource "electrical power." Every region and every building consumes electricity. Accordingly it must somehow produce. In the cities can build nuclear power plants, and in the mountainous regions of hydroelectricity, or other options.

13. The ability to study the political, social and military industries as a whole.

Political system. It affects the morale of the regions. (If this aspect is becoming more difficult, as I wrote earlier)
The economic sector. Impact on production resources.
The mass media. Reduce the penalty in had occupied territories.
Banking sector. It affects the cash income and the possibility of financing.
The construction industry. It affects the rate of building construction.
Trade unions. It affects the speed of production technology.
Education system. It affects the rate of learning techniques.
Secret Service. Improves the performance of its own spies and degrade the performance of the enemy
Space industry. It provides additional opportunities spying from space spy satellites. (Missile launch detection, detection of surface ships, interception of communication channels)

14. The figure of the head of state.A very strange idea, but I all the same have decided to write it. The idea that each country, would be the head of state had a separate One unit on the map. Specific unit is not attacking options, but gives a bonus to the morale of the region, and the troops coming together with the head of state would have a bonus to the attack. If the head of state is destroyed, the player loses all troops (or they are surrendering).

15. Different seasons or weather by region.Another very strange idea. Nice to have unpredictable weather. The onset of bad weather can help or hinder the attack, the excitement of the sea to reduce the speed of vehicles, and snow in mountain regions can do to stop any movement. It's interesting. the simplest thing you can do that - for all general weather maps every 24 hours.

16. Settings alliance

Render logo. Now the image is strongly compressed and spoils the quality of the image.
Ability to leaders and moderators view a list of games numbering players alliance.
Creation of on-line site for the announcement of the alliance players.
Notify the leader of the invitation to the Challenge.
Do not start until the Challenge will bring together all the players. Or start Challenge at the entrance of the first player and not at the time of the announcement.

17. Ideas for new maps.

Urban battle in a very large scale in mode 1 vs 1. eg the battle of Stalingrad. The biggest battle in the history of mankind. Game is more appropriate to the situation in November 1942
Maps with a priority sea battles. Such as the Battle of the Atlantic (Britain, Canada and the United States against Germany, France and Norway), or the war in the Pacific (the old Japan and new Japan against the United States and Australia)
The division of the territory between the players are not in the countries, and on the flanks (or "operative connections of groups of forces"). Such as Germany in the war against the Soviet Union had three major flank ("north army" "center army" "south army" were later and others), the USSR in different times by different armies number in the front (eg "Baltic Front", "Belarus front","Bryansk Front", "Ukrainian Front" or other). Each had connections of the commanders, a flag (guidons), a single command headquarters - so it is quite similar to the state, which can be in the game. All this will do great and very accurate historical maps without tearing the country apart.

17 Jun 2015, 13:05

Several of your ideas are really nice.

I hope you can get them implemented.

19 Jun 2015, 20:11

SaintDamien wrote:
Several of your ideas are really nice.
I hope you can get them implemented.

which section you would call the most interesting?

20 Jun 2015, 14:04

Just a couple of points after the first skim read:

-Aircraft carriers are pretty much guaranteed to be added (There's even an award for building them in the awards section), and the continuation of building pacific map where they can be used is also very likely to come soon.

-Snipers. These can be assumed to be part of all infantry units, as snipers are, as a whole, very small units, which would not really play a part in the more strategic aspects of this game.

-The requirement of building an embassy for diplomacy doesn't really seem necessary, as it is assumed that all countries already have an embassy with all other countries.

-Head of state unit, doesn't really seem like a very good idea to make a unit that if lost causes the nation to lose. This is much too easily abusable. It would be interesting to see a weak buff-ing or debuffing unit being implemented into the game.

-Weather, interesting, but seems like it could cause a lot of issues implementing.

Nuclear units and heavy tanks should not be seen as units on their own. Due to the damage efficiency system, the more of a single unit type you have in a stack, the less damage per single unit of that type after reaching it's maximum efficiency. The heavier units (or even militia) give you a second stack that supplements the first without reducing combat efficiency.

Kalantigos
Master Chief Petty Officer.
Game Moderator
EN Community Support
Bytro Labs | Call of War

20 Jun 2015, 18:05

You responded to the most radical and controversial points - I hope this means that the remaining items are not so bad.

Kalantigos wrote:
-Snipers. These can be assumed to be part of all infantry units, as snipers are, as a whole, very small units, which would not really play a part in the more strategic aspects of this game.

Yes you are right. Snipers is one part of infantry units. This is a very small part. But infantry units had their own group of light-artilery, anti-tank and anti-aircraft parts, which in size were sometimes even less sniper units. However they are implemented in the game. I do not know what the army and the military operation which you take for basic to determine the importance of different instruments, but if you look at the biggest opposition in the German-Soviet war, you will see a huge role of snipers. I do not mean their number or the number of enemy killed - I am only talking about their importance and the fact that they have a clear contrast in combat tactics that call them can not be a simple infantry.

KalantigosNuclear units and heavy tanks should not be seen as units on their own. Due to the damage efficiency system, the more of a single unit type you have in a stack, the less damage per single unit of that type after reaching it's maximum efficiency. The heavier units (or even militia) give you a second stack that supplements the first without reducing combat efficiency.

I understood you. But that does not make weapons interesting. By studying the new weapons I expect that I will get new features and tactical diversity. But it is not. Just fill up the stack a little boring.

25 Jun 2015, 16:01 (edited)

It sounds like you want a new branch of tech. focused on economics and civilian? So, increased efficiency?

Aircraft carriers is a good idea.

Capitalism, resource production efficiency boost -

Socialism, morale rate boost in cores via capitol -

Communism, unit production bonus* (very detailed, read below) -

Details on Communism: Unit production bonus works this way: Unit A, lvl. 1 if I chain production - then I get a slight speed bonus with Unit A, Lvl. 1 (increases with time). However, when I break the chain or move Unit. A, to lvl. 2 I lost the bonus.

I propose that none of these are drastic, for instance a 1-5% increase at most.

Chosen within the first two days.

This is not a dramatic change if you read what I wrote. We are talking about a *single* small percentage change per country for flavor, that never change after being chosen at game start, once per match.

25 Jun 2015, 16:04

And here we got Civilization X

25 Jun 2015, 16:14

Casual Player wrote:
And here we got Civilization X

In a way.

The difference being, you're locked in after day two, they don't improve, and each has an Achilles heel.

Let's all remember, this is about WW2 at the end of the day.

25 Jun 2015, 18:46 (edited)

An example of the many games shows that the introduction of the development of the political and economic system always makes the game more interesting. Truth is not always the balance of bonuses and disadvantages configured correctly. Developers have a lot of stereotypes and superficial understanding of the political and economic system, and sometimes disadvantages come from propaganda, and not from real facts. For instance there are no grounds to assert that Communism is worse democracy in morality or the industry - in the history there are many examples that confirm this, and a lot of examples that refute it. All political and economic systems have a common list of priorities - strong army, a good industry, a reliable system of internal control, foreign policy, and of course the popularity and support among his people. All political and economic systems have equal chances of success, but the way they are arranged can be constantly changing, depending on the country's leader. So I'm sure that the bonuses distributed by the political and economic system is not correct. But it's interesting to distribute bonuses. You may want to give the player to choose their priorities at the outset of the game. A simple list of 5 or 6 lines, where the player can put in places its priorities and will receive bonuses for the top lines, neutral for medium and antibonus for lower. Finding the right compromise will not be easy. But it will make different countries more different.

25 Jun 2015, 19:18

And here we got EU Universalis X

Really, guys, it would be great to have proper time in a day to think of a move (I would take most of the day )...

Guessing younger people are main players here, no?

Maybe with good spare time, perhaps

25 Jun 2015, 20:09

Casual Player wrote:
And here we got EU Universalis X
Really, guys, it would be great to have proper time in a day to think of a move (I would take most of the day )...
Guessing younger people are main players here, no?
Maybe with good spare time, perhaps

If we consume beer, then after a while we get back here with new ideas: laser blasters, a new unit "Cthulhu", the names of cities in the Klingon language, new building "Casino" where you can win all the money the enemy if you compile a combination of "Royal Flush"

I think that while we are sober, then we can help developers to continue to improve the game in the right direction

25 Jun 2015, 20:20

I like the sound of laser blasters and Cthulhu. Nazi's were working on weaponised lazers and we all know Cthulhu is real.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

25 Jun 2015, 20:46

25 Jun 2015, 21:08

Yes, indeed, to give the game realism is necessary to create a new unit "Cthulhu." We all know that Cthulhu and could swim and walk. So he (as well as snipers) may be considered as part of infantry units. And very small units, which would not really play a part in the more strategic aspects of this game.

I think you need to stop to enter a subject in the offtopic.

Just need to patiently wait for the reaction of developers.

I will be very happy if they comment on items 5,6,10,16

25 Jun 2015, 23:17

Also, of course, anti-tank furry-hamster, specially trained on special hamster wheels of ice for frontal attacks on the biggest tanks and stealth planes

Also corn fields of the enemy, but depends how hungry the guy is.

25 Jun 2015, 23:36

I think you mean an AT dog and implement cornfields, the ability to set ambushes in said fields and flamethrower infantry to burn fields.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

26 Jun 2015, 04:28 (edited)

Sandevot wrote:
All...economic systems have equal chances of success.

No, they really don't.

The bonus (singular) of each economic system is roughly translated to its accurate real life bonus with of course some stretching.

I don't understand the part about "no historical basis" - there is one bonus to each economic system. I listed the bonuses of the other two they did not get to show the tradeoff cost.

Also, while I agreed with some of your ideas it seems to me that the *small* tweaks I am proposing are not what you are proposing.

26 Jun 2015, 05:03

itsDeemsNo, they really don't.

Obviously, the answer is yes. But perhaps we are talking about different things. I have already written that do not speak English, an interpreter may not accurately translates complex formulations.

itsDeems wrote:
The bonus (singular) of each economic system is roughly translated to its accurate real life bonus with of course some stretching.
I don't understand the part about "no historical basis" - there is one bonus to each economic system. I listed the bonuses of the other two they did not get to show the tradeoff cost.
Also, while I agreed with some of your ideas it seems to me that the *small* tweaks I am proposing are not what you are proposing.

Tell us more

28 Jun 2015, 23:49

Sandevot wrote:
Obviously, the answer is yes.
Tell us more

I'm not arguing with you online.

If you like communism, get on a plane and go visit the USSR.

If you like socialism, get on a plane and go visit Nazi Germany.

Oh...wait.

I did - I broke my ideas down in to individual threads so the community can respond to each.

28 Jun 2015, 23:51

I thought Nazi Germany was fascist?

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions