So I've thought about this for awhile, and I think Supply Ships need to make it into the game. Hear me out, I know y'all love getting resources instantly through trading, but lets think about this. What was the naval strategy of Germany during the second and arguably first world world war? U-Boats and Submarine Warfare! What I propose is creating supply convoys or dedicated ships for transporting resources and materials. Lets say Country A agrees on a trade of 5k food for 3k oil from Country B, several supply ships would be automatically created from a city, depending on the level, each ship would carry a certain amount of food, these ships would travel automatically to a city of Country A's choosing. However, these ships could be stopped to allow a convoy creation. Supply Ships would have a Create Convoy option, allowing players to pair ships like destroyers to these supply vessels, protecting them from subs. For land locked nations do pretty much the same thing but with Trucks, Trains, and Aircraft. Maybe you'd need level two infrastructure for trains, and connecting airbases for planes. Just a though.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
31 Replies
11 Mar 2020, 14:36
This is a subject that has been brought up before but in a different manner called Supply Lines.
As I have stated in the other thread, I believe that this would put an unfair disadvantage to those that play as independent nations and not part of a coalition.
In short, what happens to those that are not part of a coalition but have NAP agreements. I also believe it would just slow the game down as it is now.
I mean no disrespect to you or your idea but for me, I really don't like the idea. Not saying it is a bad idea as any ideas are always good for the Devs to look at for future development. I am just not in agreement with Supply Lines or as you talk about it, Supply Units.
General cdub
11 Mar 2020, 14:54
Well I disagree, solo countries are ALREADY at a disadvantage, coalitions and teams can instantly trade resources, supply convoys would allow solo players to intercept and destroy these trades, if anything, this would give solo's an advantage.
16 May 2020, 21:39
Thank you I have being saying this for a while. They should have to supply their men if they are across the ocean. There should be supply ships that carry resources to reach the upkeep of the units or there should be movement and combat penalties.
16 May 2020, 23:37
This would also give a disadvantage to land-locked nations because countries who have a border with the sea can trade with countries all around the world where as land-locked nations could only trade with its neighbors.
If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
16 May 2020, 23:48
If you get a land locked country than take over the country that’s blocking you that’s how it works
17 May 2020, 00:37
What if you get a double-land locked country, like ma-clique in the 100p maps, you would have a HUGE disadvantage.
If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
17 May 2020, 01:23
They need to add this!Great idea!
17 May 2020, 07:10
Grimra wrote:
Well I disagree, solo countries are ALREADY at a disadvantage, coalitions and teams can instantly trade resources, supply convoys would allow solo players to intercept and destroy these trades, if anything, this would give solo's an advantage.
That's why people invented strategy, how do you think Germany was trying to beat the UK by choking them intercepting there supplies to force a surrender or peace offering, so you just dont like strategy
17 May 2020, 07:16 (edited)
gen.firebird wrote:
If you get a land locked country than take over the country that’s blocking you that’s how it works
How do you do that without resources, i like the the idea but it doesnt suit this game maybe another game and btw this games maps doesnt even make sense so really theres no point in adding it
17 May 2020, 09:31
Yeah, it would make everything so complicated. I think the fun part about this game is the fighting and conquering, and transporting resources everywhere would be too complicated and boring.
If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
17 May 2020, 11:29
Grimra wrote:
I think Supply Ships need to make it into the game.
If you were to play a simulation, supply units would certainly be a must have, but not for a browser game with board game character like Call of War.
I just tried it out - far too fiddly and confusing.
Here you see just some supply units of one nation, now imagine additionally the transports from dozens of other nations:
Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money .. ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game << .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
17 May 2020, 11:36
I am the commander of my army. I don’t need to pilot supply ships, I have people for that. Strategy to me is the big picture not having to click hundreds of times to accomplish one little thing.
War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill VorlonFCW Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020. >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
17 May 2020, 15:02
As far as supply goes, it would be nice if you have an enemy force surrounded, and not in one of their core provinces, that they suffer some penalty for being cut off from their source of supply.
17 May 2020, 18:16
Restrisiko wrote:
Grimra wrote:
I think Supply Ships need to make it into the game.
If you were to play a simulation, supply units would certainly be a must have, but not for a browser game with board game character like Call of War.
I just tried it out - far too fiddly and confusing.
Here you see just some supply units of one nation, now imagine additionally the transports from dozens of other nations:
There would not need to be that many ships. I played a lot of games and I never trade that much. That is a ton of ships I don’t think anybody’s ever traded that much in one game
17 May 2020, 18:18
Little_Debbie wrote:
gen.firebird wrote:
If you get a land locked country than take over the country that’s blocking you that’s how it works
How do you do that without resources, i like the the idea but it doesnt suit this game maybe another game and btw this games maps doesnt even make sense so really theres no point in adding it
you could stills trade with countries next to you and there could also be a new relation that lets supply ships and trucks through.
17 May 2020, 18:19
Those ships probably represent more than trade ships, in all likelihood they are supply ships as well.
17 May 2020, 18:37
the thing is, you would have a LOT of supply ships, and a good strategy would probably be to send only a few resources per supply ship in case they are intercepted by a sub. That means that naval units would be much more important and could be potentially deadly, also there are technical issues like let’s say US is trading with UK and they made a deal every week US ships 10000 oil to Uk and Uk ships 10000 metal to US, and let’s say Denmark sank US convoy, does UK convoy turn back, or does it continue to US. And as I said, land-locked nations would have a huge disadvantage because they have to conquered a coastal nation before they can trade. Nations like Panama and Egypt who own a important canal could sink hundreds of convoys if they wanted...and you wouldn’t have enough subs to escort them...
If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
17 May 2020, 18:42
Well, during WW2 Panama did not own the Canal, the US did, same for the Suez, owned by the British, not Egypt. Would be hard to factor that in to the game, and I am sure the Egyptian player would not be a fan of an enclave of British troops in her country lol
17 May 2020, 18:54
Well, there’s no really owning canals in this game so as long as you are close to it you can send ships and blockade it...
If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
17 May 2020, 18:56
That is a very good point. I think this will make the game more strategically based because most of the time I don’t build a navy because there is really no need. this would force people to build navies.
