The Overpowerness of Rockets in Call of War

In its most basic form, you only change the numbers. Like when an L1 tank has 3 attack now, you make it 4. Don't say "oh this is just balancing", you can also make extreme changes - for example, an artillery unit with very small damage but 1,000 km range, a huge defense gun with zero speed, a roadblock with no combat value but 100 hit points, a paratrooper flying from a carrier, a building for 100x income - you name it.

All these changes come in a "set" which must be inherently balanced, or the mod is "broken" and won't be played much. You then project this set into a "normal" CoW game, and start playing.

Many games support much more modding than this, like using your own icons for units, creating maps, tech trees, etc etc. You're basically stripping more and more from the game and leaving it to the mod, until there's nothing left but the bare engine, something like "units walk across a 2D map and when they meet they do battle".

Look at it like an orchestra and a composer. CoW is the orchestra, with violins and oboes and drums; they also know how to play Beethoven's 9th symphony (the "basic" data set as CoW knows it now) and they'll start playing that whenever the conductor raises his stick. Allowing modding is like allowing Mozart and Tchaikovski and Mahler and Cage and all those other guys to have their way with them as well. The mod creator is the composer, deciding how melodies and rythms sound, and what the atmosphere of the music will be. There's good and bad composers of course; and in many games, the brilliant mod creators create fame for themselves in the gaming community.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Look at it like an orchestra and a composer. CoW is the orchestra, with violins and oboes and drums; they also know how to play Beethoven's 9th symphony (the "basic" data set as CoW knows it now) and they'll start playing that whenever the conductor raises his stick. Allowing modding is like allowing Mozart and Tchaikovsky and Mahler and Cage and all those other guys to have their way with them as well. The mod creator is the composer, deciding how melodies and rhythms sound, and what the atmosphere of the music will be. There's good and bad composers of course; and in many games, the brilliant mod creators create fame for themselves in the gaming community.

then create a seperate thread for that topic and dont derail the current thread

Rockets should be limited to attack on buildings only. It is totally out of line with WW2 just as nuclear tipped missiles.

Rockets are used in game very extensively as anti airfield and air plane factors as well as to pound large stacks and fortifications.

I feel that fortifications are over done and that rockets should be weaken.

EZ Dolittle wrote:

I feel that fortifications are over done and that rockets should be weaken.

gusv wrote:

EZ Dolittle wrote:

I feel that fortifications are over done and that rockets should be weaken.

Agree! ... And in the event of fortifications, perhaps we should limit them to level 2 or 3- instead of 5 ...

Having powerful fortresses in this game is very realistic. But at the same time, there are bunker-busting weapons, like level 4 rockets and nuclear weapons which do bypass that. And don't forget that, if you've got the time to kill, you can let your artillery or RR guns slowly-but-surely chip away at those fortresses until they're marshmallow fluff. Don't like artillery? Fine! Then use Strategic Bombers. Just remember to escort them with lots of Fighters to act as fodder against AA Guns. Better yet, use a combination of all this stuff.

I'll tell you what. You play a match against me. I'll let you build up lots of those level 5 fortresses that you think are soooo overpowered. Then you can watch as I bring down those fortresses and smash their defenders. Before you know it, you'll be crapping in your pants by the time I'm through with you, and you'll be begging me for a cease fire just so you can breathe long enough to figure out wtf just happened to your precious fortresses.

Oh yeah, I'm that good. And I'm not alone. Anyone can take down a fortress if they play their cards smart.

Devious Rancor wrote:

gusv wrote:

EZ Dolittle wrote:

I feel that fortifications are over done and that rockets should be weaken.

Agree! ... And in the event of fortifications, perhaps we should limit them to level 2 or 3- instead of 5 ...

Oh yes, and the Allies would have LOVED to have limited the strength of the coastal fortifications on D-Day. But in fact, they were very powerful and made the invasion a very deadly prospect. The allied powers knew it would be terribly difficult and very costly in war materiel and lives, yet they did what they had to do to gain the much-needed foothold into Nazi-controlled Europe. So yes, having higher level fortresses is indeed very important to this game to help with the realism of it. And I'm not even bothering to discuss the heavily fortified French border before the Nazi invasion of France, or the vast fortresses established by the Germans in Poland after invading Russia, nor the great fortresses overlooking the killing fields of central Italy that the Fascists built.

Having powerful fortresses in this game is very realistic. But at the same time, there are bunker-busting weapons, like level 4 rockets and nuclear weapons which do bypass that. And don't forget that, if you've got the time to kill, you can let your artillery or RR guns slowly-but-surely chip away at those fortresses until they're marshmallow fluff. Don't like artillery? Fine! Then use Strategic Bombers. Just remember to escort them with lots of Fighters to act as fodder against AA Guns. Better yet, use a combination of all this stuff.

I'll tell you what. You play a match against me. I'll let you build up lots of those level 5 fortresses that you think are soooo overpowered. Then you can watch as I bring down those fortresses and smash their defenders. Before you know it, you'll be crapping in your pants by the time I'm through with you, and you'll be begging me for a cease fire just so you can breathe long enough to figure out wtf just happened to your precious fortresses.

Oh yeah, I'm that good. And I'm not alone. Anyone can take down a fortress if they play their cards smart.

Spoiler

Bundy34 wrote:

Have a 50% success rate on Rockets

Triple the production time and the costs on Rockets

Give the Rocket Fighters and Interceptors the ability to fight L2-4 Rockets

Make the Level 1 Rocket available on Day 18

Decrease the Rockets damage by 50%

Have the Rockets only able to produce on a Level 3 Airbase and INC

sidenote: I do think the "ignores fortifications" on max lvl could be swapped with the "not able to be shot down by AA" which they already gain on second lvl, rockets not being able to be intercepted already at T2 is imo a bit too... unfitting? it's an extremely strong perk and getting that already on T2 seems a bit too early to me (yeah i know realism etc yada yada)

Swapping that with ability to ignore entrenchments would serve to define the focal point of rockets as bunker busters even early on

addition to my last post:

i think 1.5 has the wrong approach to balancing rockets

keeping their damage the same (or roughly the same? will have to check for detail)

as in 1.0 while other units have massive changes to HP/Dmgoutput

(at least in theory) that will make rockets lategame fairly useless as even a max lvl rocket will take 2 hits to kill a max lvl inf (again: will check later for detailed numbers) .... seems a bit too extreme to me as of right now

so now a bit closer look at it as promised

cow 1.0:

a lvl 4 rocket costs 25 manpower|1500 steel|500 rare|2500 money while dealing 3370|30 dmg (if you do full dmg that is, x factor is insane in 1.0)

a unit of infantry costs 500 food|500 goods|1300 manpower|750 money + has 10 Hp (in general units in 1.0 have usually 10-20 hp; with tanks having a bit more)

--> dmg scaling with unit lvl, but not cost or HP makes max lvl rockets insanly effective, because even if they dont deal full damage a max lvl rocket has good chances of killing at least one unit of 10HP (if you arent completly unlucky that is) so the potential dmg output compared to the HP of units is quite insane

for comparison: other units deal fairly low dmg; e.g.: mediums tanks deal 8,5 while being more expensive

in 1.5:

lvl 4 rocket: 1240 manpower|270 steel|1080 oil|2160 rare|2700 money while dealing 31|31|31|180|110

sidenote: i find the dramatic decrease of damage against aircraft... weird, now a max lvl rocket can't even kill aircraft on the ground (cuz it still counts as aircraft and recieves only the 18 dmg)

an infantry unit has 50 HP on max lvl, other units have similar HP (50-70 usually); artillery having the lowest and tanks ofc having a bit more

aircraft have 50|70|105|70 HP (from fighter to naval bomber)

sidenote: aircraft maintaining their high HP while grounded and rockets at the same time dealing less dmg against them then in 1.0 makes imo no sense; if a grounded aircraft gets hit by a missile it's toast (it should be even more fragile than tanks lol)

so thats a shitton of numbers, but what do they mean? well to make it simple: rockets went from (theoreticaly) being able to kill 3-4 units with a single use, to not even being able to kill a single one at max lvl in 1.5 while also getting more expensive

what do i suggest?:

- dramatic increase in rocket DMG (similiar to 1.0 dmg output maybe? so it should be able to kill 3-4 max lvl units), especially against aircraft

- move the "ignores fortifications" perk to lvl 1

- move the "not able to be intercepted" perk to lvl 4

- only have them able to target the center of a province

(with the higher dmg output, maybe also a slight increase in price might be needed)

Teburu wrote:

addition to my last post:

i think 1.5 has the wrong approach to balancing rockets

keeping their damage the same (or roughly the same? will have to check for detail)

as in 1.0 while other units have massive changes to HP/Dmgoutput

(at least in theory) that will make rockets lategame fairly useless as even a max lvl rocket will take 2 hits to kill a max lvl inf (again: will check later for detailed numbers) .... seems a bit too extreme to me as of right now

so now a bit closer look at it as promised

cow 1.0:

a lvl 4 rocket costs 25 manpower|1500 steel|500 rare|2500 money while dealing 3370|30 dmg (if you do full dmg that is, x factor is insane in 1.0)

a unit of infantry costs 500 food|500 goods|1300 manpower|750 money + has 10 Hp (in general units in 1.0 have usually 10-20 hp; with tanks having a bit more)

--> dmg scaling with unit lvl, but not cost or HP makes max lvl rockets insanly effective, because even if they dont deal full damage a max lvl rocket has good chances of killing at least one unit of 10HP (if you arent completly unlucky that is) so the potential dmg output compared to the HP of units is quite insane

for comparison: other units deal fairly low dmg; e.g.: mediums tanks deal 8,5 while being more expensive

in 1.5:

lvl 4 rocket: 1240 manpower|270 steel|1080 oil|2160 rare|2700 money while dealing 31|31|31|180|110

sidenote: i find the dramatic decrease of damage against aircraft... weird, now a max lvl rocket can't even kill aircraft on the ground (cuz it still counts as aircraft and recieves only the 18 dmg)

an infantry unit has 50 HP on max lvl, other units have similar HP (50-70 usually); artillery having the lowest and tanks ofc having a bit more

aircraft have 50|70|105|70 HP (from fighter to naval bomber)

sidenote: aircraft maintaining their high HP while grounded and rockets at the same time dealing less dmg against them then in 1.0 makes imo no sense; if a grounded aircraft gets hit by a missile it's toast (it should be even more fragile than tanks lol)

so thats a shitton of numbers, but what do they mean? well to make it simple: rockets went from (theoreticaly) being able to kill 3-4 units with a single use, to not even being able to kill a single one at max lvl in 1.5 while also getting more expensive

what do i suggest?:

- dramatic increase in rocket DMG (similiar to 1.0 dmg output maybe? so it should be able to kill 3-4 max lvl units), especially against aircraft

- move the "ignores fortifications" perk to lvl 1

- move the "not able to be intercepted" perk to lvl 4

- only have them able to target the center of a province

(with the higher dmg output, maybe also a slight increase in price might be needed)

Teburu wrote:

addition to my last post:

i think 1.5 has the wrong approach to balancing rockets

keeping their damage the same (or roughly the same? will have to check for detail)

as in 1.0 while other units have massive changes to HP/Dmgoutput

(at least in theory) that will make rockets lategame fairly useless as even a max lvl rocket will take 2 hits to kill a max lvl inf (again: will check later for detailed numbers) .... seems a bit too extreme to me as of right now

so now a bit closer look at it as promised

cow 1.0:

a lvl 4 rocket costs 25 manpower|1500 steel|500 rare|2500 money while dealing 3370|30 dmg (if you do full dmg that is, x factor is insane in 1.0)

a unit of infantry costs 500 food|500 goods|1300 manpower|750 money + has 10 Hp (in general units in 1.0 have usually 10-20 hp; with tanks having a bit more)

--> dmg scaling with unit lvl, but not cost or HP makes max lvl rockets insanly effective, because even if they dont deal full damage a max lvl rocket has good chances of killing at least one unit of 10HP (if you arent completly unlucky that is) so the potential dmg output compared to the HP of units is quite insane

for comparison: other units deal fairly low dmg; e.g.: mediums tanks deal 8,5 while being more expensive

in 1.5:

lvl 4 rocket: 1240 manpower|270 steel|1080 oil|2160 rare|2700 money while dealing 31|31|31|180|110

sidenote: i find the dramatic decrease of damage against aircraft... weird, now a max lvl rocket can't even kill aircraft on the ground (cuz it still counts as aircraft and recieves only the 18 dmg)

an infantry unit has 50 HP on max lvl, other units have similar HP (50-70 usually); artillery having the lowest and tanks ofc having a bit more

aircraft have 50|70|105|70 HP (from fighter to naval bomber)

sidenote: aircraft maintaining their high HP while grounded and rockets at the same time dealing less dmg against them then in 1.0 makes imo no sense; if a grounded aircraft gets hit by a missile it's toast (it should be even more fragile than tanks lol)

so thats a shitton of numbers, but what do they mean? well to make it simple: rockets went from (theoreticaly) being able to kill 3-4 units with a single use, to not even being able to kill a single one at max lvl in 1.5 while also getting more expensive

what do i suggest?:

- dramatic increase in rocket DMG (similiar to 1.0 dmg output maybe? so it should be able to kill 3-4 max lvl units), especially against aircraft

- move the "ignores fortifications" perk to lvl 1

- move the "not able to be intercepted" perk to lvl 4

- only have them able to target the center of a province

(with the higher dmg output, maybe also a slight increase in price might be needed)

I already told like 2 pages ago that rockets are significantly weaker vs. units in CoW1.5, but that wasnt really realized or appreciated in this thread up until now

It may be that we over-nerfed them, in that case we can of course adjust them and lower their costs in the next Event for example, or increase their damage scaling a bit. What we already plan to do is increase their building/morale damage even more (higher building damage also means higher damage to province morale). What we don't plan to do is to make them able to kill multiple units with one hit again. Maybe 1 rocket for 1 unit would be ok. They are not supposed to be huge unit killers.

Also the ignore fortification perk was removed from them completely (now a feature of the Commando) and the "deal friendly fire" perk was added.

No we won't remove the "cannot be intercepted" perk from the V2 rockets because that was their feature in RL as well.

freezy wrote:

Teburu wrote:

addition to my last post:

i think 1.5 has the wrong approach to balancing rockets

keeping their damage the same (or roughly the same? will have to check for detail)

as in 1.0 while other units have massive changes to HP/Dmgoutput

(at least in theory) that will make rockets lategame fairly useless as even a max lvl rocket will take 2 hits to kill a max lvl inf (again: will check later for detailed numbers) .... seems a bit too extreme to me as of right now

so now a bit closer look at it as promised

cow 1.0:

a lvl 4 rocket costs 25 manpower|1500 steel|500 rare|2500 money while dealing 3370|30 dmg (if you do full dmg that is, x factor is insane in 1.0)

a unit of infantry costs 500 food|500 goods|1300 manpower|750 money + has 10 Hp (in general units in 1.0 have usually 10-20 hp; with tanks having a bit more)

--> dmg scaling with unit lvl, but not cost or HP makes max lvl rockets insanly effective, because even if they dont deal full damage a max lvl rocket has good chances of killing at least one unit of 10HP (if you arent completly unlucky that is) so the potential dmg output compared to the HP of units is quite insane

for comparison: other units deal fairly low dmg; e.g.: mediums tanks deal 8,5 while being more expensive

in 1.5:

lvl 4 rocket: 1240 manpower|270 steel|1080 oil|2160 rare|2700 money while dealing 31|31|31|180|110

sidenote: i find the dramatic decrease of damage against aircraft... weird, now a max lvl rocket can't even kill aircraft on the ground (cuz it still counts as aircraft and recieves only the 18 dmg)

an infantry unit has 50 HP on max lvl, other units have similar HP (50-70 usually); artillery having the lowest and tanks ofc having a bit more

aircraft have 50|70|105|70 HP (from fighter to naval bomber)

sidenote: aircraft maintaining their high HP while grounded and rockets at the same time dealing less dmg against them then in 1.0 makes imo no sense; if a grounded aircraft gets hit by a missile it's toast (it should be even more fragile than tanks lol)

so thats a shitton of numbers, but what do they mean? well to make it simple: rockets went from (theoreticaly) being able to kill 3-4 units with a single use, to not even being able to kill a single one at max lvl in 1.5 while also getting more expensive

what do i suggest?:

- dramatic increase in rocket DMG (similiar to 1.0 dmg output maybe? so it should be able to kill 3-4 max lvl units), especially against aircraft

- move the "ignores fortifications" perk to lvl 1

- move the "not able to be intercepted" perk to lvl 4

- only have them able to target the center of a province

(with the higher dmg output, maybe also a slight increase in price might be needed)

Well it's what most people here asked for, right? "Reduce their effectiveness vs. units, increase their effectiveness vs. provinces, to make them more historical accurate".I already told like 2 pages ago that rockets are significantly weaker vs. units in CoW1.5, but that wasnt really realized or appreciated in this thread up until now

It may be that we over-nerfed them, in that case we can of course adjust them and lower their costs in the next Event for example, or increase their damage scaling a bit. What we already plan to do is increase their building/morale damage even more (higher building damage also means higher damage to province morale). What we don't plan to do is to make them able to kill multiple units with one hit again. Maybe 1 rocket for 1 unit would be ok. They are not supposed to be huge unit killers.

Also the ignore fortification perk was removed from them completely (now a feature of the Commando) and the "deal friendly fire" perk was added.

No we won't remove the "cannot be intercepted" perk from the V2 rockets because that was their feature in RL as well.

freezy wrote:

What we don't plan to do is to make them able to kill multiple units with one hit again. Maybe 1 rocket for 1 unit would be ok. They are not supposed to be huge unit killers.

General cdub wrote:

I have to agree with Bundy on many aspects to what he states about Rockets.

I don't believe they should be removed from the game but the cost of making Rockets needs to be drastically increased, especially with Rare Materials.

I have watched people Spam Rockets and just target every air base in range.

I understand you need people to buy and spend gold to make Call of War a viable business, but there does need to be a considerable adjustment to the Rocket Program.

General cdub

ducwigen wrote:

General cdub wrote:

I have to agree with Bundy on many aspects to what he states about Rockets.

I don't believe they should be removed from the game but the cost of making Rockets needs to be drastically increased, especially with Rare Materials.

I have watched people Spam Rockets and just target every air base in range.

I understand you need people to buy and spend gold to make Call of War a viable business, but there does need to be a considerable adjustment to the Rocket Program.

General cdub

I agree with you two too, except about targeting airbases. what is wrong with that? It is a valid strategic choice. Especially against *my* pet peeve Tac bomber spammers.

I agree with your tactics and strategy and everyone that does that. I was not stating people should not target air bases, sheesh, I do the same thing. I was stating that I believe Rockets should have their cost, (specifically in Rare & Cash), increased drastically. This way if someone is going to spam rockets, it costs them more to do so.

As I only have the gold that I have received from either winning, placing or achievements, I don't use gold that often. When I do use it, it is very sparingly and never to spam units, speed up building processes or even research. The cheapest way I have found to spend my gold is buying the resources with it that I may need, (normally rare to get research started), then let everything build at it's normal pace.

I have posted this before I believe and I post it in the newspaper when someone starts whining about peeps using gold which I really get tired of even though the posts are not about me.

My Standard Post in Reply to the Whiners!

"Let me explain to you about people using Gold. There are two types of gold users.

1) Players that use gold from their winnings or achievements here and there.

2) The Wallet Warriors. These are the players that buy gold and spam units to try to win. They are easy to beat most of the time if you know what you are doing. These are not very good players and while they do pay the company to keep Call of War as a great game, they tend to be bullies and pick on the less experienced players when they have the chance. Many times they will attack in packs as well.

As far as gold usage. Who Cares? Everyone including you has used gold at one time or another. Let me ask you a question sir. When someone wins a game and gets gold rewards or earns it from their achievements, what are they supposed to do with that gold if not use it in future maps?

Let me make this perfectly clear. There is a difference between someone who uses a bit of gold here and there and a Wallet Warrior. To repeat myself,

1) Winning Gold from Previous Games or Achievements. You use Gold here and there and sparingly as it only goes so far. (I for one have won a couple of games here and there and have a bit of a stash of gold saved up from my winnings). I don't use it that often but I will do it occasionally as I no longer think my gold is safe hidden on Oak Island.

2) Wallet Warriors are those peeps that buy gold from Bytro Labs. They use this gold to spam units when they are losing the battle. In the end, they spend a lot of gold and normally don't win that often. (These players are essential to Call of War however. They are what pay the bills to keep Call of War a great game. In the end, Bytro is a business that puts out a game. Those that do not buy gold still get to play it for free. You don’t see gaming companies like EA Sports do that now do you? With them, you actually have to buy the game.

Let's not get into a bunch of posts about nonsense like this."

(I will also put in one of my favorite pics seen below, I do pay for High Command)

So duc, I am sorry for my wording and you thinking I was complaining about your strategy. It is just the opposite, it is a great strategy that I use myself. I have posted in reply to someone else about how do you battle rockets. I for one don't do a lot of rockets unless I come across peeps that employ the Rocket Program. I will research level 1 rockets and build them only. Normally what I find is that peeps don't put AA in every Air Strip or Base so I fire level 1 rockets, (Flying Bombs in 1.5), at those air bases which will always cause about 1.5 hours worth of damage and repair time so they can't fire their rockets at me.

Again, I was only replying to a previous post and stating that I believe Rockets need to be more expensive to build than what they currently are. On another note, I don't think they need to be adjusted up or down as far as the damage they do. They are fine other than the cost factor.

I hope this clarifies what I was referring to.

General cdub

Teburu wrote:

rockets went from (theoreticaly) being able to kill 3-4 units with a single use, to not even being able to kill a single one at max lvl in 1.5 while also getting more expensive

ducwigen wrote:

I agree with you two too, except about targeting airbases. what is wrong with that? It is a valid strategic choice. Especially against *my* pet peeve Tac bomber spammers.

General cdub wrote:

2) The Wallet Warriors. These are the players that buy gold and spam units to try to win. They are easy to beat most of the time if you know what you are doing. These are not very good players and while they do pay the company to keep Call of War as a great game, they tend to be bullies and pick on the less experienced players when they have the chance. Many times they will attack in packs as well.

Really!!! After all these years, they still won't listen to reason on this one issue. Reliance on premium points in a multiplayer game will never make them rich. But alas, they ain't going to listen to me. They never do, anymore.

Now I'm bummed.

There some great post and some very smart people with good idea. I am not as smart as some you guys regarding the internal working of the game. But I have achieved a decent rank with a 30+ percent win ratio and I use rockets all the time. I like to address to issue from my humble point of view.

First, I use rockets for two primary reason. one to stop large stack that are filled with AA. Secondly the destroy coalitions the plan unprovoked attack with large stacks or massive number of plane using significant gold to fuel their military. Rockets are a tremendous equalizer in stacks of 5 or more. The need to have major damage to units that on vunderbal to rockets and less to units such armor. Rocket have the same effect on units as artillery but more powerful.

Rocket will create heavy causality for infantry unit and airplanes, but only cause damage to armor units that can be repaired. Therefore rocket should be used to knock out AA and grounded plane in order for the bomber to come in and do they job.

Secondly, the use of gold, the when and way I use it. I used my winning from previous game in the begging of a new game for economic reasons. I will also use gold to defend myself against an obvious Golden Warrior or Golden Coalition.

I used as defense and I use it to support the game.

I believe in integrity so I am not going to put on the front of never using gold and I question all those that make that claim. If I choose to support a game that I love to play with a 1.99 here or 4.99 there it is the cheapest entertainment around. If you do play for free as many brag, then you are doing the game and the hard work of the players a diservices.

So be honest and accept that gold drive the game and it a part of history. Where would Great Britain be, if it did not have the United States to underwrite their war debt loans and lend it money to fight. The same goes for France. Likewise, Germany underwrote many of the loans of the Axis country. Nations have to borrow money in to survive.

Using Gold in a form of borrowing money. It would be an interest concept of buying gold as collateral for debt instead of buy resource with the ability to pay back that debt. if the debt is paid back the gold is returned minus interest. It would change the dynamic and strategy of the game to reflect the actual economics of war. If the player misses interest payment then resources , building and moral are affected. Food for thought.

SShawk1 wrote:

I believe in integrity so I am not going to put on the front of never using gold and I question all those that make that claim. If I choose to support a game that I love to play with a 1.99 here or 4.99 there it is the cheapest entertainment around. If you do play for free as many brag, then you are doing the game and the hard work of the players a diservices.

While I don't support the game financially, I would if I could. Yet, on principle, even if I were rich, I wouldn't buy Gold premium points. I won't purchase game-changing premium points for any multiplayer game since that makes-uneven the playing field. And since the only other source of revenue that I would be able to pay for is High Command, even the rich version of me would be severely limited in how to pay for the game.

Also on principle, I am old-school. I am vehemently opposed to 'renting' software and am a strict believer in purchasing and owning software. If they want to have it be ad-supported, I have to choose whether I want to play a game that has critical screen estate hijacked by advertisements for products and services I would NEVER want.

BTW, the 'close-able' sidebar on the desktop version is getting more and more annoying. Even if you close it, it just pops up like a minute later. And for awhile, whenever I'd use a proxy, the ad would get double-wide to show some freakin' German-language advertisement for tickets to something that would freak me out if I so much as considered trying to attend....on the other side of the world, no less!

Also, by making software purchasable, you pay ONE TIME to get permanent rights to use it — and modify it — and that's fair. Any company that thinks it needs to fleece the richest players upwards of thousands of dollars a year just to play a game so that others can play for free....well, that's socialistic/communistic thinking and it really sticks in my craw. Everyone should pay a fair and equal amount ONE TIME each. Sure, the price would need to be a little higher, maybe. But the core fan base (like myself) would be willing to pay it to keep playing. Of course, with this model, if they allowed player mods, then a mod package update could be released for an additional fee. And, if they are good enough, then the mod package would necessarily be worth at least 50% of the original game price.

And if Bytro opened the code base (or at least part of it) to the community for modding, then they could market the better mods for a minimum investment on the part of the company, while letting the designers get free and permanent access to all content in exchange for their contributions. Of course, I've proposed this before. But the folks at Bytro still aren't interested in my ideas, here.

SShawk1 wrote:

If you do play for free as many brag, then you are doing the game and the hard work of the players a diservices.

Yes Ive seen a player who only builds Rockets and Nuke plans. But he doesnt put any planning into invading the country concerned, and he also find out to his folly that he cant take ground

why cant we all be friends?