This Game is Redundant; Here's Why

So...are you still going to play it?

comrade dave wrote:

So...are you still going to play it?

It is concerning to say the least. I've found that backstabbing runs rampant in my games. That's why I pick U.S.A and hide there until everyone has beaten each other up.

salbalkus wrote:

Now, I've had a lot of fun with this game, no doubt. I really appreciate the time and effort that the designers put into making the game enjoyable. But, after playing the game for a couple of months, I've managed to boil down every strategy, every nugget of information I've gathered in playing competitively into one point that completely ruins the game for me.

To win a normal game of Call of War, alliances are key. They are formed in almost every game that one might enter, and if you don't have a strong alliance from the start you are effectively screwed. Up to three people can "win" a game of Call of War, so it is feasible to form triple alliances to gang up on others. And that is the catch. If you coordinate your attacks with others, the game becomes incredibly easy. It doesn't matter what kind of clever strategy you use, if the war is three versus one, the side with three people is usually bound to win. This becomes even more clear when you consider the fact that the only people who do not form alliances at once are new players; you could probably beat them even without the help of your cohorts.

Yet, it doesn't stop there. Many alliances consist of 4 or more players who have share map with each other. In this case, players are forced to gang up on one player in their alliance to eliminate them in order to end the game. This group elimination continues until there are 3 people left; these are the people who were simply lucky or pushy enough to not be singled out.

In my mind, this is not fun at all. I began playing this game for the strategy; to experience the great plans behind great wars; to develop my country's economy and infrastructure to the best of my ability. But these fun aspects of the game are thrown out the window in these alliance systems that develop. It doesn't matter if you have a good formation, or a clever organizational idea that will give you leverage over your opponent. It only matters if you have friends on your side.

The micromanagement, Skinner box aspect of the game doesn't really help either. Many times, the winner of a 1v1 just depends on who can be online more frequently. But, I digress. This thread is about alliances in Call of War, not my opinions on psychological tricks in game theory.

Anyway, don't get me wrong; these concepts were important lessons to learn, and I'm glad the game reveals them. It is always important to think about games and how they relate to our own lives. However, these lessons are not fun to repeat game after game, month after month, especially with a game that takes so long for each match to finish. I would much rather play something more enjoyable, a strategy game where my crazy theories and plans can come to fruition (or fail spectacularly, in which case I can learn what I did wrong). I just don't find a point in playing this game anymore, knowing that my own skill doesn't matter.

Thank you, Bytro, but no thank you.

Now, about the statement you said, that the one who's online the most wins. False. As long as you're online once daily, it's OK. I've kicked the asses of many people who were checking their games up to 5 times a day. Anyhow, there is a small advantage is you're online more. But anyway, that's the point of the game. It's real-time strategy. If you like turns, go play European War IV or Glory of the Generals.