Search Results

Question - I have 14 players and I would like to create a TEAM game in which players are randomly assigned both teams and countries. Is this setting possible in game setup? Ameriken

We are still looking for an opponent - original ground rules no longer apply and the game setup is completely up for negotiation (except no gold use). We are looking for a 5v5 game.

I have 5 guys ready to fight - what are the ground rules?

Got it - thanks.

Did you PM password? I don't have anything in my inbox yet.

Roger - I see the game and accepted. We should have everyone up on our side in the next 12 hours. PM me password when you get a chance so I can get it out to my guys. Thanks.

Sounds good to us - like I said we are good with you taking any of the other countries. And yes agreed for it to start once all players are in. You can go ahead and send the challenge. Good stuff - I think this will be fun.

Ok - we can agree to all of those conditions. Agreed that some of the rules barring multiple players at same location from playing are a little overkill. It is pretty clear when someone is just straight-up multi-accounting. So with that said - we completely agree to adhere to no gold spamming (and advise against even small gold use), and to direct any possible in-game grievances with you guys directly. We aren't the type to play tattle-tale, so that's easy. One final, slight adjustment - we are …

By cheat enabled you mean cheat protection on or off? Won't disabling cheat protection automatically downgrade it from a ranked game? Do you have multiple players in same location? Also - would you be open to us playing as the allies instead (US, UK, USSR, and France) - and you can pick any other 4 countries. We are not concerned with defending France. Or are you open to free selection with no real pre-defined sides? We just pick as available? As much as random selection may remove an unfair set…

What's it going to be? Do you want to throw down or not?

Alright allies or axis is negotiable. Just looking for a dedicated opponent. We can do 4v4, 4v5, 5v5 on the 10 player Road to War map. Starting peace or not. Just no gold please. We will defeat you. Ameriken

We are just looking to square off against a competitive team. I guess in the end it doesn't matter to us whether it is ranked or not. Just thought the axis/allies split on this map made sense, but understand some reservations about France's setup. How would you like to set up the game - random countries? You be axis, and we be allies? Maybe implement an initial peace period in the settings?

Realizing that the Yugos were not axis, but since they don't have Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. playable...

In a 4v4 I would imagine the split would be: Axis: - Germany - Italy - Yugoslavia - Spain Allies: - UK - USSR - USA - France With Sweden and Turkey essentially being neutral (though not necessarily against either of us choosing one or the other). Surprised to hear no one would want to play with USA - pretty critical role in overpowering the Axis (even if it takes a little longer to get in the fight). Let me know what you think - open to other ideas as well. Ameriken

We are an alliance that has mostly kept to 100-player matches until now. Looking to square off against a dedicated team that is up for some healthy competition. We would like to play a 4v4 game, Axis and Allies on the 10-player Europe map. We would like to be the Axis side, all other rule options are up for discussion - our only hard rule is NO GOLD. Reply here or PM me. Looking forward to a fight. Ameriken05

The General Staff is looking for a 4v4 challenge as well. I am assuming that you would want to do a 4v4 on the 10 player Europe map? We would request that we be allowed to be Axis nations and that you take the Allies. Are you interested in an initial peace period (either players and/or AI)? This is not a necessity for us but thought I would ask. Our only rule is NO GOLD Let me know, or PM me. Ameriken05

With the relatively recent introduction of coalitions into CoW (an awesome feature), it feels like the game's victory conditions do not always align with this new layer of encouraged teamwork. Primarily - on a 100-player map it is not unusual for multiple 5+ player coalitions to form across the globe. So essentially 5/100 players (.05%) can wage war and defeat 95 other players yet be barred from claiming game victory under one of the defined conditions (VP Points, 3 Remaining Players, etc.). Thi…

Is there currently a setting/offering where if I elect to pay for a premium subscription to this game that I can take part in games where in-game gold microtransactions are banned? I understand that gold makes the world go round, but at this point I would be willing to PAY in order to avoid a game in which rampant gold use throws off all sense of strategy or trumps all the smart mechanics built into the game. Call of War is a wonderful game - but I don't think the answer to gold is to spend more…

Agreed - but to be fair those are introduced very late into the game and take quite a bit of resources to research - so do not have quite the same impact on the game as regular rockets do early on. Listen, I love how the game starts reaching into 50's era technology, but I just think there should be more balancing on the V-2s so they aren't equivalent to tomahawk cruise missiles. That's all. I want more WW2 ground war

The 1984 reference was to the George Orwell novel where the wars are just a bunch of random rocket strikes. And that's fine if the Germans intended to use the rockets in a more operational/tactical role - but that still would have required almost insurmountable resources to pull off. And again - not saying you get rid of rockets because they can be fun, but they either need to be A) more expensive to produce, or B) less potent against ground formations, or even C) a combination of both. I'm just…