why are convoys still alive, even after the death of the country

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • freezy wrote:

      If your enemy wants to keep fighting he can do that even if he lost all his territory. We won't force that decision onto him. If he wants to surrender and make peace, it will also be his decision. The aspects of this game are not only about historical context, there will always be game design compromises.
      @freezy Last time I checked, AI countries were programmed to do what the programmer tells them to do. And I have yet to encounter a human player who has lost all of his territory but maintains a vast armada of40 or 50 "elite" level subs, destroyers, cruisers and even battleships. The problem is not human players being forced to surrender and make peace; the problem is AI countries doing exactly what Bytro programmed them to do. Pretending this is about forcing a decision on a human player is disingenuous, at best.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      ...I created a flame war with a simple question.
      Draza, there is no "flame war" here, but there is a serious discussion about what should be done with these goofy AI fleets of high-level orphan naval units that continue to prowl the high seas without the benefit of any parent country to provide the food and fuel they need to function. And that latter point -- that these warships require food, fuel and munitions -- is one which the defenders of this goofiness cannot even acknowledge, let alone have an intellectually honest conversation about it.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      If your enemy wants to keep fighting he can do that even if he lost all his territory. We won't force that decision onto him. If he wants to surrender and make peace, it will also be his decision. The aspects of this game are not only about historical context, there will always be game design compromises.
      @freezy Last time I checked, AI countries were programmed to do what the programmer tells them to do. And I have yet to encounter a human player who has lost all of his territory but maintains a vast armada of40 or 50 "elite" level subs, destroyers, cruisers and even battleships. The problem is not human players being forced to surrender and make peace; the problem is AI countries doing exactly what Bytro programmed them to do. Pretending this is about forcing a decision on a human player is disingenuous, at best.
      Yes they do, but maybe we like how they are operating right now and don't want to change that. Maybe players need to be more careful and scout out the paths they want to take, and also live with the consequences of attacking other nations including rogue troops on sea.
      Also as far as I know you can make peace with an AI by stopping all fights and changing your relation with them to peace, they should do the same after a while.

    • freezy wrote:

      Yes they do, but maybe we like how they are operating right now and don't want to change that.
      Who is "we," Freezy? If you mean the Bytro community support staff, perhaps, but I have yet to read comments from experienced, unaffiliated players who believe that AI fleets should roam indefinitely. In my 10 months of playing COW, non-staff discussion participants have repeatedly, consistently and overwhelmingly objected to this aspect of the game, and requested that it be modified. Perhaps in your role as community manager, you should be relaying that message of your consumers to your home office development staff in Hamburg instead of defending this aspect of the game which everyone seems to hate.


      freezy wrote:

      Also as far as I know you can make peace with an AI by stopping all fights and changing your relation with them to peace, they should do the same after a while.

      No, sir. In my personal experience, after an AI country's territory is fully conquered, it will never change its status from war to peace with regard to any human player with which it was at war when its last province was conquered. This seems to be a programmed feature of AIs. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you check with the programmers.

    • Speaking of this - it also sucks for morale to continue to be affected by a non-existant war. Not sure why my loyal subjects get the jitters when the enemy has no troops or provinces remaining.
      Diplomatic status should be forced to peace or at lest cease fire.

    • MontanaBB wrote:


      Who is "we," Freezy?
      We as Bytro I meant :) The issue was discussed and right now we don't see a strong reason for changing it.

      Minions of M wrote:

      Speaking of this - it also sucks for morale to continue to be affected by a non-existant war. Not sure why my loyal subjects get the jitters when the enemy has no troops or provinces remaining.
      You should not get any morale penalty anymore when the country lost its last province.

    • Here's what I don't get......

      Forget all the arguments that "it's so ridiculous, why not change it" or "No we wont change it because... no" and such.

      From a business standpoint.... If your customer hates something, and you have no need nor real reason for it.... It is good business sense to change it.

      I'm sure there is probably some random player out there who loves getting his ships and troops killed by massive stacks of elite ships from a country that's been dead for a month and never had more than 5 provinces anyway, but I haven't encountered that player yet.

      All I've seen are countless players who oppose or thoroughly detest the "feature".

      The only ones that seem to like it, are the game staff.


      Again, from a business standpoint, why on earth would you do that?

    • Freezy wrote:


      You should not get any morale penalty anymore when the country lost its last province.


      But I am.....

      France ceased to exist a week ago. I even hit "peace" in the diplomacy..... a week ago. It even showed "peace"
      I did the same for Egypt that I took the last province from three days ago. Both are now AI.

      I am only battling two countries and one day ago I showed "at war" with 2 countries. Yet I just had a stack of navy sunk by a French stack of destroyers all at elite level, another stack and a convoy sunk by elite Egyptian subs, and now suddenly I have a -25 moral hit for being at war with 5 countries.

      I still don't know who the other one I am supposedly at war with is. In the diplomacy section I am only showing two.

    • freezy wrote:

      MontanaBB wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      If your enemy wants to keep fighting he can do that even if he lost all his territory. We won't force that decision onto him. If he wants to surrender and make peace, it will also be his decision. The aspects of this game are not only about historical context, there will always be game design compromises.
      @freezy Last time I checked, AI countries were programmed to do what the programmer tells them to do. And I have yet to encounter a human player who has lost all of his territory but maintains a vast armada of40 or 50 "elite" level subs, destroyers, cruisers and even battleships. The problem is not human players being forced to surrender and make peace; the problem is AI countries doing exactly what Bytro programmed them to do. Pretending this is about forcing a decision on a human player is disingenuous, at best.
      Yes they do, but maybe we like how they are operating right now and don't want to change that. Maybe players need to be more careful and scout out the paths they want to take, and also live with the consequences of attacking other nations including rogue troops on sea.Also as far as I know you can make peace with an AI by stopping all fights and changing your relation with them to peace, they should do the same after a while.
      OK.... So your customers overwhelmingly hate a feature of the game that is unrealistic, inaccurate, and unreasonable.... but you will ignore that because you like it....

      You admit that the AI is doing what you force it to do, after saying you refuse to force a country to do anything..... but that doesn't matter because you "don't want to change that"?

      "maybe players need to be more careful"...... you say, instead of thinking "maybe the staff needs to be careful to do things that make sense to keep the customers happy."

      Do you not see the problem there?

    • WiseOdin wrote:

      Naval units work just like any other unit. They must be killed. Nationals of any country do not simply give up when their homeland has been captured. Not in 1446 BC, not in June of 1940, and from 1947 to.. Today (Ask any Pakistani about loyalty to a country that on paper doesn't exist).

      Point being, it is a feature of the game that units remain until destroyed. It is a feature that makes players think further in advance about their tactics. You shouldn't try to simply be a step or two ahead of your enemy, but a day or two ahead of him.
      If this were true for warships, or the way this game does it, we'd still be having container ships and cruise liners sunk by random Nazi submarines and confederate sailing vessels.

      You are not asking your players to think a day or two ahead, you are demanding that they think years, decades, infinity ahead.

      You are saying we could wipe out a country in day 7, and then on day 157 still be looking out for some miracle self-sustaining stack of superships to pop up and kill the ships we made yesterday.

    • I'll second, third, or even fifth the objection as to the rogue fleets. I had a fleet of 24 battleships/cruisers/destroyers/subs sunk by a Moroccan elite fleet of submarines and cruisers (20 subs/10 cruisers) that are running the high seas.

      How a banana republic like Morocco would develop and field such a fleet is questionable at best. Having it be so formable (impossible to get past the AAA from the cruisers and even the elite subs defend vs Naval Air attacks, and not being able to counter the massive sub force with a surface fleet is sad.

      Furthermore- a nuclear bomber should defend vs. AAA fire to a degree and a nuclear rocket fired into a fleet should do some damage to the submarine component of a fleet.

      To ignore these imbalances are problematic when you have players who enjoy the game and spend real currency to do so as I have.
      Destroyers- Bold as Lions

    • It is not programmed feature, it is a feature that has not been programmed.

      So to change it requires programming, and as a former programmer myself I know it would be a major overhaul, slow down the whole game, introduce a host of bugs (don't we have enough bugs alreeady ?). I for one would rather see existing bugs fixed before they introduce this major overhaul.

      So it is not a programmed feature, it is emergence of original programming that was not anticipated.

      S.
      -don't bring me if(home.country.provinces==0) day.home.counter++; if (home.counter>10) subattac.current(); if (home.country.provinces>0) day.home.counter=0;
      Peaceful sleep for u in death X/ when I grab your lands !

    • Homer0303 wrote:

      I think that it is fair enough, after all, when a country 'dies' all it's troops don't suddenly die
      No, Homer, the troops don't die when their country dies, but a modern navy does come to a screeching halt when it runs out of oil. No country, no oil supply, no functional navy. Moreover, a modern navy also requires constant replenishment of munitions and food in addition to oil, as well as periodic shipyard repairs and refitting. Without the materiel and maintenance provided by the parent country's naval infrastructure, a warship does, in effect, "die."

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      We as Bytro I meant The issue was discussed and right now we don't see a strong reason for changing it.
      Other than, of course, your consumers hate it. You mean no "strong reason for changing it" other than that, right?
      To be more precise, a small hand full of users who are posting here hate it. But that does not mean that many or all players hate it. There were even people in this thread who said they are ok with it. There are always users who love or hate certain game features, no way to please everyone.

      Sukaton wrote:

      It is not programmed feature, it is a feature that has not been programmed.

      So to change it requires programming, and as a former programmer myself I know it would be a major overhaul, slow down the whole game, introduce a host of bugs (don't we have enough bugs alreeady ?). I for one would rather see existing bugs fixed before they introduce this major overhaul.

      So it is not a programmed feature, it is emergence of original programming that was not anticipated.

      S.
      -don't bring me if(home.country.provinces==0) day.home.counter++; if (home.counter>10) subattac.current(); if (home.country.provinces>0) day.home.counter=0;
      Exactly one of the reasons. There are always costs of opportunity. Instead of introducing new code to prevent the said behaviour (and fixing bugs relating to it afterwards) we could also spend the time on fixing other more important bugs, improving the game performance or developing new features that more users would enjoy than the amount of users that run into this specific problem. If we had all the time and money in the world we could of course do it...

      MontanaBB wrote:

      Homer0303 wrote:

      I think that it is fair enough, after all, when a country 'dies' all it's troops don't suddenly die
      No, Homer, the troops don't die when their country dies, but a modern navy does come to screeching a halt when it runs out of oil. No country, no oil supply, no functional navy. Moreover, a modern navy also requires constant replenishment of munitions and food in addition to oil, as well as periodic shipyard repairs and refitting. Without the materiel and maintenance provided by the parent country's naval infrastructure, a warship does, in effect, "die."
      Currently there is no system in place that lets units lose condition when running out of resources. So it makes no difference if you have 100 provinces and all resources on 0 with negative production values, or 0 provinces with 0 resources. So ships not losing condition after losing all provinces is actually consistent with how it works in other stages of the game, and we would need to implement the feature in the first place. Maybe we do if we see a stronger reason for it in the future. Until then you have to adjust your strategies accordingly, sorry.

      I hope you still enjoyed the open conversation about it :)

    • freezy wrote:

      There are always costs of opportunity. Instead of introducing new code to prevent the said behaviour (and fixing bugs relating to it afterwards) we could also spend the time on fixing other more important bugs, improving the game performance or developing new features that more users would enjoy than the amount of users that run into this specific problem. If we had all the time and money in the world we could of course do it.
      Sure, Freezy, and how much time and effort have Bytro's programmers spent on the development, introduction and continued de-bugging of "crates" -- an obvious "customer loyalty" program that no-one requested?

      And I dare you to take a survey of all active COW players whether the rogue AI fleets should continue or be removed . . . . Rarely have I encountered a business organization -- including COW's volunteer game operators and forum staff -- who seem so determined to simply ignore the wishes of its consumers. Frankly, it's more than a little weird for a profit-driven business.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • Heres a bandaid for the cancer. First of all, BB is right. We hate the nonsensical orphaned convoys.

      Maybe this idea will be easier to program. You know how at the end of a match the game shows all the remaining armies?

      How about doing that when an AI loses its last province. Just show that Ai's orphans. That would at least show us that you care
      “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

      ―
      Genghis Khan

    • freezy wrote:

      I hope you still enjoyed the open conversation about it :)
      Well.... this is actually the first time there has been an open conversation about it. Before we were hitting a stone wall of "NO! because... NO!"

      At this point I am finally starting to appreciate an actual conversation about it.

      On another note.... your comment about "only a handful of people here are against it."

      Let me introduce you to a cool game feature called "Chat" where this is brought up fairly frequently and never in a positive light.

      Only a handful of people care enough to bother coming to the home page, registering into the forums and posting about it. But how many of your customers are hating it, and simply throw up their hands and leave, grow disinterested, start looking to other games etc and never go through with the trouble to come here and give you feedback?

      This is the tip of the iceberg.

      As Dixie suggested, please, at least take that action on behalf of your customers.

    • wow, the level of whining about this issue is laughable.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      Homer0303 wrote:

      I think that it is fair enough, after all, when a country 'dies' all it's troops don't suddenly die
      No, Homer, the troops don't die when their country dies, but a modern navy does come to screeching a halt when it runs out of oil. No country, no oil supply, no functional navy. Moreover, a modern navy also requires constant replenishment of munitions and food in addition to oil, as well as periodic shipyard repairs and refitting. Without the materiel and maintenance provided by the parent country's naval infrastructure, a warship does, in effect, "die."
      This doesn't mean the Navy looses it's ability to fight and how do you know that the defeated country doesn't have an alliance with other countries that can help it out? Quit your freaking crying already, build some ships and kill the dam things already, it's the freaking AI and your in the game to destroy what the hell is the problem! Quit crying about a free game that doesn't work exactly the way you want it to or go play something else!
      "It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz