If you could change ONE thing what would it be?

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

    • If you could change ONE thing what would it be?

      I would get rid of the fog around borders. It is a constant annoyance for me.

      EDIT: actually the above is #2. I forgot #1. #1 by far is the horrible view/ghost bug that has been introduced and has persisted through several announced updates with no mention of it and no change.

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

    • Gameplay-influencing "innovations" should be pre-tested and announced .. ;)

      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. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

    • king meatster wrote:

      Why would you go through the trouble of researching strategic bombers AND nuclear bombers when rockets (nuclear or otherwise) are just as good if not better?
      Personally, I strongly prefer nuclear rockets because they cannot be shot down. My first experience with nukes was watching an ally deliver three nukes via bombers, and witnessing two of three of them be shot down by anti-aircraft ground fire. So naturally, I don't like to make that huge investment in research time and resources to produce a nuke only to watch it fizzle.

      That said, some players believe that nuclear bombers offer an additional measure of flexibility over rockets. Bombers have the same range as rockets, but they can be re-targeted in flight, and they can take advantage of your string of air bases and those of your allies (and countries with whom you have a right of way) to effectively extend their range.

    • Since the question isn't qualified, limiting it to the coding of the game, the one thing I would change is the, apparently, default "solo-player mindset" among most players. I know it's not me (I bathe, brush my teeth, use Google Translate when needed, etc.) but players don't seem to have much of a social expectation to their gaming.

      I approach CoW under the same assumptions and expectations, of myself, as I would during in-person gaming. Every once in a while I find myself in a CoW game in which there are one or two players with a similar attitude and it really accentuates what CoW can offer.

      The best CoW games have enough active, communicative players, that understand and follow a modicum of practical diplomacy and comaraderie, that win or lose one can have a really good time.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by I Patton: edited for grammar ().

    • I'm afraid I have to agree with Clanpred: fix day change. It's really a stupid thing to ask, and I really think this should have been solved long ago; in fact I know there are special-interest games (e.g. German CoW Liga) that have a different day change so it isn't even a technical issue, but an administrative one.

      The game is simply giving all Euro players a huge disadvantage to Americans, and even bigger to Far East.

      FIX THIS.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • limit coalitions. im tired of seeing giant coalitions that dont work together, cant win without breaking the coalition, and have the power to demoralize other players from a distance just by declaring war. my suggestion would be to limit coalitions to 3 on 25 and lower maps, 4 on 50 player, and 5 on 100 player/ then allow a coalition victory, similar to team game victory. one of my 100 games rn has a coalition of over 20 players.

    • Stormbringer50 wrote:

      [M]y suggestion would be to limit coalitions to 3 on 25 and lower maps, 4 on 50 player, and 5 on 100 player/ then allow a coalition victory, similar to team game victory.
      This has been suggested many, many times, and your suggested numbers for the coalition size limits -- varying with the number of players on any given map -- also appear to represent the evolved consensus of discussions over the past two years.

      This suggested change is RIPE for action.

    • Stormbringer50 wrote:

      limit coalitions. im tired of seeing giant coalitions that dont work together, cant win without breaking the coalition, and have the power to demoralize other players from a distance just by declaring war. my suggestion would be to limit coalitions to 3 on 25 and lower maps, 4 on 50 player, and 5 on 100 player/ then allow a coalition victory, similar to team game victory. one of my 100 games rn has a coalition of over 20 players.
      Just a question. In such a situation, how is being in a game of several Alliance members different than being in a game of Coalitions with several members? I mean, does this beg to limit the number of Alliance members in an open game? Is there already such a limitation on Alliance members?