Pacific Map

    • Pacific Map

      Maybe this has been said before, and maybe it was thought this would be solved when the Pacific Map was created, but here it goes. Why does every game I play turn in to a an armored slug match? The North America map is perfect for that, and the huge, global map is good too, but here you come to the Pacific Map, and what happens?

      Armored warfare being played out in Asia and North America, with some amphibious stuff going on in the islands, and then who ever is the winner in North America or Asia crosses over the Bering Strait and conquers one or the other, and victory.

      Yeah. So historically accurate. I'm in a game right now, and I pretty much set it up to prevent attacking over the Bering Strait.....until my allies went inactive, and everyone else in Asia thinks we're supposed to reenact Kursk instead of Midway or Okinawa on the Pacific Map.

      How do we fix this? I don't know. Make Tanks and infantry even less effective? Make Asia an North America even smaller, so you have to go to the islands to get resources, and thus build a navy to do that effectively? Give some kind of victory point system for players that actually build naval units?

      Well, that's my complaint and maybe its been said before.
    • Alaska all ready has territories far enough apart so that fighters and bombers cant fly to each territory. before one can cross at the beiring sea you must control the water ways ( or risk having your troops and Armour destroyed at sea ) a navy is essential in the Pacific game. Battle ships are usefull in purging the Islands and many coast lines of course you need destroyers to protect battleships from subs. Im BC Canada in a pacific game atm and I have a large navy and starting to gain control of a large portion of the pacific. now my convoys can travel as I need without risk. To successfully defeat Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines you must have a robust navy. visa versa if you are those countries and dont have a large navy you will die quickly. I have played the Phillipines and have won the game. I had a large navy before I went to building armour. in my opinion if countries fought for control of the Beiring sea and placed a higher value on it then a Navy would certainly come in to play. with out that crossing the convoys are exposed and vulnerable.
    • Marine0861 wrote:

      Armored warfare being played out in Asia and North America, with some amphibious stuff going on in the islands, and then who ever is the winner in North America or Asia crosses over the Bering Strait and conquers one or the other, and victory.
      @Marine0861: I've played three games on the 50-player Pacific map, including two outright victories on points, in the last 12 months. Those three games included 30 to 50 active players in each of them, as well as multiple 2- to 4-player in-game alliances. That may not make me an "expert," but it certainly gives me a healthy perspective on the particular game map as well as some first-hand experience playing on it.

      Let me say at the outset that Call of War is primarily a land warfare game. The outcome of COW games is determined by who is able to capture and hold the most valuable provinces (as determined by "victory points"); there are no points awarded for establishing control over water bodies. Naval units exist primarily to escort (or intercept) ground units moving across oceans, and provide support to friendly ground units in the form of naval gunfire or carrier-based airstrikes against enemy units.

      If you're seeking a game that emphasizes sea battles and naval warfare, Call of War is not that game. If you want to play an online game that is primarily naval warfare, there are several available, including World of Warships, which does an excellent job with World War II naval warfare simulations.

      Now, all of that said, the 50-player Pacific map presents more opportunities for meaningful naval warfare than any other COW map, with the possible exception of the 100-player world map.

      In my personal game history, there are always several semi-experienced players (who should know better) that send out rafts of light and medium tank brigades across open ocean with absolutely no naval unit escorts whatsoever. When faced with such foolishness, the potential for submarine warfare is strong. In my last Pacific map game, my submarine units sank over 75 ground units that were moving as unescorted convoys, including one invasion force of 20+ units moving from Alaska to Siberia across the Bering Straits. Moreover, submarines can be a valuable source of intelligence regarding enemy coastal provinces and departing naval units and convoys of ground units.

      Given the large number of islands in the central and southwest Pacific, battle groups of battleships and their escorts can provide withering naval gunfire support during amphibious invasions and can also move freely along enemy coastlines, picking off enemy ground and aircraft units as they go. Aircraft carrier task forces, equipped with tactical bombers, can do the same thing but from a far greater distance.

      You described battles ending with clashes of armor in mainland Asia and North America. That's not really surprising, given the wide open coastal plains that often extend far into the interiors, but I must point out that if armor moved freely from Asia to Australia to North America, without being interdicted by opposing naval forces, that's not the invader's fault, but the defender's fault. Moreover, any damn fool who uses armor exclusively to invade the various central and southwestern Pacific islands without adequate support from naval and aircraft units is liable to find their shiny tank brigades cut off, isolated, and cut to ribbons by someone who did produce an adequate navy and naval air arm. Those lovely little tropical islands that are so easily overwhelmed by superior numbers of armor units can quickly become death traps for those tanks when confronted with superior naval forces.

      Bottom line: the Pacific map offers plenty of potential for naval warfare, especially if you are willing to use your imagination and employ creative tactics against the often fool-hardy tactics of your opponents.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • well said and if I may add to it that those who want to rush the game will try foolish things like sending unescorted convoys. Those players who I call scoopers, dont have the patients to build a well designed battle plan all they want ( at any cost ) is to get to a vastly unprotected area and run singles around and scoop territories. Its high risk poker. Those kinds of players dont care if their convoys sink. I dont like that part of the game its a race... get there first scoop as much as you can even if your fellow coalition members are the ones killing the most enemy units screw everyone else and take what ever you can as fast as you can regardless of casualties.... I dont like it at all. To me thats like the first person who runs to the birthday cake takes a hand and scoops off all the icing... who does that.. we all know what kind of person would do that and thats what I think of scoopers. usually they are the same people who say help me my home land is getting attacked. rushers and scoopers take the fun out of this game.. there is no solution though so I guess I better get used to it because there always scoopers in every game.
    • Razorwire62 wrote:

      Those kinds of players dont care if their convoys sink. I dont like that part of the game its a race... get there first scoop as much as you can even if your fellow coalition members are the ones killing the most enemy units screw everyone else and take what ever you can as fast as you can regardless of casualties.... I dont like it at all.
      Personally, I love it. And so do my submarine captains.
    • I wish you the very best of convoy hunting LOL Im with you there. The problem for me is when its coalition members not enemies. It seems a repeating scenario occurs. I plan I manage..I build and produce accordingly I go to battle take on large groups of the enemy and while Im doing that large percentages of the time my coalition mates are going around the battle zone with singles and scooping while my self and some others are doing the heavy lifting.... it makes my neck hairs stand on end.... I think players like that have very little class.
    • I understand what all of you are saying. I've already blockaded the Bering Strait with subs and naval bombers, so the guy who has now totally overrun North America can't use that route. I even have an aircraft carrier, and planned to build 3 more. I came to this game to the Pacific Map to fight a naval war, that like you said, I knew would end in a grand invasion by land.

      However, like I said, 2 members of my coalition decided to walk away from the game, and the 3rd was eventually overrun. Now, I'm fighting a ground war against 3 opponents. Like I said, the player in North America can't invade me by the normal route, but other than that, my navy is just sitting there.

      I've been holding back my enemies for the last few days, and I am having fun, but this is not what I wanted to do when I came to the Pacific Map. If I can negotiate a cease fire with these knuckleheads, at least I'll have a navy in place, and a much more advanced army than I would have when the time comes to invade North America...but fat chance of that.

      I suppose maybe a custom map with mostly islands would be the only solution...or play another game. World of Warships, which I have played, doesn't grant the grand strategy aspect that this game does. Anyway, lets hope these goofballs see the light, or else we'll still be slugging it out when North America finally makes it across the ocean.