South Africa- 25p Map

    • South Africa- 25p Map

      Should South Africa be playable in the 25p map? 8
      1.  
        Yes (5) 63%
      2.  
        Can't Decide (2) 25%
      3.  
        No (1) 13%
      South Africa should be playable in the 25p map for the following reasons:
      Could replace countries like Mongolia, Manchukuo.. (countries that many players avoid and cause the game to take forever to start if it is starts when full)
      Would give World Powers a chance to make a powerful enemy, or an effective ally.
      Has the cities and production right there for playing.
      It would give Africa a country to play as.
      Victory points outnumber countries like Mongolia and Persia.
      If we can add this country for playing, I think it could be a game changer in the fact that South Africa gives the European powers something to fear for their colonies. A check system, somewhat.
      Feedback on this idea is appreciated, share your thoughts.
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota
    • beastyben7 wrote:

      No because with that much power, that player will always attack one player:
      United Kingdom

      In the real war, South Africa was not that involved in anything anyway.

      ===========================================================================================

      Or on the contrary,
      Make all nations playable bc why not? haha
      That is not true at all.
      Portugal borders it, and the Belgian congo after Portugal.
      France with Madagascar.
      Did Mongolia, Xinjiang, Persia, Turkey, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, do anything in the war? No, but yet they are still playable.
      South Africa has everything there for playability, the only thing it lacks at this point is the option to play it.
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota
    • xXCooksterXx wrote:

      beastyben7 wrote:

      No because with that much power, that player will always attack one player:
      United Kingdom

      In the real war, South Africa was not that involved in anything anyway.

      ===========================================================================================

      Or on the contrary,
      Make all nations playable bc why not? haha
      That is not true at all.Portugal borders it, and the Belgian congo after Portugal.
      France with Madagascar.
      Did Mongolia, Xinjiang, Persia, Turkey, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, do anything in the war? No, but yet they are still playable.
      South Africa has everything there for playability, the only thing it lacks at this point is the option to play it.
      And, actually South Africa fought in WW2 in the British Commonwealth, were many South Africans saw service.
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota
    • It just seems a like a nuisance just having it there to worry about. Maybe I am wrong, but It just seems like there is not enough in that region to slow down its expansion, perhaps if more total troops were added in the surrounding areas, it just seems like an OP starting position. I could see countries like Belgium / Netherlands / Portugal since it would be difficult to gain power in that position, but South Africa seems to have too many advantages. I do believe it could be added as a medium power. Like you could have different rewards based on how strong the nation you picked was. I think considering it a "minor" power would not make sense. Perhaps start countries like Germany, UK, France, Italy, Soviet Union, Japan as a major power, then South Africa, Persia, India, Australia as medium since they can expand easily, and then Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal as minor powers since startup is very difficult with those countries.

      Therefore having three separate victory rewards: Major powers get less gold at victory, medium powers get above average gold reward, and then minor powers would get very large payouts for victory.
    • beastyben7 wrote:

      It just seems a like a nuisance just having it there to worry about. Maybe I am wrong, but It just seems like there is not enough in that region to slow down its expansion, perhaps if more total troops were added in the surrounding areas, it just seems like an OP starting position. I could see countries like Belgium / Netherlands / Portugal since it would be difficult to gain power in that position, but South Africa seems to have too many advantages. I do believe it could be added as a medium power. Like you could have different rewards based on how strong the nation you picked was. I think considering it a "minor" power would not make sense. Perhaps start countries like Germany, UK, France, Italy, Soviet Union, Japan as a major power, then South Africa, Persia, India, Australia as medium since they can expand easily, and then Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal as minor powers since startup is very difficult with those countries.

      Therefore having three separate victory rewards: Major powers get less gold at victory, medium powers get above average gold reward, and then minor powers would get very large payouts for victory.
      This idea has been tried many times before, none of which has worked out in the planning stage.
      South Africa is a check on colonies like I said before, so it is in a good position on purpose to play.
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota
    • The colonies in Africa all need at least one non-player country bordering it, hence why Egypt is not under UK control. sorry to shoot you down.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      " [...]the shuai-jan is a snake that is found in the Chung mountains. Strike at its head, and you will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle, and you will be attacked by head and tail both."
      Sun Tzu, Art of War

      "Just because you have an idea does not make it a good one"
      Quasi-duck
    • xXCooksterXx wrote:

      Or, an option can be added where you can make only certain countries playable, so then you could play South Africa, too.
      Gives people the option to play the old way or the new.
      You know, this has spurred in me a different idea....and not for this map...but for the 100 player World map as well as the 22 player Clash of Nations map. What if, a user could start a new match in one of these maps but have the ability to "deselect" up to half of the 22 player map's nations (point and click or randomized) such that the maximum players is automatically reduced.

      Maybe by doing this for the 100 Player map, allowing non-staff members to create matches from this map again could be made feasible. Of course, only highly ranked players should be allowed to create this customized World map to help reduce the potential problems with Multis and empty matches. But at the same time, if they had a "maximum allowed" number of nations to be chosen, they could customize a set of nations around the world such that maybe only a max of 30 nations may be played by humans and the rest are permanently NPC for the duration of the match.

      And, to prevent deliberate imbalances from making the game unwinnable for some nations, the setup could force the player to pick within an allowable range of nations to be playable in any particular continent or region based on that region's size (i.e., between 2 and 3 nations required in South Pacific, between 2 and 4 nations required in USSR bloc, between 3 and 5 nations required in Europe, etc....).

      And, to make things even more interesting, this idea could be used in an offshoot way to customize the World map where the user chooses a single continent of the World map that would be played upon. And then only that portion of the map may be played using only the nations of that region that are currently defined in the World map. The entire rest of the map would be "turned off" -- so to speak -- and players could only play in and around the "turned on" portion of the map as the rest of the map would only get a minor render in a shadow format and you can only see a small amount of that beyond the playable portion of the map (and the World map's wrapping feature could be turned off, also). Lastly, because these matches would be even smaller than the nations-to-be-deselected-for-play matches, they could have a lower minimum rank for players to create it.

      Yes, these are yet another set of radical ideas, but worth considering by the dev team.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • Diabolical wrote:

      xXCooksterXx wrote:

      Or, an option can be added where you can make only certain countries playable, so then you could play South Africa, too.
      Gives people the option to play the old way or the new.
      You know, this has spurred in me a different idea....and not for this map...but for the 100 player World map as well as the 22 player Clash of Nations map. What if, a user could start a new match in one of these maps but have the ability to "deselect" up to half of the 22 player map's nations (point and click or randomized) such that the maximum players is automatically reduced.
      Maybe by doing this for the 100 Player map, allowing non-staff members to create matches from this map again could be made feasible. Of course, only highly ranked players should be allowed to create this customized World map to help reduce the potential problems with Multis and empty matches. But at the same time, if they had a "maximum allowed" number of nations to be chosen, they could customize a set of nations around the world such that maybe only a max of 30 nations may be played by humans and the rest are permanently NPC for the duration of the match.

      And, to prevent deliberate imbalances from making the game unwinnable for some nations, the setup could force the player to pick within an allowable range of nations to be playable in any particular continent or region based on that region's size (i.e., between 2 and 3 nations required in South Pacific, between 2 and 4 nations required in USSR bloc, between 3 and 5 nations required in Europe, etc....).

      And, to make things even more interesting, this idea could be used in an offshoot way to customize the World map where the user chooses a single continent of the World map that would be played upon. And then only that portion of the map may be played using only the nations of that region that are currently defined in the World map. The entire rest of the map would be "turned off" -- so to speak -- and players could only play in and around the "turned on" portion of the map as the rest of the map would only get a minor render in a shadow format and you can only see a small amount of that beyond the playable portion of the map (and the World map's wrapping feature could be turned off, also). Lastly, because these matches would be even smaller than the nations-to-be-deselected-for-play matches, they could have a lower minimum rank for players to create it.

      Yes, these are yet another set of radical ideas, but worth considering by the dev team.
      I recommended something like this in another post, I don't think it'll happen any time soon sadly.
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota
    • beastyben7 wrote:

      do you mean like atwar-game.com/games/
      Huh....I never heard of this before. I'm going to have to check it out. But your post may be at odds with Bytro TOS.
      Still, they are recruiting and you don't have to leave the country to go work for them. Hm...well, it's not like Bytro's beating down my door. Heck, I don't think they'll even let me be a volunteer staff member.

      lol

      xXCooksterXx wrote:

      I recommended something like this in another post, I don't think it'll happen any time soon sadly.
      You are probably right. But I've had the distinction of being one of those people that comes up with so many ideas in the forums, that some of them have actually been implemented in the game. I know they must have gotten some inspiration for the Antarctica map from my polar map suggestions on the map search thread. I was the only person ever to come up with such a suggestion, back then (at least, in the forums). And their latest consideration for improving the air combat patrol system which has been getting exploited by some, as of late, is almost identical to another of my proposals which was meant to be a solution for eliminating the Patrol's circumvented SBDE exploit.

      I think I'll be putting those two game improvements in my "win" column and I'm very proud to see that the development team is paying attention to the community in the forums. Sure, not all ideas are winners, but if you are creative and keep coming up with more ideas to throw at the wall, some are bound to stick.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.