Comprehensive Suggestion List

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

  • Oh yes, you can mod a server-based game. All you have to change is nothing. You only add files to the user's download folder which change the units on the user end. The server only has to keep track of rules-followed, unit movement, development and production, and timing. The modding details about those units and the rules are the movement, etc. are stored locally. The server would coordinate what mods are utilized and which matches host which mod sets. But the extra amount of work-load on the server would be minimal.
    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.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3

  • Diabolical wrote:

    Oh yes, you can mod a server-based game. All you have to change is nothing. You only add files to the user's download folder which change the units on the user end. The server only has to keep track of rules-followed, unit movement, development and production, and timing. The modding details about those units and the rules are the movement, etc. are stored locally. The server would coordinate what mods are utilized and which matches host which mod sets. But the extra amount of work-load on the server would be minimal.
    *Brain melts*

    Still a bad idea.
    British=best. Duh!


  • Diabolical wrote:

    Oh yes, you can mod a server-based game. All you have to change is nothing. You only add files to the user's download folder which change the units on the user end. The server only has to keep track of rules-followed, unit movement, development and production, and timing. The modding details about those units and the rules are the movement, etc. are stored locally. The server would coordinate what mods are utilized and which matches host which mod sets. But the extra amount of work-load on the server would be minimal.
    They would have to significantly change the game in order to do this. That information isn't stored locally now, and I seriously doubt that Bytro would want to put in the time and effort for something that would be incredibly buggy, and would likely be untrustworthy as well - each game is still hosted on Bytro's servers, remember, and they would have to host all these mods.

  • So I decided last night that I'd make a few ideas for Carriers to (Hopefully) make them less buggy and better for the game as a whole.

    Research:
    -Research available on Day 12 and requires Battleship Level 1.
    -Cost 6,500 Supplies, 7,500 Rare Materials, and 10,000 cash.
    -Takes 3 days

    Construction:
    -Carriers require level 3 Naval Base and Level 2(3?) Industrial Complex.
    -Take 2 days, 20 hours to build.
    -Daily Upkeep of 100 food and 300 fuel.

    Characteristics:
    -Can carry 3 squadrons from the following: Interceptors, Naval Bombers, or Tactical Bombers.
    -High HP
    -Little to no Damage in close combat.
    -Submarines are highly effective against them.

    Just a few misc ideas, not sure how they would be added, but it would be interesting:
    -Passive Morale boost to Floatilla containing an Aircraft Carrier.
    -Squadrons having smaller range when launched from Carriers.

    What do you guys think?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Valois1020: Removing unpopular "Possible Crash" idea ().

  • Valois1020 wrote:

    So I decided last night that I'd make a few ideas for Carriers to (Hopefully) make them less buggy and better for the game as a whole.

    Research:
    -Research available on Day 12 and requires Battleship Level 1.
    -Cost 6,500 Supplies, 7,500 Rare Materials, and 10,000 cash.
    -Takes 3 days

    Construction:
    -Carriers require level 3 Naval Base and Level 2(3?) Industrial Complex.
    -Take 2 days, 20 hours to build.
    -Daily Upkeep of 100 food and 300 fuel.

    Characteristics:
    -Can carry 3 squadrons from the following: Interceptors, Naval Bombers, or Tactical Bombers.
    -High HP
    -Little to no Damage in close combat.
    -Submarines are highly effective against them.

    Just a few misc ideas, not sure how they would be added, but it would be interesting:
    -Random chance of Squadron crashing upon return to Carrier, being destroyed.
    -Passive Morale boost to Floatilla containing an Aircraft Carrier.
    -Squadrons having smaller range when launched from Carriers.

    What do you guys think?
    Great work you've come up with!

    Of the few miscellaneous ideas, I don't like the random chance of Squadron crashing one. But I love the rest.

    Oh, and level 3 Industrial Complex.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    Valois1020 wrote:

    So I decided last night that I'd make a few ideas for Carriers to (Hopefully) make them less buggy and better for the game as a whole.

    Research:
    -Research available on Day 12 and requires Battleship Level 1.
    -Cost 6,500 Supplies, 7,500 Rare Materials, and 10,000 cash.
    -Takes 3 days

    Construction:
    -Carriers require level 3 Naval Base and Level 2(3?) Industrial Complex.
    -Take 2 days, 20 hours to build.
    -Daily Upkeep of 100 food and 300 fuel.

    Characteristics:
    -Can carry 3 squadrons from the following: Interceptors, Naval Bombers, or Tactical Bombers.
    -High HP
    -Little to no Damage in close combat.
    -Submarines are highly effective against them.

    Just a few misc ideas, not sure how they would be added, but it would be interesting:
    -Random chance of Squadron crashing upon return to Carrier, being destroyed.
    -Passive Morale boost to Floatilla containing an Aircraft Carrier.
    -Squadrons having smaller range when launched from Carriers.

    What do you guys think?
    Great work you've come up with!
    Of the few miscellaneous ideas, I don't like the random chance of Squadron crashing one. But I love the rest.

    Oh, and level 3 Industrial Complex.
    Thanks! I've also been thinking about every 2 levels increasing the squadron limit by 1, so Level 3 Carriers can hold 4 Squadrons, and Level 5 Carriers can hold 5 Squadrons.

    The level increases would be on the same as levels 3-6 on the Battleships, so level 2 Carriers would be available on Day 24, Level 3's on Day 36, Level 4's on Day 48,and Level 5's on Day 57.

  • Yea, not for the crashing chance, these are entire fighter wings, so I don't think you'll lose all those in one landing
    "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

    "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

    "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"

  • comrade dave wrote:

    Not tactical bombers, they wouldn't fit. We should buff naval bombers so they work and put them on Carriers, then they'd have more use!
    Tactical Bombers could fit, after all Doolittle for his raid fitted B-25 Mitchell's onto a carrier.

    Though I do agree, a better option would be to buff Naval Bombers to actually be worth using.


    aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:

    Yea, not for the crashing chance, these are entire fighter wings, so I don't think you'll lose all those in one landing
    That's fair, it was just an idea I had.

  • I think tac bombers would fit

    Naval bombers and interceptors and Tac bombers

    that good

    I like the amount of units that can be held increases with upgrades

    but I think they should be weak VS submarines and need escorting

    just being clear



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • salbalkus wrote:

    Diabolical wrote:

    Oh yes, you can mod a server-based game. All you have to change is nothing. You only add files to the user's download folder which change the units on the user end. The server only has to keep track of rules-followed, unit movement, development and production, and timing. The modding details about those units and the rules are the movement, etc. are stored locally. The server would coordinate what mods are utilized and which matches host which mod sets. But the extra amount of work-load on the server would be minimal.
    They would have to significantly change the game in order to do this. That information isn't stored locally now, and I seriously doubt that Bytro would want to put in the time and effort for something that would be incredibly buggy, and would likely be untrustworthy as well - each game is still hosted on Bytro's servers, remember, and they would have to host all these mods.
    The information IS stored locally. If it weren't, the load times of the games would take minutes instead of seconds. And the servers would get so bogged down from downloading the game engine over and over, that Bytro would go bankrupt just trying to maintain decent playability.

    No, sir, Bytro's servers have to download the game engine to a local cache folder or temp storage. If it didn't, Call of War would no longer be online. As it is, new users get the engine downloaded the first time they play and it stays with them so long as they don't flush their cache.

    The browsers apportion massive amounts of memory to Call of War not only because of space needs for complex operations, but also for loading the core engine components from the cache (i.e., on HDD) into active memory (i.e., RAM). No online game of any decent worth would operate without storing large files in the PC's internet cache folder.

    I am a software engineer and I happen to know a thing or two about how large-scale systems needs to operate in order to maintain efficiency and the illusion of endless bandwidth. So, take some classes and then let me know when you learn a thing or two about programming and software engineering and the practical side to developing an application. Then, I'll tailor my reply to your comment on this subject as more than a cookies-on-the-bottom-shelf explanation for you.
    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.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3

  • comrade dave wrote:

    Valois1020 wrote:

    Tactical Bombers could fit, after all Doolittle for his raid fitted B-25 Mitchell's onto a carrier.
    But they couldn't land, that was a one-off operation, tactical bombers would not fit on aircraft carriers of that time-period.
    Everyone wants to cite Doolittle's raid. That raid could barely count even as a one-off operation. To function, they had to strip down much of what was necessary to maintain top-notch working order. It was a rallying and death-defying raid on Tokyo to give the Americans some much needed hope during one of it's darkest hours.

    Tac Bombers were not only impractical for carrier duty, it was impossible for the carriers of the day to accomodate their basic needs for maintenance, take off, and landing. Also, they had no practical way to attach a landing hook for the experimental arresting wires as most Tac Bombers had gun emplacements where the frame would need to be reinforced for the hook in order not to rip the tale off when catching the wire. And though the decks were not long enough for regular take offs, they weren't even close to being long enough for a bomber to land without stalling and crashing into the sea.

    It was never gonna happen then. And so long as Bytro tries to maintain some historicity, they won't let it happen either.

    All that being said, Naval Bombers were specifically designed to be able to operate from a carrier as well as handle water take-offs and landings when a carrier or landing field wasn't available. Though this NEXT suggestion would be a bit of a stretch for history, the feasibility of it might have been possible in that time period.

    I think a portable floating way-station should be able to be set up that would allow Naval Bombers to increase their range at seas by landing and taking off at these stations for refueling purposes. The station would need to be treated like a ship such that it consumes fuel and food. But it's speed would have to be 5 or crawling at sea. Better yet, instead of that, have it be a cruiser mission of "Way Station". When reaching it's destination, it parks and -- so long as it does not move -- acts like a make-shift airport that only the naval bombers can use. While on it's "Way Station" mission, it also consumes more oil and food to maintain the supplies AND it's defensive capabilities are reduced to convoy-level strength.

    That idea might seem a bit crazy, but I think it would alleviate the buggy carrier issue for now -- at least until the carriers are brought back into the game -- so that naval bombers could operate out over the larger seas. Wouldn't this be better than nothing operating at sea?

    Oh, and requiring more than one factory to build carriers would violate one of the basic rules of the game such that at least one fully-functioning factory is needed to build any units (except militia) so long as other building requirements are met. Besides, since the earlier carriers weren't much bigger than a cruiser of the day, they were technically easier to build (by berth size) than the battleships. And this meant that most shipyards were capable of producing more carriers than battleships at the same time.
    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.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Diabolical ().