Hello,

While searching into old conversations i found that i never get to finish and post the interview of @MontanaBB.

The answers may be now a bit out of sight due to the time that has passed and all the changes, but who knows.

Remember that this answers are from March/April 2017.

1 - ¿Where does the nick of MontanaBB comes from?

It was very much a spur-of-the-moment thing. I had discovered Call of War by accident, and needed a user name, and I did not want to use my usual screen name which gives my profession and location within the United States -- and is far too easy to connect with my real name, career, etc., with a quick Google search.

"BB" is the U.S. Navy abbreviation/prefix for its battleships; the USS Montana (BB 67), and its planned four sister ships, would have been the largest American battleships ever built -- a third larger by displacement than the four Iowa-class battleships -- and would have been roughly comparable to the two Japanese Yamato-class super battleships. They were approved for construction in 1942, and canceled the same year in the aftermath of the Battle of Midway, when the U.S. Navy's need for accelerated aircraft carrier construction became acute, and it had also become apparent that heavy all-gun battleships were not the wave of the future. By late 1942 the surviving big German and Japanese battleships were no longer the hunters, but the hunted, and the Montanas were no longer a construction priority. At 70,000 tons, they would have been bigger than any WWII-era warship except the Yamatos, and would have been bigger than any future U.S. Navy aircraft carrier built for at least another two decades.

A little bit obscure, but good trivia nevertheless.


2 - ¿Which was your first impression of the game?

I was a little bit scared, and absolutely convinced that everyone knew and understood more about the game than I did. So, I asked a lot of questions, carefully watched experienced players, and read the unit spec sheets and game rules. I quickly discovered that I had a better grasp of unit specs and the game rules than most other players. I was also fortunate to have a knowledgeable ally in my first game who showed me a lot of the basics. I learned by watching and doing.

I was raised in a U.S. Navy/Marine Corps family, my father having served as a U.S. Navy officer during World War II and the Korean War, and my oldest brother having served as a U.S. Marine in the Vietnam War. When you grow up with your dad's dress whites in the basement, and learning to shoot with his Colt M1911 .45, I think you have a different sense of history than other children of my generation. When my grade school friends were reading Our Friend the Squirrel and the Nancy Drew mysteries, I was reading Carrier War in the Pacific and the condensed version of Samuel Eliot Morrison's history of the U.S. Navy in World War II (yes, I was a bit of a freak).

With that background, I also discovered that I had a better grasp of the basic tactics of Call of War than most other players, too. Even at COW's level of abstraction, virtually all of the COW combat unit types serve the same functions, and have most if not all of the same strengths and weaknesses, as their real-world WWII counterparts. Most other rookie players don't seem to have a grasp of the importance of building a well-balanced force if you want to succeed in COW, and we still see far too many experienced players who believe they can win with a lopsided force composed of mostly light tank and tactical bomber units. When I see that, I lick my chops.

3 - ¿What would you change from the game if you'd have the opportunity to do it?

As you and I were discussing earlier in another forum thread, I think it's important to recognize what Call of War does right before launching into a critical discussion of what we would change about the game. The game's software engine, inherited and adapted from Supremacy 1914, provides an outstanding combat resolution mechanism, and from what I can see it provides a relatively realistic base upon which to build at the game's level of abstraction (played at the level of regimental, brigade and squadron-size units). Kudos to Bytro Labs for designing an excellent platform that can be expanded and built upon.

Apart from arguing for greater realism in unit types and capabilities at the game's present level of abstraction (something for which I am afraid I have become somewhat notorious in forum discussions), I would argue for more active and more proactive customer service responses. When players experience various software hiccups and bugs, Bytro is hurting itself when those problems take days and occasionally weeks to resolve, and it is losing customers in the process.

I would also argue that it is in Bytro's own best financial interests to create a more structured environment for the in-game use of "gold" (a.k.a. "goldmarks"). Anyone who has played the game long enough will have encountered one or more semi-competent opponents who rely on gold to the extent they are effectively buying their victories. That offends most players to an extent we are losing newbies as fast as we recruit them. Don't get me wrong -- I certainly don't begrudge anyone's ability to make a buck when they produce a good product -- but Bytro needs to channel gold use into a more transparent and structured system, one that encourages gold use, but still leaves players on a relatively equal footing.

One final thing that desperately needs to be addressed: the early-game drop-out rate. I don't know that the solution is, but steps need to be taken to avoid the all-too-common situation we have all encountered: a game where three quarters of the players disappear or go inactive in the first 3 or 4 days after the game starts. Playing against computer players ("artificial intelligence" or AIs) can be a good learning experience for rookies, but most experienced players want the challenge of matching wits with other human beings, and it can be frustrating to be stuck in a game in which 15 or 20 of 22 players are AIs.

4 - ¿Would you change something from the forum? If so, ¿what would it be?

There needs to be a decided change in emphasis from law enforcement to customer service. And the forum moderators (at least one of them, at any given time) need to be available on a much more regular basis. It's one thing when a new forum participant asks a question about battle tactics, resource development strategies or the merits of particular unit types; those are questions that non-moderators can answer. But when a new player seeks assistance with a software bug or another urgent problem with an active game, they need a response with someone who has the authority to act. Too often I have seen someone request assistance, and the request sits unanswered for several days. There needs to be a better, more structured and more timely system for addressing requests for assistance.

5 - ¿Which are your thoughts about Bytro Labs? Even with the costumer service issue you mention, ¿Are you satisafied with its services?

I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that Bytro Labs is a relatively small business organization that would probably benefit from some more experienced senior managers and an infusion of outside capital. They have a potentially excellent gaming product, but don't seem to have a strategic business plan to fully exploit it. Customer service is just one aspect, albeit a d@mn important one, of the big picture.

6 - ¿Do you think that the time difference between players is a possible issue?

Well, the time zone differences among players in the same game is certainly a challenge (and sometimes an opportunity) that has to be considered and managed. Given that the game is played 24/7 and in real time (not alternating turns), and further given that the player base is international and literally includes players in almost every time zone around the globe, I don't know how it could be structured otherwise. I'm an American, located in the U.S. Eastern Time Zone, but I have played with allies who were Australian, British, Canadian, and Turkish. That presents challenges in coordinating joint attacks and defenses because of differences in sleeping hours, but also presents advantages in defending against middle-of-the-night attacks for exactly the same reason -- at least one player on a team of three or four allies is usually awake and monitoring the game at any given time.

With the game being played 24/7, almost all of us who have played the game for any length of time have experienced a middle-of-the-night attack. Perhaps the most egregious example I have witnessed was a large attempted amphibious invasion (50+ ground units) of the territory of an ally on the night of December 25/26. I just happened to check into the game about 11:45 p.m. (23:45) local time, and noticed the invasion in progress about 45 minutes into the the 4.5-hour disembarkation process. Given a common network of air bases, I was bale to relocate a wing of about 15 tactical bomber squadrons and sink most of the invading ground units before they were able to disembark.

7 - What do you think about planes in CoW? Are they as OP as people say?

Are in-game aircraft units over-powered? Yes, and no.

First off, strategic bombers are arguably under-powered. They lack sufficient strength against ground units, and their specialized role for attacking in-game buildings rarely comes into play. If your goal is to destroy enemy resource or unit production, in-game rockets are quicker to produce and more effective -- which is completely the opposite of the historical reality.

Second, higher-level interceptors should be more effective against ground units, and against armor units in particular. By the end of World War II, single-engine fighter-bombers were arguably more effective generally than twin-engine tactical bombers, and once Allied air superiority was achieved on the western front, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Typhoons and Tempests had a devastating effect on German ground troops as well as all kinds of supply transports.

Third, and most controversially, I don't believe that in-game tactical bombers are over-powered in comparison to their real world WW2 counterparts. By 1944, the ground war on the western front was being largely determined by Allied air superiority and tactical air support for Allied ground units. German combat units, supply convoys, and trains could not move without being attacked by Allied tactical bombers or fighter-bombers, and the Luftwaffe fighter squadrons were massively outnumbered and short on experienced pilots and fuel. The Luftwaffe's potential trump card, the ME 262 jet fighter, was first mis-used as a tactical bomber, and then it was mostly held in reserve to counter daylight bombing raids. The ME 262 was also unavailable in sufficient numbers to make a critical difference.

The history suggests the solution: the primary reason many players believe tactical bombers are over-powered is they are not defending against massed TB attacks properly. The primary solution is not nerfing TBs' ground attack strengths, but building more fighter-interceptor squadrons. High-level interceptors can be devastating against massed TB wings, especially when the interceptors are properly employed in wings of five squadrons each for maximum battle damage efficiency. Using a combination of massed interceptor wings and anti-aircraft ground units in sufficient numbers, I have been able to exact a nearly 1:1 casualty rate from attacking enemy TBs. Sure, you will take casualties, but TB units are expensive and time-consuming to produce and replace, especially later in the game when oil demand is high and the available oil supplies are tight -- and the commodities market for oil may be non-existent.