Suggestions for Call of War

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

    • Suggestions for Call of War

      Which suggestion do you think should be added to the game? 18
      1.  
        Research facilities (8) 44%
      2.  
        Chemical weapons (3) 17%
      3.  
        Trade deals (11) 61%
      4.  
        Travelling resources (6) 33%
      5.  
        Rebel groups (10) 56%
      Here are some suggestions of things I think should be added to Call of War. Feel free to reply to this article and suggest things yourself! Please consider voting for the ideas you like!

      - Research facilities -
      Research facilities would enable research. Every research facility would add one research slot. They would be in specific provinces of a country, and if they are destroyed, they can't be used anymore (unless they are repaired). I would also suggest having specific research facilities for specific research (Infantry, armoured, air, naval, secret, nuclear, chemical, etc.). Destroying a nuclear research facility could releases toxic gases and make a province unusable for building and would decrease the condition of exposed units like infantry.

      - Chemical weapons -
      Chemical weapons would be very effective against certain units (for example, infantry). They would require a specific research facility (chemical) and could be added to rockets, aircraft, and even infantry. You would end up with chemical rockets, chemical bombers, and chemical weapon armed infantry. Nuclear chemicals would make provinces unusable for production, construction, and would decrease the condition of exposed units, like infantry. There could also be different kinds of chemical weapons.

      - Trade deals -
      I also suggest trade deals to be added to the game. I know you can trade with other players, but what I mean by trade deals is that exchanges would automatically be executed every day, every three days, every week, etc. These would require the approval of the two (or more) countries involved.

      - Travelling resources -
      I propose that resources could travel from the resource producing provinces to the army producing provinces. The player could choose where the resources go and even stock them in certain provinces. Players could also have a military filter and an economic filter on their screen to manage everything more easily.

      - Rebel groups -
      Finally, I suggest adding rebel groups to Call of War. This could give players that have been invaded a second chance to win the round. What I mean is that when another player invades you, rebel fighters could carry on fighting (under your command) for their country. A player could hide some armies while he is still in control of his country, and when he is invaded, he can use those armies against the attacker. Those armies would stay hidden from the invader's screen until the invaded player uses them to take back his ground. The invaded player could also produce some more armies, but only on a small scale because having an illegal production that is too big would reveal to the enemy some of his production centers, resources (these would have to be stolen from government controlled facilities), armies, etc.

      LUDO_IS_HERE


      Please remember that these suggestions are my thoughts and they may not be like you think they should.

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

    • As an out take of WWI chemical weapons were banned by the Geneva convention. I believe that was generally upheld by the major powers in WWII, though exceptions I am not aware of may have occurred. Perhaps you should locate a game depicting Syria in 2018 if you want to use those in simulation.

      Otherwise some of your ideas are of interest.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • Peter Mat wrote:

      I believe that was generally upheld by the major powers in WWII, though exceptions I am not aware of may have occurred.
      Italy as far as I know, and I would not be surprised if the Japs used it in China. Other than that, no one used them because they knew how awful they were.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • VivaLaFrance123 wrote:

      Rebel groups would be very interesting. This would be like in Conflict of Nations where there is a Rogue State.
      Rogue states are the worst part of CoN. They get a new militia every day, which is way OP, and build up huge stacks of them. They are awful, I would lose strategic bombers to them. They are the equivalent of ISIS who are lucky to shoot down a low flying attack jet, never mind a high altitude strategic jet bomber.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Rogue states are the worst part of CoN. They get a new militia every day, which is way OP, and build up huge stacks of them. They are awful, I would lose strategic bombers to them. They are the equivalent of ISIS who are lucky to shoot down a low flying attack jet, never mind a high altitude strategic jet bomber.
      That fantasy should work both ways: nuke them. No more militia, no more "rogue state."
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Rogue states are the worst part of CoN. They get a new militia every day, which is way OP, and build up huge stacks of them. They are awful, I would lose strategic bombers to them. They are the equivalent of ISIS who are lucky to shoot down a low flying attack jet, never mind a high altitude strategic jet bomber.
      That fantasy should work both ways: nuke them. No more militia, no more "rogue state."
      Well iirc sometimes the militia could build up in an odd part of the map to where the stack was so big they could shrug off a nuke. Obviously quite a feat though, and rare. But I heard multiple complaints of 50+ stacks a while back.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      But I heard multiple complaints of 50+ [militia] stacks a while back.
      Two nukes.
      No problem.

      And you just improved your kills-to-losses ratio vs. the AI. Heh.

      It's how we should have handled bin Laden.
      I can't disagree with you there.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • With respect to "Traveling Resources"...
      Just thinking out loud.

      1. I produce oil in some Islands in the pacific. Got to get that oil home to refine it. Some 'economic' transport ship needs to bring it to my core province to be processed and used....giving the enemy a chance to sink it and requiring me to insure that shipping lanes remain open. [game dynamics and actual implementation would be complicated]

      2. Storing goods. All that stuff that I have accumulated and in excess. Where do I store it? How do I get the good to that place. Again...the above implementation where you have some trade routes back to your core province...if interrupted (again..in the game how is this manifested?) then they don't get there or are slowed down. If I loose or my warehouse is damaged I loose some of the resources. (finally a good use for strategic bombers?).

      Concept of having some more details around managing resources is good but I can't wrap my head around it. Too complicated.
    • If they ever went to resource shipping two thoughts:
      1) Use a convoy icon, they already exist for planes and rockets on land and land units on water. No great programming problem there. Maybe have them ship in increments of 5,000.

      2) 3rd Reich by Avalon Hill used to use a strategic warfare box to deal with resource destruction. So instead of building subs you could build strategic warfare subs, instead of destroyers you could build ASW's to fight the subs. They also used Strats and Interceptors for the air side of things. I would picture this similar to the current spy programming. Purchase what you want for the resource side of things and let it happen behind the scenes. Obviously this would require significantly more programming than option 1.

      Just as a side thought, maybe they have already accounted for this by limiting resource production to 25% in non core provinces? Part of the 75% resource reduction could be considered sabotage, bombing, sinking and graft. Maybe that conscripted labor we all complain about is actually working harder than we thought.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • jamidan333 wrote:

      With respect to "Traveling Resources"...
      Just thinking out loud.

      1. I produce oil in some Islands in the pacific. Got to get that oil home to refine it. Some 'economic' transport ship needs to bring it to my core province to be processed and used....giving the enemy a chance to sink it and requiring me to insure that shipping lanes remain open. [game dynamics and actual implementation would be complicated]

      2. Storing goods. All that stuff that I have accumulated and in excess. Where do I store it? How do I get the good to that place. Again...the above implementation where you have some trade routes back to your core province...if interrupted (again..in the game how is this manifested?) then they don't get there or are slowed down. If I loose or my warehouse is damaged I loose some of the resources. (finally a good use for strategic bombers?).

      Concept of having some more details around managing resources is good but I can't wrap my head around it. Too complicated.

      I'm sorry, but I can't endorse either of these, nor most of the suggestions at the top of this thread. These, here, are far too complex for this game. The ones at the top would skew the game into some weird directions. That said, I do like the idea of having regularly-scheduled trades. It makes my practice of occasionally making vassal states out of liberated players a better reality and easier to implement. Of course, vassalage and fiefdoms are so feudal. But they were still in effect during WWII and even to this day, in terms of proxy wars and so forth.
      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
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      It's not a coincidence that my favorite name for in-game nuclear rockets is the "Big Stick" -- with apologies to Teddy.

      I'm not even going to say it. But some people probably know what I'm thinking....

      But you made me laugh, though. So kudos!
      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