Remove The Province Trade Limit

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

    • Remove The Province Trade Limit

      I think that there is no point whatsoever in having the province trade limit. I get that it is supposed to prevent players from giving land to each other, but it is really just annoying. Oftentimes I find myself trying to trade or sell land or my useless colonies, and this just gets in the way. One province is too limiting, and gets in the way. I want it to either be less limiting, or not there. For example, if I have allies and we attacked Europe, it may be in a very big mess, so we may want to just sell each other different provinces to clean it up. The way it is now, this is impossible to do without waiting like 30 days to sell each and every province 1 at a time.
    • There is no overall game limit on one-for-one province trades, only on trading a province for something other than a province. The idea is to prevent cheating by either multi-accounters or their functional equivalent, meat puppets. There is, of course, a 24-hour limit on trading provinces -- one per day.

      Personally, I think the province trade limitations are just fine the way they are.
    • There are some clever cheaters who get friends to help them cheat from separate locations. The automated system certainly takes care of the obvious cheaters, but there are other cheaters that require an investigation by a trained person.

      To prevent cheating Conflict of Nations does not allow any trades of provinces, units, or resources.

      I doubt the one daily limit will be relaxed any time soon.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Senior Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • I feel like you can't sell more than 5 provinces without receiving one. I feel like it should be a 24 hour rule and only 4 a week. That allows more cheating, but you could add limits to users. It's hard to cheat if you can only trade 1 province to a certain member a week. It also encourages people to stop selling to one buyer and get other buyers.
      To build, you must first destroy.
    • beastyben7 wrote:

      Remove The Province Trade Limit
      ..
      For example, if I have allies and we attacked Europe, it may be in a very big mess, so we may want to just sell each other different provinces to clean it up.
      ..
      When I conquer a continent together with my partner, we arrange in advance how the pattern on the cake will look like afterwards. :D


      This is a war game, provinces should be conquered here ..

      As already described above, one can transfer so many provinces as he wants, but only one per day of course and not more than 5 without to receive a province himself.
      Additionally (and foolishly) will liberated core provinces of coalition members automatically transferred back to them.


      .. for what purpose should one be able to exchange more provinces per day - that even pacifists or bad strategists can create large empires quickly ..? :thumbdown:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • I don't stand for more than one a day at all. One is enough.
      As I stated clearly, they should remove the 5 without receiving one rule, and add a weekly limit. No more than four a week and more for than two provinces to a single person without receiving one from that person.

      That barely allows any cheating. They'd have to use multiple countries to easily get free territory, which would require multiple accounts. It would take a lot of time because of the time limits. It's less intrusive, because province trades are something I do a lot with countries like England in the 25 player map. Who needs all those colonies? I can make some money to produce more troops to capture more provinces and win the game.
      To build, you must first destroy.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by T-3PO: added more detail ().

    • I'm totally agree to the maximum 5 rules in case of province trades!

      You should use this asset use wisely! Valuable opportunity do not waste it!

      Why I think it is a good rule? Imagine! You are in war with other fellow countries against a coalition. Let say you are 3 vs 3. All country receives -15 moral to their provinces. You decide eliminate one of them (by taking extra efforts and losses). Your enemies have lots of provinces (providing it is a big map). They give one province far from you just to keep their coalition partner in the match and not to reduce your -15 moral adjustment! Do you think it is a fair and welcomed feature?

      Although this rule should be communicated, because it is not written in any guide...
    • Now I know it is very rare, but one time I was playing USSR and UK was my ally. UK and Germany had invaded me and each other, then Germany went inactive so UK and I teamed up and killed him, but the map was a right mess. We were doing all sorts of tricks to trade provinces every day because the map was so messed up. Even when we invaded new countries and had preset areas of advance, we had to intervene to stop a flank etc. so the map was in bits. The trade limit really got us at the ends of our tethers.

      The system is easy to get around, just very annoying. I think it should be left as is to make it harder for the multis.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      There is no overall game limit on one-for-one province trades, only on trading a province for something other than a province. The idea is to prevent cheating by either multi-accounters or their functional equivalent, meat puppets. There is, of course, a 24-hour limit on trading provinces -- one per day.

      Personally, I think the province trade limitations are just fine the way they are.
      Of course you would.

      Restrisiko wrote:

      Additionally (and foolishly) will liberated core provinces of coalition members automatically transferred back to them.
      I actually kinda like this idea....but not always. Sometimes, I'm trying to allow a coalition mate to get attritioned down by our mutual enemies so he or she will just give up and go away. I don't want to attack him since he's my ally yet I don't want him to stay around because he is an underperforming waste of space that I can barely tolerate to keep around, anymore. So, I might be following a zig-zagging opponent just to capture the ally's territory and yet I'm not liberating them to myself, anymore, they are defaulting to my lame ally.

      At the very least, on the return-to-ally feature for province liberations, there absolutely should be a modal (confirmation) box asking if you wish to return the province or keep it. And, since provinces might be captured while you are away, to be fair to the idiotic "leave well enough alone" crowd, let this question have a time-limit (perhaps 5 minutes) before automatically returning the province to your ally (which would be the default)
      . Additionally, this feature should probably be enacted not just for coalition and team mates, but for any player with which you have given a Shared Map agreement (even if they don't have one with you).

      T-3PO wrote:

      As I stated clearly, they should remove the 5 without receiving one rule, and add a weekly limit. No more than four a week and more for than two provinces to a single person without receiving one from that person.
      I'm not happy with the 4 per week idea since that would be odd to calculate. At the same time, I am OK with the daily limit since this AND ONLY THIS is the only real deterrent against the multis out there. But the 4 per match limit is ridiculous and should be removed. The province trades should be unlimited.


      Some people think that allies should just set up for a 30 second war to trade provinces, or pre-plan invasion corridors. But most of the time, one's allies just won't cooperate on the trading idea (apart from the 1 per day, that is). And, pre-planned invasion corridors rarely work out because of shifting opponents as well as allies who either conveniently forget their assigned route or just completely ignore it and do what they want...which is their right, if you think about it.

      ~O~

      I, for one, am very partial to clean-looking borders and am a stickler to pre-arranged invasion corridors. But since most of the people I wind up partnering with are either not dependable or could care less about these things, I need a reasonable way to approach them later with border trades.

      Real allies in a real world war scenario would trade captured provincial areas according to treaties and the like and not be restricted by any other nations or authorities in how they divvy up the spoils. If anything, the limits on province trades removes some of the realism of this game.

      To sum up: I'm in favor of the daily limit but opposed to all other limits on province trades. The daily limit is more than adequate -- combined with the detection settings -- for to prevent the vast bulk of the multis. The itsy bitsy teensy weensy handful of multis that slip past this would get turned in by the community and found out to be cheating by the staff...which is their job.

      So, let's all agree to remove the per-game limits and ask the dev team to enact this....please.
      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
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Now I know it is very rare, but one time I was playing USSR and UK was my ally. UK and Germany had invaded me and each other, then Germany went inactive so UK and I teamed up and killed him, but the map was a right mess. We were doing all sorts of tricks to trade provinces every day because the map was so messed up. Even when we invaded new countries and had preset areas of advance, we had to intervene to stop a flank etc. so the map was in bits. The trade limit really got us at the ends of our tethers.

      The system is easy to get around, just very annoying. I think it should be left as is to make it harder for the multis.
      I agree with you, as stated in my last post, that things get messy and the trades are the only practical way to clean up borders. We shouldn't have to do "all sorts of tricks to trade provinces". Using the per-match province trade limitations as an attempt to prevent multis is yet another example of a poorly-considered method of trying to prevent the multis and other cheaters and, as such, throws out the baby with the bathwater.

      Keep the daily limit....remove the per-match limit.

      ~O~

      On a side note. That attempt to take my words out of context and place them in your forum signature as a quote is also an example of poor judgement...on your part. Your attempts to try to make me look bad only make you look bad by showing a lack of willingness, on your part, to play nice when dealing with others in this forum. So, I am asking you, politely, to please remove my non-contextual quote from your signature.

      THIS is the only context available in which I mentioned the word "negro". You tried to call me a racist for using the word, itself, which is not racist. And, in context, it had nothing to do with racism, but was used as a reference point about peoples' confusions over racism definitions. But you couldn't let it go, could you? The actual original quote was deleted by the staff because they misunderstood the context. But you went above and beyond "misunderstanding" to obnoxiousness in your responses to me, in the first place. But now that you've added this very OLD quote to your signature line, it is clear that you are nothing more than a baiter.

      Now, if you wish to quote me in your signature line with an acceptable-use quotable, then use one of my memorable quotables (which are always only positive) that I have coined and use it in the same way that you would quote a different famous person besides myself.

      As an example of a typical quotable saying, I cite this self-quote in a common tagging style. It is something I said, recently, in a discussion with my family...apparently, it stuck out. After that, I'm also citing a somewhat-more famous person with another quote, to follow mine. Hopefully, after reviewing these quotes, you will see how a signature line can benefit from a properly formatted good quote....or at least will benefit from a good quote, regardless of the format.

      "I admit....God is actually smarter than me."

      ~ Diabolical
      "Information is not knowledge"
      ~ Albert Einstein
      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 1 time, last by Diabolical ().

    • Diabolical wrote:


      Restrisiko wrote:

      Additionally (and foolishly) will liberated core provinces of coalition members automatically transferred back to them.
      I actually kinda like this idea....but not always.
      ..
      From the point of view of single players fighting against coalitions, the introduction of this rule was an outrageous unfair impudence, because it means an enormous advantage to the coalitions.
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • Diabolical wrote:

      I, for one, am very partial to clean-looking borders and am a stickler to pre-arranged invasion corridors. But since most of the people I wind up partnering with are either not dependable or could care less about these things, I need a reasonable way to approach them later with border trades.
      Pre-arranged borders rarely work out, I usually do 30 second wars, but sometimes there are a lot of problems with that. I feel like the 4 per one game unless you gain one is bad because I don't only trade provinces for clean borders--I sell some unnecessary ones. Especially the provinces with no stars and produce none.
      To build, you must first destroy.
    • T-3PO wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      I, for one, am very partial to clean-looking borders and am a stickler to pre-arranged invasion corridors. But since most of the people I wind up partnering with are either not dependable or could care less about these things, I need a reasonable way to approach them later with border trades.
      Pre-arranged borders rarely work out, I usually do 30 second wars, but sometimes there are a lot of problems with that. I feel like the 4 per one game unless you gain one is bad because I don't only trade provinces for clean borders--I sell some unnecessary ones. Especially the provinces with no stars and produce none.
      I make it a point to not capture too many of those worthless provinces, choosing instead to leave them devoid of anything so that the AI can build capitals in them, later on...to my later-benefit. But, if I'm stuck with some worthless provinces, I try not to unload them on someone else if they are an ally. Instead, I prefer to try to trade resource for resource or VP for VP (or other even-handed trade) to be fair with the provinces.

      Sometimes, I will either spare a failing opponent or else resurrect a nearly-dead one as a vassalage under my rule and protection just so that they can produce resources in their core provinces at full levels. But the limitations on province trades makes the resurrection of players as vassals much more difficult than to spare failing ones to become vassals.

      Oh, and my price for vassalage is usually a third of one of their resource stockpiles per day, chosen by them, but with the option for me to choose my resource as needed when demanded, though I'm usually giving resources to build up their infrastructure rather than taking resources. With vassals, I will give a fair amount of freedom but I expect them to build what I tell them, if and when (on occasion) I tell them too, and I also insist they must fight only the wars I tell them too...if any. Of course, if they disobey or go inactive, then I rescind their vassalage and destroy them.

      Yes, I really do have vassals, sometimes. Unfortunately, Call of War isn't set up quite well enough to make this as easy as it should be. BUT, if they opened the code base for modification, then a medieval vassal mod could be created for some fun RP stuff (among others).

      If only Bytro would do that....if only they'd open the game for modding.....if only....(nerd sequence dream state from Robot Chicken starts right about now......

      ~ ~ ~ ~ I'm Super Modder....flying back and forth from America to Germany in a jetpack with a tablet attached to my left forearm and my super secret Anti-Ban raygun attached to my right. Me....hero of the forum....champion of the chat....with my super power being able to block any and all moderators' ban hammers. Oh, yes, I, the great Diabolical, the Super Modder, will save the day for people that hate politically correct speech and want to mod this game for new and more interesting ways to play. Yes, that is what I am .... zzzz snore .... oh, what a great hero I am .... what a great hero I am .... zzzz ..... zzzz .... if only .... if only .....

      .... if only ....
      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:

      Yes, I really do have vassals, sometimes. Unfortunately, Call of War isn't set up quite well enough to make this as easy as it should be.
      There is absolutely no point in having vassals. The aim of the game is to get as many points as possible, not build a huge nation just under the points threshold with a bunch of suffering players sending them resources. This is only good for RP, it has no use in the actual game and you are pretty much just bullying other players by vassaling them.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      Yes, I really do have vassals, sometimes. Unfortunately, Call of War isn't set up quite well enough to make this as easy as it should be.
      There is absolutely no point in having vassals. The aim of the game is to get as many points as possible, not build a huge nation just under the points threshold with a bunch of suffering players sending them resources. This is only good for RP, it has no use in the actual game and you are pretty much just bullying other players by vassaling them.
      Maybe there's no point for you, but I like having underlings that can generate higher numbers of resources until they've outlived their usefulness. Then, it's hit the road....and then they can just hitch a ride with someone else.

      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:

      Maybe there's no point for you, but I like having underlings that can generate higher numbers of resources until they've outlived their usefulness. Then, it's hit the road....and then they can just hitch a ride with someone else.
      >farming other players for resources.

      You're just a bully.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3