Sorry, the game design not allows to design a map editor/scenario editor. But feel free to make some suggestion for new maps/scenarios.

I just want to say that poll had a heavy response bias, you cannot say no.

Maybe the maps and scenario editor should be a CoW tool to create one could use to give advised maps, or is this too complicated?

USA against Japan for two players, like the English Channel map?
Or with Russia, China and UK/Australia?
but who is playing with Japan?

Scenario like the Blitzkrieg Map?

We don't need the correct Troops or Economics from the past. It's a game and we play for fun and not to find out if the fascism maybe had even a chance to win. We need a balanced map to have a good game not a alternativ reality.

The Blitzkrieg map is not historical accurate.


A map in CoW must be balanced and what I mean is that the nations must be playable. I think from our view today, if we look back, Japan and Germany had never a chance to win this war and this is good in the way it is.

That's what I say that we not need a historical correctness.

It would be possible to make a special site where you make cards and send them to the administration and they will decide to accept or not. What do you think?

the point is not even to restore historical justice (or injustice), but so that the players have the opportunity to model any situation interesting to them. Even absolutely fantastic. This is definitely add interest, if everyone can sharpen the game "by itself". Maybe the community by trial and error will be able to find new interesting formats that developers can even borrow and make "permanent". Or practice, without waiting for months, until the necessary number of units is built. You can make this function "golden" and get a direct income from its use every time.

If people were allowed to make custom maps, it would only be fair to let people see the borders of the custom map before they actually join. Now this could be bypassed if you were to force random country selection for every custom map, and that would probably be the best solution. Now my biggest issue with custom maps is the small base of players who play Call of War. If we are already struggling to find players to fill spots in our current games, what says that this will be so in these custom-made games? Maybe it could be workable if the custom games were filled like the 100-player maps requiring they be filled before another is opened. On top of that have a higher percentage requirement till the game actually starts, so maybe you need 80% of the players to join a random country selection custom map in order for it to activate and you can start preparing?

And war-play please stop bringing this back up.

Ahem,

No, the design is not absolute. I am a software engineer — a programmer — and I know beyond shadow of doubt that nothing is stopping the devs from adding a scenario builder except for a lack of interest. They are far more interested in protecting their messy and disorganized proprietary software's rather poor spaghetti code than in rebuilding and restructuring it into a refined front-end / back-end dual editable server set such that the front-end could be added to by the highly-experienced modding community without breaking the core game and protecting the proprietary nature of the back-end set.

In other words, the design team is either too lazy to implement it, or they're too fearful they might actually lose a buck. And, either way, that is a piss-poor excuse for not implementing a modding system...something for which I — and many others — have espoused for years. I've even offered to help them implement it, but they refuse to take seriously the words of experienced programmers who aren't on the inside and they adamantly refuse to make their core software open-source, even though there is ample evidence that they'd actually increase their revenues if they did. I guess that's just a limitation of the German imagination.

However, if the designers/dev team were to take seriously what I have proposed in the past, that dual development model, then they could actually increase the public's level of interest in this game while massively increasing both it's free content as well as a whole new set of paid content....something that would generate FAR MORE MONEY than gold premium points ever could. In fact, if my proposal were to have been adopted by Bytro when I had originally suggested it, the company would have been able to completely remove the premium point source of revenue and yet stay solvent as early as the beginning of last summer.

The "I don't care" answer implies a "no". And normal people would recognize that.

I don't see that connection, so that makes me abnormal? Eh, you're probably right.

As to the accuracy of the Blitz map....I only say "it's close enough". After all, this is "just a game" as you imply.

And let me tell you, both you and another user in this thread both stated that assumption that Germany and Japan could never win. But you are both wrong....dead wrong. Though the amount of power that the allies put into the war effort ultimately overwhelmed the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich of Germany, they were not without allies of their own. And they definitely could have won, had only a few extraordinary circumstances not gone the way they did...and by chance, they did, but were not a given.

The British empire effectively fought two separate wars, one of the British Isles and one of their third-world possessions. They properly managed war materiel and war actions across the globe. This was highly effective in keeping them from succumbing to the Axis powers. The same can be said of the United States, who, even before joining the war, gave massive amounts of equipment to the British and USSR. Once attacked by Japan, America did join -- and with a vengeance, of course -- and made a huge difference in the war.

But despite the great efforts of the Allies, the Axis powers still had very good chances at winning the war. Germany had an iron grip over much of Europe and despite the determination of the Russians -- whom Germany betrayed -- and the forces given to Russia by America in the Lend-Lease Act, Germany should have won in Eastern Europe. The only thing that stopped them....stopped them cold, ironically....was a particularly nasty winter. Germany had Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow all dead to rights....and the siege on Stalingrad was working, for example....but the winter conditions gave the Soviets just enough of an edge to survive long enough for the factories in the east to successfully bring about a massive number of tanks to the front.

Had the Russian winter been milder, Germany would have effectuated Stalin's surrender by the following spring and Moscow would have become the eastern capital of a much larger German Empire. With a victory in Eastern Europe, Germany could have then focused on Great Britain with renewed vigor while giving enough support to Italy to establish a stronger Mediterranean navy which would have guaranteed a victory for the Axis in Africa and a successful invasion and occupation of the British Isles.

Germany was outmatched by America and Britain in the Atlantic because they could never finish the job in Russia...ergo not being allowed to refocus more war materiel to their naval building programs in the Baltic and Mediterranean. All the same, Japan was outmatched in the Pacific purely by America's willingness to build ship after ship in incredible numbers.

But, despite America's great effort in the Pacific theater, the USA sent the bulk of it's war building efforts to the European theater. Had Russia fallen....and then the U.K....the United States would have been forced to redouble its efforts on the home front, building more defensively than offensively. Also, more of America's naval power would have had to remain in the Atlantic to thwart any efforts by Germany to seize total control of the seas and any eventual invasion on North America.

So, if America were preoccupied by a vastly-more dangerous threat of invasion from the east...which was the highest priority in the era, for the Americans, as the eastern half of the nation was far more developed and therefore far more important to protect....then the resources sent to fight in the west would have been reduced even further. As it was, America was very vulnerable in the Pacific war, having — by shear luck — managing to retain it's core aircraft carrier fleet after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Had Japan attacked on a different day, it could be argued that Japan would have sunk most of the carriers just as they did to the Battleship fleet, rendering America's navy in complete shambles. Thus, though the timing of the attack on Pearl was highly successful in avoiding Japanese casualties, their lack of success against the carriers prevented America's abandonment of the Hawaiian islands which would have put the west coast into a vulnerable situation....again forcing America to build more defensively, rather than offensively.

So, just by the fact of an unlucky overly-harsh Russian winter, and by the purely lucky chance that America put her carrier fleet on maneuvers during peace time, rather than keeping them moored in Pearl Harbor, the Axis were given a much more difficult time of winning World War II. Of course, there were other more unfortunate things that ensured an Axis defeat, just as there were things that could have just as easily ensured an Allies defeat. Had Germany won the war in Europe, America would have seriously considered a negotiated armistice with the Reich to try to avoid Nazi control over North America. And, given Hitler's betrayal of Stalin, it would have been very unwise for America to trust Germany to stand by its word. On the other hand, originally, Hitler wanted peace with the west because of his own ideology, thinking he could sway them his way, in terms of racism and whatnot, such that he'd achieve a political victory rather than a purely military victory. So, it's possible he might have been willing to accept an armistice, once all of Europe was under his control.

Ironically, despite Yamamoto's famous quote, "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success", Japan had every a very good chance at winning the war in the Pacific and forcing an armistice with America. And if America would have had to have an armistice on both fronts, the future of the nation would have been in question since the potential of a unified Axis invasion with Japanese, German, Italian, Russian, Serbian, and other troops landing on America's shores would have spelled doom for the young and hopeful nation.

I'm an American and I'd like to think that American ingenuity and the American spirit would and should always win the day. But were it not for God's intervention in our lives and in the events of the day, I adamantly believe that — by all rights — we should have lost the war. World War II was a war that was never meant to be won by the Allies. The Axis powers were the aggressors and they were very strong. But God arranged several circumstances such that the long-term outcome of their aggression — despite the evil intentions of many very ambitious people controlling the Axis powers — would prove disastrous to the Axis powers, and many of those leaders would face very real consequences for their evil. Japan would be humiliated....as would be Germany....but they'd retain a semblance of their power and leadership.

Germany would fare much worse, politically, being divvied up by the Allies and their power dismantled entirely as their warmongering leadership and many officers and others would go on trial for horrendous war crimes. The Jews would be given justice for the holocaust and God would bring healing on the world. America would go on to be the champion for liberty and justice throughout the world. God took what evil the Axis powers wrought and turned it's outcome into a herald for righteousness, giving America and the west an unprecedented level of growth and making the world what it is, today, in terms of beauty, advancement, justice, and peace. Sure, evil has and does rear its ugly head all over the place....and will continue to do so....but God's new earthly champion, America, has gone throughout the world to fight such evils far more than any other nation ever has nor ever could.

So, in a way, though my point is entirely right, in that the Axis could have...and really should have...won the war, it was never really a possibility because God's will was greater than Hitler's will and the will of others like him. God wins. The devil loses. It has always been foretold in the scriptures. And though evil will win many battles —seemingly more and more....and the world is getting worse, now, not better, despite all that....God will win the final war. Evil has a destiny to be destroyed. World War II was never an assured thing. For those atheists who refuse to face reality, the very fact that the Axis powers lost the war is a testament to the grace of God and they should open their eyes to His truths. If there were no God, then the Axis would have won the war, period. Atheists, take notice, you are free to be an atheist because God ensured that there'd be a champion nation that stands up for freedom of speech and freedom of belief. No evil empire has ever tolerated any belief other than that of the state. Even the Soviet Union, for all of it's atheistic lore, would never have tolerated free speech, even by their fellow atheists.