Chile - Totally unplayable and unhistorical on the All In map (73)

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

    • Chile - Totally unplayable and unhistorical on the All In map (73)

      Well, I was looking forward to the fact that this event was coming and even better with a selection of countries just to bring me tremendous disappointment.

      Chile, the country that so much hoped to play is a total disaster, with only 2 militias lvl 1 and a squad of interceptors, no unit of these defending in the capital and without navy.

      As if it were not better, a total of 10 regions must be defended, all with access to border countries.

      And if this were already bad, the production of resources was badly balanced, literally produces even less than other minor countries (among which I can name Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador ...)
      (Food production in Punta arenas? Seriously? Should have had 2 food production points, one in Temuco and one in Puerto Montt, and oil production in Punta arenas)

      And there are more, the troops are present with the appearance of American troops when this is a total mistake, since the culture of the army of the time was closer to that of the Germans thanks to the efforts of Emilio Körner.

      jstor.org/stable/2513028?seq=1
      wikiwand.com/en/Chilean_Army

      But undoubtedly among all these offenses, the greatest of all, is the absence of a naval fleet, being that at the time Chile had a Battleship, a couple of cruise ships, several destroyer-class ships (even if somewhat outdated) and some submarines This being one of the largest naval fleets in all of South America, along with that of Argentina and Brazil.

      In the army of land had 3 well-trained infantry divisions with Prussian tactics, 1 cavalry and enough planes for a squad of biplane interceptors (a few used as naval bombers).

      To this I can add facts such as the victory over the Peru / Bolivia double front.

      But despite all this, I find the balance insult that has been made to this country.
      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • Tasmine wrote:

      Because it's historical border but not historical army and others. Small nations in this map destiny is doom.

      I understand that, but in that case I would at least expect a minimum balance like the one given to all other minor countries, as an example, all the countries of the Caribbean and Central America may have 3 production nodes but those nodes produce as 5 to 10 times normal resources ...

      Why didn't Chile have a similar balance to theirs? even in terms of the initial army, it is totally inferior, with only 3 units of which 2 are of land and even worse they are only level 1 militias.

      And apart from that, the objective of the map is to be able to play with the smaller countries, I have already played with other countries before and to my liking they are fine, but what the hell happened to Chile? They have absolutely no strong points, it seems to me that it is the worst country on the map.
      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • YitanTribal wrote:

      And if this were already bad, the production of resources was badly balanced, literally produces even less than other minor countries (among which I can name Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador ...)
      The six major countries in South America (by size of economy) are Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Venezuela ... It would be nice if they all had adequate resources and decent defense capabilities ... :thumbup:
    • However, I claim some ignorance- for I have never played the 73 map (Been less than a year in CoW- only played a total of 12 games in 22 tutorial map and 39 historical map) ... Question: What would be the top ten most powerful countries in that 73 map? ... ?(
    • gusv wrote:

      However, I claim some ignorance- for I have never played the 73 map (Been less than a year in CoW- only played a total of 12 games in 22 tutorial map and 39 historical map) ... Question: What would be the top ten most powerful countries in that 73 map? ... ?(
      well, the major powers have better initial armies and in general a good production of all resources, but not too much better to face 3 or 4 smaller countries at the same time, and if you consider countries like the USA that are huge and difficult to defending, it can be a challenge if a good group of smaller countries join you against.

      On the other hand, the countries of Central America had a gigantic increase in resource production, even if they can only produce 3 of the 5, but I consider that the increase is so great that it compensates for the lack of the other 2 resources.

      Some Examples:



      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • I played my last 5 games in the 39 map- winning my first game with Brazil, in coalition with Turkey and Manchuria. As I said earlier, the six major countries in South America (by size of economy) are Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Venezuela, but only Brazil and Argentina are playable. At first glance, resources in all these countries seem adequate. Perhaps the other 4 countries (Colombia, Chile, Peru and Venezuela) could be made playable.

      Chile has only 20 VP's. Perhaps this amount could be increased by 5 VP's- perhaps creating a 3 VP province for Valparaiso 75 NW of Santiago and giving 2 VP's to Temuco with perhaps 1 infantry assigned to each of these cities for their defense ... 8)
    • The historical maps, such as the 25 and 73, are not intended to be fair, balanced, or easy. They are designed to mimic certain historical conditions.

      Smaller nations will need to use their diplomatic skills to form the alliances, friendships, trading partners, and non-aggression pacts that are necessary to survive.
      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
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      The historical maps, such as the 25 and 73, are not intended to be fair, balanced, or easy. They are designed to mimic certain historical conditions.

      Smaller nations will need to use their diplomatic skills to form the alliances, friendships, trading partners, and non-aggression pacts that are necessary to survive.
      What you say is totally incorrect, compare Chile with the countries of Central America, with Uruguay, with Paraguay, with countries in the Middle East such as Yemen, Nepal ... etc etc

      It is assumed that the idea of the map was to balance the numbers for smaller countries compared to the classic map powers. But for some reason, some of these minor countries are not close to being up to the others. Chile is one of them since although it produces all the resources, it does so in a shameful amount, in which you practically produce 3 units and you are already in red numbers.

      (Additionally, there is another country that suffers from a problem on this map that is Saudi Arabia, has good production of resources, but does not produce ANY manpower, once I played it last time of this event and was able to survive by buying military units from neighbor, but now, if you can no longer exchange units, this is another country that is practically unplayable)


      VorlonFCW wrote:

      hey are designed to mimic certain historical conditions.
      If what you say were true, where are the 3 divisions of infantry that Chile should have, instead of 2 militias, and where is the navy of a force equivalent to that of Argentina ?, because they did not even give Chile a miserable destroyer.
      Make Chile Playable Again!