blue44elephant wrote:

May I suggest something else? Instead of removing a map just because YOU WANT another map then I am sorry, there is something known as competition in the market to keep the players. If you make this map too common then the fun is gone. The only map people will play is clash of nations and then stop playing the game not to say that role playing communities will be affected. So instead of that lets increase the number of these type of games the system spawns per week. Say something like 7 games a week and you are allowed to join only one game per week and reduce the number of clash of nations maps. This way the game mode keeps its fun of being rare while also making sure we DON'T LOSE PLAYERS because some players might like the Historic world war more.

Killer8282 wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

May I suggest something else? Instead of removing a map just because YOU WANT another map then I am sorry, there is something known as competition in the market to keep the players. If you make this map too common then the fun is gone. The only map people will play is clash of nations and then stop playing the game not to say that role playing communities will be affected. So instead of that lets increase the number of these type of games the system spawns per week. Say something like 7 games a week and you are allowed to join only one game per week and reduce the number of clash of nations maps. This way the game mode keeps its fun of being rare while also making sure we DON'T LOSE PLAYERS because some players might like the Historic world war more.

I see your point, but maybe make it into a rotational event, like dominion Antarctica and pacific conquest?

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

Dude, the forum is getting too active.

Jacques Thomas wrote:

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

Dude, the forum is getting too active.

Right? The 'Unread Posts' thing is wearing me out.
#partoftheproblem

BLITZ6666 wrote:

I’ve just updated the description so please take a look

BLITZ6666 wrote:

Jchicas the Great wrote:

Why not just make it permanent? The all in event is good for so many reasons. And I would like to play the historical because if you really aren’t in the mood of playing a 3 province country then it seems more fair to at least be a major power so don’t get rid of it either. My reasons for keeping both are:

1: it’s just historically accurate and let’s you feel like you’re really in the game. The way I see it there are 2 types of players. The noob who will either choose the Soviet Union /quit when he gets a small country which to be honest wouldn’t be all that different from an AI player. And the other player being most of us on this thread who will make informal alliances of 10 small nations who will band together to start attacks on countries like the Soviet Union to avoid them from building up and swallowing up the world. after 2 days of gameplay you get to see who the serious players are and start huge coalitions to combat this imbalance.

2: some of us are very nationalistic and proud of it. So we definitely wouldn’t mind playing and possibly losing as a small country bc we also hope to one day make these small countries the next major power. As far as I’m concerned, I’m too good to let my stats slip because of one game in which I took the risk of playing a small nation.

3: role playing becomes more serious bc playing a small country means you have to be very involved diplomatically and using the newspaper becomes very important. Shoot, even players become active in the trading market bc some nations don’t produce certain resources.

There are many other reasons but I can also see why people don’t like this mode. If anything . To make it slightly more fair maybe they should limit major powers coalition size to 3. And have small nations be able to join coalitions of up to 5.

I really love playing small countries, in fact I’ve won as benelux countries, Lithuania, Denmark and finland already!

BLITZ6666 wrote:

Chimere wrote:

BLITZ6666 wrote:

Jchicas the Great wrote:

Why not just make it permanent? The all in event is good for so many reasons. And I would like to play the historical because if you really aren’t in the mood of playing a 3 province country then it seems more fair to at least be a major power so don’t get rid of it either. My reasons for keeping both are:

1: it’s just historically accurate and let’s you feel like you’re really in the game. The way I see it there are 2 types of players. The noob who will either choose the Soviet Union /quit when he gets a small country which to be honest wouldn’t be all that different from an AI player. And the other player being most of us on this thread who will make informal alliances of 10 small nations who will band together to start attacks on countries like the Soviet Union to avoid them from building up and swallowing up the world. after 2 days of gameplay you get to see who the serious players are and start huge coalitions to combat this imbalance.

2: some of us are very nationalistic and proud of it. So we definitely wouldn’t mind playing and possibly losing as a small country bc we also hope to one day make these small countries the next major power. As far as I’m concerned, I’m too good to let my stats slip because of one game in which I took the risk of playing a small nation.

3: role playing becomes more serious bc playing a small country means you have to be very involved diplomatically and using the newspaper becomes very important. Shoot, even players become active in the trading market bc some nations don’t produce certain resources.

There are many other reasons but I can also see why people don’t like this mode. If anything . To make it slightly more fair maybe they should limit major powers coalition size to 3. And have small nations be able to join coalitions of up to 5.

I really love playing small countries, in fact I’ve won as benelux countries, Lithuania, Denmark and finland already!

Which Benelux country ?

all three of them in separate games, of course I only lived because I convinced Germany to let me live