Call of War vs Conflict of Nations

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

    • necroing thread.

      just started playing CoN two days ago. never played CoW but the game seems too easy. Its unrealistic and requires(seemingly) less strategy.

      Everyone complaining about resources and what not in CoN either don't know how to play or... nvm ur just trash lmfao

      The reason annexing a city is expensive is bc its realistic and the dev wants to prevent the gamer from becoming a rush simulator. Im guessing the majority of people who play CoW have never played total war/civilization or just suck at either.

      Also I don't see how the graphics in CoN is worse than CoW. I've seen gameplay and CoW has a basic world map with solid colors. there r multiple map view options if u have trouble using ur eyes in CoN. ive also noticed that most competent players is CoN say CoW is too easy and it clearly is for them. CoW seems to be a game based around aconomy where u conquer and somehow get 100% production out of an occupied city which is not realistic at all. c
    • xojxstin wrote:

      necroing thread.

      just started playing CoN two days ago. never played CoW but the game seems too easy. Its unrealistic and requires(seemingly) less strategy.

      Everyone complaining about resources and what not in CoN either don't know how to play or... nvm ur just trash lmfao

      The reason annexing a city is expensive is bc its realistic and the dev wants to prevent the gamer from becoming a rush simulator. Im guessing the majority of people who play CoW have never played total war/civilization or just suck at either.

      Also I don't see how the graphics in CoN is worse than CoW. I've seen gameplay and CoW has a basic world map with solid colors. there r multiple map view options if u have trouble using ur eyes in CoN. ive also noticed that most competent players is CoN say CoW is too easy and it clearly is for them. CoW seems to be a game based around aconomy where u conquer and somehow get 100% production out of an occupied city which is not realistic at all. c
      Lol, you wanted to make absolutely sure we all knew you had no idea what you're talking about, right?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      xojxstin wrote:

      necroing thread.

      just started playing CoN two days ago. never played CoW but the game seems too easy. Its unrealistic and requires(seemingly) less strategy.

      Everyone complaining about resources and what not in CoN either don't know how to play or... nvm ur just trash lmfao

      The reason annexing a city is expensive is bc its realistic and the dev wants to prevent the gamer from becoming a rush simulator. Im guessing the majority of people who play CoW have never played total war/civilization or just suck at either.

      Also I don't see how the graphics in CoN is worse than CoW. I've seen gameplay and CoW has a basic world map with solid colors. there r multiple map view options if u have trouble using ur eyes in CoN. ive also noticed that most competent players is CoN say CoW is too easy and it clearly is for them. CoW seems to be a game based around aconomy where u conquer and somehow get 100% production out of an occupied city which is not realistic at all. c
      Lol, you wanted to make absolutely sure we all knew you had no idea what you're talking about, right?
      he is right game is very easy ıt is mostly very boring people dont know to play game most of them send artilleries as directly like a tank or going inactive players arent competitive most of time you dont need a strategy to attack another one
    • xojxstin wrote:

      necroing thread.

      just started playing CoN two days ago. never played CoW but the game seems too easy. Its unrealistic and requires(seemingly) less strategy.

      Everyone complaining about resources and what not in CoN either don't know how to play or... nvm ur just trash lmfao

      The reason annexing a city is expensive is bc its realistic and the dev wants to prevent the gamer from becoming a rush simulator. Im guessing the majority of people who play CoW have never played total war/civilization or just suck at either.

      Also I don't see how the graphics in CoN is worse than CoW. I've seen gameplay and CoW has a basic world map with solid colors. there r multiple map view options if u have trouble using ur eyes in CoN. ive also noticed that most competent players is CoN say CoW is too easy and it clearly is for them. CoW seems to be a game based around aconomy where u conquer and somehow get 100% production out of an occupied city which is not realistic at all. c
      You literally wrote "aconomy".

      Some jokes write themselves.
      The elephant is the only land mammal that cannot jump.
    • xojxstin wrote:

      necroing thread.

      just started playing CoN two days ago. never played CoW but the game seems too easy. Its unrealistic and requires(seemingly) less strategy.

      Everyone complaining about resources and what not in CoN either don't know how to play or... nvm ur just trash lmfao

      The reason annexing a city is expensive is bc its realistic and the dev wants to prevent the gamer from becoming a rush simulator. Im guessing the majority of people who play CoW have never played total war/civilization or just suck at either.

      Also I don't see how the graphics in CoN is worse than CoW. I've seen gameplay and CoW has a basic world map with solid colors. there r multiple map view options if u have trouble using ur eyes in CoN. ive also noticed that most competent players is CoN say CoW is too easy and it clearly is for them. CoW seems to be a game based around aconomy where u conquer and somehow get 100% production out of an occupied city which is not realistic at all. c
      You get 25% of the normal production, plus a morale penalty. that's quite realistic. The max production of an occupied city is the same as a core rural.
      Kind regards,
      Donk
      Bytro game addict and avid CoW player.

      "Þ" > "th"



      Display Spoiler

      Слава
      Україні!

    • CoW is better. Saying this after I went on hiatus on CoW and went to CoN. CoN is nice and I like the weapons and the way the units are (sorta) balanced. It's kinda like a hybrid of CoW 1.0 and 1.5, since the production and construction times are like 1.0, but there are doctrines and efficiency. CoW is just more simple yet complex, and I love it for that reason. In CoN you could just get away with spamming MBTs easily (unless you meet someone who actually is good at controlling their economy and good at military).
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7
    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      In CoN you could just get away with spamming MBTs easily
      aaaaaaah,... mmmmmh....
      No. Just NO. Either you could spamm MBT "easily" ( it is one of most expensive and inefficient units in game), neither you could be viktorious by spamming MBT in CoN, MBT have not antiair capability, can be countered by several kinds of units, and can not grab land, so you need some infantry for it. But weirdest disadvantage of MBT is late airtransport capability (only tier 3), wich make this unit too unflexible for warefare.
    • Last Warrior wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      In CoN you could just get away with spamming MBTs easily
      aaaaaaah,... mmmmmh....No. Just NO. Either you could spamm MBT "easily" ( it is one of most expensive and inefficient units in game), neither you could be viktorious by spamming MBT in CoN, MBT have not antiair capability, can be countered by several kinds of units, and can not grab land, so you need some infantry for it. But weirdest disadvantage of MBT is late airtransport capability (only tier 3), wich make this unit too unflexible for warefare.
      In your opinion, what would you use? I've done a bit of CoN myself, so any tips would be greatly appreciated.
      Kind regards,
      Donk
      Bytro game addict and avid CoW player.

      "Þ" > "th"



      Display Spoiler

      Слава
      Україні!

    • Last Warrior wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      In CoN you could just get away with spamming MBTs easily
      aaaaaaah,... mmmmmh....No. Just NO. Either you could spamm MBT "easily" ( it is one of most expensive and inefficient units in game), neither you could be viktorious by spamming MBT in CoN, MBT have not antiair capability, can be countered by several kinds of units, and can not grab land, so you need some infantry for it. But weirdest disadvantage of MBT is late airtransport capability (only tier 3), wich make this unit too unflexible for warefare.
      My bad. All you really need is MBTs, AFVs, or Tank Destroyers for armour (depending on doctrine and terrain, this can vary), Motorized Infantry to conquer provinces (Mech and Airmobile are useless, Marines are pretty good), Anti-Air and SAM Lauchers to counter Strike Fighters and Helis, MRLs as artillery to kill literally any ground units from range, and Strike Fighters (better than Helis IMO, but are very vulnerable to both SAMs and ASFs). Navally no clue, I am yet to figure out how the hell that works (carriers and corvettes are useless, destroyers and frigates are pretty good as far as I know, dunno if subs and cruisers are worth). So yes, I agree, you definitely need more than MBTs to win, but a lot (and I mean a lot) of units don't really have a lot of use (like CRVs, which are only good very early game, or Mobile Artillery (which basically everyone will skip to get MRLs).

      Donk2.0 wrote:

      In your opinion, what would you use? I've done a bit of CoN myself, so any tips would be greatly appreciated.
      I'd ask on the CoN forum. I used to be active there, but left when I rejoined CoW. They are a very...chaotic group, to say the least. And expect bickering, since they themselves can sometimes never agree on the simplest of things. They'll still get your question answered though.

      Gotta say this, one thing I hate about CoN is that gold is 10x more P2W than in CoW. You can't get it from achievements, and games usually take so long to win that the gold payout isn't really worth it (that's why most on CoN prefer 4x speed rounds). Another thing, people on CoN never understand how the doctrines balance out in CoW, they just assume Pan-Asian will always beat Allies, just because they are faster.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7
    • I have played COW since 1.0, switched to CON for quite some time and now I'm back at COW.

      Things I find cool about CON:
      -Rivers, they add strategic opportunities that COW lacks
      -Exceeding the 10 army size actually has penalties in CON
      -Officers are :thumbup:
      -The ability to change map display to "terrain type" really helps
      -There's an AI rebel nation that fights all players
      -Regular units can only embark/disembark in cities, key detail in naval strategy
      -Missiles <3

      In my opinion, COW could make a huge improvement by adopting 3 CON features:
      1. Rivers
      2. Officers
      3. (Dis)Embarking only in cities

      :beer:
    • Ye I agree, they should definitely add a marine type infantry to CoW, although that might screw over some things related to the Normandy landings and all.

      Also another thing I like is that upgrades to units are specific, for example a certain Motorized Infantry upgrade (lvl 2 or 3 I forget) significantly increases anti-air damage. I think its called Anti-Air Upgrade or Portable Anti-Air or something like that, but it really adds character to the upgrade.

      -0-0-0 wrote:

      -There's an AI rebel nation that fights all players
      I actually dislike this mechanic, for many reasons. One is that it only occurs in cities, which makes sense, but then people really start to neglect the provinces surrounding the city. It does make the insurgents easier to deal with. Another thing is that the AI just makes it too easy. Imagine, if one of your cities rebelled to your enemy, they could build/repair an airbase, quickly ferry troops there, and make a last ditch effort to control the city, behind enemy lines. The AI is just too easy to deal with (even though for some reason, they have anti-air protection and can hold their ground against Motorized Infantry).
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7
    • Better gameplay and mechanic wise. The game has a much more flexible play-style than Call of War, where the meta is basically arty with anti air, which Is exordinarliy annoying to deal with. Con has more limitations on unit stacks and it has more balanced unit. You can win using MBT's or MRLS or Strikes and Helis. However, the problem with conflict of nations is that most of the map becomes inactive after a few days. Making the game uninteresting. Even worse, it doesn't show you, which nations are inactive or active, forcing you to scour for them across the map.
    • Last Warrior wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      In CoN you could just get away with spamming MBTs easily
      aaaaaaah,... mmmmmh....No. Just NO. Either you could spamm MBT "easily" ( it is one of most expensive and inefficient units in game), neither you could be viktorious by spamming MBT in CoN, MBT have not antiair capability, can be countered by several kinds of units, and can not grab land, so you need some infantry for it. But weirdest disadvantage of MBT is late airtransport capability (only tier 3), wich make this unit too unflexible for warefare.
      No one goes for pure MBT stack. MBT is underrated within the game, it gives you massive striking power and raw force. Especially this is advantageous because it is unlocked early game. With MBT's and infantry you can easily smash and concentrate multiple nations around you who are trying to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction or MBTs. This gives you more resources to focus on Strike Fighters, which gives you a key advantage. The sheer amount of health that a tank has makes it extremely hard to destroy. For example, one guy I was playing had betrayed our alliance. My tanks were within reaching distance of his capital. He was desperately trying to destroy my tanks with his strikes, but not a single stack was lost due to sheer health. He was only saved because he had gained enough vps.
    • For me CoN is worse for a lot of reasons:
      -Doctrines arent as diverse as in CoW
      -Negative morale for cities bombardment and for being in war with different nations is absolutely trash. You might lose a game only by being in war with too many nations. And guess what if they declare a war from the opposite side of map you just have to deal with it untill you can conquer them a month later.
      Later on you cant touch enemy city with artillery or 30 cities will rebel and you will have to keep troops there for 5days(possibly forever) and btw you wont have 300 troops there like in CoW.
      -Yeah you have conquered half the map? Heres 100 troops try to defend all the land and not enough resources to keep on producing troops. Economy is fked up here. Optimally dont lose single troop whole game, you can heal them.(thats why aircrafts are broken)
      -Countries are not fair. You pick USA get coalition with Canada even better if he is inactive and theres 80% chance you are gonna end the game in top 3. Also there is no way any small nation can face you even if they conquer half the map(when you play any big nation).
      -Tanks? What tanks? You dare building any armored class you are going to lose hard(although lvl1 tanks can help you expand early). The only units that realisticly exist there are: aircrafts, ships, basic infantry, radar, mobile rocket artillery, anti-air. Anyway spam strike fighters and you will beat all the noobs around you in no time.
      -If u build any ship first then enemy can only dream about building anything in his coastal cities ever again. Naval supremacy kinda brutal if someone has main cities with important resources on a coast.
      In CoW at least you can build naval base in 30min in conquered city or build naval bombers quickly. In CoN thats not the case.

      Personally the morale mechanics, no playable armored class and boring doctrines are sth that makes the CoN the game i wont go back to.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sewur ().