maybe we try out a change for victory points?

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

    • maybe we try out a change for victory points?

      eh who wants this 13
      1.  
        neh i dont want this to be implemented (5) 38%
      2.  
        i would implement this mode in the game but twik some of the detailsdetails (4) 31%
      3.  
        i support this idea (4) 31%
      I'll try to keep this succinct so here goes: i played as Tibet in historic world war and now have 365 province from the 50+ i started out as but am still at like 5th place because bigger countries like the German empire or US or Brazil start off with more provinces. maybe we have another game modes that requires you to win not because you have a certain number of victory points, but because you expanded your country to a certain extent, for example 300%.

      Granted, bigger countries now have to conquer almost their whole continent but i feel that this will be more fair to the tiny or significantly smaller countries in that they do not need to gain an exaggerated number of provinces just to be on par with the bigger countries. :?:

      this could be a game mode, like say its name could be "Event: * enters name* "
      One day there will be no more wars

    • In all honesty it is possible to win with the smaller nations it just takes more time and effort. I see where you are coming at with this idea it just wouldnt work properly in the call of war meta at this very moment. As it seems with your idea all Manchu would have to do is conquer the eastern part of Russia which usually isnt defended much an then hed receive the victory. The historic map is mainly used for Roleplaying purposes which sadly the RP community has been dead for years now which sucks.
      The greatest weakness to a leader is his himself

    • General Tarkov wrote:

      In all honesty it is possible to win with the smaller nations it just takes more time and effort. I see where you are coming at with this idea it just wouldnt work properly in the call of war meta at this very moment. As it seems with your idea all Manchu would have to do is conquer the eastern part of Russia which usually isnt defended much an then hed receive the victory. The historic map is mainly used for Roleplaying purposes which sadly the RP community has been dead for years now which sucks.
      mmm good point and then i js realized that for the ussr to win he would need to conquer like the whole of europe, scandinan\via and asia. well, js a suggestion after all :tumbleweed:
      One day there will be no more wars

    • I have won the 39 historical map several times in coalition with two other nations-often those nations not been superpowers (e.g. Spain, India, Turkey, Sweden, Romania, Manchuria, Tibet, etc.). It may take a little longer. It seems to be that skill and experience are most important factors in the game. Most of the time the coalition needs to dominate Europe and Asia to win- though a couple of times I won with a country outside those two continents (once with Brazil, and once with the US). The only time I got blown away, in terms of VP's, was against a level 100 player that took Germany. The rest of Europe was managed by noobies that spent most of their time attacking each other- and I could not persuade them to unite vs. Germany, who won solo. But I survived in South Africa ... 8)

    • gusv wrote:

      I have won the 39 historical map several times in coalition with two other nations-often those nations not been superpowers (e.g. Spain, India, Turkey, Sweden, Romania, Manchuria, Tibet, etc.). It may take a little longer. It seems to be that skill and experience are most important factors in the game. Most of the time the coalition needs to dominate Europe and Asia to win- though a couple of times I won with a country outside those two continents (once with Brazil, and once with the US). The only time I got blown away, in terms of VP's, was against a level 100 player that took Germany. The rest of Europe was managed by noobies that spent most of their time attacking each other- and I could not persuade them to unite vs. Germany, who won solo. But I survived in South Africa ... 8)
      You have any suggestions for how to start as India? I am in a game as India that I started a few days ago I haven’t attacked anyone yet though I am thinking about taking Afghanistan first.

    • RiverWolf74 wrote:

      gusv wrote:


      You have any suggestions for how to start as India? I am in a game as India that I started a few days ago I haven’t attacked anyone yet though I am thinking about taking Afghanistan first.
      Start attacking someone soon or you will be left behind by the more aggressive countries. Expand your production and resource base, as other players are doing it.

    • WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      RiverWolf74 wrote:

      gusv wrote:


      You have any suggestions for how to start as India? I am in a game as India that I started a few days ago I haven’t attacked anyone yet though I am thinking about taking Afghanistan first.
      Start attacking someone soon or you will be left behind by the more aggressive countries. Expand your production and resource base, as other players are doing it.

      WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      I played as South India in a 50 player Pacific game and won by being conservatively aggressive with a balanced army and a strong navy

      I mean in historic world war

    • RiverWolf74 wrote:

      You have any suggestions for how to start as India? I am in a game as India that I started a few days ago I haven’t attacked anyone yet though I am thinking about taking Afghanistan first.
      When I had India, I initially focused on production and technological development and had good relations with all my neighbors- having RoW with Iran and Afghanistan. I needed lots of oil anyhow, which I got thru trading with Iran and taking over Saudi Arabia. After I got in an alliance with Japan (who took over Nationalist China) and Canada (who took over US), I wound up at war with the UK- who was in a rival alliance with Germany and Italy. I recall taking Burma and all UK provinces in the Arabian Peninsula. The UK also took some beating from Japan and Canada and eventually went inactive. We won, but it took quite a few weeks ... 8)

    • gusv wrote:

      RiverWolf74 wrote:

      You have any suggestions for how to start as India? I am in a game as India that I started a few days ago I haven’t attacked anyone yet though I am thinking about taking Afghanistan first.
      When I had India, I initially focused on production and technological development and had good relations with all my neighbors- having RoW with Iran and Afghanistan. I needed lots of oil anyhow, which I got thru trading with Iran and taking over Saudi Arabia. After I got in an alliance with Japan (who took over Nationalist China) and Canada (who took over US), I wound up at war with the UK- who was in a rival alliance with Germany and Italy. I recall taking Burma and all UK provinces in the Arabian Peninsula. The UK also took some beating from Japan and Canada and eventually went inactive. We won, but it took quite a few weeks ... 8)
      cool!

    • RiverWolf74 wrote:

      gusv wrote:

      I have won the 39 historical map several times in coalition with two other nations-often those nations not been superpowers (e.g. Spain, India, Turkey, Sweden, Romania, Manchuria, Tibet, etc.). It may take a little longer. It seems to be that skill and experience are most important factors in the game. Most of the time the coalition needs to dominate Europe and Asia to win- though a couple of times I won with a country outside those two continents (once with Brazil, and once with the US). The only time I got blown away, in terms of VP's, was against a level 100 player that took Germany. The rest of Europe was managed by noobies that spent most of their time attacking each other- and I could not persuade them to unite vs. Germany, who won solo. But I survived in South Africa ... 8)
      You have any suggestions for how to start as India? I am in a game as India that I started a few days ago I haven’t attacked anyone yet though I am thinking about taking Afghanistan first.
      Sit tight, I'll make a guide eventually!
      -the guy who still writes "how to get started" guides

    • gusv wrote:

      o other nations-often those nations not been superpowers (e.g. Spain, India, Turkey, Sweden, Romania, Manchuria, Tibet, etc.). It may take a little longer. It seems to be that skill and experience are most important factors in the game. Most of the time the coalition needs to dominate Europe and Asia to win- though a couple of times I won with a country outside those t
      mmm nice change it looks btr now:D
      One day there will be no more wars