I'm a fairly new to Call of War, but have been playing WWII war games for 30+ years. Board game or computer game I have probably played it. So far I think this is quite a good game, but I think there are three main things holding this game back from being an all-time great. I will admit I don't have good solutions to many of these, but I will try to at least include a constructive suggestion or two.
I should also mention that most of my experience applies to the World map, I have played very little on the older European maps, so bear that in mind.
1) Too Much Bandwagoning!!! In foreign relations two terms are most often used to describe how states respond to a more powerful neighbor -balancing or bandwagoning. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia;
"Realism predicts that states will bandwagon only when there is no possibility of building a balancing coalition or their geography makes balancing difficult (i.e. surrounded by enemies). Bandwagoning is considered to be dangerous because it allows a rival state to gain power.
Bandwagoning is opposed to balancing, which calls for a state to prevent an aggressor from upsetting the balance of power."
I see very little balancing in this game. You get a few mega alliances forming early, with very little disruption (except for those patsies with little to gain from the alliance configuration getting bored and going inactive). These alliance conquor swathes of interlocking territories with little thought to defense, because players rarely break their alliances. So once an alliance is locked in you get some ridiculous looking territorial configurations from states that should be competitors. I had one game where the three biggest powers formed an alliance because none were sure they could come out on top and most of the rest of the game was just a matter of cleaning up inactives and victimizing the outsiders.
I find this disappointing because it makes what could be some amazingly fun diplomacy/politics in the world map sterile and frustrating. I can't tell you how many conversations I've opened with other nations trying to create a balancing coalition only to be rebuffed because they are BFF with the super-power. I've never played a war game with a community this dedicated to not caring if they win.
I think some of this stems from the community not wanting a reputation as a "backstabber". That is sad, but probably surmountable. You can play your nations interest honestly without being a snake. Just don't commit to full BFF alliances. Make transactional deals instead and I think you would have a much more interesting game. There is only so much you can do about human nature so I think it is incumbent upon the developers to change the incentive system somewhat to help push things into a more dynamic direction.
So here are some ideas of changes to the victory conditions/alliances system that might push things in a more dynamic direction.
-- winner take all on the world maps: No points for anyone but the victor. There will be damn little point in bandwagoning forever if you know you gain nothing if you don't win. If that is too extreme (and even I admit it might be a bit much) maybe get only 1/3 or 1/2 points for anyone allied to the winner. Or full points to the winner and some type of significant reward to those that fought the eventual winner.
-- no share maps alliances: The world map is not WWII and an existential fight for existence between competing ideological blocks. Why is every war total war? Does it really make sense for a nation to devote every resource to annihilating an enemy when they could make small gains then make peace? If you could not exist in a state of complete trust of your BFF's you would need to hold back troops for possible defense (like a real nation).
-- Anonymous maps: Play in anonymous mode. Yo are only a country name, you don't know who is noob and who is experienced you obfuscate the game id's and make it as hard as possible to know anything other than that France made them an offer of non-aggression etc.
2) On to my second item - Victory to the unemployed. There is too much reward in this real-time setting to being online all the time. It doesn't matter if you play smart if you have a busy day at work. By the time you are home you've lost. I really don't know how this could be mitigated and keep the real time flavor, but it is a significant detractor to keeping me and my friends (who are all old and have responsibilities) engaged.
3) Gold Spiked games: I think this has been covered extensively elsewhere, but in my very first game (old eurpoean map) my neighbor bought himself 20 tac bombers on day 2. Needless to say, I almost never came back, except one other player assured me that was a rare occurence. I stuck it out and recruited a handful of my firneds to also give the developers money
I think this is a bigger problem on the world maps as there are more players, so the odds of one jerk trying to buy himself a win increases. Sure the rest of the map may eventuially take him out, but it is no less annoying for the 7 other engaged players that got wiped early and now associate the game with the taste of bile this caused.
I know there are many ideas floating out there on the forums for finding the right balance between letting the developers make money and keeping the game fun so people continue to play and new players stay, but I want to throw out one suggestion that I have not seen (possibly just because I have been around long enough to have seen everything on this topic.)
ANTE games. Allow people to set up a game for an ante like poker. It costs 6000 gold to join for instance. 3000 from each player goes into the pool for the winners and 3000 of it is what can be spent on gold in the game. No one can spend more than 3000, and everyone has 3000 to spend. They can spend it whenever they like up front or dole it out for emergencies.
One last comment before wrapping up this massive post. I know we will never get everyone to agree on one set of rules and each of us will have their own preferences, so maybe have more than one world map open at a time. Have one standard rule version open, but maintain one or two that have some variations of the above (or similar alternate rules to address other players concerns.)
Sincerely,
An enthusiastic, but often frustrated and disappointed new player
I should also mention that most of my experience applies to the World map, I have played very little on the older European maps, so bear that in mind.
1) Too Much Bandwagoning!!! In foreign relations two terms are most often used to describe how states respond to a more powerful neighbor -balancing or bandwagoning. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia;
"Realism predicts that states will bandwagon only when there is no possibility of building a balancing coalition or their geography makes balancing difficult (i.e. surrounded by enemies). Bandwagoning is considered to be dangerous because it allows a rival state to gain power.
Bandwagoning is opposed to balancing, which calls for a state to prevent an aggressor from upsetting the balance of power."
I see very little balancing in this game. You get a few mega alliances forming early, with very little disruption (except for those patsies with little to gain from the alliance configuration getting bored and going inactive). These alliance conquor swathes of interlocking territories with little thought to defense, because players rarely break their alliances. So once an alliance is locked in you get some ridiculous looking territorial configurations from states that should be competitors. I had one game where the three biggest powers formed an alliance because none were sure they could come out on top and most of the rest of the game was just a matter of cleaning up inactives and victimizing the outsiders.
I find this disappointing because it makes what could be some amazingly fun diplomacy/politics in the world map sterile and frustrating. I can't tell you how many conversations I've opened with other nations trying to create a balancing coalition only to be rebuffed because they are BFF with the super-power. I've never played a war game with a community this dedicated to not caring if they win.
I think some of this stems from the community not wanting a reputation as a "backstabber". That is sad, but probably surmountable. You can play your nations interest honestly without being a snake. Just don't commit to full BFF alliances. Make transactional deals instead and I think you would have a much more interesting game. There is only so much you can do about human nature so I think it is incumbent upon the developers to change the incentive system somewhat to help push things into a more dynamic direction.
So here are some ideas of changes to the victory conditions/alliances system that might push things in a more dynamic direction.
-- winner take all on the world maps: No points for anyone but the victor. There will be damn little point in bandwagoning forever if you know you gain nothing if you don't win. If that is too extreme (and even I admit it might be a bit much) maybe get only 1/3 or 1/2 points for anyone allied to the winner. Or full points to the winner and some type of significant reward to those that fought the eventual winner.
-- no share maps alliances: The world map is not WWII and an existential fight for existence between competing ideological blocks. Why is every war total war? Does it really make sense for a nation to devote every resource to annihilating an enemy when they could make small gains then make peace? If you could not exist in a state of complete trust of your BFF's you would need to hold back troops for possible defense (like a real nation).
-- Anonymous maps: Play in anonymous mode. Yo are only a country name, you don't know who is noob and who is experienced you obfuscate the game id's and make it as hard as possible to know anything other than that France made them an offer of non-aggression etc.
2) On to my second item - Victory to the unemployed. There is too much reward in this real-time setting to being online all the time. It doesn't matter if you play smart if you have a busy day at work. By the time you are home you've lost. I really don't know how this could be mitigated and keep the real time flavor, but it is a significant detractor to keeping me and my friends (who are all old and have responsibilities) engaged.
3) Gold Spiked games: I think this has been covered extensively elsewhere, but in my very first game (old eurpoean map) my neighbor bought himself 20 tac bombers on day 2. Needless to say, I almost never came back, except one other player assured me that was a rare occurence. I stuck it out and recruited a handful of my firneds to also give the developers money
I think this is a bigger problem on the world maps as there are more players, so the odds of one jerk trying to buy himself a win increases. Sure the rest of the map may eventuially take him out, but it is no less annoying for the 7 other engaged players that got wiped early and now associate the game with the taste of bile this caused.I know there are many ideas floating out there on the forums for finding the right balance between letting the developers make money and keeping the game fun so people continue to play and new players stay, but I want to throw out one suggestion that I have not seen (possibly just because I have been around long enough to have seen everything on this topic.)
ANTE games. Allow people to set up a game for an ante like poker. It costs 6000 gold to join for instance. 3000 from each player goes into the pool for the winners and 3000 of it is what can be spent on gold in the game. No one can spend more than 3000, and everyone has 3000 to spend. They can spend it whenever they like up front or dole it out for emergencies.
One last comment before wrapping up this massive post. I know we will never get everyone to agree on one set of rules and each of us will have their own preferences, so maybe have more than one world map open at a time. Have one standard rule version open, but maintain one or two that have some variations of the above (or similar alternate rules to address other players concerns.)
Sincerely,
An enthusiastic, but often frustrated and disappointed new player
. There should be something implemented that restricts the insane power of mass gold usage. Suggestions have been made in other toppics. 
