Monetization for this game should be rethink once more

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

  • Monetization for this game should be rethink once more

    In Supremacy you cannot spawn 2x1 bigger army in couple of minutes- here it is possible

    What we do?
    Tips for Emerald Users

    1. Build Barracks lvl3 with GMs everywhere where you can increase manpower. Feed them with GM-food in you need
    2. Research quickly everything at hand with GMs - mostly ground units
    3. Run to you opponents with force march and increase morale with GMs
    4. If you want to save your units from forced march build quickly Industrial Complex next to the border
    5. Spawn as many units as you can with GMs in your factories. Consider building units that are useful in attack and eat less manpwoer to create and sustain than ie militia
    6. Use whole you manpower to create this attacking army and use your army against opponent quickly as army upkeep is expensive.
    7. Ofc opponent would have initially 2-3 time less troops, and at specific point whre you attack- moaybe even 5-10 time less troops so it is easy win for you
    8. So you have more army and you kill more than you loose, you also have 1.5 x bigegr manpower production so there is no way you can loose
    9. Produced Manpower keep as reserve in case someone attack you from behind- then you produce your defence instantly with forts and you are safe.
    10. Look for some logic in this monetization as i do not see posibility for non-GM player to win confrontation

    In SUpremacy it was secured by infantry producing no faster than 8 h, here you can produce any avalaible unit just liek that

    So i ask devs to rethink monetization an micropayments once more as both issues completly destroy balance of game.

    I have clear evidence from alliance game when i and 3 of my experienced friends from supremacy fought completly new players to bytro mechanics and were badly beeten by GM armies with no offensive or defensive strategy whatsover. And despite opponents did mistake after mistake GM armies and army GM spying was enough to win.

  • Do you realize how much goldmark that strategy would cost? Also, that is for one war with a 50 VP country, and to win a game, you need to defeat at least 4-50 VP countries, and that's if someone else doesn't take you from behind. If someone were to waste so much money on one game, then congrats to the staff, you just got like $50 from one person in one game.

  • I really hate people using Gold to get an early advantage, it's going to make the game pay-to-win and remove the strategy from startegy games, freeloaders like Me and Bill and other people like us are the best players of the game.

    We win using superior startegy, planning, and honesty not by throwing money at it.
    "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
    -imperium thought of the day

  • During alliance game it is enough only 1 opponent would do sth like that and it is over for second team : 5-3 in countries after 2 days and 4.5 - 3 in armies

    lets called it Gold Rush - if you have any idea how to stop Gold Rush from happening i would glaldy listen to your strategy
    with current GMs offer giving you 75%-200% more gold if you buy it now - you are able to use Gold Rush in every single alliance game.

    when it comes to Kaliagos words- please play first an alliance game against gold rush and then say if you strategies and skills changed anything because i am 100% sure you are talking on the basis of other games, that have proper monetization balance, and not COW. Play , try to win without single game and then tell us how you see this balance. Because i am sure that guy responsible for monetization had no idea what he is doing. It is impossible to win against Gold Rush without GMs in Cow. I died with over 15 k manpower not able to utilize it properly. The thing is that GMs gives GaMers possibility to use whole avalaible manpower at once while pro player can use something about 20% of it without GMs. I gouess you see the difference when war starts.

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

  • To be incredibly honest the only person who win is the person who don't spend money on a video game to advance his position, in CoW and even S1914 you will lose all those gold when the game ends and start a new one from scratch, I'm more of a casual player so the concept of GM is nonexistent to me.

    It is very rare to see someone use a "Gold rush" tactic, clearly someone hell bent on winning without thinking about other uses of the money he spent on something that's not even real.

    If you want to know of an actual way to counter players like this then here it is, I will give you my own way to do it, this will be more of a suggestion than an actual strategy since I have not face anyone who use this.

    I suspect that in one of my games someone uses GM to win but here's the thing, they are people who want to finish the game early and prevent the late game from happening, once you identy the person, prepare your defenses and get him in the late game, at this point he is spending more GM than he win, the true victory is a lasting one you win by denying him long enough till he spend more and more and more. You win nothing but you lose nothing, while he lost money.

    This is only a manner of perception, if you complain about the GM system don't, this is what the devs need to earn money themselfs as a company, your voice is heard but never answered such is the way of business. On the flip side you manage to force someone to spend all of his money on a game that is only temporary and you single handily cripple his financial security, so congrats!

    Warning doing this will force people out, I know because I did it before in S1914, he stop playing because of me.
    "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
    -imperium thought of the day

  • General A 11 wrote:

    Do you realize how much goldmark that strategy would cost? Also, that is for one war with a 50 VP country, and to win a game, you need to defeat at least 4-50 VP countries, and that's if someone else doesn't take you from behind. If someone were to waste so much money on one game, then congrats to the staff, you just got like $50 from one person in one game.
    [/quote]
    If Bytro would pay me for that i would be happy, but they are not and i invest my real time + time of my 3 friends to see how we lose game because of ... how to say it politely
    because person who was preparing Monetization hasnt bother to test it in alliance games

    I do not complain about GMs or GaMers, i complain about person who was responsible for balancing Monetization and micropayments because this person hasnt done its job.

    In supremacy some wise person thought about infantry as basic unit and hasnt allowed mass production of infantry with gold. you need to wait 8 hours at least for one

    Here we have rock-paper-scicors game with all kind of units and counterunits, we have also research tree that prevents you from doing super units at once

    You have also manpower that should limit army size. But this point doesnt work- why? Because you do huge army with Gold Rush, you waste it in battle to lower manpower consumption and straigth away you rebuild army with gold if it is needed. Your opponent wont be able to stop u without GMs. If he wont - you will gain new cities and territiries with more manpower and this is very good start to win alliance game as you already have advantage that is enough to win whole game. You dont have even to use any more Gold as there are only 3 enemy left against your 4 armies supported by Gold Units if neccessary. So you defend on 2 fronts - an it is easy to defend in COW an move your another 2 armeis against single opponent. If opponents wont use gold to build fort and troops they would die and lose game as it would be 6-2 in countries and 4.5 -2 in armies. So at that stage they can use gold - but they are still in disadvantage of numbers and it is rather impossible to win with average alliance.Nevertheless at that point it was waiser to use gold in the begining.

    So here you have it. Against Gold u need use gold too from the first day. And this is why i would like to ask Bytro todo sth about Monetization balance.

    If u have an idea how to defeat Gold Rush in alliance game + pelase comment below , but i am pretty sure there is no way to counter it withotu GMs.

  • You could just suggest of a game mode that does not or forbid the use of GM, this problem is also prevalent here and S1914, instead of lecturing ALL of this to us about the system that we ALL are familiar of, this is how they make money as a company, and yes the only way to counter gold-rush is gold, but are you such a person who will invest all that time and money on a game, no because we have real life to deal with.

    This problem is official over.
    "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
    -imperium thought of the day

  • have you created single game mate? Micropayments are not for changing game outcome but to help newbies and sunday players in keeping up with average and good players. If micropayments allows you to win games against most active and best players- then game have some serious problems
    if i were product owner i would rethink monetization and run new test to check if new ideas are balanced.

    game without balance in monetization will fail sooner than later

    when it goes to propositions it is not matter of game mode. it is matter of proper game creation. and here someone completly forgot why supremacy has advantage when it comes to monetization. Is is enough to copy one single solution that was mentioned above

  • Druzus wrote:

    have you created single game mate? Micropayments are not for changing game outcome but to help newbies and sunday players in keeping up with average and good players. If micropayments allows you to win games against most active and best players- then game have some serious problems
    if i were product owner i would rethink monetization and run new test to check if new ideas are balanced.

    game without balance in monetization will fail sooner than later

    when it goes to propositions it is not matter of game mode. it is matter of proper game creation. and here someone completly forgot why supremacy has advantage when it comes to monetization. Is is enough to copy one single solution that was mentioned above
    You do realize your whole argument is against players who use GM to take out other players early game? This is a game you can just restart a new one with your friends. Most people lose 70% of their games. I'd much rather lose to someone using your BS GM strategy of spending 50$ a game to win a match which i believe their is no one in the World that would do that unless their 5. Early game so i can start a new one. If i lose within the first 7 days of a game i don't care cause i barely put time in it compared to a normal game where your 30 days into a game. I also don't believe your accurate in saying a person will use this as a strategy. The players you probably faced where new people who get the 10,000 GM for playing this the first time. Its harder to spot them in this game cause on day 1 you won't see that 1 province that's already revolting cause they retook it from the tutorial. Like in S1914. So you don't know whose new so you can't accurately prepare against them. Also Research is restricted to specific days so i doubt spending GM on Research is that big of a pain. I guess you could have troops with the use of GM on Industry and barracks but you forget Manpower is a GM resource you can't buy Manpower. You can build barracks but they increase Manpower only slightly. The really only way to produce good manpower is to produce tanks for tanks. Since they only use about 500-700 Manpower vs the Inf 1200 manpower u can produce more tanks and soon you will have a huge manpower supply.
    If the king doesn't move, then his subjects won’t follow.

    Do you know why snow is white? Because it forgot what color it was.

    Strength that knows no boundaries is merely violence.

  • This tread is getting long over something so petty, if anyone wants an early game advantage just manage your country wisely, and if your lacking in manpower build tanks, it's simple as ABC.

    Also, spending $50 a match is the problem here, the money system is good as is, the only issue worthy of thinking once more is how to play the game better, wisely manage resource, and organize your army, if you have problems about a GM player, you won't face that problem again, because hardly anyone have that much time and money to spend to the game that is more casual than competitive.
    "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
    -imperium thought of the day

    The post was edited 1 time, last by V1nd1cat0r ().

  • well guys- you havent played any alliance game as i see and you are trying to make arguments out of thin air
    play alliance game , because only about alliance games i am talking about right now, and then we can use your experience to support your arguments

    1. barracks gives 50% to manpower. a little you say? doesnt look like this for me and opponents
    2. tanks - right. use your 3 lvl barracks and produce 50% tanks more than opponent. they will also produce much faster if needed, and they will have newest research just before battle if needed
    3. play wisely- mate. i was able to burn 4 their countries with single infantry units but they had to many units at once to use and build defence when they had to. I had 15 k Manpower when i lost
    4. 50 $ - it is enough that only 1 player uses GMs. I saw 40 k Gms offer for only 4 dolars . so for 50 $ you could have bought more than 700 k GMs. In comparission in final of supremacy tourny you need 1-2 kk Gms to win here.


    i beg you - play alliance game before making any more statements that are , maybe, true in normal games, but are not true in alliance games.

  • Druzus wrote:

    Tips for Emerald Users
    It is called "Gold" on Call of War.
    Also, you should be thanking people who buy Gold, as without that, this game wouldn't be free and it would not be as good as it is, and it can only get better. Gold use in alliance matches has always been an issue for some alliances, so maybe before going against an alliance, maybe speak to them and arrange to play without it. It is never hard to just join a new game if you are unhappy with a player in one game, after all; how would they of been able to create this beauty of a game without users buying Emeralds/Goldmark on other Bytro games?

    Please note: Be careful how you phrase your sentences, talking badly of the use of Gold or players who use it, is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated.

  • Druzus wrote:

    well guys- you havent played any alliance game as i see and you are trying to make arguments out of thin air
    play alliance game , because only about alliance games i am talking about right now, and then we can use your experience to support your arguments

    1. barracks gives 50% to manpower. a little you say? doesnt look like this for me and opponents
    2. tanks - right. use your 3 lvl barracks and produce 50% tanks more than opponent. they will also produce much faster if needed, and they will have newest research just before battle if needed
    3. play wisely- mate. i was able to burn 4 their countries with single infantry units but they had to many units at once to use and build defence when they had to. I had 15 k Manpower when i lost
    4. 50 $ - it is enough that only 1 player uses GMs. I saw 40 k Gms offer for only 4 dolars . so for 50 $ you could have bought more than 700 k GMs. In comparission in final of supremacy tourny you need 1-2 kk Gms to win here.


    i beg you - play alliance game before making any more statements that are , maybe, true in normal games, but are not true in alliance games.
    I don't need to play a alliance game. If you want to complain to us that we don't have enough experience playing alliance games then don't make a thread about it. Cause clearly you only want to hear that your correct and what looks to me is everyone thinks your wrong. If it's a alliance game and the other team uses Gold then you no next time not to ever play that team. Seriously if you don't like the other team why play them? Barracks can provide more manpower yes but it takes a lvl 3 barracks to produce 50% more manpower. But your argument is flawed. For example:

    This is my 16 Day USSR Game:
    This is my Top 6 Manpower Provinces:

    They all have lvl 3 Barracks. I'm challenging myself to only use Inf as my main force. So every city i conquer i make lvl 3 Barracks. Now looking at these numbers you would omg thats alot of manpower you get every hr. Wrong

    This is what really happens. I produce 10k Manpower per day but because each units consumes manpower i get a whooping +255/h. So your fundamentally wrong when you say you get huge manpower. Now you said they made Huge INF stacks. Seeing that INF cost the most Manpower they would not only cost 1200 manpower for each INF created they would also have a upkeep of 100 manpower. So no matter what they spend Gold on they will have a manpower of about what i have every hour. Tanks are different they can be spammed and they cost no manpower upkeep but they have 2 flaws Terrain and Attack against AT guns. This is early game like you said so they will have the lvl 1 Light tanks until day 8 which has a whooping attack of 2.5. Guess what the defense of a lvl 1 AT Gun is 7 against Armor. If place in the Mountains and Cities with Inf. You could easily defeat a tank spam. Since Mountains have -25% on all Armor and 50% in cities. Also i will quote your own words, "I have clear evidence from alliance game when i and 3 of my experienced friends from supremacy fought completly new players to bytro mechanics" These were new players RIght? They will have about 10,000 Gold from just starting so they don't spend 50$.
    If the king doesn't move, then his subjects won’t follow.

    Do you know why snow is white? Because it forgot what color it was.

    Strength that knows no boundaries is merely violence.

  • 1. Barracks produce 50% manpower on a province (ex. 200 into 300)
    2. Tanks are easy to produce, to maintain, to counter, to destroy, if you have problems with tanks then you clearly don't know how to play the game and use AT
    3. Yes, play wisely, never make too many enemies, play aggressively, but never overextend, this is not S1914 so you need to adjust a bit because half of your country is open to attack
    4. $50?, no thanks I'm from the Philippines that's a lot of money for a GAME.
    5. the more you argue the more it's apperant that you are inexperience to face a challenge.
    6. GG GET REKT, YOUR $50 TANK STACK GOT OWNED FROM STACK OF AT I GOT FOR FREE.

    since this tread is going nowhere, i would suggest a Gold limit on games so people wont get too much of an advantage. Gold is not bad its the reason why this game is going and that's great, but if you spend too much Gold on every game, its no fun for others.

    For those who spend Gold on Games please...challenge me to a game!, i always wanted to test my skills on one also...Buy more Gold! ;)
    "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
    -imperium thought of the day

    The post was edited 1 time, last by V1nd1cat0r ().

  • Druzus wrote:

    have you created single game mate? Micropayments are not for changing game outcome but to help newbies and sunday players in keeping up with average and good players. If micropayments allows you to win games against most active and best players- then game have some serious problems
    if i were product owner i would rethink monetization and run new test to check if new ideas are balanced.

    game without balance in monetization will fail sooner than later

    when it goes to propositions it is not matter of game mode. it is matter of proper game creation. and here someone completly forgot why supremacy has advantage when it comes to monetization. Is is enough to copy one single solution that was mentioned above

    I was originally going to say, you are wrong, because although you can spam units instantly in this game, the manpower cap prevents you from spamming too many. But then I realized you can buy manpower too!

    It takes a LOT of interest out of this game IMO knowing that other players that you have spent a long time defeating with better tactics can just turn things around by instantly spamming units. But it's not just other players I am worried about. I know from experience just how emotionally invested I can get in this game, when you can spend days on end planning a strategy and then something goes wrong, the temptation to spend your way out of trouble is very difficult to resist. But then you lose any sense of achievement in victory anyhow.

    What I find most remarkable about this situation is that there have been perennial calls at Supremacy for limiting gm spending, for example, for having an option where you paid something upfront for playing a gm-free game. A lot of Supremacy fans are in favour of that notion. But instead of giving the fanbase what it requested, Bytro have now gone 180 degrees in the other direction and enabled you to literally buy your way to victory in this game, simply by spamming units - or, alternatively, buying techs far in advance of everyone else and making your units unbeatable.

    Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think Druzus is right that there has to be a balance, when you lose that balance, customers are simply going to quit. And right now, I have to say I am one of them. I really don't know that I can be bothered continuing to play a game where there are no limits of the power of money whatever. What would be the point?

  • Close the the thread? Why? This is a legitimate issue.

    To those who say it would be too expensive to buy your way to victory in this game, here's a scenario:

    You are fighting one country and winning. But you didn't know that another of your neighbours is an ally of that country, and now he invades you at the other end of your country with a stack of 20 infantry and is making his way toward a city of yours. You have only eight infantry units there, albeit in a level 2 fort, and it's not enough.

    So here's what you do. You buy 15,000 gold with 4.99 Euro. With that 15k gold, you can instantly spam - count 'em - 9 more infantry units. If you don't have enough manpower, you can buy 5k manpower for 2,500 gold and still have enough to buy 7 1/2 infantry.

    Suddenly, you have 17 infantry in a level 2 fort and the enemy is facing defeat. You've turned almost certain defeat into certain victory and for how much? The price of a cup of coffee.