Call of War, like any decent game, needs to keep expanding, adding new things and implementing new stuff constantly, not only to attract more users, but also to make old players stay. Before I start, please take this as constructive criticism. I deeply appreciate what Call of War developers are doing, and they only need to take it as an advice to improve.
Call of War is doing all of the things I said before. To cut things short, it is expanding. But what I believe is in the wrong direction. It is adding new units. Some units (like tank destroyers) were good additions, but others, like nuclear carriers, were a complete waste of the devs' time. Pretty much no one uses them. However, their error is not only the fact that they have added useless units. No. Their error is adding units.
Unit-adding is necessary. I don't say the opposite. But once you have as many units as Call of War has, you get to a point where it isn't necessary to add any more. Right now, there are maximum 3 units I can think of that would be a good addition to Call of War: paratroopers, marines, and maybe, only maybe, frigates for convoy escorting. Units like missile submarines and missile destroyers are like nuclear carriers and nuclear battleships: only used by a handful. Unit-adding is simply adding 'depth' to the game. Call of War needs to expand in 'width'.
What do I mean by expanding in 'width'? I mean adding more game mechanics. I will probably be told off for mentioning Hearts of Iron 4. It is not in direct competence with Call of War, as Call of War is free, but they are similar games. First of all, let me just say that I do not expect Call of War to be as remotely complex as Hearts of Iron 4. No. That's why Hearts of Iron 4 is pay-to-play and Call of War is free. But what Call of War needs to do is to add some game mechanics similar, albeit more basic, to those seen in Hearts of Iron 4.
Before I start explaining what Call of War should add, let me do a basic run-through of what Hearts of Iron 4 has that makes it so desirable. It has complex mechanics on the economic, diplomatic, intelligence, military and political fronts. That was the run-through. Now, let me explain what Call of War should do. There are very few things Call of War can do to improve the military experience. Maybe add pre-planned attacks, front lines and offensive lines, but that isn't a priority. The diplomatic side of things is OK now, with coalitions and all. It's the intelligence, economic and political sides that Bytro should concentrate on.
On the political side, simply adding ideologies for countries (fascism, Communism and democracy/capitalism) and pros and cons for adopting one or another ideology would do a huge change. Maybe add political power, like in Hearts of Iron 4, or something similar, which would grow each day, depending on how many Victory Points you have, and advisors, both military and economical, that would be achieved using political power and would give small boosts to certain areas, e.g. military and economical. That is all.
The intelligence side of it doesn't need much work. Simply adding a few more types of missions for spies would be great.
Finally, the economic approach. It should be two-pronged. One of them should be buildings. Buildings like farms (to get wheat production), oil rigs (for oil) and others would make a big change. The other side of the approach should be research. The economy should have a research tree of its own, to improve stuff such as production and to improve the amount of production increase that buildings such as the proposed farms and oil rigs increase.
That is all.
Comments?
@Quasi-duck @Ellio_98 @Sir McSquiggles @MontanaBB @TankBuster @Paramunac
Call of War is doing all of the things I said before. To cut things short, it is expanding. But what I believe is in the wrong direction. It is adding new units. Some units (like tank destroyers) were good additions, but others, like nuclear carriers, were a complete waste of the devs' time. Pretty much no one uses them. However, their error is not only the fact that they have added useless units. No. Their error is adding units.
Unit-adding is necessary. I don't say the opposite. But once you have as many units as Call of War has, you get to a point where it isn't necessary to add any more. Right now, there are maximum 3 units I can think of that would be a good addition to Call of War: paratroopers, marines, and maybe, only maybe, frigates for convoy escorting. Units like missile submarines and missile destroyers are like nuclear carriers and nuclear battleships: only used by a handful. Unit-adding is simply adding 'depth' to the game. Call of War needs to expand in 'width'.
What do I mean by expanding in 'width'? I mean adding more game mechanics. I will probably be told off for mentioning Hearts of Iron 4. It is not in direct competence with Call of War, as Call of War is free, but they are similar games. First of all, let me just say that I do not expect Call of War to be as remotely complex as Hearts of Iron 4. No. That's why Hearts of Iron 4 is pay-to-play and Call of War is free. But what Call of War needs to do is to add some game mechanics similar, albeit more basic, to those seen in Hearts of Iron 4.
Before I start explaining what Call of War should add, let me do a basic run-through of what Hearts of Iron 4 has that makes it so desirable. It has complex mechanics on the economic, diplomatic, intelligence, military and political fronts. That was the run-through. Now, let me explain what Call of War should do. There are very few things Call of War can do to improve the military experience. Maybe add pre-planned attacks, front lines and offensive lines, but that isn't a priority. The diplomatic side of things is OK now, with coalitions and all. It's the intelligence, economic and political sides that Bytro should concentrate on.
On the political side, simply adding ideologies for countries (fascism, Communism and democracy/capitalism) and pros and cons for adopting one or another ideology would do a huge change. Maybe add political power, like in Hearts of Iron 4, or something similar, which would grow each day, depending on how many Victory Points you have, and advisors, both military and economical, that would be achieved using political power and would give small boosts to certain areas, e.g. military and economical. That is all.
The intelligence side of it doesn't need much work. Simply adding a few more types of missions for spies would be great.
Finally, the economic approach. It should be two-pronged. One of them should be buildings. Buildings like farms (to get wheat production), oil rigs (for oil) and others would make a big change. The other side of the approach should be research. The economy should have a research tree of its own, to improve stuff such as production and to improve the amount of production increase that buildings such as the proposed farms and oil rigs increase.
That is all.
Comments?
@Quasi-duck @Ellio_98 @Sir McSquiggles @MontanaBB @TankBuster @Paramunac
The past is a foreign country.
) 
Forum Gang Commissar 
