A few idea's that would possibly improve this game

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

    • A few idea's that would possibly improve this game

      What idea would you like to see in COW? 10
      1.  
        Idea #4 (7) 70%
      2.  
        Idea #2 (4) 40%
      3.  
        Idea #5 (3) 30%
      4.  
        Idea #1 (2) 20%
      5.  
        None of the above (2) 20%
      6.  
        All of the above (1) 10%
      7.  
        Idea #3 (1) 10%
      A few suggestions that could possibly improve this game..

      1. Religions - Regions around the world with different factions of religions would automatically put that certain religion in an alliance with their neighboring / Co-religious area ( or if not religion then type of governments... example .. Dictator, democracy ect) this would be fun as an option when you choose a map to create.. and once conquered you must implement a church/mosque/shrine w.e or for the Types of Governments you must reform the people to obey or they revolt..
      2. Please allow us to upload pictures - I run a Coalition in a few maps and when trying to proceed giving instructions it is extremely time consuming to locate and copy every territory and write it to a fellow member... i much rather print screen and use a photoshop to line out attack plans and post it in our Coalition (or at least let me post a link to tinypic.com or whatever..)
      3. Another map option - i know you can use bonus turns by spending Gold but as a map option i think it would be a little cool to have a *FREE 3 Turn Bonus.. you can use this anytime and by using this you can jump all production/resources boost by 1 hour and also units (this would be a little more challenging) but only use this as a option when creating a map.
      4. Caps on Coalitions- What i see from time to time is a Coalition that would recruit almost everyone and ruins the fun out of the game.. 8-10 members max (depending on the maps)
      5. Allow players to play with other players at their same level- I understand the admin puts up the 100 player maps but why not instead just put up 2 maps (one for level 1-30 and one for 30+) i am sure many people gave up playing this game because they keep getting their butts kicked by a expert player.. i was almost one of them
      Phoenix Federation
    • nah, no religions, no politics, no culture thingies. That is seriously redicilious

      Wouldnt want the rest of the options neither except for the coalition player cap. Which I think should be non excistant on 10 map, max3 on 22map, max 5 on 50 and 100map. Definattely never any more then 6.
      Concerning point 5.. im indifferent as the player levels say nothing, nor is it based on any managable succesratios. Instead the level of a player indicates mostly how much someone is playing and building. The scores gained from succesfull PK ratios should be a higher indicator then it currently is if you want to bring it there.
    • IshXIII wrote:

      Wouldnt want the rest of the options neither except for the coalition player cap.
      Roger that, Ish.

      Limits on the number of coalition/alliance members were repeatedly proposed in discussions last spring and summer, as the presence of overly large coalitions frequently leads to various abuses and non-competitive games, and one of the community managers forwarded the request to the game developers for further actions several months ago. That was the last I heard of anything on point.

      I believe the consensus limits proposed were the following:

      1. 2-member alliances for the 10-player map;
      2. 3-member alliances for the 22-player map;
      3. 4-member alliances for the Pacific map; and
      4. 5-member alliances for the world map.

      The limits should include a programmed mechanism for recognizing when a multi-member coalition/alliance has achieved the requisite number of victory points to win a game played on the particular map. Players would be free to form other temporary or permanent alliances, formally or informally, but alliances with a number of members in excess of the limits would not be automatically recognized as a winning coalition and would be forced to fight each other at the end of the game.
    • yeah those limits would exactly resolve the over population of coalitions, which is the biggest issue causing non competion. So in the past there was more competition due to not having coalitions, adding coalitions would give the prospect of upping the orginal competition, I understood their mindset, but this is simply overkill. So if it has been forwarded, then I do hope they will do something with it. Seems now that the 50maps are in higher demand then the 100´s just becouse of this. Also noticed that there megacoalitions do not form, so im intrigued to think that most of the older players are on there as I am now.

      I do know that most of the people in my alliance now are on 50s just becouse of that, widespread shifting ^^
    • IshXIII wrote:

      yeah those limits would exactly resolve the over population of coalitions, which is the biggest issue causing non competion.
      Yes, it is kind of silly when half or more of the active players in a given game are members of the same alliance. If I were an unaffiliated player and I unknowingly wandered into one of those games where a large number of the other players were all part of the same coalition/alliance, I would be pretty d@mn angry. No single player, no matter how good he is, can beat 5 or 6 other competent players who are aligned against the single player at the outset.

      I once single-handedly beat an alliance of three other players, but two of them were bozos and the third was too far away geographically at the outset to hurt me. That said, I am a competent player, but in that game I was very lucky in my choice of enemies.