New World Empires- Your thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

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

    • New World Empires- Your thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

      Hello fellow members of the community!


      Is there anything you would like to discuss about New World Empires? Your experience so far? Your general thoughts or feelings on the direction of the game? What would you like to see implemented later? Etc etc




      I would love to listen to your thoughts on this! :D Maybe you will even see some of these ideas turn to reality in the future. ;)
      Former New World Empires Main Administrator
      Call of War Community Coordinator / Main Administrator
      Thirty Kingdoms Senior Game Operator
      Bytro Labs | EN Community Support
      Click here for NWE Tutorial Videos!

      And here for the Manual!
    • mfncff's Suggestion LIst

      Basically, I'd like the game to be made into more of a realistic grand strategy wargame provided for the engine limitations. It is to much like an RTS or 4X now which has all been done before with multiplayer MMOs and is old hat. If the game were designed as a more true to life operational wargame than it would become truly great and draw a community of players who are normally stuck with old fashioned single player games that have very poor AI and haphazard ladder communities for multi-play.
    • First of all, let me compliment the development team on an amazing game which includes all that I like from 30 Kingdoms, Supremacy and COW, plus, adds research and colonization elements.

      For the longest time now, I have been looking for browser games with increased complexity and replay value. I believe the following suggestions could add to uniqness of this game and separate it from other games.

      1) SEASONS
      Even without any visual additions (they are desired and welcome but not necessary) Seasons, could be an extra option, kind of like country selection, to each game.
      The general idea is something like-
      Every Season would last 2-4 days, and season change would be announced in the newspaper

      Summer-
      Wheat production 100%,
      Troop movement on most terrain 100%
      Troop movement in the Desert 75%

      Fall-
      Wheat production 130%
      Troop movement 100%
      Ship Speed 90%

      Winter-
      Wheat production- 80%
      Troop movement 80%
      Troop movement in the mountains 50%
      Ship speed- 70%

      Spring- Wheat production 90%
      Troop movement 100%

      This is a general idea, and would add a strategic factor to planning wars and attacks. Of course visual additions would be amazing as well.

      Second Idea is TRADE LINES

      This would work similar to Civilization V

      One unit would travel between capitals and produce 3000 gold per day.
      This could be a land unit, or a ship.

      This would add to diplomacy and finally make navy useful.

      Thank you.
    • mrinex wrote:

      1) SEASONS
      Even without any visual additions (they are desired and welcome but not necessary) Seasons, could be an extra option, kind of like country selection, to each game.
      The general idea is something like-
      Every Season would last 2-4 days, and season change would be announced in the newspaper

      Summer-
      Wheat production 100%,
      Troop movement on most terrain 100%
      Troop movement in the Desert 75%

      Fall-
      Wheat production 130%
      Troop movement 100%
      Ship Speed 90%

      Winter-
      Wheat production- 80%
      Troop movement 80%
      Troop movement in the mountains 50%
      Ship speed- 70%

      Spring- Wheat production 90%
      Troop movement 100%

      This is a general idea, and would add a strategic factor to planning wars and attacks. Of course visual additions would be amazing as well.

      Second Idea is TRADE LINES

      This would work similar to Civilization V

      One unit would travel between capitals and produce 3000 gold per day.
      This could be a land unit, or a ship.

      This would add to diplomacy and finally make navy useful.

      Thank you.
      Ive heard of this before I think... I like the idea, I am not sure how it would be implemented, but it would be pretty cool!
      Former New World Empires Main Administrator
      Call of War Community Coordinator / Main Administrator
      Thirty Kingdoms Senior Game Operator
      Bytro Labs | EN Community Support
      Click here for NWE Tutorial Videos!

      And here for the Manual!
    • Overall, I think the game is awesome. The developers have done a marvelous job so far. Having played Supremacy1914 from it's Beta, I have seen how the company's games have progressed. This colonization game is a natural extension of the original gameplay and the large maps that came later. Yes, I also played Thirty Kingdoms, but not Call of War. I love that they created a game centered around this time in history.

      I especially love the multifaceted gameplay providing different paths to acquire Victory Points and thus win the game. After 8 days, I'm still hoping that the Americas can truly provide an alternative path to victory despite it's distance and corresponding morale penalty. Surely, the Trade Company which should probably be called the Trading Company, creates not only a true historical perspective by returning wealth to the Old World Nations, but also appears to give the New World Colonization genuine value in achieving victory other than a total conquest. So it would seem that a player could focus on military conquest or colonization utilizing the Trade Companies, or perhaps on economics with a somewhat smaller but highly developed empire constructing great monuments. I love it! My compliments for ingenuity
      All the world is a stage, to conceal the truth.


      If you choose to send me a message written in letters instead of words, thereby forcing me to communicate according to your ignorant and lazy manner, then I choose to reply, via my troops.
    • Eljic wrote:

      I'm still hoping that the Americas can truly provide an alternative path to victory despite it's distance and corresponding morale penalty
      Great feedback ! :)
      My concern also is a little about morale over distance,,, and perhaps the value of colonies over provinces

      Field Marshal Dan wrote:

      My own quandary with colony morale and uprising [creates like an upkeep to the buildings, frequent repairs] is the lack of a building to stabilize morale [over distance] and the overall drop in production that causes... rather than the production/victory point powerhouse they can/should be [with further upgrade] my colonies produce only a 3rd of an upgraded euro province. Colonies are fun to collect but its the euro provinces that are the real engine of empire in nwe.
      Colonies are VERY limited to level 3 in my opinion and they have poor output compared to provinces.
      Field Marshal Dan
      Community Coordinator
      EN Community Support
      Bytro Labs | New World Empires
    • I love the idea and i am sure in time it will be even better .

      I like the fact that you do not have to attack everyone and you can turtle ( when you are not very active ) and still have a chance to win via colonies and monuments .

      I would like to see that my units change acording to reserch like in call of war when you have a new level a new picture apears ( might be childies but i like it ) also i love the fact that every level of the unit is explained .

      I do not like that the natives from America - like the aztects have units that look exactly like the colonial troups from europa - i would hope they could loke like the native troups that we can recruit.
    • Hello,
      I'm a brand new player of NWE (started my first game last night) but have played Supremacy 1914 for almost 4 years, Call of War for 1 year, and Thirty Kingdoms for a year. First off, I want to congratulate the development team on a fantastic job so far with the game. I've been looking for a game that offers multiple routes to victory. In this case, players now have the options of economic and/or colonial victories rather than just conquering out their competitors. I am a huge fan and supporter of this, it really deepens the strategic value of the game by giving players infinitely more options to come up with their own combination of military, economy and exploration/colonization to attempt to win the game. I would love to give a full detailed report in a week or so after playing the game a bit more, but a couple things have become immediately apparent to me:

      1) Positive - Fighting wars seems to be much more expensive. This is good for promoting other routes to victory. Not only is acquiring the manpower and (most of the time) grain an expensive path, units are a slow to build. What really makes wars more costly to me is the new addition of administrators. By requiring players to re-establish governments and level them up with admins just to get resource production out of them is a huge deterrent to early and aggressive military expansion. That being said, I still think that continental expansion is the most effective choice for victory. If you capture a player's core provinces, the conqueror might not reap immediate benefits (in the long run he/she will), but the defender loses a great deal of time, production and resources due to damaged (and lost) core provinces. Also, it is cheaper to research an increase in admin caps and regular military units rather than research on colonization, especially. Every player absolutely has to research regular military units at least a little bit because they must defend their homelands in order to be successful.

      2) Negative - The best unit of the regular military unit selection, by far, is light regular infantry. Not only are they the cheapest and fastest to make, their offensive and defensive stats are overwhelmingly strong. They only suffer a -25% on plains, are neutral everywhere else and get a +25% on forest provinces. It seems a bit wrong to me that Heavy Regular Cavalry have a 3.0 attack and 3.0 defense against infantry when *Light* infantry have a 4.0 attack and 4.0 defense against cavalry. This completely defeats the need to build heavy infantry, which are more expensive and much slower and have a 3.0 attack, 3.0 defense against infantry when light infantry again have a 4.0 attack, 4.0 defense against infantry. Add in the fact that light infantry are far cheaper and faster to produce and there is no reason to make cavalry. I haven't really looked at artillery stats yet, but to me, the best military approach would be to simply spam light infantry as they are readily available, cheapest, and fastest to produce (I believe colonial units are quicker to produce, but again, haven't looked yet!) and definitely are the most practical unit in all environments against all types of units. I can't offer any suggestions just yet, but I would be interested in seeing a change of stats for the heavy cavalry and light infantry. I think light infantry should probably have weaker stats against cavalry in particular, because this would encourage players to go for heavy infantry which have the nice 6.0 6.0 stats against cavalry. If You decreased light infantry defense against cavalry to maybe even as low as 2.5, per say, that would be a huge difference. Suddenly, both heavy infantry and cavalry units are much more valuable to players. Players would definitely want to add cavalry units to their armies for advantages on light infantry masses, and then heavy infantry would definitely be added to counter the newly desired cavalry units. By decreasing light infantry defense against cavalry, you increase the demand for cavalry and consequently increase the demand for heavy infantry. However, I don't want to give hard number suggestions until I play the game. This is just coming from looking at the stats and using previous game experience (Suprem1914, CoW, 30Kings) to theoretically run through how the game would play out. Light infantry are unmatched with their low cost, fast production time and 4.0 attack and defense against *both* infantry and cavalry units. There is no value in producing cavalry (except for faster travel speeds) and heavy infantry when building cheaper light infantry readily defeats both cavalry units and the heavy infantry unit. Of course, if you want to keep the game historically accurate, the numbers should stand as they are. Unfortunately, that, in my developing opinion, creates an imbalance in the game. If you want to keep the game historically accurate, maybe not change the attack/defense values, but perhaps lower the hit points of light infantry from 15 to as low as 10? I don't want to suggest any true numbers until I've played the game.

      Again, I want to make sure I give my utmost appreciation and appraisal for the development team, this is really a revolutionary change to these games and I would love to see this one go far! I want to reiterate that my opinion does not yet carry much weight because I have not seen the game work in practice, but I'm confident that the light infantry viewpoint is probably true. After playing with the game a bit more, I would love to share more constructive feedback with tangible, suggested solutions to the issues I find with the game, and proper highlighted approval of successes I find with the game.

      Overall, a fantastic start to a really new game that I'm excited to see grow!

      The post was edited 2 times, last by wacho789 ().

    • wacho789 wrote:

      1) Positive - Fighting wars seems to be much more expensive. This is good for promoting other routes to victory. Not only is acquiring the manpower and (most of the time) grain an expensive path, units are a slow to build. What really makes wars more costly to me is the new addition of administrators. By requiring players to re-establish governments and level them up with admins just to get resource production out of them is a huge deterrent to early and aggressive military expansion. That being said, I still think that continental expansion is the most effective choice for victory. If you capture a player's core provinces, the conqueror might not reap immediate benefits (in the long run he/she will), but the defender loses a great deal of time, production and resources due to damaged (and lost) core provinces. Also, it is cheaper to research an increase in admin caps and regular military units rather than research on colonization, especially. Every player absolutely has to research regular military units at least a little bit because they must defend their homelands in order to be successful.
      I agree 100%. I quite enjoy the different routes possible in this game. I am having fun at the moment colonizing the new world. :D It is like the other games in the basis of design, but yet has its own style that makes it unique.

      wacho789 wrote:

      2) Negative - The best unit of the regular military unit selection, by far, is light regular infantry. Not only are they the cheapest and fastest to make, their offensive and defensive stats are overwhelmingly strong. They only suffer a -25% on plains, are neutral everywhere else and get a +25% on forest provinces. It seems a bit wrong to me that Heavy Regular Cavalry have a 3.0 attack and 3.0 defense against infantry when *Light* infantry have a 4.0 attack and 4.0 defense against cavalry. This completely defeats the need to build heavy infantry, which are more expensive and much slower and have a 3.0 attack, 3.0 defense against infantry when light infantry again have a 4.0 attack, 4.0 defense against infantry. Add in the fact that light infantry are far cheaper and faster to produce and there is no reason to make cavalry. I haven't really looked at artillery stats yet, but to me, the best military approach would be to simply spam light infantry as they are readily available, cheapest, and fastest to produce (I believe colonial units are quicker to produce, but again, haven't looked yet!) and definitely are the most practical unit in all environments against all types of units. I can't offer any suggestions just yet, but I would be interested in seeing a change of stats for the heavy cavalry and light infantry. I think light infantry should probably have weaker stats against cavalry in particular, because this would encourage players to go for heavy infantry which have the nice 6.0 6.0 stats against cavalry. If You decreased light infantry defense against cavalry to maybe even as low as 2.5, per say, that would be a huge difference. Suddenly, both heavy infantry and cavalry units are much more valuable to players. Players would definitely want to add cavalry units to their armies for advantages on light infantry masses, and then heavy infantry would definitely be added to counter the newly desired cavalry units. By decreasing light infantry defense against cavalry, you increase the demand for cavalry and consequently increase the demand for heavy infantry. However, I don't want to give hard number suggestions until I play the game. This is just coming from looking at the stats and using previous game experience (Suprem1914, CoW, 30Kings) to theoretically run through how the game would play out. Light infantry are unmatched with their low cost, fast production time and 4.0 attack and defense against *both* infantry and cavalry units. There is no value in producing cavalry (except for faster travel speeds) and heavy infantry when building cheaper light infantry readily defeats both cavalry units and the heavy infantry unit. Of course, if you want to keep the game historically accurate, the numbers should stand as they are. Unfortunately, that, in my developing opinion, creates an imbalance in the game. If you want to keep the game historically accurate, maybe not change the attack/defense values, but perhaps lower the hit points of light infantry from 15 to as low as 10? I don't want to suggest any true numbers until I've played the game.
      I guess being able to spam light infantry could be a good or bad thing depending on how you view it. I do think that cavalry should be boosted some and there should be a ranged unit. As of now, I like using cavalry as scouts and using them against other folks artillery.
      Former New World Empires Main Administrator
      Call of War Community Coordinator / Main Administrator
      Thirty Kingdoms Senior Game Operator
      Bytro Labs | EN Community Support
      Click here for NWE Tutorial Videos!

      And here for the Manual!
    • Great so far, wish people would not drop out so quickly...want to find a longer term game with many people.

      My suggestion would be to add another category of raw materials, or two,even. Spice and/or jewels (gold) would be the suggestion. Only could be found in the new colonies in the Americas and tie it directly into morale.

      Fix morale at 65 or 75% unless you go and explore and bring back the wealth of the new world.
    • mrinex wrote:

      1) SEASONS
      Even without any visual additions (they are desired and welcome but not necessary) Seasons, could be an extra option, kind of like country selection, to each game.
      The general idea is something like-
      Every Season would last 2-4 days, and season change would be announced in the newspaper
      Ok a seasonal variance of movement and productions would be an additional piece for complexity and would be a great addition to an advanced AI game. But I think they would not be nearly conducive to the current time line of 5 days to the age but 8 days to the age would be great (not that I've been pushing for this in other threads :thumbsup: )two days to a season so you get a little seasonal planning experience because a daily season would pass over the masses and the effect would hardly be noticed. I need to add this also you can have a Seasonal Factoring Building in each of the first 4 ages that would moderate seasonal penalties. Oh and maybe slap VPs on them 10 for Spring Monument, 20 Summer Monument 10 for Fall Monument and 20 for a Winter Monument (assuming the worst factors would be Summer and Winter_) I would also because its needed to shorten the game make them phantom VP's they don't go to the bottom line of total VP's.


      wacho789 wrote:

      After playing with the game a bit more, I would love to share more constructive feedback with tangible, suggested solutions to the issues I find with the game, and proper highlighted approval of successes I find with the game.
      I sure hope wacho is on vacation, gave the game about 2 weeks now he is missing for 2 weeks my fear a warrior at heart and found the military route a bit too restricted. He had serious thoughts about military units but alas didn't mention the other 2 aspects of the game. Developers please do not make this a War friendly game, a great General can win this game but an in the field warrior can not (just one mans opinion). I wish it to stay that way. If the following cant be found for this game in a years time. then put the naval battle engines in with smaller sea squares and have at it.
    • Taldemac wrote:

      Great so far, wish people would not drop out so quickly...want to find a longer term game with many people.

      My suggestion would be to add another category of raw materials, or two,even. Spice and/or jewels (gold) would be the suggestion. Only could be found in the new colonies in the Americas and tie it directly into morale.

      Fix morale at 65 or 75% unless you go and explore and bring back the wealth of the new world.
      Taldemac suggestion is worth looking into - considering - if you add items like Gold, Ivory, Gemstones, Silver, (Lamp)Oil, Spices and all of them only available in undiscovered colonies - we have a race to explore, maintain and conquer new colonies. That said to balance things - we do need to be able to

      1. Create a trade route which will require a ship to bring goods back. This trade route will have to be plotted around enemy colonies - as they will fall prey to raids if not forcing you to create alliances with nations to bring your goods out from the new worlds.

      2. Creating a peaceful co-existence with the natives, eg: Trade Company should give you morale boost at each level of Trade Company. That said Natives should be able to resist and therefore will require a Colonial Office to help protect the colony.

      3. New discoveries should be able to boost morale across all colonies as it is good for the whole empire....

      4. Some colonies should not offer any goods instead it should offer research discoveries which can also be extended to building advancements - eg: all markets upgraded automatically.
    • The biggest negative in the design is the massive drop out rate.

      I believe that the root cause to this are:
      1. game is too slow in the beginning so players do not get to commit to the game.
      2. interactions between players is still too weak and players do not build up a team or social link with each other.

      Suggestions:
      lower all the build times for the 1st phase research and build items
      lower all the colonial times for the beginning... you can universally add colony times with each phase as historically the fear of the European Colonist increased as news of their existence spread.

      Create economic and social imperatives (quests) that force player interactions such as trade 500 goods with another player in 24 hours and get cash/$500 bonus. Make several religious associations with penalties for fighting in the same religious association and maybe a bonus for others.

      Set up an election process for the head of the associations so you can have the Pope, the ArchBishop of Constantinople, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Caliph of Baghdad etc.
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      The biggest negative in the design is the massive drop out rate.

      I believe that the root cause to this are:
      1. game is too slow in the beginning so players do not get to commit to the game.
      2. interactions between players is still too weak and players do not build up a team or social link with each other.
      I will agree somewhat, If you look carefully I see people in chat all the time who have abandoned more than one game that I am in. It is amazing how fast they go if they get 50 VP behind where as about day 30 you could be adding 50 vp a day. They don't see the end game and wouldn't have a clue how to win a game of this complexity.

      This is especially obvious in a game like Chatters II where people were asked to commit, we are already down to 11 for heavens sake I bet 10 of them are still playing chatters I. There should definitely be a penalty in invitational games and the player is deemed to be active somewhere else.

      Number 2 I can't believe the amount of people that just don't use the messages system or the Newspaper, I especially can't get the people that slam the use of these tools, they are there to interact its a slow game so its ok you don't get an answer till tomorrow. If I want to role play my responses or inquiries in the public that's on me. You can always answer me on diplomatic messaging. You don't have to be a fancy talker or a teller of tales I do it for my own enjoyment but to deny yourself to use it just to find materials in a trade is utterly ridiculous.
    • slomoney wrote:

      There should definitely be a penalty in invitational games and the player is deemed to be active somewhere else.
      there will be.
      those that bail out or break invite agreements are not necessarily going to get invited again.
      anyone hosting a map is not forced to invite people... they can pick who they invite.
      Field Marshal Dan
      Community Coordinator
      EN Community Support
      Bytro Labs | New World Empires
    • I also am somewhat disappointed at the fall out rate at times. What is the thought of introducing a map, specific to those who are new to NWE for 1st game assignments? If they wish then, they can certainly enter any other map and continue to play, but if they drop out, the fall out is contained to a low value map (15 players perhaps).
    • The fallout rate seems to be dropping as the starting stockpiles have been made smaller - so players cannot build everything they want from the git go and then not maintain what they built since they paid no attention to their economy. My experience thus far is that it takes 10-12 days to get your economy up to where you can do more than 3 or 4 things a day (mostly administrators and colonists) . The one resource that you always run out of is manpower since that cannot be bought or juggled in the market. Initially Goods also seem to be at a premium (because they buy administrators and colonists and lots of other good stuff). But I think the problem that is left is boredom: battles and travel (including exploration) take too long, so many lose interest. At the current speed players really need to check in every 3 to 4 hours to keep things moving.
    • I have seen the idea mentioned to increase the number and type of resources available in game. I think if you should divided the 'new world' as such into areas that produce more of certain types of resources. This division we lead to more ingame alliances to share resources from other parts of the world. It could also lead to more warfare of monopolized resources single player or a small group controls.

      Asia - Spice, goods and Luxury Goods = Construction and moral
      Gems (Usable as Minerals or Luxury goods)

      South America - Unique Lumber = Quality construction
      Medical Plants = unit recovery time

      Central America - Gold = Convertible to other resources, money and moral

      North America - (Goods, food, lumber) at slightly higher production rates.
      Rum = Moral and recover rate

      Africa - (Minerals, Goods, Luxury Items) at higher production rate
      Manpower at slightly higher creation rate.

      'Seven Cities' - Scattered about the map are the remains of ancient Cities. These locations can hold HORDES
      of suitable resources. The ancients were gifted at collecting and using local resources. So the Provence that
      contains such a site or boarders it can collect more resources in those areas. (large increase at City and smaller one in surrounding Provinces). Buildings constructed in these areas received similar bonuses.

      Revolts and Uprisings - One of the issues with local or popular uprising is the face they can grow and spread if left undealt with. One province in revolt can quickly spread to surrounding provinces. Initial it might only be among
      people of the same country, tribe or group. However, it can spread to other groups and begin to pick up power and rate of spreading. Soon it can go from simply peasants revolting to the forming of militia. Then even standing armies. Units left to long exposed to such may revolt themselves and join the locals.
    • I've been waiting for Bytro Labs to create exactly this when I first started playing Call Of War back in November 2015. Now it's here and I've started playing it as soon as I found out about it. Really stable and great gameplay, exactly the idea I had in my head when thinking about a colonization game back before this was here. So happy it has been developed and created. Will be seeing me here often for the months to come. I don't want to suggest anything definitely just yet as I have only been registered for 24 hours and have yet to experience more of what the game has to offer but it would be great if we could involve forms of piracy into the gameplay in the future, nevertheless - Thank you for making this game.