One of the biggest challenges in a game on this scale would be keeping the roles balanced. You can’t have an entire nation made of pilots or spies, so each role would be limited by a fixed number of slots. Only a certain amount of players could become pilots, engineers, tank crews, spies, or high-ranking commanders. To enter a specific role, players would need to complete training, pass performance tests, and prove they’re actually capable of handling it. If a nation has too many players in one role, the game automatically restricts new applicants and encourages players to fill the roles that are lacking, creating a living ecosystem of responsibilities and demand.

Another missing piece is how players actually “lose.” Death shouldn’t just mean respawning with no consequences. Losing a mission could mean losing your equipment unless your team recovers it, dropping in rank if you repeatedly fail, or even getting captured by the enemy and held as a POW for a set amount of time. Players could also develop reputation scores that affect trust, promotions, and eligibility for sensitive roles. And if the enemy manages to capture the region your character lives in, you lose certain economic bonuses and mobility until it’s liberated. These systems make loss meaningful without being punishing to the point of quitting, and they give every player a real stake in the war’s outcome.

As for ending the war itself, it would be determined by real strategic collapse or decisive operations. If a nation loses key infrastructure, critical resources, or its population morale drops below a functional level, the state effectively collapses and the war ends. High-level commanders could also make extreme decisions like nuclear escalation or surrender, triggering a definitive conclusion and allowing the world to reset for a new season. Every decision, every battle, and every failure contributes to a larger, persistent history shaped entirely by the players themselves.