Anybody else here from pre 2017?

There were very good in-game reasons to make ranges the same for the same weapon for different levels. In particular, it was very unfair that you could get shelled to smithereens without firing a shot back when you were offline.

That increase + instant upgrades made it way too easy to gain a huge advantage with gold. Just gold the research and instantly all of your units could outrange your opponent. I prefer the current system by far.

Ok but you gotta admit it was fun when the joke was on the enemy and you delete like half their stacks before they wake up. It was very nice when I betrayed my ”allies” and took over our respective continent at the time!

jubjub bird wrote:

That increase + instant upgrades made it way too easy to gain a huge advantage with gold. Just gold the research and instantly all of your units could outrange your opponent. I prefer the current system by far.

That wasn't a problem back then. The frequency of gold use was a lot lower. Everything was more expensive, or maybe it just felt more expensive. So the system worked very well, for that time.

With the current level of gold use, and all the free cards floating around, there are a lot more "instant" actions. We see a lot more max level units right after day change. Is it cheaper to gold? Is it the mobile app and the pay to win mentality that comes with apps? Who knows.....

im here since the most early days, if im not wrong i played the game since late 2014.

Is there anything about the game that hasn't changed since then?

And what were the biggest changes?

Zaktty wrote:

Is there anything about the game that hasn't changed since then?

And what were the biggest changes?

The biggest changes? I would say that the fact that you cant produce units everywhere, only in cities, i like this change honestly.

Just for add in the beggining all countries have the units looks the same, doesnt matter if i was american, soviet or german all looks the same, we dont take in account how much the game has evolved.

Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

The biggest changes? I would say that the fact that you cant produce units everywhere, only in cities, i like this change honestly.

This is true, in terms of province type. We used to be able to produce basic infantry units in rural provinces. The AI would do this to come back and haunt the conqueror. We had to eliminate every last province to be safe.

But there was a most subtle change that has a much bigger impact on the game. Advanced units like tanks, ships, and planes used to require "industry", which was expensive to build as it required a large amount of rares. Every time a city changed hands, the industry would get damaged. After a few changes in possession, the city's industry would be completely destroyed, so the city could no longer produce advanced units. That had an interesting effect on game play. Whole sections of the map would get de-industrialized, so they could no longer produce advanced units, which had to be brought in from undamaged parts of the world. I found this mechanic a lot of fun, because it had such a large impact on strategy. Protecting a city from enemy takeover was a lot more important, since the city would never be the same. The fighting was more intense, because the impact was more permanent. And every game had a different flavor, depending on which part of the world burned down during an early war. I miss these effects, and find the new mechanic less interesting.Wars have no permanent impact on the world. Anything can be built anywhere.

Also the fact that it was actually possible to run out of resources. Though these days it’s almost never an issue outside of doomsday, if you made to many units for example, it was actually possible to have upkeep that was too high, and to run out of resources!

z00mz00m wrote:

This is true, in terms of province type. We used to be able to produce basic infantry units in rural provinces. The AI would do this to come back and haunt the conqueror. We had to eliminate every last province to be safe.

But there was a most subtle change that has a much bigger impact on the game. Advanced units like tanks, ships, and planes used to require "industry", which was expensive to build as it required a large amount of rares. Every time a city changed hands, the industry would get damaged. After a few changes in possession, the city's industry would be completely destroyed, so the city could no longer produce advanced units. That had an interesting effect on game play. Whole sections of the map would get de-industrialized, so they could no longer produce advanced units, which had to be brought in from undamaged parts of the world. I found this mechanic a lot of fun, because it had such a large impact on strategy. Protecting a city from enemy takeover was a lot more important, since the city would never be the same. The fighting was more intense, because the impact was more permanent. And every game had a different flavor, depending on which part of the world burned down during an early war. I miss these effects, and find the new mechanic less interesting.Wars have no permanent impact on the world. Anything can be built anywhere.

S1914 and early COW Vet!

Zaktty wrote:

z00mz00m wrote:

This is true, in terms of province type. We used to be able to produce basic infantry units in rural provinces. The AI would do this to come back and haunt the conqueror. We had to eliminate every last province to be safe.

But there was a most subtle change that has a much bigger impact on the game. Advanced units like tanks, ships, and planes used to require "industry", which was expensive to build as it required a large amount of rares. Every time a city changed hands, the industry would get damaged. After a few changes in possession, the city's industry would be completely destroyed, so the city could no longer produce advanced units. That had an interesting effect on game play. Whole sections of the map would get de-industrialized, so they could no longer produce advanced units, which had to be brought in from undamaged parts of the world. I found this mechanic a lot of fun, because it had such a large impact on strategy. Protecting a city from enemy takeover was a lot more important, since the city would never be the same. The fighting was more intense, because the impact was more permanent. And every game had a different flavor, depending on which part of the world burned down during an early war. I miss these effects, and find the new mechanic less interesting.Wars have no permanent impact on the world. Anything can be built anywhere.

I was playing when this was still a thing, I took a break from CoW and those changes shocked me, I preferred the old way as you said, because the focus on building was more important, however, militia spam was a big problem. It would be pretty good in my opinion if they had an event round for 1.0, where the game reverted back to the old system, however, I doubt it is possible to even on an event map.

And it has root in real life too. Few countries had the heavy industry required to produce tanks and planes on while own, having to rely on larger nations to supply them instead. This is partly why Italy and Japan has such weak tanks, they didn’t have the factories to produce larger ones. Developing such complex weapons was very difficult, expensive and required industrial capacities. Though damage was not as permanent, world don’t get de-industrialized into oblivion, unless of course you’re occupied by the Germans who ravaged the land into nothingness. Even Germany still had some heavy industry, even after American and British bombing or Soviet Artillery (and even some looting.)

Though I’d still say I prefer how it is now, without as much permanent damage. While wars were damaging, most of the time (most, not all) they didn’t permanently destroy places for years (looking at tech game days seem to be years?) So it makes total sense for places to be able to rebuild. A lot of the time fighting doesn’t even take place in cities and you capture them with little or no resistance. How do buildings get destroyed by that? Plus I find it enjoyable. I don’t like parts of my country becoming almost useless after I get noob rushed by the Caucasus!

Large parts of the world (especially Europe, Russia, Japan) were de-industrialized and took decades to rebuild after the war. This is why the USA could be the dominant economic power after the war. There was no competition.

Consider the example of Stalingrad. What kinds of units do you think the USSR could produce in Stalingrad, after it was finally taken back from the Germans? The city was a wreck. What kinds of units could the Germans produce there while they occupied it?

Consider the example of Nagasaki, a major production center for the Japanese military. What kinds of units could they produce in Nagasaki after the nuke exploded?

The old mechanic got it exactly right. The more a city suffers, the less useful it is... to anyone! After enough fighting, the city is only useful as a transportation hub (road and rail nexus) and as a source of victory points. As for production, it can crank out some irregular foot infantry or militia, that's about it.

z00mz00m wrote:

Large parts of the world (especially Europe, Russia, Japan) were de-industrialized and took decades to rebuild after the war. This is why the USA could be the dominant economic power after the war. There was no competition.

Consider the example of Stalingrad. What kinds of units do you think the USSR could produce in Stalingrad, after it was finally taken back from the Germans? The city was a wreck. What kinds of units could the Germans produce there while they occupied it?

Consider the example of Nagasaki, a major production center for the Japanese military. What kinds of units could they produce in Nagasaki after the nuke exploded?

The old mechanic got it exactly right. The more a city suffers, the less useful it is... to anyone! After enough fighting, the city is only useful as a transportation hub (road and rail nexus) and as a source of victory points. As for production, it can crank out some irregular foot infantry or militia, that's about it.

Stalingrad would be the equivalent of bombarding and fighting in a city and it switching hands multiple times, which when it happens in game does cripple cities for the rest of the game. The current mechanic symbolizes this just fine.

When Paris was taken by the Germans in ww2. It wasn’t completely obliterated or even damaged. And when the allies took it back, same thing. This is because most of the fighting took place outside of Paris, so even though the city switched hands a few times it wasn’t wrecked. Even the new mechanic would have cities be damaged after being taken, even if there was no fight.

Iirc nuke damage against buildings has been recently raised. Bombardment and strategic bombing can quickly level all buildings in cities overtime and lower morale to the point where they are basically no longer useful for the rest of the game. I think the current mechanic gets it done well enough.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Also the fact that it was actually possible to run out of resources. Though these days it’s almost never an issue outside of doomsday, if you made to many units for example, it was actually possible to have upkeep that was too high, and to run out of resources!

ok what is this thread about

mindfields wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Also the fact that it was actually possible to run out of resources. Though these days it’s almost never an issue outside of doomsday, if you made to many units for example, it was actually possible to have upkeep that was too high, and to run out of resources!

Ah yes, The dreaded negative Food slump which would spiral and cause moral problems. It's probably why I don't build infantry in my games now!

Imperialist San arta wrote:

ok what is this thread about

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Imperialist San arta wrote:

ok what is this thread about

What, you can write but not read?