Call of War 1.5: Introducing Doctrines

szinisa wrote:

Doctrines will kill srategic choices. Doctrines will arrange what you should develope and produce. Some difference will cause big troubles... for example an Axis country will sit in a fortress and for 2 days his range will be lower than an allies range. What can be done? Almost nothing....

Part of given advantages will have no effect on smaller, fast maps. Altough the opposite side receive some... so some map became very unbalanced i assume...

Looking quickly I think the Pan Asian does not match the historic themes but are a stretch to create something different. What might be more in line with Pan Asia is higher morale and cheaper Infantry.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Watch as Communist countries win every game by flooding enemies in body masses as soon as the update hits

And dont understimate research bonus and airforce bonus of allies. And power bonus of axis. Since sbde in 1.5.2 will have hard cut o 10er stacks. Axis will win every 10er vs10er battle. And comintern has only 10 till 25 % 10er stacks more then opponents, but each 10er stack will lose vs 10 er stack of opponent, except may be con asia in not adapted province of units. And again. Researchbonus in 1.5.2 can have doubke advantage, depend on day and kind of unit.

I like the idea of this but would make more sense to allow you to choose your doctrine at the start of the map regardless of country chosen. Ether way I feel like certain doctrines will just spam a ton of units and rush everyone the first couple of days. Some people don't care about their K/d and i can easily see Comintern doctrines spamming everything. I feel like this is wayyyyy to many changes to implement at once. Instead of perfecting the new changes you guys keep just throwing more updates out. Get 1.5 working and balanced and then slowly add new changes. Doing too much at once...,

Wow, this is a big addition for sure. I am going to wait until I play before really forming an opinion to determine how well balanced and fair these new doctrines are. I think they could add some very interesting changes, as long as no one is too strong/ weak.

I do have one very large concern tho. Hopefully I am simply reading it incorrectly. But for axis the availability of artillery and light tanks is pushed back +1/+2 and allies LT is also pushed back, now i’m not entirely sure what that means. But if it means day 1 I can’t produce LT or Arty then I categorically believe this needs to change... what units are these players surprised to build then?! The early game is dominated by arty and LT spam, if a player cannot even do one of these it will not matter for anything else they will start the game at such a disadvantage I personally would never play one of these axis nations.

I very much hope i’m just reading it wrong / if I am not that is very quickly changed. If it is for future research and not day 1, I can understand that but if day 1/ day 2 you cannot build arty or LT that needs to change. As it gives you such a huge disadvantage as they really are the dominance early game.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

Wow, this is a big addition for sure. I am going to wait until I play before really forming an opinion to determine how well balanced and fair these new doctrines are.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Watch as Communist countries win every game by flooding enemies in body masses as soon as the update hits

I find it pretty well balanced. I haven't seen any Pan-Asian nations in action yet, but I can tell the other three compliment each other very nicely.

After spending a little time talking with others and reading them myself over more. I think this could be quite a nice addition as they are fairly broad but can provide some bonuses to different strategies. I feel axis and allies are pretty strong and well balanced, my previous issues about starting units I still stand by but perhaps a little less (forgot about rocket arty).

I personally however think pan Asian is a little too weak. We will see when the even comes but view range doesn’t really at least for me add much, I use a lot of scouts and reveals so this feature I feel is far weaker than others.

Unit speed is nice, but again I do feel it isn’t as strong as production speed, unit cost, damage/health. But that could just be me and if others love it then this doctrine works as each one does not suit everyone.

Comintern, for a player like myself is totally not how I play (I like a high KD play style) but can see how it can be done well. If I was placed into a game as the Comintern I probably would just play as I do without it, resulting in the doctrine hampering how I want to play, and thus not be so enjoyable and really an annoyance.

I do however think it would be better if they where not fixed nation specific. I think players will choose nations based off doctrines yes to match their play style. So if one is never picked then likely it’d needs to be buffed rather than saying they should be nation specific so they will be used. For if it is weaker then forcing players to use it somewhat... sucks and may lead to higher drop outs in maps/an overall dislike for doctrines. But if we can choose then it will also be more apparent which doctrines perhaps need to be buffed/nerfed as an added bonus.

I personally think the axis or allies suits my play style. Probably axis more so and I am really looking forward to trying it out to see whether this can even further enhance how I play. I do place an emphasis on low losses with highly quality units, which seems to be how the Axis is oriented. But should these nations be taken in a map then it is counter intuitive to have to pick a nation with a doctrine that I don’t like/don't want to play. For if I want to try it I can just pick it, don’t force one on people just to ensure they are all played. If one is not played then it should be tweaked so it will be used.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I do however think it would be better if they where not fixed nation specific. I think players will choose nations based off doctrines yes to match their play style. So if one is never picked then likely it’d needs to be buffed rather than saying they should be nation specific so they will be used. For if it is weaker then forcing players to use it somewhat... sucks and may lead to higher drop outs in maps/an overall dislike for doctrines. But if we can choose then it will also be more apparent which doctrines perhaps need to be buffed/nerfed as an added bonus.

DoctorDR1 wrote:

I see your point here. It will be interesting to see how 1.5 doctrines will work with historically accurate maps, like 1939 Historic World War, or 1939 Blitzkrieg. Or, maybe these will just be removed completely.

I would assume those maps will still be there but obviously adjusted to the new 1.5 rss.

WarOnTheMoon wrote:

You Served? What Branch and Thank You for Your Service (I want to serve in The United States Marines when I grow up)

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

Although calling one doctrine Surprise is a bit of a surprise. Maneuver encompasses surprise and faster movement, as in, out-maneuver an opponent to gain an advantage. Just my thought

Nope! Maneuver can be a bit slow too as long as you were able to decimate the flanks. We went on raids and silenced insurgents who thought their .50 cal's could protect the flanks. You see most weaponry is not suitable for flank defense and thus small arms fire works best.

So you had to maneuver on to their flank to accomplish that, didn't you?

I personally like games with a lot of complexity and diversity, so for my taste, doctrines are a good new feature.

Of course it's nice to reflect the historical military focus the factions had during WW2 and I can also recognize the following positive aspects:

* Players will no longer be using exclusively the units that best match their play style or taste. They will now adapt their unit choices to the doctrine of the country they play in this specific match. Which means it will also allow them or sometimes force them to adapt their play style. Both of which is positive - keeps your brain busy and the game from getting boring.

* Importance to have as many full blueprints sets as possible is increased (because that allows you to play optimally with all doctrines).

However, the main argument to squeeze the CoW1.5 research tree into a uniform schema (same progression for all values of all units from each level to the next) was to reduce complexity. It would be better to have a realistic, interesting and beautiful research tree (like in CoW1.0 with the addition that most mechanized units should have a HP progression) than to have complexity from doctrines instead.

Still, introducing doctrines is positive, if seen for itself... I'd be ultimately happy with a research tree like in CoW1.0, HP progression for most mechanized units AND doctrines.

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

would be cool to be able to choose any doctrine no matter what country you choose.

If players were able to choose, the positive authenticity effect would be inverted: Since they would choose fully irrespective of their nation, we would see a lot of USAs with Comintern/Asian/Axis doctrine, a lot of Soviet Unions with Axis/Allies doctrine and so on. That wouldn't make the game more historical, but even drastically less historical. It would feel absurd.

Furthermore, if you could choose, you would always just pick the doctrine that matches your play style. Keep in mind there are a number of aspects you have to consider when doing your country choice the moment you enter a map. Now you'll have to value the other aspects against the question which country has your favourite doctrine. That will become an interesting & nice choice!

On the long run, a game is way more interesting and challenging if you don't have to or even cannot use the same approach in each match. And exactly that is achieved by making the doctrine a fix setting for each country on the map.

If I get to take a city or province that is producing a unit and it is of a different doctrine than mine. What's going on?

Players will just strictly choose the combination of their favorite country as well as doctrine. The change creates the risk of making strong countries even stronger by exacerbating their playstyle.

On the contrary, especially for smaller countries it is crucial to build up an army quickly early game. However, smaller countries stuck with, say, the Axis doctrine, will be unable to keep up as a lot of crucial research for early game isn’t even available to them, and will get conquered by day 2 by Comintern countries.

The historical argument makes little sense as having a communist USA is not less historically realistic than having Sweden develop an A-bomb. If anything it introduces more creativity into a game that already acknowledges and encourages alternative RP (e.g. Antarctica mode). On the contrary being able to chose doctrines opens up tons of new and innovative gameplay options.

Personally I will always prefer that kind of player freedom and creativity over historical accuracy.

Berlin01R wrote:

If I get to take a city or province that is producing a unit and it is of a different doctrine than mine. What's going on?

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

On the contrary, especially for smaller countries it is crucial to build up an army quickly early game. However, smaller countries stuck with, say, the Axis doctrine, will be unable to keep up as a lot of crucial research for early game isn’t even available to them, and will get conquered by day 2 by Comintern countries

Defence bonus met hp and power bunus vs weakened units of comintern.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Players will just strictly choose the combination of their favorite country as well as doctrine. The change creates the risk of making strong countries even stronger by exacerbating their playstyle.

The historical argument makes little sense as having a communist USA is not less historically realistic than having Sweden develop an A-bomb. If anything it introduces more creativity into a game that already acknowledges and encourages alternative RP (e.g. Antarctica mode). On the contrary being able to chose doctrines opens up tons of new and innovative gameplay options.

Personally I will always prefer that kind of player freedom and creativity over historical accuracy.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

Wow, this is a big addition for sure. I am going to wait until I play before really forming an opinion to determine how well balanced and fair these new doctrines are. I think they could add some very interesting changes, as long as no one is too strong/ weak.

I do have one very large concern tho. Hopefully I am simply reading it incorrectly. But for axis the availability of artillery and light tanks is pushed back +1/+2 and allies LT is also pushed back, now i’m not entirely sure what that means. But if it means day 1 I can’t produce LT or Arty then I categorically believe this needs to change... what units are these players surprised to build then?! The early game is dominated by arty and LT spam, if a player cannot even do one of these it will not matter for anything else they will start the game at such a disadvantage I personally would never play one of these axis nations.

I very much hope i’m just reading it wrong / if I am not that is very quickly changed. If it is for future research and not day 1, I can understand that but if day 1/ day 2 you cannot build arty or LT that needs to change. As it gives you such a huge disadvantage as they really are the dominance early game.

-2 days for railraodgun and rockets research can be a war breaker instead of your worry of LT and arty.

The amount of players who join maps and then drop out to play another one is very high. I believe should a player join a map and not be able to select the doctrine they want, they are more likely to go inactive in search of another map.

Additionally, on maps like the 22, will some nations get the pan asian doctrine? Or will that not be able to be used on that map? Similarly on the American home-front, in order to keep it historically accurate will it only be allied doctrine?

I think if it is a possibility, make it so on the historic games like the 1939 blitz map and 25 map have it nation specific. But on the 22, 100/ Ahistorical maps have it free choice. It's not like those maps follow a historic path anyways. I've won solo 100s as Libya, could this have been at all possible historically in the ww2 setting? Hell no.

Player if they want to vary their game style will. If a player wants to play as Germany in every 100 map, they will try for that as well. Forcing someone to play a certain way I do not believe will create a more interesting, challenging sure, but what if someone doesn't want the challenge? I don't think its fair to assume anyone has the same goals and opinions in this games. In fact, I think that is very apparent through my various convocations today. Some friends believe the Axis doctrine is the best, others think Pan Asian. The fact that already players have such strong opinions about what doctrine they want to use I think is awesome and very likely intended. But if player A thinks pan asian sucks, then forcing them to play it if they do not want to doesn't add anything positive to the game.

Currently, when I play as let's say Communist Russia on a 100 map. I am not going to choose a mass quantity approach just because of the nation I play, alternatively, if I play as Germany I may not choose to play a more quality game. The beauty in my mind of this game is you can choose how to build your army and nation. And I think these doctrines could really help shape that choice, if I want to go quality, I can choose to play as the axis doctrine as it will add to my play style, if I want to play a quantity game, I can choose to play as the Comintern as it will help in this decision. But if I want to play a quantity game but only Axis nations are left, this is not a positive and beneficial doctrine for me. So the rest of the game will be something I don't want it to be. If I hate the idea of the pan asian play style, but want to play as Japan. What do I do? I either take the doctrine I dislike and thus my game may be more challenging sure, but not as enjoyable. Or I don't play the nation I want to play.

If someone wants to play a more challenging game, then they can go random country and get a random doctrine. Or choose to play what they think is a more challenging doctrine.

I really need to play with the doctrines, but I think if done right, the doctrines will add something great to the game by enhancing how we already choose to play. But forcing players to play a specific way because of the nation they chose, I don't think is the best method to go with. I think doctrines should add further choice and customisation to how we play, not force the choice and play style onto us.

Doctrines should be only on Historical maps:

Historical WWII,

Va Banque,

English Channel

Biltzkreig

Mediterranean theater (I hope it will return )

On other maps, countries are aligned, if they are not mistaken, they have such a task. How is the player to feel on such a map, if he gets "worse doctrine" and loses, of course: Axis is to conduct a light war. Nobody is getting ready properly. That's my opinion.

I think it's too big update and a lot of new experiences. Maybe in other countries there are positive feedback. Unfortunately, I did not receive a positive remark about 1.5 (I doubt that this will come into play without 1.5).

I apologize for any language errors if they appear in this text