Call of War 1.5: Introducing Doctrines

I don't mind about the doctrines but the need unit category and buildings are out of the picture.

Do u automatically get put in 1-5 testing after u reach lv40???

Nah you must get a message from Bytro to become a Frontline Pioneer, Still waiting bytro

It is full at this moment

Big RIP for me, wanted to be one for a while

Same

(Flexing time) I got invited twice to be an FP, but both times I was so preoccupied with other games I didn't join an FP game so both times I got kicked from it.

I just joined an FP game, archived it, and then a week later actually joined an FP game and started playing it.

Sigh, i hope someone grants me fp soon. So i know about the future... Or i am probably going to quit this game with the new updates.

freezy wrote:

We don't balance the game for K/D fetishists

freezy wrote:

it would require us diving into our statistics system and that system is pretty fragile (as you may have noticed in the past) and our devs try to avoid it.

Then add one attribute "military points from your kills" and another one "military points from kills against you" to the player entity. For the games played so far, they can be filled very easily with a totally simple DB script (simply multiply kills the player has for a certain unit with the number of military points this unit gives and sum up the result for all unit types). Add a line in the CoW1.5 source code the moment a unit is killed that adds the number of military points this unit has (in this doctrine and this research level) to "military points from your kills" of the killer and to "military points from kills against you" of the owner.

And then display the quotient of these two values in the player profile instead of K/D as it is currently.

What is complicated or risky about that? You don't have to touch the current statistics system, it is only an addition of two new attributes to the player entity.

freezy wrote:

the benefit is rather small

Let me ask the question what's the goal in CoW?

You said players are not supposed to care about K/D.

Should we care about rank? For sure not - shows only how much a player played, totally worthless stat.

Should we care about a good win/loss ratio? Also not - the difficulty degree on the different scenarios varies too much.

So that leaves as only goal trying to win the map you're currently on. That is NOT enough! In most situations, it's either very clear you'll win or very clear you won't win. And it's nothing that remains after current map is over. It's not satisfying to start each new match just like a new player, each time again and again. Most players have a strong need for something that remains. Something they can collect, some ranking they can climb on, something that shows how well they performed, something they can be proud of, something in their player profile they can show to friends or their grandchildren.

We don't want to be K/D fetishists, but in CoW1.0, K/D is all an ambitious player has.

Now in CoW1.5 (unless you realize my proposal), we won't even have K/D any more, because doctrines and the extremely high unit power progression make it very blurry. If a player continued to care about K/D in CoW1.5, he wouldn't play the game as it's intended.

So what shall an ambitious player care about in CoW1.5? Nothing? Just click around aimlessly for a while, watching how beautiful the tanks are? That's contradictory to the nature of an ambitious player. Which brings us right to the point why there are so many casual war-game clicker action lovers in CoW. Who join maps although they're not interested in a strategy game. Some of them go for an early rush, some are not even capable of that. Many just drop out after doing a few aimless swipes on their smartphone. None of them is doing any diplomatic interaction. And yes, many of those who really want to play CoW as a strategy game have left because it's not fun to play with such opponents who don't play in a constructive, reasonable way. Why have those flabby players become the majority? Sure, mainly because the improved mobile version has opened CoW for smartphone players. But also because CoW is severely lacking an incentive to aim for success. Why should you bother to develop a successful strategy if there's no reward for success, no figure that shows success? Ambitious players don't like CoW, because there's almost nothing they can try to achieve. Consequently, there aren't many ambitious players on CoW maps. And in CoW1.5, without K/D making sense, that will become worse.

For ambitious, caring players that is a show stopper. No matter how nice the tanks look and no matter how interesting and good you make gameplay. Strategy lovers still won't play it if the game has no goal and doesn't offer any long-term motivation.

If you still say (for some reason I cannot see) that improving K/D the way I proposed and thus keeping it alive in CoW1.5 is technically very difficult, then implement a new ranking like the one @Torpedo28000 already linked (--> this post <--). Otherwise, CoW1.5 will be pretty sad. If CoW has a goal, it will be attractive for both ambitioned and casual players. If not, it will become nothing but a sandbox for leisure smartphone players. Perhaps these might spend a lot of money on gold, I don't know. But they're not the kind of players that attract others by being worthy opponents and interesting to interact with.

Talking about details (since, as it seems, details are all you're willing to change in your original CoW1.5 plans

All in all, I think the doctrines are already well balanced (apart from the issue they create with K/D, which will make players who care about K/D never pick a Comintern country... since those who care about K/D usually are the more successful players, I expect the winner to be seldomly a Comintern country). And there are a lot of bonuses and mali for which I can confirm they reflect very well the differences the four factions really had. You've done a good job choosing them. At first glance, I'd only like to change these few:

* I would give Axis strategical bomber a hitpoints malus. Thinking about faulty, very vulnerable designs like the Heinkel He 177 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177).

* I don't think Allies destroyers were faster than Japanese or German models from the same time. What was most striking about them, was that the US mass produced them in gigantic numbers. So I would replace Allies destroyer speed bonus with a reduction of production costs or production speed.

* Japanese destroyers were specialized for raiding surface ships and not built to guard convois / cargo ships (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserlich_Japanische_Marine). I would give them a bonus against surface ships and a malus against submarines.

* Japanese cruisers were heavily armed, but rather small and only lightly armoured. I would give them a damage bonus against surface ships and a HP malus.

* Earlier availability for Japanese battleships is totally wrong. The opposite was the case. Japan deferred its battleship production very much. The impressive Yamato class battleships were completed too late to make a difference in WW2.

We will talk about within the team about the K/D issue again. It really is not as easy as it seems due to several factors, but you are right that we still should think about solutions. So if we find an implementation that is not too hard to do, we may still do this K/D adjustment in a future update (but it is not certain). That's all I can say for now.

Regarding individual unit buffs: We don't give out stats debuffs to individual units, only the research debuffs. So I would not give out your proposed debuffs for consistency reasons. The other ones we can think about, but lets wait and collect all the other player feedback on detailed Doctrine balancing. I am sure there will be a lot in the first weeks once the 3rd iteration is playable.

Add all in countries again it's really enjoying and Take a risk if I use small nation

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Talking about details (since, as it seems, details are all you're willing to change in your original CoW1.5 plans

All in all, I think the doctrines are already well balanced (apart from the issue they create with K/D, which will make players who care about K/D never pick a Comintern country... since those who care about K/D usually are the more successful players, I expect the winner to be seldomly a Comintern country). And there are a lot of bonuses and mali for which I can confirm they reflect very well the differences the four factions really had. You've done a good job choosing them. At first glance, I'd only like to change these few:

* I would give Axis strategical bomber a hitpoints malus. Thinking about faulty, very vulnerable designs like the Heinkel He 177 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177).

* I don't think Allies destroyers were faster than Japanese or German models from the same time. What was most striking about them, was that the US mass produced them in gigantic numbers. So I would replace Allies destroyer speed bonus with a reduction of production costs or production speed.

* Japanese destroyers were specialized for raiding surface ships and not built to guard convois / cargo ships (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserlich_Japanische_Marine). I would give them a bonus against surface ships and a malus against submarines.

* Japanese cruisers were heavily armed, but rather small and only lightly armoured. I would give them a damage bonus against surface ships and a HP malus.

* Earlier availability for Japanese battleships is totally wrong. The opposite was the case. Japan deferred its battleship production very much. The impressive Yamato class battleships were completed too late to make a difference in WW2.

So viel Blödsinn selten sogar von dir auf einmal gekommen.

Japanische Kreuzer hat bereits 10% weniger HP aufgrund Gesamtdoktrin. Und 20% malus wird dazu führen, dass keiner mit dieser Dortrin Kreuzer baut.

Das gleiche für Zerri debuff, die sind bereits schwächer als bei anderen Doktrinen. Noch mehr abzuschwächen, braucht keiner.

US Destroyer haben speed bonus, gerade um historische Überpräsenz abzubilden. Dein Vorschlag wird nich zu ähnilichen historischgetreuen feeling führen. Man bildet nicht mehr Zerris, nur weil die schneller gebaut werden können. Und Wenn sie billiger werden, freut man, dass für wichtigere Einheitwn Resi übrig bleiben.

Hans heutzutage kann man unter 50 k Euro ein Spiel CoW levels entwickelb. Viel Glück.

Hör bitte auf deine Visionen zu verbreiten. Du hast mehr als einmal bewiesen, dass du voel zu kurzsichtig plannst und keine Auswirkung modelieren kannst.

f118 wrote:

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Talking about details (since, as it seems, details are all you're willing to change in your original CoW1.5 plans

All in all, I think the doctrines are already well balanced (apart from the issue they create with K/D, which will make players who care about K/D never pick a Comintern country... since those who care about K/D usually are the more successful players, I expect the winner to be seldomly a Comintern country). And there are a lot of bonuses and mali for which I can confirm they reflect very well the differences the four factions really had. You've done a good job choosing them. At first glance, I'd only like to change these few:

* I would give Axis strategical bomber a hitpoints malus. Thinking about faulty, very vulnerable designs like the Heinkel He 177 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177).

* I don't think Allies destroyers were faster than Japanese or German models from the same time. What was most striking about them, was that the US mass produced them in gigantic numbers. So I would replace Allies destroyer speed bonus with a reduction of production costs or production speed.

* Japanese destroyers were specialized for raiding surface ships and not built to guard convois / cargo ships (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserlich_Japanische_Marine). I would give them a bonus against surface ships and a malus against submarines.

* Japanese cruisers were heavily armed, but rather small and only lightly armoured. I would give them a damage bonus against surface ships and a HP malus.

* Earlier availability for Japanese battleships is totally wrong. The opposite was the case. Japan deferred its battleship production very much. The impressive Yamato class battleships were completed too late to make a difference in WW2.

Kann sein, dass du keine Gedanken zum Spielballanse machst?

So viel Blödsinn selten sogar von dir auf einmal gekommen.

Japanische Kreuzer hat bereits 10% weniger HP aufgrund Gesamtdoktrin. Und 20% malus wird dazu führen, dass keiner mit dieser Dortrin Kreuzer baut.

Das gleiche für Zerri debuff, die sind bereits schwächer als bei anderen Doktrinen. Noch mehr abzuschwächen, braucht keiner.

US Destroyer haben speed bonus, gerade um historische Überpräsenz abzubilden. Dein Vorschlag wird nich zu ähnilichen historischgetreuen feeling führen. Man bildet nicht mehr Zerris, nur weil die schneller gebaut werden können. Und Wenn sie billiger werden, freut man, dass für wichtigere Einheitwn Resi übrig bleiben.

Hans heutzutage kann man unter 50 k Euro ein Spiel CoW levels entwickelb. Viel Glück.

Hör bitte auf deine Visionen zu verbreiten. Du hast mehr als einmal bewiesen, dass du voel zu kurzsichtig plannst und keine Auswirkung modelieren kannst.

when you click on another province and that box at the bottom shows up, you should be able to see what doctrine the country is on there.

Seems a little funny that in the 22 player map, the Tsar has a Communist Doctrine.

EZ Dolittle wrote:

Seems a little funny that in the 22 player map, the Tsar has a Communist Doctrine.

EZ Dolittle wrote:

Seems a little funny that in the 22 player map, the Tsar has a Communist Doctrine.

could they add more specific buffs and debuffs to the units of each doctrine? because for example look at the images of the rocket arty, those should not all be equal, yet they all are, not counting the -1/-2 days of availability for comintern. and then look at SP rocket arty. all of them but comintern are equal, but they don't look equal. and having more specific stat changes for each unit with each doctrine would really help make it more complex. but even more important than that they should have differences in economy and buildings and stuff, as in maybe the allies have more oil production and Pan-Asian have more rare materials production, and Axis might build tank factories faster then comintern might have cheaper build costs for secret bases (I am just saying completely random and still very general examples, hopefully if they do decide to do this there will be more in depth buffs and debuffs than the examples I gave).