Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

Dinkleburg441 wrote:

Kinda have a mixed opinion about the update so far

- Faster early game <= ONLY IF ATTACKING. For the cocooning bubble builders it is extremely slow.

- Specialized cities, allows for more advanced strategic planning <= COULD IT BE WE ARE TESTING A DIFFERENT GAME EACH? I looked hard, but there is nothing advanced or strategic about it. You can't do anything else but develop 1 city 1 way and the other the other way. There is NO planning and NO strategy involved IMO, because there is NO CHOICE. Could you please elaborate on the STRATEGIC and ADVANCED elements of you statements, because I feel extremely dumb right now that I completely missed that?

- Unit levels don't upgrade automatically emphasizing research more. Although I suggest adding an upgrade button to existing units or a button to disband units to free up upkeep <= Fully agree. If this game should have a chance, that is a necessity.

- Combat as a whole is a lot easier to understand and faster in general <= Right... we must really be playing different versions! Faster battle resolution yes, simply because of the 30min battle-tick...

But easier??? No way... Unit stats out of whack, roles being dreamed up for units which have no link to reality, etc.

yes, ofc, if you just produce a lot of tanks and go bumbling around the map....that is easy. But it is NOT easier to come up with a good army composition and have a consistently good army.

Your negatives:

- Units and unit levels are thrown out of balance quite heavily, TD's seem more powerful than they should be for example <= Agreed. Unit stats out of whack. Nothing realistic about it.

- Resources lost their distinction, it makes no sense that you require oil and rares to make base infantry for example. It was much more strategic when you had to consider what resources you had at the start and how you would tune your production for it. For example, as an island nation with one oil should I completely forego tanks so I can get a proper navy and airforce or do I try and balance it out at the expense of all 3 to stay flexible? <= Agreed all strategic resource management is out the window and tools to influence it are limited to IC's or conquest.

- Buildings seem a little more complex than they need to be, despite the added strategy. <= Uhh... more complex? I would say super simplified. This for that and Those for the other. No need to think, no choice, not efficient, not fun, but complex??? The opposite, IMO.

What exactly makes Ordnance and Tank factories different for example? <= Agreed. Why different types of weapon factories? If you want to help the 'blessed players' make it 1 Weapon Factory for all types of weapons. The multiple types of weapon factories are nothing but a bother and a resource sink.

What the heck is up with the "Secret Lab" and why did it replace the Nuclear Plant? <= Amazing how nobody seems to have tried Supremacy 1? Secret Lab is needed for Secret Weapons. You cant produce these without developing them, as any weapon type, but you need the extra lab for it. Another resource sink in this game, and though it fits well into the scheme of S1, it hardly has a place here.

- This ties into the resource thing but why does research no longer cost rares? That was a pretty critical part to formulating your strategy - what you were going to dedicate precious rares into for research. <= Too make it simpler and less realistic. In the next update of this Pokemon version of CoW aka 1.5, finally the Purple Monsters and Mech-Insects will be available, as well as Tank Tree Plantations, where you can harvest tanks growing from trees.

You doubt that? Why? It is as unrealistic as the rest of Pokemon-CoW, so it is possible!

Ultimately, whatever changes are made, my decision whether to continue playing CoW will hinge on how well playing it fits into my availability to play the game. Changing unit and building features is simply a matter of learning the new parameters and adapting your strategy to suit. I agree with others who have posted here that some tweaking still needs to be done. The game needs to be "fun", of course, but that tends to be something specific to each individual game and is influenced by who you are playing against and who drops out early.

The pace of the game is something that can make or break a good game. While the faster pace of 1.5 is good at one level, it means you need to login frequently. That's not something I can do on a regular basis. Twice in the last few days I've logged in only to find my territory overrun by two players' invading armies (some of which I suspect wear gold uniforms) who, despite my earlier counter attack, have wreaked havoc in my cities and territory in my latest 12 hour absence. I've decided that one of the two 1.5 games I'm playing is a frustratingly hopeless cause as a consequence, so I've quit ... something that I haven't done in version 1.0 for well over 18 months regardless of the situation.

How to fix the issue? Suggestions:

1. Each city should provide multiple types of resource. Currently the loss of one city means you can suddenly find yourself without any, say, food supply ... virtually destroying any chance of recovery.

2. Treat the current pace of the game as x2 speed, offering an option for a slower paced game for those, like me, who have busy lives and aren't available to play CoW at the faster pace (even though we might like it while on-line).

3. As previous threads have noted, the starting resources need to be much greater to enable proper defences to be built early to deter would be attackers. It's no good researching level 2 anti-tank guns if you don't have the resources to build the factories and units where you need them.

If I think of any more suggestions, I'll post them later.

Now to come back from talking about the weather to talking about CoW 1.5.

I missed joining the event (because the sentence warning that the timeframe to sign up is very limited was only the very last sentence of three long news articles - so when I read it, it was too late). So I can now hardly talk about details, but only about the obvious:

The features of units (damage output, hit points, speed, terrain bonus/malus) in current CoW are very well set. They are extremely well balanced from gameplay perspective and with only three major exceptions also realistic. For anyone interested I list the three flaws I'm thinking of:

Apart of that, the only bad thing about unit balancing in current CoW is that units automatically upgrade the moment a higher level is researched - a thing I complain about since more than two years - see for example --> my latest post on this <--. Which is not only unrealistic, but also causes current CoW players to choose a few units at the beginning and then to hyperfocus only on these.

Now instead of just fixing that, you changed all unit values. This

* First of all makes CoW 1.5 a fantasy game without any contact to realism. Just to name one irrational aspect (I know for example @OneNutSquirrel already pointed it out, but please also check my description If I got it right, a level 6 unit in CoW 1.5 has roughly 6 times as much HP as a level 1 unit and 6 times the damage output. Which makes it 36 times as powerful. I.e. one level 6 unit has a 50% chance to defeat a stack of 36 level 1 units of same type (even higher chance taking into consideration that the level 1 units are more likely to scratch SBDE limits). That's like saying a 1950 soldier has a 50% chance to defeat 36 soldiers from 1932. Or a 1950 artillery batallion having a 50% chance in a duel with 36 artillery batallions from 1932. We all know that's nonsense. Similarly, higher production and upkeep costs for modern technology are nonsense.

* Secondly an even, steady progression for all values of all units is horribly boring. In order to challenge players' brains with hard choices, units must be difficult to compare. There must be irregularities, edges and asymmetries - otherwise you know the right choice after an hour and will follow it at any moment and in any game to come. Or see it this way: Looking at the unit values in current CoW is like looking at an oil painting of a landscape. It resembles reality at an adequate level of abstraction and is beautiful. You can look at it every day for years and still find it amazing, still notice details that appear differently seen from a different angle or in a different situation. Compared to that, llooking at unit values in CoW 1.5 is like looking at a sheet of squared paper. It's completely symmetric and perfect, but fully artificial. Doesn't resemble reality at all and is not beautiful. After a second you know the whole story and don't want to look at it again. Which explains why some people hang up oil paintings in their living room, but nobody puts a sheet of squared paper in a frame and hangs it on his living room wall. So now you know why some people like to play current CoW, but nobody except for a few blessed players will like CoW 1.5.

Conclusion: You should either

* revert all unit value changes in CoW 1.5 and remove the increase in production and upkeep costs. Only keep up the change that unit levels don't upgrade automatically. You'll see that alone solves all major balancing issues that current CoW has.

Then we can talk about the rest that's included in CoW 1.5.

Or

* completely drop CoW 1.5. Don't waste more time with it. There are enough good proposals in the forum on how to improve and perfection current CoW. Work on some of these instead!

Sherman Firefly wrote:

Changing unit and building features is simply a matter of learning the new parameters and adapting your strategy to suit.

Playable means for me:

- fun

- realistic WW2 simulation

- well balanced units and other thought through game mechanics

- freedom of choice to shape your country, country management, army development and military campaign.

Guess what, Pokemon-CoW at least for now is not offering that.

It however demands non-HC players to be more and über-proportionally online.

Is pretty much unrealistic, going as far as infuriating Herr Rommel and Guderian so much that they even called from 'The Other Side'.

Its units are out of whack, perform unrealistic roles or are unable to perform realistic roles.

It offers no freedom of choice whatsoever and is limited to simple choices like 'Attack or Cocconing?' and forces you to build what is prescribed.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Dinkleburg441 wrote:

Kinda have a mixed opinion about the update so far

You positives:- Faster early game <= ONLY IF ATTACKING. For the cocooning bubble builders it is extremely slow.

- Specialized cities, allows for more advanced strategic planning <= COULD IT BE WE ARE TESTING A DIFFERENT GAME EACH? I looked hard, but there is nothing advanced or strategic about it. You can't do anything else but develop 1 city 1 way and the other the other way. There is NO planning and NO strategy involved IMO, because there is NO CHOICE. Could you please elaborate on the STRATEGIC and ADVANCED elements of you statements, because I feel extremely dumb right now that I completely missed that?

- Combat as a whole is a lot easier to understand and faster in general <= Right... we must really be playing different versions! Faster battle resolution yes, simply because of the 30min battle-tick...

But easier??? No way... Unit stats out of whack, roles being dreamed up for units which have no link to reality, etc.

yes, ofc, if you just produce a lot of tanks and go bumbling around the map....that is easy. But it is NOT easier to come up with a good army composition and have a consistently good army.

- Buildings seem a little more complex than they need to be, despite the added strategy. <= Uhh... more complex? I would say super simplified. This for that and Those for the other. No need to think, no choice, not efficient, not fun, but complex??? The opposite, IMO.

I think it's a well known fact about Call of War that if you aren't attacking or preparing to attack you are at a fairly big disadvantage. Obviously attacking until you are out of units and resources isn't a good idea but cocooning is also generally a bad strategy. Besides, turtling isn't that slow vs pre-1.5 in my opinion.

Combat in this version is a little easier to understand because it just seems a little more obvious on what's going on. Condition is calculated in a different way and SBDE makes a little more sense where the total count of units in the army decreases it vs the amount of a same type of unit.

When it comes to industrial planning what I mean is that you usually have to dedicate a few cities to a certain type of unit. The first few levels of buildings are pretty easy and quick to make but as you get higher in the chain buildings become more costly both in terms of resources and time needed. What this ends up doing is you tend to making one city dedicated to a building chain, since you also need a higher level of building to make higher level units (which is quite emphasized in this version). This also carries it's own questions, if you want to make a strong navy but most of your cities are coastal you have to choose if you want to sacrifice your ground or air capability to get a navy out faster for example.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

completely drop CoW 1.5. Don't waste more time with it.

S1 already exists and many things which are horridly distorting the game in Pokemon-CoW fit absolutely into S1.

Further, S1 sports a number of innovations and though in its core it resembles The Real CoW a bit, it definitely is a different game, which has to be played differently.

And - because it is a different game - that is not a problem, but an asset.

Time would be better spend on:

- fixing issues in CoW, increasing customer satisfaction and therewith pushing sales up from happy customers and allowing you to increase the price of HC (provided you revert the Fire Settings; w/o the old 'Agressive', it loses half its value)

- make S1 better, develop more map concepts (The Great War is somewhat boring, but Flanders Front was very interesting bc of its very interesting concept; played it 4 times before my rank went to high)

But creating a half-wit compromise between S1 and CoW... pls don't.

As said, this Pokemon-CoW compromise misses the attractions of both Cow ánd those of S1.

Last Warrior wrote:

we should get CoW version 1.0, version 1.5, version 1.0 weather edition, version 1.5 weather edition, version hardcore with high reality feeling of taktiks, economical and otherwise suppose, version kids rule with big red bottom win the game and version mods are gods and ban every one.

You like the original? Fine, play the original version.

You like Pokemon (lol)? Play version 1.5.

You like and want to play more realism and understand that life is unfair, go play weather edition.

You like Pokemon with weather nerfs (too much lol), play 1.5 weather edition.

You dreamt of becoming a General and want to practice your skills before following the orders from your cadet officer of 100 push-ups for playing too much COW? Play hardcore version.

In my opinion, COW 1.5 must be treated as a different game; or rename it (as a different game) COW ENHANCED edition or something. Just don't remove the original version, is what i'm saying.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Torpedo28000 wrote:

rushes in this version will be less successful

Wrong.

Attackers only need to concentrate some forces and thus easily overpower any spread out defense. Did it before my Arty came out of the factories and wiped Yugo off of the map (well 90% of it) with 3 concentrated groups of the initially given troops.

The immense benefit:

- significantly increased manpower INSTANTLY

- idem for resources, but starting moral of province ofc 25%, so instantly a good increase and day 2-3-4 the big bonus.

Immediately attacking is the only solution to the resource, manpower and cash crunch at the beginning.

Continuously attacking is the only solution to the ever worse manpower and resource situation.

Only when you become big, resource, cash and manpower issues are resolved.... Unless you buy with gold ofc.

- The increase in income from attacking can impossibly be generated with IC building on your own provinces.

- Same or even more so for manpower: IC level 5 on my best core gives 300 extra manpower, but costs 3600 men...; 4 useless enemy provinces do the same and cost nothing.

- The increase in resources becomes enormous after moral has restored a bit in conquered provinces and costs nothing, whereas building IC's for that purpose rob you of resources, cash and manpower, needed for research and the war industry.

Pokemon-CoW simply favors attack. On the side it offers an option to first develop and then burst out of your bubble, but only to those who have not yet been destroyed. A pure gamble. Not strategy.

The necessity of taking land early I am not denying but rather its feasibility, I am the kind of player who normally rushes out day 1 to take more land. Taking more land is crucial and since it is a war game the bigger you get the stronger. But every player will be in the SAME boat day 1 in terms of resources. Yes manpower is too low, and its cost for building stuff is too high. But attacking and gaining land has always been important in version 1 or 1.5

If day 1 rushing was SOOO powerful why is it that you

_Pontus_ wrote:

Attacked Yugo end of day 3.

Your statement about how "Attackers only need to concentrate some forces and thus easily overpower any spread out defense." is true for every game in version 1 and 1.5. If your going to say rushing is too strong because you can just concentrate troops and go in, well that is the case in version 1 and in fact easier and more powerful given infantry lvl 1 has 2 attack and 3 defence whereas in 1.5 it has 5 attack and 10 defence. So no, day 1 rushes are not stronger in 1.5.

Furthermore, if you going to say that simply sending in larger stacks to attack dispersed attackers is too strong well then the only reason the enemy had dispersed troops was 1, they where inactive and did not move their troops well, or 2, they were defending multiple fronts and then ofc their troops were less concentrated. But if you are trying to say that day 1, the attacker is stronger in a 1v1 then you are crazy. If your enemy is decent at all, they will have their defensive stacks in concentrated groups and move to counter you moving in and win. If you are about to complain to say that because the attacker can get troops faster well so too can the defender, arty, AT, AA, what ever troop the attacker brings so too can the defender, the only difference is defender can bring troops to the front closer and has the core and defence bonus. Sure LT are better at attacking, but AT is still cheaper and stronger vs LT.

The 2x better defence stacks plus the 15% core bonus make defence early game MUCH stronger than attacking.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Pokemon-CoW simply favors attack. On the side it offers an option to first develop and then burst out of your bubble, but only to those who have not yet been destroyed. A pure gamble. Not strategy.

Your attack into yugo was versing a player either inactive, facing multiple fronts or plain lacked skill as otherwise they would have concentrated up their troops and not had them dispersed.

I understand you do not like this update, and that is your right and to voice your opinion to continue to make CoW a better game, but please be a little more realistic with your responses as your 1 experience of beating some likely inexperienced player does not mean all of a sudden attacking is too powerful. Yes it is a gamble to attack early, but every attack always is a gamble, and it is a strategy to attack early, just not a good one.

Also I have no idea what you are meaning by "Pokemon CoW". What do you mean by this?

MikiRaine wrote:

_Pontus_ wrote:

Torpedo28000 wrote:

MikiRaine wrote:

please add weather system in COW 1.5.

I have no problem if the air units is OP but if we have weather system (air units cannot be deployed due to bad weather, ineffiecient tanks due to autumn rains, inefficient infantry units due to cold winter), maybe, just maybe, the game will improve much and the weather system will provide more variables for balancing...

Personally I hope we never get weather or anything like it, and if the devs are working on it they immediately cancel it lol. Here is why:

If we get weather for planes, we should also get mud for the tanks, blazing heat for the infantry and for instance freezing ice-drizzle on the artillery....Probably there could be tech to develop to counter this anyway: research wider tracks and so forth.

But don't worry. Even if it would make for a great simulation of reality, this is exactly the opposite direction of where we are going with 1.5 or better: Pokemon-CoW.

Yes yes. It will be fun. Different weather, different challenges. Attackers won't just blindly point and click attack - predictably would win - against a country, which its only hope the attacker would go afk someday hohoho. The attacker would consider weather, or mud, or drizzly ice before going to an attack. Well i am only a new player seeing there will be more improvement in this game, enthusiastically, but who am i? Still no one will care... except for you buddy Pontus hohoho

still lmao in Pokemon-COW

Torpedo,

I agree with you.

I have been testing old style rushing and rapid maneuver like how I used to play in the original Call of War.

- Faster unit combat means units die faster. They cannot hold their own long enough for reinforcements to arrive in singles. This negates a lot of earlier game rushing strategies.

- Faster unit production time means you can't even rush as effectively as while the opponent has some resources, they can quickly recover. This counts against early gain rushes. The defender has the higher tempo here. The attacker does not.

- You cannot setup new production centers outside of Urbans and try to spend all your early resources on producing more units. You are limited - So by simply rushing early, you are losing tempo now while the enemy can stack their units, have a massive defensive bonus not counting the 15% home defender bonus - And then add forts onto the mix. Even a slightly upgraded unit in lower numbers will not do the trick.

- The Stock Market is no longer a viable option to try to even attempt the above or consistent unit production.

- Units usually still have a pretty decent distance to go. It's not about even coming at the opponent with 2/3 force now. I have been testing rushing with Light Tanks and infantry - I have been having some infantry unit shredded when sent to fight light tanks in Urbans, one on one or a tiny bit higher. If you attempt something like a break through, then send the remnants of your shredded early game army to your opponent and he remains on the defensive - Your army will be killed quite quickly.

- Counting forts, it's quick a nightmare for the attacker.

- Taking land is important. But most territory in the game is just useless empty land outside of Urbans. Yes it can boost money production and manpower - But it will take several days for that to have any noticeable effect. And said effect is much lower compared to earlier versions of the game. Putting it quite simple, the greatest resource a player has is now keeping as many units as they can.

"The 2x better defence stacks plus the 15% core bonus make defence early game MUCH stronger than attacking."

This simply means a better early game strategy is to sit, turtle, fort up, and try to upgrade units. The problem with this is that you run out of manpower/resources faster which throws your tempo off. But the opponent is in the same boat. So the loser can be the person that attacks first. It sets up the game to be a micro battle of trying to micro your forces to get the defender bonus. If facing a less experienced player, you could draw him into empty territory - Considering territory by itself is less valuable than Urbans.

"The defence is actually stronger than the attack, between the defender and attacker, the defender will win if equal skill and activity."

100%. I'd tweak this and say the defender can actually afford to be less active and still hold a greater advantage.

It's less than this - As considering territory by itself is less valuable and you can live without it short to mid term, you can easily shrink up your front as a larger country and kill a attacker more easily. If they want to hold onto the territory after a first rush and then try to fort it up, then things change a little bit. But provided they both run out of resources nearly at the same time, the defender will still have a tempo ahead of the attacker. Then I suppose spy bombs could be somewhat more effective than in the previous game, but less so as a 1v1 or FFA game and more of as a alliance game note.

Forts are far more effective as well, something that I have been testing. And repeated rushing or early game attacks don't do so well. Even though unit combat is faster, along with production time, more efficient play is probably slowing things down yourself and not attacking as much.

Pretty much the entire game - Statistics, resource shortages, territory, forts - Everything forces a defensive style play. It's reminding me of some ways of older style Supremacy a lot.

So with optimal play with people with equal territory/units//activity/etc, the advantage will usually always go to the defender.

Edit: Artillery are apparently decentish. So early game forces you to prob mass build artillery, then stack them behind your stacks while attacking.

Edit 2: Even though unit/production time is faster, the game is actually slower than before.

Optimal play seems to be: Spam Infantry and maybe a LT or two. Don't waste resources on other units. Fort up at chokepoints. Rush to artillery ASAP. Once get arty, advance/shoot n scoot. If have planes, try the delay trick/patrol tricks. If the opponent early game rushes, kill it, then advance slowly while building up arty and slowly advancing. Rushing will get your units killed, while very slow and steady like in SP1914 will win the race.

Alliance optimal play will just be finding out optimal build and construction queues for countries. Rush to arty and mass. Spy bomb opponents fort production if possible. Hold chokepoints and advance.

Edit: "The thing with SP1914 is that you auto generated units on a daily basis, so it was somewhat evened out. Since you can't even do that here, which is NOT a refinded CoW 2.0 model but rather more akin to a replica of SP1914 right now with wacky mechanics so far, it throws a lot of things out of wack and encourages defensive play even more."

Day 7 as Romania...errr Greater Romania...or ... Very Great Romania?

Day 6 I proclaimed I had won the map; today I confirm that is definitely so.

Need to mop-up the points and some players, but that is it.

Romania owns Yugo, Poland, Bulgaria, exactly half of Turkey and half of Greece.

Now on the way to take the German possessions of Poland, tomorrow you can add Germany to the list.

Might take Albania and remainders of Greece too.

Resources very much okay now, though I still can't mage to save up 3600 men for a my first level 5 IC.

83 provs, 180 V-points, K/D overal 10:1, except vs Poland how gave me a run for my money Thanks for the fight!

Grain 528

Goods 584

Manpower 946

Metal 514

Oil 663

Rares 505

Income 2496

Notably the main constraint remains manpower; 2nd after that goods.

Cash being a good 3rd, but can be resolved with selling some res.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

And not on day 1?

I thus attacked Yugo day 3 with the given army, as I had not yet produced units (I think arty was still 2-3hrs until finished).

Arty thus followed the attack groups, but never caught up until my troops reached the Adriatic Coast.

So ...yes....worse even: 3 concentrated groups of given troops suffice to kill a normal player with spread def even on day 3.

But I guess you still defend borders in CoW too?

And did this player build up any troops/move his troops around? If you just look at troops stats you can see that in 1.5 infantry is better at defending comparatively to version 1. Im not denying what your saying, just not sure what your point is if your saying attacking early is too strong so 1.5 sucks when 1.5 defending is stronger.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Day 7 as Romania...errr Greater Romania...or ... Very Great Romania?

Day 6 I proclaimed I had won the map; today I confirm that is definitely so.

Need to mop-up the points and some players, but that is it.

Romania owns Yugo, Poland, Bulgaria, exactly half of Turkey and half of Greece.

Now on the way to take the German possessions of Poland, tomorrow you can add Germany to the list.

Might take Albania and remainders of Greece too.

Resources very much okay now, though I still can't mage to save up 3600 men for a my first level 5 IC.

83 provs, 180 V-points, K/D overal 10:1, except vs Poland how gave me a run for my money Thanks for the fight!

Grain 528

Goods 584

Manpower 946

Metal 514

Oil 663

Rares 505

Income 2496

Notably the main constraint remains manpower; 2nd after that goods.

Cash being a good 3rd, but can be resolved with selling some res.

Manpower is the thing that is limiting me too badly, no manpower to upgrade troops, build troops or build buildings.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Day 7 as Romania...errr Greater Romania...or ... Very Great Romania?

Day 6 I proclaimed I had won the map; today I confirm that is definitely so.

Need to mop-up the points and some players, but that is it.

Romania owns Yugo, Poland, Bulgaria, exactly half of Turkey and half of Greece.

Now on the way to take the German possessions of Poland, tomorrow you can add Germany to the list.

Might take Albania and remainders of Greece too.

Resources very much okay now, though I still can't mage to save up 3600 men for a my first level 5 IC.

83 provs, 180 V-points, K/D overal 10:1, except vs Poland how gave me a run for my money Thanks for the fight!

Grain 528

Goods 584

Manpower 946

Metal 514

Oil 663

Rares 505

Income 2496

Notably the main constraint remains manpower; 2nd after that goods.

Cash being a good 3rd, but can be resolved with selling some res.

Grain 559, goods 609, manpower 980, metal 555, oil 427, rares 461, cash 2442.

I could have 50 v points and 20 prov more, but 1 enemy changed sides after crashgifgts and i took him as inferior member.

But i repeat it, early rush CAN be good, not must.

In other round, i turtled in CON artofwar only in corecities. And forced my neighbpurs attack me, even they did not wanted do it. They came and died. Day 7.

64 prov, 150 v. points. 20% lower ressourses, then with my rush taktik. Bt still top 3 on the map.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

And did this player build up any troops/move his troops around? If you just look at troops stats you can see that in 1.5 infantry is better at defending comparatively to version 1. Im not denying what your saying, just not sure what your point is if your saying attacking early is too strong so 1.5 sucks when 1.5 defending is stronger.

Day 2 gifts you doubling defencive stats, also few new recruited troops can repell not accumulated rasher, while you self can steamroll with accumulated stack.

Sure it work only if one conflict side is superior over other side, mean more online time or more experience. Or more diplomatic skills or mor luck and safe backyard. I that way there are no differences to classik CoW.

Last Warrior wrote:

Torpedo28000 wrote:

And did this player build up any troops/move his troops around? If you just look at troops stats you can see that in 1.5 infantry is better at defending comparatively to version 1. Im not denying what your saying, just not sure what your point is if your saying attacking early is too strong so 1.5 sucks when 1.5 defending is stronger.

new SBDE make doomstacks possible, new short recruiting times and strong defensive stats, make you possible build up 1 doomstack or several invasionsstacks and rushing, while new recruiting troops can safe defend your homeland.Day 2 gifts you doubling defencive stats, also few new recruited troops can repell not accumulated rasher, while you self can steamroll with accumulated stack.

Sure it work only if one conflict side is superior over other side, mean more online time or more experience. Or more diplomatic skills or mor luck and safe backyard. I that way there are no differences to classik CoW.

I think waiting until day 3-4 (2-3 if lvl 2 troops come later) Will be generally the safer and better bet as of the current system. Losses in this first rush engagement would be super high (higher than now as inf better at defence, regardless of who is right about rushes) leaving you very exposed to a third party hitting you.

But whether you see it my way now or not is a nice thing about CoW. Each player has their own strategy.

@Torpedo28000 please read right. I wrote in that kind of taktiks, rusher vs deffer, actives vs inactives. There are no differences to klassik CoW. And i wrote rush CAN be succesfull, not must be. Also i mean pontus is right about rushing, but he forget it was already same thing in classik cow. You can rush only if your neghbours let you do. And your neighbours can rush you only if you let them do.

My apologies, I did not read it that way.

I am fairly new to this game and its possible others have already commented on this. So apologies if this is just reiterating what someone might have already stated.

Observations about 1.5 CoW so far:

1) Feels like air strategy (which is what I tend to prefer) is someone inhibited with the new changes. If you invest early on planes you will also have to invest early on lots of airstrips since your existing planes wont upgrade as you research level up nor will their ranges. The cost of all these closer airstrips places you at a serious disadvantage on land since so much of your resources are going towards extra airstrips. In WW2, air strategy was center stage from the onset of the war, in this game you almost have to wait til you have research leveled up planes to max before making the investment.

2) Really dislike the need for all these extra building to build units. Sort of the same problem as with planes. once you invest in building higher level tank plants for example and then advance you have to invest again in building them closer to the front lines. Just the number of building required is greater than I would prefer.

3) Something about the battle computation seems odd to me. Not sure yet if I prefer it or not, maybe just need to get use to it. For example, seems like it you could inflict lots of damage on a stack of tanks and the stack before the stack loses even a single tank. I guess this can go both ways so not sure yet if I like it or not, just not use to it.

4) Just feels like not having research levels improve existing troops slows down the pace of the game and makes your early investments on units wasteful. Sometime your earliest troops will endure for the full span of the game thanks to researching levels up. Now you'll be replenishing troops more or even hoping they are killed off so you can replace them with higher level troops so you dont have to suffer the plenty of upkeeping lower level units.

Overall, I would say I am sort of OK with the changes. Like someone above stated, its just new parameters of the game one needs to get use to but maybe I dont have the history with the game that others have. The one 1.5 feature I really dont like is the researching levels not affecting existing units.

However, my biggest complaint of this game has little to do with 1.5 changes (though it seems like it exasperates it) and that is the issue of game speed. I much prefer the faster speed worlds. I get impatient with 1 day marches of troops hahaha.. I much rather play hard and fast for a week and then take weeks off than play slow for months but I digress.