Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

CzarHelllios wrote:

For most of the people in this thread, when Bytro does the next event-test, we should try to be online at the same time and join the same game. Setup a Discord group and coordinate starting then.

IMO that is the wrong signal to Bytro, because it reinforces the idea that the core of the problem (= a game born of a compromise between 2 good games, but not having any of the attractions of either nor sporting any of its own) can be tweaked away. It can't, though....

Anyone who loves CoW (is most of the peole in this thread) should stop discussing details and tweakable issues and start focusing on the real issues at hand:

- what does CoW 1.5 bring to the table that is in any way improving on CoW 1.0?

- what does CoW 1.5 bring to the table which is not already done by Supremacy 1?

And if the outcome of those questions is positive for CoW 1.5, I shall gladly bow to the majority, because I know I am but 1 player. Something leads me to believe, however, that this will not be the case.

The thing for Bytro isn't to discuss the details of a misconceived compromise, but do as Blackragon77 wrote:

blackdragon77 wrote:

you took all the ideas that made this game so compelling and deep and threw them away. please dont do this.

....Please don't do this!

(unless it is going to make you rich for sure. I wouldn't want to be in the way of that. But for now it smells like 'New Coke')

CzarHelllios wrote:

For most of the people in this thread, when Bytro does the next event-test, we should try to be online at the same time and join the same game. Setup a Discord group and coordinate starting then.

I'm sorry, these aren't the old days, even the old days weren't the old days, Bytro has a direction to go and they are going to go in that direction come hell or high water! This is a known factor. This "test" phase is a rare exception to acclimate the players to the new direction they are going in... just because they asked for input, and might actually take it into account, doesn't change the under current that this is a direction Bytro is going in - like it or not.

Hell, I could be wrong. It could be a sign Bytro, as game producers, have finally matured into accepting player input, I hear it can happen.

I think freezy said something about not inputting Call of War1.5 in to all ongoing games. But I am thinking if you can create games with 1.5 and with the normal one. Or create a new game. callofwar1.5.com. etc.

Alphared wrote:

CzarHelllios wrote:

For most of the people in this thread, when Bytro does the next event-test, we should try to be online at the same time and join the same game. Setup a Discord group and coordinate starting then.

And do you honestly believe that players having a discord would do anything (but perhaps massage the ego of the players) to change Bytro's minds on anything? You (as well as I) have been around here long enough to know this.

I'm sorry, these aren't the old days, even the old days weren't the old days, Bytro has a direction to go and they are going to go in that direction come hell or high water! This is a known factor. This "test" phase is a rare exception to acclimate the players to the new direction they are going in... just because they asked for input, and might actually take it into account, doesn't change the under current that this is a direction Bytro is going in - like it or not.

Hell, I could be wrong. It could be a sign Bytro, as game producers, have finally matured into accepting player input, I hear it can happen.

.

CzarHelllios wrote:

Alphared wrote:

@_Pontus_

Also, You haven't been around that much longer then me, to be honest... I remember you by name from S1914 beta. But, I also won't be continuing once 1.5 is the only established version... I simply not willing to attempt to compete with always connected mobile players who get all the speed buffs needed to keep them interested - from my Desktop set up. It was bad enough competing with children that have skies the limit credit cards, and no understanding of compound interest. AND, there is, and never was, a way to get Bytro to truly understand the concerns of the loyal players, once they have made up their minds.

CzarHelllios wrote:

Though if they do genuinely have a intention to create a much better game and this is just a pretty rough draft, I'd be pretty happy if they proved me wrong in a years worth of time. From what I'm hearing privately, this is not the case and things are worse than I thought. After a few private discussions and some things I found out, I'm just going to permanently retire this time around and move back on to BICE and HOI4 Kaiserriech. I can't even sort of play casually with old friends every few days once a year when we/they all quit. A few entire communities I used to be in all finally left Bytro Games in the past week and tonight, and another one just unraveled.

2nd: the above sounds as gloomy as my worst thoughts of were all this was going. Hearing an echo of my thoughts from you, a true and knowledgeable Bytro games veteran, is precisely NOT what I wanted to get as feed-back. But apparently it is indeed going to go downhill from here, as I feared.

CzarHelllios wrote:

It's been a bloody interesting run for the past thirteen years.

The game I was in before Bytro's brilliant S1914, died because of lacking security and was literally 'hacked' to pieces by a bunch of British internet hooligans. That was a sad story.

Then I stumbled on S1914, after it had won a prize for Best Strategy MMO (Bytro won it in 2009?) and found a truly good strategy game which I loved to play. Then CoW from the same publisher, which I also loved.

Now that is over too. Not by external causes, though, but by self-mutilation. An even sadder story!

Hence my frustrated anger and hapless and hopeless attempts to rally support for the protest.

If this Pokemon-CoW is going to be it, it will be the end for me too. So be it.

I know my wife is appreciating this a lot and contemplating sending flowers to Hamburg. Not because I will have more time.... She is Server Champion in a completely different game and expects me to come and help her... and now I won't have an excuse anymore. Thanks Bytro, but no thanks!

My feedback after reading the news articles and this cosy thread (missed the event signup timeframe

EXCELLENT:

* Units not upgrading automatically after new level is researched. This is both realistic and stops the need to hyperfocus on few units as in Current-CoW (which inhibits Current-CoW from reaching its full potential in terms of strategic diversity and - again - realism).

However, since additionally a progression in production costs, upkeep costs, production times and facility requirements was added, this positive effect is somewhat blurred. But basically it's a very good change.

* Rockets can also damage own units and no longer ignore fortresses. Finally!

However, it would still be better if you additionally reduce the damage they can do to units and instead increase their usability as strategic weapon (increase damage they do to morale of target province; decrease upkeep and research costs).

* Fortresses no longer giving a morale bonus. Finally!

GOOD:

* Commandos having stealth ability instead of being a strong frontline unit. I proposed that several times, so of course you get my thumbs up for it. Also giving AC level 3 and fighter the ability to reveal them is - in spite of not being 100% realistic - a good addition (sidenote: I hope AC, fighters and mot. infantry level 3 now don't reveal subs as well? That would be bad)!

However whenever I uttered the thought of giving Commandos stealth ability, I always added they may then no longer be able to conquer provinces (but should be able to damage unguarded buildings). That this wasn't implemented might be critical.

And what does "ignore defence bonus" mean? The homeland def bonus or fortress def bonus or both?

* Commandos and paratroopers moved to infantry tech tree.

* The new interpretation of rare materials as a resource required by all units and by planes some more. Appreciate that.

BAD:

* Almost only urban provinces giving resources: As Chimere already said - neither realistic, nor good for gameplay, nor for strategy.

* Nuclear ships gone because of "role conflicts" and not fitting into the CoW timeframe: Sad to see them go. I really liked them.

What "role conflicts" are you talking about?

Well, yes, they don't really fit in the timeframe, but with that they're in good company with nuclear rockets and level 2+ cruise missiles (while in contrast to them not doing any harm to gameplay). To me they were a very welcome addition to late game - of course provided they get back the dependency on having to research the highest level of oil-driven ship of respective type first.

* Each building having only one purpose. Pontus is right this decreases strategic depth in build decisions. It's OK you introduced production facilities for a single unit type. But these should come only as an addition to already existing industry. Industry and infrastructure must still serve both economic/civil and military purposes!

* Upkeep costs of buildings removed. Was that done to free players from the hassle of having to deactivate barracks and naval bases while not producing? A noble intention, but that could have been better achieved by changing the "deactivated" status to "deactivated while not producing". I.e. you can give production order also if barracks / naval base is set to that status, but as soon as production is finished, the building stops to consume resources (and to give its benefits).

* Morale malus from being at war removed + distance to capital malus increased + province upkeep costs removed. I strongly vote against these changes. Would take me long to fully explain, so let me now merely praise the moral malus from being at war: This was a good representation of war exhaustion amongst your population. It made you have to think twice before starting a war and it made it rewarding to finish off your enemy quickly - which requires skill. Without it, fighting AI will be even more boring than it is now, because you'll have all the time of the world. And there will be the practice of deliberately progressing slowly against AI, so you can capture the capital of the same nation X times. Also without it, you'll have to care even less about the popularity of your country, so that takes us away from the positive influence that Elite AI has on political dynamics on the map.

Note that in spite of this impediment to just blindly starting wars here and there, in 7 years of S1914 and CoW I've not seen a single static game with nobody daring to do the first move and to start the chain of war and reactions to it. Not a single match! So why this change?

* Reduction of melee battle tick to 30 minutes. Players who don't like the slow pace of classical CoW rounds already have speed rounds. This change only brings currently good relations out of whack.

* The new interpretation of manpower as workforce instead of men that can act as soldiers. I like that better in Current-CoW. So I propose to remove the manpower costs for buildings and research. Since that would leave only money as research costs, I would add low amounts of goods and rare materials to them. That wouldn't really harm realism and would break up the schema of every resource having the same relevance a bit. Every resource having the same relevance is too boring. Players should have to adapt the percentage of investments into research / unit production / economy according to which resources are available to them in which amounts.

* Morale bonus from unit production facilities. No need to comment on that.

* SBDE changed to 100% for stacks of <= 10 units of any type. Is no downturn to SBDE rules in Current-CoW, but still the wrong direction. I'll elaborate on this in my next post.

NO GO(!!!

* All changes to unit attack/def values and hit points (there is practically nothing wrong with these in Current-CoW!!), progression in unit costs, production times and production facility requirements for higher research levels:

All of that is completely unrealistic. This turns our beloved CoW into a fantasy game and we all know it can't compete with other fantasy games on the market.

You can't fix this with balancing changes in 2nd test iteration - if you do them right, you'll end up with unit values as in Current-CoW and no cost&production-requirements progression like in Current-CoW.

Already the underlying idea of squeezing units that are supposed to resemble real-life military and its technological progress into a mathematical, uniformly continuous schema is bad. You want new players to learn unit features easily? You achieved that. They now only need to look into research once, for an hour, then they know everything. After that it's boring - just build, don't think. But that was the fun part of the learning curve! Each unit and each level progression having it's own (realistic) character is the major fascination in current CoW.

Compare a woman with a brick wall: No woman is symmetric in all dimensions, no woman is easy to understand, many women aren't easy to handle (don't mean to insult the female minority here - hope you also get my point) and no woman is completely perfect. While a brick wall is symmetric in all dimensions, easy to understand, completely easy-care and yes, you can say it's perfect. Nevertheless, nobody wants to marry a brick wall (or do you?). Now Current-CoW is a beautiful lady and she won't bore you for a lifetime. While the unit and research schema of Supremacy1 is like a brick wall. Please leave Supremacy1 for the brick wall lovers, but don't lay that schema on CoW!!!

We don't want to play "Rock/paper/scissors online", but a WW2 strategy game.

No discussions on this point. Either revert that in the CoW 1.5 branch, or drop 1.5 completely.

When you are upgrading a production facility from lvl X to lvl X+1, it allows you to queue a level X+1 with HC, but it doesn't allow you to start a level X unit. Maybe this is a feature, but it sucks right now because I need to spam subs, but I can't make any there for 11 hours.

As freezy explained, attack/def stats and HP of units were changed to make sure that each unit has a clearly dedicated role. With the goal of making it a viable strategy to broadly research different units instead of hyperfocussing on a few. That's a noble purpose, which we all support.

But it can be achieved in a much more simple & better way and without needing to touch any unit stats:

1.: Don't let units automatically upgrade when higher level is researched. That's already done in CoW1.5, well so far.

2.: Make the Current-CoW SBDE system more strict.

The winner in a section of a WW2 frontline usually was the party that had

a) more troops in that section and

b) a broad variety of different kinds of troops there (combined arms approach).

The principle behind the Current-CoW SBDE system perfectly reflects that! Only issue is that the limits are set so high that they are hardly ever reached in CoW practice except by air stacks. They are are so high they allow you to form giant Napoleon-times doomstacks without the slightest penalty even if using only two or three different units - so for ground and naval units it's practically like there was no SBDE limitation in place.

Conclusion: Take Current-CoW SBDE system and just reduce the limits (left number how many units of same type can go in one stack at 100% SBDE at the moment -> right number how many that should be

air units: 5 -> 3.

AA: 11 (I think) -> 4.

infantry: 8 (I think, but me not knowing precisely shows it never plays a role so far) -> 3.

tanks: no idea (maybe a LT spammer can enlighten me) -> 30% of what it is now.

SPAA: no idea -> 40% of what it is now.

cruisers and BS: no idea -> 30% of what it is now.

destroyers: 8 (I think) -> 3.

subs: 8 (I think) -> 4 (should be reduced less than for destroyers, because for pure melee units SBDE matters more).

And so on.

The numbers are a draft, which would require a bit of balancing, but clearly not as much as CoW1.5 does.

Then count SBDE for each unit of respective type in the stack regardless of their research level. So for example two fighters level 4 can go in a stack at 100% SBDE together with one fighter level 3 - but together with two fighters level 3, the stack would get the first SBDE penalty.

With that, player's motivation to research many different units would be to be able to create big stacks without SBDE penalty. In a manner that's fully realistic, intuitive and good for gameplay.

We would see a frontline more often and less often doomstacks.

After implementing that, you could also allow unit trade again, because the superstack-exploit argument will be gone.

And best thing about it: You don't have to invent fantasy unit roles (as you plan to do in CoW1.5) to achieve the goal of diverse army compositions on the battlefield - fully open to all strategic approaches.

Bottom line: Please either do 1. and 2. in Current-CoW and close the CoW1.5 chapter as a well-intentioned, but failed attempt. Or do 2. in CoW1.5 and revert all changes that were done to unit combat values as well as progression in production costs, upkeep, production times and production facility requirements from old to modern technology levels... because all of that is humbug.

This is a desperate call from someone who loves the beautifully, realistically and simply well designed unit tree in Current-CoW and who wants to save it.

@freezy / @Ibeses I'm waiting for your response.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

My feedback after reading the news articles and this cosy thread (missed the event signup timeframe

EXCELLENT:

* Units not upgrading automatically after new level is researched. This is both realistic and stops the need to hyperfocus on few units as in Current-CoW (which inhibits Current-CoW from reaching its full potential in terms of strategic diversity and - again - realism).

However, since additionally a progression in production costs, upkeep costs, production times and facility requirements was added, this positive effect is somewhat blurred. But basically it's a very good change.

Don't forget, that manuell upgrade will be implemented next test run.

Bad thing, upkeep for high level units is same, like for lowlevel units.

* Rockets can also damage own units and no longer ignore fortresses. Finally!

However, it would still be better if you additionally reduce the damage they can do to units and instead increase their usability as strategic weapon (increase damage they do to morale of target province; decrease upkeep and research costs).

Don't forget rockets are now mostly specializided for building damage and not for unit destroying.

* Fortresses no longer giving a morale bonus. Finally!

dont think that is exellent. It is ok, or even pity about it.

GOOD:

* Commandos having stealth ability instead of being a strong frontline unit. I proposed that several times, so of course you get my thumbs up for it. Also giving AC level 3 and fighter the ability to reveal them is - in spite of not being 100% realistic - a good addition (sidenote: I hope AC, fighters and mot. infantry level 3 now don't reveal subs as well? That would be bad)!

However whenever I uttered the thought of giving Commandos stealth ability, I always added they may then no longer be able to conquer provinces (but should be able to damage unguarded buildings). That this wasn't implemented might be critical.

And what does "ignore defence bonus" mean? The homeland def bonus or fortress def bonus or both?

both. that's why they get so "weak" fight stats. they would be overpowered with stats weaker then infantry.

* Commandos and paratroopers moved to infantry tech tree.

+

* The new interpretation of rare materials as a resource required by all units and by planes some more. Appreciate that.

++

BAD:

* Almost only urban provinces giving resources: As Chimere already said - neither realistic, nor good for gameplay, nor for strategy.

It is not realisitc, but it had to be changed because of huge amount ofnew buildings. So you have less provinces, where you need to build up. You can save ressources. And cumulated ressource in cities has better roi (return of investments) then distibuted on every province or even on.

It is good for strategy. Player have a choice defend whole country or only few core cities. Player have a choice, attack enemy and annex whole country, or cumulate attack on single core city and weak enemy as much, he is not danger any more. Single core city lost, mean 75% ressources of one kind are gone.

Production is stopped, or enemy forced change productionsline, change weapons. Or using market.

Or, did i said using marcet? Embargoes from AI are now more important. "right" art of war is now more important.

* Nuclear ships gone because of "role conflicts" and not fitting into the CoW timeframe: Sad to see them go. I really liked them.

I miss them, but it is ok. And they were really not from timeline CoW used to be.

* Each building having only one purpose. Pontus is right this decreases strategic depth in build decisions. It's OK you introduced production facilities for a single unit type. But these should come only as an addition to already existing industry. Industry and infrastructure must still serve both economic/civil and military purposes!

* Upkeep costs of buildings removed.

Since we have so much new buildings, it was only way to keep game playeble. It is good change.

* Morale malus from being at war removed + distance to capital malus increased + province upkeep costs removed. I strongly vote against these changes.

Yes. It is terrible change. It done for impatient new players. But it is ok. If we get more new players because of this changes.

* Reduction of melee battle tick to 30 minutes. Players who don't like the slow pace of classical CoW rounds already have speed rounds. This change only brings currently good relations out of whack.

Yes. It is terrible change. It done for impatient new players. But it is ok. If we get more new players because of this changes.

* The new interpretation of manpower as workforce instead of men that can act as soldiers. I like that better in Current-CoW. So I propose to remove the manpower costs for buildings and research.

No. It is good change and realisitic one.

* Morale bonus from unit production facilities. No need to comment on that.

Since moralbonus is so low for each level, and since moral penalties for distance from capitol a little bit high, it was necessary. It is good change also in look at new buildings and new moral penalties

And it is realistic: new factory, new jobs, less unempoyed.

* SBDE changed to 100% for stacks of <= 10 units of any type. Is no downturn to SBDE rules in Current-CoW, but still the wrong direction. I'll elaborate on this in my next post.

It is bad, but it is ok, since huge ammount of units has high defensive stats.

And new SBDE is broken, it is announced for 10 units and cap by 20, no. It is broken. Even 25 units same kind in 40 units stack has efficience 100%. Really weird. But it wiil be fixed to announced 10/20. Or even completly new SBDE with middle stats of old and new version.

NO GO(!!!

* All changes to unit attack/def values and hit points (there is practically nothing wrong with these in Current-CoW!!), progression in unit costs, production times and production facility requirements for higher research levels:

You are so wrong. It is one of best changes. It force players take care on attack. It open more facilities for diferent strategies.

All of that is completely unrealistic. This turns our beloved CoW into a fantasy game and we all know it can't compete with other fantasy games on the market.

And again: completly wrong. You misunderstood, what research and replaceing with new troops mean.

It mean new generation of troops, new training methodes, new formations, new weapons, new equipements, new taktiks. Even new personal morality of single soldier.

Generation of infantry 1932 are recruits while economic crisis, that were unemplyed, unskilled, uneducated rabble, with old weapons and low moral.

Infantry of 1942 is have already better firearms, better equipements, better fight moral.

Last generation is already almoast origin of modern infantry. And full indocrinated. Highest readyness to fight enemies. Best equipement, better aids, better support.

It is very realistic.

You can't fix this with balancing changes in 2nd test iteration - if you do them right,

There is nothing to fix. Only reballancing some units. (seatransports any way)

We don't want to play "Rock/paper/scissors online", but a WW2 strategy game.

No discussions on this point. Either revert that in the CoW 1.5 branch, or drop 1.5 completely.

It is your dicision, what to play. But believe me, you did not understand CoW 2015, nor Cow 2019 (really bad one), neither CoW version 1.5

freezy wrote:

Trading changes: We are currently discussing about changing the part which received the biggest criticism, changes resource trades outside of coalitions.

Never was more happy to read anything related to CoW. That means there's hope. Fingers crossed.

To anyone who's about to lose hope - @atreas1, @_Pontus_, @CzarHelllios and all the others: Don't go for good yet. Please at least keep reading the News announcements. We might get a good game back, in the end.

Thanks for your opinion, @f118.

I want to reply only to your last remark:

f118 wrote:

believe me, you did not understand CoW 2015, nor Cow 2019 (really bad one), neither CoW version 1.5

P.S.: All achieved without buying a single coin of gold, HC only. And while always treating others fairly, which is the only reason why I didn't win all games - sometimes allowed an ally to keep 1st place in spite of being much weaker.

P.P.S.: One more single win as good as added as soon as my currently running CoW 2019 round is over. Strange for somebody with no understanding of the game.

P.P.P.S.: What's your player name, by the way? Just curious.

A major practical issue with the different unit levels is that it becomes very difficult to locate and keep track of your newer higher level units when you have a large army. Perhaps some visual difference is the only solution, but it seems like a problem as is. It's sort of an unnecessary pain in the neck.

Day 10, starting to see more and more drop outs in all three games.

A few got wiped out, but many were active, having some success, and were NOT low level players.

They just quit.

Only one had the courtesy to drop a line:

"This is boring, take my resources, I am quitting this game."

Also starting to see more use of the super strong sea transport exploit.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

If you say so, please look up my stats.

I mean not game mechanic. You could be ace of game mechanic and nevertheless dont understand how realisitc CoW was, is, and will be. Behind simple numbers is kripted imprint of history.

Cow 2015-2017 was more realisitc than CoW 2019, CoW version 1.5 is already more realistic than CoW 2015 (except some failure like seatransports)

P.S. even seatransport could be easy fixed: seatransport should get own SBDE efficience algorithm.

After losing 20% HP droping to 50% efficience, after losing 50% droping to 20% after losing 75% HP droping to 1%

It could mean convoy are defended by corvettes and fregates. Corvettes are anti submarines, and two fregates are +- equal to single destroyer same generation. That would explain why convoy are so strong. But with new algorithm of SBDE explicit for convoy, they would not be overpowered. It would be realisitic, in naval battle vs convoy first sunk escortships. (also first 20% HP's) After that fighting transport ships, but they aren't armored and lose efficience quickly. (70% to 50% HP's). After all ships damaged, and all escort ships sunked, remaining convoy is sitting duck.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

freezy wrote:

Trading changes: We are currently discussing about changing the part which received the biggest criticism, changes resource trades outside of coalitions.

Never was more happy to read anything related to CoW. That means there's hope. Fingers crossed.

To anyone who's about to lose hope - @atreas1, @_Pontus_, @CzarHelllios and all the others: Don't go for good yet. Please at least keep reading the News announcements. We might get a good game back, in the end.

This isn't hope, it is doing what should have already been done. It isn't creating a "good game" if it comes at the current price of accepting other poorly thought out "changes".

Call of War v1.5 Strategy Guide

Attack

1. Take your enemies Food Production City. You win!

Defense

1. Defend your Urban Areas, in preparation for your enemies to drive straight for your Food Production City.

2. If you have been attacked, and you have established your defenses correctly, you have already lost.

Resource Production

1. Sure, if you want to.

Military Production

1. A wise choice, if you can find the resources.

Research

1. A simple 7 step process; do the research, wait for your resources to recover, build/improve the required building(s), wait for your resources to recover, build the unit, wait for your resources to recover, repeat. Could be an enjoyable activity while you wait for your Food Production City to be captured.

The End

This new game (is not CoW) is boring and simple. If you make it to attract children with credit cards you have failed, they will like more others games, this is slow for them.

This is a bit off topic (philisophical?) but what I like about this game is thinking about what to do next, what to make, moving my units around optimally in battle, marching in the right direction, with the right troops, at the right time, and a lot more freaky stuff like that. With the new unit paramaters, buildings, research etc, regarless of manpower shortage or broken convoys, it doesn't change any of that. It's still the same game at the core and still has the things I like. They will adjust stuff, and of course there will always be stuff that needs fixed that don't get fixed, but that's still COW.

When I have a stack of subs at different levels and I use the HC setting "return fire' it doesn't change it for the stack. It goes back to 'fire at will'