Locked

Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

8 Nov 2019, 08:48

Attention Generals!

In the last news we communicated the changes to urban provinces and new buildings. Now the first test event for Call of War 1.5 is about to start. To be fully prepared, please read up on more changes in this brand new version!

Mechanics changes

Let’s start with the changes regarding game mechanics. As the title of the game says, this game is about war. Therefore we don’t want to punish players anymore for waging wars and conquering provinces. That is why in CoW 1.5 the morale penalty for being at war will be removed, as well as the province resource upkeep. To balance this out the morale penalty for distance to capital will be slightly increased.

Another aspect are changes to how combat is resolved. A new combat calculation will be at play, resulting in more predictable results, while still retaining a small intended variance. To give more chances to retreat and heal up, units in armies will only start to get destroyed when the condition of the army drops below 50%. When units drop below a condition of 50% they will also face movement speed penalties. Additionally ground combat will be updated every 30 minutes instead of every 60 minutes. Finally, damage limits will no longer be determined by the amount of each individual unit level. Instead, a damage limit exists for the whole army, with damage being reduced at 10 and more units and being capped at 20 and more units.

Furthermore, in Call of War 1.5 units on the field will no longer automatically upgrade when a higher level is researched. Instead, the new unit level has to be produced. Higher unit levels can only be produced in higher building levels, while lower building levels still support producing lower unit levels even if higher levels are already researched.

Last but not least we updated some unit functionalities: Commandos will be stealth units that ignore defence bonuses, while Motorized Infantry, Armored Cars and Interceptors will receive the scout ability. Rockets will not ignore the defense bonus anymore and deal friendly fire upon impact. For more details, please check the forum post linked below.

New Balancing

With Call of War 1.5 we will also introduce a lot of changes to the balancing, which you will experience during the test events. These changes are so countless that we cannot list them all, but we want to highlight a few changes:

There will be a clear progression in power and costs for all buildings, units and researches. All unit values, including damage, speed, health, production time, cost and upkeep will start low but rise from level to level. The same holds true for researches and buildings, which have their cost but , if applicable, also their effects increased per level.

To create a true Rock-Paper-Scissors style balancing which still acknowledges the realities of the war, we will split the armor class ‘armored’ into ‘light armor’ and ‘heavy armor’. This will create more opportunities to counter enemy army compositions. Additionally all unit roles will be reviewed, making sure every single one has its use. As a result of this nuclear powered sea units will be removed from the game. Also, some units will be much stronger in defensive or offensive positions and will be much more effective against certain armor classes, making tactical maneuvering more important.

Resource and gold costs also will be revised and vary depending on type and level. Going forward, all units and buildings will require each resource to be built. Depending on the unit you might not need a lot of them, but they will be required. This way resource demand reflects the need of workforce, materials and energy more realistically. As a contrast, researches will require only money and manpower. These resource philosophies may be still subject to change.

As the CoW 1.5 event is about to start, make sure to join an event game during the sign-up period to provide us with first hand feedback! This will only be the first event in a series of events and there is plenty of room for changes and improvements, so please tell us what you like. We are counting on you to change the future of Call of War together with us!

Your Bytro Team

- Please understand that the list below is only provided in English for all languages -

More details:

Mechanics & formula changes:

There is no more war morale penalty on provinces.
Removed building upkeep and province upkeep.
The distance to capital penalty is increased.
Changed combat calculations to reduce outliers in the results and to make results better predictable. A variance of +/-20% is intentionally kept to not make results TOO predictable.
Single units of the same unit type within an army begin to die as soon as their unit type is at 50% health or below.
Units move slower when at 50% health or below.
Units with lower health now deal less damage than in the previous version.
There is no damage limiter for each unit level anymore, instead there will be a damage limit for the whole stack limit, with reduced damage beginning at 10 units and damage being capped at 20 units. Visualization for this will be implemented later.
Units on the field do not level up automatically when a higher level of the unit type was researched. For the future we consider implementing an option to upgrade units on the field manually.
Buildings can continue to build lower research levels when not upgraded.
Land and sea combat ticks now happen every 30min.
Removed movement speed penalty on allied terrain.
Changed some AI defense preferences. They now value border provinces to non-friendly neighbors, capitals and provinces with many buildings (usually urbans) more when deciding where to collect troops.
Changed resource outputs of supply crates to have rewards within the same range for all main resources, as their value is now equal. General hint: If you collect supply drops in provinces of stronger nations, you will receive more resources out of them.
Increased maximum manpower storage amount (may be removed later). The storage amount increases with conquering provinces.

Unit functionality updates:

Commando - stealth, ignores defence bonus.
Interceptor - scout (makes stealth units visible).
Motorized infantry - scout (at level 3 and above).
Armored car - scout (at level 3 and above).
Rocket - Friendly fire, does not ignore defense bonus anymore.
Moved Commando and Paratrooper to Infantry category, now counting as Infantry type.

General balancing changes:

Changed nearly all values, costs, bonuses and build speeds of all units, buildings and researches, which are sadly to countless to list here. And they are also not final and will change in future iterations. For general infos on building changes, visit the previous news “Urban Provinces & New Buildings”.
All values of units, except view range, ground attack range and terrain bonuses, follow a progression, from low values at lower levels to higher values at higher levels. On average a unit on maximum level has 4-6x better fighting values than on the first level, and 2-3x the resource cost and upkeep, making it still a bargain to produce higher levels.
Changed offensive and defensive focus of many units, with them now being 2-3x as strong in their prefered role. Some units also serve as an allrounder with no off or def preference but also slightly lower values in both roles. General reminder: Defense values are used by a unit when this unit is standing still without any command given, offense values are used when another unit is actively attacked. If units meet on the field while both are in movement, both values are used.
Changed preferred terrains of some units. Units also no longer have penalties in certain terrain. Instead, units receive bonuses in certain terrains only. This makes values better comparable.
Split armor class “armored” into light armor and heavy armor, whereas Medium Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Tank Destroyers and Railroad Guns are considered heavy armor, the rest of the vehicles light armor. Units therefore now have different or additional target preferences.
All costs of researches increase per level.
All costs and bonus effects of buildings increase per level.
All resources are needed to produce buildings and units, sometimes only small amounts. Units also need all resources as maintenance upkeep. Sidenote: Rare materials represent many different materials, including rubber and aluminium, that’s why they are also needed.
Manpower and money is needed for researches.
Removed nuclear powered sea units from the game due to role conflicts and deemed unfitting for the time frame of the game.
Removed Nuclear Power research from the game to simplify requirements. Nuclear Bomber and Nuclear Rocket now only require the Atomic Bomb research as prerequisite, but got more expensive in return.
Removed research levels of several units: Militia -3 levels, Mechanized Infantry -1 level and all ships except transport ships -1 level.
Added research levels to the following units: SP Artillery +1 level, Commandos +2 levels.
The last level of Commandos now also requires blueprints to unlock.
Updated the ingame unit and building descriptions to describe the preferences and uses of them. Open their details panel by clicking on them in the respective menus to read the descriptions and to check out all new values!

Gold cost changes:

With the new importance of urban provinces some gold actions became more powerful as less provinces have to be targeted in total to make a lasting effect. Therefore adjustments needed to be made to balance the game. Sabotage building and reduce morale costs are increased from 2,000 to 3,800 gold. Morale boost costs increased from 500 to 950.
Most build times got reduced drastically, especially on early levels. To balance this out gold costs for speed ups had to be increased. These prices now also vary on power or level of a unit or building and therefore don’t have a common listing price anymore.
All units now receive higher amounts of health when leveled up. As condition boosts heal always 10% of the missing health, condition boosts on later levels became more powerful. The gold costs of condition boosts had to be increased to balance this out. These prices now also vary depending on the health and level of a unit and therefore don’t have a common listing price anymore.

NOTE: Some parts of the new mechanics are not yet complete, especially regarding corresponding interface information. This will be improved in future versions. This is also just the first version of the new balancing and there will be a lot of fine tuning going forward. If you like to give us detailed feedback on this version, it would be highly appreciated, especially if you feel like certain units are too strong or weak!

575 Replies

20 Nov 2019, 20:59

OneNutSquirrel wrote:
Somebody got issues..

Hey man. When something big like this comes out everyone has opinions. Some make more sense than others. But numbers do matter whether you like it or not.

20 Nov 2019, 23:56

DxC wrote:
Citizenkane wrote:
How is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war if I start attacking another army people die when they die, not after some magical amount of damage is done. If a tank is blown up it is done, it doesn't continue to fight because other tanks around it are not damaged.
What most bothers me about this particular change to game mechanics is that it reduces the "chaos" factor in COW. My playing experience is heightened by not knowing exactly how a battle will turn out. If the new game mechanics reduces how "chaos" factors into battle results this is no more than a high digitized math test and except for a few of my geeky friends no one gets a dopamine rush taking a math test.
Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. You don't want randomness on unit death but do on damage. I personally don't like randomness, I like to have a reasonable idea of outcome. In general, this isn't simulating a real battle with humans, it is just a computer program we have to learn.

You clearly miss the point Citizenkane is making and in a grand strategy game ( cow 1.0 ) that took many years to develop to where it is today with the help of these forums and the many many many wonderful people who spent endless hours helping Bytro labs perfect ( cow 1.0 ) game mechanics that set a high standard of realistic military engagement between two forces. So again to repeat Citzenkanes question how is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war ? Because from my own experience when two opposing forces meet the shells fly and people die instantly ect with regards to the great game mechanics of (cow 1.0 ) ect if its not broken dont **** with it in the name of monetization because there are better ways to achieve that rather than going about ruining the great foundation of the game. With regards to your second quote is Citizenkane contradicting himself / Far from it and you could'nt be more wrong as the "chaos" factor after two opposing forces meet and whats left after that fact is whats dictates any commanders next strategy and tactic as in real life as in the great grand strategy (WWII game cow 1.0) If your happy DxC to be lead on a linear pathway to the outcome of your battles and gaming experience then yes the new ( cow 1.5 version ) is definitely for you and the market they want to go after ect do not think we have done it for you so just bring your credit card. LMFAO

21 Nov 2019, 05:28

f118 wrote:
Hans A. Pils wrote:
Idea behind of increasing hit points is more realism in gameplay...
"hit points" are not hitpoints. That is only virtual representation of combat survivability... And for sure each new generation of troops has more survivability and higher mobility and higher firepower.

The opposite is true. The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans. The new green troops are always cannon fodder, due to lack of experience plus increasing desperation as the best-suited men have mostly already been used up in prior rounds of conscription.

21 Nov 2019, 07:57 (edited)

CityOfAngels wrote:
f118 wrote:
Hans A. Pils wrote:
Idea behind of increasing hit points is more realism in gameplay..."hit points" are not hitpoints. That is only virtual representation of combat survivability... And for sure each new generation of troops has more survivability and higher mobility and higher firepower.
The opposite is true. The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans. The new green troops are always cannon fodder, due to lack of experience plus increasing desperation as the best-suited men have mostly already been used up in prior rounds of conscription.

Are you trolling me?

If you recruit in one province new unit old type and same time in other provinse new unit of new type, because you have new weapons, equipements and militar school capability only for 1 regiment in only 1 province. They both have not veterans, but new type of troop has higher survivability....

It is pity but CoW has not implemented veteran bonus. Also it has no advantages. But if veteran bonus would be implemented, then veterans unit only would get it. New unit of old type would not. Old units of old type without being in battle succesfully would not get veteran bonus either.

Stop trolling...

21 Nov 2019, 08:22

CityOfAngels wrote:
The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans.

This is true in real life, and should be reflected in CoW ...

21 Nov 2019, 10:35

Tin Military wrote:
you could'nt be more wrong as the "chaos" factor after two opposing forces meet and whats left after that fact is whats dictates any commanders next strategy and tactic as in real life as in the great grand strategy

I guess this boils down to personal preference. Randomness is a big factor in real life and having to account for it in the game does add levels of complexity. However, I feel there is already a lot of randomness and unknowns in your opponents behavior. Trying to predict that keeps me pretty busy as it is. 1.5 still has some, but reduced, variance in battles, but for me the variance in 1.0 is too high and I find that unsatisfying. Again, it's just my preference and perhaps I'm in the minority.

21 Nov 2019, 11:00 (edited)

OneNutSquirrel wrote:
Aesthetic Suggestion
It would not be too difficult to add to the Tech Tree images of Units being researched, a symbol representing the Level of facilities needed to build that unit.
Say in the Infantry Tech Tree, every image of the units Under their Level has an " * * for each level of building required to produce that particular unit. This would allow for much easier lining up of Research and Building requirements.
I'm finding that they are not always ligning up with each other as I overbuild my research... or over research my buildings.
It would look something like this.
Research Tree Building.Ref

Edit #8 - Discovered this statement in other Announcement Discussion entitled Call of War 1.5 - Urban Provinces & New Building dated 11/07/19

"Production and research categories remain the same in the first Event, but will be expanded in later Events to give each production building its own production and research tab."

So with that in mind, Devs, please accept the following post as simply a form of recommendation(s) on ways the new production and research tabs could be structured.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a really good idea and highly recommend the Devs consider reworking the entire Tree now that there are individual manufacturing structures for each type of tech.

In addition to OneNutSquirrel's concept above, I would like to recommend either adding an additional column to the far left of the Research Tree for each tab and/ or relocating some of the individual units from where they are presently located.

To illustrate the concept, let's walk through the first two tabs:

Infantry Tab

A. The first five types of infantry units (militia - paratroopers) require Barracks in order to be produced.

B. The next three types of infantry units (artillery - anti air) require Ordnance Factories in order to be produced.

Adding a column to the far left designating this fact would be very helpful imho for the newer player, albeit for a more experienced player, the level of each type of structure is the more critical (pertinent) issue as pointed out by OneNutSquirrel that would be helpful to have added to each Research Tree Tab.

Armor Tab

In addition to illustrating the level of Tank Plant required for each type of armor, what with the new designation of Light Armor and Heavy Armor, this tab should be reworked entirely:

To illustrate:

A. Armored Car and Light Tank are now classified as "Light Armor", but with the addition of having to construct a Level One Tank Assembly, why should someone be "forced" into researching an AC first in order to then research an LT?

The research requirement for each unit should now become independent of one another and tied directly to what level of Tank Plant is required to produce the unit.

B. Medium Tank is now classified as "Heavy Armor", but has a requirement of having to research an LT first. Rather, the MT should now become independent of the LT (realistically, heavy armor would probably be assembled at an entirely different assembly plant (think trucks vs. sedans).

Since level one MT's require a level two Tank Plant in order to be produced, that relationship should now be illustrated rather than having the research of a level one LT be the prerequisite, since an LT and MT are now classified differently.

C. Heavy Tanks - the actual relationship between an HT and an MT is what level of Tank Plant is required and therefore the link arrow should drop down from the level two MT, rather than the level one MT. Again, this relationship illustrates (I believe) what OneNutSquirrel was suggesting. Both of these units would show that the same Tank Plant level was necessary in order to produce the Heavy Armor units and the relationship arrow dropping down from the level two MT to the level one HT would therefore be a more practical / accurate representation of the relationship between the two types of heavy armored tanks.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The remainder of the Armor Research Tab is quite illogical what with the new classifications of Light and Heavy Armor.

D. Tank Destroyers presently require the researching of a level one LT and the construction of a level two Tank Plant. The direct relationship with a level one LT now makes no sense whatsoever. At a minimum, the relationship would be to a level two LT since an LT lvl. 2 requires a level two Tank Plant.

But with the new division of tank types, the tank destroyer should now be directly linked to a heavy armor unit such as an MT level one which has the same Tank Plant level 2 prerequisite.

But even this relationship of requiring that an MT level one be researched first as a prerequisite, places an additional research burden on the player and therefore constricts rather than expands the opportunity for a player to implement multiple types of units (which I believe, is stated goal of the Devs for Version 1.5).

Rather the relationship (the prerequisite for producing a level one tank destroyer) should be the Tank Plant level 2 only.

E. The SP Units

While designated as "light tanks", the actual prerequisite to produce the SP AA and SP Artillery is a level three Ordnance Foundry not a Tank Plant and to produce Mechanized Infantry a level three Barracks is the prerequisite.

Side Note / Observation: the Mechanized Infantry listed within the Armor tab is by far a weaker version of the Motorized Infantry found within the Infantry Tab and should imho be reviewed by the Devs for its relevance to the game.

To a new player this is not an intuitive relationship at all because all the other units of the Armor Tab require Tank Plants. A new player would think "all the other units that have an Ordnance Foundry prerequisite are on the Infantry Tab".

Further research would discover/explain that the SP Units are classified as light armor and work best with the other light armor units. But the need of having a level 3 Ordnance Foundry (the prerequisite for producing SP units) is, while not confusing, certainly "lost" information without drilling down another layer.

Having the additional column illustrating the real prerequisite (lvl. 3 Ordnance Foundry) would aid almost everyone imho.

Additionally, because the units are classified as light armor, the three SP units should be relocated to directly underneath the Light Tank row.

A different colored background would suffice to differentiate between light and heavy armor, but here is where the need to add an additional column which designates the actual prerequisite (the type of building structure required) is best illustrated.

Sure, performing a thorough research / review of all the various choices first would help, but I can tell you from first hand experience, that even in the tutorial game, I was attacked within the first hour and had little time to "learn" about the various units first.

It took days ( a lot of hours) of flipping through all the research tabs in order to be able to understand the various unit configurations, the prerequisites for each and the logic surrounding the Research Tree.

And now with Version 1.5, it appears to be the right time for the Devs to evaluate and adjust the Research Tree to conform more logically and clearly to what the actual prerequisites for production of the individual units really are.

This readjustment of research prerequisites would also help with the manpower issues everyone is dealing with in their V 1.5 games and may actually help speed up the initial phase of the game somewhat.

21 Nov 2019, 11:25

f118 wrote:
You all who critisized version 1.5 on wrong side. (And for sure thre are many things wich run bad on version 1.5)

@f118

First off: In an open society with freedom of speech, no one is on the 'wrong' side.

Amazing that one dares to state such a thing.

Secondly, you may have a completely different departure point than many of the players commenting here.

For instance, for players who use a lot of gold, as opposed to others using moderate to little gold, the changes in the game work out completely different. Maybe that is why, for instance, you do like certain changes and others don't.

Because something works for you, that doesn't make the points of the other players less valid.

Third, it seems rather obvious that, after I did some counting through the threads, the majority of posters is not happy with COW 1.5. Not as a separate game and especially not if it is going to replace COW 1.0.

It is rather daring to then say: you are all wrong, because it works for me and like that.

STOP THE DUMBIFICATION in favor of P2W & fly-by phone players!

SENIOR REFLECTION MANAGER
CHIEF EDITOR of The-Only-True-Truth(TM)
ⵉⵏⵣⴰⵍⵉⵢⵏ !!ⵢⵉⵏ ⵙⵙⵉⵎⵓⵏ ⴰⵣⴳⴰⵢⴰⵏ!!
"We can be wrong & we can know this and still do both" - a random Gen-Z, politician or gaming company CEO

21 Nov 2019, 11:40 (edited)

Having spend some thought on what it is with COW 1.5, I feel that there should be two separate focus points in the discussions.

One being the fundamentals and the other being the tweakable details.

The latter being a discussion which should be always ongoing and that will never be over. Tweaks, buffs, de-buffs; when a game evolves, new units are added etc., there will always be new 'tweaking'.

The discussion on fundamentals of COW 1.5 and the fundamental differences with COW 1.0 is nevertheless being snowed under in the tweakable details.

Further and more importantly, we should focus on what it is that should be achieved with COW 1.5 and that is not achieved by COW 1.0.

This is equally important for the players as for the game designers.

I am sure Bytro does not embark on a development path of a virtually new game, without having a set of goals.

And, everybody here will agree that COW 1.0 is a very good game, so, clearly, COW 1.5 is supposed to fix something, which was not fixable within COW 1.0.

Probably it is only when the departure point and goals of the designers are understood, that this new game can be judged on its merits.

For the time being, all my thoughts don't change that the new game feels somewhat 'broken-ish' as CzarHellios put it politely. And tweaks will only be able to do so much, since they do not touch on the fundamentals.

My fear is that the lack of attraction of COW 1.5 is in its fundaments.

As is, I feel like we are guinea pigs in a test lab, on which a new medicine is being tried out, but none of the guinea pigs knows what it is for, while suffering through the complications.

It could serve both players and designers to clarify a bit of the purpose: what is COW 1.5 fixing that could not be fixed in COW 1.0?

STOP THE DUMBIFICATION in favor of P2W & fly-by phone players!

21 Nov 2019, 12:01

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
f118 wrote:
You all who critisized version 1.5 on wrong side. (And for sure thre are many things wich run bad on version 1.5)
@f118
First off: In an open society with freedom of speech, no one is on the 'wrong' side.
Amazing that one dares to state such a thing.
Secondly, you may have a completely different departure point than many of the players commenting here.
For instance, for players who use a lot of gold, as opposed to others using moderate to little gold, the changes in the game work out completely different. Maybe that is why, for instance, you do like certain changes and others don't.
Because something works for you, that doesn't make the points of the other players less valid.
Third, it seems rather obvious that, after I did some counting through the threads, the majority of posters is not happy with COW 1.5. Not as a separate game and especially not if it is going to replace COW 1.0.
It is rather daring to then say: you are all wrong, because it works for me and like that.

is it ok for your "side" (i dont even knew we are have here opposite sides) if you say it is impossible that military unit dont even begin to be desroyed till reaching 50% manpower? Is it ok for you to say in battle of two 10 regiments strong divisions they lose whole regiment each time, if every regiment lost 10 % own manpower? Is it ok for your "side" to troll you would glad make a test and shooting on me with a gun, to see when I beginn to die?

Is it ok for your side to say that two recruited same time but different generation units, the outdated one get immediatly veteran bonus and should be stronger then modern developed one?

Is it ok for you dont understand me, but answer aggressive?

Is it ok for you to count few very loud forum user for mainstream of whole game automatically?

Is it ok for you to say mainstream has every time right, even if is wrong?

21 Nov 2019, 12:21

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
My fear is that the lack of attraction of COW 1.5 is in its fundaments.

You mentioned fundamentals several times, but you never defined what you mean by that. What exactly are you refereing to?

21 Nov 2019, 13:20

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
It could serve both players and designers to clarify a bit of the purpose: what is COW 1.5 fixing that could not be fixed in COW 1.0?

This may be the most important question in this thread ...

21 Nov 2019, 14:24 (edited)

DxC wrote:
You mentioned fundamentals several times, but you never defined what you mean by that. What exactly are you refereing to?

Some fundamentally different approaches in COW 1.5:

- units, roles, purpose

Units are now very single purpose. Only attack or defense capability, which limits the number of possible approaches to a sound and realistic army build up.

Example: Having an army with tanks and AC, AC should better drop out of the army before the attack and tanks must withdraw from defense before the army is being attacked, because of their single-sided capabilities

This fits the simplified rock-paper-scissor scheme. That is wel understood.

But does it make for a better game, challenge or for more fun? I beg to differ.

- buildings choices

Predetermined along a few lines due to limited building choices and other constraints.

Why do we need separate factories for separate weapon types, when the distinction can also be made by other means than single industrial buildings?

Like a unit on the map is not representing 1 soldier, but a regiment with multiple capabilities, industrie should not represent 1 factory, but an industrial area.

E.g. have a multipurpose weapon factories complex and let the determination of choices run over research and/or over added choices: X+harbour = can build ships, or X+airfield = can build airplanes, or X+infra = can build armored vehicles, given the research has been completed.

And then the unnatural feel of IC's for manpower production; yes manpower is a resource, but treating at as if it were steel or grain is a bit off.

- research

Whether one likes it or not, some posts were quite accurate when comparing leveling to Pokemon-style evolutions

- army composition

Predetermined along a few lines due to limited building choices and other constraints, as well as by short to mid-term goals.

- battle resolution

First exploits are on the table for active players in the know. No need to focus on def vs attackers; just wait until last 30 secs before attack and (sounds contradicting) counter-attack first with your attack focused army.

What follows next is an easily computed, fast battle-tick driven, exchange of simplified stat-based fire, which is not half as interesting as in the previous version.

- strategy

2 extreme options only; compromise surely leading to your demise. What is left is planning, but that is not too complicated, given the lack of choices.

Also the fact that I don't even need spies to see what my neighbor is trying too cook up, because I can see which buildings he has. With that, his army composition is a give away as well as his level of units. Combine that with newspaper reports on economy and war-info and you even know how many of what he still has.

No element of surprise (again that level of predictability /predetermined outcome)

It boils down to:

Having this current level of predetermination (limited choices) and predictability (simplified mechanics) in COW 1.5 simply limits the player's choices and forces you in a limited number of directions.

In COW 1.5 I only do 2 types of factories and 3 types of weaponry: no time and resources to build and research the others in the beginning to mid-game. And after mid-game it doesn't matter anymore.

In comparison COW 1.0 had a wealth of choices to be made and alternatives to turn to in case of need.

In COW 1.0 there were always options to change things for the better.

In COW 1.5 you find yourself in a tough spot and then it spirals downward fast.

This 1.5 is somewhat uninspiring! (this statement is submitted to 'The Understatement of the Year Contest').

As such, I am eagerly looking forward to what 1.5.1 brings us. However, given the many aspects that are over-simplifying the one thing, while over-complicating the other, I actually hope the next test round will see us testing 1.6.

(to clarify what I mean by 1.6: hope to see some fundamental changes and not only tweaks, which bring a bit more choice, inspiration and challenge back into the game. why? because I totally forgot to log in to my games for 36 hours)

STOP THE DUMBIFICATION in favor of P2W & fly-by phone players!

21 Nov 2019, 14:35

f118 wrote:
vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
f118 wrote:
You all who critisized version 1.5 on wrong side. (And for sure thre are many things wich run bad on version 1.5)
@f118First off: In an open society with freedom of speech, no one is on the 'wrong' side.
Amazing that one dares to state such a thing.
Secondly, you may have a completely different departure point than many of the players commenting here.
For instance, for players who use a lot of gold, as opposed to others using moderate to little gold, the changes in the game work out completely different. Maybe that is why, for instance, you do like certain changes and others don't.
Because something works for you, that doesn't make the points of the other players less valid.
Third, it seems rather obvious that, after I did some counting through the threads, the majority of posters is not happy with COW 1.5. Not as a separate game and especially not if it is going to replace COW 1.0.
It is rather daring to then say: you are all wrong, because it works for me and like that.
is it ok for your "side" (i dont even knew we are have here opposite sides) if you say it is impossible that military unit dont even begin to be desroyed till reaching 50% manpower? Is it ok for you to say in battle of two 10 regiments strong divisions they lose whole regiment each time, if every regiment lost 10 % own manpower? Is it ok for your "side" to troll you would glad make a test and shooting on me with a gun, to see when I beginn to die?
Is it ok for your side to say that two recruited same time but different generation units, the outdated one get immediatly veteran bonus and should be stronger then modern developed one?
Is it ok for you dont understand me, but answer aggressive?
Is it ok for you to count few very loud forum user for mainstream of whole game automatically?
Is it ok for you to say mainstream has every time right, even if is wrong?

Let me say this in a way you understand...

Is it okay for you to disagree with someone without overstating the games relationship with reality?

Is it okay that the majority of forum respondents do not agree with your position?

Is it okay to respond to people who disagree with you, without calling them "troll" or "kid"?

Is it okay that everyone who wishes to gives feedback, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, as Bytro asked for?

Killings my business, and business is good!

21 Nov 2019, 15:09

Day 14: I am in first place on one of the 2 first 1.5 maps opened. I had other games going so I just opened the round once or twice a day just to max out my que with tanks in the cities that started with tank factories. I’ve only researched light tanks and tank destroyers past level 1. I’ve invested almost nothing into resource production. I understand part of the issue may be that the other players are less experienced. But to not even really be trying. I shouldn’t be in 1st place. Generally I have to try just a little bit to not lose, even against the npc nations.

I’ve no issue with the new structures or the new tech tree layout. Having every resource to be required to build anything I feel needs to be brought back to the table and discussed as well as some of the unit stats.

In my opinion, the new version is more about spamming troops rather than having a grand strategy.

Save the goldfish! They need your help! Goldfish are trapped in small bowls all across the globe!

21 Nov 2019, 15:40

Zippofish wrote:
I’ve invested almost nothing into resource production.

Same here.

Industry is the only building that enhances resource and manpower

production, but not by enough to make the investment worthwhile.

For example:

Building a level 2 Industry in a home oil city at 100% morale

increases the oil production by only 825per day, at the cost of 3000 oil,

1600 manpower, and 5100 other resources.

The increase in manpower is 150 per day.

21 Nov 2019, 16:00

f118 wrote:
CityOfAngels wrote:
f118 wrote:
Hans A. Pils wrote:
Idea behind of increasing hit points is more realism in gameplay..."hit points" are not hitpoints. That is only virtual representation of combat survivability... And for sure each new generation of troops has more survivability and higher mobility and higher firepower.
The opposite is true. The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans. The new green troops are always cannon fodder, due to lack of experience plus increasing desperation as the best-suited men have mostly already been used up in prior rounds of conscription.
Are you trolling me?If you recruit in one province new unit old type and same time in other provinse new unit of new type, because you have new weapons, equipements and militar school capability only for 1 regiment in only 1 province. They both have not veterans, but new type of troop has higher survivability....
It is pity but CoW has not implemented veteran bonus. Also it has no advantages. But if veteran bonus would be implemented, then veterans unit only would get it. New unit of old type would not. Old units of old type without being in battle succesfully would not get veteran bonus either.
Stop trolling...

I'm sorry you don't understand realistic war conditions, but please refrain from attacking people who do. It's just ironic.

21 Nov 2019, 16:25

Tin Military wrote:
DxC wrote:
Citizenkane wrote:
How is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war if I start attacking another army people die when they die, not after some magical amount of damage is done. If a tank is blown up it is done, it doesn't continue to fight because other tanks around it are not damaged.
What most bothers me about this particular change to game mechanics is that it reduces the "chaos" factor in COW. My playing experience is heightened by not knowing exactly how a battle will turn out. If the new game mechanics reduces how "chaos" factors into battle results this is no more than a high digitized math test and except for a few of my geeky friends no one gets a dopamine rush taking a math test.
Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. You don't want randomness on unit death but do on damage. I personally don't like randomness, I like to have a reasonable idea of outcome. In general, this isn't simulating a real battle with humans, it is just a computer program we have to learn.
You clearly miss the point Citizenkane is making and in a grand strategy game ( cow 1.0 ) that took many years to develop to where it is today with the help of these forums and the many many many wonderful people who spent endless hours helping Bytro labs perfect ( cow 1.0 ) game mechanics that set a high standard of realistic military engagement between two forces. So again to repeat Citzenkanes question how is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war ? Because from my own experience when two opposing forces meet the shells fly and people die instantly ect...

I haven't really passed judgement on the "inf units survive until the whole stack drops below 50%" notion yet, but I'm leaning towards viewing it favorably. It deals with an exploit or two in a way that may prove to work, and it isn't unrealistic. Remember that these aren't individual soldiers in a stack of 10 men (such that a random piece of shrapnel will tend to result in one instantly-dead troop), it's battalions or divisions or whatever - Tens of thousands of men. One artillery barrage doesn't wipe out a whole division of troops, it reduces the effectiveness of all the divisions along that front. Eventually those 10 divisions may have lost 50% of their combat effectiveness, but they will all still exist as divisions. If the battle is eventually won or they retreat out of range of the guns, over time with R&R they could recover to a reasonable level of effectiveness and be redeployed.

So my final verdict will likely be based on how the change affects game-play against competitive opponents (especially in air superiority battles, but also certain melee battles where a defender could exploit splash damage mechanics by splitting in to many single stacks), and I haven't had a chance to assess that yet.

21 Nov 2019, 18:30 (edited)

CityOfAngels wrote:
One artillery barrage doesn't wipe out a whole division of troops, it reduces the effectiveness of all the divisions along that front.

Yea, when a "unit" "dies" it doesn't really die. It's HP (imaginary soldiers etc) are redistributed to other divisions. So for those for which realism is important, it's not a question of when they die, but when the division is disolved and redistributed to other nearby divisions. I like the new method because it adds some depth/complexity in that you can estimate how low your little dudes might go and plan accordingly for the medics.

21 Nov 2019, 21:08 (edited)

DxC wrote:
Yea, when a "unit" "dies" it doesn't really die. It's HP (imaginary soldiers etc) are redistributed to other divisions. So for those for which realism is important, it's not a question of when they die, but when the division is disolved and redistributed to other nearby divisions. I like the new method because it adds some depth in that you can estimate how low your little dudes might go and plan accordingly for the medics.

This is not quite right.

I posted a comment above regarding an Armour Division (approx 355 Tanks, 17,000+ Infantry and Crew, and 7,000 pieces of equipment) being down to 0.2% HP or the equivalent of 1 tank, and a couple dozen men. Which to me does not Qualify as enough to be considered a "Division"... that unit was left alive WAY beyond the point where it's DNA and molecular structure no longer resembled a Division.

That game mechanic of amalgamating damaged units needs to kick in much sooner BEFORE the units get below 10% especially in Stacks. I don't see how 10 Infantry Divisions at 8% would functions, they should be combined to 1 Division at 80% before that is allowed to happen.

General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

This thread is locked. No new replies can be posted.

Back to Call of War News