Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

Sure, and @Landferd Binnyworth had well understood that. That's what he was criticizing. But I don't see how Elite AI harms RP(?)

In my opinion, having Elite AI in all games is now already an improvement and has the potential to become a great improvement if the popularity system is still fine-tuned a little. Also makes it easier for devs they now have to do maintenance or feature changes for AI only on one AI and not on two any more.

But I so far never joined a true RP game, so maybe I just don't get the point.

Anyhow this is quite off-topic now...

I'm still extremely unhappy with the plan to give many units offensive/defensive focus just for the sake of a clearer distinction. I read from freezy's posts two arguments why that shall be done:

1.: More tactical maneuvers. True, but that will be unrealistic / weird maneuvers. Also having the option to gain advantage from tactical movements will require players to be online more often, which isn't necessarily positive.

2.: Giving players an incentive to research a broader variety of units, thus allowing more different strategies and more realistic army compositions. True, but that can also be achieved by using the SBDE system from CoW1.0 and just making it more strict (which would be the better SBDE solution anyway - see --> this post <-- on that).

So no argument left, or am I missing something?

Now the counter-argument against fantasy roles of units: They just hurt the eye. I'm OK with giving AC and LT a bit stronger offense values than defense. Maybe even TD, since they had much stronger front plates than sides and rear - which made them good defenders against opponents approaching from the front, yes, but at the same time very vulnerable against surprise attacks from their flanks or from behind. Commandos offensive as well, sure. But all others? No, thanks. Wouldn't three or four offensive ground melee units be enough? Why do you insist on also an infantry unit having offensive focus?

Looking at examples:

* Regular infantry twice as strong in defense than in offense: Oh no, please not. 50% stronger defense as in CoW1.0 is just fine.

* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.

* AC stronger in defense than in offense? WTH.

* ...

Units not upgrading automatically and strict CoW1.0-SBDE limits would already allow for a great amount of different strategies when it comes to unit decisions - would already be enough to stop narrowing your research on few units from being the only reasonable approach. And the distinction melee units naturally and realistically already have from their different speed, different resource needs, different strengths against the different armour classes, different line of sight, different terrain bonuses and so on are already enough to make decisions interesting. No need to additionally force them into unrealistic offense or defense roles!

Hans A. Pils wrote:

I'm still extremely unhappy with the plan to give many units offensive/defensive focus just for the sake of a clearer distinction. I read from freezy's posts two arguments why that shall be done:

1.: More tactical maneuvers. True, but that will be unrealistic / weird maneuvers. Also having the option to gain advantage from tactical movements will require players to be online more often, which isn't necessarily positive.

2.: Giving players an incentive to research a broader variety of units, thus allowing more different strategies and more realistic army compositions. True, but that can also be achieved by using the SBDE system from CoW1.0 and just making it more strict (which would be the better SBDE solution anyway - see --> this post <-- on that).

So no argument left, or am I missing something?

Now the counter-argument against fantasy roles of units: They just hurt the eye. I'm OK with giving AC and LT a bit stronger offense values than defense. Maybe even TD, since they had much stronger front plates than sides and rear - which made them good defenders against opponents approaching from the front, yes, but at the same time very vulnerable against surprise attacks from their flanks or from behind. Commandos offensive as well, sure. But all others? No, thanks. Wouldn't three or four offensive ground melee units be enough? Why do you insist on also an infantry unit having offensive focus?

Looking at examples:

* Regular infantry twice as strong in defense than in offense: Oh no, please not. 50% stronger defense as in CoW1.0 is just fine.

* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.

* AC stronger in defense than in offense? WTH.

* ...

Units should be either equal, or stronger in defense. You should NOT have to find advantageous to actually attack your opponent when you are in defense or even to have to make complex calculation on whether to split part of your army to attack while the rest use remains in defense, while taking into account SBDE, %defense of home country/fortification, etc...

Let's not get into "realistic" issue. Some units perform better in offense than other units performed in offense, but NO units performed better in offense than in defense. Even cavalry or light tanks.

This is not a balancing issue, it is bad design.

If you want to give an advantage in attack to SOME units, give them the "power" to bypass SOME of the enemy defense bonus (just like the rockets did), and in exchange increase that bonus for the other units.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Sure, and @Landferd Binnyworth had well understood that. That's what he was criticizing. But I don't see how Elite AI harms RP(?)

Of course, though, I doubt it is just our community impacted by these updates. I hope I explained enough as to our quarrels with Bytro at this moment.

(PS: When I say quarrels, do not mistake me for an ungrateful brat, I am thankful that Call of War was made, and it was very good when I started playing too, I just have quarrels with their newer updates.)

Hans A. Pils wrote:

* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.

Them not being very successful, once encountering even half-trained regular troops though.

So, what about this idea: Motorized Infantry can keep its strong offensive character in rural provinces but only if there are no regular troops in the province?

Like: effectively butchering civilians, but effectively being butchered by regular troops?

A bit like ISIS troops so to speak? Would be realistic!

On the other hand, rural provinces, without opposing regular troops present, do not require much offensive capacity, do they?

Will this require extra programming though? Any coder having ideas on this?

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Hans A. Pils wrote:

* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.

I think that is what all rebellious militia in 3rd world countries do, isn't it?Them not being very successful, once encountering even half-trained regular troops though.

So, what about this idea: Motorized Infantry can keep its strong offensive character in rural provinces but only if there are no regular troops in the province?

Like: effectively butchering civilians, but effectively being butchered by regular troops?

A bit like ISIS troops so to speak? Would be realistic!

On the other hand, rural provinces, without opposing regular troops present, do not require much offensive capacity, do they?

Will this require extra programming though? Any coder having ideas on this?

I sense a tiny bit of irony in @vonlettowvorbecks last post.

If you allow me to translate what he (and I, and @CityOfAngels, and - in a way - @Chimere, and a number of others) said: The offensive character of motorized infantry is cobblers.

I have more to support that statement, answering:

freezy wrote:

If we turn nearly every Inf into a defense unit, there is not much variety or options for players focusing on the Inf branch.

First of all, that's not possible, because it requires a gigantic surplus of food and manpower, while at the same time being extremely short on oil and steel... a situation you'll certainly never want to occur, no matter how you do the resource balancing.

Secondly, that's totally contradictory to the wish of (I'd say) all of us that it shall practically never be a promising strategy to neglect any of the three tech trees infantry/armour/air completely! Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a declared goal of yourself as well?

And thirdly if a player has such a fierce constellation in a game, that his resources force him to focus merely on the infantry tech tree: Well, then the game should also force him to adapt his play style to that. Why do you want to allow players who favour the blindly-offensive-Blitzkrieg-steamroll-forward-no-matter-what-style to play that way in all their games, even if their resources don't allow them to build a single tank? Armies without armoured forces couldn't approach that way and that accounts for WW1 and WW2 equally.

Bottom line is no unit from infantry tech tree except Commandos may be stronger attacking than defending.

About mechanized infantry I'd prefer defense only 25% stronger than offense, but militia, regular infantry and motorized infantry should must keep precisely the 50% stronger defense they have in CoW1.0.

By the way, probably Chimere's point is right there better shouldn't be any offense ground melee units at all (except Commandos).

And all in all of course I hold my point best to revert all changes done by CoW1.5 to unit values; revert progression in production time, costs and building requirements; revert SBDE change but instead make CoW1.0 SBDE limits more strict.

Or - if you want to make your life more simple: Return to developing CoW1.0 and merge into it only:

* Units no longer upgrading automatically after new level researched.

* Changes that were done to Commandos and rockets.

* The separation into light and heavy armour (but railroad guns should be light armour).

* New production facility buildings (but higher level of these should unlock more advanced unit types, not more advanced unit research levels - for example tank plant level 1 allows to build light armour, level 2 allows to additionally build MT and TD, level 3 allows to additionally build HT - players may have one level 3 production facility of each type at the start, so they also have all options to go in all directions in their army development directly at the start).

* Fortresses no longer giving morale bonus.

* Maybe some of the changes to unit production resource requirements - I like the thought of all units needing a little bit of rare materials and aircraft some more.

Then drop the CoW1.5 branch.

Because all other changes in 1.5 harm both strategy and realism and have no positive effect.

Except for maybe pleasing low-IQ clientele (please advise on a neutral term that we can use for these guys without getting banned), because the single-purpose buildings without resource consumption allow them to always hit the right building decision without needing a brain. Same as the removal of morale malus from being at war and removal of resource consumption of provinces allows them to blindly attack and expand their territory without needing a brain. That's for sure: Every strategy element removed will attract more of these players. So if that's the direction you want to be heading to, you're clearly on the right path.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

(please advise on a neutral term that we can use for these guys without getting banned)

Just some pics:

I just finished the game with a solo decisive win. Got 780 point. I will share my thoughts and details in my game progress results.

First, I praise our Dev (no sarcasm) for their hard work and changes. I see alot of problems in the current ver. which you also see and adjust it but to a very big extent. No more mass militia, or tac bomber etc...seems reasonable.

The first thing i want to say after my last post about what is good with the old ver. We can agree that all players here love a good strategy game. But players who cried out for resources trading. I have to say to the DEV, this is defintely a BIG NO NO. And should NOT even giving provinces either in coaliation or not (except returning the home provinces back to the coaliation teammate). It is because the nature of the game (Free to play) and cross platform. It will crush your honest and new comer player (both paid/non paid player). That may also be one reason why people don't stay in this game long. I don't want to get into details but you know how. And I bet those who insist the old version probably know how. I think this is Breach of game conduct. INSTEAD, on the contrary by allowing players to give resources to real AI (not replacement of player) for peace treaty (for ex. 5 days, 10 days, etc..) and vice versa if AI feel they are underdog or threatened.

2) I know you guy said don't want to penalize players for declaring war on other because the game "is for war". To be realistic, war do cause people unrest and morale decrease. INSTEAD, on the contrary by shrinking the morale penalty on distance away from capitol. Something like same continent would all be -5 pts, different continent nearby is -10pts. The farthest continent -15pts. If you really want to give players a break on morale. I personally don't think in realty the distance between which countries is taking over have hugh difference. For ex. Would there big difference if UK taking over India, or US taking over India, those citizen will probably having similar unrest.

3) A.I (replacing human)- One of my current version, I left the game for 11 days due to another big gold event. When I left, my resources are all positive numbers, some resources is tighter around 20/hrs. My provinces are 60+ in morale, most homeland provinces are over 80+. After I come back from the event, all provinces are at 30+ morales, my resources corn is 0, and continuing in approx -30/hrs, and oil is 0, continuing in negatives. They build so much troops (AA, infantry, and SP aa, and some other troops). Even in the 1.5 vers, i see when AI is taking over a player, they will start to build troops and 1 of the country (United Kingdom) left in DAY10 with 70pts -35 provinces, until DAY21 come back to his account, it is at 200pt -91 province. I am like WTH, with the Jackie Chen squeezing his head MEME. Should I just leave it to AI? I login 2-5 times a days and approximately 15min-1 hrs/session. And i only get similar VP (below is my progress stats). In the future, should I open a bunch of games and let the AI do the job, that's it. I personally don't think this is a way of playing and enjoying the game. My suggestion is make AI only in "protective mode" and also stop recruiting. Afterall, if the player doesn't come in and play. He deserve to lose. In addition, maybe the real AI should increase flexibility, such as if a active player is attacking an inactive player, the real AI kicks in and backstab the active player (to help the inactive). Which I believe is much more realistic and reasonable.

4) Land points- Due to only 10 points in the main provinces. It make me very easy to control. All I need is put all troops near or in the pts provinces. When I attack, I just line up to closest the point provinces and capture it. A few of players in my game also target pt province only. My suggestion is to decrease the main land to 8pts, and small resources land into 2 pt. It makes players need to plan a strategy more. (see photos of my ending underneath)

5) Units/Building- A strategic bomber, this unit is so innocent. I almost never seems an active player use it, except the first game (one time). Even in 1.5, only the AI replacing human build it. I personally think it is the functionalty that make this units unpopular. It is specialize heavy attack building, but in this game. People tend to capture it and for their own use. So if i bomb it, how can i use it? That bring up a question "there is so little building that need to bomb". My suggestion is bring back the nuclear reactor for research and building (doesn't have to be with different level). I previous talked about a new building called "Radar Tower" , and/or something like defense system in naval base, and air base.

In 1.5, these buildings is confuse. With name like Local industry/fortication is meaningless. Their looks is the same as industry/bunker. For those new building like tanks Plant, ordinance foundry and secret plant is not visible on the big map like air base have a airway, or industry have a chimney. The air base in urban and rural area have a spread in building time, and difference in resources. It gives a feeling of non-finish product game. My suggestion is either change the name and design of the building or unite back to same name and functionality. In addition, alot of ppl in chatroom also discussed, why unable to build barrack, tanks, etc..in the rural area.

con't underneath because too long

The below is my progress status in the game 1.5. I am play as Libya, since you guy make everything balance. I use a balanced tactics mix with all kind of land, sea, and air troops. Those who are interested, I highlight my detail progress below.

Research:

Infantry type: Militia (did not research, because similar to infantry "long run"), Infantry lv.2, Motorize infantry lv.3, Commando (did not do research, because i have M.I and i don't need hidden function for now), Paratrooper lv.1 ( i did it just to test, in a bigger map, maybe better use), Artillery lv.2, Anti-Tanks lv.4, Anti-Air lv.2

Armor type: Armor Car lv.1, light tanks lv.2, Medium Tanks lv.3, Heavy Tanks lv. 2, Tank destroyer lv.3, SP artillery lv.2 ( I build it just to test, since they crossover with artillery), SP anti-air (did not do research, because it crossover with anti-air), mechanize infantry (did not research, because i have motorize infantry).

Air type: Interceptor lv.1, Tactical bomber lv.5, Strategic bomber (did not research, already talked about above), Naval bomber lv.4.

Naval typeestroyer lv.3, Submarine lv.3, Crusiers lv.3, Battleship lv.1 (just to test it, didn't even bother to use it), Carriers lv 1 (just to test it, didn't bother to use it.). Transport lv.2

Secret type: Railroad (built), Flying bomb (didn't use it, just for getting rocket fighter), Rocket lv.1 (didn't use it, just for getting rocket fighter), Rocket Fighter (built, i think this unit should be able to get onto carrier and the land transporation truck should run faster), Atomic bomb, nuclear bomber and nuclear rocket (did not research).

Resource/DAY 14 / 20 / 24 / 27

Corn - 30933 / 50401 / 52418 / 78039

Goods - 35105 / 38174 / 19786 / 24221

Manpower - 7088 / 5472 / 439 / 10946

Iron - 38746 / 30066 / 8206 / 22383

Oil - 41948 / 36803 / 23231 / 19462

Rare Material 43634 / 44848 / 43459 / 38848

Cash - 131994/ 183472/ 241919/ 308530

VP - 170 / 220 / 340 /610

Largest Economy/ DAY 2 / 6/ 10/ 14/ 18/ 22/ 26

Rank (tonnes) 4 (42296T)/ 2 (53955T)/ 2 (81260T) / 3 (85806T)/ 2 (94020T)/ 2(116004T)/ 1 (139408T)

Mightest Army/ DAY 4/ 8/ 12/ 16/ 20/ 24/ 28/

Rank (%) 8 (4%)/ 4 (9%)/ 2 (13%)/ 1 (23%)/ 1 (24%)/ 1 (30%)/ 1 (41%)

I didn't tried to wipe out the enemy because no morale penalty, left with 6 enemy at the end of game.

DAY 3- Attack Algeria (win some and lose some provinces)

DAY 6 - Crush Algeria and they left with 1 province in an island. At the same time declare war against South US

DAY 7- Capture Oujda, then (win some, and lose some provinces)

DAY 8- Wipe out all South US in Africa side as Taroudant fall. At the same time declare war against Morocco capturing Essaouire.

DAY 9- Wipe out all Morocco. Declare war and destroy Western Sahara.

DAY 10- Declare war on Spain capturing Tangier and Melilla

DAY 12 - Declare war on Yugoslavia

DAY 14- Declare war on Egypt

DAY 21- Wipe out Egypt

DAY 22- Declare war and wipe out Syria, Declare war on Romania

DAY 24- Wipe out South US, and declare war on North US

DAY 26- Declare war on Sweden

DAY 27- Declare war on France.

DAY 28- END

Final word, I don't mind spending few hrs gather information and write about it. Just hope this game would be better in the future. Solve less inactive players, in 1.5 there is still 3 ppl left. Dev will need to think how to keep the game interesting. But it is a good start. My last game in current version was also finished in DAY 64 which is a week earlier than 1.5, with only me left. I ended it and get the gold reward only.

coolgame2019 wrote:

The first thing i want to say after my last post about what is good with the old ver. We can agree that all players here love a good strategy game. But players who cried out for resources trading. I have to say to the DEV, this is defintely a BIG NO NO. And should NOT even giving provinces either in coaliation or not (except returning the home provinces back to the coaliation teammate). It is because the nature of the game (Free to play) and cross platform. It will crush your honest and new comer player (both paid/non paid player). That may also be one reason why people don't stay in this game long. I don't want to get into details but you know how. And I bet those who insist the old version probably know how. I think this is Breach of game conduct.

The only ones that could possibly 'illigitemately' profit from non-restricted resource and province trade, would be multi-accounters.

But multies are not really problem, once you are out of the bottom layers of the game ranks.

There simply are no multies in the top 1000 or even top 10000. And I doubt there are (m)any above 50000 even.

Multies are not a real problem at all, except in the very bottom layers.

What the restrictions in free player interaction, while allowing trading provinces and resources only to coalitions, does do is: favor coalitions, alliances and mobs over regular casual players.

That is unfair to all and that is a BIG NO NO.

Further, restricting player interaction leads to a boring game.

Boring games lose players rapidly.

Games losing players, die.

The more options there are for player interaction, the more of a social function it has and thus more people will play it.

Test game update: Half a day to go on the last test game.

Game recap:

Crushed neighbors in the 1st week, though I wasn't very active. Simply made a few stacks of the original troops and send them walking, while building artillery and AC in the cities.

Once various AC and arty groups were build up, these went walking and than eliminated all further opposition, until SPA and SPAA were developed. Only SPA and SPAA I developed further, because:

- SPA provide all the powerful attack and def capabilities you need, when used correctly

- SPAA are formidable defenders at higher level and have the anti-air bonus, which I thought I would need.

However, nobody was able to build any meaningful air force, before being defeated by my Arty/SPA and supporting AC and AA/SPAA.

The game was already decided in the first 6-7 days and the biggest players joined in a coalition to end the map as fast as possible, because everyone was bored from day 6-7.

How to play COW 1.5 in my opinion:

- regroup what you have (which often is what you would never produce yourself anyway, o never mind the losses) and attack immediately, because only that way you can increase your number of production sites, your resource production, manpower and income.

- in the meanwhile built a multi-purpose army, which is good at attack and def: good defenders (M-Inf or AC) + arty. Then use sound tactics when deploying your artillery on attack.

Units at a low level are extremely fast produced, so one can have a sizable artillery force within no time.

- specialize in a few units, by building the same buildings, so you can quickly have large groups (in my case: of arty)

- keep upgrading the same units and never mind the level stats, until low level starts slowing you down. Then you split the groups in old and newer. By specializing in only a few of your favorite units, you save time, money and resources.

Some players promoted cocooning until bursting out of one's bubble. However, once an aggressive player has taken 2 countries, he will have 3x the production sites and 2x the resources of the cocooning-player. Assuming the aggressive player at least reaches level 2 with his unit development, while having a 3 times larger army, the cocooning-player will have to reach development levels 4 at least and produce sufficient units, to match the power of any aggressive player.

I doubt that it is even possible to survive as cocooner, because the cocooner is simply always out-produced .

And ofc the agressive player does not stop developing at level 2, because he has an abundance of resources from his conquered lands.

In my opinion:

- COW 1.5 is an excellent game for the more autistic players, who like to repeat exactly the same things over and again.

- Tweaking unit stats and resource requirements will make the game more playable, but tweaks can't make the game more interesting.

- Limited player interaction options do not help to make the game more interesting either.

- without an extremely good tutorial, new players are bound to make ALL the wrong choices in the beginning and will surely not derive any satisfaction or feeling of achievement from this game.

[Side note: Unfortunately, satisfaction and a sense of achievement are the main reasons to play games for 99% of gamers, followed by player (=social) interaction, which is not featured either in 1.5.]

Conclusion:

As is, 1.5 is not very interesting from the point of its illogical mechanics, limited choices and lack of variety in things to do.

Advice:

Do not do 1.5.1, but go for 1.6, bringing in some elements like strategy, choice, player interaction. I know this is a bit corny, but for inspiration, think of COW 1.0 before the Market Overhaul

Well I think I am interpreting this correctly.

Currently I have a battleship flotilla of 2 D's, 2 Subs, 2 cruisers, 2 battleships and 2 ACC

The subs and destroyers are at roughly 35 - 40 percent strength with the remain at +90.

Total strength about 75 (I'm working from memory on this bit).

Total strength of convoy was about 200.

Based on those numbers alone - I would be expected to lose.

But why is this the case when I'm fighting with a convoy of:

3 AC's level 1

7 LT's level 1

1 arty level 1

5 infantry level 2

For the LT when I click on the icon and read the stats:

"strength against armor class (as convoy unit)"

Against naval vessels - 12 attacking and 12 defending

HP properties 55 on land (armor class is light armor)

HP properties 100 @ sea (armor class is naval)

So the question is - am I interpreting this correctly in that an LT gets 55 hp on land, but and additional 45 HP when being shipped by sea?

Additional Note: Various other units within a convoy:

MT Lvl. 3 has 210 HP on land and 100 on the water

SP. Arty. Lvl. 2 has 100 HP on land and 100 on the water

TD Lvl. 2 has 160 HP on land and 100 HP on the water

And also that when stuffed into the hull of the ship that the LT has been assigned a strength of 12 both defensively and offensively against a naval attack from the stack described above?

I thought convoys were at a big disadvantage if left unprotected at sea?

No wonder all the AI's have stopped fighting on land with land units and are shipping the out to sea - lol

Most all of the information in the forum will need to be tossed out if the game mechanics are going in this direction.

If my stack of naval vessels loses to this convoy then the only apparent conclusion I can reach is that land units that are turned into convoys must be fought the same way (turning my land units into convoys and then scouring the waters to fight against enemy convoys or in this case attack an island protected by two convoys - one on each side)

Am I missing something here?

How else can a player "move on" and avoid having to construct a massive defensive position to protect against an AI "re-invasion" utilizing the convoys they hid all over the place for the purpose of recapturong their core provinces?

Is this particular situation no different in CoW V1.0 and since I am just now facing this situation the statistics seem to be a bit out of wack, but are really the same in V1.5 as V1.0?

Comments appreciated even if they reveal my lack of skill with playing this game.

On hindsight, I suppose that I should have used the battleship flotilla like arty and taken a shoot and scoot approach to this situation.

But I am still asking the question - are these stats for convoys an abberration or have they always been this way (in V1.0)?

btw - I'm getting my clock cleaned on this battle, but the other convoy which I am fighting with my convoy of land units is winning and the battleship flotilla (almost mirror image of the one described above) hasn't even arrived to engage yet.

Final comment - request for analysis by Devs on ship speeds. I'm now in a straight line shoot and scoot with the same convoy ship using the other battleship flotilla stack. Convoy speed lvl. 1 is 30 Km/hr and slowest ship is sub at 40 Km/hr.

However the convoy is catching the battleship flotilla. Requesting someone look at this situation. Thx.

Just wondering when we can expect the next level of testing for 1.5 -- despite all the negative reactions from different folks I for one welcome these new changes.

Akulla3D wrote:

Just wondering when we can expect the next level of testing for 1.5 -- despite all the negative reactions from different folks I for one welcome these new changes.

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

Akulla3D wrote:

Just wondering when we can expect the next level of testing for 1.5 -- despite all the negative reactions from different folks I for one welcome these new changes.

Others don't that is why they will be "fixing things up" before going forward.

My first post; be gentle.

CoW 1.5 Day 27, should wrap up today with a Coalition Victory. Could of been sooner but was experimenting.

Overall impression; Realism and Balancing have become mystical. Had to keep looking at Armoured Vehicle stats to figure out what each one was used for, not intuitive or historical. However; found I was actually having fun due to active enemy players sticking around till after day 20. Even an enemy Gold Spammer kept things interesting, though very abstract.

Good; Units at Different levels. Loved producing a Light Tank level 2 (in 6 hrs 15 min) when time was important rather than producing a Light Tank Level 4 (in 11 hrs 45 min). I had choices, I liked that.

However; upgrading units should be included, ideas; unit to be upgraded must move to the dot in the Province to represent moving unit to a Rail Head. Resources have to be paid. After activation of an upgrade; a Time delay much like Paratrooper (coding exists) before unit can move again, represents re-equipping and training. Time delay dependant on unit type (Infantry would be quick vs Tanks would take much longer). Player then has several decisions to make about which units to upgrade, when, where etc. More choices, more to like.

Good; the introduction of different Armour types, Light/Heavy. Realistic.

However; Unit roles are reversed, biggest example is the Tank Destroyer and the Heavy Tank. The Tank Destroyer was a cheaper combat vehicle, less sophisticated than the tank by removal of the Turret, because of this the TD needed time to aim with a very limited traverse arc on the main gun. Making it inherently defensive by its own limitations. The Heavy Tank was designed to break though enemy lines, not to sit and defend. Even on the defence it was often held in Reserve to act as a Counter Attack or Blocking a break through role. Heavy Tanks should be expensive, rare and frightening.

Unit Stats and Balancing; I understand the rock, paper and scissor concept, but believe CoW 1.5 has gone to the extreme. A Light Tank on the offence should not be able to crush a similar Light Tank on the defence, unrealistic.

Hit Points; too extreme as unit levels up. Especially concerning Infantry. Understood that Hit Points represent training, experience, equipment, use of terrain etc, but in CoW 1.5 there is a huge sense of "too muchness".

Veteran Status; mentioned previously by someone else. Good idea, the unit already keeps an Enemy Destroyed record. Older players will remember the PC game "Panzer General" which used this idea very well.

Final Word; I have started a new game of CoW 1.0, and very thankful that I am back in a familiar environment. Version 1.0 is very clever, balanced and intuitive game. I guess I would rather see it tweaked than overhauled.

That was a very good post, @Brazen Shield!

I agree with everything except that you'd make upgrade time of units on the field vary on unit type. Here's how I would like to see it:

1.: You shouldn't have to move them back to a province with the respective production facility. That would result in too much painfully laborous micromanagement. You should be able to do it in every own or allied province, as long as the unit is not engaged in battle. It then gets a cooldown timer like just landed paratroopers, during which you cannot give orders to the unit.

2.: Important I think is that costs should vary depending on the tech tree. My suggestion is the table I put in --> this post <--. Mainly: Costs for infantry level-up very low and costs for level-up of machines high. That would be both realistic and also give some distinction to units, which is badly needed. On the other hand time required for level-up should be the same for all units.

3.: I would make costs also dependant on how many levels are upgraded - skipping a level should make the upgrade twice as costly (while time required should be the same, no matter how many levels you upgrade in one go).