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:
Unit functionality updates:
General balancing changes:
Gold cost changes:
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!
It will be delayed. Bytro staff estimates that it should be a couple of months 2020 until they do their next test event.Akulla3D wrote:
What does that mean? Is it cancelled?Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Others don't that is why they will be "fixing things up" before going forward.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.
Do Pioneers have access for testing? I would be interested in helping and testing it out.Ryan04px2025 wrote:
It will be delayed. Bytro staff estimates that it should be a couple of months 2020 until they do their next test event.Akulla3D wrote:
What does that mean? Is it cancelled?Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Others don't that is why they will be "fixing things up" before going forward.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.
Number one is spot on that would be perfect, plus if they get attacked during upgrade they would be very week I would expect. Also, I would think you would need the resources to cover the difference.Hans A. Pils wrote:
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).
I expect it to be for all because of all the needed feedback for Bytro as well as many different opinionsAkulla3D wrote:
Do Pioneers have access for testing? I would be interested in helping and testing it out.Ryan04px2025 wrote:
It will be delayed. Bytro staff estimates that it should be a couple of months 2020 until they do their next test event.Akulla3D wrote:
What does that mean? Is it cancelled?Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Others don't that is why they will be "fixing things up" before going forward.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.
Very good post, listing the majoity of issues with COW 1.5, while stating why COW 1.0 rather deserves a good 'tweak', than to be replaced by this new game.
As Brazen Shield does - stating issues, pro's and con's - none of the players in favor have done.
It would be interesting to know why players in favor of 1.5 are actually in favor of it. Especially the detailed opinion of a seasoned player, with reasonable stats and spending money, would be appreciated.
Can you please speak English?
removed by self
It looks like somebody, with a lot of free time in their hands, was trying to bust our chops! ... This individual posted 90 times in Chinese across various threads a few hrs ago! ... Apparently he was blocked by the forum administrator and all his posts deleted- including the one with a pic of a sensuous woman ... 
Yes, all the spam was removed. fun fact, non english is fine on forum, as long as it doesnt break any other rules. we do have other language forums available, though, and those folks are directed to that forum. however, not every language is represented, so its okay if someone wants to post in non english on english forum. 
Hey Stormy hows it going?Stormbringer50 wrote:
Yes, all the spam was removed. fun fact, non english is fine on forum, as long as it doesnt break any other rules. we do have other language forums available, though, and those folks are directed to that forum. however, not every language is represented, so its okay if someone wants to post in non english on english forum.
Hey, there has been a spam in Korean and Chinese. If you are not here, you will not understand. It has been removed and you cannot see it anymore. I am not doing any of the things stated in your post. Merely telling the spammers to stop.vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
It seems highly unlikely that any mature participant, in the discussion above, would have any doubt that the language spoken in this thread is indeed English.But possibly it is not the English you are used to?Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Can you please speak English?And, if so, which would you prefer? British English, American English, Australian English or maybe Pigeon English? Or one of the many other?
Or did you mean to say: "Despite the exquisite use of language, I fail to comprehend what is being relayed".
In case of the latter, it would be most helpful if you could indicate where you lost track and in which post; for now, you are leaving us in the dark.
Or are you actually trying to make fun of what are, doubtlessly, the best attempts of non-native speakers, to convey a clear message with meaningful content about the current developments in and around COW 1.0 and COW 1.5?
I so far haven't said anything about the centralization of resource and unit production into urban provinces. Can somebody from Bytro explain why that was done??
The only argument I read from you is "realism". Well, it's true that urban centres generated more money, goods and manpower. But about the other resources rather the opposite was the case. CoW1.0 reflects this well, while 1.5 exaggerates the importance of urban centres very much.
And unit production? OK, production of the most heavy units required heavy steel industry in the vicinity, which weeell, yes, could rather be found in the major urbanized areas. But restricting production of all units to the few major cities? Training infantry only in major cities 
? And why shouldn't we be able to raise production centres for light/medium units in one of the medium cities, of which there are enough in the so-called rural provinces in CoW? Why not construct planes in Newcastle? Why not build artillery or light tanks in Hannover, Nürnberg, Liverpool or Florence, which are just very few examples of places that are rural provinces in both CoW1.0 and 1.5.
So that much about realism. And I also cannot see how that centralization should help in terms of gameplay. I think it only makes maps and the game as a whole more single-sided and boring.
What I do understand better now is the progression depending on level that 1.5 introduces to build times. For buildings this is clearly positive, that much is clear, no need to talk about that. For units it's not realistic, but improves gameplay: In CoW1.0 it's striking you cannot produce much at the beginning, while in late game there's so much to do you cannot care about everything unless playing as full-time job. Although I personally never found this disturbing (before the "Market overhaul" update you could fill the void during the first days well by trading, analysing what the others do in order to know how you want to position yourself diplomatically and by messaging others to learn about them and to build up first diplomatic relations), I must understand that for many players that's a major issue. Which for sure is tackled by 1.5 successfully - I have to admit that much.
So I now agree to production times of high-level units being a bit higher than of level1-units. I now agree in this aspect, realism should step back in order to allow better gameplay - also because industrial capacity / the ability to produce many units in short time should be an important factor also in later game phases.
But what I still totally cannot content myself with is progression in production & upkeep costs of units. Neither with a progression for their damage output that's higher than in CoW1.0, nor with a high HP increase.
I understand that all of these pursue the same purpose as described in the first paragraph (above), but are too badly unrealistic.
I'll soon create a comprehensive proposal of how units and buildings should be balanced in order to have them realistic, offer many challenging strategic decisions to the players and to let the number of possible production orders not to grow so immensely over time as it does in CoW1.0.
One idea I have for the latter is to:
* keep the SBDE system as in 1.0 counting per unit type (and not per total number of units in a stack),
* make it very very strict - only two units of same type (regardless of their level) can go in the same stack with 100% SBDE,
* introduce a new "Tactics" research tree with the following techs:
1.: "Army command": 2 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for infantry units except AA/AT/arty by +1.
2.: "Ordnance command": 3 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for AA/AT/arty by +1.
3.: "Airforce command": 2 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for air units by +1.
4.: "Armour command": 2 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for air units by +1.
5.: "Navy command": 3 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for AA/AT/arty by +1.
These should be very costly and time-consuming to research, but would enable players who don't want to manage many small stacks give the option to build large stacks in mid or late game.
Certainly that would require some programming, but would be perfect.
CoN was designed such that virtually all resources were produced in cities.Hans A. Pils wrote:
the centralization of resource and unit production into urban provinces.
Conversely, Sone has NO resource production in cities.
next time write a ticket. you have no influence on spam(mers). mods do.Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Merely telling the spammers to stop.
IMO that would be a good idea. It also serves to teach the - not at all difficult, but hard to discover, bc nowhere explained - principles of SBDE.Hans A. Pils wrote:
* introduce a new "Tactics" research tree with the following techs:
However, without knowing which direction the devs want to take this, this all remains what we call 'air biking': peddling the pedals to no avail.
The cheapest solution for improved new player retention remains, IMO, a good set of progressively difficult tutorial maps.
The fastest way to retain players now is: to be transparent about whether COW 1.5 is supposed to replace COW 1.0 or whether it it is going to be a separate game.
Levelize units I feel ok too. I play CoN two days ago. And yesterday almost lose. At the game started, only give you armored cars, 1 arty, 1 fighter and some regular infs. No tanks, it really hard to do defendsive prepare if you dont know who will attack you. Once you any urban falled, you basically lose. Resource produce rate down to negative. And only capture your provinces back way is use defensive infs to capture.(armored car and art cant capture them) I used 2 infs and 1 national guard(militia, and only 1/3 hp left) to attack invader 2 infs and 1 arty. Result is only killed 1 arty and gave 2 infs 1/4 total damage. And invader(ya, Russia) owns more resources and provinces than me at the begining. The invade punishment is morale -2/per nation. That's totally unfair. How can I beat invader if I dont know who will going to attack?
In this situation, only gold can give you real help......
Just hope Call of War would not become something like that.
Just trying to help in case they don't. Just a reminder. Reminding someone to something they are supposed to does not count as deputy modding, if it does, you are doing so too! lol. It is just trying to see what can help them stop. If you were there, you will think differently. Anyways, that is not related to the topic at all.vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
next time write a ticket. you have no influence on spam(mers). mods do.Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Merely telling the spammers to stop.
Back to topic: What is the main target we have now? I was thinking of separate 1.5 game. I hope it will work well that way.
Don't care much about 'deputy modding' of whatever. IMO this thread is about the future or demise of COW 1.0 and the (possible, but not yet clarified) replacement with a new game COW 1.5 and thus has no need for unrelated posts and loose remarks.Ryan04px2025 wrote:
deputy modding
As such, the 1st question to be answered is: can and will COW 1.0 and 1.5 coexist or must COW 1.5 replace 1.0 ??
Only after that, further importance can be attached to commenting on COW 1.0's future (if there is any) and 1.5.
I will most likely not play 1.5 when it keeps these mechanics and features (1.6 I might though, depending....)
Edit: a number of questions - including the above - have been at least partially answered by Freezy in >>> Freezy's post <<<
We want to make province management easier. We don't want players to manage hundreds of provinces anymore with dozens of simultaneous productions going on, scrolling through an endless province list once they conquered 2-3 nations. We also want to diversify the gameplay by giving having different province types with different functions, and we want to create meaningful points of interest on the map where battles evolve around.Hans A. Pils wrote:
I so far haven't said anything about the centralization of resource and unit production into urban provinces. Can somebody from Bytro explain why that was done??The only argument I read from you is "realism". Well, it's true that urban centres generated more money, goods and manpower. But about the other resources rather the opposite was the case. CoW1.0 reflects this well, while 1.5 exaggerates the importance of urban centres very much.
And unit production? OK, production of the most heavy units required heavy steel industry in the vicinity, which weeell, yes, could rather be found in the major urbanized areas. But restricting production of all units to the few major cities? Training infantry only in major cities
So that much about realism. And I also cannot see how that centralization should help in terms of gameplay. I think it only makes maps and the game as a whole more single-sided and boring.
We will rebalance all unit values for the second event and also change some unit roles again. The end result should be more realistic than the first draft.Hans A. Pils wrote:
What I do understand better now is the progression depending on level that 1.5 introduces to build times. For buildings this is clearly positive, that much is clear, no need to talk about that. For units it's not realistic, but improves gameplay: In CoW1.0 it's striking you cannot produce much at the beginning, while in late game there's so much to do you cannot care about everything unless playing as full-time job. Although I personally never found this disturbing (before the "Market overhaul" update you could fill the void during the first days well by trading, analysing what the others do in order to know how you want to position yourself diplomatically and by messaging others to learn about them and to build up first diplomatic relations), I must understand that for many players that's a major issue. Which for sure is tackled by 1.5 successfully - I have to admit that much.So I now agree to production times of high-level units being a bit higher than of level1-units. I now agree in this aspect, realism should step back in order to allow better gameplay - also because industrial capacity / the ability to produce many units in short time should be an important factor also in later game phases.
But what I still totally cannot content myself with is progression in production & upkeep costs of units. Neither with a progression for their damage output that's higher than in CoW1.0, nor with a high HP increase.
I understand that all of these pursue the same purpose as described in the first paragraph (above), but are too badly unrealistic.
I'll soon create a comprehensive proposal of how units and buildings should be balanced in order to have them realistic, offer many challenging strategic decisions to the players and to let the number of possible production orders not to grow so immensely over time as it does in CoW1.0.
One idea I have for the latter is to:
* keep the SBDE system as in 1.0 counting per unit type (and not per total number of units in a stack),
* make it very very strict - only two units of same type (regardless of their level) can go in the same stack with 100% SBDE,
* introduce a new "Tactics" research tree with the following techs:
1.: "Army command": 2 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for infantry units except AA/AT/arty by +1.
2.: "Ordnance command": 3 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for AA/AT/arty by +1.
3.: "Airforce command": 2 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for air units by +1.
4.: "Armour command": 2 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for air units by +1.
5.: "Navy command": 3 levels - each level increases SBDE limit for AA/AT/arty by +1.
These should be very costly and time-consuming to research, but would enable players who don't want to manage many small stacks give the option to build large stacks in mid or late game.
Certainly that would require some programming, but would be perfect.
Thanks for the suggestion, but old SBDE per unit type is not coming back. First it is broken when having multiple unit levels of the same type on the field (as we have in 1.5) as each level counts as different unit in the code, secondly it is hard to visualize and to understand (in comparison, a stack limit for the whole stack we can very well visualize on the map soon), and thirdly it still can be easily circumvented by splitting unit. Not a deep mechanic, just arbitrary complexity.
