Locked

Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

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

Tasmine wrote:

If freezy really want to import this feature. I'd want to ask you how defender against invaders if one of your urban province being occupied. If both sides has 4 urban area at the begining. You now only 3 provinces can produce units while enemy has 5. And if invaders occupy your rural provinces. You have try to take it back without losing other urban province at the time....
The real answer to your concern (and you won't like it) is as follows....

If you are fighting in YOUR Core provinces, then you've already lost. Bow your head and depart with dignity as you have been outplayed.

Then immediately proceed to the Forms, read up on the Player Help section on the area (Economy, Moral or Combat) where the wheels fell off your wagon....

Then Start another game and try not to make the same mistake again.

Rinse, repeat... and you'll start putting some Tick marks in the "WIN" column.

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

Seems like the awful idea that is 1.5 has crept into the new Xmas event maps. No factories to start, no extra resources to build them, limited AI to sell them,

The NO Factories Start is the best Idea so far. Something I suggested in the forums and to my pleasant surprise, it was already planned to take effect.

This way EVERYONE starts on the same page and gets to chose where they want their new units to be produced. Better than being stuck with Infantry production in Siberia and Aircraft on the battle front.

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

It sounds fair, but zero factories would give an early advantage to gold users (I'm one of them). Perhaps one level 1 factory per country may give the 'poorer' players a fighting chance ... 8)

I'm more curious about the map description. Where is the "Santa" anyway?

gusv wrote:

It sounds fair, but zero factories would give an early advantage to gold users (I'm one of them). Perhaps one level 1 factory per country may give the 'poorer' players a fighting chance ... 8)
You're missing the entire point of this gusv.... I want to start producing units where I want them to appear on the map... so it fits with my plans, with my MO.

You are comparing apples to hand-grenades and saying it's not fair. Keep the comparison the same and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Non-GOLD using Game (No one uses GOLD)

Everyone gets to decide for themselves where their units are produced. The deciding factor for victory is gamesmanship, dedication and skills.

All Players use GOLD

Everyone gets to decide for themselves where their units are produced and the key deciding factor is who has most GOLD wins

One Player uses GOLD

The GOLD using player has bought the game and wins, it never mattered where units started.

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

@gusv is right that no factories at start make the use of gold way more decisive.

And the argument it allows to decide where to raise buildings for which unit production isn't a big one, since it will still be in your cores. It usually doesn't make a big difference in which core province you produce units.

Anyhow, this is supposed to be a thread for 1.5, not for the Christmas event.

freezy wrote:

a big chunk of the CoW playerbase plays on both platforms. I can't give you exact numbers but let's say half of the current CoW playerbase plays on mobile.
That's clear. Of course the option to give orders with your smartphone whenever you want and wherever you are is very handy. It gives a huge advantage, so naturally almost all players make use of it. But that doesn't mean that it's very important that concepts have to be easily understandable on both platforms. CoW for the majority of players has always worked in a way that the desktop version is where you get your understanding of game concepts and mechanics (and also where you enjoy the game), whereas mobile you only use to give orders during the times you cannot play on a PC.

I'm very sad to see that with 1.5 you're about to let game designs be dictated by the limited feasibilities that smartphones offer and thus let them be dictated by a (so far) minority - by those players who exclusively use smartphones. Sure: By dumbing down the game you'll be attracting more of such players. But it's still very sad, because so many dumb games for mobile already exist, whereas CoW1.0 is strategically challenging and realistic... or in one word great. And with units no longer upgrading automatically it can even be perfectioned in both these respects - if you had that goal.

In the News article on the interview with freezy it's said it was being tried to find a compromise between strategic depth + realism and gameplay. I don't see any compromise in 1.5 so far. There is a small number of changes that doesn't harm either one or the other and is objectively good (primarily units not upgrading automatically any more). But all others only serve to make the game easier to handle overall and easier visualizable on smartphones (in --> this post <-- I list a lot of them), while at the same time degrading strategic profoundness or realism or both. That cannot be called a compromise. It will make the game very unattractive for the current majority of players, who at least sometimes use a PC. Only exclusive smartphone users benefit.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

@gusv is right that no factories at start make the use of gold way more decisive.

And the argument it allows to decide where to raise buildings for which unit production isn't a big one, since it will still be in your cores. It usually doesn't make a big difference in which core province you produce units.

If the FIRST Factory in a CORE province was built as fast a a Barracks Lvl 1 (1min 30sec)... how would GOLD be a huge advantage.

Purpose of Starting with NO Factories is not to slow you down, but to let player chose their locations.

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

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

wrote:

If the FIRST Factory in a CORE province was built as fast a a Barracks Lvl 1 (1min 30sec)... how would GOLD be a huge advantage.

Purpose of Starting with NO Factories is not to slow you down, but to let player chose their locations.

The gold would be used to buy resources, not just time.

EZ Dolittle wrote:

The gold would be used to buy resources, not just time.
That's always the case.

But at least with No Starting Factories... I get to chose where my produced units enter on the board.... And that's better than someone else making that decision.

Gold is an irrelevant factor when it comes this.... It's a huge (even deciding) factor AFTERWARD... but completely irrelevant to this issue.

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

freezy wrote:

As for your other posts: Good that we could agree on som things more or less
More or less. I'm still convinced that SBDE per unit type (with low limits for 100% SBDE) would be better. But I think everyone (including myself) gets tired by that discussion, so I started to think in the other direction. @OneNutSquirrel already nicely described the combined arms approach and the following is the key aspect:

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

A few advancing tanks, as tough as they were, could easily be taken out by infantry if the tanks just attempted to punch through the infantry lines with no regard to infantry carrying explosives and anti tank hand weapons flanking them. While the same few tanks were greatly more efficient with infantry support and acted as moving steel walls for the infantry advance so they couldn't get flanked, and the infantry had protection for the advance.
That's so very true. Infantry had no means to harm tanks, in particular medium or heavy tanks, unless getting very close and not only facing their front-sides. Which was impossible to achieve as long as there was opposing infantry escorting the tanks. For example carrying explosives and attaching them to a tank was suicide if there were a few men of the enemy next to the tank with guns in their hands. Even with bazookas you needed to get very close and ideally to the side or rear of a heavily armoured vehicle to have a reasonable chance to damage it.

So now my suggestion that would make me live with SBDE per total stack size happily:

* Militia, regular infantry, paratroopers, motorized and mechanized infantry get a new characteristic "provides infantry support".

* All heavy armour get a new characteristic "requires infantry support".

* Militia, regular infantry, paratroopers, motorized infantry and Commandos get a new bonus +100% damage to heavy armour with "insufficient infantry support". Which would be defined as more units requiring infantry support than units providing infantry support in the stack.

Displaying a stack with insuffient infantry support could look like this (I bet you're able to design a way more beautiful icon and write a better text^^):

Forum attachment

Assumption I made in the above is that the basic damage that militia, regular infantry, paratroopers and motorized infantry does to light armour is less than they do to unarmoured targets and the basic damage they do heavy armour again only 50% of the damage to light armour. Which would result in heavy armour being able to easily overrun infantry, unless having insufficient infantry support.

Which would not only be fully realistic, but also give infantry a sense... a special power which it so far is lacking in CoW. And we would for example see some players build both tanks AND motorized or mechanized infantry in order to use tanks without insufficient infantry support and without slowing them down as the other infantry units would do. Which would be a nice strategical option and - again - very realistic.

I do not know if that sort of adjustment (infantry support) is a priority concern at the grand tactical level of this game.

I would not direct scarce design program time to it.

A much higher priority would be first to make the mobile and the computer version identical in features where currently there are significant differences between them.

EZ Dolittle wrote:

A much higher priority would be first to make the mobile and the computer version identical in features where currently there are significant differences between them.
I would say that Identifying the features you want, would be first priority, then implementing them... Wasting code to make both versions identical with unwanted features... what would be the point of that...

These discussions identify concerns, we've see Dev's come back on feature changes which did not go over well such as Resource trading with non-coalition members (CoW)... toning down the unit power curve per Lvl(CoW 1.5).

That identification process and balancing are key, then synchronizing mobile/PC versions makes sense as you don't have to re-code obsolete or irrelevant features.

Synergy of units and complimentary bonuses would change combat calculations immensely, so settling those kinds of "features" should be priority before committing to aesthetics...

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

Very good answer, @OneNutSquirrel, thanks for that.

I want to add that two of the major goals that CoW1.5 has or should have are

1.: Allowing players to build a big variety of units in each game and to research them to different levels (not just few units and research them to the max).

2.: Partly thanks to the above, making decisions on how to compose your army / your stacks more interesting, strategically challenging and even more realistic than it is in CoW1.0.

The first test version of CoW1.5 failed these two goals, because the new SBDE-per-total-stack-size thing promotes stacks containing very few different units.

Freezy said that "1." could be solved with general balancing. But I bet this implies giving units very distinct roles - maybe not as badly as in the first test version of CoW1.5, but still. Whereas my "infantry support" suggestion would add a lot to these two goals without negative side-effects - except for needing some development capacities, sure.

See it this way: If nothing like either the "infantry support" feature or SBDE-per-unit-type is added to CoW1.5, then we'll end up with pure tanks (or tanks+SPAA) stacks steamrolling thoughtlessly over the board. And nobody who's looking for a strategic or tactical challenge or for a game with WW2 feeling can want that.

Making features in desktop and mobile version synchronous might be good as well, but this thread is about 1.5. Which has nothing to do with how the mobile app works. Please don't disrupt our discussion with things that are off-topic.

I think the unit specialization would prevent that.

One of the first Jagpanther (German Anti tank) engagements was 3 of them attacking a dozen British tanks...ended up destroying 10 of them, 1 JP just crawled off the field and German tank crew lit it up to destroy it.... 2nd one was damaged and found a bit farther...

3 vs 12 and lost 2 vs 10

That's specialized. If the new stats even somewhat remotely represent that.. and I have a single unit type stack heading my way.... it means that stack is susceptible to a single type defense as well.

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

If you have tanks and your enemy has tank destroyers, that would in CoW1.5 make you build a mere infantry stack next to your tanks stack (and then send the infantry stack against the tank destroyers). It still wouldn't make you mix your tanks with infantry in the same stack - which was an essential element in WW2 tactics... as you yourself and I already described.

CoW1.5 with its SBDE-per-total-stack-size system promotes stacks containing very few different unit types. And I'm sure that nobody except for Bytro (for reasons that totally evade me) can want that.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

If you have tanks and your enemy has tank destroyers, that would in CoW1.5 make you build a mere infantry stack next to your tanks stack (and then send the infantry stack against the tank destroyers). It still wouldn't make you mix your tanks with infantry in the same stack - which was an essential element in WW2 tactics... as you yourself and I already described.

CoW1.5 with its SBDE-per-total-stack-size system promotes stacks containing very few different unit types. And I'm sure that nobody except for Bytro (for reasons that totally evade me) can want that.

I see it quite different... any Artillery (read AA, AT, Arty is most cosy in a meat blanket, something that can take damage while those units do their thing) That means you're building mixed stacks.

In most cases, that's the entire purpose of mixed stacks, so that the vulnerable units get protection by being in stacks that are better able to deal with damage from the dangerous enemy units.

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

Of course the meat blanked principle for ranged units works no matter how SBDE is designed. It works the same in both CoW1.0 and CoW1.5, that's clear.

This entire talk is "only" about the question which compilations of non-ranged units should make sense in CoW1.5. As it is so far, CoW1.5 promotes non-ranged stacks of just one unit, potentially adding AA or SPAA to it. But you and I would favour the game to reflect the combined arms approach - not only to make it more realistic, but also more challenging from strategical point of view, more interesting and diverse. Less boring and less dumb. My proposals to either implement infantry support or return to SBDE-per-unit-type would achieve that.

I see it's your hobby to just criticize what other people write, no matter what. But in this topic, I'm on your side. So it makes no sense you criticize the options I describe for how it can be realized what we both want. You contradict yourself.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

I see it's your hobby to just criticize what other people write, no matter what. But in this topic, I'm on your side. So it makes no sense you criticize the options I describe for how it can be realized what we both want. You contradict yourself.
Yes.

That's how BETTER ideas are born.

Sometimes the criticism shuts that "idea" right down, and shows that it could never work past the glaring flaws. At other times, the criticism inspires reworking, adjusting and turns a mediocre idea into a decent one, then smarter people then me can make it into a great idea. The fact that there are 4 or 5 people "fine tuning" this one from different sides is a good thing.

-------Not to Digress

One thing to consider... SBDE (STATE Based Damage Efficiency) is a very misleading name.... Should rightly be STACK Based Damage Efficiency.

I could have 50 stacks of Artillery x 8 units, in a Province and firing at one target, all doing 100% of their damage without penalty. SBDE ONLY affected combat units that fought on CONTACT, not ranged or air. For it to have any meaningful impact on the game, any new limitations on number of troops in a combat zone would have to consider weather these limits are arbitrarily on Stacks or Provinces.

Results

STACK-BDE - Limit of 10 units per stack or X number of a Class of units per stack are only penalty to the Defender. Attacker can put 10 Stacks of Air units(5/5), 10 stacks of Naval units (3/3) to bombard, and 100 stacks or Artillery (8)(Doesn't matter if it's Limitations on Unit Classes in a stack or total number of units in the stack, effects are the same) on same target without suffering any penalty while the Defender is handicapped from the start.

STATE-BDE - Only X Number of units in a Province fight at 100%.. All others suffer penalty.

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

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

One of the first Jagpanther (German Anti tank) engagements was 3 of them attacking a dozen British tanks...
don't use one example to illustrate your point especially when it is the first use of a new weapon. Counter tactics are then developed and this rate of success disappears.
Back to Call of War News
Quick Launch