Call of War 1.5 round 2!

Akulla3D wrote:

t from 14 min approx to 30.

rural airfields are cheaper and faster to build, and give better turn-around performance.

Akulla3D wrote:

Oh one more thing.

Not sure why you would build Militia now, as they have the same requirements to build as Infantry. Other, than cost of course.

I i set a militia to build and 4 more with High Command queue.

At 1 every 45 minutes, I was going to have 5 in city before he reached.

I Actually destroyed landing party with a destroyer and planes, but these new militia would have done the job

f118 wrote:

It is not division, it is regiment! Also military unit of 3 til 5 battailions. Also for sure nearby equal of squadron of ships.

About Destroyer units being meant to represent a Destroyer squadron... Again, did Bytro say this? That doesn't seem to fit with game experience (i.e. they are fast to produce etc.) And I had already edited my original post to clarify that a DD would have maybe a 1% chance of defeating a Cruiser with torpedoes if it could somehow sneak up on it (at night in a fijord or whatever) and it happened to be a torpedo-equipped DD... But the DD would still be sunk by gunnery too in that most lucky case. The guns of bigger ships just overwhelmed smaller ships, and at sea having significantly longer-range guns was like using artillery against a small number of infantry walking across a very long field. (Yes I am fully aware that there are rare cases of a Destroyer sinking a cruiser, mostly with massed attacks in desperation to hold off Japanese surface fleets in the Pacific, or with the Japanese's uniquely long range Type 93 torpedoes.) Like I said, Cruisers are the rock to the Destroyer scissors. If someone told you your enemy had a huge fleet of Destroyers, you should say "We must build more Cruisers then!", because you would know your Cruisers would swat the DDs like flies. That is not represented well here, it seems. Destroyers are just much better all-around units because of their very high attack value vs subs.

About the 'epic' nature of Battleships, I agree that they aren't that amazing in CoW standard either. (In Supremacy they were more realistically kindof an 'ultimate' unit which would take over the map with their awesome range should one player get them in the water first.) You didn't see them much in CoW standard (never ever in 16-day competitive games) simply because of the prohibitive cost to build one. But if you bring Destroyers to a Battleship fight, you really shouldn't expect to win!

Sorry one more, it would be nice to be able to upgrade one or two units in a stack without having to move them a tiny bit or split them into thier own stack.

If you think DD are OP in CoW 1.5.2, you shuda seen 'em in round one!

Experimenting with BB in one game. Day 6, a fleet of 8. Each with a cruiser and sub escort. Too

chicken experienced to send BB out on their own.

Now all I need is a worthy opponent with some navy.

Please, please, please do not restrict victory points and building only to cities. As many have said before, this is turning into CoN. I love CoW and have been playing for about 2 years. This would kill my spirit and I really love this game. In the test event, my cities were overrun, and although I am playing a good defense, i cannot produce anything else to oprevent me from losing

I posted a concern over cost of upgrading units. I see that new units are produced at the upgraded value, so its only units produced prior to the research upgrade need upgrading. That does somewhat change the dynamics of upgrading. I think now the system may be ok, but needs to take a few things into consideration.

First of all, having worked in factories upgrading equipment for a lifetime, I can tell you that manpower requirements always go down, not up, when you upgrade. In the game, the cost in manpower to upgrade was very high. While other resources may be required for an upgrade, manpower should not. In fact, you might even consider to bonus back some manpower or other materials after upgrading.

Teburu wrote:

In general:

- manpower for research feels odd (what exactly are we doing do this poor men? sacrificing them to our demon overlords for superior technology? )

- not a fan of this lack disadvantages on different terrain (like previously tanks would get -50% strenght and half health in cities); now units only have positive modifiers and only on one or max two types of terain, they could def be more effected by terrain

- i like the focus on cities for unit production; actually gives them some more value over provinces and makes them of some strategical importance

- the damage/HP scaling seems a bit crazy; tho i have yet to see how that actually plays out

- i like the diversity of when units become available for research

- same prices for industrial in cities and provinces doesnt make that much sense; seeing how cities produce a shitton more

- not really a fan of these extremly short mobilization times cuz this puts you at an extreme disadvantage if you dont have high command

In detail:

- wtf why do strategical bombers have more offensive damage against aircraft than tactial; and why do they have it to begin with

- it was mentioned that arty range has been reduced to compensate for more frequent offensive ticks; however ships seem completly unaffected by this (especially battleships profit from this now, they even start with 70 range)

- i like the changes to carrier capacity scaling

Tank destroyers have been made fragile in comparison to the rest of the armor faction, allied light armor/unarmoured units don't fair well against light tanks, and tank destroyers don't deal that much damage defensively, in fact, light tanks will deal more damage to lightly armored units than a tank destroyer will do defensively to light armored units, even medium tanks deal more damage to light armor than a tank destroyer.

Edit: I think that strategic bombers are unbalanced in terms of dealing damage to units, but you fixed the building damage splendidly, but don't reduce the anti-air damage please.

Now to my opinion part: The anti-air on strategic bombers could go up as they've not had interceptors able to escort them past level three strategic bombers. (Unless you have elite I believe)

I am not a fan of the elimination of many of the terrain modifiers. For example not having a negative for armor in Urban areas is a mistake. The terrain mods make for a more nuanced game relative to combat decisions and force make up.

Also echo the absurdity of the manpower costs for upgrade troops.

I like the way the ordnance factory was carved in there. It creates a nice tactical decision making point. I also like the creation of the specific factories for producing units wothout any other factories needed. It speeds up things quite a bit in the beginning game as far as troop building.

What a treat to build Tac Bombers in a lvl 1 air factory so quicky in the game. While I really appreciated the gift, I think it doesn't hurt to requite little investment to get TACS.

So i have played a few of the round 2 games and i noticed that the research tab is basically no different from the current one because when you research most of the first level 1 units you have no resources left, by the time your resources replenish everything is already available for research, it would be a better improvement if you fixed it by having our resources replenish faster and the availability of the researchable units spread out so it would take 2 to 3 days longer till you can research a medium and level 2 light tank so we aren't so far behind on our research

1.5 looks good,

seams to me like the old style of play , been properly tactical about capturing cities is back.

and that the tarnsport connections will be back as assest both for structural placemenst and targeting.

i played years ago and just came back,the map sweepers clear maps too quickly in 1.4

Violet_Trooper wrote:

Teburu wrote:

In general:

- manpower for research feels odd (what exactly are we doing do this poor men? sacrificing them to our demon overlords for superior technology? )

- not a fan of this lack disadvantages on different terrain (like previously tanks would get -50% strenght and half health in cities); now units only have positive modifiers and only on one or max two types of terain, they could def be more effected by terrain

- i like the focus on cities for unit production; actually gives them some more value over provinces and makes them of some strategical importance

- the damage/HP scaling seems a bit crazy; tho i have yet to see how that actually plays out

- i like the diversity of when units become available for research

- same prices for industrial in cities and provinces doesnt make that much sense; seeing how cities produce a shitton more

- not really a fan of these extremly short mobilization times cuz this puts you at an extreme disadvantage if you dont have high command

In detail:

- wtf why do strategical bombers have more offensive damage against aircraft than tactial; and why do they have it to begin with

- it was mentioned that arty range has been reduced to compensate for more frequent offensive ticks; however ships seem completly unaffected by this (especially battleships profit from this now, they even start with 70 range)

- i like the changes to carrier capacity scaling

I also have an idea for the research tab for each nation only in the 25 player map if possible, okay instead of having all nations research all the same why not make it more realistic starting with Germany, Germany was producing panzer I, II, III and IV before the war so those should already be researched and didn't start producing panzer V, VI till 1943 so those shouldn't be researched till you reach the required year i'll make a table on how the whole research tab should look like, and tomorrow ill do a Soviet and USA.

1945

Type VII

Deutschland class

Bayern class

Bf 110

He 111

Heinkel he 177

Ju 87

Class

type 38

Car

234/4

Panzer

II

Leopard

Panzer

IV

Panzer

LöweVII

Elephant

Fortune12345 wrote:

Please, please, please do not restrict victory points and building only to cities. As many have said before, this is turning into CoN. I love CoW and have been playing for about 2 years. This would kill my spirit and I really love this game. In the test event, my cities were overrun, and although I am playing a good defense, i cannot produce anything else to oprevent me from losing

This makes sense, to build a bunch of manufacturing buildings in the middle of no where with no population to support is unrealistic. The current dynamic makes capturing cities very important.

I really like the current dynamic please dont change this.

Quick question about plane refueling.

I have noticed that the refueling times change for some reason, sometimes they are 30 min and others they are 45 min or something else -- what is the basis for plane refueling?

Akulla3D wrote:

Quick question about plane refueling.

I have noticed that the refueling times change for some reason, sometimes they are 30 min and others they are 45 min or something else -- what is the basis for plane refueling?

CityOfAngels wrote:

Akulla3D wrote:

Quick question about plane refueling.

I have noticed that the refueling times change for some reason, sometimes they are 30 min and others they are 45 min or something else -- what is the basis for plane refueling?

The level of the airbase you are refueling at. (And airbases in cities are less efficient than those in a rural province, similar to infrastructure.)

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Naval battle dynamics has completely changed! Battleships are cheap units now, as they cost about the "same" as subs... and the single sub now has trouble beating an unescorted single battleship! Single sub against two battleship loses easily... surely this isn't as intended? Did the need to "always" escort heavy ships against subs get scrapped on purpose?

f118 wrote:

Small feed back after playing 5 rounds each day 5 yet.

Feedback to CoW developement.

CoW 1.5.2 is even more quicklier than 1.5.1, wich was more quicklier than common 1.0/2019, wich is more quicklier than 1.0/2017, sorry but more than 50% of players are working peoples. If we dont get x0.50 speed rounds event, then CoW would lose huge amount of player base of working peoples.

Just testing 5 random rounds now is same challenge like 2 Player league rounds same time. Hello? No way it is correct dirrection of game developement. I see, working players are forced to use currency for sleep time, sorry, it is only a game, a product wich should relax. I can pay if im good relaxed, not if im burn outing because of game...

I paid in 5 years in all projects of Bytro and DORADO in summary over 500 €, mosty several 1 year VIP and first purchase deals.

Since changes of 2019 i dont pay a single penny.

It is ok to sell good product, it is not ok to force pay for not enjoyeble product.

And now feedback of changes 1.5.2 to 1.5.1:

Very much single fixed issues, but still not really optimal ballance. Late game is scrumbled by high prices of high level buildings, wich are permitted to deploy highlevel units in suitable time.

I miss possibility of recruiting low level units, since level up researched. But because of ballance it is reasonable change. You answered already to asker, and your answer is right that what i thought as i realized time skip of upgradeble unit compared to recruiting new one.

But still i miss that. Because of new mechanics i never can use level 3 militia and only very seldom level 2 one.

Even AT over lvl 2 is questionable.

Please dont lowering upgrde costs too strong. It should have at least 50% manpower of researched level unit. and may be even 200% of cash, but may be only 30% till 50% of other ressources. Time skip should be expencive. But may be not such expencive like in 1.5.2;

Comparing 1.5.1 i know that middle game continuing floating of ressources take end if you have too many units and too many highlevel buildings. Even with new prices and boostes it would not be enough for common player for use of level 4+ units with more then some lvl 4+ factories. This implements, that some players gain too huge edges.

Also a) steamrollers, b) wolfpackers, c) mmacc user, and at least but not last d) p2w players.

And power up of level 5 unit to level 4 is more powerfull than in 1.5.1; That means, early game is more important, that mean, burn out like gameplay at beginning of rounds. This is a really worst thing of new CoW 1.5.2

We want fun and relax, we want half way passable simulation of WW2, we want challenge of skills, not challenge of online time/virtual clans powers/counting of mobile devices owned/wallet power.

Naval warefare is not tested yet enough, but Convoy seem to be nerfed a little bit too strong, even is some players already whinning about. At least level ups for convoy should be more productive.

Price of submarines is same to destroyers. It is a step back compared to classical CoW.

New SBDE still seem to working bad. Either we have graphical bug, beacause even 40er stack is 100% of single unit stronger than 39 one. May be in fight it work like announced, but we dont see that, also we can not be prepared for right taktiks.

Proposals:

Prices of middle and highlevels of buildings lowering by at least 10% better 15%. Upgrade cost of units lowering by at least 10% max 40% may be with time delay of 10% till 20%.

Price for infrastucture lowering at least by 20% and building time by 25%.

Building time of airfields in rural provinces exstend by at least 50% for level 1, and 33% level 2.

Defencive value of middle and highlevel infantry buffing for at least 10%

would be nice to have proposals:

Limit of direct trade ressources by 200% daily encome every day. (for both direction, reseived and gifted).

Moral debuff for TOP 5 most dreadfull, even if 5% for one day for TOP 1, and 1% TOP 5.

Moral buff for most popular. Even if only 3% for each of TOPs.

Right now we can only specify a factor for the upgrade cost and not have different costs for different resources. So we either lower all of the costs or not, or increase costs. Right now we lean towards lowering the costs due to the feedback we received so far.

The points you make after that I cannot really follow or understand properly, sorry Maybe you can try to explain them again?

The new stack limit is not visualized ingame, it will be implemented later. The SBDE value displayed for individual units ingame is only refering to the unit health now, not anymore to stacking limits. The stack limit is definitely in place, so a stack with 40 units is not stronger than a stack of 39 units, it's just now shown yet.

Regarding your proposals: We actually wanted to do some of these too in the next event, so good that we are thinking into the same direction on some issues.

The nice to have proposals we probably won't do though.

DrDoom34 wrote:

The main issues I've been frequently encountering seem to be a lack of starting resources/really low rate of resource production even with industry complexes built in major resource nodes. The second major issue I have run into is that I can no longer build troops on day two because I have completely run out of resources/money in the middle of a war. I believe the best way to remedy this is to either increase the rate at which resources are produced, make things cheaper, or to just increase the starting resource amount back to what it was in non 1.5 games.

Balhog wrote:

I thought the game was playing well until I tried to upgrade units. The resource cost now imposed for each upgrade is ridiculous. This is a huge balancing mistake. I'll keep playing the round to test my fear, but it looks like you ruined an important aspect of the strategy.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I also have noticed that convoys seem a little too strong. My ally attacked 10 grounded lvl 1 planes with only 1x 2 AC and yes I understand 1 AC vs 10 convoys may not win. His AC died and only did about 8HP worth of damage to the convoys. This does not seem enough to me, the challenge of trapping an air and running it down in 1.0 is something very fun but to now have to send in give or take 5-10 AC to kill them ruins this as that simply is not feasible really.

In 1.0 a feature I like is how I can capture and kill 5-10 (pending how the "dice" rolls) all those planes with one AC. If someone is foolish enough to leave planes on the ground near the front when they are offline then I think they deserve to have them taken out.

So far from day 1-4 my comments/conclusions are:

- Rss need to be increased (I know this has been confirmed )

- I really like the whole need one factory for one troop, this does howeverlead to more rss being needed

-WAY WAYWAY better so far than 1.5v1. Yes rss are limited, but so far and this sounds harsh, but it is playable (1.5v1 really was super hard to play), so it is sucha big improvement there. All my feedback so far has been small tweaks, and I want to really emphasise how much better 1.5v2 is than 1.5v1. So thank you for fixing so much of the issues in 1.5v2, still some to go ofc, but only second beta.

-Troops probably should not be upgraded from lvl 1-2, but perhaps 2-3 times throughout their life to max.Along with a 50% cost not 100% could be not so bad, it certainly will take some getting used to but in theory I can see how it could be a good change. I will have to play around with it more, certainly does add an extra decision into the game. The 100% cost does hurt and I will see how it goes with this 2-3 upgrades up to elite and not every new research unlocks in mind.

- I like how each unit uses a different type of rss and its not just metal, goods and oil now. But this does mean rss production needs to be boosted a fair bit as instead of only need to upgrade 3 rss, I now need to do 5 (rares I could get to about 300/hr and not ever need to touch this again, never liked that so good it may be removed)

-New SBDE limits of 15 is nice, better than 20 but I think this still could be too high. Others thoughts on this?

On paper the convoy is still pretty weak. But I guess in this case it was just the number of convoys. We can certainly lower their damage values more. This said, keep in mind that a air convoy cannot be leveled up, so it will always remain at these low values. All other units become stronger over time, and even stronger than in 1.0. Take the AC for example and compare its 1.5 values with 1.0. So in the mid and late game those units would shred those convoys easily, probably easier than in 1.0. As convoys have no levels we have to account for this and use slightly higher initial values than in 1.0. Hope that makes sense

As with the stack limit value, we also talked about that already and will probably lower this to 10, as 15 is a hard to reach number in CoW already.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

Regarding infra I would like to make another comment about it, yes it doesn’t suite myplay style quite as much as I like to blitz the enemy quickly, but on a slightly different note/take on it.

Butputting a moral increase and a speed increase into one building for me does notquite seem to fit well. A need for one is often, but for both in one provincenot really.

A moralboost is generally needed in far away locations. If I am Africa and take landin asia a moral boost in a province will be very useful. But it will be a moralboost in an Urban province as these produce rss. Given Urban provinces aresmall, the speed increase is somewhat useless and I will only be building itfor the moral improvement. I will build it in an urban province as this is where rss production will more likely be.

A speedboost is the most beneficial in large provinces, my thinking is russia as themost obvious one, Canada also. BUT these large provinces are the rural ones andthus not going to be producing as many rss (unless in the future there will bedouble rss on rural provinces?). I will be wanting the speed boost to movetroops around faster, but the moral boost is not useful as I wont be producingrss in these provinces.

To me itwould make more sense for these two factors, moral and speed to be two separatebuildings to justify the cost as I will likely be only building it for one ofthese features and not both. ESP given there is no moral penalty for wars, mycore should always have good moral so the moral boost is only needed in faraway provinces.

Is it too difficult to make it so infrastructure only increase speed and, idk a "resort" increase moral? (I don't mean for this to sound sarcastic, genuinely is it?

I am a fan of single-purpose buildings, so we could of course split Infrastructure into 2 buildings. However I feel like a movement speed buff alone won't be enough for people to build it? That's why for now we kept the speed buff and morale buff together. I think Infra will be built more often when we lower its cost further. But we can discuss in the team the prospect of splitting it into another building. It's fairly easy to do btw, as that was your question, the art assets are probably the most work in this.

cycle9 wrote:

Naval engagements do seem to have changed. Have you ever seen a BB sunk this quickly:

2:21 pm Algeria built the new Tennessee Class "Tunis".

3:12 pm The Battleship "Tunis" (Algeria) has been destroyed by the 28th Destroyer Flotilla (Spain).

Conversely, a landing party of 5 ground units has been under continuous attack while disembarking. Despite being bombarded by 3 tac air and directly engaged by a lt. tank; the landing party is now within 40 minutes of completing the landing, and still has two units left.

On a side note: BB's can now maneuver in stealth mode, but reappear on the GUI when they go dead in the water.

That's a bug in the old graphics, not present in the advanced graphics.

CityOfAngels wrote:

Reports from day 4, from a top competitive CoW v1 player (I think that's fair, although I rely on my amazing team to carry me through the Alliance World Cup!)

I'm also a WW2 history buff, which is why this franchise appeals to me in the first place. (As a result I have a strong opinion about realistic stats and results.)

I played a round or two of the first v1.5 beta last year, so there is some basis for comparison.

--------

Action report from my 1.5.2 game:

I'm Italy. Immediately allied with Romania, and determined to destroy the solid Yugoslavia player in between us. Not too concerned about France or Germany, so the NorthWest front will hopefully not need much garrisoning.

Artillery is the king of the battlefield, so I initially built 3 Ordnance Foundries along with 2 Tank Plants. One of those would end up never building a tank so far, as it switched to Naval production - So that was a bit of a waste.

Bought some iron immediately at a reasonable price, being used to having to snap up iron to accomplish early strategic objectives. Regretted that minutes later when I realized that cash is the scarcest resource at the start!

Now that initial builds are chugging away, I took the time to scour the research tree to review the various units available from different buildings (barracks etc) and their relative strengths.

Clearly Industry will be a long-term need to increase production of key resources. I upgraded my Goods city to L3 and my Iron and Oil cities to L2 for now (after 4 days.) Noticed that Industry is actually very buildable on non-city provinces, and provides good value for investment even compared to the double-resource cities. I would do that, except that Italy has no compelling non-city location to build one.

Decided for now to ignore Light Tanks (although I built a couple of ACs, and am currently building an MT), Tank Destroyers (obviously great against a tank zerger, but I expect to face a lot more infantry than tanks, and TDs are hopeless against inf)..., ignore all air, all 'Secret' tech

Built a bunch of L1 artillery and a couple of ACs, and attacked Yugo. It turned out that he had focussed on Tactical Bombers, which gave my Romanian ally a significant headache. Yugo cracked after putting up a game fight for about a day (Romania shifted to Interceptors to deal with the bombers), and he didn't have much fight left to offer on the Italian front by the time I got there in force. (Man it seems slow moving troops even the short distance from the NW Italian cities to the NE border with Romania!) He has now turtled a large army (24 including 7 arti at last count) in his capital. The rest of Yugo is ours.

In the meantime though, a 3-country alliance has unified Africa and they have apparently decided that the Italian boot offends their sense of asthetics. They aren't very active, so fortunately my scouts in Southern Italy noticed a large invasion fleet massing. Good thing I built some destroyers from the start! Several destroyers encircled the convoys containing pretty much the whole Libyan army, and wiped them out without boots ever reaching the shore. The fish population in the Med rejoiced.

Algeria made a bit more headway, capturing the two Italian homeland islands along with some oil and grain resources. The defending single inf on Palermo made a heroic defense of the beach, killing 4 enemy troops as they landed before succumbing to overwhelming odds. A motorized inf tried a hail mary attack to recapture Cagliari but was repulsed by an unexpected bunch of reinforcement invaders

Algeria then shifted to Cruisers, and sent an initial pair to defeat my Destroyer force and support his landing efforts. Counter-intuitively, Destroyers are a very reasonable match for Cruisers. With a little help from one allied sub, a couple of waves of Cruisers have been sunk so far with one DD lost (and a bunch heavily damaged). In CoW standard as in 'our timeline', when Cruisers show up Destroyers pretty much scatter.

As of 4 full days, the Libyan army is gutted, Algeria continues to hold my two islands with fairly large garrisons (~6), one of which I'm shelling with my 9 Destroyers. He has done far better than Libya, but has lost everything he tried to send to the Italian 'boot'. I've researched Battleships belatedly since things have become very naval-intensive against Africa, but skipped building any L1s and will start building them once I research L2, halfway through day 5. My land army is in Yugo, eyeing his larger army turtling in his capital city. Pretty sure he's archived the game. I am going to attempt shoot-and-scoot and see how it goes. (Edit - It works fine - I'll destroy him without taking any damage until he reverts to AI.) I've also brought over some fresh L2 artillery, so if shoot-and-scoot proves futile I will take advantage of the hills bonus in the neighboring province and just trade shots to destroy him. Romania is also working on Rail Guns, which of course are great for cracking a turtle.

Seeing that a L2 Ordnance Foundry can spit out a L2 Artillery 2x as fast as an L1 Foundry, I have upgraded one of those (not all three since I don't have nearly enough MP to stream them out anyway). One of the tank plant cities switched to building Motorized Inf with a L2 Barracks, and the other to Destroyers (soon Battleships) with a L3 Naval Yard. I'll probably build a L2+ Tank Plant in a captured city, and possibly a Secret Lab if I decide I just must have Rail Guns, Rockets or Jet Fighters.

No plans to ever build much air, it feels for now like they can't be fit in as long as I need to invest heavily in naval supremacy. Romania has been building bombers instead of naval, and getting good use out of them against the solid Yugo player (Worth noting, CoW standard is like that in competitive team games too. If France's job is to go hard into naval and protect Europe from UK/US convoys, they won't be building bombers at the same time.)

My kill ratio is thriving - Destroyers so far have 43+ kills to 1 loss, I think.

(Too long... Continued)

CityOfAngels wrote:

Good changes (from v1.5.1

• Upgrading is possible once higher tech levels for a unit have been unlocked.
• Resources seem less constraining. I was still able to build some stuff on day 2.
• The 'banzai motorcycle' mobile infantry huge advantage on attack seems somewhat muted.
• 'Killer Convoys' have been nerfed appropriately. Beach defenses seem very effective, as they should be.
• The notion of building L4 tanks slowly from an L1 tank factory, I like so far. It's also easier to build units in captured cities early on compared to CoW standard, where you have to obsess about whether the AI got around to building a L2 Industrial Complex in the city before you capture it. The prohibitive cost of cruicial L1 ICs always kindof bugged me, now it's gone.
• Artillery still get an advantage shooting from mountains instead of a penalty per CoW standard.
• Shoot and scoot may have been nerfed? I think I've seen defending artillery now shooting back 1 second after the attackers opened fire on them. Needs more rigorous testing, but if true that would be awesome - Shoot and scoot is one of the worst things about CoW standard, as it makes it so that playing competitively basically requires you to sacrifice sleep for days, along with your health. Edit - Just gave shoot-n-scoot a real controlled test, and it seems to have worked.

Unfortunate things (compared to CoW standard

• Money runs out on day 1 after initial builds, despite being pretty cautious about not building anything unnecessary. No opportunity to buy anything from the market (no money to buy).
• Manpower for research remains an unfortunate choice, as it bottlenecks troop production and makes no apparent sense. Sure you may need a bunch of scientists to work on your V2 project, but when the research is complete they don't die! And they also don't dramatically thin out the available conscripts who could otherwise be sent to man artillery or battleships. The MP costs of completely different units are way too similar. Why call the resource 'manpower' if an infantry division is going to suck up just as many men as a unit of submarines or King Tigers?
• With the prohibitive cost of upgrading the only advantage of doing that instead of just building a new max-level unit is travel time to the front, and reduced upkeep if the obsolete unit will be of no use. Chances are you're better off ignoring upgrades in most cases unless it heals a damaged obsolete unit to full...?
• Prohibitive upgrade costs also mean you are still (as with v1.5.1) better off to not build anything and hoard manpower until you have researched the upgrade, if you can get away with that. That's not just unrealistic, it's boring.
• I definitely miss the differences in range that used to come with upgrading artillery/ships.
• One L2 Destroyer can fight on a completely equal footing with a L1 Cruiser? Come on now... Cruisers are historically the 'rock' to the Destroyer 'scissors'. A 1941-model Destroyer would have maybe a 1% chance of defeating a 1940 Cruiser with a lucky torpedo hit, if so equipped, and only if fighting at night in a fijord or around islands where it could hide. And the DD would still be sunk with gunnery before the Cruiser went down in that unlikely case.
• Battleships also aren't nearly as impressive as they should be, imo. In real-world WW2 smaller surface combatants were basically helpless against them, and in CoW standard someone building a BB is an 'oh sh--' moment worthy of being announced in the newspaper as a sort of feat of strength! Again, I'm not sure why the capital ships needed to be made so close to Destroyers in terms of naval combat. Destroyers shelling ground-based units to death is also a departure from the greater realism of CoW standard, and I'm a big fan of realism.
• The huge change regarding units in a stack not dying, I love and hate. Love it because it makes it pointless to micro-manage stack splitting down to many-single-unit stacks, which was a super-annoying OP exploit in CoW standard. Hate it because it takes forever to start actually killing anything (the Libyan convoy that I sunk had 15 inf for about a day, and they didn't start actually dying until I had reduced them to 20%). Having a lot of crippled units left after a big fight is likely to get pretty annoying for someone who has unit resource upkeep problems. Compared to CoW standard, this also dramatically increases the impact of that 15% heal each day. Instead of 10 inf taking 75 damage and being reduced to 5 full-health inf (getting no healing benefit at day change), now those 10 inf would all remain at 50% health, and gain back ~10 hp. I'm not sure if that's a love or a hate change - Time will tell.
• It's apparent that heavy damage reduces troop speed quite significantly, which makes sense, but that adjusted value doesn't seem to show up anywhere on the troop info screen? It needs to be visible, for strategic figuring. (If I merge this 25% AC with my artillery stack, will it actually slow the artillery down?)
• Infrastructure's place in the game seems sketchy for now. Are you really going to build it in cities for the morale boost to resource production? The movement boost is quite significant, but only in large rural provinces where morale is pretty irrelevant. I guess I can see it being good value for investment in a large rural province containing resources, on a key strategic movement corridor. Time will tell if the high cost of upgrading to L3 is worth it in more than rare cases.

Bugs?

• I've noticed a couple of situations where a ranged unit moves towards an enemy with the same range (L1 artillery, Destroyers) and starts shooting, but the defender seemingly never shoots back despite the attacker just sitting there shelling. This does not appear to be a 'shoot and scoot' thing.
• When trying to move to the beach (expecting a convoy invasion), it seems like if you are waiting right at the edge of the water the convoy will have to attack you, which is clearly very good for the defenders. (It may depend on how the attacker micromanages, I'll know more when I try a landing myself). So I've found that a unit can move right to the edge no problem, but if I send an additional unit to reinforce that stack, they will appear to be planning to embark into the water instead of stopping with the others at the beach. To make them merge properly I've needed to move the beach unit away from the shore, group them together with the coming reinforcements (holding down Ctl and selecting both), and then plot the combined group back to the shore.)

if you run out of money you can of course sell stuff on the market, there should now always be sell offers each day (even if they are not super lucrative, better than nothing). We we will probably tweak the availability of resources more in the next event as thats feedback we also got from other players.

Its an unfortunate thing in general that in CoW Manpower works like every other resource and is consumed, instead of being freed up for further use once an order is completed. Would need some effort to change that system. For now I feel like it is ok how it is even if it makes no sense in every aspect. Its a big simplification.

We could of course also scrap the manpower cost from research and in turn increase the money cost, but that also would mean that it hinders unit production, as units also cost money. So no matter what, researching will hinder unit production. That is a choice to make. When we increase resource availability that hopefully becomes a little less of a problem.

Also the manpower costs of units is not only meant for manning the produced quipment, but also for the workforce producing it plus support lines etc. Simplification again. In CoW manpower is basically there to control the mount of troops one can build, so that a player has to also balance in construction of buildings to spend the rest of the resources.

Unit upgrading can be used to skip levels, while you will only pay the price of the target unit (no accumulated costs). That means upgrading becomes very worthwhile once you skip 1 or more levels. Plus you save all the time and also the costs for upgrading the building immediately. This said we will probably lower the upgrading costs in the next event to also make it more worthwhile for upgrading to the immediate next level.

Hoarding and waiting with production is of course always a trade-off, as it comes with a risk. If you wait with production you are more vulnerable to attacks. But as I said, will tweak the upgrading costs.

The patched-out range increase per level of ranged weapons ins deliberate and we won't change that. We settled with each unit level granting approximately a strength increase of 30%. A range increase would result in a power increase much larger, because one pixel is enough to outrange the enemy and don't take damage at all. That is just too powerful of an upgrade, so we don't do it anymore. of course its also possible with shoot'n'scoot, and its also a thorn in my side

Well the destroyer is level 2 after all. On the same level the destroyer loses of course, plus it gets outranged. We can increase the anti-naval damage of the cruiser in the next event though. Wouldn't lower the anti naval damage of destroyers, otherwise they cannot deal properly with convoys anymore.

Battleships have been buffed indirectly already as they have the same build requirements as the other ships now. nd they are still stronger than the other ships. So someone building battleships will still win vs. someone building the other surface vessels. We can of course think about increasing their anti naval damage further, although they already have double the naval damage of cruisers, and triple the naval damage of destroyers, plus more hitpoints and more range, so they already win handily.

Stack penalties for damage or overstacking are indeed not shown yet, will be included in a future Event.

Regarding the bugs: They shouldn't be 1.5 exclusive so I won't comment on them here. You can report them as regular bugs with the ingame form.

f118 wrote:

You will love it. My word. enemy units BEGIN to die with 50% of HP's, i feel that KD Ratio of players is may be implemented in battle formula. I kill often easily enemy with low KD and need longer by enemy with high one. my troops lasting longer against enemy with low KD and begin dieing sooner egainst enemy with high. May be it is only coincidence.

If units start to die at 50% also depends on how much damage is incoming. If the incoming damage is not enough to knock one remaining unit down considering its remaining HP (which would be 50% in this case), then the unit won't die yet and total health is dropped further. The further it drops the greater the chance is of course that incoming damage is enough to kill off units. If the incoming damage is very high then armies already lose units at 50% health.

Akulla3D wrote:

I feel that the man power requirement is to high for Mechs, as far as troops go excluding new recruits to a division you would only be adding equipment so not sure why it is high there too.