Exciting news! Today we will give you a glimpse of the upcoming visual redesign of Call of War. Together with the previous gameplay changes of CoW1.5 this visual overhaul will form the brand new Call of War 2.0!
The visual overhaul contains two major areas: A revamp of the user interface and a redesign of the map itself. The new map draws inspiration from military maps of the time. It makes the game more exciting and gives you the feeling of commanding your troops on a realistic strategic map with real terrain elements merged into it.
The revamp of the user interface gives CoW 2.0 a state of the art, modern look. It makes navigating the game more intuitive by restructuring over 140 gameplay screens and menus. All adjustments were made with the platform you use in mind, whether that is on mobile or desktop. Switching between the two will become easier, with many visual elements now being shared.
Call of War 2.0 is scheduled to be released on all platforms on Tuesday, July 19th.
You can already check out all of the changes by switching to the Beta-Client in your account settings on desktop.
As a Frontline Pioneer (beta tester/player) you will automatically get a taste of the new map and UI on mobile and desktop, as they will be the default version in beta games leading up to the release.
Share your feedback with us here on the Forums and on Discord.
We look forward to hearing about your first experiences with the new client, until then best of luck on the battlefield!
Your Bytro team
UPDATE
We have postponed the planned release date for CoW 2.0 to the 20th of July. This will give us additional time for testing and QA.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
124 Replies
12 Aug 2022, 16:42
freezy wrote:
The jump from CoW1.0 to CoW1.5 had the same kind of feedback as this update. Players were saying the same thing about it as they do now about the new clients. We had 50+ pages of back and forth discussions with users about it. Many threatened to quit and said this is the end of CoW and so on. And the same thing also happened when the WebGL version replaced the Canvas map. Really, this reaction we see now is nothing new, it was always like this when releasing new versions. No new version we released was liked immediately and none was perfect. Only after we continued to improve them and after players got used to them it got better. If you don't believe me, search for the old news announcements and feedback threads in the forums. I participated in all of them so I still remember.
The main difference is that the graphics and how to start a game didnt really change, all it did was make the game a lot more bearable to play. I still remember that to produce a medium tank, you had to have level 3 infastructure, which took forever, it just made it better. I know you always have to make new stuff, but still, most PC players used legacy client. it was way better on PC, so I know many PC players are mad. Look, I will try to play the new client, but If you guys add legacy client back, I will play just as much as i used to.
12 Aug 2022, 16:44
no
็ฅๅทฑ็ฅๅฝผ๏ผ็พๆไธๆฎ
12 Aug 2022, 19:02
GenerAZ wrote:
I still remember that to produce a medium tank, you had to have level 3 infrastructure, which took forever.
This was an important part of the game, contributing to the strategic angle.
Think about it. How can you build advanced weaponry in a burned-out rubble of a once great city?
You can't!
Maybe you can scramble to build a barracks, squeeze out some militia.
Maybe you can squeeze out some AT guns out of the remaining industry.
But come on.
You should only be able to build advanced armor, planes, or ships in a city that has industry+infrastructure.
That means advanced units mostly come from your core cities.
If a city is under constant bombardment, changing hands multiple times, it's going to be useless rubble.
And that's a good thing.
Or, it was.
Now you can build anything anywhere, and it just feels dumb.
Germany building a Tiger tank in Stalingrad?
Come on.
That's so dumb.
14 Aug 2022, 08:57
I made the change a month or so ago. The most irritating part of the change for me is that you can't see platform usage in percentages. Mobile players play different than PC players (up to Lvl 100ish in my experience so far). I don't like the graphics change but being in my mid 30s and starting my strategy experience with titles like Civilization, Comand & Conquer & Age of Empires, I tend to appreciate the aesthetics of older style graphics instead of the less vectored and seemingly incomplete style of graphics we see in titles today. Of the Bytro games, the legacy client had the "best" graphic presentation across the board imo. 1914 is basic and it fits for a WWI starting title. CoW legacy had a vibe to it. CoW2.0 seems to have moved in the direction of 1919, which I haven't really jumped into and then there's Conflict of Nations. The CoN UI and map are understandable in theory. But it's bulky, it's basic and it feels cheaply under developed and good enough. The map textures are a good idea and also understable, but it was a challenge moving from CoW to trying out CoN.
All of that said, I've checked some of the changes. The CoW2.0 offers some nice, and also cheaply under developed features that make some things easier. The largest reason I moved to the beta client was because it was quicker to check scores/standing during events like Red vs Blue(or the CoW event for that, 2 teams?). We'll see where things go. The gap between CoW and Hearts of Iron IV is huge. CoW really needs an improved UI in terms of information and management but jumping into HoI4 from CoW leaves players, like myself, overwhelmed with so much depth. Point being, I like the direction in usability overall. The changes to what information is available where and to what depth have their pros and cons. Hopefully it's a step and there's already another step or cycle in the works if the publish phase of the cycle proves stable. Overall graphic changes so far make me feel like I'm transitioning from a style that I appreciate to a style that my kids would find satisfactory, mostly because it's what they're used to and would find it acceptable.
Keeping two clients in development takes time and costs money. We'll see.
