CoW balancing changelog - 2020-07-14

Yes! Give alliance games some love!

I strongly believe that players should be rated on their commitment to play. That is players should have a rating that reflects whether they went inactive in a game. This should also be used to set games up as a Completion rating of say 80% to enter is more important than actual point level.

Another idea may be to keep track of coming in 2nd and 3rd again as a little achievement aspect showing you stuck it out and had a reasonable finish.

Also would like countries played per scenario, so say having won 10 games as Yugoslavia in the 22 map.

Due to your changes in the name of balancing, I am now facing war with 9 AI countries. All of them have declared war against me in the last 3 days. REALLY!!! How do you expect someone to get to a victory when every neighboring country has decided to attack? Since you clowns haven't set up limits, this game is totally worthless.

Barney792 wrote:

Due to your changes in the name of balancing, I am now facing war with 9 AI countries. All of them have declared war against me in the last 3 days. REALLY!!! How do you expect someone to get to a victory when every neighboring country has decided to attack? Since you clowns haven't set up limits, this game is totally worthless.

Btw, didn't you play in the "Dominion - Antarctica" map? Last time I was there, ALL AIs gave embargo and all neighboring AIs were giving war from the moment I had border with them.

When will there be new, standard 1.5 maps? It's getting a bit stale to have only 2 to chose from. And effectively only 1 as the other requires you to spend several hours day and night on the world map.

Barney792 wrote:

Due to your changes in the name of balancing, I am now facing war with 9 AI countries. All of them have declared war against me in the last 3 days. REALLY!!! How do you expect someone to get to a victory when every neighboring country has decided to attack? Since you clowns haven't set up limits, this game is totally worthless.

As far as I am concerned, CoW 1.5 still has significant issues. For one, who ever heard of a battleship sinking a submarine at range? Or sinking a submarine period? There is no connection with reality here. The only way a battleship can sink a submarine is to collide with a surfaced submarine, or accidentally run over one at periscope depth. Having my submarines sunk at long range by an enemy battleship is FANTASY, but it happened multiple times. Destroyers should not even be sinking submarines at range with gunfire. More fantasy. Totally unrealistic. In WW2 destroyers could sink submarines at very close range with hedgehogs late in the war, but by and large, they had to go over top of the submarine and drop depth charges. Your current tactics are flawed, unless you are turning this into a fantasy game.

Finding a submerged submarine that has not attacked, even by a destroyer, is far too easy in this game. Given that you want to make this easily playable, I can see some logic where planes and destroyers find submarines 100% of the time, but that is another case where you are separated from reality. Finding a submerged diesel submarine even today with super advanced sonar (compared to WW2) is still a challenge. In WW2, the submarines surfaced at night to recharge batteries, and could be detected by radar from planes and ships. So perhaps you introduce some probability, like you do with battle damage inflicted, to make this issue better.

My other gripe is the amount of damage tanks without AA support inflict on attack bombers. I think it is unrealistic.

In the latest 1.5 version the interceptors are overpowered.

A level 1 (doctrine allies) has 6 hitpoints attack and only 3 hitpoints in defense.

A level 7 (doctrine allies) has 28 hitpoints attack and only 14 hitpoints in defense.

With a bomber it's even worse.

A maxed out tactical or attack bomber (doctrine allies) deals only 2,3 hitpoints in defense against interceptors.

A stack of 10 interceptors can kill a stack of 10 bombers in a single shot.

A stack of 10 interceptors can reduce the health by 50% with a single shot against a stack of 10 enemy interceptors.

This is way of the charts.

When you fight Pan-asian doctrine it gets worse as their planes are also faster.

Knowingly that planes have only 25% health during refuelling this becomes very problematic.

Interceptors need to be buffed, is that possible @freezy?

"Airplanes have higher offensive stats than defensive stats to circumvent problems in the game flow. There are actually situations where defending planes have a big advantage inside the combat logic, and to counter that the offensive stats of planes are higher than defensive stats. Additionally one could argue that offensive stats are higher because there can be a surprise factor in the approach, while there is no defensive cover in the skies."

This is what you wrote as a reply to another player:

- What problems in game flow?

- Where does defending planes now have a big adantage in combat logic?

- Which surprise factor in the approach? Planes move super fast so attacking planes have the element of surprise. They mainly approach undetected until they are in a units line of sight but by then it's too late for the attacked player to counter attack. Aspecially with the long refuelling times.

Braveheart23 wrote:

As far as I am concerned, CoW 1.5 still has significant issues. For one, who ever heard of a battleship sinking a submarine at range? Or sinking a submarine period? There is no connection with reality here. The only way a battleship can sink a submarine is to collide with a surfaced submarine, or accidentally run over one at periscope depth. Having my submarines sunk at long range by an enemy battleship is FANTASY, but it happened multiple times. Destroyers should not even be sinking submarines at range with gunfire. More fantasy. Totally unrealistic. In WW2 destroyers could sink submarines at very close range with hedgehogs late in the war, but by and large, they had to go over top of the submarine and drop depth charges. Your current tactics are flawed, unless you are turning this into a fantasy game.

Finding a submerged submarine that has not attacked, even by a destroyer, is far too easy in this game. Given that you want to make this easily playable, I can see some logic where planes and destroyers find submarines 100% of the time, but that is another case where you are separated from reality. Finding a submerged diesel submarine even today with super advanced sonar (compared to WW2) is still a challenge. In WW2, the submarines surfaced at night to recharge batteries, and could be detected by radar from planes and ships. So perhaps you introduce some probability, like you do with battle damage inflicted, to make this issue better.

My other gripe is the amount of damage tanks without AA support inflict on attack bombers. I think it is unrealistic.

BMfox wrote:

In the latest 1.5 version the interceptors are overpowered.

A level 1 (doctrine allies) has 6 hitpoints attack and only 3 hitpoints in defense.

A level 7 (doctrine allies) has 28 hitpoints attack and only 14 hitpoints in defense.

With a bomber it's even worse.

A maxed out tactical or attack bomber (doctrine allies) deals only 2,3 hitpoints in defense against interceptors.

A stack of 10 interceptors can kill a stack of 10 bombers in a single shot.

A stack of 10 interceptors can reduce the health by 50% with a single shot against a stack of 10 enemy interceptors.

This is way of the charts.

When you fight Pan-asian doctrine it gets worse as their planes are also faster.

Knowingly that planes have only 25% health during refuelling this becomes very problematic.

Interceptors need to be buffed, is that possible @freezy?

"Airplanes have higher offensive stats than defensive stats to circumvent problems in the game flow. There are actually situations where defending planes have a big advantage inside the combat logic, and to counter that the offensive stats of planes are higher than defensive stats. Additionally one could argue that offensive stats are higher because there can be a surprise factor in the approach, while there is no defensive cover in the skies."

This is what you wrote as a reply to another player:

- What problems in game flow?

- Where does defending planes now have a big adantage in combat logic?

- Which surprise factor in the approach? Planes move super fast so attacking planes have the element of surprise. They mainly approach undetected until they are in a units line of sight but by then it's too late for the attacked player to counter attack. Aspecially with the long refuelling times.

The level 7 allied Interceptor in your example deals 28 damage in attack and deals 14 damage in defense. But it has 65 hitpoints (=health), both in attacking and defending. During an attack unit A reduces the amount of hitpoints of unit B by the amount of A's damage values. When the hitpoints reach 0, the unit dies.

Therefore 10 Interceptors need 3 attack runs to destroy another stack of 10 interceptors (65/28 =2.32 -> round up to 3). Considering both stacks get damaged in the process, in turn lowering their damage efficiency of subsequent attacks, it is probably rather 4 attack runs in total.

Attack Bombers also have 65 hitpoints (3 runs), while Tactical Bombers have 85 (4 runs) and Strategic Bombers have 130 (6 runs), meaning even more attacks are required to take them down.

So no plane can be downed in a single volley by Interceptors.

Attacking airplanes always strike second if they attack other air or ground targets. Meaning they lose hitpoints before the enemy, thus making their attack weaker (armies with lost hitpoints have lower damage efficiency). This is the main reason why the attack damage of planes is higher.

But additionally there is another big damage buff to defending planes when you have multiple plane armies patroling in the same location. Due to how defense damage is tallied for multiple armies, stacking penalties get circumvented. So the more defending armies are located in the same spot, the higher the defense advantage will be. To counter act this the attacking values are higher so that this advantage is not as apparent immediately.

Hello,

Can anyone please explain the logic behind the expansionist Debuff for moral? I need to understand how it is effected, how you can take it down or up. Is it something fixed that just goes up and never down?

is there a maximum value?

Thank you

Intercetors should to good damage aganist unarmoued and heavy armour because of strafing

[/img]

Erwin Rommel wrote:

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.

Tre wrote:

Intercetors should to good damage aganist unarmoued and heavy armour because of strafing

BMfox wrote:

Tre wrote:

Intercetors should to good damage aganist unarmoued and heavy armour because of strafing

Interceptors do a great deal damage to armoured cars indeed. However I have no clue what strafing is?

This is a typical strafing attack :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0gcap1hjPI

As an interesting trivia, 1939 French army bomber doctrine ("Aviation d'assaut") was exactly that : low altitude attack. It was absolutely devastating - much more than a dive bombing attack for instance - but it left the planes very, very vulnerable both to ground AA and to enemy fighters, so the French aviation d'assaut (mostly the Breguet 693 - a good plane though totally forgotten today) was all but wiped out in May 1940.