Dev Diary #1: Call of War 1.5

Just a comment on the monetization issue to fund the game as mentioned in this Developer Diary post. Yes somehow we need to pay the developers and for the hardware but i think the current singular system of gold purchase could be improved for wider customer appeal? Many people probably aware of the basic 4 'P's of Marketing being Product, Price. Place and Promotion when developing something to sell/market. To optimize outcomes, it can helpful to do a 'market segmentation' exercise to define the various types of product users and what would best suit each of them. Having played about 25 rounds of CoW over a year and being a big chatter to other players (one thing i really like about this game), I can see two very distinct market segments. 1: People happy to use gold to boost their rate of production, make up for not having much in game time, winning games beyond their skill level etc. 2: people wanting to play a test of skill against good players rather than gold payers.

My chatting with other players shows a lot of unhappiness and dissatidsfaction arising over the conflict between these two different game styles (Market Segments) clashing in the same game...so...why not differentiate and have two products to market that each make their st of customers more happy? More happy customers means more monetization.

First have an 'Olympic Version' of the game that involves gold (just like the Olympics). This game is free to play and has gold. New players (potential future customers going to do a 'try before they buy') will start here because its Free. Maybe after 10-15 games they will encounter their first heavy gold user who just crushes their carefully built army that took many real hours of effort to construct. At this point they might decide to join into the 'Olympix Spirit' or they might stop playing and start looking as some of the many competitor online games in this very croweded maketplace....or maybe they might decide stay and to go to the second product instead?

This second Product is the 'Silver Edition' and involves a subscription fee approach for which the mechanics already exist - buying Higher Command would allow access to Silver Edition games that dont have gold so you can pay and play knowing the game is a test of skill. I would be happy to pay for that. My current game method is to play for skill challenge and when i come across a heavy gold user who want to win - i let them - by marching my army out to sea, closing all my production down and spending all my money putting sabotage spies into their cities before I give up on that game and start another. Yes it might have meant i wasted quite a few hours over many days but i get my satisfaction by being a good player rather than a good payer. As Bytro looks to do a big game refresh can you please think about your basic Marketing Strategy and Optimising the Market Segmentation of your Product for better customer satisfaction for us all and better monetisation for you = a win/win outcome.

Zimbrisor wrote:

to limit the players that are very aggresive and somehow to promote the diplomacy... also the levle must drop if you attack a coutnry that you hade sehare map with... cause is obvious a traitor moves...

And diplo options are very very limited if it is anything like S1, so thereis no need to bother with diplomacy much.

The suggestion to punish backstabbing more with i.e. an extra reputation drop is a good one though.

Arrow333 wrote:

C88 wrote:

All these changes seems like conflict of nations which is bytro third game.. the urban and rurals shit provinces are the same and anything sound like similar to conflict.. then the question is why should i play here and not in conflict? also conflict of nation is the most unbalanced of bytro games since some nations begins with 10 urban provinces meanwhile others with 5.. like russia and bolivia for example.... and the rewards in gold is like non existent while in cow you can find maps which give you 50k gold if you are strong enough.

I have the feeling to know whats coming and i already miss cow.

My 2 cents

TheMbare

I agree with this,I'm new to the forum but have been playing the game for over a year. It's a game I really enjoy and I think this is very suspect..I picked this game over many others for a reason and now it's heading down the same path as all the others. I hope I am wrong,but I doubt it-

Exactly what I feared...

Exactly why I was raging over what I called 'the BAD CHANGES' on the forum...

And, indeed, also I picked this game (over a 1000 or more others) for a reason...

The player base probably will undergo a significant change with all this.

I spend a decade here and in S1914. It was good time. But all good things come to an end.

Ofc, if Bytro is finally going to get filthy-rich, then, as a businessman, I understand the changes fully from that perspective.

As a loyal player, it just leaves me deeply saddened to so a good past-time die off, because CoN and S1 do definitely not offer the attractions of the old CoW (simply said: a mix of Go and Chess in a Tiger Tank jacket and a wel developed diplo-system...talking in past-tense ofc)

taylorwohlt wrote:

Just a comment on the monetization issue to fund the game//// better monetisation for you = a win/win outcome.

Just no-one really bothered to market the various games to the broader public as such.

One of the wonders of this old CoW game specifically was - as well as that it set Bytro apart from so many other publishers - is that indeed, as everywhere, gold could help a player to win above his level, which ofc makes for the necessary income for Bytro, but this gold use by an average player with a lack of time and/or will to learn the game, could pretty much be countered with the efforts of a few coordinating, non-gold using players. And a lone skilled player with HC could definitely take on an average skilled gold-player. Very balanced, so to speak. And if losing to the gold, it at least was pretty expensive for the victor

Hence, I have always promoted this game for two reasons:

1. Real strategy and diplo, allowing for a varied approach to the game, found nowhere else

2. Fairest strategy game around on the market by far

Gold is thus really not an issue and ofc it is also a simple necessity for the company.

I found High Command and Time much more dangerous factors than Gold

And I found HC a much nicer way of supporting the game development.

HC alone allowed me to make various games very expensive for some opponents.

And I always wondered why 12 months of HC was only 50€. I would gladly have paid 75€ and - once hooked - would have accepted small increases taking it to 99€.

(and not a blunt 100€ as in S1; does no-one at Bytro ever shop? Nothing costs a full round 100...but always 99 or 99,95... for a reason!! A dumb reason, but it works...is why all shops do it!! But heck... I raged over Bytro marketing skills enough in the past...out of fear of what is happening to the game now and the multitude of 'lesser players' I was facing, albeit between a good number of memorable games (thanks DJF78; will never forget that one for example; as also not with Hans P. in S1914; but also not the set of games vs a Belgian golder, who spend millions to beat me; and many more))

Imagine Bytro did its marketing of this game right and attracted a not impossible 100k HC customers (out of the gazillion real-strategy-lovers out there) at a rate of € 99 => 10 million/yr in the pocket as fixed income.

Add some good gold spenders, spending to win a map vs some of these skilled HC customers, some of which willing to buy gold vs a gold spender in over his head or just getting pissed off ... spending a couple of hundred on a match (I know I did that once a year or so, when some golder really pissed me off). Bingo! Another pack of millions.

20 million or more per year should be attainable...when attracting the right players.

Say there are 20 employees at Bytro ... making 1 million revenue per head is a good business... at least in my country (which is a top 10 economy)

But hey, as said many times, it would require attracting the right customers, instead of the regular bunch of 12years old fly-by 1-day-fly players looking for action, i.e. based on the landing page with fighters swooping by at high speed, while in reality my planes are flying 30 minutes to their max range and need ages for refueling on longer routes... and ground forces travelling 3 real days to the other side of the map (or was that before the world became round?)

This is not an action game, but:

((Chess+GO)*(Diplomacy))

((Tiger Tank)+(Think Tank))

Sorry.... not 'is'....I meant 'was'.

Had they done that, all these 'lets make it dumber for the fools' changes could have been avoided and the only-real&fair-strategy-game-out-there would have survived as such. As a unicum.

Bligh me...this game could have been the WoT or LoL of Pure Strategy!

absolutely will be deleting my account when i post this after looking at 1.5

Hello with this new update my girlfriend will be very happy! I will have much more time to be with her since I will stop playing. Why ruin a nice game this way? Has anyone proposed and made the changes ever played? it's very ugly.

Greetings,

Been playing CoW since March of 2016 and not sure how I feel about this update. For one, I am suspecting that all will be faced with resource starvation as not sure the reason why every unit requires every resource type for daily upkeep. Seems overkill.

Notice bugs right away with troop strength against other units. For example, Anti-tanks are stronger defensively against air than infantry?

L1 Infantry vs. Air 3.0

L2 Infantry vs Air 6.0

L1 AT vs Air 4.0

L2 AT vs Air 7.9

Then look at Tank Destroyers. There are inversed from what they are supposed to be against other armor (should be stronger defensively rather than offensively).

http://prntscr.com/puf5np

Will keep posting as more oddities appear.

Gator

[COPIED FROM A SEPARATE THREAD - QUOTATIONS ARE MESSED UP AS A RESULT]

I have already posted some of my opinions on the "Urban Provinces and New Buildings" post, but I thought I should express myself more thoroughly here. I will be dissecting each feature added and giving my take on it. A warning- my stance on 1.5 is exceedingly negative and if you don't like to see criticism, this post is not for you. No disrespect intended to anyone who may be offended.

Akiar wrote:

Urban provinces are the industrial hearts of all states and we feel this should be represented in Call of War as well. With Call of War 1.5 urban provinces will be the only places where units and their respective production buildings can be built.

[/quote]This wonderful new feature will kill strategic production. If you have a large swathe of land with no city, too freaking bad! No troops for you! Landlocked country with only one province on the coast? No navy for you. It restricts the number of troops you could have, and greatly reduces your flexibility with making troops. Although, among the list of new features, I must admit this is one of the lesser evils.

Akiar wrote:

But that is not all. Another change concerns the role of buildings in the game. Different unit classes, like tanks or airplanes, will now have their own production building. For that we will change roles of existing buildings and also add new buildings to the game. These buildings need to be upgraded to produce more advanced unit levels of the respective branch. Building effects will also be revised, and some buildings will only be buildable in urban provinces, while some only in rural provinces.

[/quote]This is completely unnecessary. All it does is complicate the game and further reduce your wiggle room. Have you been making planes the whole game and now you need to make tanks? Too bad for you, now you need to spend even more resources to build a "tank plant", whereas before you could just start making tanks just like that if you needed them. All this extra pomp and pageantry are completely unneeded. What was wrong with industrial complexes and infrastructure? Nothing. We don't need the developers to be focusing their time and attention making absurd changes like this that focus on the minute details of real life. These changes only serve to befuddle players and force them to spend more resources building buildings that, quite frankly, are not needed.

Akiar wrote:

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.

[/quote]This is by far the worst new feature in this entire mess known as Call of War 1.5. By adding this you are essentially killing the need for economic management. With this, players can throw caution to the winds and declare war on everyone without worrying about any of the economic consequences. Economic management has been a core priority of the game and this new update is trying to remove it. Noobs and casual players no longer need to worry about "being careful" and "thinking". Call of War is a war game, yes, but Battlefront and Call of Duty are also both war games. Call of War is not a FPS, it is a grand strategy game, and in a grand strategy game "strategy" is kind of an important part. This update will serve to destroy a huge chunk of strategical gameplay and take Call of War three steps closer to becoming Conflict of Nations 2.0- a mindless, shallow Cookie Clicker style game where the only thing you can do is click and drag your units around. You don't have to worry about your economy and morale. Just click and drag, click and drag. Honestly with 1.5 the only strategy left will be which troops to make and where to put them and diplomacy, but seeing as Bytro is also trying to turn diplomacy into nothing but chatting with other players, that's going to be gone soon. That's depressing.

Akiar wrote:

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.

[/quote]This feature, frankly, I don't care about. Next.

Akiar wrote:

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.

[/quote]Again, another COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY complication. I get you made researching practically free(which is something I am vehemently against- there is no more "saving up rares to painstakingly upgrade that one important unit you've been relying on to save the day". Just another step to making things more casual, more CoN like) but this confuses me. Once you research something, you're going to have to rebuild your entire army to get your troops up to date. To me this is just another pointless complication. By the way, complicating things does not equal to making a game more strategically focused. All it does is add extra steps to things.

Akiar wrote:

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.

[/quote]Splitting up armor into different armor classes is nice, it does add another layer of strategic gameplay, but I am skeptical of this. This sounds to me like Bytro wants to make a Pokemon-style countering system, where a counters b, b counters c and c counters a.

To finish this off, I would like to say I really appreciate the good folks at Bytro for wanting to improve this game. But, if this update were to be released as is, with no adjustments, it would an utter disaster for the game. Strategy is being sacrificed in this update for the sake of attracting more casual players who don't want to carefully consider their actions. We want more strategic gameplay. We DON'T want another Conflict of Nations. Thank you.

iDragons wrote:

I get you made researching practically free

iDragons wrote:

you are essentially killing the need for economic management. With this, players can throw caution to the winds and declare war on everyone without worrying about any of the economic consequences

(2) It's relatively cheap to enable most of the important units but upgrading is a different story. Level 2 research and buildings aren't cheap especially considering #1. Players must decide between making more L1 units that can't be upgraded or spending lots of resources to enable units with 2X (3X, etc.) strength. In my trial round I had to stop research entirely because of economic limitations, something that has rarely happened before.

We aren't far enough into the round to see how any of this plays out. Most of the comments I have read are based

on comparing the new against the old. CoW 1.5 is not an upgrade, improvement or a step back. It is a VERY different game that looks a lot like CoW. It is so new I still don't know if I'll like it. I don't mind if Bytro goes with this new game but it would be a serious loss if they drop CoW. Most players don't want a new game and didn't ask for one.

That being said, this thread will serve a better purpose if we post from our experience with 1.5 instead of whining about how it's different from the game we know.

Nooberium wrote:

iDragons wrote:

I get you made researching practically free

iDragons wrote:

you are essentially killing the need for economic management. With this, players can throw caution to the winds and declare war on everyone without worrying about any of the economic consequences

(1) I completely disagree with this part of your analysis. Economic development is at least as important as before, perhaps more so considering the lower amount of starting resources. You may need to play longer than one day to discover this.

(2) It's relatively cheap to enable most of the important units but upgrading is a different story. Level 2 research and buildings aren't cheap especially considering #1. Players must decide between making more L1 units that can't be upgraded or spending lots of resources to enable units with 2X (3X, etc.) strength. In my trial round I had to stop research entirely because of economic limitations, something that has rarely happened before.

We aren't far enough into the round to see how any of this plays out. Most of the comments I have read are based

on comparing the new against the old. CoW 1.5 is not an upgrade, improvement or a step back. It is a VERY different game that looks a lot like CoW. It is so new I still don't know if I'll like it. I don't mind if Bytro goes with this new game but it would be a serious loss if they drop CoW. Most players don't want a new game and didn't ask for one.

That being said, this thread will serve a better purpose if we post from our experience with 1.5 instead of whining about how it's different from the game we know.

1) Economic development has all but been sacrificed in favor of military development... if anything it has been made economy the slave of military development. No more Industrial complexes, limited use of infrastructure - with no economic benefits, 10% tax on all market purchases + 10% tax on all market sales, no trade deals (outside of a coalition), no penalty for aggression... the only thing here that does anything not to destroy economy is the long awaited removal of the penalty to conquered provinces... and EVEN THAT works to funnel everything back to the military development!!!!

Nothing in this update has anything to do with improving economic options!

2) So, the choices are, build up a military at what a reasonable player would consider competitive with their neighbors... at unchanging low levels and increasingly expending your resources to maintain them,

OR,

Spend on research, sacrificing military build up (and suffering the potential consequences) so that (if you survive long enough) you might have the resources remaining to build a military at higher levels?

What a brilliant way to (re)design the system... you can die from low level defense, or you can die from to much research to get a higher level defense!!!

Nooberium wrote:

(1) I completely disagree with this part of your analysis. Economic development is at least as important as before, perhaps more so considering the lower amount of starting resources. You may need to play longer than one day to discover this.

(2) It's relatively cheap to enable most of the important units but upgrading is a different story. Level 2 research and buildings aren't cheap especially considering #1. Players must decide between making more L1 units that can't be upgraded or spending lots of resources to enable units with 2X (3X, etc.) strength. In my trial round I had to stop research entirely because of economic limitations, something that has rarely happened before.

We aren't far enough into the round to see how any of this plays out. Most of the comments I have read are based

on comparing the new against the old. CoW 1.5 is not an upgrade, improvement or a step back. It is a VERY different game that looks a lot like CoW. It is so new I still don't know if I'll like it. I don't mind if Bytro goes with this new game but it would be a serious loss if they drop CoW. Most players don't want a new game and didn't ask for one.

That being said, this thread will serve a better purpose if we post from our experience with 1.5 instead of whining about how it's different from the game we know.

Notably, all that appears in 1.5 is equal to the mechanics of S1 and thus are therefor NOT new and NOT untried.

If Nooberium had tried out S1, he would know better already. The entire post of Nooberium therewith serves no purpose and can be deleted from this thread, as it adds nothing.

Facts:

- Economic development: is indeed very important, since conquering foreign terrain pays less than before. In various ways it is less attractive, which players will discover.

However, economic development is now also much simpler and void of any and all choices or challenges.

A complete layer of game-play has thus been removed. SADLY this 1.5 is another step BACK (at least for those who played CoW for the Grand strategy Game it used to be).

- Research: it IS practically free now. Had one bothered to check out S1, one would know that researching up to level 2 of any unit basically suffices. Then quickly produce enough units and crush your enemies. Who cares about higher research being more expensive, if you don't have to go there anyway?

SADLY research has become über-simple and cheap and with that, another layer of game-play has been removed. In this respect 1.5 is also a step back (at least for those who played CoW for the Grand strategy Game it used to be).

iDragons wrote:

Strategy is being sacrificed in this update for the sake of attracting more casual players who don't want to carefully consider their actions. We want more strategic gameplay. We DON'T want another Conflict of Nations. Thank you.

Simplifying things (dumbing-down) is NOT improving this game and only kills-off its attractions.

iDragons wrote:

This sounds to me like Bytro wants to make a Pokemon-style countering system, where a counters b, b counters c and c counters a.

All in all, the game has lost many features and layers of game-play since the BAD CHANGES started.

In return, the speed has increased an the timer limits the duration of rounds.

In short, the need for strategy has been cut out of this once great Grand Strategy game and with that, its HEART has been removed.

Thank you, but no thanks.

Alphared wrote:

I disagree with your disagreement... Most of us have played CoM longer then "a day". Some of us have a extensive experience with many games!

Alphared wrote:

if anything it has been made economy the slave of military development

_Pontus_ wrote:

The points here made by Nooberium are sadly enough only possible, bc he never bothered to try out Supremacy 1.

Notably, all that appears in 1.5 is equal to the mechanics of S1 and thus are therefor NOT new and NOT untried.

If Nooberium had tried out S1, he would know better already. The entire post of Nooberium therewith serves no purpose and can be deleted from this thread, as it adds nothing.

iDragons wrote:

Strategy is being sacrificed in this update for the sake of attracting more casual players who don't want to carefully consider their actions.

Just to be clear: I'm not very interested in learning a new game and would prefer CoW to be made as good as possible. A good start would be to eliminate the pointless and ineffective 10% market tax.

One thing I'm concerned about is the buffs to Infantry Units. I mean, the normal Infantry I'm fine with. The problem is Motorized Infantry. Mot. Infantry was already close to a direct upgrade from normal Infrantry in the old version. Now Bytro is just making Mot. Infantry stronger than it already is

Thanks for the feedback again guys.

I have to agree to something Nooberium has said in this thread:

It would help us much more if you posted actual experiences from playing the Event instead of theorycrafting why you think the game will die if we release these changes. We mentioned many times already that we will not release CoW 1.5 in the current form, because this version is still very rough. It will be tweaked alot in the coming months, with the help of your feedback. Therefore it will help us greatly if you explain why certain changes are good or bad by giving practical examples of your CoW 1.5 game round. I doubt that some of the changes can be judged without playing with them for several days, and I fear that some players are disliking them just because they are different, not wanting to give them a chance at all. You can of course dislike them for being different, but it won't help us much in improving them.

You can help us shape this version for the better, but for that we need civil discussions and constructive feedback based on practical experiences of playing with these changes. Thanks!

Maybe we should make new threads for posting practical feedback on specific topics, or create a feedback form to do so, because in these threads alot of different topics get thrown around. Will announce that if we decide to do so

freezy wrote:

Thanks for the feedback again guys.

I have to agree to something Nooberium has said in this thread:

It would help us much more if you posted actual experiences from playing the Event instead of theorycrafting why you think the game will die if we release these changes. We mentioned many times already that we will not release CoW 1.5 in the current form, because this version is still very rough. It will be tweaked alot in the coming months, with the help of your feedback. Therefore it will help us greatly if you explain why certain changes are good or bad by giving practical examples of your CoW 1.5 game round. I doubt that some of the changes can be judged without playing with them for several days, and I fear that some players are disliking them just because they are different, not wanting to give them a chance at all. You can of course dislike them for being different, but it won't help us much in improving them.

You can help us shape this version for the better, but for that we need civil discussions and constructive feedback based on practical experiences of playing with these changes. Thanks!

Maybe we should make new threads for posting practical feedback on specific topics, or create a feedback form to do so, because in these threads alot of different topics get thrown around. Will announce that if we decide to do so

P.S and yeah you either heavy buff planes or heavy reduce the costs or you can simply delete it from the game because it takes 1 armored aa to take down 2 or 3 planes of the same level ( giving that those units gets buffs from the ground meanwhile air units never gets a lovely buff ) giving and example with lvl 3 tact and lvl 1 Armored AA its 42 AA defense point vs 14 attack of tactics even if tactics have more HP it still deal 3 times less damage while having only 120 hp meanwhile the AA got 90.. so 90 hp vs 120 with 42 def vs 14 attack ! even a child would understand that something is so damn wrong mate !

P.S.S im quite sure u will not care about this comment but hey i tried

P.S.S.S 1 hour cooldown for refuelling ? are you kidding guys? you must fix this mess in the next test

Nooberium wrote:

Alphared wrote:

I disagree with your disagreement... Most of us have played CoM longer then "a day". Some of us have a extensive experience with many games!

Not sure what CoM is, but I was referring to 1.5

Alphared wrote:

if anything it has been made economy the slave of military development

Hasn't this always been so? Since the object of the game is to collect VPs, the purpose of economic development is to support troop production. However, I agree that the game is better with more depth in the economy. One of the features that makes CoW enjoyable is the economic dimension. If 1.5 indeed has inferior economic play, that will be a deal killer.

I have better then 30 years experience playing everything from Risk to The Third Reich, and we aren't meant to be playing Risk here! I have also designed and redesigned several, as a hobby. I played S1914, when it first came out, and have played Bytro games since. I think I might have some understanding of a variety of games of this kind.

Any decent, in depth, grand strategy game understands that while YES the focus is on the military build-up and usage - you must also build into the system some account of the civilian factor. CoW had that factored into resources and morale. CoM focus' everything on production, eliminating any need to worry about morale, or the resource needs of the population. It is Risk, controlled by production and, (since territory, specifically urban centers, control production) territory held (just like Risk).

If I truly wanted to play Risk, or any other introductory strategy game, would I get online to play something more involved?!?!

So, no it hasn't always been so, for CoW at least. And, yes, the economics are inferior - not only do they not account for anything but the military, the resources are so scarce it can't even live up to that.

freezy wrote:

Thanks for the feedback again guys.

I have to agree to something Nooberium has said in this thread:

It would help us much more if you posted actual experiences from playing the Event instead of theorycrafting why you think the game will die if we release these changes. We mentioned many times already that we will not release CoW 1.5 in the current form, because this version is still very rough. It will be tweaked alot in the coming months, with the help of your feedback. Therefore it will help us greatly if you explain why certain changes are good or bad by giving practical examples of your CoW 1.5 game round. I doubt that some of the changes can be judged without playing with them for several days, and I fear that some players are disliking them just because they are different, not wanting to give them a chance at all. You can of course dislike them for being different, but it won't help us much in improving them.

You can help us shape this version for the better, but for that we need civil discussions and constructive feedback based on practical experiences of playing with these changes. Thanks!

Maybe we should make new threads for posting practical feedback on specific topics, or create a feedback form to do so, because in these threads alot of different topics get thrown around. Will announce that if we decide to do so

And if those in game experiences relate to other experiences, what then? If the person having the in game experience is well versed with experience from the strategy genre in general, what then?

You set out a rough (Alpha) format for public inspection, stated you wanted feedback (without stated limitation), with the stated intent of wanting the feedback so that your rough cut of the design could be refined. What you have received is that feedback, from people actively playing the rough cut, and using varying levels of experience both in and out of the game to deliver what you asked for. Some of us are more technical and they have been giving you technical feedback. Some of us are more strategic, and they have been giving you feedback on strategy. And, some of us have done various levels of design and programming work in this very genre of gaming, you have gotten feedback on that as well. I would think, since your players have answered your call for this kind of help, all such feedback would be constructive!

If, now, you find the feedback not to your taste - sure separate us, or silence us with forms... if the problem is that we aren't as ecstatic about these changes as the Dev team... you could even lock the threads and just program whatever you wish to. The idea of any game designer soliciting feedback from their players is that feedback will be heard - both positive and negative. If all you want is the singing of praise, feedback is not what you are looking for!

Note: As of this moment, it has been several days.

Risk is truly a game for the simple minded.

Theoretically, Call of War is great game because it combines economy, a research tree, choice of troops to deploy, tactical considerations and diplomatic relations. All of these dimensions are inter-related so strategy must consider them all and decisions often involve trade-offs. Depth and nuance in these dimensions makes the game interesting.

In practice, ... (insert complaints here)

The search for the optimum implementation seems to elude us all. Dare we hope that order will emerge from the chaos?

Okay, having played this for a few days now, and looking at it from a Frontline Pioneer, lvl 100+ player aspect for actual gameplay related comments (since you guys asked) here are some of my thoughts:

1) Unit Upgrades - so I understand why auto upgrades are being removed... have had many battles where a golder pops a unit up 3 lvls seconds before engaging and totally changes the dynamic of the battle BUT there still should be a way for units to upgrade to a better version or AT LEAST be disbanded once the better version is researched (on a side note, paras should also be able to re-emplane at an airport). IRL, many units in wars have received materiel upgrades, why prevent that possibility in game? Perhaps have it return to a factory of it's type and spend a day there? As it is, you get many useless units left hanging around burning resources or have to literally suicide your troops, which leaves a bad taste to those of us who are used to trying to, you know, keep our troops ALIVE. The suicide option is very attractive with this format, but takes much of the skill out of unit movement and attack decisions which is a BIG loss to those of us who chose to play this game because it ISN'T a zerg rush with a different skin.

2) Unit Balancing - have noticed several balancing issues, most notable being that a transport ship seems to have better combat stats than a basic DD. Say what?!?! yes, you heard me... a dedicated combat ship can get it's ass handed to it by a transport. (just had that happen in the test game I was playing) so now you no longer have the fun of setting up convoy defenses or trying to sneak a guy past the naval screen and then nail biting for hours while wondering if they will get past, all you have to do is pack 10 infantry into a stack and send it across the sea to presumably board the ship with a bunch of 5 inch guns like they were Errol Flynn in a buccanneer flick and take it over if it tries to stop them on their way to landing in someone's backfield. Other balancing issues of concern to me are overpowered ground aa units, LT's that can take out AT's, and much as I love mech inf, op mech inf that can take out medium tanks anywhere but in the open at early levels from what I am seeing in the unit info tabs. Methinks more thought needs to go into this.

3) Diplomacy - So the morale effects of wars is now different enough that it seems to belong to a totally different game. Not saying that they aren't interesting, but you're ENTIRELY losing the flavour of the existing game, which (to me at least) is a loss. this being still early game, that may not be the case later, but for now, it's annoying. I won't miss the penalty for being the guy who attacks a province, loses a big stack fighting another stack only to watch some guy step in at the last pulse and steal the province and make you the sneak attack bad guy, but that's just about the ONLY good thing I can see about it.

4) Economy - SOoo... the elephant in the room... couple of sub categories here:

a) NOT a fan of the "urban areas only" for build options. There are many instances in the past historically of major production centers being built specifically for a war effort in the middle of nowhere, from the port at Ravenna in classical times to Stalingrad in WWII. How do you think the cities came about in the first place, anyway? They were built because people got together where business needed to occur. Unless building infra past a certain level suddenly makes a province a city, you are TOTALLY limiting how the game will be played. There's a lot more freedom of possible actions when the factory/navy yard/airstrip/etc can be anywhere in your territory instead of the predictable few locations and the starting cities in several nations leave MASSIVE gaps in defenses on one side of the nation being played (most egregious examples are italy with no ability to put a navy yard in the adriatic and russia with no ability to build major troop types in the south and east although other countries have similar problems) as italy (since that is the nation I'm playing at the moment) it literally FORCED me to attack yugo instantly to prevent those overpowered transports from raping me while the navy that could only be built in naples, rome and genoa took it's time arriving and then was relatively ineffective once it got there until I had cruisers patrolling.

b) Infra and ports no longer providing production boosts - this is one of the features that first got me hooked on the game yet here you are taking it away. I LOVED that the more you spent on roads and ports the better commerce could occur and thus the higher your production in a province. Why remove that option? As far as I can see it does not unbalance things to leave it in, and it makes things more interesting to have to decide "do I build another factory level or do I need better shipping and embarkation times" or "another factory or roads, gotta get my troops across the map faster and reduce distance from the capitol for morale" Not sure about later in game, but you have literally made infra useless in the early game and a cool mechanic for the ports is gone as well.

c) Unit research, build and upkeep costs - so I was one of the guys who years ago suggested changing up research and upkeep costs to reflect differences in unit types... blanket costs of ALL resources was NOT what we had in mind when we suggested that. The idea was that infantry needed more food and goods, planes needed more rares and oil and metal, tanks needed metal and oil, rockets needed rares and oil, and like specifics. the INTENT of the suggestion was to make different army compositions require different resources and therefore require different strategic goals for each nation to add to the dynamic. Instead, we have "everybody needs everything, so NOTHING is more important than anything else" Cue for elevator music and boring blandness.

d) Market Revamp - I know as a player who has had a youtube game ruined by market cheating and resource dumping that you had to fix the problem but DAMN this is not the way to do it. Closing off all ability to trade outside your coalition is just STUPID, and a blanket tax doesn't seem to accomplish anything gameplay wise other than annoy EVERYONE since the tax applies to all transactions now so is no different in effect to taxless transactions. Where's the tax going anyway, graft for the customs inspectors? Last I checked, taxes were implemented by nations, so why can't we impose taxes of our choosing upon transactions if you want to have them? As it stands, it's just a resource drain that does not prevent the behavior of resource dumping to another player that it was meant to stop.

e) Multiple options for building types optimized for specific unit types - hey, I bet you thought my entire post would be negative, but SURPRISE, here's something I am very happy with! (unlike a lot of others) I've always felt that the basic infra/factory requirements for unit types was too broad, having been in manufacturing, each type of vehicle or system needs very specific and DIFFERENT machine tools and fixtures to build, this change reflects that, and further, (not certain as we haven't hit that point in the research tree day-wise yet but it seems likely) allows you to build things like commandos and paras somewhere else besides your capitol meaning you are no-longer limited to one or the other, and no-longer need to wait literal DAYS for the commandos to get across the map.

Okay, so those are my long winded first impressions of the new game format so far, based upon issues and decisions influenced by actual gameplay. Hope you devs find it useful, and hope you other players comment on my points with thoughts of your own.

Have fun gang

-C

Alphared wrote:

So, you really only want in game referenced commentary, and will discount "theorycrafting" (as you call it)... ?

And if those in game experiences relate to other experiences, what then? If the person having the in game experience is well versed with experience from the strategy genre in general, what then?

You set out a rough (Alpha) format for public inspection, stated you wanted feedback (without stated limitation), with the stated intent of wanting the feedback so that your rough cut of the design could be refined. What you have received is that feedback, from people actively playing the rough cut, and using varying levels of experience both in and out of the game to deliver what you asked for. Some of us are more technical and they have been giving you technical feedback. Some of us are more strategic, and they have been giving you feedback on strategy. And, some of us have done various levels of design and programming work in this very genre of gaming, you have gotten feedback on that as well. I would think, since your players have answered your call for this kind of help, all such feedback would be constructive!

If, now, you find the feedback not to your taste - sure separate us, or silence us with forms... if the problem is that we aren't as ecstatic about these changes as the Dev team... you could even lock the threads and just program whatever you wish to. The idea of any game designer soliciting feedback from their players is that feedback will be heard - both positive and negative. If all you want is the singing of praise, feedback is not what you are looking for!

Note: As of this moment, it has been several days.

You try really hard to misinterpret what I say, do you? Of course we won't silence you, in fact we keep these threads open and you can bash the update in them all you want (as long as the posts keep civil). We are thankful for all the feedback we get.

From what I saw in these threads the feedback was for the most part still very general, often based more on tastes and theories than practical examples. The former is still valid, but the latter would help us much more, that was my point. Example: It doesn't really help us if we know that a player doesn't like aspect X because he just happen to dislike X in general. What we rather want to read is why exactly aspect X is problematic, in situation Y or Z. This will help us balance aspect X better.

Another point is that the feedback is spread in multiple threads in this forum, often with intermixing different topics, making sorting and evaluating hard. That's why I proposed having specific threads for talking about specific parts of this update. Has nothing to do with silencing.