Attention Generals!
Two weeks ago our very first test event for Call of War 1.5 started and we asked for your feedback on the changes we introduced in this event. We were extremely happy and grateful to see how many of you followed the call and provided first-hand game experiences throughout the duration of your game rounds.
We are currently working through over 50 pages of feedback that we collected over the last two weeks across all languages and channels, addressing all kinds of aspects of the test event. We are determined to take as much of it into account as we can. Your feedback is very important for us at this stage and helps to shape and tweak Call of War 1.5 in a way that is to the likes of the majority of players.
We originally planned to start the next test event very soon, but decided to postpone it. We think it is important to address the large amount of feedback regarding the event and recent changes made to the game before starting the next test event for Call of War 1.5.
One thing we want to change is the Elite AI. With a future update players will no longer lose popularity with the Elite AI when a country declares war on them. We also decided to remove the extra popularity penalty for surprise attacks. It might be more realistic to lose more popularity with a surprise attack than with a declaration of war, but we think the detriment to user experience is too high. We will also reduce the popularity penalty for producing units, when the popularity with the AI is low already and adjust build priorities of the AI to make sure that buildings and units built by the AI make more sense.
Aside from the AI you also gave us a lot of feedback on the recent changes made to the fire control setting and resource trading over the past few months. We are currently discussing adjustments to these features too. We will keep you updated on the topic and hope that you will continue to help us on our road to Call of War 1.5.
Your Bytro Team
Please log in to post a reply.
Freezy, that was totally my misunderstanding; sorry!!
I thought what you were going to remove now was rule
"don't skip steps in the diplomacy. If you are at peace, always give trade embargo first and declare war 24 hours later." (as posted in --> this thread <--).
Now I see that only the penalty for starting a war without declaration is going to be removed. That's OK - that one can go.
I thought the purpose of the 'surprise attack' penalty was to encourage players to incorporate at least a minimal amount of diplomacy into their play.
That's right, but since the penalty can be avoided so very easily (by declaring war just one second before firing the first grenade), it quite fails that purpose.
I did say 'minimal'. 
OK. Well yes, I agree with you and Restrisiko it's a good penalty. But really not an important one. That's why I was promoting we better swallow this small compromise that's simplifying the game in order to make it more playable for "blessed" action-clicker / mobile / whatsoever players and raise our voice only when features are removed that are important for the strategic or diplomatic depth of the game.
A contrast in feedback:
Unlike the overwhelming responses in this forum on the CoW 1.5 test,
The Sone forum is eerily quiet, perhaps one or two posts a day, and several of
those are from S1914 players, posting on the wrong forum.
As a player ranked 650th overall, I personally hate the direction Call of War 1.5 is going (and i can speak for my alliance of 17 guys) when i say that If this is the direction Bytro is taking in future updates than I will have to find another game to play. I know Bytro is just trying to test a lot of features all at once, and its overwhelming to some but the general direction takes all of the logic, rationale and historical accuracy out of the game. Here are two major changes in Call of War 1.5 that, each, will completely ruin the game from a realistic, historical, and logistal perspective:
Balancing resources: historically and today, resources are NOT balanced. And this is the way it should be. If a country or a group of countries can control and manipulate the (for example) oil market, this is how it should be in the game. Sometimes I'll work towards becoming dominant in one resource so i can reap the rewards of controlling the oil market and get huge paydays when i sell the scarce resource. And logistically, it makes no sense for an IC to need food to build. Goods, Metal and Money, in the real world, is how an IC gets built. Historically speaking, Germany needed oil so it went south to the caucuses instead of focusing on moscow. Germany took Ukraine so if it wasn't for lend-lease the soviets would have had an even worse famine than in the previous decades in 1943-1945 alone. The way the resources are now, and how they make sense towards which buildings and units to produce, also effecting military tactics... IS VERY ACCURATE TO HISTORY AND THE REAL WORLD... and the Call of War 1.5 resource balancing system takes all rationale out of the 3 most important aspects of the game ... Economy, Production (buildings and units) and military strategy and tactics.
Building changes: Choosing which units you want to make in the beginning of the game as opposed to adapting as the game progresses is just complete lunacy. Militaries adapted in WW2... when soviets tanks became overwhelming the germans developed the panzerfaust. when everyone realized the importance of aircraft carriers in the pacific, the US boosted their production. and even tanks in general, no one knew their effectiveness when used correctly until the fall of france. Making a player choose which units to make before even being able to spy to see what others are making also takes half of the necessity of espionage.
Call of War 1.0 is already unique and balanced.
Two general complaint that I've heard from many players ... One seems to be lack of resources (unless you got gold to buy them) and very few units in game (eats up less server memory) ... 
The change from 1.0 to 1.5 is just too big.
Now the new graphics....You have killed a good strategy game and have made a CoN for children. Congratulations. I'm out, there is no place in this new game for me.
Bye.
Att. Teniente Somanta.
Hey, stay in the forum and maybe things will turn better!Somanta wrote:
Now the new graphics....You have killed a good strategy game and have made a CoN for children. Congratulations. I'm out, there is no place in this new game for me.Bye.
Att. Teniente Somanta.
This post was off topic and advertising.
lol, so off topic
No, Ryan, what Mongolian Hoard, Somanta, Pontus, Hans A. Pils, Restrisiko, Czar, and and and or approximately 99% of the posters who post content (not remarks...content) are saying is:Ryan04px2025 wrote:
The change from 1.0 to 1.5 is just too big.
When something looks like a clock, ticks like a clock, but it doesn't tell the time, how useful is that for a clock?
Everyone can adapt to small changes. Bigger changes even, with some effort.
The new graphics are a small change.
The changes to the market and diplomacy and the forced coalitions were big changes, deeply (negatively) changing the way the game can be played.
But COW 1.5 is not 'a change' to COW 1.0.
COW 1.5 is a new game which only looks like the old game.
It is a clock that doesn't tell the time.
Another one. He ranked 450 or so. The entire top seems to be leaving.Somanta wrote:
Now the new graphics....You have killed a good strategy game and have made a CoN for children. Congratulations. I'm out, there is no place in this new game for me.Bye.
Att. Teniente Somanta.
Must of us older players have or are leaving. A few of our old Discord haunts just shut down in this past week, and one of our last remaining popular RP haunts finally closed doors as well and moved on over to PP games instead.vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
Another one. He ranked 450 or so. The entire top seems to be leaving.Somanta wrote:
Now the new graphics....You have killed a good strategy game and have made a CoN for children. Congratulations. I'm out, there is no place in this new game for me.Bye.
Att. Teniente Somanta.
The market changes, taxes and denying trade outside coalition, are the worst mods of the year! ...vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
The changes to the market and diplomacy and the forced coalitions were big changes, deeply (negatively) changing the way the game can be played.
You mean that the changes is so big that it should not even be in the same game. I agree, but Bytro would rather have it here...vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
No, Ryan, what Mongolian Hoard, Somanta, Pontus, Hans A. Pils, Restrisiko, Czar, and and and or approximately 99% of the posters who post content (not remarks...content) are saying is:Ryan04px2025 wrote:
The change from 1.0 to 1.5 is just too big.When something looks like a clock, ticks like a clock, but it doesn't tell the time, how useful is that for a clock?
Everyone can adapt to small changes. Bigger changes even, with some effort.
The new graphics are a small change.
The changes to the market and diplomacy and the forced coalitions were big changes, deeply (negatively) changing the way the game can be played.
But COW 1.5 is not 'a change' to COW 1.0.
COW 1.5 is a new game which only looks like the old game.
It is a clock that doesn't tell the time.
Please log in to post a reply.
