New Units in CoW 1.5

vyliance wrote:

revengegirl wrote:

Me personally i don't like being at war on day 1 it just feels too soon like i have no time to think out my plan so i'm ok with a small delay like if it was day 3 or day 4. I honestly don't understand why some players want to declare war on the first day of the game because that normally backfires which is not a good idea if you want to win. If you want to win whether it's a solo win or a coalition win in the meantime build more troops, stack your units together and upgrade the buildings then plan who you will be at war against. That's how i see it when i try to win in my games.

well what i think is that when you attack on like day 1, yes my units are less developed but my enemies' units are also less developed. This is advantage for me cos i just dont know how some players can out research me so much like everytime i play a game i make sure i conquer enough provinces producing rare goods so i can research n i always make sure i keep researching and dont stop but when i meet my opponent he has like lvl 5 light tanks as opposed to my lvl 2 LT so obv i retreat. And js a side question is it possible for units to heal?

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

lord tyr wrote:

The idea sounds nice, but nerfing artillery to be weak against unarmored units doesn’t make any sense.

Artillery is not what like you see in movies, the same goes for rockets. The first time I saw artillery bombardment I was pretty disappointed at what it does: A big puff of smoke, some shrapnel here and there. I found the insurgents maimed and mangled but most were not dead. It does absolutely very little against a human body( unless you are unlucky enough to be luckily standing near the place where the shell landed). Now imagine how little damage would be done in those days.

More than half of all casualties of WW2 are attributed to artillery.

a) Soldiers wore crappy helmets with crappy design, the design covered their ears too. So when artillery started falling the soldier would hear whistling sound of artillery twice as long making him think the shell was heading away from him and he would directly run into it's trajectory

b) open ground

c) location getting revealed

d) Chaos: Commanders thought WW1 tactics revolving around artillery could still be used. These tactics were obsolete with the new,highly intensive form of warfare: Blitzkrieg.

With that being said, look at modern helmets. Then artillery depends on the shrapnel from the shell hitting the human body making urban areas really bad for bombardment also, its not like artillery bombardment suddenly comes out of nowhere, first there are two or three shells to see if there is any enemy movement and then they will bring down the barrage.Artillery bombardment went on for a day or two to be effective. The bombardment done for a mere few hours was for observation purposes.

If you ever get time check the online archives of my country's war museum, they have details about doctrines of each country during ww2. For example: American doctrine revolved around reducing casualties.

blue44elephant wrote:

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

lord tyr wrote:

The idea sounds nice, but nerfing artillery to be weak against unarmored units doesn’t make any sense.

Artillery is not what like you see in movies, the same goes for rockets. The first time I saw artillery bombardment I was pretty disappointed at what it does: A big puff of smoke, some shrapnel here and there. I found the insurgents maimed and mangled but most were not dead. It does absolutely very little against a human body( unless you are unlucky enough to be luckily standing near the place where the shell landed). Now imagine how little damage would be done in those days.

More than half of all casualties of WW2 are attributed to artillery.

Casualties by artillery happened becausea) Soldiers wore crappy helmets with crappy design, the design covered their ears too. So when artillery started falling the soldier would hear whistling sound of artillery twice as long making him think the shell was heading away from him and he would directly run into it's trajectory

b) open ground

c) location getting revealed

d) Chaos: Commanders thought WW1 tactics revolving around artillery could still be used. These tactics were obsolete with the new,highly intensive form of warfare: Blitzkrieg.

With that being said, look at modern helmets. Then artillery depends on the shrapnel from the shell hitting the human body making urban areas really bad for bombardment also, its not like artillery bombardment suddenly comes out of nowhere, first there are two or three shells to see if there is any enemy movement and then they will bring down the barrage.Artillery bombardment went on for a day or two to be effective. The bombardment done for a mere few hours was for observation purposes.

If you ever get time check the online archives of my country's war museum, they have details about doctrines of each country during ww2. For example: American doctrine revolved around reducing casualties.

Changing arti so that it's only effective in a timeframe calculated in days, not hours, would make artillery units in CoW completely useless for obvious reasons. Not that that's what you suggest, but it's that arti currently fills an essential role that, while not OP, also suffers enough drawbacks already to be balanced. This on top of the fact that the arti unit is effectively getting split into two units as of CoW 1.5, already making it less effective.

This is far from the stupidest choice made around the CoW 1.5 overhaul, but it's just that I don't really understand why the need for a new arti unit was felt, aside for the cool (?) feeling of fielding a Katyusha over a classic howitzer.

Rockets have superior range that's the reason for them introducing it.

mrls multiple rocket launcher systems while ww2 had 6 to 15 km effective range, while highrange artillery 30 till 50 km...

Rail guns till 80++km.

also, by rocketslaunchers we dont need towed unit anyway. And it should be stronger then railgun, but with half range of common artillery. That would be new taktik diversification. Not this splitting of targets.

f118 wrote:

mrls multiple rocket launcher systems while ww2 had 6 to 15 km effective range, while highrange artillery 30 till 50 km...

Rail guns till 80++km.

This is amazing. I love the rocket arti, it's a great idea. But they should have put rockets in aircraft. Also, they should create a RPG (rocket propelled grenade) infantry unit. These infantry are gonna be like anti tank units. And with all this stuff, maybe Germany can successfully blitzkrieg Russia this time. LOL

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

GeneralAumSum wrote:

Also, I wonder how good will these be (hopefully not as bad as the tank destroyer which is even worse than militia!!!!!)

Tank destroyer has a use ...... it screams "I'm a noob!".

ShoeBob wrote:

This is amazing. I love the rocket arti, it's a great idea. But they should have put rockets in aircraft. Also, they should create a RPG (rocket propelled grenade) infantry unit. These infantry are gonna be like anti tank units. And with all this stuff, maybe Germany can successfully blitzkrieg Russia this time. LOL

And you can assume your planes have both bombs & rockets, depending on what they attack.

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

GeneralAumSum wrote:

Also, I wonder how good will these be (hopefully not as bad as the tank destroyer which is even worse than militia!!!!!)

Tank destroyer has a use ...... it screams "I'm a noob!".

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

So instead of really introducting new units, as you call it, you just took away some effectiveness from pre-existing units like the tac bomber and arti and made that into new units. Basically you have now 4 units doing the job of 2.

That's not innovation.

ShoeBob wrote:

This is amazing. I love the rocket arti, it's a great idea. But they should have put rockets in aircraft. Also, they should create a RPG (rocket propelled grenade) infantry unit. These infantry are gonna be like anti tank units. And with all this stuff, maybe Germany can successfully blitzkrieg Russia this time. LOL

Sounds like some good changes coming for 1.5. I'd like to suggest another Naval unit to introduce at some point. A Patrol Boat, a lightweight, fast unit, that can target Transports. Such units existed and were used everywhere during WW2.

Basically its function would be to guard against troop invading Transports. Which means anybody wanting to invade from the sea better have some navy behind them. I would say the unit should be fast, and only capable of attacking transports, or other Patrol Boats. A

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

And so starts the debate - stuka vs typhoon vs sturmovik, the flying tank, or drunk Canadian in a biplane

Balhog wrote:

Sounds like some good changes coming for 1.5. I'd like to suggest another Naval unit to introduce at some point. A Patrol Boat, a lightweight, fast unit, that can target Transports. Such units existed and were used everywhere during WW2.

Basically its function would be to guard against troop invading Transports. Which means anybody wanting to invade from the sea better have some navy behind them. I would say the unit should be fast, and only capable of attacking transports, or other Patrol Boats. A

In addition if you want normal MTB then you need to limit them so they don’t go in high sea, else people will send them from Europe to the Americas.

All in all, not keen on the idea. Destroyers are enough.

MTB in open seas .....

I ship this lol jk jk that's ironic.

revengegirl wrote:

vyliance wrote:

revengegirl wrote:

Me personally i don't like being at war on day 1 it just feels too soon like i have no time to think out my plan so i'm ok with a small delay like if it was day 3 or day 4. I honestly don't understand why some players want to declare war on the first day of the game because that normally backfires which is not a good idea if you want to win. If you want to win whether it's a solo win or a coalition win in the meantime build more troops, stack your units together and upgrade the buildings then plan who you will be at war against. That's how i see it when i try to win in my games.

well what i think is that when you attack on like day 1, yes my units are less developed but my enemies' units are also less developed. This is advantage for me cos i just dont know how some players can out research me so much like everytime i play a game i make sure i conquer enough provinces producing rare goods so i can research n i always make sure i keep researching and dont stop but when i meet my opponent he has like lvl 5 light tanks as opposed to my lvl 2 LT so obv i retreat. And js a side question is it possible for units to heal?

I see my post has gotten a lot of replies lol (which i wasn't expecting) i was just simply saying what i thinking. Anyways research is a important part of the game so yeah if your ennemy has level 5 tanks and you got level 2 tanks i hate to say this but you either need to step away from him/her or research sooner this way you can be the one with strong and more advanced units than the other person you are facing. You can heal your units be staying on your land or returning to your land if you are somewhere else.

Chimere wrote:

MTB

vyliance wrote:

Chimere wrote:

MTB

whats an MTB tho