New Units in CoW 1.5

Chimere wrote:

vyliance wrote:

Chimere wrote:

MTB

whats an MTB tho

Motor Torpedo Boat. Basically the patrol super light ship that was proposed.

vyliance wrote:

Chimere wrote:

MTB

whats an MTB tho

vyliance wrote:

Chimere wrote:

MTB

whats an MTB tho

They recover at a percentage not xp but i forgot how much

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

They recover at a percentage not xp but i forgot how much

Ah, ok. I actually don't notice my units recover but i send them on a lot of attacks and then retreat them and some other units take over. So no unit has too less health

vyliance wrote:

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.

oh yes yey thn how fast do they heal like 1hp/day?

Time for some answering

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I personally am a fan of new units, I think this enables more strategy as more variety in the choices for stacks.

Ofc until we see the stats we cannot really say much. I do have two concerns with new units in general tho.

1. With new units and esp these, we now likely need two troops when before we needed one. Although tacs where weaker against armour and same for the arty units, they could attack them pretty much fine. Therefore, will arty, SP arty, tacs, and then these new rocket arty and attack bombers all have a reduced cost to balance this? Whereas before I only needed one tac to kill 1 LT and 1 inf, now I need one tac and one attack bomber. And if not, how will they be balanced out given that we now seem to require two units instead of the one.

2. And the more concern I have, already in 1.0 I struggle really hard to keep research up to date with troops. I normally only really need to research 6ish main troops, and id like to use more but I never can balance out my research. Of these troops, tacs, arty and SP arty are all used, therefore it is possible I will now need to balance out 9 troops of research. So, how will this be balances out? Also with 1.5 aiming for more unit diversity, I think it would encourage this if either troops unlocked their new research either every 5 or 6 days, or the time for research was reduced.

Maybe you have balanced it out, or are just looking for feedback on this or both? If either one has occurred (it has been a while since last 1.5 so if research times have been reduced, any chance we can be notified?, and if not, perhaps this should be something we as the players all should try to take a closer look into)

If more troops will be added (yay!!!) how will their costs be balanced out, and for me more importantly the research be balanced?

Looking forward to hearing the next instalments whenever they are announced!!

Also... thoughts on changing the name of "Attack Bombers" to perhaps "Torpedo Bombers"... I for one think that would be a really great little tweak

We feel like Tactical Bombers and Artillery were too good allround units. There was a reason why often times players screamed that they were OP or too strong in the hands of good players.

If you used them, you did not need much more unit types, because they already covered so many roles. If you compare that to players who want to use melee ground units: They had to research and build multiple different units to get the same role coverage. So in our eyes it is only fair to split up Tactical Bombers and Artillery and make 2 units out of both, so that players who like ranged warfare or air warfare have to build more than just 1-2 troops. This makes it more in line with the effort needed to play a melee strategy. For that reason I also don't think that it is needed to cut down the prices for arti or planes. We did not make them weaker, just gave them more focus.

We will see in the next balancing test how this goes.

Chimere wrote:

BarkingHand wrote:

Just want to chime in here... I'm all for new units, especially historically accurate ones, but why the need to nerf existing units?

To create design space. Eg the current tactical bomber was strong vs both infantry and armor. If you create a new bomber that is even stronger against armor, either it becomes a super weapon vs armor and armor units lose a lot of their value, or it is only marginally better vs armor in which case no point using them.

But if you

weaken the tactical bomber vs armor and create a new dive bomber that is

good vs armor, then you have "space" for both units.

Little Racoon wrote:

I don't know much about artillery, but wouldn't it make more sense for rocket arti to hit armored units better?

Two reasons :- The shell size & weight was typically smaller for a rocket. Of course, there were exceptions and Germany used heavy rockets, but that'q a general trend. On an armored target, it is more efficient to use one ammo with 4 time the explosive than 4 ammo with 1/4 of the explosive.

- The accuracy. It is really hard to destroy a tank without a direct hit or, for the heaviest shells, a close miss. Rockets are extremely inaccurate, but they really cover an area in explosion before the infantry can take cover. Artillery, though there were methods developped in WW2 so shells shot at different times would "arrive" at the same time, did not have this capacity to saturate an area in a few seconds, but the could be redirected to the target by observers - which rocket artillery could not.

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.

Tactical Bombers got weaker vs. armor, but they got stronger vs. unarmored, compared to their previous values. Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

So the overall power of these units are similar to their previous version, they just focus more on specific targets now. To make room for the new units, which also focus on specific targets.

freezy wrote:

Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

I am a bit disappointed at that because I used to think you guys used to do the research.

blue44elephant wrote:

freezy wrote:

Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????I am a bit disappointed at that because I used to think you guys used to do the research.

Chimere wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

freezy wrote:

Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????I am a bit disappointed at that because I used to think you guys used to do the research.

I don’t think you did much research yourself, beyond pop-history. Artillery weaker vs infantry than rocket artillery makes sense

"Accurate" is a big exaggeration. But powerful, sure. There are many accounts of the terrifying effectiveness of anti-infantry use of rockets on several fronts, and not just the Eastern one.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

"Accurate" is a big exaggeration. But powerful, sure. There are many accounts of the terrifying effectiveness of anti-infantry use of rockets on several fronts, and not just the Eastern one.

Stalin's Organs could flip tanks over, as could 155mm arty. Any unit is in trouble if a big enough round lands near it.

freezy wrote:

Time for some answering

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I personally am a fan of new units, I think this enables more strategy as more variety in the choices for stacks.

Ofc until we see the stats we cannot really say much. I do have two concerns with new units in general tho.

1. With new units and esp these, we now likely need two troops when before we needed one. Although tacs where weaker against armour and same for the arty units, they could attack them pretty much fine. Therefore, will arty, SP arty, tacs, and then these new rocket arty and attack bombers all have a reduced cost to balance this? Whereas before I only needed one tac to kill 1 LT and 1 inf, now I need one tac and one attack bomber. And if not, how will they be balanced out given that we now seem to require two units instead of the one.

2. And the more concern I have, already in 1.0 I struggle really hard to keep research up to date with troops. I normally only really need to research 6ish main troops, and id like to use more but I never can balance out my research. Of these troops, tacs, arty and SP arty are all used, therefore it is possible I will now need to balance out 9 troops of research. So, how will this be balances out? Also with 1.5 aiming for more unit diversity, I think it would encourage this if either troops unlocked their new research either every 5 or 6 days, or the time for research was reduced.

Maybe you have balanced it out, or are just looking for feedback on this or both? If either one has occurred (it has been a while since last 1.5 so if research times have been reduced, any chance we can be notified?, and if not, perhaps this should be something we as the players all should try to take a closer look into)

If more troops will be added (yay!!!) how will their costs be balanced out, and for me more importantly the research be balanced?

Looking forward to hearing the next instalments whenever they are announced!!

Also... thoughts on changing the name of "Attack Bombers" to perhaps "Torpedo Bombers"... I for one think that would be a really great little tweak

Thanks for the feedback! In the next 1.5 version we alleviated some resource constraints in the early game, so it should now be a bit easier to build/research multiple units.

We feel like Tactical Bombers and Artillery were too good allround units. There was a reason why often times players screamed that they were OP or too strong in the hands of good players.

If you used them, you did not need much more unit types, because they already covered so many roles. If you compare that to players who want to use melee ground units: They had to research and build multiple different units to get the same role coverage. So in our eyes it is only fair to split up Tactical Bombers and Artillery and make 2 units out of both, so that players who like ranged warfare or air warfare have to build more than just 1-2 troops. This makes it more in line with the effort needed to play a melee strategy. For that reason I also don't think that it is needed to cut down the prices for arti or planes. We did not make them weaker, just gave them more focus.

We will see in the next balancing test how this goes.

Chimere wrote:

BarkingHand wrote:

Just want to chime in here... I'm all for new units, especially historically accurate ones, but why the need to nerf existing units?

To create design space. Eg the current tactical bomber was strong vs both infantry and armor. If you create a new bomber that is even stronger against armor, either it becomes a super weapon vs armor and armor units lose a lot of their value, or it is only marginally better vs armor in which case no point using them.

But if you

weaken the tactical bomber vs armor and create a new dive bomber that is

good vs armor, then you have "space" for both units.

Little Racoon wrote:

I don't know much about artillery, but wouldn't it make more sense for rocket arti to hit armored units better?

Two reasons :- The shell size & weight was typically smaller for a rocket. Of course, there were exceptions and Germany used heavy rockets, but that'q a general trend. On an armored target, it is more efficient to use one ammo with 4 time the explosive than 4 ammo with 1/4 of the explosive.

- The accuracy. It is really hard to destroy a tank without a direct hit or, for the heaviest shells, a close miss. Rockets are extremely inaccurate, but they really cover an area in explosion before the infantry can take cover. Artillery, though there were methods developped in WW2 so shells shot at different times would "arrive" at the same time, did not have this capacity to saturate an area in a few seconds, but the could be redirected to the target by observers - which rocket artillery could not.

Thank you for your post! I want to highlight it here, because it explains our design decision and how it fits into historical context very well. So whoever is asking why it makes sense to rebalance these units the way we do, please read the above post

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.

We did not make Tactical Bombers weaker or Artillery weaker, we just shifted their stats around.Tactical Bombers got weaker vs. armor, but they got stronger vs. unarmored, compared to their previous values. Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

So the overall power of these units are similar to their previous version, they just focus more on specific targets now. To make room for the new units, which also focus on specific targets.

like because 1.0 has lesser units to research we have 2 research slots so maybe with more units we get 1 more research slots?

vyliance wrote:

freezy wrote:

Time for some answering

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I personally am a fan of new units, I think this enables more strategy as more variety in the choices for stacks.

Ofc until we see the stats we cannot really say much. I do have two concerns with new units in general tho.

1. With new units and esp these, we now likely need two troops when before we needed one. Although tacs where weaker against armour and same for the arty units, they could attack them pretty much fine. Therefore, will arty, SP arty, tacs, and then these new rocket arty and attack bombers all have a reduced cost to balance this? Whereas before I only needed one tac to kill 1 LT and 1 inf, now I need one tac and one attack bomber. And if not, how will they be balanced out given that we now seem to require two units instead of the one.

2. And the more concern I have, already in 1.0 I struggle really hard to keep research up to date with troops. I normally only really need to research 6ish main troops, and id like to use more but I never can balance out my research. Of these troops, tacs, arty and SP arty are all used, therefore it is possible I will now need to balance out 9 troops of research. So, how will this be balances out? Also with 1.5 aiming for more unit diversity, I think it would encourage this if either troops unlocked their new research either every 5 or 6 days, or the time for research was reduced.

Maybe you have balanced it out, or are just looking for feedback on this or both? If either one has occurred (it has been a while since last 1.5 so if research times have been reduced, any chance we can be notified?, and if not, perhaps this should be something we as the players all should try to take a closer look into)

If more troops will be added (yay!!!) how will their costs be balanced out, and for me more importantly the research be balanced?

Looking forward to hearing the next instalments whenever they are announced!!

Also... thoughts on changing the name of "Attack Bombers" to perhaps "Torpedo Bombers"... I for one think that would be a really great little tweak

Thanks for the feedback! In the next 1.5 version we alleviated some resource constraints in the early game, so it should now be a bit easier to build/research multiple units.We feel like Tactical Bombers and Artillery were too good allround units. There was a reason why often times players screamed that they were OP or too strong in the hands of good players.

If you used them, you did not need much more unit types, because they already covered so many roles. If you compare that to players who want to use melee ground units: They had to research and build multiple different units to get the same role coverage. So in our eyes it is only fair to split up Tactical Bombers and Artillery and make 2 units out of both, so that players who like ranged warfare or air warfare have to build more than just 1-2 troops. This makes it more in line with the effort needed to play a melee strategy. For that reason I also don't think that it is needed to cut down the prices for arti or planes. We did not make them weaker, just gave them more focus.

We will see in the next balancing test how this goes.

Chimere wrote:

BarkingHand wrote:

Just want to chime in here... I'm all for new units, especially historically accurate ones, but why the need to nerf existing units?

To create design space. Eg the current tactical bomber was strong vs both infantry and armor. If you create a new bomber that is even stronger against armor, either it becomes a super weapon vs armor and armor units lose a lot of their value, or it is only marginally better vs armor in which case no point using them.But if you

weaken the tactical bomber vs armor and create a new dive bomber that is

good vs armor, then you have "space" for both units.

Little Racoon wrote:

I don't know much about artillery, but wouldn't it make more sense for rocket arti to hit armored units better?

Two reasons :- The shell size & weight was typically smaller for a rocket. Of course, there were exceptions and Germany used heavy rockets, but that'q a general trend. On an armored target, it is more efficient to use one ammo with 4 time the explosive than 4 ammo with 1/4 of the explosive.- The accuracy. It is really hard to destroy a tank without a direct hit or, for the heaviest shells, a close miss. Rockets are extremely inaccurate, but they really cover an area in explosion before the infantry can take cover. Artillery, though there were methods developped in WW2 so shells shot at different times would "arrive" at the same time, did not have this capacity to saturate an area in a few seconds, but the could be redirected to the target by observers - which rocket artillery could not.

Thank you for your post! I want to highlight it here, because it explains our design decision and how it fits into historical context very well. So whoever is asking why it makes sense to rebalance these units the way we do, please read the above post

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.

We did not make Tactical Bombers weaker or Artillery weaker, we just shifted their stats around.Tactical Bombers got weaker vs. armor, but they got stronger vs. unarmored, compared to their previous values. Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.So the overall power of these units are similar to their previous version, they just focus more on specific targets now. To make room for the new units, which also focus on specific targets.

js a suggestion: how abt u give us 3 research slots?like because 1.0 has lesser units to research we have 2 research slots so maybe with more units we get 1 more research slots?

Chimere wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

freezy wrote:

Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????I am a bit disappointed at that because I used to think you guys used to do the research.

I don’t think you did much research yourself, beyond pop-history. Artillery weaker vs infantry than rocket artillery makes sense

vyliance wrote:

js a suggestion: how abt u give us 3 research slots?like because 1.0 has lesser units to research we have 2 research slots so maybe with more units we get 1 more research slots?

Here is why, one of the key changes that has repeatedly been stated is unit diversity and how in 1.5 each unit has more of a distinct role which means we will need a more variety of troops than compared with 1.0. I am going to quote the manual which states the difference between 1.0 and 1.5 to support this.

In 1.0 "Most units share similar roles in the game.". This means for me because each unit is more similar, I can get away with not researching everything and focusing on fewer units, as they are all similar. Already in 1.0 I struggle to keep up with my few units. I try to have tacs, ints, arty, LT, SPA, AA, SPAA, subs. I like to have more, but in reality above lvl 2-3 I can never have the research time to keep more troops researched. Even that few troops I eventually focus on 2-4 of them and drop arty, AA, and often LT as well and solely use tacs, ints, SPA, SPAA and outdated LTs. This is with two research slots. I will also add how those troops pretty much have no diversity and they are pretty broad, I dont have any real troop diversity and that is because I cannot research more. Now would I even if I could in 1.0? probably not but the fact I couldn't is what I am trying to get at.

Now 1.5 has added 3 units, which for my strategy means I need min two more troops to research, and given they are planes and arty, arguable the two most common troops, I feel it is intended we need to research both the new and old troop. Now we have not been able to play yet, but given in past 1.5 maps research has been tight, with the addition of new troops it will become even tighter.

In 1.5, "Many units received distinct roles" because units now are not, good at everything, we require more troops. A simple example is arty and rocket arty. While it makes sense why they have been split into two. It does mean we require double the research for these troops to keep them both up to date when compared to 1.0.

Hopefully I have been able to highlight the reasons why I believe we need the third research slot. Or research times reduced by a third. (same outcome). I do think a third would encourage diversity more just as you can overtly see how you have more slots to be researched.

The goal of unit diversity I think is good. In 1.0 I don't even bother to research many troops as I don't need to. Now ofc we need to play the next 1.5 map. But is it a possibility to add this third research slot? I for one want to add more units to my list of ones I use. But if we lack the ability to research them all, this will never be a possibility and the goal of unit diversity will not be possible as we simply cannot achieve this. Certainly there needs to be a balance between having every troop researched and none. But I feel there needs to be a significant reduction in research time.

Now ofc you may have reduced research times by a large amount or added the third, in which case I am totally wasting my time lol... but RN my internet is out /really poor and slow and is not strong enough to play CoW so I seem to have found a lot of new time to spend

3rd reasearch slop will benefit wolfpacker and mmacc player a lot more then players... Average player at some point doesnt have enough ressources even for 2 research slot all the time without stoping economical or recruitment programms.

3rd slot was many times diskussed, and for examples in CoN had test run for 1 or 2 weeks and removed.

Dont even dream about. Bytro get less encome with 3rd slot. Average players wpuld be even more outdated by unfair players. Nobody would be lucky, except those unfair players.

blue44elephant wrote:

Chimere wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

freezy wrote:

Artillery got weaker vs. unarmored but stronger vs. heavy armored, compared to their previous stats.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????I am a bit disappointed at that because I used to think you guys used to do the research.

I don’t think you did much research yourself, beyond pop-history. Artillery weaker vs infantry than rocket artillery makes sense

Just because you play call of duty doesn't mean you become an expert in guns and ballistics. I had to spend hundreds of hours in the field getting experience with them so don't teach me and shut up and read the next line with your damned eyes OPEN: Artillery DEPENDS ON SHRAPNEL to kill. Not the big goddamn it explosions! UNDERSTOOD????????? If not then better go on google and see how artillery works and don't check wikipedia as it's edited by some fool who thinks he knows better after playing call of duty.

Having hundred of hours in the field as a grunt does not make you an expert in "ballistics". In guns, maybe. In WW2 artillery ? Not at all.