New Units in CoW 1.5

Torpedo28000 wrote:

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?

I agree with this, or at least wonder if this is a possibility to add should more support this idea.

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I eventually focus on 2-4 of them and drop arty, AA, and often LT as well and solely use tacs, ints, SPA, SPAA and outdated LTs.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

The fact that you cannot research everything is good as well, it means that you need to make doctrinal choice, you need to plan over several days, and you need to try to understand and work around your enemy strenght & weakness. If everyone could research all the most important troops, then all armies would look the same.

Of course, that's not taking into account doctrine. While I like the idea of doctrine, I am a bit fearful it could funnels the players into their doctrine "best units", so instead of having each player have its own strategy and units, the players are forced to use their country favored units.

I would have prefered if doctrines did not impact class of units, but all units of a country the same way.

Chimere wrote:

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.

So what do you think those rockets are usually full of ? Shrapnels.

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.

And as far as artillery is concerned our army still uses squad weapons to great effect.

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

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

blue44elephant wrote:

Chimere wrote:

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.

So what do you think those rockets are usually full of ? Shrapnels.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.

they don't hand me the weapons and tell me to go f#ck myself. Artillery and heavy equipment revolves around maiming and mangling the enemy while we go forward and then they stop the bombardment so we can use squad weapons. At the best artillery is used to destroy bunkers and other structures and yes, rockets have shrapnel unless talking about a particular type.

Let me approach that in another way. I understand that you are or were in the German army, and thus you ae familiar with the concept and interest of Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) ?

Chimere wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

Chimere wrote:

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.

So what do you think those rockets are usually full of ? Shrapnels.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.

they don't hand me the weapons and tell me to go f#ck myself. Artillery and heavy equipment revolves around maiming and mangling the enemy while we go forward and then they stop the bombardment so we can use squad weapons. At the best artillery is used to destroy bunkers and other structures and yes, rockets have shrapnel unless talking about a particular type.

You don't seem to understand why rockets were more anti-personal than tube in WW2.

Let me approach that in another way. I understand that you are or were in the German army, and thus you ae familiar with the concept and interest of Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) ?

blue44elephant wrote:

What are we talking about here? multiple rocket launcher system, artillery or the ones you seem to be talking about?

Chimere wrote:

blue44elephant wrote:

What are we talking about here? multiple rocket launcher system, artillery or the ones you seem to be talking about?

Ok, if you are not familiar with MRSI (btw one of the key features of the PzH 2000) it means you don't really understand "artillery doctrine" except "it explodes and sends shrapnels everywhere" so let's just end it here.

but I am asking which artillery/rockets calibers/types we are talking about? Since we are just talking about artillery and artillery and artillery. Artillery uses different types of calibers.

MRSI is typically discussed for tube artillery, since for rocket artillery it is a bit the default.

Anyway - so the efficiency of tube artillery has one huge limit : the first salvo is usually devastating, but before the second salvo lands everyone has reached cover there are less exposed parts of bodies to hit. This was noticed since at least WWI, and possibly earlier - most casualties happen in the first 10 seconds of the artillery attack.

Long story short, if you want to cause damage, it is better to send a lot of explosive in a shot period of time rather than the same amount over a long period of time. If you want to pin the enemy it is another matter, but here we are talking about how much damage you want to cause.

In modern time, for tube artillery, this conundrum is solved through MRSI. The batteries shot at different angle with different "power" so the shells have different time to target but all arrive at the same time (hence "simultaneous impact"). But in WW2, it was not really possible for various reasons with tube artillery (though I think remember the Americans managed to manage some early MRSI from late 1944 onward, using different coordinated batteries and with 2 MRSI by battery, but tbc).

The way to land as many explosives in the first 10 or 15 seconds on the enemy was therefore not by one tube using MRSI technique, but by batteries shooting as many explosives at the same time : that's rocket artillery for you. It is not anti-personal because it has more shrapnels, it is anti-personal because everything falls on the soldiers in only a few seconds before anyone can run for cover. In addition, due to hit being short range and having a very low angle, its time to target is very small.

Yes, tube artillery will very much kill you, but once you are warned (after the fist salvo) it is unlikely to hit you as you are presumably in a trench or on the side of the road ducking or whatever.

On the other hand, tanks can't really run for cover, so it does not care on how packed the initial salvo is, it cares on how much explosives the area was covered with during the whole attack, and how big were the shells. The largest rocket shells are typically smaller than the largest shells from tube artillery, therefore tube artillery is in general better versus tanks than rocket artillery.

Plus, with a dude by binoculars and a radio, you can redirect the shells by saying whether the shoot was too long or too short, too much to the left or too much to the right. When the whole area is exploding, you can't, and anyway it takes ages to reload the rockets.

And for this reason, the design decision from Bytro makes sense historically.

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?

Chimere wrote:

Torpedo28000 wrote:

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?

I agree with this, or at least wonder if this is a possibility to add should more support this idea.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

I would disagree on this. Artillery and Planes are indeed way better than say armor in terms of price vs efficiency (though planes a bit less so in 1.5 than in 1.0). Making them weaker by either making they costlier in research of forcing the player to only focus on anti-personal or anti-armor is therefore good for balancing.

The fact that you cannot research everything is good as well, it means that you need to make doctrinal choice, you need to plan over several days, and you need to try to understand and work around your enemy strenght & weakness. If everyone could research all the most important troops, then all armies would look the same.

But the fact is, in 1.0 you are able to reliably research about 6-7 troops until next research period past day 8, as you get to day 16 it becomes maybe 4-5. This restricts unit diversity as players will only really use the units that are up to date and powerful. And to say otherwise is foolish. It would not be a successful strategy to send 12 different units types at day 18 which are lvl 2 vs 4-6 unit types that are lvl 4. The lvl 4 will win.

The fact that now we can only research about 6 troops and it becomes far less as the game goes on means we cannot have unit diversity. Even if every unit has a more specialised role, due to research constraints, we cannot achieve it. If research was increased by 33% as a 3rd slot would give, it would NOT mean everyone can research everything, between a navy, ground and air you would get maybe 9 troops done per research period taking into account early game troops are quick, and late game takes ages. 9 troops per go is so far from every troop. There are 28 troops in the game currently, not including transports and nukes to research. With the addition of the 3 new troops and the possibility of more this number only increases.

If the devs want unit diversity, and for players to use more troops, they need to facilitate this. I don't think it will lead to everyone using the same troops, for if that was the case, currently everyone would be using the same troops. I will research now what I think is best, and another will do the same. But we don't have the same looking armies.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

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?

I agree with this, or at least wonder if this is a possibility to add should more support this idea.

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

vyliance wrote:

wow good explanation i wldnt have done btr. Anyway since ur a game operator can i ask this: are we still going to have games which run wif CoW 1.0 or all games will be 1.5

The next 1.5 beta game will be an even tho and still play 1.0 games, we won't be getting 1.5 live for I believe at least a few months.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

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?

I agree with this, or at least wonder if this is a possibility to add should more support this idea.

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

JesterTheSheep 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

Rockets, historically, were actually a pretty ineffective investment up until WWII, when they became a LOT more accurate. They were basically modified fireworks that gave a bigger boom.

JesterTheSheep wrote:

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.

I was referring more to the V2, but yes, anti-infantry rockets were a lot more effective in the second world war.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

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?

I agree with this, or at least wonder if this is a possibility to add should more support this idea.

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

We changed the resource requirements quite a bit (actual resources instead of manpower). This will be mentioned in the next news update. So it will be harder to compare costs between the new and the last version and it has to be tested. Regarding the research times, we also reduced them a bit. The overall time (for all researches combined) is lower than the overall time of the previous version, even after adding 3 new units.

I don't think a 3rd slot will be necessary though, considering the fact that in CoW1.5 you do not research around the clock as in 1.0, because you have to juggle resource costs more when researching.

I also think that it's not always necessary anymore to have the latest troop level researched, because unit roles counter each other harder than in 1.0. Where in 1.0 it is certainly true that a lvl4 troop usually wins against most lvl2 troops, the same cannot be said for 1.5. If unit A is weak vs. unit B and unit B is strong vs. unit A, then unit A could even lose the fight when being 2 levels ahead. So maybe this is all just a mind set issue and you should bury the thought that only the highest troop levels are valid.

What we try in 1.5 is to encourage researching a wide array of units. We give players more choice, because sometimes they have to think "do I research the next unit level even though it is more expensive or do I rather research another unit on a lower level since it is cheaper and counters what my current enemy has". Those are tough decisions that are actually fun to make. They add some variety and excitement to the game, because now you have to adjust your research plans based on the unfolding game situation instead of just doing the same researches that you always did.

But as always: The next test will show us more and we can still make adjustments.

vyliance wrote:

wow good explanation i wldnt have done btr. Anyway since ur a game operator can i ask this: are we still going to have games which run wif CoW 1.0 or all games will be 1.5

Torpedo28000 wrote:

Ty, as far as I know, it will only be 1.5 games. But we have not been given a definite answer on that.

The next 1.5 beta game will be an even tho and still play 1.0 games, we won't be getting 1.5 live for I believe at least a few months.

The Civilization game was great until it wasn't. Civ 5 was just too different from Civ4. I abandoned the 'upgrade' but at least I could still play Civ 4. If the only choices will be 1.5 or quit, I will likely just say goodbye and best wishes.

Good luck to you. I will see what i can play and what i can't.

Will attack bombers be able to use carriers like high-level tactical bombers can ?