Increase resource production and research speed

No, both...

Ressource production: exept in some specific event, i don't think it's a good idea to increase production. It's the limiting factor for producting unit. Develop your économic power first and you can win the war. Think price/earning ratio for each building, etc...

time for research: long time research means to anticipate the other player move. In one game an other player make a good move... it means 3 days for research for producting specific weapon... He can win the game during this 3 days... a good opponent move should counteract your develloppement and your research...

It's only my vision of the game.

Yes, but for a game, you shouldn't have to wait 18+ hours for some damn Level 3 interceptor (just going with a hyperbole here, idk the actual time) that just kills the fun of being able to play the game.

I do understand the point of lowering the time, and I understand why some times are higher than others.

Resource Production, This should be increased in the first place, not by much, but enough to where you don't have to build factories and railroads in every single province.

I think that tech stacking has been wrongly defined here. Tech stacking comes from the fact that more than 5-6 units of the same type in a stack begin to have increasing penalties in their state-based effectiveness, thus blunting the effectiveness of big stacks. This is both realistic and good for play balance. having 20 infantry in a stack is heavily penalized, but if it is 5 level 1 plus 5 level 2 etc., the penalties are avoided and the state-based effectiveness mechanic is defeated.

I voted no on both. However, an economic tech tree might be a good addition. If it is well-designed and not too complicated, the ill-advised move towards Hearts of Iron could be avoided. The goal would be more strategy choices, but not a paradigm shift. For example, turtles might like it, and wise choices could make it a good addition to a turtle strategy, but unwise choices could enhance the weaknesses of the turtle strategy rather than its strengths. And maybe economy research could be an option chosen by the game creator.

dioglaert wrote:

I think that tech stacking has been wrongly defined here. Tech stacking comes from the fact that more than 5-6 units of the same type in a stack begin to have increasing penalties in their state-based effectiveness, thus blunting the effectiveness of big stacks. This is both realistic and good for play balance. having 20 infantry in a stack is heavily penalized, but if it is 5 level 1 plus 5 level 2 etc., the penalties are avoided and the state-based effectiveness mechanic is defeated.

You usually trust this person (alliance mate, coalition mate you trust, someone you've played with before).

When/if you research a higher level of that unit, the units upgrade.

Traded units do not upgrade. they always stay the same level at which they were traded.

My experience has been different. My coalition mates and I have traded units. Upgraded to next level and then traded them back.

that would certainly be against everything i have ever experienced or been taught. Im left wondering.

They're being upgraded if they're having the same level as your state of research.

As an example:

* You are at level 2 submarine research and trade a level 1 submarine from somebody else => the traded sub stays at level 1 when you research level 3 submarines.

* You are at level 2 submarine research and trade a level 1 submarine from somebody else => the traded sub will be upgraded to level 3 when you research level 3 submarines.

dioglaert wrote:

[...] but if it is 5 level 1 plus 5 level 2 etc., the penalties are avoided and the state-based effectiveness mechanic is defeated.

That's why when I proposed that existing units shouldn't automatically be upgraded when next level has been researched, I wrote this has to be changed (i.e. if my proposal was implemented, of course all units of same type in a stack must be considered in SBDE calculation - regardless of their level).

I think the current system makes perfect sense. all units (except traded) upgrade when the research is completed. Pretty much all units have some kind of manpower upkeep. these upkeep men represent soldiers and equipment that have been trained/built in the next level of research, so it makes sense that when soldiers and equipment get moved to the unit in question, the new training and equipment is implemented into the existing units.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

Traded units do not upgrade. they always stay the same level at which they were traded.

In my 2.5+ years of COW playing experience, the tech level of traded units will always upgrade when the recipient player completes a higher level of tech research for the unit type after receiving the traded units. As an example:

Player 1 (transferor) trades a L1 infantry regiment to Player 2 (recipient). Recipient has already completed L2 Infantry research, and the newly traded L1 infantry regiment does not immediately upgrade to L2 in recipient's possession. However, when the recipient completes the L3 Infantry research cycle, the traded L1 infantry regiment will immediately upgrade to L3.

Now, there is one quirky caveat: if the recipient player has already completed the highest available research level for the particular unit type (L6 or L7 elite for most unit types), and the traded unit that he receives is a unit with a lower tech level, then there is no in-game mechanism by which to upgrade the tech level of the unit because the recipient has already completed all research, and that unit will be permanently stuck at the lower research level.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

the new [...] equipment is implemented into the existing units

It was common practice around 1940 to for example recall all warships back to harbour every two years, where their torso was heated to 400°C so it could be brought into the new shape; also engines and guns were replaced.

Who never heard of the famous methods Russian engineers invented to widen gun barrels to bring them into a new caliber?

And naturally no Sherman tank could be seen after 1944 any more, because they were all converted into Pershings.

Sorry if I got your statement wrong, but fact is the way upgrading works in CoW (instantaneous and without paying a cent) is far from realistic. If it ever was done during WW2, the efforts would have come close to producing the new equipment from scratch and are not in the least covered by the upkeep you mentioned (which, as you know, has to be paid also if not researching next level). So if CoW offers an option to upgrade at all, I want it to cost something. Not only for better realism, but also for more interesting strategic gameplay. As mentioned, it would give an incentive to research a broader variety of unit types and each time you have a research slot free make it a hard decision whether to go for higher levels of unit types you already have or to research level 1 of a different one. As things are, that's no decision at all - you always research existing ones to the max.

Additionally, asking yourself for which units you want to pay the upgrade fee would be an interesting strategic decision.

This is not real life. This is a game. The upgrade of units is tied to a lot of mechanics. asking to change this is asking to change a huge chunk of game. I always tell folks, think of this as a board game, and not a realistic simulator of a real war.

BB, i may have not traded enough units around to know every last nuance of them, but I can tell you in my nearly 3 years of playing, I have not had a traded unit upgrade with research, nor has any ally I played a game with. If there are ways for a traded unit to upgrade, thats interesting. Its just not my experience. Ofc, I may have traded a total of ten units spread across all the games ive played.

Just finished testing this, and traded tac. bombers went from level 1 to level 3 when the level 3 research completed.

neat. thanks wayne

I am fairly sure there are known bugs with the traded units upgrading. Units should all be advanced when the level of research for the next level is completed, (regardless of origin) but they don't always. If we could determine a pattern of what exact conditions lead to them not upgrading I believe it could be investigated.

Units should NOT change in level at the time of trading. They will only change at the time of research completion.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

It was common practice around 1940 to for example recall all warships back to harbour every two years, where their torso was heated to 400°C so it could be brought into the new shape; also engines and guns were replaced.

That said, the BB hulls could not be extensively altered for obvious reasons, and power plants were rarely changed because doing so was usually cost-prohibitive. At some point, it was obviously more cost effective to build a new hull, rather than rebuilding an existing ship.

Existing U.S. Navy cruisers also got secondary armament upgrades and new AA guns. Radar systems on BBs, CCs and front-line DDs were often updated every 6 to 12 months as radar technology improved throughout the war. Front-line DDs often got sonar and ASW weapons upgrades. Even brand-new ships like Essex-class aircraft carriers got continuous upgrades in radar and anti-aircraft armament.

The Royal Navy did similar upgrades to existing capital ships as new tech became available. Pre-war rebuilds of capital ships such as HMS Hood were extensive. The Japanese rebuilt several battleships and battlecruisers almost completely during the 1930s, when they had the time, money and resources.

MontanaBB wrote:

Pre-war rebuilds of capital ships such as HMS Hood were extensive.