new unit

@damian: Call of War's level of detail is focused at the level of regiments (1,000 to 1,500 men), brigades (625-850 men, plus 50-120 armored vehicles), and squadrons (400-600 men, plus 12-24 aircraft). COW does not employ smaller units at the company, platoon and squad level. At this level of detail and "granularity," snipers would be treated as part of our infantry and commando units and already figured into the mix.

Cheers.

Adding to what @MontanaBB already said about the size of the units of the game, I will ask the capital question... what's the point?

Infantries already benefit from stronger defense stats, which could already partially be due to the benefit of having snipers while retreating.

Furthermore, we already have commandos. Those once again have extremely strong stats for an infantry. Can't we all agree that out of a unit of commandos, at least a few will be snipers?

I'm not shutting down your idea (a bit), but it is just that the sniper is irrelevant amongst 1499 fellow soldiers, and its use is already included in other units.

Agree with the previous responses. As always, my stance if that the development focus should be put on further balancing the already given units rather than create new ones.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Agree with the previous responses. As always, my stance if that the development focus should be put on further balancing the already given units rather than create new ones.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Agree with the previous responses. As always, my stance if that the development focus should be put on further balancing the already given units rather than create new ones.

I'll rather want them to fix some obvious mistakes like the Soviet tech tree and skins

darksoul111 wrote:

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Agree with the previous responses. As always, my stance if that the development focus should be put on further balancing the already given units rather than create new ones.

For me most of it seems pretty balanced... why?

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Agree with the previous responses. As always, my stance if that the development focus should be put on further balancing the already given units rather than create new ones.

balancing units....yeah....one major balance every 5 months......

I'll rather want them to fix some obvious mistakes like the Soviet tech tree and skins

Care to elaborate which units are still useless after our last big balancing update, and why?

Not useless but weak in game:

• Mot. Infantry: To late in game, research from day 8 and need barracks level 2 -> make research from day 4 and need Barracks only Level 1 (maybe with additional infrastructure level 1)
• Mech. Infantry: Much to late in game (available on day 20 Barracks Level 3 build only if you need menpower an if you have to mush grain. -> research from day 12 and only barracks level 2 instead of level 3
• heavy tank: great weapon but to late in game, to expensive an to slow for good use. Need level 3 infrastructure to build. This is only in less core provinces possible. This provinces are most times fare away from the front. -> Research from day 16 and need only infrastructure level 2 to build.

Xarus wrote:

Not useless but weak in game:

• Mot. Infantry: To late in game, research from day 8 and need barracks level 2 -> make research from day 4 and need Barracks only Level 1 (maybe with additional infrastructure level 1)
• Mech. Infantry: Much to late in game (available on day 20 Barracks Level 3 build only if you need menpower an if you have to mush grain. -> research from day 12 and only barracks level 2 instead of level 3
• heavy tank: great weapon but to late in game, to expensive an to slow for good use. Need level 3 infrastructure to build. This is only in less core provinces possible. This provinces are most times fare away from the front. -> Research from day 16 and need only infrastructure level 2 to build.

there is one other unit that needs a buff, the destroys need a bit more strengths against subs. The subs can only be beaten by destroys. but if you meet a stack of subs you will need to mush destroys to protect your fleet. A lot of players build only subs as navy. With this subs you can defend and attack very cheap all other ships and you must only research on class of vessels.

Mechanized infantry/Motorized infantry is fine as it is

Heavy tank has strong stats, and level 3 infrastructure is easy to make

Units I still don't use after the rebalancing:

- Militia (personal anti-pref I think, I just don't like units that are SO completely immobile)

- Tank destroyer (really, please, needs a serious speed buff to become useful! Such a high-potential unit blown into oblivion by this ONE flaw!)

- Heavy tanks, too high price in both res and speed for only the extra HP (cause combat stats are only slightly better than MT)

- All that advanced special stuff: nukes, nuclear ships. Too late for the length of game I usually play.

- Railroad guns, too slow and too vulnerable to air, then L3 infra requirement gives it the final blow

- Cruisers, not enough tech dev slots available for a marginally useful unit (incentive for naval warfare _at all_ needs a buff somehow!)

- Naval bomber, too expensive (oil!), too little range to use existing airbase network for tacs/ints, and in the end, not good enough at its job (killing ships)

I also hardly ever build new infantry after the starting set (except sometimes when iron is REALLY tight), which is a shame, cause it should be the key cheap unit in the game! But for that, the food req is too high and the build time is too long. It might help if the IC requirement for it was dropped.

Elaborate ? Why yes of course ! Let's get started, shall we :

(disclaimer: this evaluation is based on actual in-game usage of the units as witnessed in several games, rather than factual tactical strength) :

- Rocket interceptors : never seen in use so far.

- Railroad guns : never seen in use so far.

- Strat bombers : never seen in use so far.

- T-destroyers : only very rarely seen in use so far.

I could go on, though I needn't to. Some units are objectively almost never seen on the battlefield, and it that's not a proof for a lack of incentive I don't know what is.

Take the tank destroyer for example : historically (save for national doctrinal exceptions), tank destroyers are commonly conceived as "tanks" that are lighter than their target tanks, with a lower profile etc. The concept being that what they lack in pure defensive capability they make up in mobility and discretion (examples : M10, M36, M18, Stug, Hetzer, Laffly W15 TCC, as well as various other tankettes).

Ironically, in CoW the tank destroyer is painfully slow however, to the point where it offers close to no advantages over its alternative, the AT cannon : the cannon is much cheaper and faster to build, is available earlier, is stronger in battle, doesn't suffer the classic tank disadvantages, and is barely slower. There are virtually no arguments speaking in faver of the t-destroyer ; and even when arguing this may be my subejctive perception, its wide absence on the battlefield speaks for itself (and yes I know some ppl use them, but you get the point).

Guys, i wish we would not have such strikly nettiqette.

Xarus wrote:

Not useless but weak in game:

Mot. Infantry: To late in game, research from day 8 and need barracks level 2 -> make research from day 4 and need Barracks only Level 1 (maybe with additional infrastructure level 1)

Mech. Infantry: Much to late in game (available on day 20 Barracks Level 3 build only if you need menpower an if you have to mush grain. -> research from day 12 and only barracks level 2 instead of level 3

heavy tank: great weapon but to late in game, to expensive an to slow for good use. Need level 3 infrastructure to build. This is only in less core provinces possible. This provinces are most times fare away from the front. -> Research from day 16 and need only infrastructure level 2 to build.

and heavy tank is powerfull enough to be fightmachine for lategame, also no need to make it earlier.

Xarus wrote:

there is one other unit that needs a buff, the destroys need a bit more strengths against subs. The subs can only be beaten by destroys. but if you meet a stack of subs you will need to mush destroys to protect your fleet. A lot of players build only subs as navy. With this subs you can defend and attack very cheap all other ships and you must only research on class of vessels.

on the other hand even in fight 1vs , submarine has lowest HP number of all fight seavessel.

Also no need for buff or debuff else.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

- Militia (personal anti-pref I think, I just don't like units that are SO completely immobile)

- Tank destroyer (really, please, needs a serious speed buff to become useful! Such a high-potential unit blown into oblivion by this ONE flaw!)

- Heavy tanks, too high price in both res and speed for only the extra HP (cause combat stats are only slightly better than MT)

- All that advanced special stuff: nukes, nuclear ships. Too late for the length of game I usually play.

- Railroad guns, too slow and too vulnerable to air, then L3 infra requirement gives it the final blow

- Cruisers, not enough tech dev slots available for a marginally useful unit (incentive for naval warfare _at all_ needs a buff somehow!)

- Naval bomber, too expensive (oil!), too little range to use existing airbase network for tacs/ints, and in the end, not good enough at its job (killing ships)

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

- Rocket interceptors : never seen in use so far.

- Railroad guns : never seen in use so far.

- Strat bombers : never seen in use so far.

- T-destroyers : only very rarely seen in use so far.

Other units are used often as you think.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Units I still don't use after the rebalancing:

- Militia (personal anti-pref I think, I just don't like units that are SO completely immobile)

- Tank destroyer (really, please, needs a serious speed buff to become useful! Such a high-potential unit blown into oblivion by this ONE flaw!)

- Heavy tanks, too high price in both res and speed for only the extra HP (cause combat stats are only slightly better than MT)

- All that advanced special stuff: nukes, nuclear ships. Too late for the length of game I usually play.

- Railroad guns, too slow and too vulnerable to air, then L3 infra requirement gives it the final blow

- Cruisers, not enough tech dev slots available for a marginally useful unit (incentive for naval warfare _at all_ needs a buff somehow!)

- Naval bomber, too expensive (oil!), too little range to use existing airbase network for tacs/ints, and in the end, not good enough at its job (killing ships)

I also hardly ever build new infantry after the starting set (except sometimes when iron is REALLY tight), which is a shame, cause it should be the key cheap unit in the game! But for that, the food req is too high and the build time is too long. It might help if the IC requirement for it was dropped.

tank destroyer...hmm, you do realize that they serve a defensive purpose as well? hell, most of the TD's should be slow, but then again, COW doesn't follow any sort of Realism at all. (the SP artillery in the USSR tech tree IS THE SAME as the tank destroyers, but is magically faster and weaker)

Heavy tanks are ALSO A DAMN DEFENSIVE UNIT, their defensive firepower is great to defend against both infantry and tanks, if you want offense, make medium tanks, if you want defense, make heavy ones, simple as that

Nuclear bombs are effective to take out capitals, unit stacks and to just kill resource provinces, dont complain about price, because you sure as hell have more than a million rare metal by the time you reach that late

-railroad guns are AMAZING weapons, their range makes them awesome, and do a great job as a naval gun. yes, they may be slow, but you get a much better artillery gun. for the air argument, every unit is vulnerable to air, but railroads sure are hell aren't the most vulnerable. that's why you make interceptors and SP AA, to defend your damn artillery

-cruisers are kinda underpowered, since a level 1 battleship can still take out a level 7 cruiser

-naval bombers are submarine killers, not battleship/cruiser killers, they also detect submarines, which is nice, i do agree that they're weak though

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

-cruisers are kinda underpowered, since a level 1 battleship can still take out a level 7 cruiser

-naval bombers are submarine killers, not battleship/cruiser killers, they also detect submarines, which is nice, i do agree that they're weak though

-Navalbombers are true NAVALBOMBERS, if you know how to fight vs navy you would not say navalbombers are weak. They can kill everything on sea, you must know how to use they. And may be try for teamplay, to make your navalbombers stronger.

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Units I still don't use after the rebalancing:

- Militia (personal anti-pref I think, I just don't like units that are SO completely immobile)

- Tank destroyer (really, please, needs a serious speed buff to become useful! Such a high-potential unit blown into oblivion by this ONE flaw!)

- Heavy tanks, too high price in both res and speed for only the extra HP (cause combat stats are only slightly better than MT)

- All that advanced special stuff: nukes, nuclear ships. Too late for the length of game I usually play.

- Railroad guns, too slow and too vulnerable to air, then L3 infra requirement gives it the final blow

- Cruisers, not enough tech dev slots available for a marginally useful unit (incentive for naval warfare _at all_ needs a buff somehow!)

- Naval bomber, too expensive (oil!), too little range to use existing airbase network for tacs/ints, and in the end, not good enough at its job (killing ships)

I also hardly ever build new infantry after the starting set (except sometimes when iron is REALLY tight), which is a shame, cause it should be the key cheap unit in the game! But for that, the food req is too high and the build time is too long. It might help if the IC requirement for it was dropped.

militia is used defensively and offensively (during IRL WW2 at least), but in COW, they are primarily used defensively, and should stay that way, kinda a desperate way of getting some defense though

tank destroyer...hmm, you do realize that they serve a defensive purpose as well? hell, most of the TD's should be slow, but then again, COW doesn't follow any sort of Realism at all. (the SP artillery in the USSR tech tree IS THE SAME as the tank destroyers, but is magically faster and weaker)

Heavy tanks are ALSO A DAMN DEFENSIVE UNIT, their defensive firepower is great to defend against both infantry and tanks, if you want offense, make medium tanks, if you want defense, make heavy ones, simple as that

Nuclear bombs are effective to take out capitals, unit stacks and to just kill resource provinces, dont complain about price, because you sure as hell have more than a million rare metal by the time you reach that late

-railroad guns are AMAZING weapons, their range makes them awesome, and do a great job as a naval gun. yes, they may be slow, but you get a much better artillery gun. for the air argument, every unit is vulnerable to air, but railroads sure are hell aren't the most vulnerable. that's why you make interceptors and SP AA, to defend your damn artillery

-cruisers are kinda underpowered, since a level 1 battleship can still take out a level 7 cruiser

-naval bombers are submarine killers, not battleship/cruiser killers, they also detect submarines, which is nice, i do agree that they're weak though

Militia: as I said, this is mainly personal. Yeah it is a decent unit when used correctly. What I often notice though, is less experienced enemies moving around with big stacks (say 20 units) including one or two militia. They don't seem to realize how much this brings their speed down.

You're recommending TD's for defense... but they are only useful for STATIC defense (defending a province you already KNOW will be attacked), because of their speed. In my experience, with many empty provinces and a long front, what you often need is a MOBILE defense. You don't exactly know where your opponent is going, but when you find out, you need to send troops to the threatened province on the double. There's no specialized unit for this right now (tanks and SP arty serve this purpose, but they're not specifically tailored for defense). TD could serve this purpose, but it's too slow with current stats. As I said, potentially a great unit, made into an expensive luxury AT-gun by their lack of speed.

Sure, nukes are nice, never said they weren't. Just like nuclear fleet units I guess. They just come too late into the game for me. And I'm glad about that, because the few times I seen them used, they completely alter the game, unit shortages become rampant in a day to even take empty land (who has a similar problem), the map becomes a waisteland without troops or production sites... very good realism, not a nice game to play, imho.

You're probably right about railroad guns, but again, they're about static defense, and that's just not my play style, even defending a coast. They have caused me a headache when an enemy was using them once (combining them with damage-takers like infantry and plenty AA in high level forts), but hey, that was just once, otherwise they were scrap metal quickly on a mobile battlefield.

Cruisers: actually I think there are just too many naval units, while naval war in general isn't very important (Hey, don't shoot me! I didn't say it was UNimportant!). I think it would be best to merge this unit with the battleship somehow.

Naval bombers: yeah, you are right, anti-sub thing. Still they are too expensive and their range is too short (which is weird, cause WW2 anti-sub planes would have HUGE range!). But when you have the option to build destroyers, they're just SO much better for anti-sub warfare.

I see a lot of unit names thrown around here that were actually made stronger in the last balancing update (i.e. railroad gun, tank destroyers, naval bobmbers, rocket interceptors, strat bombers, cruisers etc...), check the change logs:

For more variety on the battlefield!

and

Warfare Modifications

So I have to ask myself: Are those units still too weak? Do players just not know the improved stats and make arguments based on their older stats that they remember? Or are players just not getting rid of their old habits and still build the same stuff because they always prefered it, while not evaluating the new unit strengths?

Well I have taken the new stats into account above. However, the various (small) boosts didn't solve the core problem for several units... so they went from "completely useless" to "almost useful", but that's still not enough.

Some boosts were absolutely enough though; rocket fighter and commando are no longer on my list; and the earlier availability of mobile infantry is also very much appreciated.

Then I would like to read concrete suggestions which values of these units need to be changed (and by how much) to bring them from almost viable to viable.

Concrete suggestions (this will generate new discussion, so buckle up for a few days...!

Tank Destroyer: increase speed drastically, to a level halfway between medium and light tanks, possibly at the expense of either some HP and/or anti-infantry firepower

Infantry: half build time (the IC req will make sure that militia still serves a purpose)

Militia: weaker 20%, faster 30%. AA value is completely irrealistic, drop to 0.1

Railroad gun: not sure really, people say it is good as it is, maybe it just doesn't fit my play style... my instinct says it requires more speed but I realize that's not the point of this unit...

Naval bomber: drastically cheaper, about 50%, especially in oil (it's 8 times more expensive than the unit it is supposed to fight!). Increase range to tac bomber level.

Cruiser: redundant unit, merge into battleship.

I agree, there should be sniper class units, however these units will need to have certain terrain where they fight with full fury. For snipers, that is most likely Urban Provinces, and Wilderness Provinces. I'm sure snipers could work in other terrains, but those two are the obvious front-runners.