Unbalanced game

This game is probably the least balanced strategy game ever.

Just spam light tanks and win.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

138 Replies

_Pontus_ wrote:

Catalin92 wrote:

if you are a dumb ... your army will fight with 20% 10% ... or 50% ... this can be tested to see how it`s works ... just think smart ...
So many complaints, 'dude'. Nevertheless, this is how it already is (if you catch my drift...'dude').

Add to that the wrong use of the different unit types for the wrong purpose, instead of in varying combinations as the situation requires and exploiting their specific benefits.

Like in chess: there is no use to ask why the tower can't move diagonally.

Because it is a tower and not a knight, it thus has a specific different skill set and use. The tower has to be used for its own purpose and benefits in combination with other units, instead of complaining about what it cannot do.

That is a good analogy!

I also said tac are best used to pick off stragglers. In a big stack I think they will nerf themselves with a crowding bonus. (or penalty) If a LT is travelling by itself its tac food. If they're all clustered up go around them.

Vigor555 wrote:

I also said
My point was not personal, but aimed at the claims that the game is unbalanced in general.

Claims such as that 'nothing can be done against enemies with an air force' or that 'an AT/lvl3 should not die vs an AT/lvl1.'

This - somewhat silly - claim, however, is mostly made, and then defended fiercely, by claimants who have yet to uncover the wealth of possibilities in strategy and tactics, variations in use and combinations of units in varying situations, terrain and so forth,

When one still has to start to grasp even the earliest beginnings of possibly understanding a small part of it all, one should refrain from such claims and the following demands and simply not blame the game for one's faillure.

As said before: don't use a spoon, if you want to cut wood. It might work eventually, but it surely is not efficient. And for sure, that is NOT the spoon's fault.

How is chess a good analogy? there you dont make units you already have a premade set .ofcourse you use the different unit types to get maximum efficency from them , but hardly the units are balanced vs eachother in effectiveness. Fe the queen is superior to all, but you only have 1 . In this game you dont need to produce the ineffective units at all , so you only use the more effective ones like lighttanks and bombers.

Chess is a bad analogy.

Orkhepaj wrote:

How is chess a good analogy?
That is a very scary remark...

Chess and Go are very relevant to this game. Though Go only has 1 type of unit...

If you don't see that, then there is no helping you and I rest my case.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Orkhepaj wrote:

How is chess a good analogy?
That is a very scary remark...Chess and Go are very relevant to this game. Though Go only has 1 type of unit...

If you don't see that, then there is no helping you and I rest my case.

so arrogant , you dont refute my points just try to make me look like a fool ...

so pls tell me how a game where you have a preset units is a good analogy to a game where you can choose what unit you want to use? also in chess there is no counter ,the one wich moves always kills the target no matter of their type , in this cow game thats not the case at all

bottom line your analogy is very bad ,so is your manners

Orkhepaj wrote:

so arrogant , you dont refute my points just try to make me look like a fool ...
No, it is not me that is doing that...

Chess and Go analogies go a very long way in both s1914 and CoW.

As comes in handy any knowledge out of the books of Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz.

This is not ... I repeat: this is not a dumb 'hack 'n slash' game.

Orkhepaj wrote:

so you only use the more effective ones like lighttanks and bombers
Is why you have a hard time...

Reread the earlier posts on the subject:

1. each unit has specific strong points and weaknesses

2. varying combinations of units are effective depending circumstances

3. every map is different, due to different opponents, but still every map is the same

I win a lot and I currently have indeed in my maps LTs & Tacs, but I also field mech-inf, militia, AT, SP-AA, SP-Arty and I need all of them for different reasons

_Pontus_ wrote:

This is not ... I repeat: this is not a dumb 'hack 'n slash' game.
so why are u playing it?

"Chess and Go analogies go a very long way in both s1914 and CoW." how exactly? cause other than you say this you hadnt proved it in any meaningfull way

_Pontus_ wrote:

Orkhepaj wrote:

so you only use the more effective ones like lighttanks and bombers
Is why you have a hard time...Reread the earlier posts on the subject:

1. each unit has specific strong points and weaknesses

2. varying combinations of units are effective depending circumstances

3. every map is different, due to different opponents, but still every map is the same

I win a lot and I currently have indeed in my maps LTs & Tacs, but I also field mech-inf, militia, AT, SP-AA, SP-Arty and I need all of them for different reasons

1. yet some units are way more usefull , and as you are limited with research , you should only use the most effective ones and completly ignore the weak ones like strat bombers and at guns even motorized infs are weak imho ,the only reason people research some of these to unlock other type of units

2.yet you are still limited with research , so focusing on more than a couple of units is ineffective

3. every map is different yet every map is the same? makes not much sense

you even assume that i have a hard time , why is that? the game cant be unbalanced if you are good at it? I just cant see where this assumption comes for u

oh and about your lighttanks vs tac bombers test, tac bombers are counter to light tanks so i cant see how the tanks can win an even fight , even on plains the bombers should be able to defeat the tanks pretty easily

in my last war my 20 tac bombers singlehandedly defeated 40+ enemy units mostly tanks , while i only lost max 2 , yes it wasnt against stacked tanks but still the effectiveness is very impressive , the country twice mine size defeated so quickly that i had moral problems in the provs i captured

Orkhepaj wrote:

3. every map is different yet every map is the same? makes not much sense
Is why you don't see the analogies with Chess or Go ...

Orkhepaj wrote:

1. yet some units are way more usefull , and as you are limited with research , you should only use the most effective ones and completly ignore the weak ones like strat bombers and at guns even motorized infs are weak imho ,the only reason people research some of these to unlock other type of units

2.yet you are still limited with research , so focusing on more than a couple of units is ineffective

ad1&2. Here the personal play styles and preferences come into effect. I am never in the top 5 of most advanced. I indeed do not research everything, and I prioritize certain lines at first. Ultimately, however, you have so much time between preferred developments, that you can research many other things that are useful.

It all depends on so many factors that determine choices, like def or aggressive playstyle (and when in the game), speedy light forces or slow heavies etc etc ... and ... these may even differ per front or change halfways

Orkhepaj wrote:

so why are u playing it?
simple: I enjoy this game. do you?

Orkhepaj wrote:

"Chess and Go analogies go a very long way in both s1914 and CoW."

how exactly? cause other than you say this you hadnt proved it in any meaningfull way

Am I your older brother? and am I my brothers keeper? Next you are going to ask me to cite relevant passages from 'The Art of War' and 'Vom Kriege'

Some independent thinking may also be required on your part...

Gentlemen, calm down! I believe that what Pontus was referring to was that, as in chess, each piece on this game board has a specific purpose, and, as in chess, they complement each other. Also, as in chess, there are as many strategies as are players. The masters have, through trial and error, boiled these down(as in 'The Art of War) to a few strategies( or gambits, if you prefer) that work well for them. In certain situations, do this or that. These are all opinions and should be respected. If you don't agree with these opinions, you are free to say so. But do it with a modicum of respect! I personally believe the chess analogy was spot on in that each piece compliments the other and can be used to enhance or detract the abilities of the other pieces. Respect one another, gentlemen, because, after all, it is just a game. The rules are the same for everyone. And we may implement them any way we want. And they all start with your opening gambit.

Stop...

Orkhepaj... What Pontus is trying, and woefully failing to do because, yes, I agree with you, he is incredibly arrogant, but mostly because he's unable to remove himself from his shoes and think/word things in a different way that you might better understand. Because he understands it, he assumes you should as well.

In chess, YES you have a preset and predefined amount of units, similar to Go. HOWEVER, that simply add's an additional dimention to it that many overlook. You and your opponent have EXACTLY the same units, which makes your army inflexible beyond they're own abilities, and means that your success is based upon one thing: How you think.

If you think attacking blindly, straight forward with pawns en masse, will get you a win, you will lose. That is the Call of War equivilent of spamming light tanks or even infantry. Just make more and send them. Doesn't work. In order to win, you have to maneouver, think about WHERE you place your troops, why you placed them there, what their purpose is, what their goal is, what direction will they go in next, how do you position your troops to better your chances of success, how do you counter a move your opponent made that you did not expect, anticipate, or think of. To succeed at Chess, and to succeed at Go, just like in Call of War, you have to try and anticipate your opponent. Use anti tank weapons to defend against a tank rush, causing them to funnel into a kill zone you create that's patrolled by masses of bombers, which are then surrounded by fighters to ensure that they aren't intercepted. Perhaps have them supported by artillery to try and pound out any AA guns in those armies to keep your air force alive to be able to do it's job, and then, once the main force of the enemy is weakened or defeated, you counter with your faster moving troops, taking your tanks, even your beautifully fast armoured cars and speed through their now weakened front, capturing what you can, and moving your defensive positions forward in case of them being able to halt your progress and perform a counter attack of their own.

Go and Chess reduce these things down the simplest methods. Call of War is simply a much more complicated version. THAT is why Chess is actually a brilliant analogy for CoW situations. You don't sit a biship straight infront of a rook for example, unless you have that bishop covered by a pawn or a knight, or even a rook of your own, potentially sacrificing the bishop inorder to defeat their rook. You see? Thought. Thinking. Analyzing, estimating, anticipating, predicting, out thinking your opponent, by using what you have available, or what you could potentially have available (swapping a pawn out for a rook or bishop for example, or producing a fresh fighter squadron, or maybe a column of tanks) in order to meet your goals (winning).

Does that explain it?

Very nicely put ... all of it btw, from both wardawg and azazel :)

One other thing I woefully failed at bringing across, is that I wanted him to understand that he does not yet have the knowledge and thus has to look for it, instead of just complaining and denying it to be so, and that thus the game/units needs to be changed from his incomplete point of view.

Something which will serve him not alone in this game ...

BTW, if there is one thing which does make me arrogant, it is that I realize - while most don't - that I know very little and thus can't go bashing doors with my 'opinion', which is what most do (and I do still sometimes)

Thx for the adult reply Azazel , i appreciate it much.

While I understand how you want to compare this game to chess/go I still think the similarities are so little that it is not a good analogy , in every game where you have an opponent you have to anticipate the enemy to some extend.

The only similarities with chess is that both games have multiple types of units ,and both are intellectual games and imho the similarities ends there.

As you wrote the different units are for different roles , no problem there , the problem i think is that AT-s are very limited in their role while at the same time they are not realy good at it. Even if they are defending they are hardly able to stop light tanks due to their so low hp. The light tanks have twice hp while being much faster , and round better at everything else.The only area where AT-s are clearly have the upper hand is city fighting , but it can be so easily countered by the LT-s.

And lvling up the AT-s offers so little ,they dont worth the research over other units.

Orkhepaj,

Yes, AT are very limited in their role, just like fighters are ...

Now, having established the limited role of AT, this does not make them worthless. Not even at level 1.

The AT is just 1 example of a unit with a specific use. Nevertheless, limited as they may seem, they are incredibly good to be able to have.

I can list a number of advantages that AT offer. However, these advantages do not always pay out, depending on the situation. Hence, in some games I will build AT a lot and some almost none.

Same as with spoons: great for eating soup, but bad for cutting wood

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions
Quick Launch