Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 68.

  • Yeah, I'd say now you have it 100% correct. And - by the way - even though it for sure is weird this "cheat" around the SBDE limitations exists, I don't think it's a problem. I can't imagine anyone is eager to trade low level units from others to use it. The SBDE limitation is only of big importance for planes (for land and naval units you can often live well with splitting up your stack in case you reach the limit). And the disadvantages of lower level planes are too big... they have not only l…

  • Ivan, it's clear you had no bad intentions with your proposal. But Vorlon is right it shouldn't be realized. Imagine two guys playing together. Player A researches infantry level 6, player B only infantry level 1. Whenever player B recruits a new infantry, he trades it over to player A, then quickly back. So player A would always have infantry at highest level without having to research it. Theroretically the two could do so with every unit type... I know there is a restriction on the amount of …

  • Leader Unit

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    Possible refinement - also if easy to implement: There could be a distinction between commanders at land and at sea. If the commander gains his first experience in a stack on the ground, he will from then on give his bonus only to land force stacks. If he gains his first XP in a stack at sea, he will from then on give his bonus only to naval stacks and the nomenclature of his ranks is changed to the naval ranks from Captain to Admiral.

  • Leader Unit

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    I would prefer JCS Darragh's proposal to have a new military unit that can be added to a stack. As I see it, ideally with these features - would then name it "commander": As soon as a nation has gained 20.000 manpower (I'm not talking about the amount it has in stock, but about the accumulated income), a commander emerges in the capital. Then after it has gained 50.000 manpower another one, after 90.000 manpower one more, after 140.000 one more and so on. This unit doesn't do any damage and has …

  • Guys, you've taken this thread very much off-topic, but you're fully right that more diversity would improve the game in all respects. The way research works now (during the first 8 days decide for about 9 to 12 units, then research them to the max without thinking any more and forget about all other units) is both boring and unrealistic. No nation would have - as an example - researched high-tech level 6 jets, while not even being able to construct a simple level 2 AC. But in CoW we see that al…

  • Hot Winter Update

    Hans A. Pils - - News

    Post

    Quote from freezy: “The problem with it was that it made it a huge hassle to join a team game together with a friend, because they were forced to play in different teams or had to wait a certain timeframe until the other teams also got new participants. [...] But if users think like you and agree that it's boring filling only 1 team, people interested in such games will hopefully naturally balance it out themselves, as they want to have fun. ” I hope so, too. But am very sceptical. Most folks li…

  • THE GOLD

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    Quote from K.Rokossovski: “This has been suggested many times before - BOTH pay-to-win and pay-to-play versions of the game. Nonetheless, the company's management has chosen not to implement this. ” That's true. Like practically all of what you say - Rokossovski is the most intelligent guy in this forum. Yet I don't like the spirit in his post. It means giving up. Whereas everyone proposing pay-to-play games in addition to the current pay-to-win ones is one more grain of sand on the pair of scal…

  • Hot Winter Update

    Hans A. Pils - - News

    Post

    Quote from freezy: “Removed team balancer: Players can now choose their team freely and don’t need to even out teams in the selection process. ” Ehhm... is this one really an improvement? To me this restriction always seemed to make a lot of sense. Certainly we'll now often see only one team filling up with human players(?) Which I think we'll all agree will be horribly boring.

  • The new branch in the naval tech tree for improving the features of embarked land units on the sea was a very nice idea. Really a good feature. But nobody uses it - it hardly ever makes sense to spend precious research time and resources on this. So please reduce research time and costs.

  • I played 4 games (all until the end) as a coastal country on either 100player world map or 50player Pacific map. Even in these it made pretty no sense to research carriers. Which is a pity, because they're a beautiful unit that's fun to play with. Also they actually did play a role in WW2 - they were of essential importance in the war between Japan and USA and that would have equally been the case for any major or medium powers fighting each other with an ocean in between. Latest balancing updat…

  • From my point of view, anonymous doesn't have to be: Firstly I like it if you can check your neighbour's stats and estimate whether he plays good or bad; also which are his favourite units. Secondly anonymous rounds don't prevent groups of players knowing each other from before joining a game together and having a very fix, unbreakable alliance - they can easily tell each other outside the game which country they have. So I don't see a benefit in anonymous rounds. But I totally, 100% agree with …

  • As we all know, Commandos didn't play a noteworthy role at WW2 frontlines (I know there were exceptions, but not worth mentioning). They were small groups intended for special missions behind the frontline in enemy territory. This is not represented at all in CoW, where they are a strong combat unit, that can easily defeat an entire infantry regiment or an armored batallion. So you would imagine a Commandos unit in CoW to have batallion headcount as well, which is not exactly realistic... makes …

  • Surrender Button

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    From me a clear "no" to any kind of surrender. I understand very much your longing for it in case you have to quit a match because you don't have time to play any more. But CoW cannot be able to distinguish this case from a player who wants to quit for reasons within the match. If you want to quit (which you usually do when realizing you won't win), there may not be a way out of it that's easier than the one you already have - leaving for two days during which your statistics will be torn down b…

  • Who never heard of the famous Turkish airforce based in Finland ? OK, true: Researching all types of aircraft (except for rocket fighters, usually) is also an option if you have enough oil. I was only talking about the case you want to decide between tacs and strats. There I'd say chances are about 50% you should decide for one or the other. So no point inventing external fuel tanks for fighters to enable them to escort strats.

  • Very good answer, Edepedable! I only disagree with the opinion in this thread that strategic bombers are underpowered. Folks make a mistake building them so seldomly and I suppose that's only because they were indeed very much underpowered compared to tactical bombers before the last balancing update. But now: OK, tacs are better against land forces, which for sure is the most important parameter. But that's it (except for the small advantage you only need level 2 airfields to construct them). O…

  • Quote from Edepedable: “The reason for not training infantry is not its upkeep however. It is the amount of manpower you have to spend on the unit initially. ” That totally depends on a) The size of the map. Bigger maps last longer, which makes a big difference to your relation manpower <-> resources (after about 2 weeks, you're never tight on manpower any more). Secondly, after a while you'll have a wider country with lower average morale on the larger maps - which doesn't matter to your manpow…

  • In this I totally agree with Edepedable and Rokossovski: It's a shame that it hardly ever is reasonable to recruit infantry in CoW, whereas "spamming" infantry was what actually still happened in that time in history. I'm always happy to read in the newspaper of somebody building barracks, because that means he's making mistakes and I'll defeat him easily. What an ugly distortion of reality! So yes, infantry needs a buff and militia a smaller one (since if you buff infantry and leave militia the…

  • Yeah, neither Edepedable nor me thought of removing mechanized infantry - please read properly. The idea was to replace the current motorized infantry with a unit representing transportation vehicles (primarily trucks).

  • The following way would be both strategically / tactically interesting and realistic (but for sure a bigger change with development and balancing effort): * Remove unit motorized infantry. * Invent new unit called "truck" (icon may be the same, cause might also be jeeps or even motorbikes for infantrymen in practice): * Has no attack or defense values. * 5 hit points. * Changes speed of 1 unit from the infantry tech tree (except mechanized infantry) to its own speed. So, if for example you have …

  • Quote from Stormbringer50: “the new [...] equipment is implemented into the existing units ” Ah yes of course. 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 afte…