Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 91.

  • When using planes for offensive purpose against a human opponent, in 99,5% of the situations you shouldn't use the attack button, but send them on "patrol" instead. This makes air mechanics weird, unrealistic, hard to understand for beginners (for example they have to learn that all enemy units within the patrol circle sum up and defend as one stack) and not satisfying for experienced players. Always same-same: Build as many 6-fighters+6-bombers stacks as you can, then send them on patrol where …

  • Anti Air

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    I think it's obvious what would be nice about AA having a range. And why you say that would give an advantage to Air Forces I fully don't get (of course the planes wouldn't defend against a range attack from a AA gun... as I said "like artillery"). Anyhow we don't need to discuss this, because I also oppose this idea. Not only because of the as mentioned bigger implementation effort, but also because efficiency of AA against planes at travel altitude was very low in reality... additionally it wo…

  • Quote from K.Rokossovski: “None of you have commented on the OP's idea, swapping resources for time research-wise. That's NOT the same as having more reserach slots for having a big empire. I think the resource-for-time swap is very interesting, and will prevent the current walk down the same lanes each of us a hundred times now, offer real strategic choices, and provide more battlefield variety and rare units. ” I agree that an option to invest (a lot of) resources to speed up research (a bit) …

  • Tag a friend

    Hans A. Pils - - News

    Post

    Quote from Arcorian: “we will also release a new update to the research tech tree to beta games shortly ” Now this sounds very interesting. Can somebody give us an update on how this will look like (since not everyone in the forum is a beta tester)?

  • Anti Air

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    I suppose what RYANWEN actually wants (or should have proposed) is to give AA a range, like artillery. Has been proposed many times, and I personally think that would be nice. But certainly not easy to implement - having in mind that planes move much faster, so the game would be much more busy checking which plane stacks are within the range of which AA unit. So probably the mechanism that's used for artillery can't be applied so easily to AA. Also it would be some work to restore the balance be…

  • army sizes

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    As we all know, there exist thousands of games with better graphics, higher complexity, sound, no pay-to-win... with just more features than CoW has. So what keeps us playing CoW? It's the board game character (thanks Restrisiko for the term) and realism. It's close to being a WW2 simulation. But then, unfortunately there are a few things keeping us from really feeling like the leader of a nation during WW2. And the biggest one is this: There's no front. It's not clouds we were missing when tryi…

  • Well, Patriota and Edepedable, I see your point. The longer the game takes, the less usable become ground units. Finally on day 40, planes get another research level (while AA doesn't) and nuclear rockets become researchable. From then on, you can throw your ground units into the bin when facing a competent human opponent. And I also don't like this game design. It just isn't satisfying and feels strange that end game is for rockets and planes ONLY. Also iDragons' arguments are only one part of …

  • I think nobody answered amonmontu's report. In his example, you should expect the bombers to lose about 4,67 times as many HP as the fighters. A result of equal losses can't be explained by any of the above answers. There existed a bug which caused planes using the "Attack" command against others to practically always lose. Although my own experience says it seems to be fixed, I'm not fully sure. In case the Bytro team also isn't completely sure it solved that issue, it would be important that t…

  • Quote from atreas1: “If you read again the suggestions, they try mostly to solve the issue of domination of planes in the later stages of the game ” No, nono, that's absolutely not what I had in mind. Before the last balancing update, I was heavily requesting to nerf planes. But that has already been done. Balance air vs. ground is fine now. It's OK in my opinion that planes more or less dominate land forces in late game, since that was the case in real life 1950 as well. Now which of my proposa…

  • Quote from patriota75: “I think that man power should be reduced for militia and infantry not food. ” Manpower is a limit for the amount of units that can be produced only for players with an aggressive (not meant negatively!!) strategy, aiming at conquering some territory early in the game. And also for these only early in the game. So if manpower costs of the 4 infantry types was reduced, they would become a good option for these players in early game. Which would at least be better than the c…

  • Finally and most importantly: Reduce time and ressources required for low-level technologies and increase it for the higher levels. Like: First level of a unit: Research time and costs = 50% of what they are now. Last level of a unit: Research time and costs = 200% of what they are now. With research effort for all the levels in between gradually becoming higher. Only exception I would make for the nuclear energy and nuclear bomb research levels - they should stay as they are. This would give an…

  • Heavy tanks: They become available at a point of time when air is already superior enough to make them almost worthless. Level 1 should be researchable already on day 16. Of course clearly less strong and even slower than the current level 1 (which would then be level 2). Would also be a realistic change - heavy tanks were already in use by a few nations at the beginning of WW2.

  • Rocket fighters: Of course they have to be a reasonable option far less often than regular fighters. But the way they are in CoW, they absolutely never make sense. I can imagine that if there had been one or two more years of research put in that technology at about 1945, probably engineers would have come up with a model that would have been an efficient alternative to the propeller engine fighters of that time. At least reduce their production costs from 1000 goods to 750, which I consider rea…

  • (Again) rockets: I just had a war with two opponents between day 40 and 55, which relates to some time between 1950 and 1960. We didn't have a single melee battle (except for ships vs submarines). Entire fight was amongst the planes and by firing rockets (regular and nuclear ones) at each other. Sending ground units near to the front was suicide. If you did that with small stacks, these were easy prey for bombers. If you did it with a few big stacks, these were nuked or at least decimated with r…

  • Transport ships: Reduce time required for research to 50% of what it is now.

  • Infantry: Pleeeeease reduce the food and goods costs for infantry. Production costs: * militia: 200 food & 200 goods instead of 250 & 250. * regular infantry: 250 food & 500 goods instead of 500 & 750. * motorized infantry: 250 food and 750 goods instead of 350 & 750. * mechanized infantry: 150 food and 750 goods instead of 250 & 750. Upkeep costs: * militia: 40 food instead of 50. * regular infantry: 70 food instead of 110. * motorized and mechanized infantry: 70 food instead of 90. Result woul…

  • Nuclear bombers: Before removing their ability to patrol, I think they were balanced well. Since then, they need a buff.

  • An overview of my thoughts on balancing, mainly for @freezy because it must be very hard for him to gather ideas on that from so many scattered threads:

  • Yes - I had also noticed that, Vorlon. And certainly you're right that the line of sight of rockets cannot be or shouldn't be reduced to 0. But maybe if it's reduced to a minimum of 1 km or something alike, the moment a flying rocket reveals enemy troops would become too short for anyone to use this "feature". Or the devs have another programmable solution for it, like reducing it to 0 only for flying rockets. Anyhow we can only tell Bytro it would be nice if this was changed (by the way not imp…

  • Stealth Commandos

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    Thing is even if they were "only" as useful as a unit like medium tank (as Edepedable says), that still wouldn't be a good game design. From gameplay perspective yes. But absolutely nottt when having in mind that this is not supposed to be a fantasy game. The occasions that Commandos were used at the front in real WW2 were entirely neglectable. While medium tanks (to stick to the example) had a decisive role. If you can content yourself with the thought of a group of Commandos defeating an entir…