Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 307.

  • Quote from freezy: “Yes, point taken, in this one case it will be easier in 1.0 to continue building troops than in 1.5. It is rather an edge case though (your enemy only conquering this one city and not any other resources provinces, you being out of resources already and the market or allies not providing any resources). ” No, we're not talking about an edge case. We're talking about the regular case "one of your core cities conquered". In CoW1.0 you lose: * 25% of your unit production capacit…

  • I would die for a scenario map in which the resource, money and manpower output of provinces is similar to how it was around 1940 in reality. With CoW1.0, this can be achieved quite easily: 1.: Reduce the food costs of infantry while slightly increasing its manpower costs, as described in --> this thread <-- (would be a very positive change in several aspects anyhow). This would give manpower importance in all situations (whereas currently for many players / in most situations it just piles up u…

  • Of course the meat blanked principle for ranged units works no matter how SBDE is designed. It works the same in both CoW1.0 and CoW1.5, that's clear. This entire talk is "only" about the question which compilations of non-ranged units should make sense in CoW1.5. As it is so far, CoW1.5 promotes non-ranged stacks of just one unit, potentially adding AA or SPAA to it. But you and I would favour the game to reflect the combined arms approach - not only to make it more realistic, but also more cha…

  • Quote from white bird: “The simplest solution(s) to resolve the argument of too much early game influence of air power because of "early deployment" of air power (ability to travel further distances) would seem to be to just increase the defensive strength and travel speed of basic AA (higher speeds for all infantry units might be interesting to consider) and also provide for an earlier availability of SP AA. ” No. The simplest solution if wanting to implement a higher range of planes for reloca…

  • If you have tanks and your enemy has tank destroyers, that would in CoW1.5 make you build a mere infantry stack next to your tanks stack (and then send the infantry stack against the tank destroyers). It still wouldn't make you mix your tanks with infantry in the same stack - which was an essential element in WW2 tactics... as you yourself and I already described. CoW1.5 with its SBDE-per-total-stack-size system promotes stacks containing very few different unit types. And I'm sure that nobody e…

  • @EZ Dolittle, that's a very good example and I halfway have to let that count. On the other hand, one might see the situation on the Balcany before WW1 as no coalitions existing at all. In 1912/1913, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece had a pact against a common thread - the Ottoman Empire. So these three fought the same enemy during the first Balkan War. But already during this first war, quarrels between Greek and Bulgarian troops meeting in Saloniki showed these three nations weren't a unity for goo…

  • Quote from OneNutSquirrel: “Just one problem with this.... it has no real world precedent. Soviet Union was neutral towards the Allies during the start of the war, when Germany attacked it was taken in by the Allies. Slightly different situation in Italy, but they were taken in. ” Soviet Union: Fine. My proposal doesn't prevent anyone from first being neutral and then joining a coalition. Furthermore, if translating political relations in real 1940 into CoW terms, Britain+USA+Canada+Australia we…

  • Quote from OneNutSquirrel: “Perhaps I"m missing something here... Scenario I The Cool-down Timer is on joining another coalition After leaving one? It's NOT a cool-down timer on going to war with any former coalition members? So if I wanted to betray my coalition, I can park units in his empty provinces and cities... Leave the coalition, then immediately declare war on former coalition player and capture every territory I've stationed units into... That's pretty low... but nothing in game mechan…

  • Quote from EZ Dolittle: “Actually I think there should be a morale hit on all provinces for quitting a coalition. Not for being kicked out. ” Would be good, yes, but I think not allowing players to join a different coalition and not allowing coalitions to incorporate new members after former ones left or died would be better. Quote from EZ Dolittle: “Also think that there should be a morale hit on all provinces when you go inactive. ” Totally disagree on that one. Anyone who wants to come back a…

  • Very good answer, @OneNutSquirrel, thanks for that. I want to add that two of the major goals that CoW1.5 has or should have are 1.: Allowing players to build a big variety of units in each game and to research them to different levels (not just few units and research them to the max). 2.: Partly thanks to the above, making decisions on how to compose your army / your stacks more interesting, strategically challenging and even more realistic than it is in CoW1.0. The first test version of CoW1.5…

  • Quote from freezy: “As for your other posts: Good that we could agree on som things more or less ” More or less. I'm still convinced that SBDE per unit type (with low limits for 100% SBDE) would be better. But I think everyone (including myself) gets tired by that discussion, so I started to think in the other direction. @OneNutSquirrel already nicely described the combined arms approach and the following is the key aspect: Quote from OneNutSquirrel: “A few advancing tanks, as tough as they were…

  • I would even go one step further than the cooldown phase that was introduced: * Allow players to join a coalition only once per game. They afterwards still have the option to leave their coalition, but never to join another one. * Allow coalitions not to fill up member slots that became free by members leaving or dying. I.e. the member counter is never decremented - once the coalition has reached it's member limit, it's full for good. This would force coalition leaders to select members with con…

  • Coalition-hopping is an ugly practice. Don't these guys have any honour? Players with integrity choose their allies with consideration and stay loyal to these til the end of game, no matter how the situation on the map develops. The three days cooldown not only make it harder for betrayal, but also for those opportunistic cowards who just switch sides to the coalition that's the mightiest at the specific moment in order to get an easy win without needing to be a good player themselves. So the co…

  • @gusv is right that no factories at start make the use of gold way more decisive. And the argument it allows to decide where to raise buildings for which unit production isn't a big one, since it will still be in your cores. It usually doesn't make a big difference in which core province you produce units. Anyhow, this is supposed to be a thread for 1.5, not for the Christmas event. Quote from freezy: “a big chunk of the CoW playerbase plays on both platforms. I can't give you exact numbers but …

  • Sorry, but that's not a good idea. Water in large amounts was not transportable over big distances and even isn't today. To explain why I mention that: If your proposal was implemented and a player conquers the areas along the Nile from Egypt, the rest should drop in morale, because as good as all water supplies of Egypt are located close to the Nile? In reality, the rest is desert anyway, even though the Nile region belongs to the same country. Secondly, water is abundant in most climate zones …

  • More Penalties

    Hans A. Pils - - Suggestions / Criticism

    Post

    OK @cycle9, we see your sarcasm, but what makes you think the changes you criticized in your original post came from other forums and not from Bytro themselves? I can tell that much: From the German forum they didn't come. German forum is dead anyway... the only few remaining active members there have an IQ below acceptable level and produce "discussions" that nobody can take seriously. Really, makes your head hurt. Which is why I'm here. About your criticism in detail: * Naval blockades: Yes, c…

  • Quote from freezy: “We want to make province management easier. We don't want players to manage hundreds of provinces anymore with dozens of simultaneous productions going on, scrolling through an endless province list once they conquered 2-3 nations. ” Are you sure that players also don't want to have dozens of simultaneous productions going on? I'm convinced that almost all players want to have many units in late game. Everything else would be weird and not satisfying. Epic battles in late gam…

  • Quote from freezy: “You are probably aware of the "bug" or "feature" that gives multiple defending armies in the same spot an advantage ” To be honest, I wasn't aware this is also possible with ground units. With air is clear, but with ground units I never saw it and never tried it. But see what you mean and yes, that's ugly indeed. Although I suspect that only extremely few players know this exploit: Since it's more seldomly usable with the CoW1.5 SBDE system, that's the second argument for the…

  • Huh, now this time I can recognize your answer is well-thought-out, so this time thanks without a "but" . Quote from freezy: “Unit diversity we can achieve via general balancing. ” Yes, by giving all units very distinct roles, although some units were used similarly in reality? Is feasible, but would be better if that could be avoided. Quote from freezy: “We rather want to see multiple stacks of single unit types than a large stack of alot of unit types. ” Hmm, I cannot see why you want to go fo…

  • @freezy, thanks for the replies to two of my thoughts. Makes me hope that we can now finally start to debate the core principles introduced by CoW1.5. Quote from freezy: “old SBDE per unit type is not coming back. First it is broken when having multiple unit levels of the same type on the field (as we have in 1.5) as each level counts as different unit in the code ” I'm aware of that. That's why I suggested a dozen times to change that in the code. In other words to make the old SBDE per unit ty…