Announcement For more variety on the battlefield!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More details

    • For more variety on the battlefield!

      Dear Generals,


      To be victorious in the future we need to look back at the past. Our analysts finished their report and revealed which of our units are used the most or least. Based on those findings we want to introduce a huge amount of balancing changes, which will be released on beta today. This update will allow you to counter certain strategies better and will allow you to use a greater variety of units in your future battles.


      There will be a 3 week test phase, where we will collect all sorts of feedback and eventually make further changes. That means: The final balancing update can differ from the current state.


      Following changes will be made:


      Strategic Bomber
      - Increased flight range:
      Lv1: 375->400 | Lv2: 400->460 | Lv3: 480->550 | Lv4: 550->670 | Lv5: 600->820 | Lv6: 690->1000 | Lv7: 780->1210
      - Increased building damage:
      Lv1: 3.5->4 | Lv2: 5->6 | Lv3: 6.5->8 | Lv4: 8->10 | Lv5: 9.5->12 | Lv6: 12->14 | Lv7: 14.5->16
      - lowered build requirement on all levels from Industry Complex level 2 to Industry Complex level 1


      Naval Bomber
      - Increased naval damage
      Lv1: 5->8 | Lv2: 6->10 | Lv3: 7.5->12 | Lv4: 9.5->14 | Lv5: 10.5->16 | Lv6: 13->18 | Lv7: 15.5->20
      - Increased flight range only on Lv1: 200->230


      Light Tanks
      - Increased metal cost on all levels: 1500->1750
      - Increased oil cost on all levels: 600->750


      Medium Tank
      - Increased armored offensive & defensive damage
      Lv1: 4->4.5 | Lv2: 5->5.5 | Lv3: 6->6.5 | Lv4: 7->7.5 | Lv5: 8->8.5 | Lv6: 9->9.5


      Heavy Tank
      - Increased armored offensive damage
      Lv1: 7.5->8 | Lv2: 8.5->10 | Lv3: 10.5->12 | Lv4: 12.5->14
      - Increased armored defensive damage
      Lv1: 9.38->10 | Lv2: 10.63->12.5 | Lv3: 13.13->15 | Lv4: 15.63->17.5


      Tank Destroyer
      - Increased armored offensive damage
      Lv1: 3->4 | Lv2: 4->5 | Lv3: 5->6.5 | Lv4: 6.5->8 | Lv5: 8->9.5 | Lv6: 9.5->11
      - Increased armored defensive damage
      Lv1: 5.25->7 | Lv2: 7->8.75 | Lv3: 8.75->11.38 | Lv4: 11.38->14 | Lv5: 14.0->16.63 | Lv6: 16.63->19.25


      Artillery
      - Increased naval offensive damage
      Lv1: 0.25->0.7 | Lv2: 0.25->0.8 | Lv3: 0.25->0.9 | Lv4: 0.25->1 | Lv5: 0.25->1.1 | Lv6: 0.3->1.2
      - Increased naval defensive damage
      Lv1: 0.13->0.35 | Lv2: 0.13->0.4 | Lv3: 0.13->0.45 | Lv4: 0.13->0.5 | Lv5: 0.13->0.55 | Lv6: 0.15->0.6
      - Increased range on Lv6: 70->80


      SP Artillery
      - Increased unarmored offensive damage
      Lv1: 2->2.5 | Lv2: 2.5->3 | Lv3: 3->3.5 | Lv4: 3.5->4
      - Increased unarmored defensive damage
      Lv1: 1.25->1.56 | Lv2: 1.56-1.88 | Lv3: 1.88->2.19 | Lv4: 2.19->2.5
      - Increased armored offensive damage
      Lv1: 2->2.5 | Lv2: 2.5->3 | Lv3: 3->3.5 | Lv4: 3.5->4
      - Increased armored defensive damage
      Lv1: 1.25->1.56 | Lv2: 1.56-1.88 | Lv3: 1.88->2.19 | Lv4: 2.19->2.5
      - Increased naval offensive damage
      Lv1: 0.3->0.8 | Lv2: 0.3->1 | Lv3: 0.3->1.2 | Lv4: 0.3->1.4
      - Increased naval defensive damage
      Lv1: 0.19->0.5 | Lv2: 0.19->0.63 | Lv3: 0.19->0.75 | Lv4: 0.19->0.88
      - Increased range
      Lv4: 70->80


      Anti Air
      - Increased air offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 4->5 | Lv2: 5->6 | Lv3: 6->7 | Lv4: 7->8.5 | Lv5: 8->10 | Lv6: 9->12


      SP Anti Air
      - Increased air offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 5->6 | Lv2: 6->7.5 | Lv3: 7->9 | Lv4: 8->11 | Lv5: 9->13


      Infantry
      - Increased goods cost on all levels: 500->750


      Militia
      - Increased unarmored offensive damage
      Lv6: 3.5->4 | Lv7: 4->5
      - Increased unarmored defensive damage
      Lv6: 5.25->6 | Lv7: 6->7.5
      - Increased armored offensive damage
      Lv4: 0.5->0.75 | Lv6: 1->1.25 | Lv7: 1.5->1.75
      - Increased armored defensive damage
      Lv4: 0.75->1.13 | Lv6: 1.5->1.88 | Lv7: 2.25->2.63
      - Decreased build time on all levels by 25%


      Motorized Infantry
      - Increased move speed
      Lv1: +12% | Lv2: +11% | Lv3: +11% | Lv4: +9% | Lv5: +8% | Lv6: +7%
      - lowered day of availability by 4 days on all levels


      Mechanized Infantry
      - Increased unarmored offensive damage
      Lv2: 7.5->8 | Lv4: 8.5->8.75
      - Increased unarmored defensive damage
      Lv1: 9->11.25 | Lv2: 9->12 | | Lv3: 10.2->12.75 | Lv4: 10.2->13.13 | Lv5: 10.8->13.5 | Lv6: 11.4->14.25
      - Increased armored defensive damage
      Lv1: 4.2->5.25 | Lv2: 4.56->5.7 | Lv3: 4.8->6 | Lv4: 5.16->6.45 | Lv5: 5.4->6.75 | Lv6: 5.7->7.13
      - Increased air defensive damage on all levels: 2.4->3
      - lowered day of availability by 4 days on all levels


      Cruisers
      - Increased unarmored offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 0.5->1 | Lv2: 0.5->1.5 | Lv3: 0.75->2 | Lv4: 0.75->2.5 | Lv5: 1->3 | Lv6: 1->3.5 | Lv7: 1.25->4
      - Increased armored offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 0.5->1 | Lv2: 0.5->1.5 | Lv3: 0.75->2 | Lv4: 0.75->2.5 | Lv5: 1->3 | Lv6: 1->3.5 | Lv7: 1.25->4
      - Increased air offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 6->6.5 | Lv2: 7->8 | Lv3: 8.5->9.5 | Lv4: 10->11 | Lv5: 11.5->12.5 | Lv6: 13->14 | Lv7: 14.5->15.5
      - Increased move speed
      Lv1: +20% | Lv2: +8% | Lv3: +8% | Lv4: +7% | Lv5: +7% | Lv6: +6% | Lv7: +6%
      - Increased range
      Lv2: 30->40 | Lv3: 30->40 | Lv6: 50->60 | Lv7: 50->70


      Battleships
      - Increased unarmored offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 1.5->3 | Lv2: 2->4 | Lv3: 2.5->5 | Lv4: 3->6 | Lv5: 3.5->7 | Lv6: 4->8 | Lv7: 4.5->9
      - Increased armored offensive and defensive damage
      Lv1: 1->2 | Lv2: 1.5->3 | Lv3: 2->4 | Lv4: 2.5->5 | Lv5: 3->6 | Lv6: 3.5->7 | Lv7: 4->8
      - Increased range
      Lv1: 50->60 | Lv2: 50->60 | Lv3: 50->60 | Lv7: 70->80


      Rocket Fighter
      - Increased flight range: 150->275
      - Increased air offensive damage: 15->23
      - Increased air defensive damage: 9.38->11.5
      - Decreased unarmored defensive damage: 0.63->0.5
      - Decreased armored defensive damage: 0.31->0.25
      - Lowered metal cost: 500->250
      - Increased rare material cost: 0->250


      Nuclear Battleship:
      - Increased range: 70->80
      - Increased unarmored offensive and defensive damage: 7->12
      - Increased armored offensive and defensive damage: 6->10
      - Increased air offensive and defensive damage: 4->6


      Nuclear Submarine:
      - Increased air offensive and defensive damage: 4->5
      - Increased naval offensive and defensive damage: 10.5->11
      - Increased sub offensive and defensive damage: 3->4


      Railroad Gun:
      - Increased range: 120->150
      - Increased naval offensive damage: 0.3->2
      - Increased naval defensive damage: 0.04->0.3
      - Increased move speed: +33%


      Commandos:
      - Increased unarmored offensive: 5.5->10
      - Increased unarmored defensive damage: 5.5->8
      - Increased armored offensive damage: 3->5
      - Increased armored defensive damage: 3->4
      - Increased air offensive damage: 1->1.5
      - Increased air defensive damage: 1->1.2


      For this purpose we will open speed rounds on the English beta server, so if you want to participate please join those rounds and feel free to give us feedback in the newspaper or in the chat! Also evaluate, why you don’t like a specific change. An additional beta survey will be added one week into the test phase.


      We are looking forward to your feedback,
      You Call of War Team
    • Most stuff is according to some suggestions I made in the past, good work. I especially like the commandos getting a buff, as well as the LTs being nerfed.

      As I am an advocate of reducing air strength, I will withhold my judgement regarding AA buffs until I see the battlefield results.

      All in all, great update guys, sorely needed.
    • Most of these unit buffs are good, a handful of them are wildly unrealistic, and there is at least one long-complained-of problem that remains unaddressed -- and desperately needs to be.

      1. Strategic bombers: The significant increase in effective combat range brings the in-game bombers into closer correlation with their real-world counterparts. Good.

      2. Naval bombers: The increased range and combat effectiveness of naval bombers vs. naval units is long overdue, and this should partially address the wildly unrealistic power dynamic of naval bombers vs. submarines. More on this below.

      3. Tanks: It appears that the intent here is to encourage players to build and use a wider variety of tank units by increasing the production costs of light tanks and increasing the combat effectiveness of medium tanks, heavy tanks, and tank destroyer brigades relative to other armored units, and thereby diminishing light tanks vs heavier armor units. This is probably a good thing, but I will be curious to try it out and hear the anecdotal experiences of other players. MTs, HTs and TDs should simply crush LTs in one-on-one match-ups. Hands down, no questions.

      These changes to the anti-armor strengths of these tank and tank destroyer units do NOT include increases to their strengths vs. infantry units, NOR should they. I believe the balance of tank unit strengths vs. infantry units is relatively correct they way it is. Please do not tinker with tank strengths vs. infantry.

      Also, since these buffs increase the strengths of MT, HT and TD units vs. all other armor units, including anti-tank regiments, I anticipate that we will have created a new incidental imbalance vs. AT units. As a result, AT units are probably going to need to have their anti-armor defensive strength increased in order to restore the key balance between tank and AT units. As a matter of historical reality, high-level AT units should inflict heavy and disproportionate damage on tank units of all kinds -- the worst nightmare of a German Tiger II panzer driver was running into a regiment of British 17-pounder AT guns firing from prepared defensive positions.

      4. Artillery: The increased strength of all artillery vs. naval units is probably a good thing. Personally, I would like to see a new specialized coastal artillery unit created, but this could work too. I will simply point out that coastal defense artillery was often comprised of naval rifles with greater range and better targeting accuracy against moving targets (i.e. ships) than ordinary field artillery. We risk conflating two different animals in the same way we have conflated multi-engine naval patrol bombers with single-engine naval attack bombers.

      I am less sanguine about the increased effective combat range of higher level artillery units. This appears to be a buff devoid of reality -- none of the big guns of the Americans (155 mm), British (155 mm), Germans (150 mm) or Soviets (152 mm) had effective ranges greater than 25 km (~15 miles). Likewise, the more common intermediate strength artillery of the Americans (105 mm), British (4.5 inch), Germans (88 mm) and Soviets (122 mm) had lesser effective ranges of only 11 to 20 km (7 to 13 miles). In any event, there was absolutely no commonly used field artillery that had ranges of 80 km (50+ miles) -- those kinds of artillery ranges were only attainable by a very few of the biggest railroad guns.

      5. Motorized infantry: The increased speed of motorized infantry regiments probably brings them closer to reality, especially in relation to conventional, non-motorized infantry units.

      6. Battleships & cruisers: The increased combat effectiveness of cruisers and battleships vs. all ground units probably brings them closer to reality, and that's good. That said, destroyers should also realistically have some minimal combat effectiveness against ground units; not much, but something.

      Now to pour some very cold water on the proposed increased range of cruisers and battleships. I don't know what books the developers have been reading (perhaps none at all, in fact), but no battleship ever existed whose main guns had an effective range of 80 km (50+ miles). That animal simply never existed. By comparison, the 16-inch main guns of the U.S. Navy's Iowa-class BBs had a maximum range of 38 km (20 miles), and the 460 mm main guns of the Japanese Yamato-class had a maximum range of 42 km (26 miles), but could not be effectively targeted beyond 25 km (15+ miles). The idea that any technology existed that could fire a battleship-size shell 80 km from a naval rifle is complete fantasy. Ditto for heavy cruiser-size main guns (8 to 12 inches) that could fire 70 km -- again that's completely outside the range of WW2 technology. Truth be told, the effective range of naval gunfire is already unrealistically too high for our in-game naval units -- please drop this idea.

      7. Rocket fighters: I really hate the idea of increasing the range and combat effectiveness of the rocket fighter units. They simply were not that good in real-life, and this appears to be nothing more than an unrealistic buff to justify the continued existence of these in-game units. Don't do it.

      8. Commandos: I am not sure what the justification for nearly doubling the strength of commando battalions vs. all other infantry units is. This looks like another buff for the sole purpose of justifying the continued use of an existing in-game unit. Light infantry commandos (e.g., U.S. Army Rangers) rarely fought as a battalion or regimental-size unit, and were typically used in much smaller formations for raids and sabotage. Putting a commando regiment into a line battle against heavy infantry -- where they were not substantially stronger than top-of-the-line conventional infantry -- usually only got them chewed up. Moreover, commandos by definition were light infantry, and almost never had integrated anti-aircraft or heavy anti-tank subunits -- so buffing the in-game unit's strength against armor and aircraft is probably a deviation from reality. Frankly, dramatically increasing these strengths is going to encourage players to produce a lot more of them, and I hate the idea that some players will spam what should be a specialized elite unit as some sort of "super infantry."

      9. Submarines: The biggest omission from this list? The wildly unbalanced and historically unrealistic relationship between naval bombers and submarines. Period. It is noted that half of this issue has been addressed with the increased strength of naval bombers, but it remains that the anti-aircraft strengths of high-level sub units is at odds with historical reality. The result has been that a stack of 12 high-level submarine squadrons can destroy a comparable number of high-level naval bombers, when exactly the opposite result should prevail. Please address this often-complained-of "imbalance."

      Post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • I'm looking forward to testing these balances, I'll withhold comment until I see most of the changes, except one...

      Tank Destroyer speed!
      As it is, it is way too slow, comparable to infantry speed, so highly overlapping with AT guns which are cheaper (no oil!) and easier to produce. I know TD doctrine differed greatly between the main participating nations (in fact more than any other tech branch, I think; an American Wolverine is SUCH a different unit than a German StuG-III), but all had speed like medium tanks (often using the same chassis) or higher. Buffing speed to med.tanks level at least would seem appropriate.

      BTW, what do you mean by the "beta server" for the test games? Do you mean frontline pioneer games, or is there a separate URL for it?
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      BTW, what do you mean by the "beta server" for the test games? Do you mean frontline pioneer games, or is there a separate URL for it?
      frontline = beta, even if sometimes doesn't seem to be the same
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli

      ¿Buscas alianza? BKE está reclutando: Reclutamiento activo
    • I remain utterly dismayed by AA capabilities of submarines. It simply did not exist as described in the game. The very idea that a submarine would voluntarily stand and fight with AA against an airplane is ridiculous. The whole concept of snorkels is based on being able to NOT be detected by aircraft so you don't have to stand and fight them.

      Catalina Flying Boats sink U-boat

      All historical evidence points instead to submarines being driven off, suppressed, or sunk by aircraft.

      As for the rest of the updates, I am encouraged there has been an effort to balance the game and improve the connection to historical reality. Let us hope this continues.
    • i have examined the proposed improvements and agree and can live with most of them.however you seem to have ignored the rocket divisions. i use rockets,(a lot) and feel travel speed and hit points are not accurately reflected in real time on the games. against waiting or held up units. hits are not being reflected in damage to receiving units, on several instances damage was not shown when 240 hit points hit a 16 hit point infantry unit which remained stationary in an unfortified city. i know rocket damage is primarily to buildings and buildings, but they are not being given the strength against opposing units when targeted. if you could address this in the next round of improvements it would be appreciated.
      thank you
    • I'm a bit pissed off about the way you went about solving the lack of popularity with all the different tank levels. It seems like Bytro is constantly undermining the quality of the game to encouage Gold usage. A good example is trying to make units as expensive as possible to encourage people to buy gold when they don't have the resources for them. The reason people favor the light tanks is because the higher tank levels are so costly. So rather than lower the cost of all the tank levels you opted to just make the light tanks more expensive and that's how Bytro goes about "fixing" problems these days. It's always about how to encourage more Gold usage.

      the other changes I am pretty much okay with. I don't think all units should be treated equal. The rocket planes sucked in WWII and trying to make them good units in COW just so people use them hurts the realism of the game.

      submarines really need a bombardment range that only works in water for both S1914 & COW. let them shoot and escape without getting into combat. prop them up that way. otherwise you are proping them up by making them unrealistic against AA which kills the realism.
    • jackass01992 wrote:

      I'm a bit pissed off about the way you went about solving the lack of popularity with all the different tank levels. It seems like Bytro is constantly undermining the quality of the game to encouage Gold usage. A good example is trying to make units as expensive as possible to encourage people to buy gold when they don't have the resources for them. The reason people favor the light tanks is because the higher tank levels are so costly. So rather than lower the cost of all the tank levels you opted to just make the light tanks more expensive and that's how Bytro goes about "fixing" problems these days. It's always about how to encourage more Gold usage
      i disagree, light tanks are supposed to be fast, but not cheap to make, their cost was almost matching the armored cars, but they offered much more than armored cars, their nerf was kind of deserved, i mean, its not even a damn nerf, why would ANYONE waste their gold on the extra 250 metal and 150 oil? who would even make light tanks as their main army?
    • The point was if they wanted to make the prices of the three closer to each other they could have cheapened the medium and heavy tanks rather than make the light tanks more expensive. Of course Bytro is going to pick the "suck up more resources" option. The point clearly went over your head if you think the single 250/150 is what is at play here. It is an overall trend of Bytro doing this all over the place which when all put together is a huge sum. And if you really think people only build one tank in an entire game...well I have news for you.

      Bytro decided to "fix" a problem caused by their own philiosophy of stretching the resources thin on this game by stretching the resources even thinner when they could just as easily done the opposite and achieve the same result.

      Also readup on your history. The allies had a huge emphasis on quality over quality. Didn't matter if the German takes could score a 3:1 kill ratio against the smaller American and British tanks. The smaller tanks could be produced in larger quality which made up for the 1 on 1 disadvantage. The whole point of smaller tanks was that they were cheaper to build.
    • jackass01992 wrote:

      if you really think people only build one tank in an entire game...well I have news for you
      matey, in one of my 100p games, i am producing 19 medium tanks 24/7, on day 25, and i am doing just fine with my economy.....how about you play with the upgrade changes first? then return with results, because spitting at a not tested upgrade is a bad thing