Announcement Warfare Modifications

    • I am not your enemy. I had absolutely nothing to do with the nerf. I just dont care about rockets at all. I would be upset if my favorite unit was nerfed in the middle of a game, too. I feel your pain.

      However, now it is time for you to turn your displaced anger elsewhere. I dont make the game.
      “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”


      Genghis Khan
    • Aceswild wrote:

      ... Have to have industry, airbase, research 500 RM 1000iron 2500Dollars. Does 30 damage to ground. Can't hit moving targets
      -every unit except militia needs an industrial complex, which is easy as hell to get
      -planes need airbases too, strategical bombers require level 3 bases to make but no one gives a damn
      -rockets are FOR STRATEGIC WARFARE, NOT FOR ATTACKING ENEMY TROOPS, their damn description points out that they're used for taking out enemy buildings
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
    • Your dedication to be the greatest rocket builder is inspiring, Panzer Waffer :D


      Regarding rocket strength: They are not weak at all, even after the change.
      On level 4 they have 38 damage against units and 70 against buildings, so they oneshot most units (most have 25-35 hitpoints and don't increase in hitpoints with level), even those much more expensive than themselves. A rocket costs only 1000 metal, 500 rares and 2500 money to make, that is cheaper than most other units and definitely cheaper than most buildings. They also have a super high range and there is no defense vs them (only moving units out of the way, but buildings cannot move). For reference, Industry complexes, Infrastructure and airbases all have only 20 hitpoints on level one. And they all cost up to 10 times as much as a rocket. So you are basically able to destroy 10 times the resources of your enemy with rockets. And when you for example targeted airports with planes in them that then became grounded because the airport was destroyed, the resource value became ridiculous. You still think they are weak?

      Previously they had no upkeep at all so you could spam them without consequences, because of the high amount you could launch dozens of them around the clock (for sure not everyone is online 24h to move units out of the way) and they could be built nearly everywhere. So in my book it is clear that they were too strong, and I think everyone who is not biased because he was over using them should see that as well.
      They are tools for strategic strikes and high risk high reward strategies, they are not tools for mass production and usage for a general defence in lieu of units. Now you have to manage and plan their usage as with other units, which makes it more consistent with the overall gameplay.

      But I am certain that good Generals will adapt to a changing battlefield, because battlefields usually change and so have the strategies. In the long term everyone will benefit from a better unit balancing and more strategic variety in the game.
    • freezy wrote:

      Your dedication to be the greatest rocket builder is inspiring, Panzer Waffer :D


      Regarding rocket strength: They are not weak at all, even after the change.
      On level 4 they have 38 damage against units and 70 against buildings, so they oneshot most units (most have 25-35 hitpoints and don't increase in hitpoints with level), even those much more expensive than themselves. A rocket costs only 1000 metal, 500 rares and 2500 money to make, that is cheaper than most other units and definitely cheaper than most buildings. They also have a super high range and there is no defense vs them (only moving units out of the way, but buildings cannot move). For reference, Industry complexes, Infrastructure and airbases all have only 20 hitpoints on level one. And they all cost up to 10 times as much as a rocket. So you are basically able to destroy 10 times the resources of your enemy with rockets. And when you for example targeted airports with planes in them that then became grounded because the airport was destroyed, the resource value became ridiculous. You still think they are weak?

      Previously they had no upkeep at all so you could spam them without consequences, because of the high amount you could launch dozens of them around the clock (for sure not everyone is online 24h to move units out of the way) and they could be built nearly everywhere. So in my book it is clear that they were too strong, and I think everyone who is not biased because he was over using them should see that as well.
      They are tools for strategic strikes and high risk high reward strategies, they are not tools for mass production and usage for a general defence in lieu of units. Now you have to manage and plan their usage as with other units, which makes it more consistent with the overall gameplay.

      But I am certain that good Generals will adapt to a changing battlefield, because battlefields usually change and so have the strategies. In the long term everyone will benefit from a better unit balancing and more strategic variety in the game.
      Well if they worked the way intended. Maybe, but I dropped 25 on a troop encampment of 24 mixed units. Damaged some, did not destroy a single building and destroyed 7 units. So not at all what is advertised. So yes they are weak.

      This update does ZERO to stop spaming, it actually encourages it. Build fast launch fast.

      The upkeep killed defensive use of this unit. Then the lvl2 airbase made it so you cant use them offensively if moving anywhere outside of your land. Or have to wait 4 days...fight is usually over by then. So intent is to encourage spamming or to just not use them...

      The "good General" comment is offensive and pompous. The nerve of an admin to talk trash to paying customers is insane and shortsited.


      Me. Lvl 51 former member of high command, bought several gold packages. Created alliance, recruited friends. Build a facebook page to coordinate alliance. Am I some average player no. I contributed to this game, and community. You disrespect me and all I have done.
    • freezy wrote:

      On level 4 they have 38 damage against units and 70 against buildings, so they oneshot most units (most have 25-35 hitpoints and don't increase in hitpoints with level), even those much more expensive than themselves.
      @freezy: I don't know how often you have played your own game, or how often you have used rockets when you have played, but I will confirm based on my personal and fairly extensive experience using rockets (over 1,200 fired for effect) that it usually takes two to three rockets to kill most unit types, and substantially more for those with very high hit points like battleships, aircraft carriers and heavy tank brigades. The reason is simple: no unit type operates with 100% efficiency in delivering its offensive hit points against an enemy unit. For example, I am currently flying two wings of five L3 tactical bomber squadrons each. Each L3 TB squadron has 6 hit points vs ground units of the "infantry" class, for a total of 30 hit points per 5-squadron wing. Theoretically, that means a 5-squadron wing should take out any 10- or 15-point infantry-class unit in a single direct attack or one patrol interval. In reality, while that does happen occasionally, more often than not it requires two direct attacks or two patrol intervals to completely destroy that ground unit.

      Same thing applies to the L4 rockets in your example: rarely are all 38 hit points dealt out to targeted enemy units with 100% efficiency.
    • Aceswild wrote:

      This update does ZERO to stop spaming, it actually encourages it. Build fast launch fast.
      I have wondered about that myself. And, yes, I too fear that it simply may encourage spammers to produce and use them quickly. I am familiar with the spamming techniques used, because sadly the best defense against a rocket-spammer is to spam enough of your own to destroy the enemy spammer's rocket production and launch facilities. Given that you can destroy 6 or 7 rockets on the ground with only one of your own, while also damaging the launch facility, the costs of maintaining a rocket-spam offensive can be very high for the enemy spammer to maintain his offensive, and much less for the defending player who is seeking to blunt the rocket-spam offensive.

      You may disagree, Aceswild, but the in-game rocket was never intended to be a particularly efficient tactical weapon for use against combat units. As their research tree description specifically states, "Rockets are for strategic warfare and mainly aim at destroying buildings." That said, the in-game version of rockets are far more powerful and effective against stationary ground units, naval units, and air units (on the ground), than their real world counterparts ever were (as I have recounted above and in other threads). Some enterprising spammers discovered soon after COW was released, that a player could use mass rocket attacks to pretty devastating effect against large stationary stacks of ground units, and moreover, such mass rocket attacks and the instant casualties that resulted have a hugely demoralizing effect on many, if not most players. As a consequence, rockets are undoubtedly THE most abused unit type by spammers.

      That said, the proper way to reduce rocket-spam abuse is not to impose arbitrary upkeep costs on them, but simply to reduce their effectiveness against combat units to something more closely resembling that of their real world counterparts, which is to say not very effective at all. As I have said many times before, most if not all of these imbalances have resulted when the capabilities of certain unit types have radically departed from their real-world counterparts. Such is certainly the case regarding our in-game rockets: if mass rocket attacks were not effective against combat units, then spammers would not build and use so damn many of them.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Aceswild wrote:

      This update does ZERO to stop spaming, it actually encourages it. Build fast launch fast.
      I have wondered about that myself. And, yes, I too fear that it simply may encourage spammers to produce and use them quickly. I am familiar with the spamming techniques used, because sadly the best defense against a rocket-spammer is to spam enough of your own to destroy the enemy spammer's rocket production and launch facilities. Given that you can destroy 6 or 7 rockets on the ground with only one of your own, while also damaging the launch facility, the costs of maintaining a rocket-spam offensive can be very high for the enemy spammer to maintain his offensive, and much less for the defending player who is seeking to blunt the rocket-spam offensive.
      You may disagree, Aceswild, but the in-game rocket was never intended to be a particularly efficient tactical weapon for use against combat units. As their research tree description specifically states, "Rockets are for strategic warfare and mainly aim at destroying buildings." That said, the in-game version of rockets are far more powerful and effective against stationary ground units, naval units, and air units (on the ground), than their real world counterparts ever were (as I have recounted above and in other threads). Some enterprising spammers discovered soon after COW was released, that a player could use mass rocket attacks to pretty devastating effect against large stationary stacks of ground units, and moreover, such mass rocket attacks and the instant casualties that resulted have a hugely demoralizing effect on many, if not most players. As a consequence, rockets are undoubtedly THE most abused unit type by spammers.

      That said, the proper way to reduce rocket-spam abuse is not to impose arbitrary upkeep costs on them, but simply to reduce their effectiveness against combat units to something more closely resembling that of their real world counterparts, which is to say not very effective at all. As I have said many times before, most if not all of these imbalances have resulted when the capabilities of certain unit types have radically departed from their real-world counterparts. Such is certainly the case regarding our in-game rockets: if mass rocket attacks were not effective against combat units, then spammers would not build and use so damn many of them.
      So tactical (used wrong word here I ment Strategic) means buildings? They would not aim missiles at airbases or military installations? History cannot even be used here look at progression of rockets lvl 1 looks like a V1 flying bomb, which was a terror weapon with very little accuracy. But its called a SS-2 the soviet version of V2 rocket much more advanced and wasnt ready till 1951. So we go to the 4 star. Its name is based on drawings and its range is same as a nuke. So basically an ICBM and those have amazing accuracy 200m or less. Oh and have never once been used in wartime.... Never used to me means -defensive???

      As for "most" abused, in my 46 games I have never been spammed by them ever. So a broad statement here just doesn't work for me.

      If its the "spam epidemic" that everyone is so concerned about and that was NOT at all addressed by this "update" the answer is simple make a long build time. Hard to spam if it takes 2 days per. I can build 8 in 2 days now.

      Also, just to be clear I don't spam them I barely use them for offense except for very certain situations. I use them to fortify my territories as I expand. I don't have hundreds. But enough to stop or slow down a backdoor invasion.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Aceswild ().

    • Aceswild wrote:

      So tactical means buildings?
      No. "Tactical" means combat use against other combat units; "strategic" means combat use against industrial targets.

      Let's start there, after the basic definitions are established. That's why tactical bombers are primarily used against ground units, and why strategic bombers are intended to be used primarily against industrial targets and military installations.
    • Aceswild wrote:

      So basically an ICBM and those have amazing accuracy 200m or less.
      Again, no. An ICBM -- an Intercontinental ballistic missile -- has a range measured in thousands of miles, and operational first-generation ICBMs did not exist until the late 1950s. In modern terminology, V-2s and the American and Russian knockoffs of the V-2 that were built in the late 1940s were intermediate range ballistic missiles, although closer to short range than long range.

      One other thing COW got completely wrong until very recently: V-2s had a much shorter range than Allied strategic bombers (e.g., B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, etc.), which, of course, leads to the odd result that in-game rockets were spammed, and almost no-one built strategic bombers. I could go on -- and on -- but most of these so-called "balancing" problems have resulted when someone in the home office decided to give particular in-game unit types capabilities that departed radically from reality. We are probably now going to see rocket fighters and commandos as the next spammed units of choice. I feel like Cassandra.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Aceswild wrote:

      So tactical means buildings?
      No. "Tactical" means combat use against other combat units; "strategic" means combat use against industrial targets.
      Let's start there, after the basic definitions are established. That's why tactical bombers are primarily used against ground units, and why strategic bombers are intended to be used primarily against industrial targets and military installations.
      So I flipped it. Was doing alot of research.... my apologies .... Strategic by Webster actual dictionary not your personal one "designed or trained to strike an enemy at the sources of its military, economic, or political power" I guess a massive installation of troops isn't a source of military power.....
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Aceswild wrote:

      So basically an ICBM and those have amazing accuracy 200m or less.
      Again, no. An ICBM -- an Intercontinental ballistic missile -- has a range measured in thousands of miles, and operational first-generation ICBMs did not exist until the late 1950s. In modern terminology, V-2s and the American and Russian knockoffs of the V-2 that were built in the late 1940s were intermediate range ballistic missiles, although closer to short range than long range.
      One other thing COW got completely wrong until very recently: V-2s had a much shorter range than Allied strategic bombers (e.g., B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, etc.), which, of course, leads to the odd result that in-game rockets were spammed, and almost no-one built strategic bombers. I could go on -- and on -- but most of these so-called "balancing" problems have resulted when someone in the home office decided to give particular in-game unit types capabilities that departed radically from reality. We are probably now going to see rocket fighters and commandos as the next spammed units of choice. I feel like Cassandra.
      Wow... Lets just go with BM then ok... And the first nuclear power plants was when? Or Nuclear battleship, Nuclear aircraft carrier or nuclear sub not till 50s either. So just look at the details that help your case not the actual facts. We get plants at day 8?

      Also, think your definition of spammer could use some review. Anyone that builds up more of one force then another? You don't have a strategy that rely on a couple units more than others?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Aceswild ().

    • Sasri wrote:

      While planning the next move with the latest changes in mind, you will additionally have the chance to collect more achievements to increase your reputation within the community. For example:


      War Hero
      Win 2 rounds of the ‘Historic World War 1939’ map.

      Rocket Scientist
      Build 25 Rocket Fighters.
      Talking about the new achievements, I see for example the "World Ruler" (win 2 rounds of the "World at war 1932" map): I have 0/2 but I've won some games in the 100 players map in the past. Do the new achievements consider only the new games and not the old ones played before their introduction?
    • For those of you who think your game is ruined because of the new Rocket upkeep...the only way to get rid of high upkeep is to destroy your units in battle. Use all those rockets lying around and the upkeep will get back to normal no problem. I said that earlier. The games are not ruined, rockets are the easiest thing to use and you can destroy it yourself by dropping them on a enemy.

      Oh and the subs attack power increase was against subs. I guess the default values for destroyers and subs seemed in favor of subs and I just realized it. Maybe destroyer defense against subs should be increased because it looks like 1 attacking sub can possibly take out 1 defending destroyer no problem. But the guy's right sub attack power against naval units hasn't changed only against subs.
    • Marat666 wrote:

      Do the new achievements consider only the new games and not the old ones played before their introduction?
      @Marat666, the new achievement awards apparently only apply prospectively to games in progress and newly created games. Old games are only archived temporarily for a week or 10 days after they are completed, and once the archived games are deleted from the server I don't believe there is any way that statistics from those game can be compiled. For example, I have won three games on the 50-player Pacific map, and those archived games have long since been deleted, and therefore I did not get credit for those wins now that they have finally created a new achievement award for that particular map. * sniff * I wuz robbed!

      @freezy: Can we get an achievement award for kills made with artillery? Seems like a glaring omission from the current line-up of awards -- and how well and how extensively another player uses artillery tells me a lot about their style of play . . . .