Grouping Units, Making Armies, Adding Units, Bombardment, and Troop Experience

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Grouping Units, Making Armies, Adding Units, Bombardment, and Troop Experience

      Should they add these things to the game? Yes or No. 16
      1.  
        Yes (11) 69%
      2.  
        No (5) 31%
      Hi COW Players!

      I think it would be great to add a grouping and naming function to COW. Also, I would like some more in-depth ranking systems. This is what I mean-

      1) Grouping

      I think you should be able to lock and unlock units together and they would correlate to real life. For example, if you locked three Infantry Divisions together, they would become an Infantry Corp. and then, two Corps could lock together and become a Field Army. It would add realistic depth to the game, and I think most would enjoy it. Also, I think splitting Divisions (the base unit) would be interesting. Splitting up divisions into Companies or Regiments would be great, because it would allow more land to be covered defensively, and you don't need to train full units to guard even completely isolated provinces in case of an attack. Also, if you were to split the divisions into sub-types like Basic Infantry or Machine Gun/Heavy, it would make the units and how they are paired more strategically valuable.

      2) Naming/Making Armies

      This would connect to my first point. Locking the units together should bring up the options of the Army/Fleet, and players should have the opportunity to name their armies and combined units. This would add a creative feel to the game and would also be tactically important. Players could put the name of the region the unit is guarding in the name, reminding the player where to move the unit if it's position is forgotten. All in all, the bland unit name selection would vanish and it would be replaced with some more flavorful details.

      3) Troop Experience

      I see I problem with troops in the game, and how some have a throw away sense.
      "Oh, I need that province, I'll just waste this Level 3 Infantry on it."
      In the tech tree, when you upgrade a unit, all units get that bonus. I don't like that function. I think that units, if they face heavy fighting, should get and experience upgrade, and if they do get a certain level before you research it, they should be boosted. I think this would make the game more strategic, and also make certain units more valuable. However, if you have tech three on a certain unit, they should be originally trained as tech three. But, for this to work, you would need to heal units. i would recommend a building-like function, where the unit has to be in a city you own, and based on damage done to the unit, should take time and resources to retrain.

      4) New Units

      I think that COW should add some more specialized units. For starters, Paratroopers. They were some of the most important set pieces in the liberation of Europe during World War Two. To leave them out would be seriously degrading to the game. Another unit- cargo planes. I think you should be able to board units onto cargo planes and fly them to other cities with Level 2 Air bases. If this doesn't work, then there should be Airports added. Flying in supplies was crucial to our war effort at the time. Another unit would be a naval gun, to stop ships just outside your waters. Also, I think they should add special infantry units that would have combat boosts on certain terrains. Like a mountain division, or forest division.

      5) Bombardment

      Lastly, I think COW should add a naval bombardment feature, where you vessels could shell coastal provinces. It would also connect to my Naval Battery idea, a direct counter to the Naval bombardment. or, if the player does not have and Naval guns, it would force the player to build a navy, and make sure he would not look over such an important aspect in the game.


      Thanks for reading! If you have and Ideas, please feel free to comment. I will reply if you tag me. Thanks!
    • Not knowing that it will cause everybody to turtle is one reason. Not understanding regimental size, is another.
      Mostly, paratroopers are just the basic spies you can place in player's territories. If the non-gold spies were changed to be called paratroopers, it might just fix the problem.
      Free Time looks good on me
    • WiseOdin wrote:

      Not knowing that it will cause everybody to turtle is one reason. Not understanding regimental size, is another.
      Mostly, paratroopers are just the basic spies you can place in player's territories. If the non-gold spies were changed to be called paratroopers, it might just fix the problem.
      Agreed. While I like the idea of paratroopers in theory, in practice they will become very abuse prone units. Ive seen it in plenty of other WW2 games where they actually are a unit - they take the strategy away and games become more like 'how do I troll my opponent'?

      Maybe...just maybe, they could be interesting if they are very weak (small units after all compared to all others, in numbers), say half the strength of a militia with only 1-3 HP.
    • IF introduced, tThey should be "abstract" units in the sense that they don't actually perform drops on the map, but you can add them to an army to ease advancing in enemy territory (decrease the 50% move penalty) or decrease disembarking times, which is exactly what historic paratroopers did.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • In the end, paratroopers did more behind-the-line stuff like bridge blowing, changing road signs around (especially in France) to confuse the German occupiers, and destroying military facilities.

      If Bytro renames the basic cash spies "Paratroopers," that would pretty much be end of story. Paratroopers did little in actual fighting. They may have snuck in and blown a bunker; but long, drawn out fights were not paratrooper's thing. They did not carry supplies for that. Ground forces had the supply behind them to keep fighting.
      Free Time looks good on me
    • I'm late to the thread lol. But I think this would be hard, considering that many players stack their units into mega divisions 10+. To be successful, they would really have to penalize players for using 10+ stacks. Think sparta and the 300. If you attack someone with 30 plus units past the 10 unit structure; then the defending army should get a specific terrain and organizational bonus. A real army in of itself may consist of 18 divisions, so as it sits now the game is more suited to that. Instead of an army stack, the number of divisions you have make up your total army strength; which allows you to create divisions specific to AA, Arty, Armor. This also leaves players with corp strength realistically, unless they conquer alot of territory. The problem again, is unit spamming. Tanks won world war II. So they should either give major deductions in unit efficiency past 10 units. They'd have to really increase the power of regiments to make this idea a more realistic possibility, but if they did, again; may have to drastically decrease the power of mega stacks to even the game out. Just my 2 cents.