80% control is way too high

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

    • 80% control is way too high

      Hello,

      For victory to have 80% of all points seems like way too high for victory. I played games when we were at 60% the game was already over by far. It took 5 more days to take the missing 20% which was no fun and waste of time in my opinion. Have you ever seen a coalition with 70% of all points being defeated?

      Open for discussion!!

    • I think the current targets as they stand are just fine, to be honest. My main game right now is on a 25-player historical map, and I have just hit 1,995 points. So just 30 points to go to hit 2,025.

      My main challenge at present is no longer fighting enemy armies. The few remaining players in the game avoid having any quarrel against me in any case. But the challenge of keeping all my provinces in line, and producing enough food to supply the necessary garrison troops is enormous.

      I actually enjoy this challenge, because it makes the game all about learning how to manage your empire, rather than just spamming tanks and planes and overwhelming all your enemies. Also very historical in a way, because you had empires like the Japanese, who could very quickly overwhelm a large amount of territory, but were bad at keeping their newly conquered provinces happy, and those like the British, who had learned how to keep a massive empire in line with just a few garrisoning troops.

      Once you reach the stage of having nearly enough points to win, but a slow struggle to accumulate those last few points needed for victory, you do not have to spend a great deal of time playing anyway. Nobody else is going to attack you, unless you piss them off. All you need to do is log in for a bit of housekeeping, make sure your provinces are well-garrisoned and well-fortified, and keep expanding for those last few points you need to end the game.

      As a side note, this reminds me of the difference between Euro-board games, which tend to be all about managing resources and building up things, and US-style ones, which are heavily combat-based. I think this game has managed to come up with a good balance between the two.

    • Macalex wrote:


      It took 5 more days to take the missing 20% which was no fun and waste of time in my opinion. Have you ever seen a coalition with 70% of all points being defeated?

      Where this is useful is that it makes it much harder for players who focus entirely on combat and neglect having to keep provinces properly controlled to win the game.

      So if you want to win, you cannot just spam tanks, planes and ships and blitz through a LOT of provinces quickly, and win the game. Because what will happen is once you have conquered most of what you need, you will have to move your armies to a different continent to win the last few provinces needed, and then your provinces will start rebelling when morale begins to drop.

      So, in order to win the game, players MUST also pay heed to keeping their provinces under control. This makes the game more challenging, and not just about spamming LIght Tanks and blitzing.

    • Well done on providing the most spectacular example yet of missing the point entirely. The point being that if you have just spammed a lot of LTs and conquered 60% of the map, then you do not actually deserve to win the game. You only deserve to win if you have managed to conquer all that, while also managing to keep your resource production balanced, your armies intact and strong, and your conquered provinces well-controlled.

      Posting a map like that and arguing that it means that you have already won the game only suggests that you are a noob who has only beaten up on other noobs (or the AI) so far, and never really come up against a good experienced player who can turn the tide against you, or worse, a gold-spammer. It's not just about how much of that map you control, it is also about what your resource production is, how high the morale in all those provinces might be, how strong the armies and navies that you have left after conquering all that land are, whether or not you have invested a whole lot of Metal and Goods fortifying your conquests, and so on and so forth.

      If you have conquered all that land and managed to keep your resource production balanced and growing, the morale in all your conquered provinces up, the strength of your standing army and navy high and fortified your more far-flung provinces, then you will almost certainly win the game in due time. If you have not done all these things, and just spammed a lot of Light Tanks and blitzed through all those provinces, then there is a chance that your provinces will revolt at the day change, that your Food production will go negative, and that your opponent might pull off a spectacular coup against you, using either his skill and experience in the game, or a lot of money to buy gold and beat the crap out of you (this has happened to me, not here but in Supremacy 1914, where I got cocky because I was winning and my opponent suddenly had hordes of infantry attacking me because I pissed him off enough to get his credit card out and spend fifty bucks just to crush me).

      Why should Bytro allow you to win the game (and give you some gold as well) just because you spammed a lot of LTs, when there is a perfectly decent chance that the other guy will simply pull out his credit card and pay them fifty bucks in order to turn the tide against you?

    • MartinB wrote:

      Posting a map like that and arguing that it means that you have already won the game only suggests that you are a noob who has only beaten up on other noobs (or the AI) so far, and never really come up against a good experienced player who can turn the tide against you, or worse, a gold-spammer.

      It seems a little aggressive and a mean comment. I'm not sure how you see a correlation between the screenshot and my skill level.

      My screenshot is not spectacular, everytime you'll be at 75%, it will look like the picture above. It just shows how 80% is very high.

      Meanwhile, I understand your point of view with Light Tanks and everything. I think you can reach 50% with blitz light tank but not really more than, after that, you'll start seeing effect you have been talking about like food needs, oil needs and moral down. As for golders, I understand they start golding when they are close to loose, it wouldn't change with 60%, they would start golding earlier and that's it.

      Take a match where you're around 70% and look at the news paper. You'll see the game is pretty much done. Post it here if you want, you'll see it's not sensationnal.

    • Macalex wrote:

      I'm not sure how you see a correlation between the screenshot and my skill level.

      My screenshot is not spectacular, everytime you'll be at 75%, it will look like the picture above. It just shows how 80% is very high.

      Meanwhile, I understand your point of view with Light Tanks and everything. I think you can reach 50% with blitz light tank but not really more than, after that, you'll start seeing effect you have been talking about like food needs, oil needs and moral down. As for golders, I understand they start golding when they are close to loose, it wouldn't change with 60%, they would start golding earlier and that's it.

      Take a match where you're around 70% and look at the news paper. You'll see the game is pretty much done. Post it here if you want, you'll see it's not sensationnal.

      It's not the screenshot. It's the argument. If you argue that 'the game is pretty much done' every time one party controls 70% of the map, that just goes to show that you have not really played against good players. Yes, against noobs, the game is definitely over if your coalition controls 70% of the map. That is because noobs will simply quit at this stage, because they will have no idea how to fight back.

      But that is not the case against a good player. A really good player can turn things around with a handful of interceptors and tactical bombers, if he is up against an LT spammer.

      In some games, one group can spam LTs and blitz the map. That does not necessarily mean that they are going to win, because a player (or group of players) who spams units will necessarily have to forego developing his economy. So one guy can spam units and blitz through Europe, while his more savvy opponent would have built up his economy.

      Having ten times as many provinces as your opponent does not mean you are ten times as powerful. 50 non-core provinces with level 1 industrial centres and damaged infrastructure that has not been repaired because the player is using all his resources building more tanks can be weaker than 10 core provinces with level 3 infrastructure and level 5 ICs. So your argument is invalid. Having 70% of the victory points does not mean you are going to win the game. It depends on how well you have been playing. More importantly, it depends on WHO you are playing against.

      That is why the game system will not give you a victory until your group has reached 80%. Giving you a win until you do that can be premature. If you have ever come up against a really good player, you will know that this can be the case.

    • Macalex wrote:

      MartinB wrote:

      Posting a map like that and arguing that it means that you have already won the game only suggests that you are a noob who has only beaten up on other noobs (or the AI) so far, and never really come up against a good experienced player who can turn the tide against you, or worse, a gold-spammer.
      It seems a little aggressive and a mean comment. I'm not sure how you see a correlation between the screenshot and my skill level.

      My screenshot is not spectacular, everytime you'll be at 75%, it will look like the picture above. It just shows how 80% is very high.

      Meanwhile, I understand your point of view with Light Tanks and everything. I think you can reach 50% with blitz light tank but not really more than, after that, you'll start seeing effect you have been talking about like food needs, oil needs and moral down. As for golders, I understand they start golding when they are close to loose, it wouldn't change with 60%, they would start golding earlier and that's it.

      Take a match where you're around 70% and look at the news paper. You'll see the game is pretty much done. Post it here if you want, you'll see it's not sensationnal.
      Often that is the case. However, in one of my current 10 player games, the number 3 and number 4 (me) players have held the leading coalition at around 72%. It is already day 74. It helps that I was an ally of the number 1 player. So I'm battling the number 2 player. I'm well defended. I gained air superiority some time ago. So i recon, recon and recon. Often his attacks don't even reach my front lines. First his troops get hit by air bombardment. If they get within special artillery range, than artillery joins in. Between bombers and artillery, I shred his advancing forces. If some forces would make it through, they get hit at the front line by the front line troops, artillery and air bombardment.

    • MartinB wrote:

      Well done on providing the most spectacular example yet of missing the point entirely. The point being that if you have just spammed a lot of LTs and conquered 60% of the map, then you do not actually deserve to win the game. You only deserve to win if you have managed to conquer all that, while also managing to keep your resource production balanced, your armies intact and strong, and your conquered provinces well-controlled.
      How nice of you to judge whether or not a player is allowed to win by stating a version of "LT spammers deserve to lose!" If a player is able to win by spamming some unit you don't seem to like, there is nothing you can do about it! He has won, the matter of "how? By spamming LT's! Holy hell, that's disgusting!" is debatable of course, but it doesn't change the facts. He won. And if he was fast enough, he didn't even have to concern himself with a "balanced resource production".
      Of course he'll lose against someone with experience, one who knows that AT will tear those pesky LT's apart, that's how every one of us was beaten one time or another.
      Also, if the other players were not able to fend him off, didn't they deserve to lose as well for being inept in fighting nothing but LT's? This argument you bring forth is far too one-sided!

      If I look at my current map, any map for that matter, LT's make up the bulk of my foces, followed by tac-bombers, and of course some artillery and stuff mixed in between. Why? Because I'm constantly low on manpower to build more infantry, you can either build 2 LT's or 1 infantry, and infantry can't hold it's own against 1 LT, so the choice sadly is far too obvious.
      But I still managed to holy my own against two players at once, luckily attacking from one side only. So do I deserve to lose just because for counter attacks I resorted to LT's, because MT's were far too costly for my country and slow?

      By continuing your argument, on the very same map, one players' army consisted of nothing but AT's and Artillery, tanks were almost nonexistent and so was infantry. An army of tac bombers to top things off. Would this guy be allowed to win or not? I'm not sure. His country was impenetrable by tanks, but not a lot of offensive potential, wouldn't you say?

      My point is: Either you win or you lose with the means you choose. That's how it is.

    • Aloriel, he said you didn't automatically deserve to win. He didn't say you deserve to lose. If a coalition has over 70% of the map, that coalition will usually win. However, it depends on the playing skill of the players and their strategy, tactics, etc. If the defenders have all their important core provinces, they can put up a lot of resistance. If the winning coalition uses faulty tactics against a well fortified and well defended position, the defenders can stubbornly hold on for a long time. I'm used long games to try different types of defensive and counter-attack strategies. It helps me when I have a better situation with better chances of winning.
      Every failed attack by my enemy where he lose more units than I do, makes me stronger. It is a slow uphill battle.

    • Aloriel wrote:


      If I look at my current map, any map for that matter, LT's make up the bulk of my foces, followed by tac-bombers, and of course some artillery and stuff mixed in between. Why? Because I'm constantly low on manpower to build more infantry, you can either build 2 LT's or 1 infantry, and infantry can't hold it's own against 1 LT, so the choice sadly is far too obvious.
      But I still managed to holy my own against two players at once, luckily attacking from one side only. So do I deserve to lose just because for counter attacks I resorted to LT's, because MT's were far too costly for my country and slow?

      By continuing your argument, on the very same map, one players' army consisted of nothing but AT's and Artillery, tanks were almost nonexistent and so was infantry. An army of tac bombers to top things off. Would this guy be allowed to win or not? I'm not sure. His country was impenetrable by tanks, but not a lot of offensive potential, wouldn't you say?

      My point is: Either you win or you lose with the means you choose. That's how it is.
      Nice how you come to that conclusion when everything is arbitrary and he did not once mention 'deserving to lose' ...

      Also, have you ever heard of an example? They are a thing. He used an example, the stereotypical load out of anyone who can put 2 and 2 together and figure out that light tanks are really good. If he didn't use that as an example, how could he prove the point?

      And actually, 1 infantry can usually hold it's own against a light tank, especially in the case of cities or mountains.

    • Aloriel wrote:

      MartinB wrote:

      Well done on providing the most spectacular example yet of missing the point entirely. The point being that if you have just spammed a lot of LTs and conquered 60% of the map, then you do not actually deserve to win the game. You only deserve to win if you have managed to conquer all that, while also managing to keep your resource production balanced, your armies intact and strong, and your conquered provinces well-controlled.
      How nice of you to judge whether or not a player is allowed to win by stating a version of "LT spammers deserve to lose!"
      You are being a little ridiculous there. It's not me who is doing the judging about whether or not a player is allowed to win if a player has conquered 60% of the map, it is Bytro Labs. I am just stating that fact. If you have an issue about this, which you seem to do, you need to bring it up with the game designer.

    • Aloriel wrote:

      I'm constantly low on manpower to build more infantry, you can either build 2 LT's or 1 infantry, and infantry can't hold it's own against 1 LT, so the choice sadly is far too obvious.
      Manpower, perhaps the most imbalanced of all 'resources' on CoW.
      Militia: 1,500 manpower
      Battleship: 600 manpower

      All arguments involving real world manning requirements aside (which I am sure BB is sure to chime in on shortly.)
      One just has to pause and wonder how the game designers have decided that the weakest unit on the board requires the most of a very precious asset.

    • "One of the primary arguments for decommissioning the Battleships was manning costs. This is also one of the main arguments against reactivation. In 1990 and 1991 the BB's class average crews were 1,358 and 1,390 respectively. E.G. in 1990 and 1991 USS Missouri had a complement of 1,363 and 1,390 respectively according to VAMOSC data. "

    • Lawrence Czl wrote:

      In 1990 and 1991 the BB's class average crews were 1,358 and 1,390 respectively. E.G. in 1990 and 1991 USS Missouri had a complement of 1,363 and 1,390 respectively according to VAMOSC data.
      On the same note, each militia unit in ww2 like the British Home guard or the Volkssturm had the numbers of an actual infantry unit.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

    • WayneBo wrote:

      One just has to pause and wonder how the game designers have decided that the weakest unit on the board requires the most of a very precious asset.

      I'm not sure that manpower is a very precious asset. If managed properly, you can have enough manpower for your needs, especially if you are taking over enemy provinces which will constantly increase your manpower at the expense of Goods and Food. It is not that difficult to look over your country at the start of the game, build Barracks strategically (i.e. aimed at those provinces where they will give you the highest manpower for the amount of Food consumed) before you start building other things that will take 18 hours or more to complete and then balance your manpower consumption in order not to run out. Typically, I find myself balking at building Level 2 Barracks later in the game, because I am already consuming too much Food to produce more Manpower than I need at this stage.

    • I agree with MartinB on this issue the players that are saying that it should be 60% before a player can win is extreme and will be a huge benefit for Gold Spammer's and people that like's to win quickly that will take the fun out of Call of War. Even a player with 60% of the territory's shouldn't be complaining that it should end there because he simply hasn't done enough to win.

      A player with more than 20% of the territory's can still be stronger than a player with 80% of territory's he occupy. Its not a election or a boxing match. There are people that can rebel or fight back for provinces so 80% is fair from enough it means you have conquered the map and won the game. But also what i think should be changed is that it should be when it reaches 20% Player provinces left then the player with 80% can win because computer can't fight.