Research is Key (April Fools)

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

  • general12312 wrote:

    If we are going to talk about problems, then why do AA-guns rule the map in the first 3 days?
    Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean. A combination of several infantry regiments spearheaded by a couple of armored car units, and backed by a couple artillery regiments, should make short work of individual anti-aircraft regiments. Just don't send individual units to attack a defending AA unit; use a 5:1 or 6:1 numerical advantage against them. Also, unsupported armored cars don't do particularly well against AA units one on one; given the lightly armored nature of ACs, that may actually make sense -- in real life, a 40 mm Bofors or a German 88 mm flak cannon would have turned most armored cars into steel coffins.
  • general12312 wrote:

    yes they would, but I meant AA-guns with infantry
    Solution: produce 5 or 6 artillery regiments early in the game, and use them often. An infantry regiment and an AA regiment have 25 hit points collectively. Two mini stacks of three arty regiments each should eliminate the enemy infantry and AA units in about 3 to 4 hours of continuous bombardment, with no casualties on your side. Then march your own uninjured infantry and armored car units into your new province like it's Leclerc's French armored division parading through Paris in August '44.
  • MontanaBB wrote:

    Dramos wrote:

    Let’s be realistic most of the cow fan base won’t care if about the helicopters to nuclear subs carrying nuclear rockets since it is sorta what they asked for
    Most of our "fan base" is 15 to 21 years old, and has never read a book that wasn't assigned in class. Most of COW's paying customers, however, are considerably older and better informed about the history and technology of the Second World War.
    Actually I would propose that this is the other way around. As a completely unscientific personal observation, most players seem to be at least mature if not middle-aged or plus, while gold usage seems to be an affair for youngsters mostly.
    When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
  • temmie1 wrote:

    Dr. Leipreachán wrote:

    Map drag experience in Chrome has been improved.
    You know what, that's I didn't know I actually wanted until now.

    Well technically you have this already with the update from August 16th 2016 --> Together We are Strong
    (along with most of the listed improvements in this little old thread :D :00008356:
    Dr. Leipreachán
    Community Support
  • dw98 wrote:

    "Unit Surrender" should be a standard option for any French or Italian forces.
    This is the single most desired feature of Call of War that I think I have ever heard. If ever this game wanted to simulate WWII, it needs to have this feature.

    Dr. Leipreachán wrote:

    Hello folks,

    I feel the time is right to say one word to you folks ;(

    I liked the was poignant, relevant, and plainspoken. Those cloyingly-rosy red cheeks at the end were a subtle testament to an unspoken sincerity as if to say "Not only are we sorry...but we are so sorry that we blush at having ever wronged you."

    Yes, those blushing cheeks in the final shot tell the whole story. ;)

    NukeRaider33 wrote:

    attacker101 wrote:

    Dr. Leipreachán wrote:

    WayneBo wrote:

    read carefully:

    "Merry Christmas and Seasons Greetings"
    u reminded me my forum sig is out of date :|
    LOL. it is snowing here so it is OK. merry easter!
    Welcome to Canada
    lol, I live in a large "pocket valley" at the edge of some mountains and we had a little snow this past week here, in northern Oregon, USA. And it's not the first time we've had snow this late in this "moderate" region where the summer temps can occasionally reach 109°F in the summer (and we're not even in a desert region).

    Boy, I sure wish we could get some of that Global Warming here. Our growing season is going to be shorter than some Canadian fields.

    MontanaBB wrote:

    Yes, many of us are well aware that both the Americans and Germans produced limited numbers of helicopters and auto-gyros during the war, but I challenge you to provide a single instance where any of the U.S. Army Air Force, the U.S. Navy, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force or the Luftwaffe used any of them in combat or used any of them to transport combat troops. As far as I know, not a single chopper of any kind or model was ever used in combat during WW2 because they were still very much experimental, none of them were armed, and they had a very limited lift capacity to carry only one or two persons. Helicopter technology was simply not ready for prime time in 1943-45,
    I know you bring this up in a later post in this thread, but your statement here runs quite counter to the fact that I can have nuclear missiles flying all over the place. Sure, there are inconsistencies, but this is a game, not a simulator. And even if it were a simulator, the era isn't restricted to WWII, it's early '30's to late '50's, where everything seen is a possibility.

    MontanaBB wrote:

    Not to be a grouch, but there are already too many fantasy units and anachronisms that have been added to the game, which have no place in a WW2-based game -- or in a game in which a hypothetical Second World War continued into the early 1950s. The game would be better without nuclear rockets with tactical accuracy, nuclear-powered submarines and ships, and rocket fighters with extended range and a decisive ability to defeat conventional fighters. Most of didn't come here to indulge our what-if fantasies, but to try our hands at something resembling WW2-era tactics.
    But, it's like you said, fantasy units and anachronisms ——{ watching a little too much DC's Legends of Tomorrow? }—— they don't have a place in a "WW2" game. But like "I" said (further up), this isn't a WWII game. It's a game that spans a fictionalized region of time that just so happens to include WWII. But most of the maps are not consistent, ost of the unit balancing isn't consistent, and most of the features of the game really aren't that consistent with history. It is what it is...a fantasy game.

    If you want a history lesson, watch History Channel's coverage of WWII, there's always something good on, about it. Of course, the younger generation isn't that interested in the real history, but at least they might get excited about history if they find that a pseudo-historical-based game like CoW is fun. And, since strategy-buffs are more likely to be interested in history than other types of people, there's a real possibility that some younger players will actually crack open a book (or a wikipedia page) on some WWII history.

    You say you don't want to be a grouch, but you kinda sound like one when you argue for the realism of the game. It's a game. It's just a game. It needs changes...maybe...depending on the demand of the players. But it's not a teacher, it's a plaything. You've spoken eloquently and with a certain amount of authority on aspects of the era, and that's cool. But you needn't be a curmudgeon about the accuracy. Let the people enjoy this game for what it is.

    Oh, and even you need to give up on the call for paratroopers. After "3 years"...yada yada yada...yes, we know they are never going to implement that feature. Even I wouldn't mind seeing paratroopers, but the game balance would just be too off-putting to most players. Besides, there's always Conflict of Nations.

    There is an option to delete a gutting something that you decided you shouldn't have said isn't needed.

    WayneBo wrote:

    All in all, another stunning PR success for Bystro,
    and cunning revelation of the gullible.
    Ahem....weren't you the first fish to bite the hook in this thread?


    Now, for my own 2 bits on this thread, itself. While I do appreciate a good April Fools joke (and I got a family member fairly good, this year :P ), the choice to bait the users with the list of several much-desired features and changes was just a little bit tacky, not to mention too obvious. If you had wanted it to sound more convincing, you shouldn't have listed so many of the desirables. Perhaps, just list one desired feature (like the paratroopers, for example) and then list several things that are pretty mundane and more believable. Now, you did list some mundane things, but the list of goodies was just not believable.

    If you want to sell a lie, you've got to season it with lots of truth.
    It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

    The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3

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

  • Well it's called april fools... meaning that with careful reading, it is obvious that it is a hoax, and only the fool gets fooled. So yeah, listing all those features added to the quality of the joke since it was obvious that Bytro wouldn't add all those features in a single release.
    When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
  • K.Rokossovski wrote:

    Well it's called april fools... meaning that with careful reading, it is obvious that it is a hoax, and only the fool gets fooled. So yeah, listing all those features added to the quality of the joke since it was obvious that Bytro wouldn't add all those features in a single release.


    And the point is not to be funny or amusing, but to make you believe a tall tale while you are reading it.
    War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill

    Main Administrator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<