Balancing Changes

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

    • I think this thread shows the ill intent of the developers and the ignorance of the community to it's own problems and those caused by the devs. This community has always been ridiculously divided and any discussion usually ends up on a tangent or getting shut down by staff. I do not think this game will ever get any better, only more "balanced" until Bytro can no longer siphon any more cash from the community.

      I wash my hands of this forum for now, the game used to be fun playing by myself and the forums were a happy place. Now it is only a way to keep in touch with old friends. I am sad to see what it has become.

      My last comment to the community is to listen to the older players and not think you know better because "x happened in WWII and this game should achieve perfect realism as a result". We have all done this at one point or another and I hope what's left of you lot can actually learn to agree on something and get the devs to do something rather than "it's on the list".
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Last Warrior wrote:

      No 75% penalty is good ballancing against steamrollers. The war is not over, till it is over. Even if enemy has 2 times more provinces he is not two time stronger economic power, but still has two time higher daily upkeep.
      Actually, this isn't entirely true. Though in the early game, one player can quickly take over another, but the local economy has been shattered and they have to rebuild what was captured. So in that sense, yes, you're right in that there isn't a great disparity.

      However, when you consider that, usually, when your opponents are growing, it often means that their growth is at your expense. So while they are growing slowly, you are shrinking quickly. Thus you are just as liable to be "steamrolled" by them. And even if you aren't the one that's shrinking by losing lands, you are shrinking -- comparatively -- because, proportionately, you are not growing as fast as the other player.

      syncro wrote:

      Another good counter agaist massive stack of planes is put in place (as for aircraft carriers) a limit in airbases: a lv 1 airbase can hold 10 planes, a lv 2 can hold 20 planes, a lv 3 can hold planes (my numers are a placeholders).. this is more realistic (there is not a air base in the real world that contain the entires airforce of a nation) both in real and in game.. prevent the tactical bombers steamroller and favors the defender who in the course of the game has a way to build good defenses (need alot of days) with further benefit that the defender can perhaps quickly move his smallest air force and then hit the scattered enemy forces also giving time to also gather AA.

      It is not enough to build a single base area (in a half day working at 50%) to move all a whole air force forward, but it must build more bases and waste even more time if it wants to raise the level of the bases to contain bigger stacks.
      While it's not a bad idea, I think this would be a headache for the programmers as well as a difficult rule for the players to get used to. Think about this. Would that maximum capacity count from the moment an aircraft starts a relocation to a new airbase? What if an airbase is maxed out, and it then comes under attack, forcing the aircraft on patrol to automatically rebase to other nearby airbases? and what if they....or it....don't have enough capacity for the automatically-rebasing aircraft? And just when does a repositioning aircraft cease to be counted for it's former airbase while en route to a new one? And what about aircraft under construction?

      Trust me, there are probably a lot more questions than just those that I posed. Like I said....HEADACHE!

      syncro wrote:

      Its not true, also in WW2 tactical bombers when there was air superiority they were devastating, especially in the early stages of the war the German stukas were the hammer that destroyed everything and everyone and with the columns of tanks and mechanized/motorized infantry that raked up the remaining crumbs.

      The ace of aces of the stukas Hans Ulrich Rudel alone destroyed over 2,000 targets (including more than 500 tanks) and consumed alone, to give numbers, over 5 million liters of fuel and dropped over 1 million tons of bombs.
      This needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Much early anecdotal evidence of Germany's air superiority was mostly propaganda-driven. German "heroes" such as Rudel had largely-inflated numbers that failed to take into account such issues as the commander of a unit getting credit for his whole unit's kills. Often, it wasn't a tank that was destroyed, but it's surrounding infrastructure. And also, usually artillery deserved the credit because they were firing where the airplane "spotters" were pointing at.

      Sure, some tanks must have been destroyed -- and were -- by aircraft. But most kills counted by the Germans simply couldn't have been possible under the given circumstances. I site this as my source for some of these generalizations.

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      I think this thread shows the ill intent of the developers and the ignorance of the community to it's own problems and those caused by the devs. This community has always been ridiculously divided and any discussion usually ends up on a tangent or getting shut down by staff. I do not think this game will ever get any better, only more "balanced" until Bytro can no longer siphon any more cash from the community.

      I wash my hands of this forum for now, the game used to be fun playing by myself and the forums were a happy place. Now it is only a way to keep in touch with old friends. I am sad to see what it has become.
      My my my....such a jaded point of view. The twice-crowned "general of the armies" has decided to quit participating on the forums. Gee, I wonder what pseudonym he will use for his next forum account....he's already had at least two of them, right?
      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
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      This means that there has been an exploit often complained about where players can avoid attacking on patrol and allowing their planes to be attacked in order to do more damage. While I have personally found this "exploit" to be useless when I have tried it, so I have never gotten worried over it, but some players have. Really it only matters when both players know the same trick and are locked in a permanent dance never actually attacking.
      This exploit still exists. The trick players use is have more groups of defending airplanes than the attacking ones. ALL of the defending airplanes defend against the attackers and thus the attackers damage is spread while they do receive damage from all defenders in range. This exploit is very real and can be very cripling. Players use it to destroy enemy patrols when they are not online and gain an advantage by doing this.
    • We can define the exploit in the following way:

      1. SBDE only affects attack (not defense). This is critical - it is the reason for the exploit.
      2. A player can overstack defending planes (for example, 10/10) that are patrolling over his units (but never complete the cycle, so they never attack).
      3. These planes are effectively immune to an attack: since they have both great defensive value and many hitpoints, the opponent cannot attack on them without too heavy losses (for example, I seriously doubt 15/15 planes in any combination can take the stack out, although been 50% more planes). So he can only patrol as well without completing the cycle, just to prevent any attack.

      And that is a stalemate. This is only an example using tacs and interceptors, but you can expand to other plane types as well.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      have more groups of defending airplanes than the attacking ones.
      This is not an exploit, simply overwhelming force.

      Calling this an exploit is ridiculous.



      atreas1 wrote:

      I seriously doubt
      Unless you have actually tested this and have documented the effects you may not complain about the "theories" that you have. You are arguing about game mechanics that you have not experienced and giving advice to players that might read it and assume you are knowledgeable.

      Replicate some tests at least 5 times to allow for the x factor, take some screenshots to illustrate your point, and make a new forum thread about it . Unless you have actually tested your theories on the battlefield there is no use getting worked up about the way you imagine this works.
      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



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      Edepedable wrote:

      have more groups of defending airplanes than the attacking ones.
      This is not an exploit, simply overwhelming force.
      Calling this an exploit is ridiculous.



      atreas1 wrote:

      I seriously doubt
      Unless you have actually tested this and have documented the effects you may not complain about the "theories" that you have. You are arguing about game mechanics that you have not experienced and giving advice to players that might read it and assume you are knowledgeable.
      Replicate some tests at least 5 times to allow for the x factor, take some screenshots to illustrate your point, and make a new forum thread about it . Unless you have actually tested your theories on the battlefield there is no use getting worked up about the way you imagine this works.
      This is really a monumental response! Let's start with the basics: I happen to have asked for a testing environment, and your main developer has said that "it is something that interests 1% of the players so Bytro isn't going to do it". Well, you certainly cannot simultaneously tell to the players "you have not tested" AND DENY them the way to easily test them. Let's hope that your answer means that Bytro is going to provide a testing environment after all, since you are so keen in telling to the others "you are wrong not to have encountered a situation 5 times at least, don't say anything if you don't".

      Secondly, you ask a player not to think how something works while, again your developers, have denied to disclose the exact method something works. Apart from the first part of this fallacy (to ask somebody not to think, which is way out of the boundaries), endorsement of the denounced computer principle "security through obscurity" doesn't work in this industry.

      But the even worse part is something else: although you accuse somebody for writing his opinion (sorry but I have this right) you give exactly zero arguments why this opinion is wrong, even though you have participated in a test exactly due to that "theory". The test has finished long ago and you could easily write the result. Unfortunately, it seems that the result is against the much-propagated theory that "5/5 stacks are good thing and there is no problem" , so they remain unpublished (although it was promised to be published). The conclusion is obvious even for a five years old kid.
    • I was just about to take up arms about this update...till I realized they went into effect a little less than a year ago.
      I am horribly late to this thread.
      General Nightman

      Retired Hero


      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • General Nightman wrote:

      I was just about to take up arms about this update...till I realized they went into effect a little less than a year ago.
      I am horribly late to this thread.
      Before the last update it was working in practically all situations, due to the different attack/defense values of planes. Now the situation is much better, but still far from completely solved.
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      Edepedable wrote:

      have more groups of defending airplanes than the attacking ones.
      This is not an exploit, simply overwhelming force.
      Calling this an exploit is ridiculous.
      I'm sorry to say this but this is slightly of point. I said that players need to have more groups of airplanes, not more airplanes total. It also works if both players have the same number of aircraft or even if the exploiter has a fewer number of aircraft in more groups. That is the whole problem.

      It is not true that both players need to know of this exploit and that is where trouble arises. Trouble arises as soon as 1 player finds enemy patrols and the enemy is not online.

      Say player A has 2 groups of aircraft patrolling, 5 tactical bombers and 5 interceptors. They patrol the same area.
      Player B also has 2 groups of aircraft made up of 5 tactical bombers and 5 interceptors.
      B sets his aircraft to patrol the same area as A. Now, every time 1 patrol group of player A attacks, they attack both groups of player B. So their damage is spread and they receive defending damage from 2 groups of aircraft. Player B resets his patrol zone to overlap with A his aircraft after player A his aircraft have attacked. So the defender always defends with 2 groups versus 1. That is the whole problem.
      It is not simply a matter of overwhelming force. The same number of aircraft are present on both sides in the exact same place. However, they do not take part in the attack at the same moment due to the patrol time mechanics.

      I personally think the best solution to this whole thing would be if the interceptor would do (slightly) more damage on the attack then it does on the defense.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Edepedable ().

    • I am certain about nothing - I am using my observations only (of course, limited since it is too difficult to meet such situations often), plus a creative use of the only "tool" existing to predict things (the calculator) in order to have an initial estimation. Then I put down math and try to make sense out of it. But it seems to me that eventually it doesnt really matter at all, as I am not going to continue arguing about it.

      I have long ago said that it is my belief that sbde in overstacked units should also affect their hitpoints, and that would really be the end of overstacking and a better strategic game. But I think I will have to play with the whatever exploits exist.
    • When plowing through the entirety of this thread I came across something very important that freezy said.

      freezy wrote:

      Regarding your realism argument: Yes airforce was and is very important, but usually it supports a large ground operation. Wars were not won by airforce alone, you still needed to conquer the other country. Previously in Call of War airforce was the dominant branch, while ground forces at some point only played a supporting role. Now we want to change it more into the direction of airforce being the supportive role, while ground forces play the main role, like in the actual war.
      In that regard airforce will still be very important after this update and no player will skip producing planes now just because they are a bit weaker, as without planes you are still at a major disadvantage. So I think everything will play out just right.
      Since the balancing changes have been in effect now for a while, I'd say that these intentions have succeeded. Airplanes are a lot more optional now than they used to be. Though I favor to not use them as much due to rather doing other things with my oil I do see other players still use an abundance of airplanes. Which is fine, its a choice now. The manpower decrease on anti-air means that armies can travel safely, especially in large numbers with lots of different units in a single division. So yes, planes are no longer a sure way to victory.

      As far as balancing the game goes, I have made a couple of suggestions on the forum recently that, I think, make a lot of sense. In short:

      - nerf the rocket. Its mechanics are broken because of all the things they do. Change the numbers in any way you see fit but most importantly, take away its destructive power against either infantry or armor, though preferably both. Seen through the scope of the rock > paper > scizors > rock type balancing rockets have no balance. They can destroy anything and their range keeps them safe.
      In this thread I made a suggestion on how the rocket could be replaced by rocket artillery.
      Nerfing rockets is, according to me, the most important balancing change the game needs.

      Appart from that I have a coulpe of other worries/suggestions for a future balancing update.

      - infantry branch type units are slow throughout the game. I made a suggestion to introduce a mechanic to be able to put them on a train. Though many other suggestions have been made, like transport aircraft (not my favorite) or transport trucks. I personally favor the train because it is somewhat realistic and makes units vulnerable during transport.
      In this thread I made a suggestion for introducing railway stations and train transports.

      - some infantry type units cost way to much manpower. Though there has been a recent tweak to the manpower cost of infantry and militia, I think more work needs to be done.
      In this thread I suggest to lower manpower costs for militia, infantry, motorized infantry and mechanized infantry.
      What I would like to add to this is that perhaps also the upkeep in manpower and food should be lowered. They are just not a viable unit to build at any time in a map.

      - industrial complexes cost no resource to run. Don't know, just seems weird to me. Introducing a resource like coal would bring an interesting new challenge to producing units. According to me that is.
      In this thread I suggested the introduction of coal into the game.

      - Implement a way in which more research can be done or research can be chosen. Either by research going progressively faster, extra research slots or by making level increases less steep (like how mechanized infantry gets stronger on level ups, a little). This would make some research options less manditory and give players a greater choice of units to choose and then use.

      I think the game has made some awesome improvements since I joined in september 2015. It has been over 3 years now and I still enjoy this game. I love the way the community is able to partake in conversation with those that run the game. In my opinion the game is on its way to greatness. I do think it has some issues here and there though that can be improved upon. Though I look into the future with confidence.

      Good day to all.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • atreas1 wrote:

      you give exactly zero arguments why this opinion is wrong,
      It is not my life's ambition to prove you wrong, much as you seem to think otherwise. My goal here is for debate in the forum to be based on fact, and for advice given to players to be factual and accurate, that is all.




      Edepedable wrote:

      Trouble arises as soon as 1 player finds enemy patrols and the enemy is not online.
      Avoiding combat ticks is pointless now since this update from last August which started this thread. It is simply a waste of time to trick yourself into moving your planes so you think you are winning. I never avoid patrol ticks, and I don't recommend this foolish approach to anyone.
      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



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      Avoiding combat ticks is pointless now since this update from last August which started this thread. It is simply a waste of time to trick yourself into moving your planes so you think you are winning. I never avoid patrol ticks, and I don't recommend this foolish approach to anyone.
      i am not sure if this is right, but I had situation where 4 stacks of planes 5 fighters and 5 bombers faced my 4 stacks of 5 fighters and 5 bombers. i set patrol on every 14 minutes and he had much bigger looses than me.
      Every his stack is attacking 40 planes and get damage from 40 planes so i believe this way enemy will have much bigger damage. fight stopped because player took back his planes, I had maybe 5 planes shoot down and he had about 20 planes down. i believe he did not know what is going on because I set patrol on same spot over and over again. It was hard to see that my planes did not tick at all.
      And it was a month ago....
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • i wanted to try the fighterjets made 20 of them...... biggest mistake of my life since even tho they have the highest attack on planes, an enemy 3 stack of 5-5 on patrol laughed at me willynilly, both in direct attack and patrol those fighter jets have gone to dust ?( im gonna go with patriota here and pointing out how planes are simply unbalanced if people make 3 different stacks on the same area or refresh the stacks patrol every 14 min
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • patriota75 wrote:

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      Avoiding combat ticks is pointless now since this update from last August which started this thread. It is simply a waste of time to trick yourself into moving your planes so you think you are winning. I never avoid patrol ticks, and I don't recommend this foolish approach to anyone.
      i am not sure if this is right, but I had situation where 4 stacks of planes 5 fighters and 5 bombers faced my 4 stacks of 5 fighters and 5 bombers. i set patrol on every 14 minutes and he had much bigger looses than me.Every his stack is attacking 40 planes and get damage from 40 planes so i believe this way enemy will have much bigger damage. fight stopped because player took back his planes, I had maybe 5 planes shoot down and he had about 20 planes down. i believe he did not know what is going on because I set patrol on same spot over and over again. It was hard to see that my planes did not tick at all.
      And it was a month ago....
      If you have multiple stacks defending and each side starts with the same number of stacks and planes, I have experienced the same as patriota75, it still makes sense to avoid your attack tick at least initially. The attacker will have 1 stack tick against multiple defending stacks. The attacker loses more planes. The greater the number of stacks, the worse for the attacking tick. With two stacks each, the attacker will on average take twice as much damage. So, the attacker will start losing planes faster. If your planes don't tick, the other person doesn't get to defend against your patrol tick with both stacks.
      NOTE: If each side has only one stack, then there isn't any point in avoiding the attack tick.