Please reduce transport ships research effort

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

    • I agree. I only ever researched a higher level once, but it does not fit into the already busy research schedule with the cost being 4500 rares.

      I think if the cost was 1500 rares for level 2, and increasing 500 rares for each level that it would be more affordable. Also I think that a 12 hour research time would be more affordable as well. As the research slots are very valuable there is much more value in researching a higher level of planes to be fastest, followed by higher levels of artillery or naval bombardment for increased range. Depending on the scenario Aircraft Carriers may take priority. Add in the research time needed to advance all the other units that you currently are using, and that is typically all that can be researched before the next level unlocks.

      The current system benefits those who produce only 2 kinds of planes, one kind of armored unit, and a couple of naval units, and reduces the benefits of having all of the awesome units available that nobody ever uses.
      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:




      The current system benefits those who produce only 2 kinds of planes, one kind of armored unit, and a couple of naval units, and reduces the benefits of having all of the awesome units available that nobody ever uses.
      Actually this is a very interesting point... extending it a bit, it is the research system which forces us into the tac-LT strategy. Lack of research slots makes it attractive to become a monoculture, building less unit types, and more of the (few) unit types we DO. We all want more unit diversity, and more usage of exotic types (rocket fighter, tank destroyer, anyone?) but it is the research system which keeps us from doing it...
      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:

      We all want more unit diversity, and more usage of exotic types (rocket fighter, tank destroyer, anyone?) but it is the research system which keeps us from doing it...
      I agree. Perhaps Freezy can consider this in the next round of balancing changes.
      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 <<<
    • Well its not really a balancing issue, it is inherent in the research system. It might be solved by changing the unit-specific research to "branches" research (infantry, armor, air, navy, secret) but that's probably a bridge too far for Bytro.
      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 its not really a balancing issue, it is inherent in the research system. It might be solved by changing the unit-specific research to "branches" research (infantry, armor, air, navy, secret) but that's probably a bridge too far for Bytro.
      I think changing the way that the research system works is beyond the time and resources available, however, the "balancing" changes each year have to do with editing simple data about unit stats. I believe that an edit to some research times would be beneficial to unit diversity.
      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 <<<
    • Its not hard at all to assuage the R&D bottleneck and provide more unit diversity. As I have proposed before simply allow for additional research slots to be opened up as the nation is growing. Once a nation has attained x amount of victory points a 3rd research slot should be opened. Later on when it has accumulated a lot more VPs open a 4th slot.

      Devs can use this simple method to control the research pace on a per map/scenario basis and it doesnt require reworking the existing research time and cost values. It would also make the game more competitive, give a new way to drain excess resources that are usually accumulated mid to end game, forcing people to plan their economies better all the way to the end.
    • Kanaris wrote:

      Its not hard at all to assuage the R&D bottleneck and provide more unit diversity. As I have proposed before simply allow for additional research slots to be opened up as the nation is growing. Once a nation has attained x amount of victory points a 3rd research slot should be opened. Later on when it has accumulated a lot more VPs open a 4th slot.

      Devs can use this simple method to control the research pace on a per map/scenario basis and it doesnt require reworking the existing research time and cost values. It would also make the game more competitive, give a new way to drain excess resources that are usually accumulated mid to end game, forcing people to plan their economies better all the way to the end.
      Certainly that is a possibility, and not a bad idea, however, I maintain my argument that editing a few values in the unit table is a solution that takes mere moments to complete compared to adding a game feature that unlocks an additional research slot under certain conditions, and the associated issues that could happen if said conditions were no longer met.
      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 <<<
    • I'm Germany in the ten player map and I only have rares producing province in it. I have a level two infrastructure there and am building a level three one. The morale is above 90% and it's a core province. I haven't built and industrial complex yet because I never have enough rare materials. I keep buying from the market because I really want to expand fast, but I've bought out the market.

      Another suggestion: Why are there offers for like 300 rare materials? That makes no sense, it's not realistic and just get's in the way for better offers. I guess it's balancing, but it's kinda annoying.
      To build, you must first destroy.
    • T-3PO wrote:

      ten player map

      T-3PO wrote:

      I haven't built and industrial complex
      The ten player map moves way too fast to need to build additional industrial complexes, or even any infrastructure anywhere except your core cities. Expand and conquer land and the game will be over before you know it. Usually takes 10 days for a 5v5 on that map.



      T-3PO wrote:

      Why are there offers for like 300 rare materials?
      Because you are buying in most cases from the minor AI, and they have just a few of anything as a surplus. In many cases the minor AI don't have a full set of resource provinces, and are selling whatever they produce to buy food, etc.

      Also, lets say that there was an offer for 2300 rares. I need 2000, so I buy 2,000 and leave the 300 whatever there in the market for the next person.
      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 <<<
    • Hey, I have an idea about the extra research slots! If you buy high command then you can get extra research slots! Or maybe, your level in CoW unlocks more research slots. Every 10 levels you unlock a new slot, up to lets say 5, and the rest of the slots you have to be high command to use. Just saying, sounds like a good idea to me.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Hey, I have an idea about the extra research slots! If you buy high command then you can get extra research slots! Or maybe, your level in CoW unlocks more research slots. Every 10 levels you unlock a new slot, up to lets say 5, and the rest of the slots you have to be high command to use. Just saying, sounds like a good idea to me.
      This would unbalance the game in favor of stronger players who have been playing longer. Stronger players already tend to understand the game strategy better and have on average better winning chances.
    • Guys, you've taken this thread very much off-topic, but you're fully right that more diversity would improve the game in all respects.
      The way research works now (during the first 8 days decide for about 9 to 12 units, then research them to the max without thinking any more and forget about all other units) is both boring and unrealistic. No nation would have - as an example - researched high-tech level 6 jets, while not even being able to construct a simple level 2 AC. But in CoW we see that all the time.

      I still say the best way to solve this is to decrease the amount of resources and time required to do a level 1 or 2 research, while at the same time increasing it for level 4, 5 or 6 technologies.
      Like this:
      Level 1 research: -30% time and costs compared to now.
      Level 2 research: -15% time and costs compared to now.
      Level 3 research: stays as is.
      Level 4 research: +15% time and costs compared to now.
      Level 5 research: +30% time and costs compared to now.
      Level 6 research: +45% time and costs compared to now.
      Secret weapons tech tree researches: stay as they are.

      Result would be it's still an option to focus on few units. But no longer always the right one.