More light and heavy units

    • More light and heavy units

      Hello all,

      Something I have always wondered about Call of War is this, why do only the tanks come in various 'sizes'. As I think most players can confirm the Light tank, Medium tank and Heavy tank are all completely different units that all serve their own purpose. My question/suggestion is this, why only give the tanks different sizes?

      I think there are more units that could have a light/heavy option.

      For exmample:

      Infantry

      Anti tank
      Great unit against Light Tanks in cities, useless against medium or heavy armor in open terain. I would welcome a heavy anti-tank gun that would perhaps be slower but would also have 15 HP and a bit more firepower on the defense. Of course it would be more expensive. On top of this, being coupled with normal anti-tank guns the damage spread would work in their favor. It would give an option to defend against armor for countries that do not have metal or oil to spare for tank destroyers.

      Anti-air
      Same story as the anti tank gun really. There are only 2 units in the entire game on land that counter airplanes. The anti-air and SP anti-air. A heavy anti-air unit again, would have less speed (so perhaps would not be brought to accompany an army on the move) but it could definately have more firepower. Again giving an option for players without a lot of oil. Besides, SP artillery are not that great in cities with their 50% power reduction.

      Artillery
      What?! More powerful artillery? Who would want that?! Well, what if this heavy artillery would do around the same damage to troops but do more damage to especially buildings and be slower? Heavy artillery was often used to fire at fortified positions. I would welcome this option because fortifications, built in a core province add up to a 54% damage reduction on the first level. With 10 units in the fort that means forts are somewhat troublesome early to mid game. To then become useless when the level 4 rocket comes into play that just ignores fortifications completely. This unit being around could also make fortifications cheaper since they would have more counters, would make managing morale less of a chore.

      Armor

      SP artillery
      Same as the heavy artillery, more damage to buildings and less speed. Why? Well because I think a unit doing more ranged damage than an SP artillery against units, with possibly a 50% open field bonsus would just be to much.

      Air

      Honestly I think the strategic bomber is already a heavy version of the tactical bomber. It destroys buildings instead of units.

      Interceptor
      Perhaps a heavy fighter could be a unit that does more damage on the defense to aircraft. This could make the current lighter interceptors more powerfull on the attack . Might also stop the airplane defense exploit that some players tend to use.

      Naval

      Cruiser
      As it is now, it is said that the cruiser is a mix between a battleship and destroyer and it can take both roles to a certain point within a navy. It honestly can't. Destroyers can be used quite effectively to destroy submarines at range, a cruiser struggles with subs even on higher levels. A level 6 cruiser does as much damage to a submarine as a level 1 destroyer does for crying out loud. As far as what a battleship does to ground units a cruiser does 3.5 damage to both infantry and armor at level 6. Between what a battleship does on level 2 and 3.
      So as far as being able to switch roles between being a destroyer and a battleship it does what those ships do very badly. Very, very badly. I mean lets face it, cruisers are just floating anti-air. They do however do good damage against ships at range, as a battleship does. But it still only does halve the damage a battleship does. So out of the 3 things a destroyer and battleship do, (1 destroy subs, 2 damage land units, 3 damage ships) the cruiser really only does 0.5 and then its own thing in anti-air.
      Solution? Take the cruiser appart and introduce a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser. The light cruiser being more destroyer like and the heavy cruiser being more battleship like but not as good as either. Both could do somewhat good against air units. Perhaps drop a point on all levels? I mean really, how usefull are naval bombers right now against someone's ships? Not at all right.

      What do you all think?

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Edepedable ().

    • I wouldn't want to see doubling the amount of units available. It is a simplified war game, not a detailed reality simulator. Some of the roles described are pretty marginal indeed. Keep in mind that all those things also have to be researched and updated. No need for diversification for the sake of diversification, or because those units existed historically.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • My suggestion hardly doubles the number of units. I do think some suggestions are better than others among the ones I made.

      A heavy anti-tank gun could be a real problem solver for countries with hardly any oil. The current anti-tank could perhaps also grow to become a 15 hp unit and count as a 'heavy anti-tank' gun. Same with anti-air.

      A bunker busting artillery type would be really cool, the way I see it. Could mean the choice between busting a bunker or prepering normal arty for defense.

      The heavy SP arty I could see not being used with heavy arty in the game. Same with the airplanes.

      The differenttype of cruisers would be really cool. Now it is always the case that the next ship outclasses the one before it. By turning the cruiser into light and heavy cruisers naval wars would become much more diverse.

      Or, perhaps the research tree could split somewhere during level ups. Players would upgrade what they would need accordingly.

      It is indeed a simplified war game. But that does not mean it has to stay that way. I saw lots of new units make an entry over the years. No reaaon that there can not be more. If the research tree would do research increasingly faster instead of slower for example, CoW could easily be a more varied then is the case now.
    • I would also like to see more light and heavy units.
      The big variety of units is what makes this game fascinating and interesting. Those who state something else, should imagine a game with just one unit called "Army". Perhaps you'd prefer that?
      Of course Rokossovski is right that so far, further diversification hardly made any sense, because you would research only about 10 to 14 units anyway. But with the new research tree, introducing a few new units clearly would add some edge (although probably not the most important thing to spend development time on... also having in mind that every new unit requires careful re-balancing, since if there are two similar units instead of one, the SBDE limit for that kind of unit is less effective).

      However, I don't fully agree with all details in Edepedable's list. Mine would be:

      Anti tank :thumbup: : Light version faster and less steel and money needed for production; no malus on any terrain; small difference between attack and defense. Heavy version stronger against armored targets; -25% malus in mountains and cities; big difference between attack and defense.

      Anti air : The decisive difference between light and heavy anti air was the range. Since certainly introducing a range for AA wouldn't be a good idea, I'm against a split into light and heavy here.

      Artillery : Light version faster and less steel and money needed for production; no malus on any terrain. Heavy version bigger range,; more damage against armored targets, slightly more damage against unarmored targets; -25% in mountains. Also more damage against buildings, although the bunker breaking mortar was rather a WW1 thing.

      Fighters : Light version (one propeller) faster and less steel and money needed for production; less oil consumption. Heavy version (one or two propellers) bigger range, more HP and stronger in air defense (since air units with air attack different from air defense are not desired with air mechanics as they are, this would presuppose a change in the mechanics like for example --> this thread <--).

      Tactical bombers : Light version (one propeller, e.g. dive bombers) faster and less steel and money needed for production; less oil consumption; stronger air attack. Heavy version (two propellers) bigger range, more HP, stronger air defense, more damage against ground and sea units.

      Naval bombers : Already nicely desribed in --> this thread <--.

      Cruisers (rather ): It's true there were very significant differences between light and heavy cruisers. But introducing them would be just one further gradual step between destroyers and battleships. I can't see much benefit for the game here.

      Infantry : You mean "heavy infantry" like having a lot of heavy machine guns, bazookas and mortars with them? I think in reality, these weapons were distributed as good as possible amongst the divisions. If more diversification shall be introduced to intantry, I'd rather go for mountain and assault infantry. Also Commandos should be changed to "Elite" (see --> this thread <--).
    • What do you consider complicated about more units similar to the existing ones? There's nothing anyone would have to learn about them. You read the words "light" or "heavy", you see their different values and costs and you immediately know what's the matter.
      Only a bit more scrolling in the research tree, no other "work" for the players.

      But of course a noteworthy amount of work for the developers - new unit models on the map, new achievements and a lot of rebalancing (as mentioned because the SBDE limits would be less effective)... just to name the main ones. So if you say there are more important things to do, then you're certainly right.