for the next balancing update

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

    • Infantry: Pleeeeease reduce the food and goods costs for infantry.

      Production costs:
      * militia: 200 food & 200 goods instead of 250 & 250.
      * regular infantry: 250 food & 500 goods instead of 500 & 750.
      * motorized infantry: 250 food and 750 goods instead of 350 & 750.
      * mechanized infantry: 150 food and 750 goods instead of 250 & 750.

      Upkeep costs:
      * militia: 40 food instead of 50.
      * regular infantry: 70 food instead of 110.
      * motorized and mechanized infantry: 70 food instead of 90.

      Result would be: As long as you want to spend spare steel on unit production, you should still go for all the other unit types (like you currently always should). But as soon as that steel has been used up, you should recruit either regular infantry (default) or militia (if you're short on industrial capacity) or motorized/machnized infantry (if you have spare oil) until you have no manpower left. So manpower would then always have a value (which it currently doesn't have in mid and late game and for players with long-term strategy not even in early game), since it enables you to recruit more of that cheap infantry. Manpower thus becoming a relevant factor would make the game strategically more interesting. And infantry thus becoming the most popular unit would make it way more realistic: When it came to war, almost every man that could hold a gun got one in his hands and was send to the front. And about 70% of ground units were from one of the 4 infantry types.
    • (Again) rockets: I just had a war with two opponents between day 40 and 55, which relates to some time between 1950 and 1960. We didn't have a single melee battle (except for ships vs submarines). Entire fight was amongst the planes and by firing rockets (regular and nuclear ones) at each other. Sending ground units near to the front was suicide. If you did that with small stacks, these were easy prey for bombers. If you did it with a few big stacks, these were nuked or at least decimated with regular rockets next moment they stand still.
      That was no fun game and also a bit absurd. Not realistic either when thinking about rockets of that time sending entire divisions to hell. I understand that planes were already pretty superior to land units at that time (although not almighty - remember Vietnam), but rockets??

      I propose to reduce the damage rockets (both regular and nuclear) do to units by 20%.

      Additionally, nuclear rockets should become researchable only at day 46 instead of 40 (that one's not for realism, but for gameplay, because the combination of nuclear rockets and planes takes ground units completely out of the game).

      And one more thing, if that can be easily programmed: Every (regular or nuclear) rocket launched should count as a rocket lost in the K/D statistics. Because the way it is now, players firing as much rockets as they can are rewarded with great statistics (although this also being a promising strategy in CoW makes the game less fun and less realistic).
    • Rocket fighters: Of course they have to be a reasonable option far less often than regular fighters. But the way they are in CoW, they absolutely never make sense. I can imagine that if there had been one or two more years of research put in that technology at about 1945, probably engineers would have come up with a model that would have been an efficient alternative to the propeller engine fighters of that time. At least reduce their production costs from 1000 goods to 750, which I consider realistic since they were much smaller than regular fighters. And maybe add a level 2 that's researchable at about day 38.
    • Heavy tanks: They become available at a point of time when air is already superior enough to make them almost worthless. Level 1 should be researchable already on day 16. Of course clearly less strong and even slower than the current level 1 (which would then be level 2). Would also be a realistic change - heavy tanks were already in use by a few nations at the beginning of WW2.
    • Finally and most importantly: Reduce time and ressources required for low-level technologies and increase it for the higher levels.
      Like:
      First level of a unit: Research time and costs = 50% of what they are now.
      Last level of a unit: Research time and costs = 200% of what they are now.
      With research effort for all the levels in between gradually becoming higher.
      Only exception I would make for the nuclear energy and nuclear bomb research levels - they should stay as they are.

      This would give an incentive for players to research a greater variety of units. Which would be both more interesting and more realistic.
      Currently the only reasonable approach to research is to decide for about ten units at the beginning and afterwards research them to the max without thinking any more. That's really boring and far from reality. When reaching day 42, you're usually able to construct jets, but not even a simple level 2 armored car.
      After the change proposed above, every research decision would become a really interesting one - decision between the advantages of big variety in your unit selection or upgrading your existing units would become a hard and challenging one each time.
    • I think that man power should be reduced for militia and infantry not food. I do not make them because of high man power, latter you do not need them so they are hardly used. They look cheap to make, but they are not. I make four at start of game and that is all. When I research tanks and arty I make it. Latter in game you do not need infantry.
      "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.
    • you could just edit your post and put them in there instead of making a new message for all of them
      FORUM GANG WARRANT OFFICER
      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
      KNOW THE RULES!
      Call of War Game Rules
      Call of War Forum Rules
      Terms of Service

      attacker 101
      Call of War Player
      EN Server | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • patriota75 wrote:

      I think that man power should be reduced for militia and infantry not food.
      Manpower is a limit for the amount of units that can be produced only for players with an aggressive (not meant negatively!!) strategy, aiming at conquering some territory early in the game. And also for these only early in the game.

      So if manpower costs of the 4 infantry types was reduced, they would become a good option for these players in early game. Which would at least be better than the current situation (in which they are never a good option).

      Whereas if resource costs of the 4 infantry types were reduced (significantly), they would become a very good option for players with spare, unused manpower. Which is the case for all players in mid and late game and for players with a passive strategy (buildings first and only then many units) also in early game. Hence manpower would then always be of importance - in all phases and for all players. Which would add some strategical depth to the game. For example, because then every province would become valuable and not only the ones with resources. Or because you will have to decide in which provinces you should keep barracks running even though not recruiting infantry at the moment (which currently never makes sense).
      Furthermore this would realistically picture the way countries setup their armies in reality: A lot of infantry if they have many men but few resources and economic power - or a lot of armored vehicles, planes, ships or at least drawn guns if having few men but a lot of resources / economic strength. A wealthy country wouldn't send their men to war by foot and without heavy weapons.
      So decreasing resource costs of the 4 infantry types is the best solution.


      attacker101 wrote:

      you could just edit your post and put them in there instead of making a new message for all of them
      That's clear. But all 7 proposals in one text without intersections wouldn't be more readable.
    • If you read again the suggestions, they try mostly to solve the issue of domination of planes in the later stages of the game, and various proposals are given for the other units to boost their usefulness.

      Instead of changing all the other units, don't you think it is simpler to only change planes, or at least their relative usefulness? There are plenty of ways to do that, but (not to mess up too much with the game) the simplest is to allow the AA value of the ground units to raise as they are upgraded (currently only AA does that).
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      patriota75 wrote:

      I think that man power should be reduced for militia and infantry not food.
      So decreasing resource costs of the 4 infantry types is the best solution.
      I agree with patriota. I made a thread a while back about the need for infantry to lower its manpower cost to 1000 for all infantry that now costs more then 1000 (militia, infantry, moto infantry and mech infantry). Game wise it woul make these units usable. I never ever train a single infantry unit in the first 3 weeks of a map.

      You say decreasing goods and food costs for the infantry types is the best solution, but to what problem is it the best solution exactly? Players never build infantry not because of their cost in food and goods but their cost in manpower. They are the most expensive unit manpower wise.
      Changing their cost in the way you propose is an absolutely negligible chance, it won't bring about that players train more infantry.

      As far as your comments on rockets, I think their damage needs to be cut by a lot more than 20%. I favor rockets losing their effectiveness versus units altogether and give that capability to a slow reloading rocket artillery unit that requires a rare metal upkeep.

      I think you are right about the heavy tank.

      Reducing time on research, or bringing about some way in which a more diverse amount of units can be researched is an absolute necessity for this game.
    • atreas1 wrote:

      If you read again the suggestions, they try mostly to solve the issue of domination of planes in the later stages of the game
      No, nono, that's absolutely not what I had in mind. Before the last balancing update, I was heavily requesting to nerf planes. But that has already been done. Balance air vs. ground is fine now. It's OK in my opinion that planes more or less dominate land forces in late game, since that was the case in real life 1950 as well.

      Now which of my proposals would change that balance in the favour of ground units? The infantry buff, weelll... OK, a very little bit, yes. But mainly it would make you choose infantry instead of other ground units... in some situations. More precisely if you have manpower laid away. Patriota, Edepedable and Xarus, I believe you when you say that never is the case for you in the first 20 days of a game. That's OK. But please also believe me when I say that if you go for a slow, long-term strategy (buildings first and only afterwards many units), manpower never is a limitation for you. And I consider it best if infantry would be a good choice only in that case. Not if your budget is the other way round (i.e. not if you have spare food, but no spare manpower). Because, as I said, both realism and strategic depth of the game would benefit.
    • Oh what is a pleasure to see a lot of infantry in late phase of game. Easy target for planes even if it has aa guns. Planes are to powerful in game, in my opinion they should be changed or AA ratings of aa guns and infantry should be raised when you research new level in same percentage as tactical bombers. At start tac. bombers have 3 against infantry type of units and at the level 7 is 13. AA guns have 5 at start and last level has 12. I am not sure why AA guns are so bad against planes. Why their advance is to slow?
      Wen you look at endgame you see all have some ground units on borders and lot of planes for cover. Something is not right there.
      "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 kind of agree, I think that the nerf that planes got in the last update is a very good one. I do not see it as a final stage though. The speed/range/damage increase planes get on each level is unmatched. As of now I'd be willing to say that the plane nerf did its job up until the level 4 airplanes. After that their numbers are just insane compared to what is supposed to counter them. Like you said, an AA has 12 versing airplanes at their highest level while planes have 13 against AA. And TWICE the HP.

      Maybe AA should get a HP increase from level 4 and onwards? That would instantly make them 50% more usefull.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      Maybe AA should get a HP increase from level 4 and onwards? That would instantly make them 50% more usefull.
      or decrease hp of bombers.
      "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 personally disagree with nerfing planes any further. Regular AA at level 5 do 10 damage to planes, SPAA do 11. Interceptors at level 6 do 13 damage to planes. In other words, anti-air do almost as much defensive damage to planes than interceptors do. Also remember, the AA is purposefully cheap and easy to make compared to interceptors. Anti-air are not supposed to gain complete hegemony over bombers, they're supposed to make things more difficult for bombers. AA and planes are perfectly fine as is. Try taking some bombers against a tank division with some anti-air or SPAA and you'll really see the power of the flak gun.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel