Announcement Research Balancing Update

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

    • freezy wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback!

      To those worried about food: With this change you actually have a higher food income than before, because the food consumption of provinces was reduced. Therefore it is easier to have a positive food production, and that additional food can now also be invested into research.
      I'm yet to enter a new game but that is great to hear, I still don't necessarely view research taking food instead of goods as realistic but I'll give it a chance.
    • freezy wrote:

      To those worried about food: With this change you actually have a higher food income than before, because the food consumption of provinces was reduced. Therefore it is easier to have a positive food production, and that additional food can now also be invested into research.
      I played a few frontline pioneer games using the new method, and food was always a problem. I'm in one right now that despite being in the top 5 in the game and having a not very large, largely oil based army, food is still a problem and my research is far behind what it should be, even with the previous slower research times. I find that food is actually harder to get early in the game when you have no production and lots of hungry infantry, and easier later when you can switch to oil users and upgrade your economy.

      Many had an issue with food late game simply from mismanagement, I have one multiple rounds, even a World where I ended as #3 with over 1000 points and one of the largest armies, and still had tons of food.
    • ITSAEROMF wrote:

      I played a few frontline pioneer games using the new method, and food was always a problem.
      That I fully believe you, but I very much assume that all of these were started before the food consumption of provinces was reduced(?)
      Keep in mind the food that all provinces on the map consumed before that change wasn't given back to their owners retroactively. So you can still feel in missing on the market and in the player's stocks even after the change was done.
      That's why to be able to tell whether food is rare in mid and late game, you have to start a new game after the release.
    • Aloriel wrote:

      Also still I have no clue on when your army becomes too big to supply with food, probably the size is a problem, but what the hell man? I ain't sending like a quarter of my army to its death simply because of food, I've not build up my forces for decoration and giggles, I need those guns at the front!
      What I tend to do besides upgrading all my food provinces, in terms of army management is the following.

      Army cap
      I set a certain cap on my total army size. Meaning if my army is a certain size/capable of doing what I want it to do, I will stop expanding my total army to cut costs. If I can defend the places I need to defend and attack what I need to attack then growing my army beyond that is sometimes just not all that usefull to me. Because it costs upkeep. Different in any map but if my army is the biggest one in the the game and my enemies are smaller than me, why go bigger? Just costs me in the end. As a rule of thumb in any map I try to have as many units as it is the day of the game times 10. Meaning at day 10, I aspire to have around 100 units. At day 20, at least 200 and so on. There is usually a tipping point in any map. Before this time having days x 10 units is hard, after it keeps getting easier. As long as you can do what you want and need, having some sort of a cap can save you a lot of resources in upkeep.

      Fase out units
      I use my starting infantry, but I do not train new ones if they die. I might 'replace' them with commandos , tanks and/or motorized infantry. That way my food and manpower consumption goes down, while my total number of units and power output goes up. This can be done with a lot of units. Fasing out arty by SP arty, fasing out AT with tank destroyers and so on. The trick is not: sending high cost units you already have into a certain death, but to replace them by stronger more cost eficient units over time.

      Keeping reserves
      I like keeping some reserves in stock. Besides having the resources and production capabiloty to produce new divisions fast there is also a way to keep 'fast reserves'. This can be easily done with units that require a building to be turned on. Example: submarines. I have enough subs, great. I build subs at all my level 1 ports that can only build subs (asuming I have a lot of ports to also build other units and some are level 1 and some are not). Then, I turn of the naval base before the sub is completed. Why? Well because now I can build a backup sub in 5 minuits by turning on the naval base again if need be. But the sub is not costing me any upkeep. Doing this in 10 naval nases at a time gives me a good/fast hand on reserve. Same can be done for barracks requiring units in mass. So you have a reserve without the cost of having it. Also works great with mechanized infantry for example. Especially since after building it you can use that same location to build something additional, like SP AA, SP arty or a tank to not send your mech infantry of to battle alone. All in a lot less time than building everything from scratch.

      Economy investment
      All resources laying around are resources wasted. Build infra where you can and where you need. Done building infra in every food/oil province? Go up to building level 5 IC there. Always expand your economy. Even if it is just for the sake of growing it. You can always use more food and oil.

      Hope this helps

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

    • I am in one game with the new research and food issue... a Historic 1939 game where as the last of 25 players to join I got of course Mongolia (last time I did this it was Sinxyang)

      The classic problem in Asia is the massive number if provinces that do not produce things and they EAT all your food.

      So far I have been able to take over 110 provinces and kept my food at +4. The use of food for research seems more than compensated for by reduced population eating.

      Part of the game testing is of course hurt by what I consider the high drop our rate: 25% of players never move from sign up. In my area it meant Japan, Soviet Union, British India which allowed for expansion by way of Armored Cars running amok.

      I like the faster build up of Infrastructure and think that all the first level stuff should be 4 hours followed by 8 and then maybe 16 and 32 hours since a faster build up gives players faster buy in to the game.

      Of course the ultimate balancing technique would be to have the ability to have gold diet games where there is a limit to the amount of gold spent per day or per game or what you start with and then cannot add or non at all.

      Then again there is the ideology and I feel false economic perception by the game owners on that function which has periodically flamed the threads for a while....

      Let the burning begin :love:
    • I played a FP round with the new research tree. General strategy for building a strong nation based on game experience was made obsolete, requiring lots of on-the-fly decisions based on circumstances. What is the current priority? Many times economic expansion was delayed so units could be produced or upgraded. Economically, the changes will require experienced players to rethink everything. Better or worse? IDK, probably just depends on player preferences.

      Earlier research times may not matter as much as everyone thinks. I could unlock all my favorite units quickly, but the other requirements didn't change so it still took a long time to deploy anything useful.

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

    • I am on day 7 of a game with the new updates... I think the problem with the spamming is an improper balance between the units. Based on the naming most land units are regiment strength formations but they take just as long to build as a destroyer. For example I am playing as spain, game started with minimal units for each country and I have been balancing my industry and research with unit production. I have been fighting a few AI nations as well so I've taken losses. I have 38 units. A major nation in a "realistic world war game" with 38 regiments! I should have 38 divisions. Here is the imbalance. A bomber squadron should take roughly the same time to build as a infantry division, not a regiment. This is why spammers choose bombers over infantry. A single infantry division should be impossible for a single bomber squadron to destroy. But in the game your not able to build a division that fast. A division for those not in military now how is about 3 infantry regiment, 1 artillery regiment, 1 aa regiment and possibly 1 specialized regiment such as scout, tank, or commando etc.

      Likewise the respective resources consumptions are way too high for these small units. Again same nation. Population of 41 million people, the people consume about 3k food per day, while my 38 regiments consume 2.6k per day. These are approximately 1/5th my total daily food production. With this in mind the most my current production can support is 152 regiments. While that sounds fine it does not take into account the costs to draft new units. Which is about 4 times as much as the unit's upkeep. Which means 152÷5 (1 for unit upkeep costs and 4 for recruiting costs) I could possibly draft 30 more units. A major nation in war time with between 60-70 regiments. Which optimistically translates to 14 divisions. That's pathetic. That is why you can't have balanced forces. If you're limited to these small number of forces why not spam faster forces with higher damage.

      Last point, bombers are too effective. The trick is lowering their attack AND the AA effectiveness too. Currently A single bomber can destroy a single unit before it can reach the bomber's airport. Lowering these numbers means a bomber will have to bombard a target for a longer period for the same effect. I have had games where a stack of 10 units including aa were destroyed by a stack of 8 bombers before my stack could even reach the next province. Air power should be a supporting role for land units not make land units virtually obsolete.

      In summary, the update does not fix the problem. I have no problem with reducing the construction time of lvl 1 airbases, but level 2 should have been increased, as should the resources needed to make it. Also the cost to build air units should be higher. while the time and cost for land units, especially basic formations like infantry, at, aa etc should be reduced. In ww2 the most prevalent formation was always the infantry division. Yeah we all want to make heavy tank armies with teams of nuclear bombers and battleships galore but it's should not be a practical formation. Germany was a perfect example they tried to make powerful heavy tanks but they could not match the numbers of enemy medium tanks. I could go on but I think the point is there. Overall it's a fun game even if it's not perfectly balanced.
    • ErwinSWE wrote:

      This game already feel more like WW3 than WW2 with all the rockets and nukes, I think it's a very bad decision to make them even easier to research.
      I really don't think its all that easy to be honest.

      the research tree used to be very predictable. I usually knew what opponents were researching around what day. I would do about the same. This is no longer true. What now stops me from doing research is lack of resources. Planning research is less of an issue, thats true. But taking into account what kind of resources you have, or don't has become way more important.

      I'm currently playing in a gold free format, the Team League. And advanced units showing up way to early has not occurred there. Simply because it is to expensive to do. Which, I think, is a very positive change.
    • Edepedable wrote:


      I am currently playing in a gold free format, the Team League. And advanced units showing up way to early has not occurred there. Simply because it is to expensive to do. Which, I think, is a very positive change.
      Advanced units showing up too early was never a concern before but it can be now. When you see lvl5 tacs flying around on day 18 or lvl4 rockets by day 20 it says alot.

      Specially when the the main concern of spamming has never been properly addressed but if anything has been made easier to spam specially early game and worst we now even incentivized to do so as I have outlined in detail in previous posts.
    • Seems we've come to a point in the discussion where we need to clearly differentiate between games without gold and those with (some) players "spamming" units of one type bought with gold (I figure that's the definition of spamming in this context(?)).

      In my previous replies, I was always talking about the situation without gold involved. There I still state the research tree update didn't make mechanized units in early game more common (as Edepedable confirmed):
      * Mechanized land units and rockets: No - the update has made food more rare in early game (which indeed gives a motivation to build more oil consuming units at the start), but at the same time also made steel more rare in early game (which gives you a similar motivation to keep your hands off of the armour tech tree at the start).
      * Bombers: Just like before the update, gold-free players shouldn't build level 2 airfields in their cities at the beginning. They first need the construction time for IC and infrastructure. Also all those resources for bombers and for airfields bringing them close to the enemy are too much for an early game economy. And then, later on, bombers aren't buffed by the update, but rather nerfed (due to the increase of AA air defense values and SPAA being available already on day 8).

      So what Kanaris is complaining about must be opponents who do use gold. These naturally prefer bombers (and in seldom cases tanks), because with these they get a strong and fast unit from accelerating their production. But that was the same before the update. Also already before the update, you could have your first tactical bomber ready 1 minute after the game started. And you needed the same amount of gold to get that done.


      Bottom line is I still don't see why the update should have made spamming easier. What I can imagine though is that maybe people are now more willing to spend gold, because the update has awakened them from a certain lethargy. But that wouldn't be a bad thing from Bytro perspective. If that's the explanation for Kanaris' observation, it only shows the update has made the game more interesting.
    • Please point out specifically where in any of my posts I have mentioned or made allusions to gold usage because I really do not understand what you are talking about.

      After having refuted all your pro update "arguments" with real arguments which are backed up by several days of gameplay showing specifically how the game balance has been ruined all you have to say in return is that my data is based on gold spamming?

      Just to define terms clearly so we can all be on the same wavelength spamming units is when you exclusively concentrate your entire unit production to a handful of unit types. If all I choose to build lt and tacs then I am spamming. If the game makes this a viable strategy by making countering this strategy with a conventional grain fed army nearly impossible as I have explained with nauseating detail then the game balance is broken!

      Wether this spamming is done by conventional means or if I am making my life easier by purchasing resources with gold or speeding up research or build times make no difference as regardless the game balance is ruined from the get-go. If the gold usage is now more beneficial after the new update as you seem to think, honestly I don't know it has not been one of my metrics as frankly I don't care either way.

      What I do care about is that this update is pushing players into more oil fed armies as you yourself has finally agreed and made grain fed armies early game much harder to build and thus less viable.
    • Kanaris wrote:

      Please point out specifically where in any of my posts I have mentioned or made allusions to gold usage
      You didn't. That's why I was telling you if anyone can seriously threaten your grain-fed army with just tanks or just planes, he must have been using gold. Otherwise stopping such a mono-focused enemy is very easy with AT (plus optionally artillery behind it) or AA. Also early in the game and also after the update, just like before - as I explained in nauseating detail.

      Kanaris wrote:

      the game balance is ruined from the get-go
      It isn't.

      Kanaris wrote:

      What I do care about is that this update is pushing players into more oil fed armies as you yourself has finally agreed
      I have not agreed to that. I'm saying all the time that's not the case. Please read my posts again.
    • The research balancing update is a choice of the designers - it is their game, so there is no point in debating how right or wrong it is.

      What cannot be denied, though, is that this update seriously harms furthermore the situation for grain-based armies (which, btw, was the clear majority of the armies of that time). The proof is really elementary:

      • Already before the update those armies were (correctly) considered as having a disadvantage against other types of armies, especially the combo planes+tanks-rockets. It was repeatedly written that in late game those units clearly disappear from the production list of the players.
      • Now this update hits on food, so clearly makes those units even more "costly" (as they are depending on a now more "valuable" resource). As a result, if they were one time weak in the past, they are clearly at least two times weak now.


      As a (very simple) example, take the case of the regular artillery: now it becomes very attractive to try going asap for SP Arty, in order to avoid the food cost of the regular arty.

      Still, this is a design choice of the developers, to push for faster armies (and faster games). Let's not try to justify it by saying it is more "balanced" (it clearly is not). It is simply a different kind of game.

      As an aside, it is kind of funny to pick food as a resource for research. Manpower would have been so much more natural...
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Kanaris wrote:

      Please point out specifically where in any of my posts I have mentioned or made allusions to gold usage
      You didn't. That's why I was telling you if anyone can seriously threaten your grain-fed army with just tanks or just planes, he must have been using gold. Otherwise stopping such a mono-focused enemy is very easy with AT (plus optionally artillery behind it) or AA. Also early in the game and also after the update, just like before - as I explained in nauseating detail.

      Kanaris wrote:

      the game balance is ruined from the get-go
      It isn't.

      Kanaris wrote:

      What I do care about is that this update is pushing players into more oil fed armies as you yourself has finally agreed
      I have not agreed to that. I'm saying all the time that's not the case. Please read my posts again.
      Well I guess we are done here Hans. I engaged you in conversation out of a sincere wish to understand your point of view and explain mine. I point blanc asked you to provide me with logical arguments to help me see your point of view. I have taken the time to explain how at least in my opinion this update has a very negative outcome on the current meta and is detrimental specially to new player. The majority so far seems to agree with me.

      Your exchanges over the course of this discussion have become less and less pertinent less based on facts more based on sentiment and now down right acerbic.

      Now you have me convinced you are just trolling me, so this will be my last post addressing any comment coming from you as its getting us nowhere.

      If anyone else wants to discuss this calmly and logically and demonstrate how this is a good and positive update I'll be here

      Cheers
    • atreas1 wrote:

      The research balancing update is a choice of the designers - it is their game, so there is no point in debating how right or wrong it is.
      Nobody here is questioning if its the developers legitimate right to radically change the way research works. Its their software they can do as they please.

      As customers however that doesn't mean we have to like it even less so that we have to agree with it! As customers it is our duty to voice our disagreement, our concerns and our displeasure in a polite and constructive manner.

      Ultimately it is our right to vote with our time and money what type of software we are willing to interact and be entertained with.

      Cheers
    • Kanaris, true, my last post was a bit harsh, sorry. What I meant to say with it: I also had brought my arguments why according to my reasoning and observation the research update doesn't push players towards mechanized units. But you're right - let's leave it to that and rather focus on how the balancing should be improved. Because I agree with you guys it was already not nice before the update, that the numbers of mechanized units on a CoW battlefield were (and are) as high as the numbers of units from the infantry tech tree. Because that's OK from gameplay perspective, but not realistic.

      So I made my two proposals to make building the four infantry units (primarily regular infantry) and building fortresses better options; especially early in the game. See --> this thread <-- and --> this thread <--.

      Both infantry and fortresses would help stopping the average spammer of mechanized units. And both were seen clearly more often in real life 1930s than now in CoW. So I'd expect the suggestions to be in your sense as well(?)
      Would be curious to read if you have better proposals?

      AA, AT and artillery are not under-represented and shouldn't be buffed or nerfed. It's infantry and fortresses that are missing.