Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

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

  • Tasmine wrote:

    If freezy really want to import this feature. I'd want to ask you how defender against invaders if one of your urban province being occupied. If both sides has 4 urban area at the begining. You now only 3 provinces can produce units while enemy has 5. And if invaders occupy your rural provinces. You have try to take it back without losing other urban province at the time....
    The real answer to your concern (and you won't like it) is as follows....

    If you are fighting in YOUR Core provinces, then you've already lost. Bow your head and depart with dignity as you have been outplayed.

    Then immediately proceed to the Forms, read up on the Player Help section on the area (Economy, Moral or Combat) where the wheels fell off your wagon....

    Then Start another game and try not to make the same mistake again.

    Rinse, repeat... and you'll start putting some Tick marks in the "WIN" column.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • The NO Factories Start is the best Idea so far. Something I suggested in the forums and to my pleasant surprise, it was already planned to take effect.

    This way EVERYONE starts on the same page and gets to chose where they want their new units to be produced. Better than being stuck with Infantry production in Siberia and Aircraft on the battle front.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • gusv wrote:

    It sounds fair, but zero factories would give an early advantage to gold users (I'm one of them). Perhaps one level 1 factory per country may give the 'poorer' players a fighting chance ... 8)
    You're missing the entire point of this gusv.... I want to start producing units where I want them to appear on the map... so it fits with my plans, with my MO.

    You are comparing apples to hand-grenades and saying it's not fair. Keep the comparison the same and you'll see what I'm talking about.


    Non-GOLD using Game (No one uses GOLD)
    Everyone gets to decide for themselves where their units are produced. The deciding factor for victory is gamesmanship, dedication and skills.

    All Players use GOLD
    Everyone gets to decide for themselves where their units are produced and the key deciding factor is who has most GOLD wins

    One Player uses GOLD
    The GOLD using player has bought the game and wins, it never mattered where units started.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • @gusv is right that no factories at start make the use of gold way more decisive.
    And the argument it allows to decide where to raise buildings for which unit production isn't a big one, since it will still be in your cores. It usually doesn't make a big difference in which core province you produce units.

    Anyhow, this is supposed to be a thread for 1.5, not for the Christmas event.


    freezy wrote:

    a big chunk of the CoW playerbase plays on both platforms. I can't give you exact numbers but let's say half of the current CoW playerbase plays on mobile.
    That's clear. Of course the option to give orders with your smartphone whenever you want and wherever you are is very handy. It gives a huge advantage, so naturally almost all players make use of it. But that doesn't mean that it's very important that concepts have to be easily understandable on both platforms. CoW for the majority of players has always worked in a way that the desktop version is where you get your understanding of game concepts and mechanics (and also where you enjoy the game), whereas mobile you only use to give orders during the times you cannot play on a PC.

    I'm very sad to see that with 1.5 you're about to let game designs be dictated by the limited feasibilities that smartphones offer and thus let them be dictated by a (so far) minority - by those players who exclusively use smartphones. Sure: By dumbing down the game you'll be attracting more of such players. But it's still very sad, because so many dumb games for mobile already exist, whereas CoW1.0 is strategically challenging and realistic... or in one word great. And with units no longer upgrading automatically it can even be perfectioned in both these respects - if you had that goal.

    In the News article on the interview with freezy it's said it was being tried to find a compromise between strategic depth + realism and gameplay. I don't see any compromise in 1.5 so far. There is a small number of changes that doesn't harm either one or the other and is objectively good (primarily units not upgrading automatically any more). But all others only serve to make the game easier to handle overall and easier visualizable on smartphones (in --> this post <-- I list a lot of them), while at the same time degrading strategic profoundness or realism or both. That cannot be called a compromise. It will make the game very unattractive for the current majority of players, who at least sometimes use a PC. Only exclusive smartphone users benefit.

  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    @gusv is right that no factories at start make the use of gold way more decisive.
    And the argument it allows to decide where to raise buildings for which unit production isn't a big one, since it will still be in your cores. It usually doesn't make a big difference in which core province you produce units.
    If the FIRST Factory in a CORE province was built as fast a a Barracks Lvl 1 (1min 30sec)... how would GOLD be a huge advantage.

    Purpose of Starting with NO Factories is not to slow you down, but to let player chose their locations.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • EZ Dolittle wrote:

    The gold would be used to buy resources, not just time.
    That's always the case.

    But at least with No Starting Factories... I get to chose where my produced units enter on the board.... And that's better than someone else making that decision.

    Gold is an irrelevant factor when it comes this.... It's a huge (even deciding) factor AFTERWARD... but completely irrelevant to this issue.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • freezy wrote:

    As for your other posts: Good that we could agree on som things more or less
    More or less. I'm still convinced that SBDE per unit type (with low limits for 100% SBDE) would be better. But I think everyone (including myself) gets tired by that discussion, so I started to think in the other direction. @OneNutSquirrel already nicely described the combined arms approach and the following is the key aspect:

    OneNutSquirrel wrote:

    A few advancing tanks, as tough as they were, could easily be taken out by infantry if the tanks just attempted to punch through the infantry lines with no regard to infantry carrying explosives and anti tank hand weapons flanking them. While the same few tanks were greatly more efficient with infantry support and acted as moving steel walls for the infantry advance so they couldn't get flanked, and the infantry had protection for the advance.
    That's so very true. Infantry had no means to harm tanks, in particular medium or heavy tanks, unless getting very close and not only facing their front-sides. Which was impossible to achieve as long as there was opposing infantry escorting the tanks. For example carrying explosives and attaching them to a tank was suicide if there were a few men of the enemy next to the tank with guns in their hands. Even with bazookas you needed to get very close and ideally to the side or rear of a heavily armoured vehicle to have a reasonable chance to damage it.

    So now my suggestion that would make me live with SBDE per total stack size happily:
    * Militia, regular infantry, paratroopers, motorized and mechanized infantry get a new characteristic "provides infantry support".
    * All heavy armour get a new characteristic "requires infantry support".
    * Militia, regular infantry, paratroopers, motorized infantry and Commandos get a new bonus +100% damage to heavy armour with "insufficient infantry support". Which would be defined as more units requiring infantry support than units providing infantry support in the stack.
    Displaying a stack with insuffient infantry support could look like this (I bet you're able to design a way more beautiful icon and write a better text^^):


    Assumption I made in the above is that the basic damage that militia, regular infantry, paratroopers and motorized infantry does to light armour is less than they do to unarmoured targets and the basic damage they do heavy armour again only 50% of the damage to light armour. Which would result in heavy armour being able to easily overrun infantry, unless having insufficient infantry support.
    Which would not only be fully realistic, but also give infantry a sense... a special power which it so far is lacking in CoW. And we would for example see some players build both tanks AND motorized or mechanized infantry in order to use tanks without insufficient infantry support and without slowing them down as the other infantry units would do. Which would be a nice strategical option and - again - very realistic.

  • I do not know if that sort of adjustment (infantry support) is a priority concern at the grand tactical level of this game.
    I would not direct scarce design program time to it.

    A much higher priority would be first to make the mobile and the computer version identical in features where currently there are significant differences between them.

  • EZ Dolittle wrote:



    A much higher priority would be first to make the mobile and the computer version identical in features where currently there are significant differences between them.
    I would say that Identifying the features you want, would be first priority, then implementing them... Wasting code to make both versions identical with unwanted features... what would be the point of that...

    These discussions identify concerns, we've see Dev's come back on feature changes which did not go over well such as Resource trading with non-coalition members (CoW)... toning down the unit power curve per Lvl(CoW 1.5).

    That identification process and balancing are key, then synchronizing mobile/PC versions makes sense as you don't have to re-code obsolete or irrelevant features.

    Synergy of units and complimentary bonuses would change combat calculations immensely, so settling those kinds of "features" should be priority before committing to aesthetics...
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • Very good answer, @OneNutSquirrel, thanks for that.

    I want to add that two of the major goals that CoW1.5 has or should have are
    1.: Allowing players to build a big variety of units in each game and to research them to different levels (not just few units and research them to the max).
    2.: Partly thanks to the above, making decisions on how to compose your army / your stacks more interesting, strategically challenging and even more realistic than it is in CoW1.0.

    The first test version of CoW1.5 failed these two goals, because the new SBDE-per-total-stack-size thing promotes stacks containing very few different units.
    Freezy said that "1." could be solved with general balancing. But I bet this implies giving units very distinct roles - maybe not as badly as in the first test version of CoW1.5, but still. Whereas my "infantry support" suggestion would add a lot to these two goals without negative side-effects - except for needing some development capacities, sure.

    See it this way: If nothing like either the "infantry support" feature or SBDE-per-unit-type is added to CoW1.5, then we'll end up with pure tanks (or tanks+SPAA) stacks steamrolling thoughtlessly over the board. And nobody who's looking for a strategic or tactical challenge or for a game with WW2 feeling can want that.

    Making features in desktop and mobile version synchronous might be good as well, but this thread is about 1.5. Which has nothing to do with how the mobile app works. Please don't disrupt our discussion with things that are off-topic.

  • I think the unit specialization would prevent that.

    One of the first Jagpanther (German Anti tank) engagements was 3 of them attacking a dozen British tanks...ended up destroying 10 of them, 1 JP just crawled off the field and German tank crew lit it up to destroy it.... 2nd one was damaged and found a bit farther...

    3 vs 12 and lost 2 vs 10

    That's specialized. If the new stats even somewhat remotely represent that.. and I have a single unit type stack heading my way.... it means that stack is susceptible to a single type defense as well.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • If you have tanks and your enemy has tank destroyers, that would in CoW1.5 make you build a mere infantry stack next to your tanks stack (and then send the infantry stack against the tank destroyers). It still wouldn't make you mix your tanks with infantry in the same stack - which was an essential element in WW2 tactics... as you yourself and I already described.

    CoW1.5 with its SBDE-per-total-stack-size system promotes stacks containing very few different unit types. And I'm sure that nobody except for Bytro (for reasons that totally evade me) can want that.

  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    If you have tanks and your enemy has tank destroyers, that would in CoW1.5 make you build a mere infantry stack next to your tanks stack (and then send the infantry stack against the tank destroyers). It still wouldn't make you mix your tanks with infantry in the same stack - which was an essential element in WW2 tactics... as you yourself and I already described.

    CoW1.5 with its SBDE-per-total-stack-size system promotes stacks containing very few different unit types. And I'm sure that nobody except for Bytro (for reasons that totally evade me) can want that.

    I see it quite different... any Artillery (read AA, AT, Arty is most cosy in a meat blanket, something that can take damage while those units do their thing) That means you're building mixed stacks.

    In most cases, that's the entire purpose of mixed stacks, so that the vulnerable units get protection by being in stacks that are better able to deal with damage from the dangerous enemy units.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

  • Of course the meat blanked principle for ranged units works no matter how SBDE is designed. It works the same in both CoW1.0 and CoW1.5, that's clear.
    This entire talk is "only" about the question which compilations of non-ranged units should make sense in CoW1.5. As it is so far, CoW1.5 promotes non-ranged stacks of just one unit, potentially adding AA or SPAA to it. But you and I would favour the game to reflect the combined arms approach - not only to make it more realistic, but also more challenging from strategical point of view, more interesting and diverse. Less boring and less dumb. My proposals to either implement infantry support or return to SBDE-per-unit-type would achieve that.

    I see it's your hobby to just criticize what other people write, no matter what. But in this topic, I'm on your side. So it makes no sense you criticize the options I describe for how it can be realized what we both want. You contradict yourself.

  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    I see it's your hobby to just criticize what other people write, no matter what. But in this topic, I'm on your side. So it makes no sense you criticize the options I describe for how it can be realized what we both want. You contradict yourself.
    Yes.

    That's how BETTER ideas are born.

    Sometimes the criticism shuts that "idea" right down, and shows that it could never work past the glaring flaws. At other times, the criticism inspires reworking, adjusting and turns a mediocre idea into a decent one, then smarter people then me can make it into a great idea. The fact that there are 4 or 5 people "fine tuning" this one from different sides is a good thing.

    -------Not to Digress

    One thing to consider... SBDE (STATE Based Damage Efficiency) is a very misleading name.... Should rightly be STACK Based Damage Efficiency.

    I could have 50 stacks of Artillery x 8 units, in a Province and firing at one target, all doing 100% of their damage without penalty. SBDE ONLY affected combat units that fought on CONTACT, not ranged or air. For it to have any meaningful impact on the game, any new limitations on number of troops in a combat zone would have to consider weather these limits are arbitrarily on Stacks or Provinces.

    Results
    STACK-BDE - Limit of 10 units per stack or X number of a Class of units per stack are only penalty to the Defender. Attacker can put 10 Stacks of Air units(5/5), 10 stacks of Naval units (3/3) to bombard, and 100 stacks or Artillery (8)(Doesn't matter if it's Limitations on Unit Classes in a stack or total number of units in the stack, effects are the same) on same target without suffering any penalty while the Defender is handicapped from the start.

    STATE-BDE - Only X Number of units in a Province fight at 100%.. All others suffer penalty.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    The post was edited 2 times, last by OneNutSquirrel ().