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.

  • DxC wrote:

    OneNutSquirrel wrote:

    Not a single unit had been killed. I believe they will start dropping when under 50%...? This is not making much sense to me... As units got severely damaged, they would be merged into full strength units.
    They don't die under 50%, more like 20%. This basically makes the stack on either side stronger/last longer, but it's a 30 minute tic and my impression is that battles do not take as long, but I haven't killed/seen a large stack yet. This, in particualar, isn't a defensive advantage as it can apply to both sides. Healing low health units is a factor, but not a major one.
    they "begin" to die after 50% hp reached, there is a chance to kill some units from stack with under 50% hp. Some times i killed 1 or 2 untis, sometimes not.
    After reaching 20% they die qwicklier. After 10% almoast for sure.

    And yes, it is realistic. Read more about ww2...
  • f118 wrote:

    DxC wrote:

    OneNutSquirrel wrote:

    Not a single unit had been killed. I believe they will start dropping when under 50%...? This is not making much sense to me... As units got severely damaged, they would be merged into full strength units.
    They don't die under 50%, more like 20%. This basically makes the stack on either side stronger/last longer, but it's a 30 minute tic and my impression is that battles do not take as long, but I haven't killed/seen a large stack yet. This, in particualar, isn't a defensive advantage as it can apply to both sides. Healing low health units is a factor, but not a major one.
    they "begin" to die after 50% hp reached, there is a chance to kill some units from stack with under 50% hp. Some times i killed 1 or 2 untis, sometimes not.After reaching 20% they die qwicklier. After 10% almoast for sure.

    And yes, it is realistic. Read more about ww2...

    How is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war if I start attacking another army people die when they die, not after some magical amount of damage is done. If a tank is blown up it is done, it doesn't continue to fight because other tanks around it are not damaged.

    What most bothers me about this particular change to game mechanics is that it reduces the "chaos" factor in COW. My playing experience is heightened by not knowing exactly how a battle will turn out. If the new game mechanics reduces how "chaos" factors into battle results this is no more than a high digitized math test and except for a few of my geeky friends no one gets a dopamine rush taking a math test.
    Call Of War All-Time Wins Leader
    Top 20 player
    Frontline Pioneer
  • DxC wrote:

    [1] This is a bit off topic (philisophical?) but what I like about this game is thinking about what to do next, what to make, moving my units around optimally in battle, marching in the right direction, with the right troops, at the right time, and a lot more freaky stuff like that.


    [2] With the new unit paramaters, buildings, research etc, regarless of manpower shortage or broken convoys, it doesn't change any of that. It's still the same game at the core and still has the things I like.


    [3] They will adjust stuff, and of course there will always be stuff that needs fixed that don't get fixed, but that's still COW.
    [1] That is it. First you try it out, then you acquire some knowledge and do better, and ultimately, you discover stuff and become a better player. All the while playing with digital toy soldiers against other human players. FUN!
    And so many things to discover, before you can be a good player, but even fun without all that.
    All that makes for a challenging and fun game. Talking of COW 1.0. Don't get me wrong.

    So, [2] sounds like a valid point. It is the things I like in COW 1.0 too. But [2] also raises a few questions (if it were true) when you state: "it doesn't change any of that. It is still the same game".

    a. Why am I then more bored with my maps in COW 1.0, compared to before? (when multiple limitations on player interaction were put in place)

    b. Why am I truly bored shitless with the new COW 1.5?

    Logically, by using some elementary deduction methods, I must come to the following conclusion: It is not the same game!
    First the limitations, which are a profound change to a core characteristic of COW 1.0: choice.
    Now the new game, which seems to aim at simplification, again regressing on that core characteristic: choice!

    Part [3] of your seemingly valid points make me worry te most. If the core of the many things we liked in COW 1.0 has been changed, can adjustments be enough to fix this?
    Or is there something so fundamentally different about how COW 1.5 functions, that actually it simply lacks the attractions of COW 1.0; especially for players who played COW 1.0 for the freedom of choice?

    Of course, every game is designed with a set of rules to abide by. It can never be a complete copy of the wide range of possibilities in Real Life and choices will be limited to the given set.
    But some games have set themselves apart from the massive number of games being offered, by supplying a frame work that resembles the choices in Real Life better than others and where the given set of limits is not annoying.

    COW 1.0 is one of those games that did set itself apart where it comes to real time strategy.

    Unfortunately, COW 1.5 does not seem to be that kind of game. There is something wrong with it, be it lack of choice, mechanics, battle resolution, mismatching speeds of processes, realism of units and battle or who knows what. But I clearly sense something is 'off'.
    Something is 'off'; like when you open the fridge and smell something, but you don't know yet what it is. But you do know immediately something is 'off'.

    Long story short: COW 1.5 looks the same as COW, but it is fundamentally different, no matter which way you turn it, and I have yet to find out: what ís likable about this new game?

    The post was edited 3 times, last by vonlettowvorbeck ().

  • About research increasing hit points:
    I suppose the idea behind this is that battles shall take approximately the same time in both early and late game - which they otherwise wouldn't, due to the increase in attack/defense damage output. That indeed makes sense from gameplay perspective. However in Current-CoW it doesn't bother anyone that battles are a little bit shorter in late game, because there the damage output progression was kept realistically low.

    Anyhow, I welcome a slight HP increase for all units from armour tech tree (for tanks and tank destroyers a slightly bigger one), since armour plates were becoming thicker over time, engineers developed more robust components and inventions like tilted armour plates at the sides of tank turret or hull (causing a horizontally fired projectile to slide off) were made.
    Similarly a slight one for cruisers and a slightly bigger one for battleships.
    Also for strategic bombers, as they evolved into the so-called flying fortresses during early 1940s.
    But for all other units? Nope. That would be just too strikingly surreal.

    This way would appear realistic to my understanding:
    * Medium tanks, heavy tanks, tank destroyers: Highest level +75% HP compared to lowest level.
    * All other units from armour tech branch: Highest level +50% HP compared to lowest level.
    * Battleships: Highest level +75% HP compared to lowest level.
    * Cruisers: Highest level +50% HP compared to lowest level.
    * Destroyers and subs: Highest level +25% HP compared to lowest level.
    * Strategic bombers: Highest level +25% HP compared to lowest level.
    * All other units: No increase.

    That's a rough estimation, but my point is: Please don't give all units the same HP progression. For units from infantry tech tree it doesn't make any sense.
  • Citizenkane wrote:

    How is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war if I start attacking another army people die when they die, not after some magical amount of damage is done. If a tank is blown up it is done, it doesn't continue to fight because other tanks around it are not damaged.

    What most bothers me about this particular change to game mechanics is that it reduces the "chaos" factor in COW. My playing experience is heightened by not knowing exactly how a battle will turn out. If the new game mechanics reduces how "chaos" factors into battle results this is no more than a high digitized math test and except for a few of my geeky friends no one gets a dopamine rush taking a math test.
    Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. You don't want randomness on unit death but do on damage. I personally don't like randomness, I like to have a reasonable idea of outcome. In general, this isn't simulating a real battle with humans, it is just a computer program we have to learn.
  • vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

    Unfortunately, COW 1.5 does not seem to be that kind of game. There is something wrong with it, be it lack of choice, mechanics, battle resolution, mismatching speeds of processes, realism of units and battle or who knows what. But I clearly sense something is 'off'.
    Something is 'off'; like when you open the fridge and smell something, but you don't know yet what it is. But you do know immediately something is 'off'.
    I haven't played for a long time, but I get the impression the opponents are easy, even though they are still active. I think the lack of experienced players is what mainly makes it "boring" for more experienced players. I might be wrong though, and I'm interested in what else it might be. I'm not personally bored though, because I haven't played for awhile and it's all fresh.
  • f118 wrote:

    they "begin" to die after 50% hp reached, there is a chance to kill some units from stack with under 50% hp. Some times i killed 1 or 2 untis, sometimes not.After reaching 20% they die qwicklier. After 10% almoast for sure.

    And yes, it is realistic. Read more about ww2...
    Imagine you assemble 99 people, I will get a fire arm... if none of them die until 50% of of them have been fatally wounded, then you are correct, it is realistic. HOWEVER, if, people start dying as soon as they are fatally wounded (at 99%, 98%, 97%, etc.) then you can agree that you we're wrong.

    Deal?!?!
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • Merging here as it was in another thread

    I think it was already mentionned, but some more info on unit balancing specifically (the general rules, not the fine-details). I can't comment on ships since I see very little naval action.

    Terrain Preference

    - I think it is more newbie friendly now, especially the end of the -"50% HP in cities for armor". Only working with bonus (for infantry in city) rather than the malus in 1.0 (for tanks in cities and mountains) is just easier on new players.
    Keep that

    Attack&Defense
    - Unit stronger in attack than in defense needs to go. In CoW 1.0, it was exceptional and justified by the nature of the units (submarine and artillery), with one exception - the commando. In the new version, it is super common, with three negative impact :
    - You have a bonus in being active when attacked to do that one last minute move against the enemy moving against you. - It forces you to calculate whether you are better off with the province defense bonus or the attack bonus. Not cool.
    - Huge newbie trap. I can't count the number of players letting their Light Tank in defense.

    The previous system with some units being either "good in both" or "better in defense" worked very well, I feel like you broke something that worked.
    Also, some of the choice do not make much choice. Self-propelled anti-tank were NOT meant to be used in attack (except the Americans turreted tank destroyers, and even then only the Free French and the "Free Polish" troops used them as the tip of their arrows in 1944-1945), motorized infantry is more mobile but not supposed to attack "mounted" and thus better in defense in real life, etc.


    Speed
    - Units going faster each level is a good feature. Different unit level depending on your production level is a good feature. Sadly, both those feature mix terribly, since you need to check the speed of all unit and micromanage your stacks due to that.

    - For air, speed is not much of an issue, but range gets complex between different unit level. What I would do is align the range of the most commonly used planes (figher/n bomber / t bomber) when they have the same level so all level 3 planes have a range of 375 km/h and you don't need to be looking which units is shortening your range.

    - Foot infantry walking at 42 km/h at level 5. Come on…

    HP
    - Increasing HP by level is really weird and I keep calculating how much HP i have by unit of oil/MP/whatever I am lacking.

    - Early infantry are so bad compared to even level 2 infantry that you want them dead asap for the resource cost. Another problem
    In general, foot infantry are terrible compared to their manpower cost (motorized infantry are on the other hand OP but I guess it gonna be fixed)

    Holistic proposal to fix the issues above :

    Infantry (militia nd all 3 kinds of infantry, tbd for Commando/Para) automatically level-up when the new tech is found. That's the "special power" of infantry-type of units. This way, early units level-up if you make them survive, and the key advantage of the VERY costly infantry in manpower is that it will never become obsolescent. Yes, it is not as good as an armored unit of the same level for an higher price in Manpower, but it will help you 'till the end of the game.

    The only unit that gain speed when it levels-up is the LIGHT armor unit, eg the raiders and the units meant to go fast (+self propelled AA/AT/Arty, but that acceptable). That's the "special stuff" with light armor, they go faster as they level-up. Easy to remember, and since they are already the fastest unit you don't need to compare your various units to know which one to detach to go faster, it is always going to be the same "slow" unit.

    The only unit that gain HP when it levels-up is the (normal) armored unit, ie Tank Destroyers, Mid & Heavy Tanks units meant to, well, "tank". That's the "special stuff" with heavy armor, they are more sturdy as they level up. It will also allow less dramatic increase of HP : Tank destroyers moving from 120 to 360 HP (x3) is more acceptable than foot infantry moving from 35 to 210 HP (x7!!). IMO the "gap" should be x2 but that's balancing decision.

    Of course, other stats like attack/defense are still increased for all units.

    The only "gap" in the design are AT, AA, Artilery (and maybe Commando/Para units). Making them upgrade automatically would make the Ordonnance factory useless. So I would do one of the following :
    - remove the Ordonnance Factory fully and make AT/AA/Artillery have the same "auto-improve" as infantry,
    - keep the Ordonnance Factory and repurpose it (production speed for armor ?) and make AT/AA/Artillery have the same "auto-improve" as infantry,
    - keep them separated and follow current rules but no speed gain no HP gain. It will just be a little less clear for new users but still.
    - Create a new “support” category. Units have the same attack / defense versus support as they have versus unarmored (just add a “/“ in the attack/defense matrix of all units to clarify). The “special” stuff of support is that they are not special
  • Observation:
    Three CoW1.5 games, 30k plus rares on hand, one of them 70k rares.
    All three short on manpower.
    Suggestions:
    Switch some (if not all) of the research manpower costs back to rares.


    To further alleviate the manning crisis of CoW 1.5, adopt the
    'conscript' idea from Sone. Militia are conscripted with NO manpower requirements.
    However, the observed behavior in Sone was that both noobs and
    the AI would mass dozens of conscripts and march them down the
    roads at high speeds to attack enemy capitals.
    To prevent that behavior, set the maximum movement speed of the
    conscripted militia to 5km per hour.
  • WayneBo wrote:

    Observation:
    Three CoW1.5 games, 30k plus rares on hand, one of them 70k rares.
    All three short on manpower.
    Suggestions:
    Switch some (if not all) of the research manpower costs back to rares.


    To further alleviate the manning crisis of CoW 1.5, adopt the
    'conscript' idea from Sone. Militia are conscripted with NO manpower requirements.
    However, the observed behavior in Sone was that both noobs and
    the AI would mass dozens of conscripts and march them down the
    roads at high speeds to attack enemy capitals.
    To prevent that behavior, set the maximum movement speed of the
    conscripted militia to 5km per hour.

    playing 4 rounds. Almoast everywhere short on everything....
    (using market, buy and sell orders, developing economy and recruit new troops after each upgrade) please no drastically changes any more.... only slightly reduction of prices for some building in rural. Only slightly increase upkeep for upgraded units, only slightly increase of manpower base recruitingsnumber overall provinces.
  • Citizenkane wrote:

    f118 wrote:

    And yes, it is realistic. Read more about ww2...
    How is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war if I start attacking another army people die when they die, not after some magical amount of damage is done. If a tank is blown up it is done, it doesn't continue to fight because other tanks around it are not damaged.
    You play war game, not a shooter, you use army units, not single person units. Single military unit was counted as fully destroed, only if 100% manpower died or highnumber % of manpower died and units banner grabbed by enemy or unit was strong damaged and high command gave recommission order.

    As long banner, an officer and manpower over half company were able to fight, unit was not count as dead. Regiment counted 8 till 14 companies...
  • WayneBo wrote:

    Observation:
    Three CoW1.5 games, 30k plus rares on hand, one of them 70k rares.
    All three short on manpower.
    Suggestions:
    Switch some (if not all) of the research manpower costs back to rares.
    Wayne. I think the manpower (MP)/rare can be easily fixed. It's actually not that bad for me but I am limited by MP and I have a very strong economy. That said, I wonder if it should be "fixed". Such a resource limitation provides a great oportunity for precision strategy. Make the wrong thing (waste MP) and you will pay for it. I know they are trying to attract new people to the game but I'm not sure what will get people to stay. Like I said before, I think the basics of having to decide what to do, how to move units, etc is what makes the game attractive and that hasn't changed. I don't think reorganizing the units and buildings will make much differnce, but I'm often wrong. All these details would go right over the head of a new player and it wouldn't matter if they were playing 1.0 or 1.99999.
  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    About research increasing hit points:
    I suppose the idea behind this is that battles shall take approximately the same time in both early and late game - which they otherwise wouldn't, due to the increase in attack/defense damage output. That indeed makes sense from gameplay perspective. However in Current-CoW it doesn't bother anyone that battles are a little bit shorter in late game, because there the damage output progression was kept realistically low.
    Idea behind of increasing hit points is more realism in gameplay...

    "hit points" are not hitpoints. That is only virtual representation of combat survivability... And for sure each new generation of troops has more survivability and higher mobility and higher firepower.

    1. Speed of unit ingame is not speed of soldier. It is average speed of mobility of this unit, deployment, repairtimes of broken eqipement, movements to destination area and yeah, speed on battlefield themself.

    2. Firepower of military units counted more then handfirearms of soldiers in that unit. Infantry regiment type 1932 have not only 1000 springfields, but even some MG's each company, and some high caliber antiarmor rifles. And some anti tanks mines and grenades.

    3. Survability of militar units depend not only from numbers of soldier in unit, but even average health and weight of soldier is in promille size important. More important is personal equipement and first aids availebility.
    Most important is trained combat skills and use right combatformation and taktiks.


    Also example of stats upgrade. Infanty lvl 1 to infantry lvl 2.

    1. Regiment get some horsestransports for equipement. And gain average mobility boost.
    2. Instead of 99% springfields and 1% mgs and handgrenades for antitank defence, regiment use 80% springfields, 15% smgs, 3 % mg, 1 % antiarmored highcaliber rifle and 1% field mortar cal 56 mm. Plus some numbers of antitank mines.
    Firepower increased.
    3. Each platoon get own paramedic. Manpower slightly increased, regiment has 1 or two companies more. Training changed, officers use better taktiks. Dect telefon to each battallione make orders quicklier.
    Also survavibility increased.
    4. Not mentioned fight moral of recruits. 1932 are most recruit emloyless , not educated rabble, who run to military service for dinner and roof above.
    Next "upgrade" is political indocrination...


    You all who critisized version 1.5 on wrong side. (And for sure thre are many things wich run bad on version 1.5)

    Everything what you wrote ist wrong. Version except some mad changes, is more realistic, open more choice, open more strategies.

    You are not permitted to think, your point of view is sinlge right. You dont know history of ww2, nor history of military developement.

    1. Saying "it s impossible, because you've never seen, because you have never known it is" is not truth any way....

    The post was edited 4 times, last by f118 ().

  • DxC wrote:

    vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

    Unfortunately, COW 1.5 does not seem to be that kind of game. There is something wrong with it, be it lack of choice, mechanics, battle resolution, mismatching speeds of processes, realism of units and battle or who knows what. But I clearly sense something is 'off'.
    Something is 'off'; like when you open the fridge and smell something, but you don't know yet what it is. But you do know immediately something is 'off'.
    I haven't played for a long time, but I get the impression the opponents are easy, even though they are still active. I think the lack of experienced players is what mainly makes it "boring" for more experienced players. I might be wrong though, and I'm interested in what else it might be. I'm not personally bored though, because I haven't played for awhile and it's all fresh.

    This has usually always been the case. You have a small minority of people who understand the base mechanics, math, tweaks, and patches - And the majority of people who play casually. And a tiny bit in between. The best feedback could be gotten by setting up proper league games with some of the more experienced players and alliance matches, in combination with specific testing rounds. Even if the game is slightly broken-ish, with resource shortages, provided you quickly get what kills X and exploit Y, Z, D mechanics and are more active than the other person, you can win with relative ease. Though some of these changes are most likely for monetization reasons.

    What I just find annoying is the people providing feedback not based on game play, game philosophy, or what they are seeing happen in game and what they would like to see - But historical, real life, reality, this or that.

    I find it slightly more boring than the original version of Call of War which no longer exists. Part of it is that the current V1.5 play style is too similar to the original SP1914 for me, which I played for over a decade - Versus the original version of Call of War, which felt like a refinement of SP1914 with new mechanics and far more aggressive gameplay. So it doesn't really feel "New" or "Fresh" to me, it just feels like a repeat of old stuff.

    @f118

    f118 wrote:

    You all who critisized version 1.5 on wrong side. (And for sure thre are many things wich run bad on version 1.5)

    Everything what you wrote ist wrong. Version except some mad changes, is more realistic, open more choice, open more strategies.

    You are not permitted to think, your point of view is sinlge right. You dont know history of ww2, nor history of military developement.

    - Not really.

    - Call of War nor Bytro games have never been realistic historical games. Realistic or historical does not make fora better game. Call of War is a game that uses the second world war as a "Theme" and via unit descriptions and other things, uses them to teach very brief historical lessons.

    - Real life military development nor the history of world war two has any impact on the gameplay of this game. It's a inspiration - Not a realistic copy cat.

    - The reason many of us older players are annoyed by this is that we feel as if their are less options in general strategies and or mechanic manipulations. The game play over the years has been shifting to a Macro and Micro-Management, aggressive style, unused resources are wasted, be efficient to be defensive, be conservative, hold back, march slowly forward. Their are still options, yes, it's just not the preferred game type for a lot of people that have played these games hard core. But we are neither the target audience nor market for Bytro Labs games - Merely some of the more, vocal and louder people around.
  • Aesthetic Suggestion

    It would not be too difficult to add to the Tech Tree images of Units being researched, a symbol representing the Level of facilities needed to build that unit.

    Say in the Infantry Tech Tree, every image of the units Under their Level has an " * * for each level of building required to produce that particular unit. This would allow for much easier lining up of Research and Building requirements.

    I'm finding that they are not always ligning up with each other as I overbuild my research... or over research my buildings.

    It would look something like this.


    Research Tree Building.Ref
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
  • CzarHelllios wrote:

    The best feedback could be gotten by setting up proper league games with some of the more experienced players and alliance matches, in combination with specific testing rounds.
    That would be a good way to find bugs and hear a lot of anguish, but we are the top 5% or so so we're not top priority, rightly so. They are getting good data by collecting it from these basic games.