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.

  • More Data always better for the Number Crunchers... especially if the causes of KNOWN issues are already logged, once you Isolate those, you're left with new issues.... to add to those old issues.... then you can pick which issues you want to work on and which issues you want to ignore for now..

    Somebody got issues... That's all we know for sure.
    General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
  • DxC wrote:

    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.
    You clearly miss the point Citizenkane is making and in a grand strategy game ( cow 1.0 ) that took many years to develop to where it is today with the help of these forums and the many many many wonderful people who spent endless hours helping Bytro labs perfect ( cow 1.0 ) game mechanics that set a high standard of realistic military engagement between two forces. So again to repeat Citzenkanes question how is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war ? Because from my own experience when two opposing forces meet the shells fly and people die instantly ect with regards to the great game mechanics of (cow 1.0 ) ect if its not broken dont **** with it in the name of monetization because there are better ways to achieve that rather than going about ruining the great foundation of the game. With regards to your second quote is Citizenkane contradicting himself / Far from it and you could'nt be more wrong as the "chaos" factor after two opposing forces meet and whats left after that fact is whats dictates any commanders next strategy and tactic as in real life as in the great grand strategy (WWII game cow 1.0) If your happy DxC to be lead on a linear pathway to the outcome of your battles and gaming experience then yes the new ( cow 1.5 version ) is definitely for you and the market they want to go after ect do not think we have done it for you so just bring your credit card. LMFAO
  • f118 wrote:

    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.
    The opposite is true. The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans. The new green troops are always cannon fodder, due to lack of experience plus increasing desperation as the best-suited men have mostly already been used up in prior rounds of conscription.
  • CityOfAngels wrote:

    f118 wrote:

    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.
    The opposite is true. The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans. The new green troops are always cannon fodder, due to lack of experience plus increasing desperation as the best-suited men have mostly already been used up in prior rounds of conscription.
    Are you trolling me?
    If you recruit in one province new unit old type and same time in other provinse new unit of new type, because you have new weapons, equipements and militar school capability only for 1 regiment in only 1 province. They both have not veterans, but new type of troop has higher survivability....

    It is pity but CoW has not implemented veteran bonus. Also it has no advantages. But if veteran bonus would be implemented, then veterans unit only would get it. New unit of old type would not. Old units of old type without being in battle succesfully would not get veteran bonus either.

    Stop trolling...

    The post was edited 1 time, last by f118 ().

  • Tin Military wrote:

    you could'nt be more wrong as the "chaos" factor after two opposing forces meet and whats left after that fact is whats dictates any commanders next strategy and tactic as in real life as in the great grand strategy
    I guess this boils down to personal preference. Randomness is a big factor in real life and having to account for it in the game does add levels of complexity. However, I feel there is already a lot of randomness and unknowns in your opponents behavior. Trying to predict that keeps me pretty busy as it is. 1.5 still has some, but reduced, variance in battles, but for me the variance in 1.0 is too high and I find that unsatisfying. Again, it's just my preference and perhaps I'm in the minority.
  • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

    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


    Edit #8 - Discovered this statement in other Announcement Discussion entitled Call of War 1.5 - Urban Provinces & New Building dated 11/07/19

    "Production and research categories remain the same in the first Event, but will be expanded in later Events to give each production building its own production and research tab."


    So with that in mind, Devs, please accept the following post as simply a form of recommendation(s) on ways the new production and research tabs could be structured.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    This is a really good idea and highly recommend the Devs consider reworking the entire Tree now that there are individual manufacturing structures for each type of tech.

    In addition to OneNutSquirrel's concept above, I would like to recommend either adding an additional column to the far left of the Research Tree for each tab and/ or relocating some of the individual units from where they are presently located.

    To illustrate the concept, let's walk through the first two tabs:

    Infantry Tab

    A. The first five types of infantry units (militia - paratroopers) require Barracks in order to be produced.

    B. The next three types of infantry units (artillery - anti air) require Ordnance Factories in order to be produced.

    Adding a column to the far left designating this fact would be very helpful imho for the newer player, albeit for a more experienced player, the level of each type of structure is the more critical (pertinent) issue as pointed out by OneNutSquirrel that would be helpful to have added to each Research Tree Tab.

    Armor Tab

    In addition to illustrating the level of Tank Plant required for each type of armor, what with the new designation of Light Armor and Heavy Armor, this tab should be reworked entirely:

    To illustrate:

    A. Armored Car and Light Tank are now classified as "Light Armor", but with the addition of having to construct a Level One Tank Assembly, why should someone be "forced" into researching an AC first in order to then research an LT?

    The research requirement for each unit should now become independent of one another and tied directly to what level of Tank Plant is required to produce the unit.

    B. Medium Tank is now classified as "Heavy Armor", but has a requirement of having to research an LT first. Rather, the MT should now become independent of the LT (realistically, heavy armor would probably be assembled at an entirely different assembly plant (think trucks vs. sedans).

    Since level one MT's require a level two Tank Plant in order to be produced, that relationship should now be illustrated rather than having the research of a level one LT be the prerequisite, since an LT and MT are now classified differently.

    C. Heavy Tanks - the actual relationship between an HT and an MT is what level of Tank Plant is required and therefore the link arrow should drop down from the level two MT, rather than the level one MT. Again, this relationship illustrates (I believe) what OneNutSquirrel was suggesting. Both of these units would show that the same Tank Plant level was necessary in order to produce the Heavy Armor units and the relationship arrow dropping down from the level two MT to the level one HT would therefore be a more practical / accurate representation of the relationship between the two types of heavy armored tanks.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    The remainder of the Armor Research Tab is quite illogical what with the new classifications of Light and Heavy Armor.

    D. Tank Destroyers presently require the researching of a level one LT and the construction of a level two Tank Plant. The direct relationship with a level one LT now makes no sense whatsoever. At a minimum, the relationship would be to a level two LT since an LT lvl. 2 requires a level two Tank Plant.

    But with the new division of tank types, the tank destroyer should now be directly linked to a heavy armor unit such as an MT level one which has the same Tank Plant level 2 prerequisite.

    But even this relationship of requiring that an MT level one be researched first as a prerequisite, places an additional research burden on the player and therefore constricts rather than expands the opportunity for a player to implement multiple types of units (which I believe, is stated goal of the Devs for Version 1.5).

    Rather the relationship (the prerequisite for producing a level one tank destroyer) should be the Tank Plant level 2 only.

    E. The SP Units

    While designated as "light tanks", the actual prerequisite to produce the SP AA and SP Artillery is a level three Ordnance Foundry not a Tank Plant and to produce Mechanized Infantry a level three Barracks is the prerequisite.

    Side Note / Observation: the Mechanized Infantry listed within the Armor tab is by far a weaker version of the Motorized Infantry found within the Infantry Tab and should imho be reviewed by the Devs for its relevance to the game.

    To a new player this is not an intuitive relationship at all because all the other units of the Armor Tab require Tank Plants. A new player would think "all the other units that have an Ordnance Foundry prerequisite are on the Infantry Tab".

    Further research would discover/explain that the SP Units are classified as light armor and work best with the other light armor units. But the need of having a level 3 Ordnance Foundry (the prerequisite for producing SP units) is, while not confusing, certainly "lost" information without drilling down another layer.

    Having the additional column illustrating the real prerequisite (lvl. 3 Ordnance Foundry) would aid almost everyone imho.

    Additionally, because the units are classified as light armor, the three SP units should be relocated to directly underneath the Light Tank row.

    A different colored background would suffice to differentiate between light and heavy armor, but here is where the need to add an additional column which designates the actual prerequisite (the type of building structure required) is best illustrated.

    Sure, performing a thorough research / review of all the various choices first would help, but I can tell you from first hand experience, that even in the tutorial game, I was attacked within the first hour and had little time to "learn" about the various units first.

    It took days ( a lot of hours) of flipping through all the research tabs in order to be able to understand the various unit configurations, the prerequisites for each and the logic surrounding the Research Tree.

    And now with Version 1.5, it appears to be the right time for the Devs to evaluate and adjust the Research Tree to conform more logically and clearly to what the actual prerequisites for production of the individual units really are.

    This readjustment of research prerequisites would also help with the manpower issues everyone is dealing with in their V 1.5 games and may actually help speed up the initial phase of the game somewhat.
    wb

    The post was edited 9 times, last by white bird: 1. Modified the term tank structure to tank plant and corrected misspellings 2. Corrected misspelling 3. Corrected misspelling 4. Restructured item C last sentence. 5A. Revised the stated prerequisites for the SP Units to correctly state that the Mechanized Infantry prerequisite is a lvl. 3 Barracks rather than a lvl. 3 Ordnance Factory. 5B. Added Side Note. Edit #8 - see top of post ().

  • 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)
    @f118

    First off: In an open society with freedom of speech, no one is on the 'wrong' side.
    Amazing that one dares to state such a thing.

    Secondly, you may have a completely different departure point than many of the players commenting here.
    For instance, for players who use a lot of gold, as opposed to others using moderate to little gold, the changes in the game work out completely different. Maybe that is why, for instance, you do like certain changes and others don't.
    Because something works for you, that doesn't make the points of the other players less valid.

    Third, it seems rather obvious that, after I did some counting through the threads, the majority of posters is not happy with COW 1.5. Not as a separate game and especially not if it is going to replace COW 1.0.
    It is rather daring to then say: you are all wrong, because it works for me and like that.
  • Having spend some thought on what it is with COW 1.5, I feel that there should be two separate focus points in the discussions.

    One being the fundamentals and the other being the tweakable details.
    The latter being a discussion which should be always ongoing and that will never be over. Tweaks, buffs, de-buffs; when a game evolves, new units are added etc., there will always be new 'tweaking'.

    The discussion on fundamentals of COW 1.5 and the fundamental differences with COW 1.0 is nevertheless being snowed under in the tweakable details.

    Further and more importantly, we should focus on what it is that should be achieved with COW 1.5 and that is not achieved by COW 1.0.
    This is equally important for the players as for the game designers.

    I am sure Bytro does not embark on a development path of a virtually new game, without having a set of goals.
    And, everybody here will agree that COW 1.0 is a very good game, so, clearly, COW 1.5 is supposed to fix something, which was not fixable within COW 1.0.
    Probably it is only when the departure point and goals of the designers are understood, that this new game can be judged on its merits.

    For the time being, all my thoughts don't change that the new game feels somewhat 'broken-ish' as CzarHellios put it politely. And tweaks will only be able to do so much, since they do not touch on the fundamentals.

    My fear is that the lack of attraction of COW 1.5 is in its fundaments.
    As is, I feel like we are guinea pigs in a test lab, on which a new medicine is being tried out, but none of the guinea pigs knows what it is for, while suffering through the complications.
    It could serve both players and designers to clarify a bit of the purpose: what is COW 1.5 fixing that could not be fixed in COW 1.0?

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

  • vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

    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)
    @f118
    First off: In an open society with freedom of speech, no one is on the 'wrong' side.
    Amazing that one dares to state such a thing.

    Secondly, you may have a completely different departure point than many of the players commenting here.
    For instance, for players who use a lot of gold, as opposed to others using moderate to little gold, the changes in the game work out completely different. Maybe that is why, for instance, you do like certain changes and others don't.
    Because something works for you, that doesn't make the points of the other players less valid.

    Third, it seems rather obvious that, after I did some counting through the threads, the majority of posters is not happy with COW 1.5. Not as a separate game and especially not if it is going to replace COW 1.0.
    It is rather daring to then say: you are all wrong, because it works for me and like that.
    is it ok for your "side" (i dont even knew we are have here opposite sides) if you say it is impossible that military unit dont even begin to be desroyed till reaching 50% manpower? Is it ok for you to say in battle of two 10 regiments strong divisions they lose whole regiment each time, if every regiment lost 10 % own manpower? Is it ok for your "side" to troll you would glad make a test and shooting on me with a gun, to see when I beginn to die?

    Is it ok for your side to say that two recruited same time but different generation units, the outdated one get immediatly veteran bonus and should be stronger then modern developed one?
    Is it ok for you dont understand me, but answer aggressive?
    Is it ok for you to count few very loud forum user for mainstream of whole game automatically?
    Is it ok for you to say mainstream has every time right, even if is wrong?
  • DxC wrote:

    You mentioned fundamentals several times, but you never defined what you mean by that. What exactly are you refereing to?
    Some fundamentally different approaches in COW 1.5:

    - units, roles, purpose
    Units are now very single purpose. Only attack or defense capability, which limits the number of possible approaches to a sound and realistic army build up.
    Example: Having an army with tanks and AC, AC should better drop out of the army before the attack and tanks must withdraw from defense before the army is being attacked, because of their single-sided capabilities
    This fits the simplified rock-paper-scissor scheme. That is wel understood.
    But does it make for a better game, challenge or for more fun? I beg to differ.

    - buildings choices
    Predetermined along a few lines due to limited building choices and other constraints.
    Why do we need separate factories for separate weapon types, when the distinction can also be made by other means than single industrial buildings?
    Like a unit on the map is not representing 1 soldier, but a regiment with multiple capabilities, industrie should not represent 1 factory, but an industrial area.
    E.g. have a multipurpose weapon factories complex and let the determination of choices run over research and/or over added choices: X+harbour = can build ships, or X+airfield = can build airplanes, or X+infra = can build armored vehicles, given the research has been completed.
    And then the unnatural feel of IC's for manpower production; yes manpower is a resource, but treating at as if it were steel or grain is a bit off.

    - research
    Whether one likes it or not, some posts were quite accurate when comparing leveling to Pokemon-style evolutions

    - army composition
    Predetermined along a few lines due to limited building choices and other constraints, as well as by short to mid-term goals.

    - battle resolution
    First exploits are on the table for active players in the know. No need to focus on def vs attackers; just wait until last 30 secs before attack and (sounds contradicting) counter-attack first with your attack focused army.
    What follows next is an easily computed, fast battle-tick driven, exchange of simplified stat-based fire, which is not half as interesting as in the previous version.

    - strategy
    2 extreme options only; compromise surely leading to your demise. What is left is planning, but that is not too complicated, given the lack of choices.
    Also the fact that I don't even need spies to see what my neighbor is trying too cook up, because I can see which buildings he has. With that, his army composition is a give away as well as his level of units. Combine that with newspaper reports on economy and war-info and you even know how many of what he still has.
    No element of surprise (again that level of predictability /predetermined outcome)


    It boils down to:
    Having this current level of predetermination (limited choices) and predictability (simplified mechanics) in COW 1.5 simply limits the player's choices and forces you in a limited number of directions.
    In COW 1.5 I only do 2 types of factories and 3 types of weaponry: no time and resources to build and research the others in the beginning to mid-game. And after mid-game it doesn't matter anymore.

    In comparison COW 1.0 had a wealth of choices to be made and alternatives to turn to in case of need.
    In COW 1.0 there were always options to change things for the better.
    In COW 1.5 you find yourself in a tough spot and then it spirals downward fast.


    This 1.5 is somewhat uninspiring! (this statement is submitted to 'The Understatement of the Year Contest').

    As such, I am eagerly looking forward to what 1.5.1 brings us. However, given the many aspects that are over-simplifying the one thing, while over-complicating the other, I actually hope the next test round will see us testing 1.6.

    (to clarify what I mean by 1.6: hope to see some fundamental changes and not only tweaks, which bring a bit more choice, inspiration and challenge back into the game. why? because I totally forgot to log in to my games for 36 hours)

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

  • f118 wrote:

    vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

    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)
    @f118First off: In an open society with freedom of speech, no one is on the 'wrong' side.
    Amazing that one dares to state such a thing.

    Secondly, you may have a completely different departure point than many of the players commenting here.
    For instance, for players who use a lot of gold, as opposed to others using moderate to little gold, the changes in the game work out completely different. Maybe that is why, for instance, you do like certain changes and others don't.
    Because something works for you, that doesn't make the points of the other players less valid.

    Third, it seems rather obvious that, after I did some counting through the threads, the majority of posters is not happy with COW 1.5. Not as a separate game and especially not if it is going to replace COW 1.0.
    It is rather daring to then say: you are all wrong, because it works for me and like that.
    is it ok for your "side" (i dont even knew we are have here opposite sides) if you say it is impossible that military unit dont even begin to be desroyed till reaching 50% manpower? Is it ok for you to say in battle of two 10 regiments strong divisions they lose whole regiment each time, if every regiment lost 10 % own manpower? Is it ok for your "side" to troll you would glad make a test and shooting on me with a gun, to see when I beginn to die?
    Is it ok for your side to say that two recruited same time but different generation units, the outdated one get immediatly veteran bonus and should be stronger then modern developed one?
    Is it ok for you dont understand me, but answer aggressive?
    Is it ok for you to count few very loud forum user for mainstream of whole game automatically?
    Is it ok for you to say mainstream has every time right, even if is wrong?
    Let me say this in a way you understand...

    Is it okay for you to disagree with someone without overstating the games relationship with reality?
    Is it okay that the majority of forum respondents do not agree with your position?
    Is it okay to respond to people who disagree with you, without calling them "troll" or "kid"?
    Is it okay that everyone who wishes to gives feedback, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, as Bytro asked for?
    Killings my business, and business is good!
  • Day 14: I am in first place on one of the 2 first 1.5 maps opened. I had other games going so I just opened the round once or twice a day just to max out my que with tanks in the cities that started with tank factories. I’ve only researched light tanks and tank destroyers past level 1. I’ve invested almost nothing into resource production. I understand part of the issue may be that the other players are less experienced. But to not even really be trying. I shouldn’t be in 1st place. Generally I have to try just a little bit to not lose, even against the npc nations.
    I’ve no issue with the new structures or the new tech tree layout. Having every resource to be required to build anything I feel needs to be brought back to the table and discussed as well as some of the unit stats.
    In my opinion, the new version is more about spamming troops rather than having a grand strategy.
    Save the goldfish! They need your help! Goldfish are trapped in small bowls all across the globe!
  • Zippofish wrote:

    I’ve invested almost nothing into resource production.
    Same here.
    Industry is the only building that enhances resource and manpower
    production, but not by enough to make the investment worthwhile.
    For example:
    Building a level 2 Industry in a home oil city at 100% morale
    increases the oil production by only 825per day, at the cost of 3000 oil,
    1600 manpower, and 5100 other resources.
    The increase in manpower is 150 per day.
  • f118 wrote:

    CityOfAngels wrote:

    f118 wrote:

    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.
    The opposite is true. The most survivable troops on the battlefield are the veterans. The new green troops are always cannon fodder, due to lack of experience plus increasing desperation as the best-suited men have mostly already been used up in prior rounds of conscription.
    Are you trolling me?If you recruit in one province new unit old type and same time in other provinse new unit of new type, because you have new weapons, equipements and militar school capability only for 1 regiment in only 1 province. They both have not veterans, but new type of troop has higher survivability....

    It is pity but CoW has not implemented veteran bonus. Also it has no advantages. But if veteran bonus would be implemented, then veterans unit only would get it. New unit of old type would not. Old units of old type without being in battle succesfully would not get veteran bonus either.

    Stop trolling...
    I'm sorry you don't understand realistic war conditions, but please refrain from attacking people who do. It's just ironic.
  • Tin Military wrote:

    DxC wrote:

    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.
    You clearly miss the point Citizenkane is making and in a grand strategy game ( cow 1.0 ) that took many years to develop to where it is today with the help of these forums and the many many many wonderful people who spent endless hours helping Bytro labs perfect ( cow 1.0 ) game mechanics that set a high standard of realistic military engagement between two forces. So again to repeat Citzenkanes question how is it realistic that troops only die off after 50%. In real war ? Because from my own experience when two opposing forces meet the shells fly and people die instantly ect...
    I haven't really passed judgement on the "inf units survive until the whole stack drops below 50%" notion yet, but I'm leaning towards viewing it favorably. It deals with an exploit or two in a way that may prove to work, and it isn't unrealistic. Remember that these aren't individual soldiers in a stack of 10 men (such that a random piece of shrapnel will tend to result in one instantly-dead troop), it's battalions or divisions or whatever - Tens of thousands of men. One artillery barrage doesn't wipe out a whole division of troops, it reduces the effectiveness of all the divisions along that front. Eventually those 10 divisions may have lost 50% of their combat effectiveness, but they will all still exist as divisions. If the battle is eventually won or they retreat out of range of the guns, over time with R&R they could recover to a reasonable level of effectiveness and be redeployed.

    So my final verdict will likely be based on how the change affects game-play against competitive opponents (especially in air superiority battles, but also certain melee battles where a defender could exploit splash damage mechanics by splitting in to many single stacks), and I haven't had a chance to assess that yet.
  • CityOfAngels wrote:

    One artillery barrage doesn't wipe out a whole division of troops, it reduces the effectiveness of all the divisions along that front.
    Yea, when a "unit" "dies" it doesn't really die. It's HP (imaginary soldiers etc) are redistributed to other divisions. So for those for which realism is important, it's not a question of when they die, but when the division is disolved and redistributed to other nearby divisions. I like the new method because it adds some depth/complexity in that you can estimate how low your little dudes might go and plan accordingly for the medics.

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