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.

  • Having discussed it with the players, it still remains a mystery to all what COW 1.5 is supposed to add or is fixing, which COW 1.0 did not provide or which couldn't be fixed in COW 1.0.

    Understandable goals could be:
    • Player retention/Combating inactivity rates =>
      • making the game play more interesting with an understandable learning curve
      • offering a level playing field, pulling players in to play and to keep playing and progress
      • offering incentives, like cool badges (S1914) and rewards for achievements (COW 1.0)
    • Monetization/Creating more revenues =>
      • making it feel worthwhile to invest proper RL-money in a virtual world
      • make players want to support the game with RL-money because they love it
      • make players want to win above their level (for which they must first learn to like the game)


    Unfortunately for COW 1.5, there is a huge difference in activity in the test games compared to the COW 1.0 games I am in. And I am not observing this with the random User1234567 players (they behave normally and go inactive als always), but especially with the normally more active players.

    As is, the game has changed profoundly, but nothing seems to be fixed or added; on the contrary, because:
    • seasoned players are less interested to play and
    • new players go inactive as always (or more often even? Only Bytro could assess that properly)



    Thusly awaiting, and eagerly so, COW 1.6:
    • with more than just tweaks of the now existing stuff in 1.5.
    • with more options for moral and economic/industrial management.
    • with more realistic stats for the units = less extreme differences between att vs def.
    • with more realistic research progress.
    • with a set of progressively difficult tutorial maps for new players; possibly each with a good gold reward to get them accustomed to using gold (first compensating for their still lacking skill and later getting them to buy, because they are accustomed to it)
    • an attractive HC package, offering what is most needed for most: automation of certain manual functions, allowing for more off-line time (or practically: HC as it used to be in COW 1.0, but feel free to be creative and add something new).


    Naturally, the intended tweaks for 1.5 should be incorporated in 1.6:
    • if manpower will be required for everything, than we need higher output and/or lower cost and/or more options to improve output to keep the game playable.
    • for different techs, techs should be more differentiated in requirements, because now nobody look at the resource or research requirements, except manpower.
    • except for the faster battle-tick, the game has slowed enormously, chasing new and old players away alike. Maybe output tweaks can solve that?
  • If the changes towards building levels tied to researched unit levels are here to stay, why not get rid of research altogether at this point and make the buildings even more profound than they already are? If you cannot build let's say level 3 infantry at level 1 barracks anyway, why not make like 10 levels of barracks, ordonance factories and stuff which give you all the different units at different levels, like you get mech. infantry starting at barracks level 3, but only if you also have your tank factory at level 3 as well?
    The balance is a complete mess anyway right now and since you want to change this game for reasons unknown, you might as well do something like this. You want to give the players more choices anyway, this would go along nicely.

    But seriously, I just completed my 1.5 round and I must say, this feels iffy to put it mildly. Some things coming to mind right now:

    ACs have been changed to be DEFENSIVE units while still being one of the fastest on plains, yet their description doesn't even match their newlyfound purpose, since they're not really that much faster than plain old infantry in forests/hills (36 kph vs 30 kph, the difference gets wider with each level of course, yet the gaps don't get too wide imho) so if you're really in need of quick defenses, you'd be force-marching your reinforements anyhow, am I right? And you wouldn't be relying on ACs only anyway, because if your enemy attacks with TDs or MTs, it'd be plain stupid to throw even more armor in there. I can't wrap my head around why the entire doctrine of the ACs has been put upside down.

    LTs being terrible in defensive position same thing. Doesn't make sense. I just skipped them entirely and went for MTs since they're usable in any situation. I've seen an MT level 3 roll over 4 units (2 Inf, 1 AA, 1 LT, all level 1) and only losing a mere 14% of it's HP. The heavy armor makes them considerably more powerful.

    Transport ships have become incredibly strong, a convoy of only 6 units with no escort could just sink a submarine of mine and severely damage two more without a lot of effort and with minimal losses, until my cruisers could rid me of this threat! 6 units turned my coastal defense into an emergency situation! 6! They're essentially free destroyers now, put enough troops together and watch them break through any kind of fleet! This diminishes the purpose of having a navy almost completely imho, since you'll get more milage by using them for shore bombardment, before the troops have a chance to turn into convois. That's just ridiculous! No wonder why everyone's praising the destroyers now for being able to damage units and buildings. (I just went for cruisers since they're still a compromise between destroyers and BBs, I was also the only player to have a navy at all)

    ATs have quite low HP when compared to their armored opponents. They may have high numbers in defenses, yet because of their low HP their SBDE will diminish rapidly, making the battle much more even than it should be. I've seen an AT lose against an AC (on a plain, but still).

    I may add some more points, but I can't think of more right now.

    Cheers!
  • GaiusUltima wrote:

    we want to continue with CoW 1.5 because we believe in it.
    In my opinion, this is not the right decision - I would rather invest effort in building a good CoW 1.1.
    But now that this is decided, I'll also focus on ideas how to improve 1.5.

    First of all, about the improvements research does to units, I suggest the following:

    damage vs grounddamage vs airHPspeedupgrade costsresearch costsSBDE limit
    AA+200%+300%+25%+0%mediumlow4
    artillery and AT+200%+25%+25%+0%mediumlow3
    militia, infantry, commandos+200%+25%+25%+0%lowmedium3
    mot. infantry+200%+25%+25%+50%mediummedium3
    SPAA+150%+300%+75%+50%highhigh4
    other armour+150%+25%+75%+50%highhigh3
    fighters+300%+300%+0%+125%highhigh3
    tactical bombers+300%+200%+25%+125%highhigh3
    strategical bombers+300%+200%+50%+125%highhigh3


    Explanation:
    "damage vs ground/air": How much more damage does a unit of highest level do compared to a level 1 unit.
    "HP": How much more HP does a unit of highest level have compared to a level 1 unit.
    "speed": How much faster is a unit of highest level compared to a level 1 unit.
    "upgrade costs": How much resources/money does it cost to upgrade a unit on the field. Note this is meant relative to the production costs - for example upgrading a heavy tank should cost more than upgrading a light tank.
    "research costs": How much does it cost to research all levels of this unit.
    "SBDE limit": How many units of this type (regardless of level) can be included in one stack without SBDE penalty.


    Of course all values to be understood as a guideline - giving single units a slightly different progression would be OK.

    Also somebody with very good historical knowledge may correct some of the values, but I'm convinced that everything far away from them wouldn't be realistic.

    Having done the above, remove progression in production costs, production times and production facility requirements. Concerning the latter: Tank plant level 1 should be required for all light armour, level 2 for MT&TD, level 3 for heavy tanks - rather than higher building levels for higher research levels... and then of course same principle for other tech trees as well.

    We'll then have
    * Realistic units.
    * Army compositions with broad variety of units thanks to SBDE counting per unit instead of looking at total stack size - see my argumentation in --> this post <--.
    * No need to give dedicated offense/defense roles to units. Which is important, because these are neither good for realism, nor for gameplay. @Chimere already said all about this (good man :thumbup: ).
    * An interesting unit/research tree in which it won't be easy for players to find a surefire-always-works approach as it can be found easily in CoW1.5. All units following an identical upgrade pattern would make them very boring and also take the strategic challenge away.
  • Also note that with the above progression values, each unit would have it's charme:
    * Dragged units: Low research costs.
    * Infantry: Low upgrade costs.
    * Armour: Speed and HP progression, but also high upgrade and research costs.
    * Airforce: Speed & range progression and a heavy damage output progression, but also high upgrade and research costs.

    P.S.: I did not by mistake give airforce the most attractive progression - it should play a stronger role in late game than it does in early game... because that's the evolution that happened during 1932 to 1950.
  • So I played 1 round of the Event game. While in general I like the added complexities of unit creation (you now have to do a ton of building upgrades as well. What frustrated me was the amount of complexity had increased to a point that I almost needed to have to take notes to play the game. So first comment: To complex, and I'm a pretty serious gamer.

    Second complaint, it seemed like everytime I tried to do anything I was being asked to pay up in gold. That sucked. In fact, it leads me to believe that the main force behind the changes is coaxing a little more cash from players. In other words, I hate to see the game evolve to a point that only those who pay big can win a game.

    In a nutshell, theres some very good changes. But I think what is still missing is the correct balance. Balance is everything. I'll try another game and see how it goes.

    If I had never played COW, I would love COW 1.5. But at this point, I prefere COW.
  • WayneBo wrote:

    SBDE for warplanes is meaningless, due to overlapping patrols.
    ??
    If you split a stack of planes into two stacks patrolling over the same spot, they will receive two times defensive fire each 15 minutes from enemies within their patrol circle. While doing the same attack damage as the larger stack would have done... as long as the number of planes of specific type in that larger stack doesn't exceed the SBDE limit of (currently) 5 planes. So SBDE for planes makes an essential difference.


    WayneBo wrote:

    No Navy in this version of CoW?
    Didn't have time so far to add them to my chart.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Hans A. Pils ().

  • white bird wrote:

    Regarding retiring a game.

    Is there a specific day after which this option is available?

    I'm in a V1.5 game with only three players (Day 17) and haven't seen the option to retire posted in the newspaper yet.

    tia
    Event games cannot be retired they play until the time limit is up or someone wins because 1.5 games are events games I'd assume they too would go until the time limit or someone wins the match
    Dante Bugler1
    Game Operator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
  • Lennfys wrote:

    I'm so hype and i'm waiting this soundback, i'm waiting it since soooo long !
    That is not in this thread and you will not need to wait any further after Wednesday (Tomorrow) Updates.

    Hans A. Pils wrote:

    GaiusUltima wrote:

    we want to continue with CoW 1.5 because we believe in it.
    In my opinion, this is not the right decision - I would rather invest effort in building a good CoW 1.1.But now that this is decided, I'll also focus on ideas how to improve 1.5.
    Yes! Exactly, you can put call of war 1.1 but not 1.5. It is named wrongly in the first place, it is a major change and it feels like that you are not even in the same game which does not even make 2.0 fit for this update. I know that Call of War 1.5 is really important to the developers and that you spend a lot of time on it, you have to understand what the players think after 22 pages of this thread. What I suggest is that you can make a new game out of it. Perhaps Call of War2 which will not be here. You can also make different parts of the game. You can have 1.5 live but not in all games, you will have twice the game with one portion 1.0 and other 1.5. I personally think that 1.5 is too big of the change and it changes the game itself which is really frustrating. Although some parts are pretty good but they can be counted as the Call of War "1.0"
    Ryan
    EN/ES/FR Forum Member
    Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
    Forum Lieutenant General
    Training Alliance Leader

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Ryan04px2025: Arcorian changed the Update time. ().

  • Im playing the 1.5 Event & so far I like some of it Because it Makes it more Realistic , but like real life we should be able to Disband/Disassemble The lower lvl Units as we Lvl up our troops. Plus I think the Refueling times of Planes are way too long, They can be Overrun before they Refuel. I had one instance where my planes were taking over an hour to refuel?. Just some Suggestions as we move forward
  • Another thought on these lines that I believe would simplify some of the added complexities and costs is to allow more than 1 unit to be created at a time in a city. For example, I build a tank plant early in the game and produce tanks. Mid game I need to develop air power and build an air factory. At this point I have two factories but still can only build one unit. More realistic is to be able to produce a unit from each factory in the same city at the same time.
  • Balhog wrote:

    Another thought on these lines that I believe would simplify some of the added complexities and costs is to allow more than 1 unit to be created at a time in a city. For example, I build a tank plant early in the game and produce tanks. Mid game I need to develop air power and build an air factory. At this point I have two factories but still can only build one unit. More realistic is to be able to produce a unit from each factory in the same city at the same time.
    Agree 100% ... Perhaps in some of the larger urban centers (e.g. VP > 15) this should be allowed ... :thumbup:
  • Mid-game status report:

    Nothing happened. We should be end-game by now, but nobody bothered to progress much. 216 points to go, but at this rate of progress, caused by lacking activity of otherwise active players, it will take another week.

    Not that the coalition members don't have the manpower or that targets would pose a problem; seems like nobody is motivated to move his troops.

    Myself? I went inactive again, for 3rd time I think. Something which never happens to me in COW 1.0.
  • Day 19: still leading the game. I’ve invested a little bit into building some level 1 tank factories just to produce closer to the front.
    After reading a few more opinions on 1.5, I’ve realized today that not only have I gained and held 1st place by just spamming light tanks, but due to the fact I’ve not upgraded my factories, even though I’ve researched higher levels of the light tank.. I’m winning using level 1 light tanks. Can’t quite be sure if the issue is inexperienced opponents or if 1.5 has lost all reason to create any sort of tactic.
    Any other 1.0 match I would have been completely destroyed using these tactics.
    Save the goldfish! They need your help! Goldfish are trapped in small bowls all across the globe!
  • Zippofish wrote:

    Day 19: still leading the game. I’ve invested a little bit into building some level 1 tank factories just to produce closer to the front.
    After reading a few more opinions on 1.5, I’ve realized today that not only have I gained and held 1st place by just spamming light tanks, but due to the fact I’ve not upgraded my factories, even though I’ve researched higher levels of the light tank.. I’m winning using level 1 light tanks. Can’t quite be sure if the issue is inexperienced opponents or if 1.5 has lost all reason to create any sort of tactic.
    Any other 1.0 match I would have been completely destroyed using these tactics.
    A mixture of both.

    V1.5 favours Infra/LT(Or AC)/Arty as the primary approach and trying to always be the defender.
  • Zippofish wrote:

    Day 19: still leading the game. I’ve invested a little bit into building some level 1 tank factories just to produce closer to the front.
    After reading a few more opinions on 1.5, I’ve realized today that not only have I gained and held 1st place by just spamming light tanks, but due to the fact I’ve not upgraded my factories, even though I’ve researched higher levels of the light tank.. I’m winning using level 1 light tanks. Can’t quite be sure if the issue is inexperienced opponents or if 1.5 has lost all reason to create any sort of tactic.
    Any other 1.0 match I would have been completely destroyed using these tactics.
    Im playing 4 maps of cow 1.5 and i meet several ppl that were spamming light tanks like you and crushed them all in the first 4 days.. so id say you just got lucky with bad opponents. Im also leading all the 4 maps with the simply strategy to keep doing the highest lvl of troop possibile with the given time and investing resources in few urban provinces.. but the game is so boring that i could actualy solo win all those maps but i dont really care i guess i will wait for the time to end.
  • CzarHelllios wrote:

    Zippofish wrote:

    Day 19: still leading the game. I’ve invested a little bit into building some level 1 tank factories just to produce closer to the front.
    After reading a few more opinions on 1.5, I’ve realized today that not only have I gained and held 1st place by just spamming light tanks, but due to the fact I’ve not upgraded my factories, even though I’ve researched higher levels of the light tank.. I’m winning using level 1 light tanks. Can’t quite be sure if the issue is inexperienced opponents or if 1.5 has lost all reason to create any sort of tactic.
    Any other 1.0 match I would have been completely destroyed using these tactics.
    A mixture of both.
    V1.5 favours Infra/LT(Or AC)/Arty as the primary approach and trying to always be the defender.
    Ni. LT are absolutely terrible in 1.5 due to their awful defense and awful antiarmor performance.


    Motorized Infantry is OP, and tank destroyers while not OP absolutely chews through LT.