Call of War 1.5: Mechanics & New Balancing

    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:



      Factories in Captured Territory
      This again is another thing that disturbs the order of what was WWII. All Sherman tanks made during WWII were made in USA (with one facility in Canada). NONE of them were ever built in cities and factories USA captured in France, Italy, Africa, Pacific. Not a one. All were built in North America.

      So the concept of capturing facilities then making YOUR units elsewhere just doesn't belong in WWII history.


      For the record, the Germans produced units from their conquest (Czech Republic, but also Poland and France, I assume also Netherlands and Belgium but I am less sure) - and of course all countries recruited soldiers from their conquered territories.
    • I play it as a strategy game of course but it is how realistic it is that I think makes this game great. The designers might not think it is a simulation game and I think maybe that might not be the right word too but I am sure this thing being realistic is what makes it fun.
      Ryan
      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Major General
      Training Alliance Leader

      Picture: Contagious Disease ward Wuhan.



      Good Luck Wuhan
      加油武汉
    • freezy wrote:

      Yes, point taken, in this one case it will be easier in 1.0 to continue building troops than in 1.5. It is rather an edge case though (your enemy only conquering this one city and not any other resources provinces, you being out of resources already and the market or allies not providing any resources).
      No, we're not talking about an edge case. We're talking about the regular case "one of your core cities conquered".

      In CoW1.0 you lose:
      * 25% of your unit production capacities (option to produce Militia in provinces without IC doesn't really count, because they need 36 hours production time without IC which equals to 300 food lost for having barracks level 1 activated).
      * About 9% of your total resource income.
      * About 33% of your income of the specific resource that can be found in that city.

      In CoW1.5 you lose:
      * 25% of your unit production capacities (same).
      * About 20% of your total resource income.
      * About 80% of your income of the specific resource that can be found in that city.

      That's a significant difference. Even if you can take that city back, you will feel the shortage of that specific resource for one or two weeks, because you lost buildings and morale in it. In other words you're crippled for good. And previous speakers are right it's a flaw in gameplay. Take a core city from somebody else for a minute and he won't recover from that / you know you'll defeat him during the next week.
      Is a dirty tactic and really doesn't resemble WW2, but some fantasy shooter action game.
      Also nobody wants to wake up in the morning with a feeling of fear, because one of his cities might have been taken over night... which would mean he lost the game for sure and will make him feel the wish to abandon and archive it immediately.


      Anyhow, this gameplay issue is only one of the reasons why we're asking you to revert the centralization of resources into urban provinces. More important reasons are:
      * Realism. You said that urban provinces can be seen as the locations where raw materials are being processed. But processing raw materials is already represented by the resource production bonus that IC and (in CoW1.0) infrastructure give. Also there are enough villages, small and medium cities in the so-called rural provinces where raw materials were being processed. This did not exclusively happen in the four biggest metropolitan centres of a country. Even if that argument was valid, 90% of the players won't see it that way - intuitively you expect to get food mainly from large provinces with fertile plains or from coastal provinces where fishing can take place, oil from where the oil lies in the ground and not where the refinery stands, raw materials from some rural hill or mountain province. And if you play Poland, you expect your major steel province to be Krakow, not Warsaw. If you play Germany, you expect your major steel province to be Duisburg or Essen, not Munich, Hamburg or Berlin. And so on.
      The metropolises make up only a part of the economic power of a country. The bigger part originates from all the medium and small cities and from all the villages. Translated into CoW language: The bigger part comes from the rural provinces.
      * Less strategic decisions. In CoW1.0 you often had to think a lot which building to build at which priority in which province in order to improve your resource situation. Whereas in CoW1.5 you more or less have only one core province for each resource. So now you always know what to do. Level up IC in that province or leave it. It's a yes/no-decision now. Boring as hell and not satisfying.
      * It's just ugly. How can you be proud of your empire if it's basically made up of only 4 provinces?

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

    • Fully agree with Hans. I would add one problem with the centralisation of resource : in attack or in defense, the game becomes about defending your 4 cities, the rest is just distance to cross, ie "strategic depth". The only difference between core and non-core is the 15% defense bonus if you still own the territory (significant indeed).

      It means that I don't have arbitration between defending/attacking the cities and the province, if my opponent turtles (stockpile infantry in cities and put fortification), I can't have a strategy where I try to starve him or at least force him to sortie by taking his resources. I don't have those tense moment where for instance I need to defend/attack that specific chokehold because after that I know it is open country (for instance a province that connects to 3 or 4 new "enemy"/"core" provinces if conqureed).
      With only 4 important provinces, I don't have to make strategic choice or bets in defense : I can easily "defend everything"

      And this makes the game poorer. In my opinion, way poorer than any failure in balancing units you could have done in 1.5

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

    • I do want to see more historicall parts for this game. Because this game is more about violent and greedy and invade.

      This game's history established on the unit pictures, 2D models, nation border, newspaper pictures. Anything else?

      I was wondering why this game cant end up by successful diplomacy(without clear objective for each nation, only scores)? Maybe it's because this game is named as Call of War.

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

    • For example, Nazi Germany should declares war to Europe nations(depend on the year of that map) automatically after game started. Not declares war by players. If it is, it's a simulation. Not historical game. Give each faction clear goal. Once they achieved it. They(players) turn into AI(count as win game but loot less gold). Until the main goal, like Axis wins or Allies wins. End the game.

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

    • Atrax wrote:

      If they did make the game more realistic what would happen with atomic bomb and nuclear capabilities would only america get them.
      Then how about we watch how the game goes and not control the country ourselves? Or you can read a history book and not lead a country.
      Ryan
      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Major General
      Training Alliance Leader

      Picture: Contagious Disease ward Wuhan.



      Good Luck Wuhan
      加油武汉
    • Atrax wrote:

      If they did make the game more realistic what would happen with atomic bomb and nuclear capabilities would only america get them.
      What I suggested is to make game has right diplomacy and true style. Not just gain your power and take out the rest.

      By the way, it's possible that Nazi Germany make nuke before USA did.

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

    • Atrax wrote:

      What do you mean.
      I mean that you make history not the real WWII. You are the one that determine who will win not the real history.
      Ryan
      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Major General
      Training Alliance Leader

      Picture: Contagious Disease ward Wuhan.



      Good Luck Wuhan
      加油武汉
    • Ok, so I didn't really bother looking at all 29 pages... could someone tell me what's going on? I know there's such an update coming soon, but what are the details?
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • This was an update a while ago where many things have changed. So how about look at the first few pages because it is all similar after that. Tell us what you have seen and I will fill you in
      Ryan
      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Major General
      Training Alliance Leader

      Picture: Contagious Disease ward Wuhan.



      Good Luck Wuhan
      加油武汉