New resource - Aluminum

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

    • New resource - Aluminum

      Greetings to all,

      Today I want to comment on an idea that I have had for a long time, add as a new resource aluminum and with this reduce the production of metals to balance.

      Why add aluminum?

      I have been playing Call of war games for a long time, and I have always noticed that the most experienced players always end up abusing the same tactics, the mass production of airplanes.

      It is common, among experienced players to use massive amounts of tactical bombers, this is because it is the most efficient way to eliminate enemy ground troops receiving little damage in return. In addition, if you add to that its great mobility, it is practically impossible to move troops overland to enemy territory without them being exterminated halfway.

      On certain maps, I have seen extreme cases where 2/3 of the enemy army is made up of only airplanes.

      Now, what is the idea of implementing aluminum? The idea is to limit the amount of airplanes that players can produce, and so, these should give other use to metals, such as ground forces, fortifications or the navy.

      The abuse of airplanes for my liking is something quite frustrating, because, as someone who likes to use balanced combat tactics, little can be done to counter a massive amount of tactical bombers if you don't have the same amount of interceptors to be able to lead with they.

      I hope developers will one day look at this post and realize the need for this change.

      Regards!
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • I disagree but it's a good suggestion indeed.

      You know adding another material is actually a huge new update to the game because it's not additional like chat, indirect like embark times etc but it builds up at the center, the heart of the game: economy. This can change the game deeply (which is what you referred to actually, tactics).

      On the other hand, I see very little legit reasoning behind such a big addition. Whatever you referred to is just personal preferences. Sure, they may be abusing the same tactics but it's still a tactic. You can do it too, if you manage to. The game itself is repetitive without new tactics, yes. But you have many things to do against that unless you are the one using the same tactics. As long as it's not ruining the whole game in some way (not round, game) it is still a tactic and it's just your personal dislike.

      Plus I think we have got all the basic resources we could want for this game to be realistic. Food, goods, manpower, metal, oil, rare material and money. Aluminium, on the other hand, is far beyond basic also adds a whole new resource to keep in track of.

      TL;DR Big suggestion, little reasoning.(also additional)

    • On version 1.5, aircrafts use "aluminium" (wich counted as rare good, like silk for parashoutes of paratroopers).
      The prices of using airforces are exploded. But firepower was even buffed, not for taktikal bomber, but for fighter, wich would developed from airsuperioty fughter to fighter and naval bomber get buff, same range as fighters and better landunit damage and naval unit damage then in version 2019. Even strat. bomber get bufff with kind of use and low durability of building and importance of level of buildings for level of recruiting troops. Also even selfmurder attack with strat. bomber can be usefull.

    • h4zel wrote:

      You know adding another material is actually a huge new update to the game because it's not additional like chat, indirect like embark times etc but it builds up at the center, the heart of the game: economy. This can change the game deeply


      On the other hand, I see very little legit reasoning behind such a big addition. Whatever you referred to is just personal preferences.
      Yes, I know, in fact I am a programmer so I know perfectly the extent of what I am asking, and please do not downgrade this idea just a personal opinion, because I have seen how many players end up frustrated and helpless against airplane abuse.

      In fact I have used the tactics of using large numbers of tactical bombers, and I have won many 100 maps in this way, but it feels terribly unrealistic and unbalanced.

      Destroying hundreds of enemy divisions only with aircrafts without intervention of land units is something that never happened in a real war scenario. These units should have a supportive role, weakening enemy ground troops in favor of allied ground troops.

      But that is a separate issue, I will not ask for a total rework of how aircraft work. That would be too much to ask.

      The main objective behind this great change is in pursuit of realism and balance, in addition to making the game a bit friendlier for new players, since I have also seen how many new players are practically erased from the map even having huge armies , just for neglecting their air defenses a bit.
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • YitanTribal wrote:

      please do not downgrade this idea just a personal opinion, because I have seen how many players end up frustrated and helpless against airplane abuse.
      never happened in a real war scenario.



      in addition to making the game a bit friendlier for new players, since I have also seen how many new players are practically erased from the map even having huge armies , just for neglecting their air defenses a bit.

      1. Nah don't worry I can't downgrade this, as it is a huge suggestion lol.

      2. Many people sharing the same feelings as you doesn't carry it any more further than being a personal opinion, sadly. (or personal opinions of many, lol.)

      3. The criteria for being realistic isn't "did this happen in any real war scenarios", we are writing out our own or we would just watch documentaries to replace the game.

      4. This is highly discouraging on the long run, actually. There are tons of maps out there, they can just start from a new one. You know learning by overcoming the difficulties is important in the game. They will know how to defeat by being defeated several times.


      Boozo wrote:

      Instead of making a new resource type, why not just make planes more expensive to build? :P

      Also this sjdbhdjfnıuscnkjdckhe

    • Well, from what I understand in COW 1.5 many changes will be made, which includes several changes to the maps and the distribution of resources, why not take advantage of adding a new resource at a time of inflection like this?

      h4zel wrote:


      3. The criteria for being realistic isn't "did this happen in any real war scenarios", we are writing out our own or we would just watch documentaries to replace the game.
      I didn't mean that ... but admit that it sounds unrealistic a war where soldiers only battle against aircraft and nothing else, humm ... for some reason this sounded like a possible story of an anime xd

      Boozo wrote:

      Instead of making a new resource type, why not just make planes more expensive to build? :P
      It is difficult to find a balance here, if the cost only goes up a little, people will continue to abuse, if the increase is very large, nobody will want to use aircrafts.


      KrestelGaming wrote:

      AA Guns, SPAA, Interceptors and Cruisers all counter Tactical Bombers. No need to add aluminum
      you seem to have not found hordes of 30 tactical bombers or more (in just day 20-25), the AA GUNS receive a lot of damage from the bombers for being infantry and it would take many to endure, a thing like 2 AA per bomber tactical. With so much AA you would run out of units to invade normal players by land.

      SPAA is not a bad choice, but more expensive, it is investigated later in the game than normal AAs and they have a 50% damage penalty in cities.

      Interceptors for sure the best option, but any player who abuses tactical bombers knows it and will also have their interceptors improved to the maximum level (this is what happens most when 2 veteran players face each other)

      Cruseros, without a doubt one of the best anti-aircraft measures, hurts that they cannot go by land.
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      KrestelGaming wrote:

      AA Guns, SPAA, Interceptors and Cruisers all counter Tactical Bombers. No need to add aluminum
      Yes, you have many things to counter tac/stra.bombers. You do not need more things to go against bombers...
      The idea of the post is not to add new countermeasures against aircraft, but to limit the amount that can be produced in favor of the game balance and realism.
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • YitanTribal wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      KrestelGaming wrote:

      AA Guns, SPAA, Interceptors and Cruisers all counter Tactical Bombers. No need to add aluminum
      Yes, you have many things to counter tac/stra.bombers. You do not need more things to go against bombers...
      The idea of the post is not to add new countermeasures against aircraft, but to limit the amount that can be produced in favor of the game balance and realism.
      I repeat, they did it in version 1.5, but it will be reballancied, because of crying airforce only user lobby.

    • f118 wrote:

      I repeat, they did it in version 1.5, but it will be reballancied, because of crying airforce only user lobby.
      I hope it is true, I have not had the opportunity to play the beta of version 1.5, but you mentioned that now rare materials are used to produce the aircraft, right? that bothers me a bit because it would force you to choose between aircraft production or research.
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • I have played with level 70+ players that use tactical bombers heavily.

      If you put your economics hat on, you'll see that, other than militia, the cheapest unit to produce seems to be AA. SPAA would be a notch up if you need to protect armor in transit, which have more protection than infantry. Interceptors are also relatively cheap compared to tactical bombers. If you are going thru the seas, destroyers and capital ships are also very effective in offering AA protection. But if you want to make tactical bombers more expensive, the easiest way to implement it in the CoW application software would be to increase the price of rares (I guess that you could call aluminum a rare metal compared to iron) ... :)

    • gusv wrote:

      I have played with level 70+ players that use tactical bombers heavily.

      If you put your economics hat on, you'll see that, other than militia, the cheapest unit to produce seems to be AA. SPAA would be a notch up if you need to protect armor in transit, which have more protection than infantry. Interceptors are also relatively cheap compared to tactical bombers. If you are going thru the seas, destroyers and capital ships are also very effective in offering AA protection. But if you want to make tactical bombers more expensive, the easiest way to implement it in the CoW application software would be to increase the price of rares (I guess that you could call aluminum a rare metal compared to iron) ... :)
      For the 3rd time, it is not a matter of not being able to overcome this tactic, the issue is the fact that users can use it is laughably unrealistic and also abusive against those who do not know how to play in a balanced way (lots of people).

      Another important point of why not use rare instead of aluminum, is that, 1) you would be forced to sacrifice the development of investigations and 2) the air units could also have a maintenance cost in aluminum (for maintenance and repairs), and in case of having 0 of aluminum and production in negative, the airplanes would begin to receive moral degradation.

      I see this as something logical and realistic, countries like England had to resort to producing some models of airplanes with wood to replace the scarcity of this resource.
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • IMO I don't think adding aluminum is necessary, for just balancing aircraft.
      But to limit the number of airplanes, I suggest to limit the airbase capability.
      Rather than unlimited planes to take off, maybe for instance, allowing only one squad every 20 minutes.
      Therefore, the aircraft to be deployed in the front line are limited. The massive production will result huge upkeep, while most airplanes remain idle.
      Once the advantage airplanes used to gain won't work, they won't massively produce them.

    • Slonxity wrote:

      IMO I don't think adding aluminum is necessary, for just balancing aircraft.
      But to limit the number of airplanes, I suggest to limit the airbase capability.
      Rather than unlimited planes to take off, maybe for instance, allowing only one squad every 20 minutes.
      Therefore, the aircraft to be deployed in the front line are limited. The massive production will result huge upkeep, while most airplanes remain idle.
      Once the advantage airplanes used to gain won't work, they won't massively produce them.
      Well, this idea does not sound so bad, in fact I like it, it sounds realistic and it would help a lot with the balance, and if someone wanted to insist with this tactic they would have to invest much more in more airports. This can be balanced by determining the amount of units that can be supply at airport level 1,2 and 3.
      Make Chile Playable Again!