Call of War 1.5 round 2!

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

    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      I am totally opposed to the manpower cost to upgrade a unit. We are changing equipment not the people !

      Manpower shortages are rough in the beginning especially with large manpower costs for research.

      This needs to change
      I am not opposed to manpower being part of the upgrade process if it is only the difference between troops, for example
      lvl 1 infantry require 990 manpower, and lvl 2 cost 1060 manpower. So if it costed 70 manpower to upgrade I would understand this perfectly and it makes sense, extra troops in the division, extra men to be trained. But to cost 990+1060 no I do not understand at all and agree if this was what your feedback was about. :)
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • From looking through the stats of units here are my thoughts / questions on some of them:

      Firstly, I do really like how some troops seem to maybe synergies with others, planes and no metal, tanks and no rares. Whether with production this is possible to build together idk yet but in theory I like it.


      Tanks don’t seem do enough damage to infantry units, looking at stats, they seem to do like a bit of inf damage but LA (light armour) and MA (medium armour) but they don’t seem to do enough inf damage at all. Infantry lvl 1 does more damage to inf units than LT? This seems a little not right how does this work? Yes they will win due to armour difference, but they should be doing more damage to inf right? Is this a conscious choice? Day 2 inf does only 0.5 inf damage less than day 3 MT. This follows into higher levels. So I feel esp since MT are meant to be offensive (I like that) they don’t do enough damage to infantry units. MT in my mind should slaughter infantry (If no AT) but they wont, or at least not compared to other troops which to me means they are not a clear inf killing troops, at elite lvl only 3 difference between inf and MT is just I feel not enough at all! ESP as AT are very strong.
      Finally (for my tank bit), I super strongly believe offensive melee combat is never a good idea. I almost never offensively attack someone with anything unless i’m 5x+ stronger, I use arty or planes but never tank attacks, tanks on defence yes! So to change my mind about it, tanks need to **really** pack the offensive damage which they are not. I really hate doing this but no tank melee attacks has lead me to win 8/9 100 maps and not ever seen a successful player win using tanks on the offensive. I really think MT need to smash in the offensive damage, not do okay in it when I can just let my arty kill from a same distance and let the enemy run into me with some AT and tanks in defence. I’d love to see large tank attacks do well, but for their cost and relatively low inf attack I don’t see myself using them esp with strong AA and AT HA defence values. I will have to test this ofc, but it will all depend on what my opponents do, and i’m rarely wrong with troop stats and combats... I may play to much...

      Motorized infantry (I think stat wise this unit looks really good) does more inf damage than a MT at elite level. And it an inf unit so more difficult to counter (no AT to kill it/ anti-infantry unit) so to kill infantry I’d be using motorised infantry, and to kill armour AT / TD. So what is the point of a MT? A HA inf killer? Not really, a good armour killer, TD better.
      I think MT inf attack needs to be buffed.



      AA has better HA defence than infantry?
      I always felt inf was the average at everything but not great at anything, now AA has ofc better AA defence and better HA defence just seems odd. I feel AT should have good tank defence and crap infantry and air, AA good air defence and crap infantry and armour etc. Why does AA have better HA defence?

      Troop consumption and cost: Is the aim of 1.5 to on average have less total units produced than in 1.0. Seems so but wanting to know for my tests if this is intentional or not. May not be as i’m basing off 1.0 production capabilities with 1.5 costs. But is it?

      Similar to above, I am very active, so I want to ensure my testing is inline with what the planed build amounts are: So I guess how often do you think we should be able to build a troop, factory and IC? Equal, more, less than 1.0? On average as each troop/building costs different.
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • AA can be used as anti tank.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_F…#Support_of_ground_troops

      "The 8.8 cm Flak performed well in its original role of an anti-aircraft gun and it proved to be a superb anti-tank gun as well."

      Discarding realism and looking at balancing, I don't think the AA is overpowered that it needs a nerf to its stats. I think its nice to have units with more than 1 role. Anti Air having more purpose than shooting down airplanes is nice. For example tactical bombers do great against ground targets and okay-ish against naval vessels.
      #Cake FTW

    • Day 4 impressions:


      Naval forces are encouraged, no goods required. Also Motorized infantry.
      Build min. and keep low level troops, that's all you need to take over the
      abandoned countries, due to the high drop out rate.
      Not being able to produce troops in rural provinces is NOT a problem.
      There are inadequate supplies and cash, anyway.
      Also, just capture foreign cities when your neighbor countries quit without
      ever having moved or recruited a single unit.
      Requiring manpower for All research and All units results in fewer unit types.
      Better to research a few types just to level one, use the scarce manpower
      for low level units.
      A test event without a minimum rank? Opinions solicited from players who start one
      game and quit?

    • cycle9 wrote:

      A test event without a minimum rank? Opinions solicited from players who start one
      game and quit?
      There is a min rank requirement tho
      and rank doesnt really matter when it comes to feedback anyway; quality/depth of the feedback matters more than just the sheer amount of it^^
      Teburu

      GER/EN Forums
      Conflict of Nations Veteran
      I suck at COW
      idk what else to put here :D

    • Alright thanks for the feedback everyone! Will start answering on feedback and questions. prepare for wall of text. Hopefully it is useful to you :)

      -----------------------

      JesterTheSheep wrote:

      *sigh* Here we go again.

      I'd like to stress that this is PURELY a first impression. I would like to say that while I appreciate that the developers are trying their damndest to make this game better, I can safely say that this is NOT the way to go.

      Let's get into it. First, here's my praise:

      1. Visuals? Spot on, m'dudes. I actually really like the new visuals for all nations involved. The rockets look great. Tanks still look good. Infantry is looking lovely. Commandos now look unique, and I'm digging it. Etc.

      2. Research. I actually kinda like the idea of an ordinance tab: it's not something I had considered in the past. It's a nice touch. It does, with the addition with Commandos and Paratroopers, reduce the clutter a great deal.

      3. Speaking of infantry and paratroopers, they're (still) not secret tech! Huzzah! In addition to making both units far, far cheaper and more accessible, it's damn near perfect.

      4. The attack values, at least for infantry, are nowhere NEAR as ridiculous as the last version. Ahh, the new balance is far more acceptable. Now, Light Armor is far more sustainable, due to the far more reasonable leveling.

      5. Elite Commandos!

      6. Interesting idea, making "flying bombs" and rockets two different units. I mean, it makes sense, but still, nice touch.

      Alright: time for the part nobody wants to hear. Time to get a little salty. Let's move onto the ugly:

      1. [b]Limiting unit production to cities is getting really, really old. STOP DOING THIS. [/i][/b]Surely I'm not alone on this one, right? This game is NOT Conflict of Nations, and it shouldn't be! So please stop doing that! Keep the fancy buildings, like ordinance and tank plants, but please expand the boundaries to EVERY province. Keep Call of War... well, Call of War!

      2. In addition to that, this is clearly a shift to Conflict of Nations, and I rarely say this, but I hate it. If I wanted Conflict of Nations, I'd play Conflict of Nations. I come to this game for a more strategically challenging endeavor, where even if you have one final province, it ain't over yet. You can make one last push. With this, if you have a province, but no armies, you're done. It's over.

      3. Even if you're going to limit the production of units solely to cities, add more! 5 is not enough!

      4. I'm still not a huge fan of the specialized buildings. It just feels... overly complex?? Like, ordinance I can understand. That was its own separate industry. Tank production and Aircraft manufacturing just feels off. Maybe it's the visuals, I dunno.

      5. Secret Labs are already old, and I don't even have secret tech yet. Seriously... no.

      6. Even with graphic improvements, Naval Assets still look mostly the same?? Is this just a work in progress? If so, I can forgive that.

      ---

      I am well aware that I am being harsh. In a case or two, probably overly harsh. I just want the Bytro development staff to understand that they are intentionally undermining everything that makes Call of War a good game, and are actively ignoring the fact that many, many players are heavily against that. If the unit production problem is not solved, I can't really say that I'd wanna stick around. Call of War would just become a WWII themed Conflict of Nations.
      First of all thanks for the positive feedback on the things you like! :)

      Now to the things you don't like as much:

      1. & 2.: I have to say that units being producable only in cities will likely stay. It is actually not too much of a shift from 1.0, as there you also start with production facilities only in urban provinces, and industrial complexes often times being too expensive to be built anew. And later on when you conquer more territory you have more factories available than you have resources for producing, so its not a big factor there as well. And the final push when having only one province left is also a big edge case, I would estimate 99% of players would quit beforehand. We don't think that we reduce the strategic aspect of the game, we just shift it around a little bit and lay the focus on different things. We don't think that this part was the defining factor of the success of CoW.

      3. To balance this we reduced the build times of units and buildings in 1.5 compared to 1.0. So even when having only 5 provinces to produce units, in practice you can output more units in the same time as in 1.0 (given you have the resources for it).

      4. Visuals of those new buildings will be improved in the future.

      5. not sure what you wanna say with this :D Having a separate industry for producing secret weapons makes sence (e.g. V2 programme or manhatten project)

      6. Naval assets have updated looks already. There were not many optical differences between nations when it comes to smaller ship types, and the bigger ships have unique looks for different nations.



      Tasmine wrote:

      I starting to test CoW 1.5.

      Find some issues maybe devs can think about it. We do know 1.5 only allow players to build military buildings in urban area. And I remember Freezy said, there's the big deal of militias, they can't change anything. Then, why can't we produce militias without any building?

      I see players occupy another player's province, Then those building(lv.1) disappear after occupied. That's really a big different from previous version, Bad different.

      Right now I secured my border. Because I have been learn the experience from CoN. I don't know what feelings other players have. I just don't like it. But thank to the change. I can scout far distance by using bomber.

      Still not other new buildings 2d models.
      Patrol has some bugs, ghost image when fighter flying from A airport to B airport. Click "patrol" to another location, fighter will suddenly appeared in there. Restart the game, problem solved.
      Patrol a left location, move angle showed right direction but head to target. Click again, airplanes go back to airport, problem solved.
      1. We talked about the Militia issue and didnt want to change the 1.5 philosophy just for this unit. Instead we buffed it by making it producible very fast for little resources. It is now a cheap counter unit that you produce when you are in dire situations (I mean arming civilians in cities as last resort was a thing).

      2. That is because lvl1 buildings don't have that much hitpoints. Once you get to lvl2 and more there will always be buildings that remain after conquering.

      3. Not sure what you mean with the point about securing border and how it relates to CoN.

      4. Building graphics will be updated in a future version.

      5. patrol "ghost" image is a known bug, will be fixed.



      Michael Myres wrote:

      btw how is the 1.5 update going to effect the 25 player map anyway are there going to be more cities added and when are we getting the update officially?
      Can we get an update for rivers and coastal bunkers with the coastal artillery in the game if possible, and just wondering are you adding new skins to each unit like for example i upgrade my lvl 1 light tank from model PzKpfw.1 to model PzKpfw.35 lvl 2 and lvl 1 fighter from model Heinkel He - 51 to model Messerschmitt Bf 109 lvl 2 fighter and so on if you are that would be amazing, and if not can you consider it besides you are trying to make the game historically accurate and this would do it, i really hope it makes it's way to the game i would love it
      We are currently preparing a new 100p map, where we also add a fith city to all nations. The 25p map would indeed need to be rebalanced then.
      Rivers and bridges would more be a future thing, currently no concrete plan on that. Costal artillery may be also a possibility for the future.
      Additional unit skins won't come for all single levels but we probably will introduce some additional ones for higher levels in the coming months.


      Torpedo28000 wrote:

      Alrighty,time to start what is going to be a lot of these. So buckle up.
      Fromlooking through buildings, troops, stats, pretty much everything I can look,this event seems a lot more polished and balanced than the first one. So welldone there!
      Formy current day 1 experience so far, in one map but plan to join 1-2 more.

      Sofar I am 21 hours 30 minutes into my game.
      Ihave built:
      1 IC in all Urban rss provinces
      1barracks, 2 TF (tank factory), 1 AF (air factory), 3 OF (Ordnance factory)

      Troops:
      2 LT, 7 arty.
      Andnow I am pretty much broke. Saving up some rss now for motorised infantry asthese look pretty strong offensively.
      Only2.3k cash left so I think the starting cash is a little too low. Otherwiseother starting rss I think are okay, cash should probably beincreased.

      Now comes the bit im not so sure on. Troop costs and training times. Comparedto 1.0 day 1 troops produce very very fast, this means the first few hours areawesome as your getting new troops out, but after that you run out of tss MUCHfaster given you spend them faster. So now after about 20 hours of playing Idon’t have the rss to build new stuff so my factories are sitting empty (notfun) But at the same time its not day 2 and I have 7 arty and 2 LT (Yay!)
      Whatfor me this means is, early expansion can be done faster with these new troops.What used to take 2-3 days now done in 1. So this is AWESOME!! But it now meansless to do once they are done, so my day 2 may be boring as im broke and onlyslowly able to afford troops.

      Ialso feel rss production may be too low. Arty cost higher than 1.0 but goodproduction lowered. But I don’t have enough evidence/game time to really saywhether this is true, just from judging how unit costs are higher and rss production with no upgrades is lower. But 125% increase from IC is an extra 25% we can get, I feel it may not be enough but not enough time played yet. I am out of rss now but did just spend a lot. Day 2 willsay I think how well I can produce more troops/buildings. Unit consumption alsoseems SUPER high, again ill see how it goes once I have more units whether thisis a huge consumption and drain on rss.


      Ialso am at war with Poland (I am romania) not part of 1.5 but I was sendingtroops about to attack him, so in his wisdom he declares on me and fullyretreats (no loss of global pop for me! :))

      Planfor day 2 will be:
      Ensure lvl 2 factories in all Urban,
      Try to get an IC ingoods and metal, maybe an oil or food as well.
      Produce some motorised infantry(Their inf attack looks great)
      See after that if I can produce troops as well.



      Also,I feel research times for lvl 1 troops should be lowered… yes IK only 2.5 hoursis not long. But hear me out. So I started this map at about 9:30 pm my time,so after the 2.5 hours I was asleep (Sure I could have started in the morningbut that was not going to happen. This meant I was not able to produce anytroops for until I woke up. This would also have been true for ppl at work,school, etc. So I think lvl 1 research should be 30 minutes.
      Soto sum up my almost day 1.
      • Built 9 new troops (pretty good I think)
      • Built a factory in all urban provinces and an IC in all urban
      • Am broke
      Ifeel I wouldn’t build less troops and this was fairly well done, if day 2 Idon’t have enough rss for much then I think base production should increase
      Thanks for the nice feedback and details on your game plan, stuff like this usually helps us the most.

      1. Yeah for sure it is a change in mindset that now your factories won't be producing nonstop troops, as you would run out of resources if you do. But this adds some strategic choices now. Where in the old version it was the standard choice to have them running at all times, you now have to balance production time and resources. Shorter build times add some more possibilities for faster counter reactions and also add some more action on day 1 as you said :)

      2. Resource costs and production can still be balanced of course, so would be nice to get more updates along your playthrough :) (maybe you already posted more, still have lots of posts to go).

      3. Hm not sure about the research times. Last time they were slightly lower for lvl1 but then people also were idling with their researches rather fast at the end of day 1 as not enough time was needed for researching. Still may need some finetuning.



      cycle9 wrote:

      Day 2 observation:
      Province morale seems to be a problem. Only infrastructure can increase
      morale, and then only by 5-20% at considerable costs.
      Hm is the cost so considerable? It's cheaper than the infrastructure in 1.0. It doesnt add a resource bonus but it adds a higher morale bonus and a much higher movement speed bonus for ground troops (from 50% bonus to 200% bonus). So I recommend building Infra at some point :)


      Teburu wrote:

      In general:
      - manpower for research feels odd (what exactly are we doing do this poor men? sacrificing them to our demon overlords for superior technology? :D )

      - not a fan of this lack disadvantages on different terrain (like previously tanks would get -50% strenght and half health in cities); now units only have positive modifiers and only on one or max two types of terain, they could def be more effected by terrain

      - i like the focus on cities for unit production; actually gives them some more value over provinces and makes them of some strategical importance

      - the damage/HP scaling seems a bit crazy; tho i have yet to see how that actually plays out

      - i like the diversity of when units become available for research

      - same prices for industrial in cities and provinces doesnt make that much sense; seeing how cities produce a shitton more

      - not really a fan of these extremly short mobilization times cuz this puts you at an extreme disadvantage if you dont have high command

      In detail:
      - wtf why do strategical bombers have more offensive damage against aircraft than tactial; and why do they have it to begin with :D

      - it was mentioned that arty range has been reduced to compensate for more frequent offensive ticks; however ships seem completly unaffected by this (especially battleships profit from this now, they even start with 70 range)

      - i like the changes to carrier capacity scaling
      1. Yes of courses sacrifices to the gods of science :) But maybe also just people researching stuff.

      2. We did that so dealing with terrain modifiers becomes easier. You can now calculate the different values better and it's also easier to remember which unit gets what. Since we also dont have so many different terrains we settled with 1-2 buffs for units as it would be pointless to give units bufs in all terrains.

      3. Nice that you like unit productions in cities. Actually in the first event this was also a point where we got feedback in many directions, it was never all negative as some people suggest. Also a reason why we continue on this path.

      4. Damage scaling is actually toned down alot from the first 1.5 event :D It is now closer to 1.0, but should still be meaningful.

      5. The armortisation time of Industries in cities and in rural provinces is actually nearly the same. They cost the same because the boost of local industries also is twice as high and you only need to build 3 levels instead of 5. So I would advice building both types of Industries.

      6. Mobilization times get longer as more you level up your troops especially if you don't upgrade your production buildings. They are lower for the lower levels to create a bit more action in the early game and to allow for more flexibility in terms of changing plans.

      7. Strategic bombers have more air to air guns on board, thats why they have some more damage vs aircraft. But its still rather insignificant.

      8. Ships were also reduced in range but also normalized (all levels have same range), same as arties. Thats why it appears as if they have more range on lower levels.


      THEARBITER117 wrote:

      Yeah and also, the fact I can't build unit production buildings outside my city makes NO sense at all, you're telling me that I can''t send labor out to the country and build factories on empty land to support the war effort? Why cities? Factories aren't always located in cities, this severely hampers the game's progression and makes cities a much more important location, which will be heavily defended compared to non city locations. There's so much joy in have every providence with a industrial complex in the late game and mass producing units to attack the other play who's doing the same. It makes for some memorable battles. Why change that? There was nothing wrong with this.
      Making cities more important and a strategic point of interest on the map was our intention. As you just said even in 1.0 you normally only have factories in non-cities in the late game (a stage only few people reach actually) because earlier its far too expensive to build new ones. So in most stages of the game you don't have that much less production sites compared to 1.0, and as you conquer more ground enough factories to produce become available anyway. Plus faster unit build times allow you to produce as much troops as not more in the same time frame as in the old version (given you have the resources).


      cycle9 wrote:

      This new behavior is very amusing,
      NPC's attacking each other on day 2:


      4:56 pm Bastogne: The 2nd Infantry Regiment (Luxembourg) (BF 2) has been destroyed.
      4:56 pm War! Without warning, Joseph Bech's troops opened fire on the unsuspecting soldiers of Charles de Broqueville. Leaders in the whole world are appalled by this ruthless action.


      Casualties since the beginning of this war:
      Belgium - 104
      Luxembourg - 670
      Well who would'nt like to attack Luxembourg. Just kidding :)


      ----------

      ok that was it for page one of this thread :D I will continue with answering the next pages soon. My apologies if some of these answeres are already obsolete or redundant as I did not read the future posts yet. edit: I read through them now but no time to answer yet.
      Also sorry if I don't answer on every single post as some answers would just be copies of other answers.

      Let me know if such detailed answers are helpful or if you prefer discussing without me interfering :)

    • freezy wrote:

      6. Mobilization times get longer as more you level up your troops especially if you don't upgrade your production buildings. They are lower for the lower levels to create a bit more action in the early game and to allow for more flexibility in terms of changing plans.
      sure; but as @Mc_Johnsen already said; these (insane) fast mobilizations time paired with the "normal" movementspeed feels like a weird mix of a speedgame and normal one
      Teburu

      GER/EN Forums
      Conflict of Nations Veteran
      I suck at COW
      idk what else to put here :D

    • Common mistakes seen:
      1. INFRASTRUCTURE
      by habit players are doing infrastructure on resources places but they have NO advantage to them. Infrastructure is now a luxury item to increase speed of bringing troops to the front. as an experiment I am doing this as Egypt in a game to go from Luxor to Benghazi so as to ship to the Southern European front.

      NOTE TO DESIGNERS: infrastructure needs to have a little more incentive to use.

      2. Production type
      Multiple build types in a city. You start with 5 cities and four should be devoted to ONE type: Armor, Artillery, Navy and Air. The 5th City should be used for a duplicate of the Navy or Air or Tank as per your style. I would save the Barracks for a captured city since the upgrade costs for infantry is outrageous.

      3.Research Manpower Sink
      The early game there is a shortage of manpower, so avoid going for things like AA AT and maybe even Destroyers.
      Wait till later in the game when manpower is more readily available as the research times are not much.

      NOTE TO DESIGNERS: the manpower costs for research is absurd.

      4. SILENCE
      Too many people do not talk to other people. You should ideally send a message to every single player in the game and say Hi or simply ask if they know anyone in the game.

      5. FAILURE TO DIPLOMACY WITH AI
      You still need to set RoW or better with every AI country in order to secure maybe a RoW or even an Alliance with them. Having an Alliance with Estonia as Egypt gives you the equivalent of some spying around that area.

    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      Common mistakes seen:
      1. INFRASTRUCTURE
      by habit players are doing infrastructure on resources places but they have NO advantage to them. Infrastructure is now a luxury item to increase speed of bringing troops to the front. as an experiment I am doing this as Egypt in a game to go from Luxor to Benghazi so as to ship to the Southern European front.
      Yes I do agree, or at least no value in a small 22 map. Possibly in Siberia in a 100/50 map for faster speed... but really that is a luxury. The moral boost is great but I will be building up my core and spreading out from there, and thus it is unlikely I would spend the rss to get the this boost. While it isn't crazy expensive, it doesn't give any bonuses that are really worth it. Possibly the moral boost but late game in a 100 map, day 30+ im thinking. Rss seem quite tight so far so the extra even small cost I wouldn't be building at this stage in the game.

      I think it is similar to building forts in a 100 map for moral, only something I do when I have soooo many rss it doesn't matter. As well as I have NEVER built infra for the speed boost but always for the rss boost or to build troops.

      I think if it had no moral bonus and pure speed but a VERY low cost it may be worth doing. And I mean maybe 300 goods for all levels or less. Then I could see myself building it.

      I have always liked the idea of supply into the game, cutting off someone or investing to get your front sorted for a prolonged war, and IK this is not something that will be implemented due to them being far too difficult to implement, and im not suggesting to do so. But perhaps changing the name of infrastructure to supply lines - or something more creative, giving them a LOW cost but improving speed could be a way to implement the notion of "supply" into the game without actually changing anything. Or simply using them to increase troop speed and not supply but infrastructure. The end result is the same really.
      You dont need them, but a 200% movement speed increase for perhaps 300 goods per province could be something used later in the game. (300 goods is just a number but I feel is cheap enough for me to do this probably day 10+) as speed increase is nice, but I will 99% of the time invest in troops or production given I don’t fight stalled fronts really ever, so for a straight speed increase building it needs to be cheap.

      • Perhaps a sliding cost scale of 50 goods for lvl 1, 100 for lvl 2 and 150 for lvl 3. Just as idea - Perhaps one to explore pending how many users use Infrastructure from your data collecting.
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Torpedo28000 ().

    • Anotherbit of feedback regarding plane vs plane dog fighting:

      The new plane air damage with planes doing far more damage in the attackcompared to the defence is a feature, in theory I LOVE! I think it makes sensecompletely and is an awesome change…in theory.

      I havetwo concerns with this change. If there is a plan to solve these issue then Iwould love for this change to stay as I think it makes sense the attacker hasan advantage, and I think more troops should have attack and not defence stats.(I also feel it gives ints an even bigger air role)

      1. Because now the attack is significantly more deadly than defence and alsoovertly (whereas in 1.0 the defence is better due to game mechanics and notstats) I see fights with planes being very dull and no action occurring. If 2players now are doing plane vs plane combat you generally have all your planespatrolling over each other and let the combat go given the attack and defenceare almost the same. (stat ik are the same). But in 1.5 the attack is vastlysuperior so I see lots of cancelling the patrols to ensure you don’t have todefend, in battles against active or competent players I see the only way tokill a plane is to hope the enemy forgets his planes are still patrolling, noone will actively let their planes defend and therefore these fights will nowbe long durations of cancelling the patrol hoping the enemy doesn’t - notsomething that sounds enjoyable.

      2 theobvious way to counter this problem is just to DA (direct attack), this meansthe first person to press the DA and if planes are the same lvl the one to doit first gets a lovely advantage and gets to attack first, this should resultin lots of attacks and defences. BUT, due to the patrol and DA mechanics, if Iwas to DA a stack of planes, but there are 1 or more stacks also patrolling, Iwill lose more than I will kill, (hard to explain but im trying to refer to thefact when you DA a stack and planes patrol, the patrolling stack loses nodamage and inflicts 100%). Because of this, DA is also not a viable option.

      As withall my suggestions, im no coder at all, and so im not entirely sure how tosolve this easily without just simply "deleting the DA and patrolmechanic" (im assuming it isn't that easy? And it is something I do like as well, so a better idea would be nicer).

      Is this a known issue/ something now that will be addressed? Again, if there isa way to solve this then yes I really love the fact planes now do far moredamage in the attack, I think it makes sense and could add some nice game playmechanics. However with these two limitations I have outlined, I do not likethis change.
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • Teburu wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      6. Mobilization times get longer as more you level up your troops especially if you don't upgrade your production buildings. They are lower for the lower levels to create a bit more action in the early game and to allow for more flexibility in terms of changing plans.
      sure; but as @Mc_Johnsen already said; these (insane) fast mobilizations time paired with the "normal" movementspeed feels like a weird mix of a speedgame and normal one
      I really like this feature in the early game, like I said in my day 1 summary it meant that in one day I could get a pretty decent army and invade someone, this means that my first war utilises "proper" troops and utilises a better strategy than send in 2-3 big armies and hope my enemy doesn't stack everything together.

      I think having to upgrade factories to increase speed makes sense, and in a previous post I highlighted a possible issue (capturing provinces closer to the front and them being possibly useless, and provided a potential solution). My only issue with it is that it uses up lots of rss, and with what feels like less rss production overall, it means day 2 and 3 there is less to do troop production wise (but more war wise).

      Pro vs Con however, I like this feature. Ofc if rss was increased and it was only a Pro then even better :D
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • freezy wrote:

      Let me know if such detailed answers are helpful or if you prefer discussing without me interfering :)
      I certainly like your "interference" although wouldn't call it that, and while I know you and all the GD read this, others may not and it is nice seeing/knowing that you are reading and responding to everything.

      I for one have spent a fair amount of time writing feedback so it is nice to know it's being read :) (pros of uni holiday still going on)
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Torpedo28000 ().

    • cycle9 wrote:

      Troops on sea transports seem to be relatively invulnerable to destroyers and submarines?
      I took out a rather large convoy with one submarine, so that is the opposite experience from you.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

    • So far this iteration is looking good!


      I haven’t found any bugs and the game play seems smooth enough. I really like this version of COW as it makes the player have to focus on strategy more as the buildings you choose make a difference, where in current version you must throw up some factories and your good to go.

      --- comments below

      • Overall I feel that it is still a little expensive in the beginning, doing initial upgrades and research and building units I have run out of resources really quickly, as this does not happen in current game – if this is intended then leave it – because it really will slow people down in the beginning and give people a chance to not get slammed early game.
      • Oil seems to be a bottleneck early on and I found myself almost out of it by end of 2nd day where in other game this doesn’t happen until 15 or 20 if you are not paying attention.
      • I feel like the Infrastructure improvement has lost its importance, as there really is no reason to build it unless you are in Russia or something and need the speed to move your troops across them faster.Not sure what to do with it maybe at end game it would be worth it for Moral.
        • Note I might be convinced to use them if there were very cheap.

      Overall well done on this version, it is polished and purposeful. Looking forward to playing this in 100 man game.


      Akulla3D

    • Day 5 commentary;

      As observed in round one of CoW 1.5, rares are anything but rare.
      In 4 games of round 2, rares selling for <3.

      @Vorlon:
      more than one game, more than one engagement with one submarine:
      several instances of destroyer bombarding a troop convoy of just two units,
      and NO damage in first two ticks.
      another example:
      submarine attacking a convoy of 6 units, who'e HP had been drastically
      reduced prior to the engagement, the sub eventually won, but with only
      32% HP remaing.