New Feature: Idle Unit Mode — Deactivate/Reactivate Button

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

    • New Feature: Idle Unit Mode — Deactivate/Reactivate Button

      Many times, I find myself wishing I could disband units or sacrifice them as fodder, yet there is no way to do so. Sure, if you are at war, you could throw wounded, useless, or bad build choices at your enemies. And it would be nice to be able to instead disband those units and recover some of the resources.

      But in lieu of the fact that the developers refuse to give us the ability to disband units, I have an awesome suggestion to sidestep that, and let the developers save face in the process.

      So, instead of a disband feature, why not give us an idle mode "Make reserve" feature? The idea here is that you could put forces on reserve. They'd be unable to move. They'd have a significantly-lower resource upkeep. And they would only heal at a reduced rate. To be fair, the percentage reduction in resource upkeep should be the same percentage reduction in healing, so that people can't just try to heal mortally damaged units on the cheap.

      Thus, if you have a reduced upkeep of 50% off, then the daily healing should be reduced by 50% or, from 10% to 5%.

      The defensive capabilities of a unit that is in reserve status should also be cut in half and they should have no offensive capability. Furthermore, aircraft, rather than cutting their defensive capability in half, should be forced into convoy mode for defense. All convoys at sea should have their defensive capability unchanged since they are already at a minimal level of defense and highly vulnerable.

      Also, to give incentive to the developers to make this an interesting and intriguing feature that they would be motivated to implement, there should be a deactivation/reactivation time delay. So, if you choose to activate a reserve status for a unit(s), it would have to sit for a while before reducing it's resource upkeep requirements. Also, if you choose to deactivate a reserve status on a unit(s), it would have to sit for a while before it can begin moving (somewhat similar to the new paratrooper unit).

      To simulate the reactivation costs, the full upkeep costs should be reinstated at the moment a unit begins reactivation, even though it can't move for awhile, yet. I would propose that the deactivation/reactivation time periods be a ratio, such that the reactivation is double the amount of time of the deactivation. So if the developers choose to make it take 2 hours to deactivate a unit, it would take 4 hours to reactivate the unit. And having the reduced resource requirements only apply while the unit is fully-deactivated will prevent abuse of this feature by those trying to create a large-yet-cheap instant reactionary force.

      So, for example, suppose you have a stack of some Infantry. You have negative Food, and those Infantry aren't really needed at the front for awhile. You could pull it back to a safe spot and then click on deactivate. The infantry will become stationary, their defensive capabilities will be cut in half. After 2 hours, their maintenance cost will be cut in half. So long as they are in reserve status, they can't move, their maintenance cost is cut in half, and they can only heal at 5% per day. After a few days go by, you decide they are needed at the front. They've only healed half as much as normal, but you saved enough Food to begin producing another Infantry, which is also needed at the front. You click on the reactivate button. The maintenance support costs immediately doubles to the normal rate and you begin waiting the 4 hours needed to simulate the mobilization of the unit. After that, you send the stack back to the front.

      TL;DR
      We need a Deactivate/Reactivate button that puts a unit into reserve status. It can't move and it can't be instantly reactivated. It uses half the maintenance once it's been fully deactivated but heals only half as much per day while deactivated. Once reactivation begins, the maintenance cost returns to normal even though you can't move the unit until the reactivation finishes. While deactivated, the unit will have either half of it's defensive strength or, if it is an air unit, becomes a convoy on land. All sea convoys would be unchanged, defensively.
    • My guess is that disbanding is much easier to implement. Since as you say developers "refuse" to do that, I don't think they'll want to implement something complex like this, either.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • Greetings all that want to have this type of an option.

      I really don't see a need for it. I for one would ask you, why would you want to disband or deactivate a unit? My guess is that you are having a food shortage problem because you out built your Food Supply. If you are having this problem, why have you not built Infrastructure in your Food providing Provinces?

      It always seems that when people are new, they always out build their food supply. Over time though, they learn not to do this. You build your economy as well as your military. Moral also plays a very big role in production of resources. High moral in provinces equates to high production of those resources.

      In some maps I will agree that food may still be hard to combat even if you are balancing correctly due to your countries population and consumption. In most maps though that is not the case. In 1.5, it would appear they have taken out the Population consumption as I do not see a listing for it.

      I have also found that many players think that "he with the biggest military wins". That is not the case in most battles. It is more like who has the more correct troops and knows how to use them effectively. There are many times that I for one have been out numbered by an invading force or an enemy but have won the battle with my opponent taking heavy losses compared to me.

      This happens very often in the beginning days of a map, especially in the 100 Player World Map. I will always be out numbered from an invading force and yet I will win the battle with the invading country losing all of their units. Currently, I am in day 5 of a 100 Player Map and I am playing Equatorial Gabon. Angola and Belgian Congo joined forces in a coalition and gave me a choice, either join them or be destroyed. First, I don't take kindly to ultimatums nor will I be bullied. Second, I don't join coalitions in the first 10, 15 and even 20 days of any map.

      With that said, they both attacked me outnumbering me 10 to 1. Here are the stats of the War.

      Day 1 of our war

      Casualties since the beginning of this war:
      Angola - 15,012
      Equatorial Gabon - 1,216

      Casualties since the beginning of this war:
      Belgian Congo - 9,798
      Equatorial Gabon - 4,001

      As you can see, that was almost a 5 to 1 ratio of what they lost compared to myself.

      Day 2 of the war. With Belgian Congo in ruins and almost defeated, Angola having lost most of his units, Angola asks for peace. I reluctantly agree due to reasons of my situation. Belgian Congo has now been eliminated.

      So you see, it is not always the case of he who has the biggest military. It is how you use your units, knowing what units to build and what to do when attacked or preparing your nation before an invasion as I did in this case.

      As I said, there are many times I have been outnumbered but won some of the battles and over time won the war.

      My point is, don't out build your food supply and there is no need to have a deactivation button. It is one of the reasons why I am glad they got rid of unit trading as people would trade their units when they did this. Managing your economy is a very important aspect in Call of War.

      General cdub
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      My guess is that disbanding is much easier to implement. Since as you say developers "refuse" to do that, I don't think they'll want to implement something complex like this, either.
      Well, maybe. But since several parts of this new "feature" already exist, I would think it not too difficult to implement. They already have a means by which units are forced to wait on a timer before moving. And the changing resource requirements are already implemented in CoW 1.5 (upgraded units have larger resource maintenance). The idea that you'd have reduced defenses during the stand-down time would be simple also, since it'd just be a percentage decrease (or switching to convoy mode, which units already do when they go to non-native surface conditions (air units to ground, air and land units to sea).

      So, it'd just be a matter of motivation. But like with most ideas by the community, they're just not going to go for it unless they find that it fits their designs on the game and is easy enough to implement with their spaghetti code. They also have to have the desire to make the change. And I just don't think they get as excited about other peoples' ideas as they used to get, back when the game was knew.

      I don't know. Maybe it's a cultural shift in the company. The volunteer staff sure went through a cultural shift after that first year. It makes sense that the developers would too. Heck, this new CoW 1.5 stuff represents a huge cultural shift among them, especially since they're turning Call of War into more of a clone of Conflict of Nations (it used to be the other way around).

      We'll see what happens, but I'm going to hold out hope that they'll adopt my idea once again. It's been a couple years since they've done that, but maybe they're due to accept one my ideas at long last.
    • I basically agree with you; however, this issue is really minor and not worth much effort. There's much bigger fish to fry; better ideas floating around.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • Maybe, but every idea should be considered. And it seems like balancing the time of the devs between fixing bugs, implementing new ideas, and testing out said ideas, are all things that need to be in check. That balance should be dynamic, changing with the needs of the gaming community. Sometimes a bug is more pressing, sometimes a new innovation is. But even the lesser ideas ought to be chewed upon — and considered — before digesting them....or getting spat out.