[Criticism/Bug Reporting] Text Issues & Typos

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

    • [Criticism/Bug Reporting] Text Issues & Typos

      Here I'll just include a lump of all the text issues that I've found so far. They're all fairly minor and do not actually impact the game whatsoever.

      I will be adding to this over time as I find more errors

      INCORRECT NAMES
      Cities
      Daugavpils, Lithuania is misspelled as Daugvapils.
      Memel, Lithuania was named Klaipėda during WWII.
      Toruń, Poland and Poznań, Poland are both missing the special accent on the n.
      Iași, Romania is missing the special accent on the s.
      Bacău, Romania is missing the special accent on the a.
      Győr, Romania has the wrong type of umlaut in game (it is portrayed as a standard umlaut rather than the double-acute accent)

      Units
      USSR
      • Soviet Artillery (Level 2) has an unnecessary dash between 76 mm and M1936
      • Soviet Artillery (Level 3) should be 122 mm M1938 (M-30)
      • Soviet Artillery (Level 4) should be 152 mm M1938 (M-10)
      • Soviet Artillery (Level 5) should be 152 mm M1943 (D-1)
      • Soviet Anti-Tank (Level 1) should be 37 mm M1930 (1-K)
      • Soviet Anti-Tank (Level 2) should be 45 mm M1937 (53-K)
      • Soviet Anti-Tank (Level 3) should be 45 mm M1942 (M-42)
      • Soviet Anti-Tank (Level 4) should be 57 mm M1943 (ZiS-2)
      • Soviet Anti-Tank (Level 5) should be changed to 76 mm M1942 (ZiS-3)
      • Soviet Anti-Tank (Level 6) should be changed to 100 mm M1944 (BS-3)
      • Soviet Anti-Air (Level 2) should be changed to 25 mm M1940 (72-K)
      • Soviet Anti-Air (Level 3) should be changed to 76 mm M1938 (it is missing the 19 in 1938)
      • Soviet Anti-Air (Level 4) should be changed to 37 mm M1939 (61-K)
      • Soviet Anti-Air (Level 5) should be changed to 85 mm M1939 (52-K)
      • All Soviet armored vehicles (Cars, tanks, etc) need a dash between the name and number (i.e. BA-6, T-34, IS-1, SU-76)
      • The SU-76 portrayed for both the Level 2 Tank Destroyer and Level SP Artillery are SU-76M. The SU-76M was historically the most common and mass-produced version of the SU-76, while the original only saw a brief production run. As such, the SU-76 should be changed to SU-76M
      • Soviet SP Anti-Air (Level 1) should have the i in ZiS be lowercase
      • Soviet SP Anti-Air (Level 4) should have its name, ZSU-37-2, formatted the same way as the ZSU-57-2
      • Soviet Interceptor (Level 3) Yakovlev is misspelled as Yakovlav
      • Soviet Interceptor (Level 7) Ilyushin is misspelled as Iljuschin
      • Soviet Tactical Bomber (Level 5) Petlyakov is misspelled as Petljakov
      • Soviet Strategic Bomber (Level 3) Petlyakov is misspelled as Petljakov
      • Soviet Naval Bomber (Level 3) should be named Ilyushin DB-3T
      • Soviet Destroyer (Level 1) Novik is misspelled as Nowik.
      • Soviet Destroyer (Level 3) is technically called Project 7 (Proyekt 7)
      • Soviet Destroyer (Level 4) is more commonly known as Storozhevoy Class, not Soobrazitelny. It is also technically called Project 7U (Proyekt 7U)
      • Soviet Destroyer (Level 5) is technically called Project 20 (Proyekt 20)
      • Soviet Destroyer (Level 6) is technically called Project 30 (Proyekt 30)
      • Soviet Destroyer (Level 7) is technically called Project 30 bis (Proyekt 30 bis)
      • Soviet Submarine (Level 5) is known as Kreiserskaya (or Cruising) type
      • Soviet Submarine (Level 6) is technically called Project 613
      • Soviet Submarine (Level 7) is technically called Project 633
      • Soviet Cruiser (Level 4) is technically called Project 26
      • Soviet Cruiser (Level 5) is technically called Project 68 bis
      • Soviet Cruiser (Level 6) is technically called Project 58
      • Soviet Cruiser (Level 7) is technically called Project 1134
      • Soviet Battleship (Level 4) is technically called Project 69
      • Soviet Battleship (Level 5) is technically called Project 82
      • Soviet Battleship (Level 6) is technically called Project 23
      • Soviet Aircraft Carrier (Level 1) is technically called Project 1143 or Krechyet Class
      • Soviet Transport Ship (Level 4) should be changed to Kolomna Class to be consistent with other Soviet naval vessels
      ISSUES WITH SPECIAL CHARACTERS
      Cities (High-Quality graphics map)
      The following cities do not display certain special characters correctly on the High-quality map
      • Šiauliai
      • Chișinău
      • Požarevac
      • Niš
      • Timișoara
      • Priština
      • Užice
      • Possibly more, mostly located in Eastern and Southern Europe
      OTHER TEXT-RELATED ISSUES/SUGGESTIONS
      While it is more of an English convention and not the fault of the game, some city names are direct transliterations while others have been "westernized". For example, Gdansk and Warszawa (Poland) are known as Danzig and Warsaw in the west. I don't think it would hurt to change such city names (other examples include Brest, Lvov, Krakow, Belgrade, and many more) to a proper transliteration.

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

    • Germany
      • German Artillery (Level 5) should be changed from 17 cm Kanone 18 to just 17 cm K 18 to be consistent with other German artillery
      • German Artillery (Level 6) is named 24-cm-Kanone-4 when it should be 24 cm K 3 (the K 4 did not exist)
      • German Anti-Tank (Level 1) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 3.7 cm PaK 36
      • German Anti-Tank (Level 2) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 5 cm PaK 38
      • German Anti-Tank (Level 3) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 7.5 cm PaK 40
      • German Anti-Tank (Level 4) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 7.5 cm PaK 97/38
      • German Anti-Tank (Level 5) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 8.8 cm PaK 43
      • German Anti-Tank (Level 6) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 12.8 cm PaK 44
      • German Anti-Air (Level 1) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 2 cm FlaK 30
      • German Anti-Air (Level 2) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 3.7 cm FlaK 37
      • German Anti-Air (Level 3) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 5 cm FlaK 41
      • German Anti-Air (Level 5) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 12.8 cm FlaK 40
      • German Anti-Air (Level 6) has unnecessary dashes; it should be just 12.8 cm FlaK-Zwilling 40/2
      • German Armored Car (Level 1) is named SdKfz 13 when it should be just Kfz. 13
      • German Armored Car (Level 2) should have a period at the end of Sd.Kfz., making it Sd.Kfz. 221
      • German Armored Car (Level 3) should have a period at the end of Sd.Kfz., making it Sd.Kfz. 231
      • German Light Tank (Level 1) needs a space between Pz.Kpfw. and I and a period between Pz. and Kpfw., making it Pz.Kpfw. I
      • German Light Tank (Level 2) needs a period between Pz. and Kpfw., making it Pz.Kpfw. 35(t)
      • German Light Tank (Level 3) needs a space between Pz.Kpfw. and II and a period between Pz. and Kpfw., making it Pz.Kpfw. II
      • German Light Tank (Level 4) needs a space between Pz.Kpfw. and II and a period between Pz. and Kpfw., making it Pz.Kpfw. II Luchs
      • German Light Tank (Level 5) needs a period between 16 and 02, making it VK 16.02 Leopard
      • German Medium Tank (Level 2) needs a space between Pz.Kpfw. and III and a period between Pz. and Kpfw., making it Pz.Kpfw. III
      • German Medium Tank (Level 3) needs a space between Pz.Kpfw. and IV and a period between Pz. and Kpfw., making it Pz.Kpfw. IV
      • German Medium Tank (Level 4) should be reduced to just Pz.Kpfw. Panther A. In 1944, a decree was made to drop the "V" designation from the Panther's name.
      • German Medium Tank (Level 5) should be reduced to just Pz.Kpfw. Panther G. In 1944, a decree was made to drop the "V" designation from the Panther's name.
      • German Heavy Tank (Level 1) should be changed to Pz.Kpfw. Tiger to be consistent with other German tanks. In 1944, a decree was made to drop the "VI" designation from the Tiger's name.
      • German Heavy Tank (Level 2) should be changed to Pz.Kpfw. Löwe to be consistent with other German tanks.
      • German Heavy Tank (Level 3) should be changed to Pz.Kpfw. Tiger B to be consistent with other German tanks. "Königstiger" was an informal name, but it was directly associated with the vehicle.
      • German Heavy Tank (Level 4) should be changed to Pz.Kpfw. Maus to be consistent with other German tanks.
      • German Tank Destroyer (Level 1) should have the number "1" changed to the Roman numeral "I", making it Panzerjäger I.
      • German Tank Destroyer (Level 2) should be changed to Marder III, as the image is that of a Marder III.
      • German Tank Destroyer (Level 3) should be changed to Jagdpanzer 38(t), as the name "Hetzer" was never assigned to that vehicle.
      • German SP Artillery (Level 1) should be changed to 15 cm sIG 33 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf. B, or some shortening of it (i.e. 15 cm sIG 33 (Sf) auf Pz.Kpfw. I B). The name "Bison" was informal and possibly a post-war creation, while the name "Sturmpanzer I' was definitely false.
      • German SP Anti-Air (Level 1) should have periods and spaces added, making it Sd.Kfz. 10/4
      • German Interceptor (Level 1) should be changed to Heinkel He 51, without the dash
      • German Tactical Bomber (Level 2) should be changed to Dornier Do 17, without the dash
      • German Tactical Bomber (Level 3) should be changed to Heinkel He 111, without the dash
      • German Tactical Bomber (Level 4) should be changed to Junkers Ju 88 A, without the dash
      • German Tactical Bomber (Level 5) should be changed to Junkers Ju 188, without the dash
      • German Tactical Bomber (Level 6) should be changed to Henschel Hs 132, without the dash
      • German Strategic Bomber (Level 7) should be changed to Horten H.XVIII, with the period
      • German Naval Bomber (Level 2) should be changed to Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor, with the "w" in "Fw" lowercase
      • German Naval Bomber (Level 3) should be changed to Arado Ar 196 A-2, with the dash
      • German Naval Bomber (Level 4) should be changed to Junkers Ju 87 C, with the space and manufacturer
      • German Naval Bomber (Level 5) should be changed to Dornier Do 217 M-2, with the spaces and dashes
      • German Naval Bomber (Level 6) should be changed to Messerschmitt Me 410 B-5, with "Me" included
      • German Destroyer (Level 1) should be changed to Zerstörer 1934
      • German Destroyer (Level 2) should be changed to Zerstörer 1934A
      • German Destroyer (Level 4) should be changed to Zerstörer 1936A. The name "Narvik" was a codename used by the Allies.
      • German Cruiser (Level 6) should be changed to Admiral Hipper Class. The whole name was "Admiral Hipper", not just "Hipper"
      • German Cruiser (Level 7) "Prinz Eugen" was not a separate class. It was part of the Admiral Hipper class.
      • German Aircraft Carrier (Level 1) should be named Ausonia, not Eusonia
    • Some minor bitching and moaning:

      1. Zhucov quotation about going through a minefield... there is a word missing... as IF ...

      2. It bugs me that in the trades it starts with we DEMAND... no should say we OFFER.... for

      3. Also on the trade a little pet peeve is that when you write a sale order the sequence comes out the opposite in the actual market. If you order This for that then it should be reported as this for that. Not the current order which is we Demand that for this.

      4. In the upper left hand of the map is a legend but also a small strip of the map. Eliminate that strip and push the legend up. Even better allow a player to hide the legend and the strip above with the stockpile and see all map.

      5. Remove all national markings from the unit icons OR have a marking for each country. It is annoying to see American markings on Canadian units.
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      Some minor ******

      1. Zhucov quotation about going through a minefield... there is a word missing... as IF ...

      2. It bugs me that in the trades it starts with we DEMAND... no should say we OFFER.... for

      3. Also on the trade a little pet peeve is that when you write a sale order the sequence comes out the opposite in the actual market. If you order This for that then it should be reported as this for that. Not the current order which is we Demand that for this.

      4. In the upper left hand of the map is a legend but also a small strip of the map. Eliminate that strip and push the legend up. Even better allow a player to hide the legend and the strip above with the stockpile and see all map.

      5. Remove all national markings from the unit icons OR have a marking for each country. It is annoying to see American markings on Canadian units.
      As a new player, I got pretty mad about the demand when I saw it for the first time. Lol
      FORUM GANG General

      Ryan

      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician 3rd Grade
      Forum General
      President Training Alliance United
    • Thanks guys!

      I will take care of what you mentioned so far. From what I have seen it should be easy enough for us to find the locations of those lines due to your descriptions...

      However, in doubt and when possible please provide a screenshot as well. Especially when it is rather complicated to descirbe the location in words. :)
      Facebook: Call of War
      Twitter: Call of War
    • This could be a pretty easy fix, if you just include the enhanced Latin alphabet (maybe it's Cyrillic? I dunno) on display type. With province names, most if not all are spelled correctly... When you click on them for info. However, when zoomed in or looking at capital names, the attached names can't display certain characters, probably due to a lack of the proper alphabet to call. So if you just added that, the problem SHOULD fix itself almost. I am not a professional, don't quote me on this, but it's just how I see the problem.
    • USA/FR/GB (etc)

      • Artillery Level 1 - Should be renamed to 75 mm Pack Howitzer M1 (The name M116 came far after WWII)
      • Artillery Level 2 - Should be renamed to 105 mm Howitzer M2A1 (The name M101 came far after WWII, and the most common variant of the weapon was the A1 modification)
      • Artillery Level 3 - Should be renamed to 105 mm Howitzer M3
      • Artillery Level 4 - Should be renamed to 155 mm Howitzer M1 (The name M114 came far after WWII)
      • Artillery Level 5 - The "H" in Howitzer should be capitalized to read 240 mm Howitzer M1
      • Artillery Level 6 - "Mk" should have a period after it so it reads as "Mk. 6"
      • Anti-Tank Level 1 - Should be renamed to 37 mm Gun M3
      • Anti-Tank Level 2 - Should be renamed to 57 mm Gun M1
      • Anti-Tank Level 4 - Should be renamed to 76 mm Gun M1
      • Anti-Air Level 3 - Should be renamed to 40 mm Automatic Gun M1 (This was the American designation for the Bofors 40 mm)
      • Medium Tank Level 5 - Should be renamed to M47 Patton II
      • Heavy Tank Level 1 - Should be renamed to M6 Heavy Tank
      • Heavy Tank Level 2 - Should be renamed to T29 Heavy Tank
      • Heavy Tank Level 4 - Should be renamed to M103 Heavy Tank
      • Tank Destroyer Level 2 - Should be renamed to M10 Gun Motor Carriage (The name "Wolverine" was likely a post-war creation; there is little to no documentation of it being used during wartime, and definitely not in any official capacity)
      • Tank Destroyer Level 5 - Should be renamed to T95 Gun Motor Carriage
      • SP Artillery Level 3 - Should be renamed to M40 Gun Motor Carriage
      • SP Anti-Air Level 2 - Should be renamed to M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage
      • SP Anti-Air Level 4 - Should be renamed to M19 Gun Motor Carriage
      • Interceptor Level 1 - Should be renamed to Boeing P-26 (The name "Peashooter" was not official in any way)
      • Tactical Bomber Level 5 - Should be renamed to North American B-25 Mitchell
      • Strategic Bomber Level 6 - Should be renamed to North American B-45 Tornado
      • Naval Bomber Level 2 - Should be renamed to Douglas TBD Devastator
      • Cruiser Level 3 - There should be a period after "St", reading as "St. Louis Class"
      • Cruiser Level 6 - There should not be a dash between "City" and "Class", reading as Oregon City Class
      • Transport Level 1 - Should be renamed to C2 Class
      • Transport Level 2 - Should be renamed to C4 Class
      • Railroad Gun - I cannot find the existence of any American gun of this type;. The image is of the captured Schwerer Gustav (from the Germans). A naval gun such as the 16-inch Gun M1919 would be suitable, as the calibers still match
    • HugoTroop wrote:


      • Cruiser Level 3 - There should be a period after "St", reading as "St. Louis Class"
      • Railroad Gun - I cannot find the existence of any American gun of this type;. The image is of the captured Schwerer Gustav (from the Germans). A naval gun such as the 16-inch Gun M1919 would be suitable, as the calibers still match

      Great time spent on it! St can work with or without '.' but looks better with it. RRG's do not exist in American army. Only in German army though. That is why there is only one type of gun and only has German type. Ofc, other countries don't have nukes but have the potential in COW
      FORUM GANG General

      Ryan

      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician 3rd Grade
      Forum General
      President Training Alliance United
    • Basing the unit % of damage on the number of units in a stack is completely flawed... Yes stacks of 100 used to be impossible to kill off.. and a stack of 100 SP Artillery did a "killer" amount of damage.. But to claim that the units damage should decrease as the stack increases is silly if the excuse is.. well when you have that many units in an area they tend to get jumbled up... that makes no sense at all... none... now if the game had 100 different paths to enter a city and take over a territory that would sort of make sense... as 500 tanks on a single road would cause a traffic jam... except the game is not designed this way... the map has paths that represent all the roads into a city from another territory.... so the units would be spread out in that territory and not converging on "one road in and one road out". If the game is trying to be so "historically" accurate then it must realize that limiting the amount of damage caused by a stack is a completely flawed system. Artillery didn't pile into one small area.. it was always spread out.. (in the battle of Berlin 40,000 artillery units were used to attack Berlin... 2.5 million men attacked the city... they weren't piled up on top of each other)... This game uses "roads" to connect one territory to the next... Now I don't think there is anyone who plays this game that thinks their units are all traveling on some single road... armies travel across country.. when my armies attack they are moving in a massive line across miles to attack a city.. not all in a line waiting their turn to attack once the unit in front of them is killed off... that is just poor game play... limiting the amount of damage stacks do is.. pretty silly... it doesn't make sense in a game.. and it certainly doesn't happen on a real battlefield.. (nor does units having only one road to travel on). If the game is going to limit stack damage then the roads need to be removed and a tile based board needs to be put in place.. so many small units can travel from one territory to the next. Seems to me that the over all system worked so much better last year than it has this year.. (and I have more wins this year) Making the damaged based on how "clustered" units will fictitiously interfere with each other is silly... in 90% of all battles the larger army wins.. unless one army is poorly lead and the other uses better tactics.. (which the game does not take into consideration) so if those intangibles are not considered... then the larger army always wins... always... yet with the new system it erroneously considers limiting the units damage dealt on how many units are in a stack.. to me, the game is losing credibility.. Also if advancing research improves a unit (including how it looks which is cool) to be more accurate.. or more real to what the units are... A Jagdpanther had a top speed of 30 mph (15 mph off road) the Marder I, II and III had an average speed of 35 mph (26 mph off road) so as the unit became more "improved" it lost its speed... not gained it... research needs to reflect this.. also the amount of damage was significantly higher from a Marder I to a Jagdpanther... so if you are limiting stack sizes... Level 1 tank destroyers should be fast but do no damage against any heavily armored units and level 6 tank destroyers should move extremely slow... cost a ton of fuel but kill every armored unit it faces... (95% of Jagdpather and jagdtiger loses were from mechanical failure) They were basically invincible killing machines against Medium and heavy tanks.. Even anti tank guns had little effect on them... They would either mechanically break down or run out of ammunition or fuel and be abandoned... SO if you're limiting the damage a stack makes based on the false idea that mass units some how bunch up and interfere with each other.. this is not historically true in modern war at all... and if that is the new game mechanics, then the battle map needs to be changed to a tile or grid configuration to allow more mobility and freedom to break up stacks... as opposed to punishing people who are able to mass produce units based on a map that only allows one line into a territory....
    • PC-JPCIII wrote:

      Basing the unit % of damage on the number of units in a stack is completely flawed... Yes stacks of 100 used to be impossible to kill off.. and a stack of 100 SP Artillery did a "killer" amount of damage.. But to claim that the units damage should decrease as the stack increases is silly if the excuse is.. well when you have that many units in an area they tend to get jumbled up... that makes no sense at all... none... now if the game had 100 different paths to enter a city and take over a territory that would sort of make sense... as 500 tanks on a single road would cause a traffic jam... except the game is not designed this way... the map has paths that represent all the roads into a city from another territory.... so the units would be spread out in that territory and not converging on "one road in and one road out". If the game is trying to be so "historically" accurate then it must realize that limiting the amount of damage caused by a stack is a completely flawed system. Artillery didn't pile into one small area.. it was always spread out.. (in the battle of Berlin 40,000 artillery units were used to attack Berlin... 2.5 million men attacked the city... they weren't piled up on top of each other)... This game uses "roads" to connect one territory to the next... Now I don't think there is anyone who plays this game that thinks their units are all traveling on some single road... armies travel across country.. when my armies attack they are moving in a massive line across miles to attack a city.. not all in a line waiting their turn to attack once the unit in front of them is killed off... that is just poor game play... limiting the amount of damage stacks do is.. pretty silly... it doesn't make sense in a game.. and it certainly doesn't happen on a real battlefield.. (nor does units having only one road to travel on). If the game is going to limit stack damage then the roads need to be removed and a tile based board needs to be put in place.. so many small units can travel from one territory to the next. Seems to me that the over all system worked so much better last year than it has this year.. (and I have more wins this year) Making the damaged based on how "clustered" units will fictitiously interfere with each other is silly... in 90% of all battles the larger army wins.. unless one army is poorly lead and the other uses better tactics.. (which the game does not take into consideration) so if those intangibles are not considered... then the larger army always wins... always... yet with the new system it erroneously considers limiting the units damage dealt on how many units are in a stack.. to me, the game is losing credibility.. Also if advancing research improves a unit (including how it looks which is cool) to be more accurate.. or more real to what the units are... A Jagdpanther had a top speed of 30 mph (15 mph off road) the Marder I, II and III had an average speed of 35 mph (26 mph off road) so as the unit became more "improved" it lost its speed... not gained it... research needs to reflect this.. also the amount of damage was significantly higher from a Marder I to a Jagdpanther... so if you are limiting stack sizes... Level 1 tank destroyers should be fast but do no damage against any heavily armored units and level 6 tank destroyers should move extremely slow... cost a ton of fuel but kill every armored unit it faces... (95% of Jagdpather and jagdtiger loses were from mechanical failure) They were basically invincible killing machines against Medium and heavy tanks.. Even anti tank guns had little effect on them... They would either mechanically break down or run out of ammunition or fuel and be abandoned... SO if you're limiting the damage a stack makes based on the false idea that mass units some how bunch up and interfere with each other.. this is not historically true in modern war at all... and if that is the new game mechanics, then the battle map needs to be changed to a tile or grid configuration to allow more mobility and freedom to break up stacks... as opposed to punishing people who are able to mass produce units based on a map that only allows one line into a territory....
      I know you're new so I'll go easy on you: if you want to talk about something unrelated, completely, to the topic, please start your own thread. :)
    • JesterTheSheep wrote:

      PC-JPCIII wrote:

      Basing the unit % of damage on the number of units in a stack is completely flawed... Yes stacks of 100 used to be impossible to kill off.. and a stack of 100 SP Artillery did a "killer" amount of damage.. But to claim that the units damage should decrease as the stack increases is silly if the excuse is.. well when you have that many units in an area they tend to get jumbled up... that makes no sense at all... none... now if the game had 100 different paths to enter a city and take over a territory that would sort of make sense... as 500 tanks on a single road would cause a traffic jam... except the game is not designed this way... the map has paths that represent all the roads into a city from another territory.... so the units would be spread out in that territory and not converging on "one road in and one road out". If the game is trying to be so "historically" accurate then it must realize that limiting the amount of damage caused by a stack is a completely flawed system. Artillery didn't pile into one small area.. it was always spread out.. (in the battle of Berlin 40,000 artillery units were used to attack Berlin... 2.5 million men attacked the city... they weren't piled up on top of each other)... This game uses "roads" to connect one territory to the next... Now I don't think there is anyone who plays this game that thinks their units are all traveling on some single road... armies travel across country.. when my armies attack they are moving in a massive line across miles to attack a city.. not all in a line waiting their turn to attack once the unit in front of them is killed off... that is just poor game play... limiting the amount of damage stacks do is.. pretty silly... it doesn't make sense in a game.. and it certainly doesn't happen on a real battlefield.. (nor does units having only one road to travel on). If the game is going to limit stack damage then the roads need to be removed and a tile based board needs to be put in place.. so many small units can travel from one territory to the next. Seems to me that the over all system worked so much better last year than it has this year.. (and I have more wins this year) Making the damaged based on how "clustered" units will fictitiously interfere with each other is silly... in 90% of all battles the larger army wins.. unless one army is poorly lead and the other uses better tactics.. (which the game does not take into consideration) so if those intangibles are not considered... then the larger army always wins... always... yet with the new system it erroneously considers limiting the units damage dealt on how many units are in a stack.. to me, the game is losing credibility.. Also if advancing research improves a unit (including how it looks which is cool) to be more accurate.. or more real to what the units are... A Jagdpanther had a top speed of 30 mph (15 mph off road) the Marder I, II and III had an average speed of 35 mph (26 mph off road) so as the unit became more "improved" it lost its speed... not gained it... research needs to reflect this.. also the amount of damage was significantly higher from a Marder I to a Jagdpanther... so if you are limiting stack sizes... Level 1 tank destroyers should be fast but do no damage against any heavily armored units and level 6 tank destroyers should move extremely slow... cost a ton of fuel but kill every armored unit it faces... (95% of Jagdpather and jagdtiger loses were from mechanical failure) They were basically invincible killing machines against Medium and heavy tanks.. Even anti tank guns had little effect on them... They would either mechanically break down or run out of ammunition or fuel and be abandoned... SO if you're limiting the damage a stack makes based on the false idea that mass units some how bunch up and interfere with each other.. this is not historically true in modern war at all... and if that is the new game mechanics, then the battle map needs to be changed to a tile or grid configuration to allow more mobility and freedom to break up stacks... as opposed to punishing people who are able to mass produce units based on a map that only allows one line into a territory....
      I know you're new so I'll go easy on you: if you want to talk about something unrelated, completely, to the topic, please start your own thread. :)
      Wow that was a longgggggg reply =O =O :0
      "Hitler's Come and go, but Germany and the german people remain" -Joseph Stalingrad
    • Getting back to the whole unit renaming topic. First of all thanks for all the work you guys did here.

      Currently we are in the revamp of units naming and already moving around a lot of unit names and exchanging some which make no sense or don´t add up in terms of year of availability. Mainly due to CoW 1.5 but also for 1.0 we are already going through this list and changing the obvious things. Don´t knwo when this will be ready, as it is a mammoth project to move around names, ids of units, researching pictures etc.

      Back to the list itself: For some we might not agree, but i can already say for most we do. In the end where possible we go for consistency, historical accuracy and several other factors. And sometimes we have to make compromises or make things up. Aircraft carriers for example.

      To give some insights as well here are some of the tougher calls we have to make.
      - Long names are usually a problem as they might ruin the ui in some languages so we try to abbreviate where we can even at the cost of consistency.
      - Known nicknames although (like the hetzer) common terms nowadays and weren´t back then are a thing we are definetly aware off. Here we go rather for the broad mass to recognize them than the few who want to have the real 1945 names.
      - Picking the right ones for the right role and make it at least kind of comparable in timeline were also things we tried. (last thing we dropped as it is really impossible to match different nations equipment year over year). Still some of the most iconic units, especially planes often are left out as they don´t fit at least a consistent timeline.(consistency in terms of timeline we tried to keep) This bugged me a lot but there was too much development in some branches between 1939-1945 to really include the all.
      - And as usual sometimes material is not always reliable. We use a lot of sources, from books over simple internet research(we have over +100 sources and still adding), other games and so on. But even there you find a lot of different names for the same thing. Not saying that researching pictures is hell for some of these things
      - One last point regarding pictures, we try to add the right pictures to the right units for immersion.(And we had lengthy discussions to just remove them...) But also here it is sometimes merely impossible to find good or free to use ones for every type. So if we use a different variant picture, sorry for that. (Also one of the things we are currently working to ease the situation, but also one where we will have to make compromises)

      Looking forward to more input!
    • After a failed doctrine set, I am wondering when will CoW fix its history problems. We all know Bytro cant make all units for each nation. But they also want to solve problems by texts.

      You see, the simple solve ways has 2:
      1. Make all units description for each nation. Which will need some time.
      2. Replace text description
      Ex: Lv1 infantry(Like S1), Infantry 1918-1924, Infantry 1924-1928(for example), Light Tank 1938, Medium Tank 1940......

      If really want to mention what kind of unit it is, I suggest follow the description of NWE.

      So no one would say, why British used American equipments or similiar complains.