New Units in CoW 1.5

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

    • I personally am a fan of new units, I think this enables more strategy as more variety in the choices for stacks.

      Ofc until we see the stats we cannot really say much. I do have two concerns with new units in general tho.

      1. With new units and esp these, we now likely need two troops when before we needed one. Although tacs where weaker against armour and same for the arty units, they could attack them pretty much fine. Therefore, will arty, SP arty, tacs, and then these new rocket arty and attack bombers all have a reduced cost to balance this? Whereas before I only needed one tac to kill 1 LT and 1 inf, now I need one tac and one attack bomber. And if not, how will they be balanced out given that we now seem to require two units instead of the one.

      2. And the more concern I have, already in 1.0 I struggle really hard to keep research up to date with troops. I normally only really need to research 6ish main troops, and id like to use more but I never can balance out my research. Of these troops, tacs, arty and SP arty are all used, therefore it is possible I will now need to balance out 9 troops of research. So, how will this be balances out? Also with 1.5 aiming for more unit diversity, I think it would encourage this if either troops unlocked their new research either every 5 or 6 days, or the time for research was reduced.

      Maybe you have balanced it out, or are just looking for feedback on this or both? If either one has occurred (it has been a while since last 1.5 so if research times have been reduced, any chance we can be notified?, and if not, perhaps this should be something we as the players all should try to take a closer look into)

      If more troops will be added (yay!!!) how will their costs be balanced out, and for me more importantly the research be balanced?

      Looking forward to hearing the next instalments whenever they are announced!!

      Also... thoughts on changing the name of "Attack Bombers" to perhaps "Torpedo Bombers"... I for one think that would be a really great little tweak :D
      Torpedo28000
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • lord tyr wrote:

      The idea sounds nice, but nerfing artillery to be weak against unarmored units doesn’t make any sense.
      Artillery is not what like you see in movies, the same goes for rockets. The first time I saw artillery bombardment I was pretty disappointed at what it does: A big puff of smoke, some shrapnel here and there. I found the insurgents maimed and mangled but most were not dead. It does absolutely very little against a human body( unless you are unlucky enough to be luckily standing near the place where the shell landed). Now imagine how little damage would be done in those days.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by blue44elephant ().

    • BarkingHand wrote:

      Just want to chime in here... I'm all for new units, especially historically accurate ones, but why the need to nerf existing units?

      To create design space. Eg the current tactical bomber was strong vs both infantry and armor. If you create a new bomber that is even stronger against armor, either it becomes a super weapon vs armor and armor units lose a lot of their value, or it is only marginally better vs armor in which case no point using them.

      But if you
      weaken the tactical bomber vs armor and create a new dive bomber that is
      good vs armor, then you have "space" for both units.

      Little Racoon wrote:

      I don't know much about artillery, but wouldn't it make more sense for rocket arti to hit armored units better?
      Two reasons :
      - The shell size & weight was typically smaller for a rocket. Of course, there were exceptions and Germany used heavy rockets, but that'q a general trend. On an armored target, it is more efficient to use one ammo with 4 time the explosive than 4 ammo with 1/4 of the explosive.

      - The accuracy. It is really hard to destroy a tank without a direct hit or, for the heaviest shells, a close miss. Rockets are extremely inaccurate, but they really cover an area in explosion before the infantry can take cover. Artillery, though there were methods developped in WW2 so shells shot at different times would "arrive" at the same time, did not have this capacity to saturate an area in a few seconds, but the could be redirected to the target by observers - which rocket artillery could not.
    • WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      C88 wrote:

      for those who complain about cow 1.5 being boring then i advice to lower the build time of units so we can battle since day 1 easly... just like the first test of cow 1.5 was interessing because we could build units fast even if they became useless on day 2 or 4... still its worth it
      Who gets to break the news to the "useless" units that they are now useless? :/
      No one... those new units are useless if you consider how short we were on resources and how hard is to catch up with tecnology upgrades. So adding more units and nerfing our actual tac is usefull for them to make the game appear new but bad for a skilled player which will need to spend more time and more resources in something that may be uselfull vs something specific and bad in anything else... because infranty AA will still do same dmg vs any type of air unit meanwhile we will need a specific air unit to nuke AA infranty and another specific air unit to nuke the shit out of AA armored. So in the end its another nerf for air units which will take more time to upgrade more time to build and they will be less effective overall against AA ( armored or infranty would make no difference).
      A fair upgrade would be make different types of air units class like is in the AA case ( which exits AA armored and aa infranty ) but i believe this will mess with codes and with many ppl which are clueless about game mechanincs.
    • Killer8282 wrote:

      Little Racoon wrote:

      I don't know much about artillery, but wouldn't it make more sense for rocket arti to hit armored units better?
      Yeah, that’s what I thought...
      Artillery is not what like you see in movies, the same goes for rockets. The first time I saw artillery bombardment I was pretty disappointed at what it does: A big puff of smoke, some shrapnel here and there. I found the insurgents maimed and mangled but most were not dead. It does absolutely very little against a human body( unless you are unlucky enough to be luckily standing near the place where the shell landed). Now imagine how little damage would be done in those days.
    • revengegirl wrote:

      Me personally i don't like being at war on day 1 it just feels too soon like i have no time to think out my plan so i'm ok with a small delay like if it was day 3 or day 4. I honestly don't understand why some players want to declare war on the first day of the game because that normally backfires which is not a good idea if you want to win. If you want to win whether it's a solo win or a coalition win in the meantime build more troops, stack your units together and upgrade the buildings then plan who you will be at war against. That's how i see it when i try to win in my games.
      a) if you want fight 100% active enemy at least in your stats, you must attack on day1, because you never know wenn and who leave the round.
      b) Capitalhunting is must do, if you go for economic superpower. As soon as possible.
    • revengegirl wrote:

      Me personally i don't like being at war on day 1 it just feels too soon like i have no time to think out my plan so i'm ok with a small delay like if it was day 3 or day 4. I honestly don't understand why some players want to declare war on the first day of the game because that normally backfires which is not a good idea if you want to win. If you want to win whether it's a solo win or a coalition win in the meantime build more troops, stack your units together and upgrade the buildings then plan who you will be at war against. That's how i see it when i try to win in my games.
      well what i think is that when you attack on like day 1, yes my units are less developed but my enemies' units are also less developed. This is advantage for me cos i just dont know how some players can out research me so much like everytime i play a game i make sure i conquer enough provinces producing rare goods so i can research n i always make sure i keep researching and dont stop but when i meet my opponent he has like lvl 5 light tanks as opposed to my lvl 2 LT so obv i retreat. And js a side question is it possible for units to heal?
      One day there will be no more wars
    • vyliance wrote:

      revengegirl wrote:

      Me personally i don't like being at war on day 1 it just feels too soon like i have no time to think out my plan so i'm ok with a small delay like if it was day 3 or day 4. I honestly don't understand why some players want to declare war on the first day of the game because that normally backfires which is not a good idea if you want to win. If you want to win whether it's a solo win or a coalition win in the meantime build more troops, stack your units together and upgrade the buildings then plan who you will be at war against. That's how i see it when i try to win in my games.
      well what i think is that when you attack on like day 1, yes my units are less developed but my enemies' units are also less developed. This is advantage for me cos i just dont know how some players can out research me so much like everytime i play a game i make sure i conquer enough provinces producing rare goods so i can research n i always make sure i keep researching and dont stop but when i meet my opponent he has like lvl 5 light tanks as opposed to my lvl 2 LT so obv i retreat. And js a side question is it possible for units to heal?
      if lvl 5 light tank make you retreat then u really need to learn the game xD
    • C88 wrote:

      vyliance wrote:

      revengegirl wrote:

      Me personally i don't like being at war on day 1 it just feels too soon like i have no time to think out my plan so i'm ok with a small delay like if it was day 3 or day 4. I honestly don't understand why some players want to declare war on the first day of the game because that normally backfires which is not a good idea if you want to win. If you want to win whether it's a solo win or a coalition win in the meantime build more troops, stack your units together and upgrade the buildings then plan who you will be at war against. That's how i see it when i try to win in my games.
      well what i think is that when you attack on like day 1, yes my units are less developed but my enemies' units are also less developed. This is advantage for me cos i just dont know how some players can out research me so much like everytime i play a game i make sure i conquer enough provinces producing rare goods so i can research n i always make sure i keep researching and dont stop but when i meet my opponent he has like lvl 5 light tanks as opposed to my lvl 2 LT so obv i retreat. And js a side question is it possible for units to heal?
      if lvl 5 light tank make you retreat then u really need to learn the game xD
      well im not vry experienced yet only lvl 46 n only 4 coalition victories n 0 solo victories perhaps we could join a game tgt as allies?
      One day there will be no more wars
    • im lvl 104 34 solo victory and 24 coalition with 3.77 k/d and what i mean is that a light tank is almost useless unit u can easly kill it with cheap anti tanks or tacticals... you have to focus on few units that you want as high as possibile and forget about others ( at least at the begining )... i usualy raise to max lvl artillery infranty and armored , interceptors , tacticals, missiles, anti air infranty and armored. i litteraly won any map without use a single tank.
    • I believe that ranged units can get really annoying now and i don't know about rockets in WWII but I think that it is pretty cool and i can't wait to find out what strategy there is here
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader
    • Rockets sucked. Their frame was really poor quality and half of them would never reach their target. Rocket artillery was good but it came with its own problems. No one really had any experience in them and they were not used much often unlike what your history buff tells you AND reloading sucked! They were more like firecrackers at the best.