New Features in CoW 1.5

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

    • Peter Mat wrote:

      Looking through the Tech tree I noticed there are no longer elite units at maximum level. Are elite units going away? Assuming 1.0 goes then my blue prints will go also? Disregard, I did not realize the tech tree scrolled.

      I liked Little Debbie's idea.

      Little_Debbie wrote:

      can have new models for the max lvl
      My last question for today, once you're ready to roll this out permanently, will we be getting some new achievements to go along with some of the new units, doctrines etc?
      @freezy
      New or updated achievements are on the plan for a later update.

      ticket888 wrote:

      I'm playing the new World Map 4x Speed for CoW 1.5
      I have notices that my interceptors refuelling is not at 4x speed, it is still at normal speed refuelling of 15 real time minutes. At 4x speed it should be about 4 real time minutes.

      Anyone else notice this, need a fix.
      The refuel times are correct, at 1x speed an aircraft Factory lvl1 provides 60min refuel times, an airstrip lvl1 provides 30min refuel times. Upgrade those buildings to lower the refuel times.

      Vichy wrote:

      Hello,
      I have some early feedbacks and questions
      First, the assault planes. Are they a kind of hunter-bomber planes ? Because they should be better in plane vs plane fight. Currently, even if they look very cool, they seems to be a waste of time and money for an army.
      Secondly, the missiles. I still find them a little to op, and irrealistics. The way to counter them is too difficult ( In CoN, missiles looks good, and there were a lot of counter measures. Here (and it's logic in ww2), nothing. We r defenseless). They should maybe be a kind of equivalent of strategic bombers. And we saw their utilisation in ww2 (only by Germany) : in my memory, they were mainly ineffective. Fear for the population, some destructions, and that's it.
      And finally, i read that we will be able to build e;g lvl1 troops even if we had research lvl2, 3, 4 etc ... Is this feature been removed ?
      But generally, even if some units need still balancing, the 1.5 version looks good
      Rockets are already much weaker vs. troops in 1.5 compared to 1.0. Just compare how many Infs a rocket in 1.0 could defeat and how many it can defeat in 1.5, and keep comparing that when checking the different rocket levels. On the other hand the building damage of rockets have been increased quite a bit. So it should be clear that they are intended more as a strategic weapon now, with situational unit kills (but its usually not resource effective).

      You cannot continue to build lvl1 troops after you researched higher unit levels. That feature was only present in an earlier 1.5 version, but got removed for usability and balancing reasons (imagine someone spamming only lvl1 troops to cheaply upgrade them to lvl6 once he moved them into position).

      ValeraZol wrote:

      Commandos s*ks ! Make them stealth totally, so we will can move it on enemies ladns without they know that i am moving ! Now I cant move on enemies lands, i need to conquer provinces to move with commandos... it is pointless..
      Commandos in 1.5 are quite effective, even without the ability to sneak into enemy land. It would be easy to give them this ability, but we definitely won't because it would be totally overpowered. You could suddenly lose your capital or production province without any warning sign at all and not all players will place high level armored cars in every province. It is still not easy to catch them and they also have the additional bonus of ignoring fort bonuses.

      Tasmine wrote:

      How long will this test event hold? I am testing S1 new map. No time to play right now.
      There is no end date, you can join 1.5 games whenever you want. New versions will be rolled out in the future.

    • Ok, thanks a lot for your answers.
      Yes i understand for missiles, i'll see what it will do.

      But for the assault bombers, will they see their stat buff for plane vs plane fight ?
      Also, why giving higher attack stat than defense stat for normal bombers in air fight ?
      I was also wondering why such a difference between attack vs inf (so low) and vs armour for artillery, but after reflexion, yes it could work good. But i didn't understand why the range remain at 50 whatever the level as someone already said.

      And also for the resources, goods and wheat are very solicited (but let's say it's ok), but it's weird that the bunker cost more wheat than iron.

    • freezy wrote:

      Peter Mat wrote:

      Looking through the Tech tree I noticed there are no longer elite units at maximum level. Are elite units going away? Assuming 1.0 goes then my blue prints will go also? Disregard, I did not realize the tech tree scrolled.

      I liked Little Debbie's idea.

      Little_Debbie wrote:

      can have new models for the max lvl
      My last question for today, once you're ready to roll this out permanently, will we be getting some new achievements to go along with some of the new units, doctrines etc?@freezy
      New or updated achievements are on the plan for a later update.

      ticket888 wrote:

      I'm playing the new World Map 4x Speed for CoW 1.5
      I have notices that my interceptors refuelling is not at 4x speed, it is still at normal speed refuelling of 15 real time minutes. At 4x speed it should be about 4 real time minutes.

      Anyone else notice this, need a fix.
      The refuel times are correct, at 1x speed an aircraft Factory lvl1 provides 60min refuel times, an airstrip lvl1 provides 30min refuel times. Upgrade those buildings to lower the refuel times.

      Vichy wrote:

      Hello,
      I have some early feedbacks and questions
      First, the assault planes. Are they a kind of hunter-bomber planes ? Because they should be better in plane vs plane fight. Currently, even if they look very cool, they seems to be a waste of time and money for an army.
      Secondly, the missiles. I still find them a little to op, and irrealistics. The way to counter them is too difficult ( In CoN, missiles looks good, and there were a lot of counter measures. Here (and it's logic in ww2), nothing. We r defenseless). They should maybe be a kind of equivalent of strategic bombers. And we saw their utilisation in ww2 (only by Germany) : in my memory, they were mainly ineffective. Fear for the population, some destructions, and that's it.
      And finally, i read that we will be able to build e;g lvl1 troops even if we had research lvl2, 3, 4 etc ... Is this feature been removed ?
      But generally, even if some units need still balancing, the 1.5 version looks good
      Rockets are already much weaker vs. troops in 1.5 compared to 1.0. Just compare how many Infs a rocket in 1.0 could defeat and how many it can defeat in 1.5, and keep comparing that when checking the different rocket levels. On the other hand the building damage of rockets have been increased quite a bit. So it should be clear that they are intended more as a strategic weapon now, with situational unit kills (but its usually not resource effective).
      You cannot continue to build lvl1 troops after you researched higher unit levels. That feature was only present in an earlier 1.5 version, but got removed for usability and balancing reasons (imagine someone spamming only lvl1 troops to cheaply upgrade them to lvl6 once he moved them into position).

      ValeraZol wrote:

      Commandos s*ks ! Make them stealth totally, so we will can move it on enemies ladns without they know that i am moving ! Now I cant move on enemies lands, i need to conquer provinces to move with commandos... it is pointless..
      Commandos in 1.5 are quite effective, even without the ability to sneak into enemy land. It would be easy to give them this ability, but we definitely won't because it would be totally overpowered. You could suddenly lose your capital or production province without any warning sign at all and not all players will place high level armored cars in every province. It is still not easy to catch them and they also have the additional bonus of ignoring fort bonuses.

      Tasmine wrote:

      How long will this test event hold? I am testing S1 new map. No time to play right now.
      There is no end date, you can join 1.5 games whenever you want. New versions will be rolled out in the future.
      THANKS MAN ! But my dear general !! FIX THAT BUG ! After i killed an aircarier ship, his planes fall in convoy on water !!! Convoy on water- stupid ! Look !!! My subs was fighting for 2 days without damage for covoy but subs get damage !!!! It is pointless now to attack air craft carrier with subs, a big minus !!!!! Because your stack with subs will be blocked in a pointless battle for days !!!
      prnt.sc/sshp55
      prnt.sc/sshp87

    • freezy wrote:

      THEARBITER117 wrote:

      Everything is good except for the forced time limit, there shouldn't be one in the future for user generated content come on...
      There should be one for several reasons:
      First off most normal game rounds end way before the time limit. For example nearly all 1.5 rounds in the last test events finished before the 28 days timer ended. Now we give even more time than that, so normal rounds should have enough time to be ended.

      But sadly there are also a few game rounds from time to time which go on for a very long time and which players dont want to end. In those games large amounts of troops are amassed and lots of AI calculations take place because usually only ~3 active players are left in those rounds. This strains our servers unnecesserarily and we think that offering such sandboxes to a few amount of players to the detriment of most other players is not worth it.
      We rather want players playing together with the rest of the CoW community and regularly start new rounds than playing their own private rounds for years, which basically just creates costs and lag to say it bluntly.

      But we will for sure monitor how many games end before the timer ends and how many don't, and then we can make adjustments to the timer length.
      I find out this article interesting.

      ……only ~3 active players are left in those rounds.

      This is because how Bytro shaped this game. You want players killing each others and invade fast. Result is like this. Remember last time I said how many players survived in the game?

      7

      See, CoW really need to learn experience from S1. Almost no one like me want to spare enemy alive. And in S1, occupy province test player how to control morale. And then again, most of them only know how to grab and kill, use large amounts units like a giant trash.

      What they said? They said after update, S1 become Sim City and unplayable.

      Crazy rebellion for those players, haha.

    • Tasmine wrote:

      I find out this article interesting.
      ……only ~3 active players are left in those rounds.

      This is because how Bytro shaped this game. You want players killing each others and invade fast. Result is like this. Remember last time I said how many players survived in the game?

      7

      See, CoW really need to learn experience from S1. Almost no one like me want to spare enemy alive. And in S1, occupy province test player how to control morale. And then again, most of them only know how to grab and kill, use large amounts units like a giant trash.

      What they said? They said after update, S1 become Sim City and unplayable.

      Crazy rebellion for those players, haha.
      The 2 games have a different nature. S1 -> Game in WW1 (known for stalemates and long attritious battles), CoW -> Game in WW2 (known for Blitzkrieg). S1 has less provinces with more units due to auto recruitment, CoW has more provinces with less units. Due to that S1 can afford it to make conquering and holding indivdual provinces harder, in CoW it would not make as much sense.
      This said we are currently thinking about new features which would help to retain more players into the end game.

      Vichy wrote:

      Ok, thanks a lot for your answers.
      Yes i understand for missiles, i'll see what it will do.

      But for the assault bombers, will they see their stat buff for plane vs plane fight ?
      Also, why giving higher attack stat than defense stat for normal bombers in air fight ?
      I was also wondering why such a difference between attack vs inf (so low) and vs armour for artillery, but after reflexion, yes it could work good. But i didn't understand why the range remain at 50 whatever the level as someone already said.

      And also for the resources, goods and wheat are very solicited (but let's say it's ok), but it's weird that the bunker cost more wheat than iron.
      Attack bombers already have 3 damage categories where they are quite decent: Light Armor, heavy Armor and Ships. Adding one more (air) would make them too good of an allround weapon. We might increase their air fight stats but only a little bit. You are still meant to mix different plane types together.

      Planes have better stats in attacking because they are mainly used for attacking. They cannot take cover. It also incentivices using direct attacks a bit more. Plus it prevents some rare occasions where planes in an airport join ground battles, where we dont want planes to be good defenders.

      Artillery is worse vs. Inf because it is good vs armored units already (balancing reasons). Someone in the news thread about new units also explained already why it makes sense historically, which I don't recite now as the post would get too long. If you want a unit that is good vs. unarmored, use the rocket artillery.

      Ranged weapons keep their range when leveling up for balancing and activity reasons. Units of the next level shall be ~30% stronger than the previous level, and Artillery is no exception. They get more HP and more damage, and the cost is scaled accordingly. Adding even 1 pixel more range would result in potentially an infinite amount of more strength, since you could outrange enemies without taking damage yourself. Which leads to the activity problem: This is a game which runs 24/7, so not everyone can be online always. Getting all your ranged troops outranged while you are offline is a frustrating experience that we want to avoid.

      Resource costs are pretty balanced right now, some small tweaks may be necessary but overall it really depends on your playstyle and which units you build. Some players for example reported that they were low on rare materials, while others reported they had too many rare materials. Same goes for other resources. So if you lack certain resources, try to add different units into the mix which require different resources. Same goes for buildings.

      ValeraZol wrote:

      THANKS MAN ! But my dear general !! FIX THAT BUG ! After i killed an aircarier ship, his planes fall in convoy on water !!! Convoy on water- stupid ! Look !!! My subs was fighting for 2 days without damage for covoy but subs get damage !!!! It is pointless now to attack air craft carrier with subs, a big minus !!!!! Because your stack with subs will be blocked in a pointless battle for days !!!prnt.sc/sshp55
      prnt.sc/sshp87
      Hey, sorry that you encountered this bug. This bug is present in both CoW1.0 and CoW1.5. We could reproduce it and taskified it. Due to the nature of our release cycles there is no quick fix though, if it gets fixed it will be scheduled for a later update.

      cycle9 wrote:

      Day 7, only two players left! We retired and archived.
      Cow 1.5 is neither retaining new players nor engaging established players.
      Someone needs to pay attention to the entertainment value.
      A qualitative example that can not be used to make a general remark on how well retention works. Leave the quantifiable analysis to us :) We will cetainly not release a version which is inferior to the old version when we compare key KPIs, we tweak it if necessary.

      On a general note, it is expected and intended that game rounds in 1.5 end earlier than in 1.0

    • freezy wrote:

      Planes have better stats in attacking because they are mainly used for attacking. They cannot take cover. It also incentivices using direct attacks a bit more. Plus it prevents some rare occasions where planes in an airport join ground battles, where we dont want planes to be good defenders.
      Thanks for all your answers. Yes you're right, a little bit buff can be suffiscient for air fight fo assault bombers.
      For the attack stat, i was pointing mainly the bombers, because it's seems weird for me that a bombers was better in attack than in defense.

      How could a plane join a ground battle ? They are not took as convoit when on the ground ?

    • The one glaring issue that carries over from 1.0 is getting killed while yo go to work or go to bed.

      Went to work today and everything was fine no enemies in sight. When I came home one of my islands had been wiped out by battleships and tanks and my capital was under assault. Of course the troops I left to defend the islands and cities did nothing just like in 1.0.

      It would be really nice if you folks would allow us to turn our forces over to the AI when we go off to work or bed. At least then the units would respond (hopefully). Shift the patrolling planes to the beach landing site or the invasion corridor and kill off a few of the invaders. Anything other then sit would be an improvement.

      But alas no, those of us who go to work and can afford to buy gold once in a while to support the development of the game get wiped by those who sit home all day with no income.

      Other then this glaring issue I do enjoy the game, but get frustrated when this happens and will likely take another 6 to 12 month break from the game like last time. If you ever fix this, I think you would have a real winner.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • Confirmed, Attack Bombers do work well on shipping. I have now sent 2 battleships to the bottom where attack bombers were part of the eradicating force. Happy to see they can go on an aircraft carrier on day 1. Now to check skins and see if I can ever have an SBD Dauntless
      Images

      • SBD Dauntless.jpg

        7.85 kB, 299×168, viewed 3 times
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • Vichy wrote:

      gusv wrote:

      Peter Mat wrote:

      It would be really nice if you folks would allow us to turn our forces over to the AI when we go off to work or bed.
      Interesting thought ... 8)
      i agree, but maybe only for some units. Because as soon as ai take control of my units, it sent them all over my borders little stack by little stack, leaving my cities unprotected (in 1.0)
      yeah ai sometimes do stupid things and produce things that I don’t need.

    • Arcorian wrote:

      Game Ending Timer
      All Call of War 1.5 game rounds have a maximum run time, the same way events have them. When the time is up, the player or coalition with the most points wins the game round. Game ending timers prevent long running games with a low amount of active players from continuing, to avoid straining our game servers. For now, smaller maps will run 5 weeks, medium sized maps will run 7 weeks and large maps will run 10 weeks, if not won earlier. With the implementation of the end game timer only system generated maps will be affected. However, user generated maps will receive a game ending timer at a later stage as well.

      freezy wrote:

      But sadly there are also a few game rounds from time to time which go on for a very long time and which players dont want to end. In those games large amounts of troops are amassed and lots of AI calculations take place because usually only ~3 active players are left in those rounds. This strains our servers unnecesserarily and we think that offering such sandboxes to a few amount of players to the detriment of most other players is not worth it.
      We rather want players playing together with the rest of the CoW community and regularly start new rounds than playing their own private rounds for years, which basically just creates costs and lag to say it bluntly.
      Yes, some players might actually get together to make a special round with a roleplay or to try to maximize points or maximize a nuclear spread, or other such nonsense. And yes, this kind of sandboxing might add a small additional strain on the servers. But apart from the fact that some of those players might actually buy gold to pay for those additional units, their attempt at playing a sandboxed special map shouldn't be something punished.

      By far and large, most long-term matches (beyond 2 months) either are due to intense action by more than just a few players who keep winning and losing at relatively-balanced levels and the game goes on and on with players still on the edges of their seats, or are due to a single or few player(s) who is/are stretching things out solely/mostly against AI players. (I've participated both in the former case and in the latter case, and I've seen/known other players who've done the same.)

      For the latter case (single/few player(s)) — those players who are trying to have a slow/casual game against a bunch of AI players for a long-term — perhaps after a certain amount of low-activity by human players (i.e., 10 days), an automatic warning could be posted in the World Herald, indicating that if a certain amount of activity or progress isn't made within a limited time-frame, then the match will end. That way, you could incentivise lone/few player(s) into wrapping it up, or at least picking up the pace. And if they respond in kind, but then later slow down again, the warning could return, and maybe if it returns multiple times, then the time-limit indicator until action is increased will shorten and keep shortening until players are forced to stay active (and "highly" active) to keep the round from ending. That would be highly successful for keeping the servers from being wasted and would keep such players from dragging it out too long, nor from feeling like they are getting short-changed by the game.

      For the former case (intense action matches by at least some players, if not many), having an arbitrary time limit makes absolutely no sense for non-event matches, though it could be argued that it "might" make sense for automatically-started matches. But for user-generated matches and alliance matches, such intense play could conceivably go on for many months. And I've seen it happen....been in such matches where, to end it by a time limit, would have ruined the game for many players and prevented ultimate wars from playing out in a realistic way.

      — Key Investor Data —

      This game is meant for strategy gamers. And the new version 1.5 seems to retain that essence, but at the same time, some of the improvements are chipping away at the most appealing elements of Call of War for strategy gamers like myself. Time limits, lack of realism in the simulation (i.e., not being able to build new industrial centers), constantly-changing unit balancing and abilities, appeals to increasingly-younger (and even child) players. None of these makes sense in a strategy-gaming market.

      Not only is it true that the average age of gamers is now about 35, but the average age of strategy gamers is even higher, since it's an endeavor of the mature. Yes, young people also play strategy games, but they don't have the spare cash to invest in the game, nor are they interested in games with less excitement....AND, adding extra excitement to a game actually turns away it's principle investors, the more-mature grown-ups.

      Here's proof:

      quanticfoundry.com/2016/02/10/gamer-generation/
      https://www.gamesparks.com/blog/the-average-gamer-how-the-demographics-have-shifted/



      And if you think a match lasting more than a few months is too much, then don't check out this story of a man who played a single match of Civilization II for nearly a decade:

      reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/u…_civilization_ii/c4ziej8/

      EchoOfTheWolves wrote:

      Urban focus? Removes the distinction between CoW and CoN. The Industrial Complex is a mechanic that makes Call of War recognisable to me, whether from having to repair damaged lvl 1 ICs or being able to build it in certain provinces to maximise production. It’s a defining feature, in S1 you can build production buildings anywhere and in CoN you have the cities with its urban focus. CoW has the IC, you can build it anywhere and that’s more resource production and another place for unit production, but it’ll cost you valuable Rare Materials.
      Here Here!

      Bravo!

      I echo your assertion!

      You make an excellent point!

      :thumbsup:

    • CB4462 wrote:

      the Main thing i do not like about 1.5 is the Refueling time for planes, it makes them Almost Useless for Offence or defence, Refueling is like 10 x slower then in Cow 1.0. Not realistic at all for WWII. since it was the airforce that won the war for us!
      Airstrips will be quicker then aircraft factories. The factories refueling time is an hours which is quite long, but airstrips are the exact same as 1.0

    • CB4462 wrote:

      the Main thing i do not like about 1.5 is the Refueling time for planes, it makes them Almost Useless for Offence or defence, Refueling is like 10 x slower then in Cow 1.0. Not realistic at all for WWII. since it was the airforce that won the war for us!
      I've noticed the same thing with refueling. Very ridiculous waiting time. However, I believe this is actually a strategic decision to be made now. If you spend some resources and upgrade your airfields, theorectically, they refuel much faster. I'll give it a try. That is if my planes don't all get squashed waiting to refuel before I can get it done.

      BTW, the provinces switching sides just happened to me in my 2nd 1.5 game. F''d me all up again. Gave territory back to my enemy, some to an inactive player. Wow. You guys got to fix this fast or you're going to lose us.

    • As I have understood the discussions on changes to the stack attack order I believe what is supposed to occur is the most lethal 10 units attack your target and visa versa. In practice, with my aircraft this doesn not seem to e the case. I attacked a stack of 34 bombers with a stack of 10 fighters. How is it I lost that engagement? My 10 fighters up against his 10 bombers in direct assault. The bombers won????

      I'm kind of tired of all these surprises in this game. This will be my last post. I'll check back in a few months to see if COW has fixed this mess we call 1.5.

    • Balhog wrote:

      As I have understood the discussions on changes to the stack attack order I believe what is supposed to occur is the most lethal 10 units attack your target and visa versa. In practice, with my aircraft this doesn not seem to e the case. I attacked a stack of 34 bombers with a stack of 10 fighters. How is it I lost that engagement? My 10 fighters up against his 10 bombers in direct assault. The bombers won????

      I'm kind of tired of all these surprises in this game. This will be my last post. I'll check back in a few months to see if COW has fixed this mess we call 1.5.
      freezy wrote this in another post:

      It does not depend on your army's armor classes, it depends on your army's damage output for each armor class and if it is defending or attacking.

      The 10 strongest values attacking vs. unarmored are used, the 10 strongest values defending vs. unarmored are used, the 10 strongest values attacking vs. light armored are used, the 10 strongest values defending vs. light armor and so on, for all the categories.

      This means that you mix more than 10 units together, you should try to mix units which are good against different categories, because then you lose less efficiency (but you will lose efficiency no matter what above 10 units in your army, you can only optimize it to lose less efficiency).


      Now just for remember less hp=less attack, if you mix this with doctrines Buff and penalties and loss of eficiecy it could be possible
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Danieliyoverde123 ().