New Features in CoW 1.5

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

    • ok i understand, but they must be at the beginning on a easy mode, if you want. Not on a brainless and foul mode. I see that almost ALL the ai are building, and since day 1, transport structures in their cities provinces. I might have missed something, but what's the point ? Spending resources in useless things ?
      Ok, i recognize that i saw players did the same
      But wait a minute, i'm just thinking... It may have been the AI that did that : i didn't think about that problem. Imagine a game, it happens that you join it at day 2, day 3 sometimes, even more. In addition to the easy ai that may be a little disadvantage (no research, no troops created, i don't know), if the ai had build useless buildings and nothing usefull, it could be a real burden and problem for the player. So here another question : if you think that ai are good like they are, are the ai of countries playable at least a little more intelligent in the first days ?
      Thanks
    • freezy wrote:

      Well in my games the AI didnt only build transport structures. AI also does not build less troops than in 1.0. It can be just quite random on that the AI settles on doing. And yeah they are not optimized for best build orders or balancing. Maybe we do that later once most of the 1.5 changes are done.
      ok great, because it's really sad. Day four, i see transport structures almost everywhere. Cosaque Republic, 2 cities, 2 transport infrastructures lvl 2 ;(
      How am i supposed to team with them and save them lol (btw, does the ai give right of way in 1.5 please ? And when/how ? I only had some in my previous games in both versions with ai in row since the beginning of the round, so randomly).
    • RiverWolf74 wrote:

      Little_Debbie wrote:

      Hi there's a little problem and i built 3 Kongo class Battleships and i put the historical names and everything and after the constructions i can't find the names i put for the ship so are they there or is it bugged out
      they will show up on the newspaper

      Is this deliberate or is this something they (programmers/admin/staff) overlooked and will (hopefully) be fixing in the future?

      I had noticed the same thing with a pair of battleships I launched. They were given names at creation but once they hit the water, their names were no longer visible (other than, yes, the paper). It's only a small bit of text and entirely insignificant in their performance, but it's a nice touch. If you're not going to display the name, then why tease you by asking for one?
      There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.
    • NidhoggPC wrote:

      RiverWolf74 wrote:

      Little_Debbie wrote:

      Hi there's a little problem and i built 3 Kongo class Battleships and i put the historical names and everything and after the constructions i can't find the names i put for the ship so are they there or is it bugged out
      they will show up on the newspaper
      Is this deliberate or is this something they (programmers/admin/staff) overlooked and will (hopefully) be fixing in the future?

      I had noticed the same thing with a pair of battleships I launched. They were given names at creation but once they hit the water, their names were no longer visible (other than, yes, the paper). It's only a small bit of text and entirely insignificant in their performance, but it's a nice touch. If you're not going to display the name, then why tease you by asking for one?
      it is deliberate. If they wanted to change it they easily could...
    • I know you havn't fixed the problem but I'm gonna keep highlighting it until you do. Yesterday I took a province in early 1.5 game. The entire Country was taken before day change. This Province was the only on in the country. At day change, even the the entire country was captured, the city switched sides to the counry that no longer exists. Please fix this nonsense.
    • Vichy wrote:

      ok great, because it's really sad. Day four, i see transport structures almost everywhere. Cosaque Republic, 2 cities, 2 transport infrastructures lvl 2 ;( How am i supposed to team with them and save them lol (btw, does the ai give right of way in 1.5 please ? And when/how ? I only had some in my previous games in both versions with ai in row since the beginning of the round, so randomly).
      The mechanics in that regard are the same in 1.5 as in 1.0. Means AI can give right of way after a while, if your standing to them is positive.

      Balhog wrote:

      I know you havn't fixed the problem but I'm gonna keep highlighting it until you do. Yesterday I took a province in early 1.5 game. The entire Country was taken before day change. This Province was the only on in the country. At day change, even the the entire country was captured, the city switched sides to the counry that no longer exists. Please fix this nonsense.
      The fact that revolts exist at all in the game is not debatable and won't get changed. It is also the same in 1.5 as in 1.0. The logic to which countries a province can revolt did not change in 1.5.
      Regarding the values when revolts occur and how hard it is to suppress them, I already said that it will get changed soon.
      This thread is about discussing new 1.5 features, not to discuss basic game mechanics of all CoW versions.
    • freezy,

      Since we're discussing changes in 1.5, I'd like to then resurrect my earlier post regarding the apparent disappearance of Battleship names from their unit descriptions.

      RiverWolf74 kindly replied to my initial question on the matter, when I was asking if it was intentional or an oversight, by stating that "it is deliberate. If they wanted to change it they easily could...". While I am grateful for his assistance, which I have found to be invaluable during my short time and many questions on the forums, I also, respectfully, disagree with it. There are all manner of settings or decisions which have been made which likely, at the time, were intentional, but later reconsidered and adjusted. That, or perhaps something was set in a way with little attention paid to it, until afterwards it was seen as faulty and remedied. So, simply because something has not been fixed does not automatically mean it was intentional.

      That said, I would like to formally request reconsideration of the removal of battleship names from the unit description. The appearance in the World Herald is nice, but I would still like to see the name appear on the unit description when I click on it. I know it has no statistical, performance value or weight to the game itself, but I feel that if you are willing to kindly allow us the luxury of naming and personalizing a capital ship, that we could enjoy the benefit of that name, without having to scroll back 15 days in the paper to read about that day it was first launched.

      Note that I've only experienced this with battleships, so I can only assume that the same happens with Carriers- I just haven't built any in 1.5 to be able to speak with confidence on those.

      Thank you in advance for your time. If this matter has already been considered and a firm decision to not include the name has been made, then I thank you nonetheless and still look forward to many (obsessive) hours playing this wonderful game.

      -Nidhogg
      There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.
    • freezy wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      ok great, because it's really sad. Day four, i see transport structures almost everywhere. Cosaque Republic, 2 cities, 2 transport infrastructures lvl 2 ;( How am i supposed to team with them and save them lol (btw, does the ai give right of way in 1.5 please ? And when/how ? I only had some in my previous games in both versions with ai in row since the beginning of the round, so randomly).
      The mechanics in that regard are the same in 1.5 as in 1.0. Means AI can give right of way after a while, if your standing to them is positive.

      Balhog wrote:

      I know you havn't fixed the problem but I'm gonna keep highlighting it until you do. Yesterday I took a province in early 1.5 game. The entire Country was taken before day change. This Province was the only on in the country. At day change, even the the entire country was captured, the city switched sides to the counry that no longer exists. Please fix this nonsense.
      The fact that revolts exist at all in the game is not debatable and won't get changed. It is also the same in 1.5 as in 1.0. The logic to which countries a province can revolt did not change in 1.5.Regarding the values when revolts occur and how hard it is to suppress them, I already said that it will get changed soon.
      This thread is about discussing new 1.5 features, not to discuss basic game mechanics of all CoW versions.
      Sorry but that simply is not true. It is NOT the same in 1.5 as 1.0. I have played many games with each version. As long as you want to say such nonsense I suppose there is no hope of getting it fixed.

      Do you work for COW? What the hell dude? Why are you ignoring and lying about this?
    • NidhoggPC wrote:

      freezy,

      Since we're discussing changes in 1.5, I'd like to then resurrect my earlier post regarding the apparent disappearance of Battleship names from their unit descriptions.

      RiverWolf74 kindly replied to my initial question on the matter, when I was asking if it was intentional or an oversight, by stating that "it is deliberate. If they wanted to change it they easily could...". While I am grateful for his assistance, which I have found to be invaluable during my short time and many questions on the forums, I also, respectfully, disagree with it. There are all manner of settings or decisions which have been made which likely, at the time, were intentional, but later reconsidered and adjusted. That, or perhaps something was set in a way with little attention paid to it, until afterwards it was seen as faulty and remedied. So, simply because something has not been fixed does not automatically mean it was intentional.

      That said, I would like to formally request reconsideration of the removal of battleship names from the unit description. The appearance in the World Herald is nice, but I would still like to see the name appear on the unit description when I click on it. I know it has no statistical, performance value or weight to the game itself, but I feel that if you are willing to kindly allow us the luxury of naming and personalizing a capital ship, that we could enjoy the benefit of that name, without having to scroll back 15 days in the paper to read about that day it was first launched.

      Note that I've only experienced this with battleships, so I can only assume that the same happens with Carriers- I just haven't built any in 1.5 to be able to speak with confidence on those.

      Thank you in advance for your time. If this matter has already been considered and a firm decision to not include the name has been made, then I thank you nonetheless and still look forward to many (obsessive) hours playing this wonderful game.

      -Nidhogg
      I would say the removal of the name in the army bar was accidental, but us not fixing it immediately is deliberate. It is a really low prio feature since it is purely cosmetical and seen only in rare occasions in the game. Since we don't have unlimited development time we rather focus on other bugs or features. Honestly speaking I also don't like the feature that much, because naming features are always abused by a bunch of players who put in offensive names. I understand why honest players like it though. Next to the newspaper I think you should also still see the name in the front reports.

      Balhog wrote:

      Sorry but that simply is not true. It is NOT the same in 1.5 as 1.0. I have played many games with each version. As long as you want to say such nonsense I suppose there is no hope of getting it fixed.
      Do you work for COW? What the hell dude? Why are you ignoring and lying about this?
      Yes I do and I am not lying. I am also not ignoring this, I commented on the issue a dozen times already in the forums and already announced that we will make further changes soon and will reduce the revolt chance a bit. But we won't remove revolts in general.
      And it is still the truth: The revolt mechanics are the same in CoW1.0 and CoW1.5. There is only a slight difference in the troop strength needed to suppress a revolt because CoW1.5 has stronger units.
      There are some differences in how morale development is affected in provinces but this is unrelated to revolt calculations.

      You having different experiences in CoW1.0 or CoW1.5 can be simply due to luck, since it is a chance based feature to begin with. Also ~2 months ago revolts were not working at all in both cow1.0 and cow1.5, so when you played your last cow1.0 round back then it would also explain why you would think that there is no a difference between both versions.

      EZ Dolittle wrote:

      Not exactly a Balance issue, but when you look at a player's profile and go to the units built and lost, there is a place for Transports. But transports do not exist as a unit they are a capability.
      Technically transports are a separate unit in the system. Since we didnt implement a special use case for them they are listed as well. Also doesnt have the highest prio to implement such a special case, but may be done at some point.
    • freezy wrote:

      NidhoggPC wrote:

      freezy,

      Since we're discussing changes in 1.5, I'd like to then resurrect my earlier post regarding the apparent disappearance of Battleship names from their unit descriptions.

      RiverWolf74 kindly replied to my initial question on the matter, when I was asking if it was intentional or an oversight, by stating that "it is deliberate. If they wanted to change it they easily could...". While I am grateful for his assistance, which I have found to be invaluable during my short time and many questions on the forums, I also, respectfully, disagree with it. There are all manner of settings or decisions which have been made which likely, at the time, were intentional, but later reconsidered and adjusted. That, or perhaps something was set in a way with little attention paid to it, until afterwards it was seen as faulty and remedied. So, simply because something has not been fixed does not automatically mean it was intentional.

      That said, I would like to formally request reconsideration of the removal of battleship names from the unit description. The appearance in the World Herald is nice, but I would still like to see the name appear on the unit description when I click on it. I know it has no statistical, performance value or weight to the game itself, but I feel that if you are willing to kindly allow us the luxury of naming and personalizing a capital ship, that we could enjoy the benefit of that name, without having to scroll back 15 days in the paper to read about that day it was first launched.

      Note that I've only experienced this with battleships, so I can only assume that the same happens with Carriers- I just haven't built any in 1.5 to be able to speak with confidence on those.

      Thank you in advance for your time. If this matter has already been considered and a firm decision to not include the name has been made, then I thank you nonetheless and still look forward to many (obsessive) hours playing this wonderful game.

      -Nidhogg
      I would say the removal of the name in the army bar was accidental, but us not fixing it immediately is deliberate. It is a really low prio feature since it is purely cosmetical and seen only in rare occasions in the game. Since we don't have unlimited development time we rather focus on other bugs or features. Honestly speaking I also don't like the feature that much, because naming features are always abused by a bunch of players who put in offensive names. I understand why honest players like it though. Next to the newspaper I think you should also still see the name in the front reports.

      freezy,

      Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I agree that it's very low on the List of Priorities, and I admit I would be concerned if you had a group rushing to release an emergency update to fix it! Honestly, knowing that it was not deliberately omitted and that it'll be fixed eventually, when the opportunity arises, is all I needed to hear. Thank you again for your answer.

      On a quick side-note, I wanted to mention how I also understand your concern and apprehension regarding the entire ship-naming option. I recall once speaking with a COW friend how I would be thrilled if we could name every single ship, since every single ship has a name in real life. He pointed out the same thing you did- how silly people will give ships silly names and ruin the immersion of the game. Before you know it, your transport was sunk by the S.S. Idiot or your town was bombarded by the USS Shippy McShipface. We both know that name selections could be much, much worse; it's a feature that can be exploited by those of petty minds, which makes it difficult for those of us who take that luxury more seriously.

      That said, thank you again for your time and for looking into the matter.
      There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.
    • New

      Balance Response-
      In the new version there is a feature of low morale in cities affects the build time.
      This has a very big impact on newly conquered cities. This is further compounded by the higher level of facility needed to build higher level units.

      The strategic approach to this that I use is that I never develop Armored Cars or Militia and sometimes Anti Tank Guns past the first level. This way when you capture a new city you can in the shortest possible time build a unit there of the various three types. Armored Cars are ideal for continuing to raid and break through the enemy's open field. Anti Guns are idea to stop the enemy counter raiding Armored cars and some of its light tanks. Where as militia can be used in the shortest period of time to hold the place and eat up the combat clock and deter rebellion .

      I am not sure if this concept of maintaining a lowest grade unit is something that was considered in the balance changes, but it is now a feature of some play styles... namely mine.

      Is this acceptable to the design team>?