the 1.5 building system dumbs down the strategy

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

    • Thanks. On my screen it is a 1(showing level) not an i. Also, even that only appears on buildings I've already built. On the "construction" screen, there is no indication that I can find about what the function of the building is. I need to know what I'm building before I build it, not after. What am I missing?
      OysterT

    • @eruth, you're right that buildings having only one purpose makes decisions when to raise which building where easier. With these words you nailed it:

      eruth wrote:

      In 1.0, most buildings have multiple different values (economic, production, transportation) that cannot be easily compared and so trying to figure out what to build is less of a min/max math operation and more of a strategic puzzle.
      After the first CoW1.5 test event, I wrote the same criticism, exactly like you did in this thread. However, after playing CoW1.5 for a while, I didn't repeat that. Because freezy is also right when he wrote in CoW1.0 it nevertheless wasn't more difficult to hit the right building decisions.
      The reason for this I'm convinced is the different resource distribution. In CoW1.0 it was very clear that maximizing the economy in the double resource provinces of your core always had top priority. Second priority always maximizing the economy in single resource provinces of your core. Then worry about all the rest.
      In CoW1.5, industry in rural provinces pays off a little bit slower than in cities. So you'd ideally like to start with industry in cities, but that means you cannot raise unit production buildings during the first days. There's the new trade-off either economical or unit production buildings. A decision you often didn't face in CoW1.0, because you more or less got both with the same buildings.
      Bottom line: eruth is right that single-purpose-buildings make decisions easier (which is NOT positive for a strategy game). But that has been evened out by CoW1.5 having more buildings and a different resource distribution.

      Now why I'm digging out this one-month old topic: I read in a different thread there's the plan to separate the infra morale bonus from the speed bonus into two buildings. And then I feel eruth's criticism will become true. As CoW1.5 is now, it's not easy to decide in which province you want infrastructure. Because it has two benefits that are impossible to compare mathematically. If infra in the future gives only a speed bonus, then it's clear you'll only build it only in tall provinces that are frequently travelled by many troops. While the new building with the morale bonus will be built only in cities outside your core. Both very easy principles that won't challenge your neurons at all. You'll now answer OK, but instead you'll have a new strategic decision between either spending your resources on morale or on troop speed-up. Which is true, but that's a simple, one-dimensional decision that in most situations will be very clear. The current decision WHERE to build infra is a good one and I would keep that in the game.
      Secondly it makes sense from realism perspective that infrastructure boosts troop speed and productivity/morale.


      To sum it up: The changes to buildings from 1.5 to 1.0 so far didn't dumb down strategy, but additionally making infra a single-purpose building would.

    • eruth wrote:

      TLDR: The separation of production, economic, and transportation buildings, as well as the inability to build in rural provinces, removes a significant layer of the strategy and depth that makes this game so great.

      First off I would like to say that enjoy and agree with all the other changes to 1.5 (the new unit balancing, the upgrade system, doctrines, etc), and I am not expecting or asking the devs to suddenly reverse course back to 1.0 based on what I say here; however, feedback is important for any creative project and I want to get my thoughts out.
      In 1.0 most buildings had multiple uses and some buildings overlapped in purpose (there were three buildings for economy, you needed industry and another building to build troops, and to upgrade both to build good troops fast). When you wanted to build a building you had to carefully way a number of considerations; how much will this boost my economy? Will this help produce the units I need? Will it help the units I produce get to the front quicker?
      In 1.5 every building has essentially 1 purpose, with a few having a minor secondary effect. When you want an effect you know exactly which building to build and where to build it. If you want an economic boost you build industry in your highest production province. If you want speed you build infrastructure in the place you need speed. If you want a type of unit you build that unit's production building in any province.
      This streamlining of buildings removes a major layer of strategy from COW. In a typical 1.0 game I would start my buildings with barracks in all my core cities to gain manpower and infantry for the first few days, then immediately start working on infrastructure for tanks & artillery. I started capturing intact industry outside my core I would build airfields and lvl 2 barracks in some of them because manpower is infinite and airfields have no economy so the non-core penalty doesn't matter. I would continue building up the industry and infrastructure of my economically valuable core provinces; this not only boosted my economy but allowed me to build and transport units faster. Once I had the economy to fill my urban core (and build a few new industrials in my rural provinces) I would invest in production facilities outside my core. By the late game I would have a core territory with massive economic output and the ability to assemble huge armies in very short time. Admiring the power of my core was just satisfying as watching my armies paint the map.
      In 1.5... there's none of that. Production buildings have no economic output, and because they don't need expensive level 1 industry, so there is no reason not to build them in captured regions. Instead of carefully considering whether I should invest in upgrading my core facilities to get the full economic potential out of them, or even build new facilities in my core, I can just spam production facilities in every urban area I conquer. I ran the math and industrial complexes barely make any sense even in core urban provinces; previously they could at least be justified by the decreased production time. In 1.0 if I captured a well developed area I treasured it because it let me build new units near the front without having to make the massive investment in industry and high level infrastructure/barracks/airfields; now... that treasured front-line production center can be anywhere.
      I suspect that this change was made not for the like of me, who originally found Supremacy 1914 because I wanted a free online version of Paradox games, but rather for the mass of mobile players who want something casual they can jump into. If so, I think that 1.5 is definitely the way to go. I can't say that I'll stop playing once 1.0 is thrown away, but I will certainly miss the building system.
      I havent read every post, I'm only replying to the OP.
      I Just wanted to say that I fundamentally disagree with your feedback, and here's why;


      One of your main points was that a layer of strategy has been removed. However, in reality, the opposite has happened. As you explained yourself, before buildings had multiple uses, and now there are more buildings with single uses. That alone has massively increased strategy involved because now you have to carefully plan, and think about what kind of army you want to build, and therefore the buildings required to build that army. You can't just spam the same building and build everything. That in itself is adding a hell of a lot of strategy to the game. This is really bolstered by the fact that rather than being able to just upgrade industry and all unit types increase production speed (which lets face it, is just not realistic in the slightest), now to produce higher level units in reasonable time, you have to increase that specific building (much more realistic) - again, it means you have to think about your army, what you want where, etc. You mention "Streamlining of buildings" - but again the opposite has happened, there are more now.

      No offence, but from your infantry / artillery / tanks method (the noob method?), it sounds like you never really had much strategy and just did what everyone else did anyway(?), so more likely you're finding 1.5 much harder now that you actually need to use a lot more strategy. If you think industrial complexes don't make any sense, then you haven't gotten very far, or had a very large army in a 1.5 game. Getting the balance of industries for manpower right is something I'm battling with. I'm playing a speed world now, and the balance between how much resource production to increase vs. infrastructure for speed & morale vs. buildings units/buildings vs. upgrading units vs. MANPOWER(from industries)... the amount of strategy has multiplied tenfold.

    • ryanb96 wrote:

      I havent read every post, I'm only replying to the OP.I Just wanted to say that I fundamentally disagree with your feedback, and here's why;


      One of your main points was that a layer of strategy has been removed. However, in reality, the opposite has happened. As you explained yourself, before buildings had multiple uses, and now there are more buildings with single uses. That alone has massively increased strategy involved because now you have to carefully plan, and think about what kind of army you want to build, and therefore the buildings required to build that army. You can't just spam the same building and build everything. That in itself is adding a hell of a lot of strategy to the game. This is really bolstered by the fact that rather than being able to just upgrade industry and all unit types increase production speed (which lets face it, is just not realistic in the slightest), now to produce higher level units in reasonable time, you have to increase that specific building (much more realistic) - again, it means you have to think about your army, what you want where, etc. You mention "Streamlining of buildings" - but again the opposite has happened, there are more now.

      No offence, but from your infantry / artillery / tanks method (the noob method?), it sounds like you never really had much strategy and just did what everyone else did anyway(?), so more likely you're finding 1.5 much harder now that you actually need to use a lot more strategy. If you think industrial complexes don't make any sense, then you haven't gotten very far, or had a very large army in a 1.5 game. Getting the balance of industries for manpower right is something I'm battling with. I'm playing a speed world now, and the balance between how much resource production to increase vs. infrastructure for speed & morale vs. buildings units/buildings vs. upgrading units vs. MANPOWER(from industries)... the amount of strategy has multiplied tenfold.
      My point with buildings having multiple uses was that you had to consider where to build buildings. It was sometimes worth it to build industry/infrastructure in non-core provinces to get the unit production; in 1.5 it's never worth it to build industry in non-core. In 1.0 you have to consider ether to upgrade captured industry in non-core or spend the massive-up front cost to build new industry in your core that will have better long-term payback.
      By streamlining I mean that each building's purpose has been streamlined. You no longer have to way both the economic & military benefits of a building against it's costs & position; you just need to consider the one thing. In 1.0 you might want to upgrade your core industry for economy but also want to upgrade your front-line industry for units that don't have to travel days to the front. In 1.5, you just upgrade the core industry and the front-line production facilities. Not only is there no reason to concentrate your production in your core there is also no ability to do so since you have such limited urban slots.
      As for manpower I see no reason why it should not be split apart from economy if we're going down the "every building does one thing" route. Force us to decide whether we need more manpower or more resources, and make us pay for the manpower with disableable recruitment centers.
      As for my strategy, I definitely had one. Infantry/arty/tanks is just my early game stopgap until I can get my production up to speed. I use fast stacks that ignore enemy units to penetrate their core, supported by lots of planes. Never fails, especially since no-one seems to understand that adding militia to tanks actually makes the tanks weaker by slowing them down.

    • eruth wrote:

      Never fails, especially since no-one seems to understand that adding militia to tanks actually makes the tanks weaker by slowing them down.

      Shh! Don't tell them.
      I see experienced players slowing down 5+ units with 1 slow one. Note I'm not talking about grouping 8 infantry with 4 AT guns for a more well-rounded defense. But things like 5 light tanks with 1 infantry, or 7 tanks and 1 artillery. Not enough to be useful, but killing the speed of the stack, making it more vulnerable and less effective.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      Never fails, especially since no-one seems to understand that adding militia to tanks actually makes the tanks weaker by slowing them down.
      Shh! Don't tell them.
      I see experienced players slowing down 5+ units with 1 slow one. Note I'm not talking about grouping 8 infantry with 4 AT guns for a more well-rounded defense. But things like 5 light tanks with 1 infantry, or 7 tanks and 1 artillery. Not enough to be useful, but killing the speed of the stack, making it more vulnerable and less effective.
      Yeah but it is usually good to put at least 2 different types of units together with about the same speed. I read somewhere that it will increase your chances of winning somehow.

    • RiverWolf74 wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      Never fails, especially since no-one seems to understand that adding militia to tanks actually makes the tanks weaker by slowing them down.
      Shh! Don't tell them.I see experienced players slowing down 5+ units with 1 slow one. Note I'm not talking about grouping 8 infantry with 4 AT guns for a more well-rounded defense. But things like 5 light tanks with 1 infantry, or 7 tanks and 1 artillery. Not enough to be useful, but killing the speed of the stack, making it more vulnerable and less effective.
      Yeah but it is usually good to put at least 2 different types of units together with about the same speed. I read somewhere that it will increase your chances of winning somehow.
      Putting multiple units of the SAME speed, like tanks and motorized and SP AA. That spreads out the damage, allows you to pack more punch without going over the SBDE limit, and allows you to combine the strengths of different units. I'm talking about mixing fast units (such as motorized/mechanized, armour, and and SP units) with slow units (like infantry, artillery, AA, AT, or flipping MILITIA) in the same stack. This is not what this thread is about, however.

    • The way I see it, they moved the complexity from "where should I build stuff" to "what should I build". Same coin, two different sides, except it makes it more approachable for unexperienced players because having to choose between 20 provinces is a lot less daunting than a handful of buildings