CoW 1.5 balancing changelog

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

    • CoW 1.5 balancing changelog

      CoW 1.5 balancing changelog - 2020-06-16

      The following changes are available in new game rounds of Call of War 1.5, which are created after the update. This is to not influence any ongoing military operations or strategies in older rounds.

      Buildings
      • Decreased Food cost of Barracks and added Metal cost to Barracks for a more balanced resource distribution.
      • Decreased costs of Capitol building to make relocating capitals more viable.
      • Increased manpower production boost from Industry to 120% at maximum level to alleviate manpower shortages in later stages of the game.
      • Increased manpower production boost from Local Industry to 240% at maximum level to alleviate manpower shortages in later stages of the game.
      • Slightly reduced construction times of Industry and Local Industry to be more on par with other buildings.
      • Reduced building speedup costs, because they were too high on later levels.
      • Aircraft Factory: Reduced refueling time for the first building level to 30 minutes and changed subsequent levels to lower the refueling time by 5 minutes each. This makes Aircraft Factories more consistent with Airstrips.
      Researches
      • Decreased research times of Mechanized Infantry to incentivize researching it.
      • Decreased day of availability of Mechanized Infantry to make it a more viable alternative in the mid game.
      • Increased research times of Rocket Artillery to account for fewer researchable levels.
      • Increased research times of Attack Bomber to account for fewer researchable levels.
      • Slightly decreased research costs of Attack Bombers to be consistent with its lowered production cost.
      • Decreased research times for technologies which are available on day 2 (in the base balancing) to better smooth out waiting times between early game and mid game.
      • Made research times more consistent for units which unlock earlier or later in different Doctrines to adhere to the bonuses specified in the Doctrine overview table.
      Units:
      • Reduced damage of Rocket Artillery & SP Rocket Artillery, because it was just too strong.
      • Slightly increased cost of Motorized Infantry to better match its strength.
      • Reduced hitpoints and damage of early levels of Mechanized Infantry to account for its new earlier availability.
      • Decreased manpower costs of Rockets to account for their one-time use.
      • Slightly reduced build time of rockets to make them more viable.
      • Decreased manpower costs of Flying Bomb to account for their one-time use.
      • Increased Commando’s damage vs. unarmored targets and decreased its damage vs. light armored targets to be more realistic.
      • Slightly reduced Medium Tank’s damage to account for its rather early availability.
      • Slightly increased damage of Anti Tank units.
      • Tweaked damage progression of Tank Destroyer and Heavy Tank to be more consistent.
      • Decreased cost of Attack Bomber to account for its lower range and hitpoints compared to other bombers.
      • Increased Attack Bomber’s damage vs. heavy armor to make it more viable.
      • Increased range of Naval bomber to make it more viable.
      • Increased damage of Naval Bomber to account for high hitpoint values of ships and to make it more viable.
      • Enabled Tactical Bomber to land on Aircraft Carriers on level 1, to incentivize carrier usage.
      • Aircraft carrier: Reduced aircraft refueling time to 30min to be consistent with new refueling times for Aircraft Factories and Airstrips.
      • Increased Cruiser’s damage vs. aircrafts to make it more consistent with Anti Air.
      • Increased speed of all ships (including transports) by 25% to make traversal of large oceans faster.
      • Increased Battleship's and Cruiser's damage vs. structures to make them more viable in coastal control operations.
      • Reduced unit speedup costs on later levels, because they were too high.
      • Lowered condition boost costs of select units with higher amounts of hitpoints, in order for their costs to be closer to units with lower amounts of hitpoints.
      • production costs, especially manpower, for higher unit levels now increase less steeply. This addresses resource shortages in later stages of the game.
      • Adjusted ranking factors based on new unit roles and unit strengths, since the old values did not reflect the new balancing. Higher unit levels now also grant higher ranking points than lower unit levels.
      Misc.
      • 100 player World at War map: Increased the range of positive morale influence of the capital, making the morale penalty max out further away from the capital. This is done to help with morale management on this large map size; future maps will have this morale range adjusted as well based on their map size.
      • Several menus: Replaced some historical unit names to make them more accurate, based on community feedback. This change affects also existing CoW 1.5 rounds in contrast to the other changes in this list, which only affect new game rounds.


      We hope you like these changes and are looking forward to more feedback from you!
      Facebook: Call of War
      Twitter: Call of War
    • After playing a few games of 1.5 you've hit the nail on the head with pretty much all of these changes. The only two I'd hesitate to agree with are the sea speed change, I felt most naval units moved at a reasonable speed especially when upgraded, and the medium tank nerf, who were already hard countered by attack bombers especially axis bombers. I'm not sure what the tank destroyer and heavy tanks changes entail. Also railroad guns need some kind of change, they are overpowering right now especially when used by skilled players. Everything else is great and definitely needed though.
    • MarcusCole wrote:

      After playing a few games of 1.5 you've hit the nail on the head with pretty much all of these changes. The only two I'd hesitate to agree with are the sea speed change, I felt most naval units moved at a reasonable speed especially when upgraded, and the medium tank nerf, who were already hard countered by attack bombers especially axis bombers. I'm not sure what the tank destroyer and heavy tanks changes entail. Also railroad guns need some kind of change, they are overpowering right now especially when used by skilled players. Everything else is great and definitely needed though.
      I definitely agree RRGs are overpowered. And if paired with AA, their higher HPs make them very tough to counter.
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      I think you need to bring back the unit based efficiency reductions rather than the 10 best units alone as a factor.
      Unit based stack size damage limit would hardly make a difference for range units. As long as not having to fear an air attack, you can split them up into as many stacks as there's space on the map.

      Nonetheless, of course I remember that I was the one who fiercely argued for (strict) unit based stack size damage limits instead of the total stack size limit we have in CoW1.5 after first and second test event. But that was before I read the description of the CoW1.5.3 release. Until then, I think it was never mentioned that the strongest 10 units against the armour class of the targeted unit count. That way it makes sense - can be kept the way it is in CoW1.5. So all the criticism I wrote on the total stack size damage limit I hereby want to take back; my excuses.

      Most of the other criticism I wrote after first and second test event remains valid, though. Want to mention that explicity, because most parts of it I'm not going to repeat. FYI, @freezy.
    • About manpower: Of course you can easily balance out manpower scarcity so it's in all game phases neither too rare, nor abundant. Probably this update already achieves that (players will still have to learn they on the larger maps should build industry also in non-resource provinces of their core, but that will come over time).

      OK, but then the role of manpower in CoW1.5 still really suxx. Does it have a "role" at all? In CoW1.5, manpower adds nothing positive to the game. All it does is to force players to invest a certain percentage of their resources into buildings. What's the benefit in that? Why shouldn't players have the freedom to neglect their structures and go for a short-term quick conquest strategy? I think it's better to have the freedom to choose between both options: Either plan long-term and start with investing bigger part of your resources into buildings to have an advantage in later game phases or start with building a lot of units to have an advantage in early game phases. So players can decide what's the better option in their current situation.
      Also: What buildings shall you build in such masses in late game?? Your core country production is maxed out at about day 12. And then? Industry in conquered territories takes around 27 days until it amortizes, so that's not really an option. It makes some sense to build a lot of infrastructure in conquered territories, OK, but still it's not positive to force players to do so (if they don't want to let their economic ressources go to waste).


      So CoW1.5 would be better off if manpower was removed completely from the game. But a better solution would be to go back to interpretation of manpower as number of recruitable soldiers, not as available workforce. I'm still deeply convinced of that.

      This would include a lot of interconnected changes, which would require an entire re-balancing. But each change is positive and realistic already seen for itself - and in the complete picture, manpower would then play a fascinating and realistic role and represent a second layer of relevant resources (next to the tradable, economic ressources), which is a very good game concept (the only reason this cannot really be felt in CoW1.0 is that infantry costs too much food):
      * Take away the manpower production bonus from industry. In return reduce costs of industry.
      * Give barracks a manpower production bonus. In return either increase build costs of barracks (easy solution), or give players the option to automatically deactivate them while not recruiting... barracks would then cost a money upkeep while being activated and give their manpower bonus also only while being activated (best solution, since this would not only create challenging choices when and where to build barracks, but also put an end to the money abundance that can often be seen in late game of both CoW1.0 and CoW1.5).
      * Remove manpower and food costs from upgrading units.
      * Drastically reduce HP progression for militia, regular infantry, commandos, paratroopers. Also reduce it a lot for motorized infantry, AT, AA and artillery and reduce it a bit for mechanized infantry, SPA and planes.
      * Reduce manpower costs for all units from armour, navy, air and secret weapons tech tree; also for SPA and SPAA. Slightly increase manpower costs for units from the infantry tech tree. Afterwards, manpower costs of a unit would represent the headcount of soldiers in that unit.
      * Reduce income of economic resources (except money) for cities to 75% of what it is now; increase income of economic resources in rural provinces to 200% of what it is now. Analogically reduce costs of industry in cities and increase costs of local industry.
      * Ideally also allow barracks to be built in all provinces, not only in cities. It's clear why you restricted unit production to cities, but I still very much disagree with the centralization to cities in general. I'll soon write a separate post about that.


      Advantages of that concept:
      * Manpower would then always be valuable for all players in all game phases, because it allows to recruit more of that otherwise cheap infantry. Thus perfectly reflecting the importance that the number of recruitable soldiers had to countries during the real WW2. And never creating a painful situation where you either can't use your economic resources (due to lack of manpower) or can't use your manpower (due to lack of economic resources). These situations are always very dissatisfying and it would be good to make them impossible with the above changes.
      * Improved realism in many, many ways. Most importantly, getting rid of the high HP progression for non-armoured units would mean a giant step towards a realistic game.
      * The resource philosophy would be pepped up a lot. In CoW1.5 as it is now, resources including manpower don't have an identity. They're one soup, you might just as well name them resource A, B, C, D, E and F. Resources in CoW1.5 are totally one-dimensional. Whereas with the above manpower concept, you'd with each decision face the trade-off whether you should focus more on increasing your manpower income in order to be able to build more infantry, or to focus on the other resources in order to build more mechanized units. There would be more meaningful decisions and less boredom.
      * Similar things can be said about units. Having symmetries for all unit attributes reduces a beautiful and authentic game to mere rock/paper/scissors. At least concerning HP progression, units may not be all the same. Otherwise CoW1.5 will never become a really good game. With the above concept, every tech tree would have its own power. Armoured units improving HP and speed a lot, planes improving range and speed a lot, infantry upgrading very cheaply and being producable also in rural provinces. Ordnance also upgrading rather cheaply and you might give it low research costs and research times. All of this would not only be realistic, but also add a lot to make gameplay and strategies interesting.
      If you now say in combination with doctrines that would make the game too complex, please remove doctrines again. Doctrines are nice and the implementation is as good as perfect at first try (my admiration for that). But they really don't add that much to the game as the above concept would.
      * You would be able to create great historic maps that are showing non-industrialized countries like they really were - these would have few resources and money, but some of them (China as the classical example) still can build a lot of militia and regular infantry thanks to having big amounts of manpower. With CoW1.5 as it is now, it's impossible to create a historic map - giving countries more differences in the resources available to them would than they have in the existing two CoW1.5 maps would make the game unplayable.
      * Certainly others I'm forgetting now. It would just be right. Please have in mind that for creating a good game, not only gameplay, strategy and tactics are important. It also is a very important factor, whether the game is fascinating. And CoW1.5, with everything symmetric and same same, is not fascinating at all. It feels like a Teletubby world for little kids who can't bear authenticity or complexity.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Unit based stack size damage limit would hardly make a difference for range units. As long as not having to fear an air attack, you can split them up into as many stacks as there's space on the map.
      Nonetheless, of course I remember that I was the one who fiercely argued for (strict) unit based stack size damage limits instead of the total stack size limit we have in CoW1.5 after first and second test event. But that was before I read the description of the CoW1.5.3 release. Until then, I think it was never mentioned that the strongest 10 units against the armour class of the targeted unit count. That way it makes sense - can be kept the way it is in CoW1.5. So all the criticism I wrote on the total stack size damage limit I hereby want to take back; my excuses.

      Most of the other criticism I wrote after first and second test event remains valid, though. Want to mention that explicity, because most parts of it I'm not going to repeat. FYI, @freezy.
      Glad to read that you are at least ok with the new stack limit :D I actually explained it multiple times since the first Event but it probably got lost in the hundred pages of discussions we had.
      What is still missing is the visualization of it in the interface, but that will come.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      About manpower: Of course you can easily balance out manpower scarcity so it's in all game phases neither too rare, nor abundant. Probably this update already achieves that (players will still have to learn they on the larger maps should build industry also in non-resource provinces of their core, but that will come over time).

      OK, but then the role of manpower in CoW1.5 still really suxx. Does it have a "role" at all? In CoW1.5, manpower adds nothing positive to the game. All it does is to force players to invest a certain percentage of their resources into buildings. What's the benefit in that? Why shouldn't players have the freedom to neglect their structures and go for a short-term quick conquest strategy? I think it's better to have the freedom to choose between both options: Either plan long-term and start with investing bigger part of your resources into buildings to have an advantage in later game phases or start with building a lot of units to have an advantage in early game phases. So players can decide what's the better option in their current situation.
      Also: What buildings shall you build in such masses in late game?? Your core country production is maxed out at about day 12. And then? Industry in conquered territories takes around 27 days until it amortizes, so that's not really an option. It makes some sense to build a lot of infrastructure in conquered territories, OK, but still it's not positive to force players to do so (if they don't want to let their economic ressources go to waste).


      So CoW1.5 would be better off if manpower was removed completely from the game. But a better solution would be to go back to interpretation of manpower as number of recruitable soldiers, not as available workforce. I'm still deeply convinced of that.

      This would include a lot of interconnected changes, which would require an entire re-balancing. But each change is positive and realistic already seen for itself - and in the complete picture, manpower would then play a fascinating and realistic role and represent a second layer of relevant resources (next to the tradable, economic ressources), which is a very good game concept (the only reason this cannot really be felt in CoW1.0 is that infantry costs too much food):
      * Take away the manpower production bonus from industry. In return reduce costs of industry.
      * Give barracks a manpower production bonus. In return either increase build costs of barracks (easy solution), or give players the option to automatically deactivate them while not recruiting... barracks would then cost a money upkeep while being activated and give their manpower bonus also only while being activated (best solution, since this would not only create challenging choices when and where to build barracks, but also put an end to the money abundance that can often be seen in late game of both CoW1.0 and CoW1.5).
      * Remove manpower and food costs from upgrading units.
      * Drastically reduce HP progression for militia, regular infantry, commandos, paratroopers. Also reduce it a lot for motorized infantry, AT, AA and artillery and reduce it a bit for mechanized infantry, SPA and planes.
      * Reduce manpower costs for all units from armour, navy, air and secret weapons tech tree; also for SPA and SPAA. Slightly increase manpower costs for units from the infantry tech tree. Afterwards, manpower costs of a unit would represent the headcount of soldiers in that unit.
      * Reduce income of economic resources (except money) for cities to 75% of what it is now; increase income of economic resources in rural provinces to 200% of what it is now. Analogically reduce costs of industry in cities and increase costs of local industry.
      * Ideally also allow barracks to be built in all provinces, not only in cities. It's clear why you restricted unit production to cities, but I still very much disagree with the centralization to cities in general. I'll soon write a separate post about that.


      Advantages of that concept:
      * Manpower would then always be valuable for all players in all game phases, because it allows to recruit more of that otherwise cheap infantry. Thus perfectly reflecting the importance that the number of recruitable soldiers had to countries during the real WW2. And never creating a painful situation where you either can't use your economic resources (due to lack of manpower) or can't use your manpower (due to lack of economic resources). These situations are always very dissatisfying and it would be good to make them impossible with the above changes.
      * Improved realism in many, many ways. Most importantly, getting rid of the high HP progression for non-armoured units would mean a giant step towards a realistic game.
      * The resource philosophy would be pepped up a lot. In CoW1.5 as it is now, resources including manpower don't have an identity. They're one soup, you might just as well name them resource A, B, C, D, E and F. Resources in CoW1.5 are totally one-dimensional. Whereas with the above manpower concept, you'd with each decision face the trade-off whether you should focus more on increasing your manpower income in order to be able to build more infantry, or to focus on the other resources in order to build more mechanized units. There would be more meaningful decisions and less boredom.
      * Similar things can be said about units. Having symmetries for all unit attributes reduces a beautiful and authentic game to mere rock/paper/scissors. At least concerning HP progression, units may not be all the same. Otherwise CoW1.5 will never become a really good game. With the above concept, every tech tree would have its own power. Armoured units improving HP and speed a lot, planes improving range and speed a lot, infantry upgrading very cheaply and being producable also in rural provinces. Ordnance also upgrading rather cheaply and you might give it low research costs and research times. All of this would not only be realistic, but also add a lot to make gameplay and strategies interesting.
      If you now say in combination with doctrines that would make the game too complex, please remove doctrines again. Doctrines are nice and the implementation is as good as perfect at first try (my admiration for that). But they really don't add that much to the game as the above concept would.
      * You would be able to create great historic maps that are showing non-industrialized countries like they really were - these would have few resources and money, but some of them (China as the classical example) still can build a lot of militia and regular infantry thanks to having big amounts of manpower. With CoW1.5 as it is now, it's impossible to create a historic map - giving countries more differences in the resources available to them would than they have in the existing two CoW1.5 maps would make the game unplayable.
      * Certainly others I'm forgetting now. It would just be right. Please have in mind that for creating a good game, not only gameplay, strategy and tactics are important. It also is a very important factor, whether the game is fascinating. And CoW1.5, with everything symmetric and same same, is not fascinating at all. It feels like a Teletubby world for little kids who can't bear authenticity or complexity.
      But players still have the choice to invest into their resources or to invest into units. Just moments ago I continued a discussion somewhere else in the forum where a player suggested that for him it makes no sense to invest into Industries and he rather invests into unit production. But I also saw a lot of players who prefer investing into their Industries. So I think there are still valid choices here dependin on the situation, which is a good thing.

      That constructing Industry is not worthwhile in conquered territories is indeed not so nice, but it's not much different in CoW1.0. What is needed to fix that is that buildings give an absolute resource boost additionally to their relative one, so that also unlucrative provinces can be made lucrative. Maybe we can implement something like that in the future (but not set in stone yet).

      We are already discussing at the moment splitting up the manpower boost from Industries to hand it over to another (new) building, so that players have more tools to manage their resource vs. manpower balance. We can also discuss lowering manpower requirements of certain units to have them as alternatives, but not on 1.0 levels. Manpower still serves as a "population cap" role to encourage players to not spend all resources into units only, and to balance weaker units vs. stronger units.

      The rest of the proposed balancing changes that would change the balancing much more into the direction of 1.0 we very likely also won't do, because that would be too big of an overhaul again. But I think I mentioned that already.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      And never creating a painful situation where you either can't use your economic resources (due to lack of manpower) or can't use your manpower (due to lack of economic resources). These situations are always very dissatisfying and it would be good to make them impossible with the above changes.
      I really like what Hans is saying, especially with regard to manpower cost of different units. If I am low on manpower, I can produce units that don't use a lot and don't have manpower upkeep, but If i don't have oil or metal but lots of manpower, I can produce infantry. That way I can adjust to my situations and strategically plan to make the most of what I have and secure what I am lacking through war. The market is very bad with gigantic spreads, the AI doesn't sell to you anymore and it still costs 10% even though the trade doesn't get accepted. In all 3 games I played I always got stuck with drastic lack in some resources and huge surpluses in others, until after day 12-15, then it was only manpower that was lacking. Without this change, you need a market function overhaul and to put mercenaries on the market where we can sell our manpower.

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

    • I actually found it to be faster, with one exception: the rebellions slow down advance too much. Lowering the army strength necessary to stop rebellion won't fix the problem. The probability of rebellion needs to be lowered for a given morale level, and the morale penalties need to be reworked. In v1.0 I can manage this by limiting my enemies to 1 or 2 countries. In v1.5 this isn't an option.
    • just the overall game is just too slow,
      when you research a unit, then it takes a lot longer to produce wish I would have know that in advance,
      way too many rebellions causing you to lose momentum and going back to take care of,
      and why to countries you are not connected to and have no business with deceide to start war with you causing your morale to decrease?
      I have tried this 1.5 game twice, just don't like it, it is like playing a totally different game so this should have been called a different name and not Call of War.
      Sorry guys, just my opinion for what it's worth...
    • Islandboy wrote:

      just the overall game is just too slow,
      when you research a unit, then it takes a lot longer to produce wish I would have know that in advance,
      way too many rebellions causing you to lose momentum and going back to take care of,
      and why to countries you are not connected to and have no business with deceide to start war with you causing your morale to decrease?
      I have tried this 1.5 game twice, just don't like it, it is like playing a totally different game so this should have been called a different name and not Call of War.
      Sorry guys, just my opinion for what it's worth...
      1. It shows production time in the unit info for each level, which can be decrease by building higher level buildings.
      2. Rebellions are in 1.0 as well with not much different mechanic wise.
      3. Being at war does not decrease morale in 1.5 like it does in 1.0 unless you border the country then you get the enemy neighbour same as in 1.0.
    • MarcusCole wrote:

      Islandboy wrote:

      just the overall game is just too slow,
      when you research a unit, then it takes a lot longer to produce wish I would have know that in advance,
      way too many rebellions causing you to lose momentum and going back to take care of,
      and why to countries you are not connected to and have no business with deceide to start war with you causing your morale to decrease?
      I have tried this 1.5 game twice, just don't like it, it is like playing a totally different game so this should have been called a different name and not Call of War.
      Sorry guys, just my opinion for what it's worth...
      1. It shows production time in the unit info for each level, which can be decrease by building higher level buildings.
      2. Rebellions are in 1.0 as well with not much different mechanic wise.
      3. Being at war does not decrease morale in 1.5 like it does in 1.0 unless you border the country then you get the enemy neighbour same as in 1.0.

      Not sure why this got likes because it is good to challenge responses of fact and answer questions, but pointless to challenge someones opinion of game play experience that we need in order to better the game play. This is a laughable response that fails to acknowledge a players candid experience and opinion and ignores the causes of dissatisfaction to focus on minor mitigating factors that don't do anything to address concerns. What he is saying is that when you research an upgrade for a unit, it takes longer to train (even if building are upgraded as noted by the minimum training time) and the upgrade does nothing for the units you already have, making the payoff of the upgrade not do anything for game momentum and take a long time (or lots of resources) to pay off. In COW 1, research was critical to game momentum, satisfyingly so in the case of several crucial upgrades.

      As for morale, I realize that they made some fixes and adjustments in COW 1.0 as well, but not equal adjustments as you are inferring. While the underlying mechanic is the same, differences in capital distance penalty, strength needed to suppress, neighboring influences (even if the same as COW 1.0, these can be magnified from other penalties), and minimum morale needed to suppress make it hell. Some adjustments have already been made and there is talk of reducing the strength needed to suppress in an upcoming update. Thank you. Changes to the AI relations (both 1 and 1.5) also magnify this because I have not been able to get AI to do favorable diplomacy after a few days into the match and they do not rebuild their capitals as fast as before (or at all if they have no city territories). This makes it hard to partly save an AI for later when you need a morale boost. I used to encircle early AI enemies and set to peace to save for when there is cross continent war, but even that strategy is worthless now.
    • FinnDaddy wrote:

      MarcusCole wrote:

      Islandboy wrote:

      just the overall game is just too slow,
      when you research a unit, then it takes a lot longer to produce wish I would have know that in advance,
      way too many rebellions causing you to lose momentum and going back to take care of,
      and why to countries you are not connected to and have no business with deceide to start war with you causing your morale to decrease?
      I have tried this 1.5 game twice, just don't like it, it is like playing a totally different game so this should have been called a different name and not Call of War.
      Sorry guys, just my opinion for what it's worth...
      1. It shows production time in the unit info for each level, which can be decrease by building higher level buildings.
      2. Rebellions are in 1.0 as well with not much different mechanic wise.
      3. Being at war does not decrease morale in 1.5 like it does in 1.0 unless you border the country then you get the enemy neighbour same as in 1.0.

      Not sure why this got likes because it is good to challenge responses of fact and answer questions, but pointless to challenge someones opinion of game play experience that we need in order to better the game play. This is a laughable response that fails to acknowledge a players candid experience and opinion and ignores the causes of dissatisfaction to focus on minor mitigating factors that don't do anything to address concerns. What he is saying is that when you research an upgrade for a unit, it takes longer to train (even if building are upgraded as noted by the minimum training time) and the upgrade does nothing for the units you already have, making the payoff of the upgrade not do anything for game momentum and take a long time (or lots of resources) to pay off. In COW 1, research was critical to game momentum, satisfyingly so in the case of several crucial upgrades.
      As for morale, I realize that they made some fixes and adjustments in COW 1.0 as well, but not equal adjustments as you are inferring. While the underlying mechanic is the same, differences in capital distance penalty, strength needed to suppress, neighboring influences (even if the same as COW 1.0, these can be magnified from other penalties), and minimum morale needed to suppress make it hell. Some adjustments have already been made and there is talk of reducing the strength needed to suppress in an upcoming update. Thank you. Changes to the AI relations (both 1 and 1.5) also magnify this because I have not been able to get AI to do favorable diplomacy after a few days into the match and they do not rebuild their capitals as fast as before (or at all if they have no city territories). This makes it hard to partly save an AI for later when you need a morale boost. I used to encircle early AI enemies and set to peace to save for when there is cross continent war, but even that strategy is worthless now.
      All of these changes are explained in the 1.5 manual which is very prominent in any 1.5 game you play. Or directly in the game in the unit info cards. If it hasn't been translated to a language you know I can understand some frustration. His opinions and experience are based on ignorance which I was trying to address. Not liking the changes made to the game is fine, complaining about not knowing something that is clearly explained is not.
    • @MarcusCole and @FinnDaddy, both your answers make sense, keep the peace ^^ .

      I'd also like to give my 2 cents on this:


      Islandboy wrote:

      just the overall game is just too slow
      It is definitely, by all means not slower than CoW1.0.
      By the way fast game pace is nothing positive, nor negative. It's something that players with few real life obligations favour, but others with a crowded real life calendar don't. So mentioning (allegedly) slow speed as criticism is not really valid.


      Islandboy wrote:

      when you research a unit, then it takes a lot longer to produce
      The unit production time progression that was introduced with CoW1.5 fulfills two purposes:
      * It makes unit poduction facilities precious also in later game phases - something you have to invest in. This is a nice aspect, since it played a role in real WW2 as well and makes your choice which structure to build much less one-dimensional. In CoW1.0 you only had to decide which building where in order to improve your resource income, while in CoW1.5 you additionally have to choose between improving your economical situation or increasing production capacities. Thirdly, strategic operations like destroying the enemies tank factory with strats or a Commando force are just fun to play.
      * It allows to build more units during the first days than in CoW1.0, while at the same time reducing the number of units you can build in late game. Which both is positive. It's in balance now.

      So the unit production time progression is something I can accept, even though it's not realistic.


      Islandboy wrote:

      wish I would have know that in advance
      As @MarcusCole said, then you should have read the unit details.


      Islandboy wrote:

      way too many rebellions causing you to lose momentum and going back to take care of
      Think @FinnDaddy answered this correctly. It indeed is a CoW1.5 topic. Mechanics are the same, but differently adjusted. Will be improved with the July release, if I remember freezy's statements right. I personally think that sometimes loosing momentum because not having taken measures to prevent revolts is alright. But not checkerboard maps due to only provinces without own neighbours or level 3 infrastructure not revolting. After owning a province for some days in a row, risk of rebellion should sink to 0%. Even if it's at the other end of the world.


      Islandboy wrote:

      why to countries you are not connected to and have no business with deceide to start war with you causing your morale to decrease
      Not sure what you mean with this. AI attacking you? That implementation is same in CoW1.0.
      And no, wars don't cause your morale to decrease in CoW1.5 (except for provinces neighbouring enemies territory).