Please can Version1.0 be here to stay!

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

    • Please can Version1.0 be here to stay!

      Hi there,

      So a mod has told me Version 1.5 is replacing Version 1.0... i'm less than happy and i hope a significant number of you guys are too. Version 1 is simpler, more user friendly - there's only a few amount of buildings etc to construct, but a good variety of warfare so all the more time for strategy using them. Also, call of war is a long, multi-day / multi-week type of game. It's meant to be something you incorporate into your life a little. Version 1.5 may be good, but removing Version 1.0 is not it. Call of war is not meant to be a complex war game, and thats what makes it special!

      Please can we keep Version 1.0, its simple, user friendly, and doesn't require a lot of time to play!

      Thank you,

      Flabbawoki
    • I agree, I'm trying to like 1.5 but just cant, I love the new units but everything else feels like overly complicated... my biggest issue with 1.5 is the balance between resource/unit production.. I should not have to wait 3 days just to get enough materials to build 5 tanks or 3 days to build one industrial complex.. I say increase the resource output to 1.0 standards (like many people were saying in the 1.5 beta but were seemingly ignored).
    • Agree completely with the sentiments expressed in this thread.

      I want to like 1.5 and I'm trying to play it.

      Some of the changes are nice, like bigger more clickable cities, and slightly nerfed air patrols.

      The rocket units are nice, even though it's totally unnecessary to organize them under "secret" weapons. This is like putting commandos in the "secret" tab in 1.0 that did not make sense and now commandos are fixed and here's another random unit added to "secret" tab for no reason.

      The new buildings are "meh". I'll put up with them, but do I really want to manage lots of special buildings? Not really. It's a nuisance.

      Overall, the game play is ruined by production/resource imbalances and by research costs. Having a production queue that can be easily balanced against resource production was an excellent feature of the game. I could adjust my builds every 1-2 days. Now, I have to do it constantly, and it's annoying. The research is the worst. Having to find and click on *every* unit is such a bore.

      Why do you consider these additional "tasks" as game improvements? I spend less effort playing 1.0 to get more enjoyment out of it. That's a superior game, by definition. It boggles the mind to think anyone considers manual unit upgrades a good thing.
    • One correction: I have to admit, doctrines are cool. They add dimensions of fun and variety and challenge and strategy without hurting the heart of the game.

      I would take doctrines and bigger cities on top of 1.0 and it would make me totally happy. That's a reasonable 1.5 type of update. The changes that have been piled into 1.5 change the game too much, and mostly in a bad way, making it difficult to enjoy the few improvements that are actually interesting and fun.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      One correction: I have to admit, doctrines are cool. They add dimensions of fun and variety and challenge and strategy without hurting the heart of the game.

      I would take doctrines and bigger cities on top of 1.0 and it would make me totally happy. That's a reasonable 1.5 type of update. The changes that have been piled into 1.5 change the game too much, and mostly in a bad way, making it difficult to enjoy the few improvements that are actually interesting and fun.
      I think 1.5 overall brought many interesting ideas to the game and has merits and potential. Some polishing is necessary to make it more enjoyable. Having played 1.5, 1.0 feels kinda silly.

      I love the research and upgrade, really important for diversifying the field. The elimination of production centre level requirement is beautiful. Unit production time lacks transparency and need reworking though. Consider adding a "suggested building-level for production" and introduce a transparent penalty for a using lower level building for production to help new players to navigate the waters.

      I do agree with you guys that some changes brought to 1.5 are highly questionable at the current stage of development. The stealth mechanic destroys diversity that we've tried so hard to introduce.

      I dislike the special lab. Each other production building has a well-defined role. The Special Lab is a complete mess. Too many production buildings to keep track of. Rocket artillery should be in the same category as artillery and rocket fighter, interceptor.

      Overall, I am still optimistic.

      The post was edited 19 times, last by Weids ().

    • I think it will take some getting used to. From what I've seen, new players in chat don't seem to be concerned with the learning curve. 1.0 is simpler, and whether 1.5 is more fun than 1.0 or not remains to be seen (but there was extensive beta testing for 1.5) at least to me, but I disagree with the user-friendly part. As such, it's really a matter of pros and cons, and in my opinion 1.5 is better, mostly because the strategy is more in-depth. As mentioned above though, some features are better than others, and some could be taken away.
    • I won't speak to the rural-urban province thing (mostly because I'm not the right person to answer this), but the nuclear warships were removed for two reasons. One was balancing. The other was that nuclear warships weren't a thing until much after WWII (and yes, before anyone points this out, I'm well aware nuclear rockets weren't either, but they weren't that far off, and nuclear submarines/carriers were developed much later).
      DoctorDR1

      Game Operator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket


      "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66." -Sheev Palpatine
    • Weids wrote:

      Habo778 wrote:

      Perhaps we can get a special building that allows rural unit production while keeping the current city production?
      I don't feel that's necessary.
      I do think the max level of buildings should be reduced. It is such a pain to level a building up to level 5. And really costly.

      Less is often more. I agree that taking away the nuclear units was a good idea. They were OP and totally out of character with the rest of the game.

      The same can be said for buildings. Adding more kinds of buildings just adds clutter, not strategy. IC's had a real strategy. If you want to be surrounded by functioning IC's (not just in your core) you had to make sure nothing around you changed hands more than once. And if you take a new continent, again you really want to have a productive secondary core to build replacement units on the spot. A broken IC is a useless city that's just a different terrain type bad for armor. In a long 1.0 game, entire regions could end up in rubble. This changes the feel of the game, almost like the map is changing while you play it.

      In the case of IC's versus tons of specialized buildings, less is more.
    • I agree fully with this statement. Another thing I like about 1.0 is how the buildings overlap in function, every building does something even if it’s not being used for unit production. Let’s say that you have a lv1 barracks and a lv2 port. When your producing infantry the port increase production and when your producing a cruiser the barracks decrease production time and increases manpower production. I believe that mechanic gives the game a feel that no building is a waste even if your not using it and if your not using the building now it can come in handy later ex. You may be making tanks with a lv1 infrastructure and lv1 barracks you might not be using the barracks now but later you can use that to produce mechanized infantry. (Hope this isn’t too confusing but the TLDR use less buildings, instead use building combos)
      “If nature doesn’t kill us in the next few decades we will take matters into our own hands” -Habo778 (me)
    • Exactly!

      Consider how you can improve resource production in 3 ways: IC, infra, or port. Each has different costs and benefits. Need a quick boost to your coastal production? Build a port! Not in a hurry, and you want better return on investment? Build infra! Low on oil, but have a ton of rares later in the game? Build an extra IC! There are layers of strategy to uncover and enjoy.

      In 1.5, you want more A, you build the A Building. Some people like that, and some don't, I get there are different opinions. But don't call the 1.5 building system more "strategic", because it's really not. There's just more "stuff" to build.
    • DrDoom34 wrote:

      I agree, I'm trying to like 1.5 but just cant, I love the new units but everything else feels like overly complicated... my biggest issue with 1.5 is the balance between resource/unit production.. I should not have to wait 3 days just to get enough materials to build 5 tanks or 3 days to build one industrial complex.. I say increase the resource output to 1.0 standards (like many people were saying in the 1.5 beta but were seemingly ignored).
      I concur from the aspect of resource demand. Your issue about "waiting for resources" is tied to your economy development so to solve it, build more factories in your core provinces.

      But I don't understand the demand on soldiers when upgrading. It's like 30% of the soldiers in the upgraded unit are killed off and replaced. If they are replacements to bring the unit up to 90-100% then it's logical. Otherwise, there should be a minimal affect on manpower when upgrading a unit. The other resources requirements tied to upgrading are "okay" but I prefer the old mechanics of completed research automatically upgrades the old units. Alternatively, require the unit to move to a city with a barracks/tank plant/airfield etc for their class to get upgraded as another idea.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Idar_Oberstein: incorrect comment and additional thoughts. ().