The New Call of War

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

    • freezy wrote:

      Idar_Oberstein wrote:

      I think 1.5 is unbalanced in many ways, and I am not going to point out all of them but will highlight a few.
      It is preposterous to think a recon unit is going to any damage on a heavy tank. Armament is too thick and the weapons on a scout car are just too light. Those values are way too high. 1.0 was better balance. Likewise, a NAV will never ever damage an armored unit. A medium tank, was right in 1.0 but why would it be so weak against inf in the defense vs the attack? Terrain adjustments would give it some common sense but without adjustments for terrain it's absurd. Same weapon systems puncture human skin just as efficiently be it in offense or defense.

      Armored units cities should have negative strength affects like they were in 1.0. A tank in the city is a sitting duck for close- in infantry. Unsupported tanks are easy targets. Even militias in WWII were effective with Molotov cocktails. I know it can't be "perfect" but it so out of whack with units being utterly switched up in effectiveness. It needs to be terrain related in mort instances for better balance. Artillery, the King of Battle was responsible for more land casualties then any other weapons system. The values are utterly switched up in infantry vs heavy tanks. HE will shred the human body but does little damage to a heavy or medium tank. Yes, it might break a track or kill a tc sticking his head out of the hatch, maybe slow maneuver, but except for a direct hit, it won't destroy a tank like an AP round would do. Interceptors, are just as effective in def vs attk mode, their maneuverability isn't negated in any circumstance (although elevation gave advantages/disadvantages or sun direction but attk/def values are too much of a spread. I just can't see the justifications or thought process for coming up with these values. Thanks for listening.
      Thanks for the feedback. This has been discussed many times already, but I will give an answer still:
      The damage values in the game do not only represent the efficiency in puncturing armor or skin. They also reflect other combat metrics, such a surprise, speed, the ability to flank an enemy, the ability to aim at a moving target, the ability to take cover, the effectiveness when being surrounded, the effectiveness vs. big groups or scattered troops and so on.
      Besides that the values have been set for balancing reasons and to allow for a great variety of different troops in the game. We are very pleased with that aspect in 1.5, according to our stats the unit variety is much greater than in the classic version.

      This is also the reason why certain units are better in the offensive than in the defensive: To add different unit roles to the game. We want every unit in the game to have a distinct purpose that is for the most part not fulfilled by another unit in the game.

      We decided to not use any negative terrain modifiers to make it easier to compare damage values. Infantry type units still get damage buffs in cities, so the end result will be the same -> Infs win vs. tanks in cities.

      Artillery was actually effective in pin-pointed shooting of armored units in the open. One could argue that they were not as effective in hitting Infantry who took cover. That's why the rocket artillery has much higher damage values vs. Infantry: Because it fired big and fast salvoes there was not enough time for the enemy to take cover. Then there is also the fact that armored units have more HP in general, so to be relatively effective against them higher damage values. vs them need to be assigned, too. We could of course give both normal artillery and rocket artillery the same effectiveness vs. unarmored targets, but then one of the 2 units is redundant and not needed anymore in the game. This goes against our balancing philosophy. Instead we give them a different focus to allow players who like ranged-gameplay more unit options.

      Airplanes have higher offensive stats than defensive stats to circumvent problems in the game flow. There are actually situations where defending planes have a big advantage inside the combat logic, and to counter that the offensive stats of planes are higher than defensive stats. Additionally one could argue that offensive stats are higher because there can be a surprise factor in the approach, while there is no defensive cover in the skies.


      So in summary: Everything you listed was of course considered in our balancing approach, and was iterated on in the past already based on player feedback. But we still ended up with the current balancing as we think it is the best compromise between playability, diversity and authenticity.
      Thank you for the explanation, it gives some understanding of the thought process. However, for artillery to be more effective against heavy armor vs infantry is not realistic. How many rounds did it take to get a direct hit, whereas a 155mm shell casualty radius of 200 meters or more is still more efficient against infantry then armor. But thanks for the explanation.
    • Fac3lessman wrote:

      one problem i have is that in some of the games where you have a team automatically, like the team up event, supply drops are somtimes dropped into allied territory, and there is no way to get them
      there not dropped into enemy territory I have seen it many times it even happenned to me many times. What happens is its actually in enemy territory and then that territory would of been captured by your allies before you seen the supply drop so you think it's spawning in your allies territory