The New Call of War

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

    • I dont undrestand why there are no rivers! they would be SIMPLE. you know how the oceans work in CoW? rivers would be the exact same! troops would need convoys to get through. this is completely relaisist, and NEEDED. cmon man. Remember the crossing of the Rhine! Remember Operation Market Garden! RIVERS WOULD BE SIIIIIIIIIIIIMPLE TO MAKE
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength
    • GrandEmpire wrote:

      I dont undrestand why there are no rivers! they would be SIMPLE. you know how the oceans work in CoW? rivers would be the exact same! troops would need convoys to get through. this is completely relaisist, and NEEDED. cmon man. Remember the crossing of the Rhine! Remember Operation Market Garden! RIVERS WOULD BE SIIIIIIIIIIIIMPLE TO MAKE
      The age old tradition of people who have never coded or designed in their life saying something should be easy to do :).

      if you have river, you need bridges, so when I move troops in my empire they don't embark/disembark 5 times from point A to point B. Bridges stop neither ships not land troops, which is something that does not exist at the moment in the game (sadly, for Panama / Suez / Kiel)
      You also need a tag for the rivers so battleships don't start bombarding Paris from the Seine,
      You need to teach AI how to work around rivers,
      You need to manage the computation workload of having a bunch of new regions on each map, which of course you need to remake totally,

      Finally, the impact on balancing would be incredible, because now defensive absolutely - naval assault are extremely difficult in CoW, and they will be even more when you cannot escort your convoy with battleships or even cruisers.
    • I have been playing for two months now and am already really good at the game. Though I think the rate of producing should be a little bit faster. I mean, I have to join more games to enjoy than wait for like one soldier to be produced. It is annoying. But I love how in most games, a reasonable amount of troops is already there. But replenishing those troops would be better. Also just to add, join my alliance! Tag is 69RIB! Join before it is to late! Only experienced players with the rank of corporal or higher will be let in. Also they must be active and fight no matter the cost but smartly. Also must still fight when all hope seems to be lost! In games, join with the other teammates in the alliance and they will help you in a pinch! So join today before it is late! Or you will feel like this! :wallbash
    • 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
      That should not happen for countries where you have shared map with. What can happen of course is that an ally conquers a province where a supply drop was in already. It then appears to you as if the supply drop spawned in your ally's land although it was there before the ally owned it. But if you observe a supply drop really spawning in allied territory, please report it as a bug.

      Amova wrote:

      Unfortunately, in the new game, economic discussion is not considered at all and all countries have the same natural resources, and the need for a global export and import market is ignored in the game.
      That is not true, all countries have slightly different resource production. Yes the resources in the cities is the same, but the resources in the rural areas are different. Usually countries have +1/+2 of some resources and -1/-2 of other resources concerning rural areas.
      Oh and I saw you posted alot of comments in this thread. Please refrain from double posting in the future. Instead, please edit your posts if you want to add additional thoughts.

      Oldewarrior wrote:

      the biggest problem now is EVERYTHING takes FOREVER......and the constant revolting of provinces WITH TROOPS in them and stealing the troops is getting way out of hand
      The revolt mechanics are the same in both game versions. They also have been like this for a long time now. So I think there is no reason to believe that things are getting out of hand.
      As for the notion that everything takes forever: Well one has to define everything. Because build times are faster and movement speed is faster as well in the new version. We also clearly track that game rounds in the new version end faster than in the old version. So objectively we can definitely say that the new version is faster than the old version. I think it can only subjectively feel slower if you run out of resources because you are able to spend all your resources faster due to the reduced build times.

      GrandEmpire wrote:

      I dont undrestand why there are no rivers! they would be SIMPLE. you know how the oceans work in CoW? rivers would be the exact same! troops would need convoys to get through. this is completely relaisist, and NEEDED. cmon man. Remember the crossing of the Rhine! Remember Operation Market Garden! RIVERS WOULD BE SIIIIIIIIIIIIMPLE TO MAKE
      Adding rivers would result in a major rework of all our maps, which is quite a big and time consuming task. Additionally as Chimere explained in this thread already, just adding rivers will add nothing to the gameplay per-se. We would have to add supporting mechanics as well, like (destroyable) bridges. Units already can't move freely on the map and have to stick to paths, we can assume that this already reflects natural obstacles like rivers.

      Dictator22 wrote:

      i think you need to add generals like hoi4
      Nothing in the short term but we can consider it for the future.
    • Yes thank you i know they WOULDNT be simple. but would still be ENJOYABLE. What about weather? you know how every province bar has an icon for terrain? add one for weather, according to province it would vary and change. units would be dis/advantaged according to weather. this would make the game FAR MORE realistic and enjoyable
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength
    • As was said earlier, it may be more enjoyable for you, but it will be very, very, very hard to implement. On top of that, there are players who are satisfied with the current version, and don’t want any change.
      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
    • ok thank you. but i do think WEATHER should be a big issue going in 2.0 as well as rivers and more sophisticated terrain
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength
    • The bigger question is:
      Where is CoW going?
      There is no more "Classic CoW" since the advent of requiring food for research, and many other game breakers that were introduced before the 1.5 excursions ever started.
      Time to kick back, take a six month break, and come back to find that bystro has sold the earlier version of CoW
      to Laxident Games.
    • If there is going to be a new Call of War I hope they implement a better tutorial they have now. It really just teaches the player to use gold to play the game. The tutorial should teach the player to better understand how the game works like as well as teach them about game mechanics like patrol reset or global popularity. I know helping too much isn't good but I believe it would be better if there was a little push to help out the newer players of the player base.
    • Well the 1.5 is here and the games are empty as usual, even more than in the 1.0 version. I have played one game and was funny, not like the 1.0, but ok. I only suggest change the disembarkt time, 4h30m is so much.
      Anyway this new game maybe is better for tablets and mobile phone, not for the old fashioned like me. I miss a lot of things of the 1.0. Also the 1.0 now is not the old 1.0. CoW as we know it.
      The 1.5 is so fast for me, the economy is so lineal....I will continue playing because of my alliance friends sometimes, but not like before. I think old players are leaving and the new players are not going to come in great numbers.
      Excuse my english and have a nice day.
      Att. Teniente Somanta.
      Si no tienes posibilidades de vencer, es el momento de atacar.
    • Zimbrisor wrote:

      Please reconsider the balance of the battles agains convoys and planes on the ground! Is unsane that i can sink with 3 subs a stack of 20 land units in a convoy! And is insane not to be able to kill with 2 tanks 10 plans in a truck travelling on the road! Is not realistic!
      I disagree, unescorted convoys would be utterly destroyed by a german wolf pack in the N. Atlantic. That's why the Brits and Americans never sent troop ships and supply ships unescorted. It amazes me that players would do this without a destroyer or 2, or 3 for protection. If you were sitting in the boat wouldn't you want to be surrounded by DDs? Same goes for planes on the ground, sitting ducks to enemy aircraft and ground units.
    • 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.
    • listening? u mean reading, also Artillery was called GOD of battle not King by Stalin
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength
    • 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.