I hope I am wrong... about 1.5 and Classic Maps

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

    • I hope I am wrong... about 1.5 and Classic Maps

      New

      Is 1.5 better than Classic game play? 14
      1.  
        No (9) 64%
      2.  
        Yes (5) 36%
      3.  
        I don't know (0) 0%
      Current Rating 118. I will have been playing this game for 2 years come December.

      Going to keep this simple and short...

      Did I read that right? Eventually classic Maps are gone for good at some point? Terrible news... any semblance of strategy is out the window with 1.5 Maps.

      In short, I will have to end playing this game should adjustments not be made... and I am sure that I am not the only one who feels this way.

      The above statement simply expresses the fact that 1.5 is a shell of a game that "classic" held.

      Classic 25, 22, 10 (12) provided a sense of challenge no matter the country of choice. Alliances were meaningful, and actions or inaction had consequences.


      Although classic is imperfect, abandoning it completely certainly is a thumb in the face of seasoned players, player choice, and game design.

      1.5 Offers very little in terms of positive game changes. I have played or currently playing about a dozen maps.

      Positives:

      Personally, the only upgrade I appreciated was the spreading out of resources across each nation's map.

      Negatives:

      100% about rushing to victory.
      = no point in playing smaller countries
      = no real strategy employed
      = short term decisions vs long term strat


      Economy plays no to little impact given games are usually determined within hrs to 2 days.

      Most territory upgrades/ military/ econ are predicated on being able to log in 30 min to a few hrs. Again supporting short term and speed game play.


      I can only assume 1.5 is the result of data mining in terms of what will drive more players to purchase gold ... pay to win. I do not mind gold users, it's their money. However, driving the entire player base towards the use of gold to win... seems cheap. An option sure, again I want the business to be supported. I understand you need to diversify income beyond ads.
    • New

      OOF for CoW 1.5.

      Clearly none of the players were asked whether or not 1.5 was good when it was made.

      Almost every single player I have met prefers 1.0.
      But courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility.

      Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, but brains saves both.

      -Rommel
    • New

      It is clearly a work in progress. I was pretty doubtful at first but I have to say there are some definite improvements in 1.5 over 1.0.

      They are still working on balancing and they need to work on economic balancing. There is consistently a goods shortage and a rare materials over abundance, for instance, and I am sure there are many other examples. But, if you compare that to the every increasing food shortages in all mid to late stage 1.0 games, 1.5 is a huge improvement even with its shortcomings.

      Generally I feel like they took on too much with the overhaul and should have stuck to a few narrow improvements at a time.

      I just hope they continue to tweak and listen to player input.
    • New

      dirge wrote:

      They are still working on balancing and they need to work on economic balancing. There is consistently a goods shortage and a rare materials over abundance, for instance, and I am sure there are many other examples. But, if you compare that to the every increasing food shortages in all mid to late stage 1.0 games, 1.5 is a huge improvement even with its shortcomings.

      Generally I feel like they took on too much with the overhaul and should have stuck to a few narrow improvements at a time.

      I just hope they continue to tweak and listen to player input.
      New call of war is better ballanced, is mere realistic, is may be more addiktiv for younger playerbase.

      I see only two negative sides of new CoW: Speed of game, and slightly increased risk of excessive gold use compared to classical CoW.
    • New

      whowh wrote:

      OOF for CoW 1.5.

      Clearly none of the players were asked whether or not 1.5 was good when it was made.

      Almost every single player I have met prefers 1.0.
      I don't, the 1.0 version is slow and more predictable. Until day 8 almost everyone has the same units. It's also much slower as building and production takes more time. The gameplay with 1.5 is faster and more fluent, there's no more everlasting maps without ending like in the 1.0 units. There have also been introduced new units that i find very good and other existing units have been buffed or made better. Overal the 1.5 version is a huge improvement. I hope that next year the alliance world cup will be played in the 1.5 version.
    • New

      Tornvalor10 wrote:

      1.0. 25/10/22 maps to some degree beyond what they have already expressed.
      I just wish they would add in the new units and add a convert button to paratroopers before cutting ties.
      But courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility.

      Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, but brains saves both.

      -Rommel
    • New

      *sigh* ...OK. Here's my take on all this.

      1.5 is not better or worse than 1.0. It's a good game, for different reasons than 1.0.

      1.0 Clearly favors long, protracted battles, which require strategy and patience. 1.5 does not.

      1.5 requires a lot of activity. 1.0 requires less.

      1.0 has a much more deep and interesting economic system.

      1.5 has a much more fair economic system, without any of the strategic challenge.

      1.5 has units 1.0 sorely needed.

      To be honest I've been playing Call of War less and less lately. 1.5 is just a cheap rip off of Conflict of Nations WWIII. I played Call of War because it wasn't Conflict of Nations. Now it just is.

      I don't mind the shift to 1.5 as much as I do mind the loss of 1.0. Call of War lost a key part of itself, and the developers have made it clear that it won't go back.
    • New

      You speak truth Jester. Before I found CoW I tried Confict of Nations and quit after my first game. Then I tried CoW 1.0 and loved it from the mechanics to the graphics. CoW 1.5 has truly lost the parts of 1.0 that made me love it so much, when 1.0 gets removed I’m probably going to stop playing CoW. I’m fine with 1.5 I just like 1.0 so much better and wish it could stay.
      “If nature doesn’t kill us in the next few decades we will take matters into our own hands” -Habo778 (me)
    • New

      100% about rushing to victory.
      = no point in playing smaller countries
      = no real strategy employed
      = short term decisions vs long term strat
      I am not sure why 1.5 is about "rushing to victory", "short term decisions" or "no real strategy employed".

      What I can say for sure is that 1.5 has less TACTICS due to :
      1. Some units having better offense and some units having better defense, means being in defense is not really that much of an advantage
      => So no need to position your troops in a way that force the opponent to attack
      2. In addition, less strategic location to defend since cities are both where unit production and rss production is.
      3. Everything goes much faster, so being active is more important than positionning properly