Don't get rid of the classic game modes

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

    • freezy wrote:

      "CoW2.0" was just the codename we gave to the further development roadmap now that we consider CoW1.5 to be completed. It will be just the gradual further development of CoW1.5 basically. There won't be a 2.0 version with different gameplay or balancing or such, so don't view this as the same situation with 1.0 vs. 1.5. So if you like 1.5 you have no reason to be worried, as we will just add on to it and not replace in terms of the core gameplay.
      That doesn't mean it isn't being developed in Hamburg's version of Area 51

    • frankiestyn wrote:

      go look on the rankings lists you dumb newbie just shows you how little you know of the game you tosser
      Please follow forum etiquette. I looked at the rankings, and the username matching your forum name was level 36. I assume your username is different from your forum name?
      "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • It is a pity that Bytro has decided to go the 1.5 version to increasingly easier and less demanding reality-uncomplicated games, which are full of the Internet. CoW lost its exclusivity (previously it was more for Hearts Of Iron players, today only for childish players who are bothered by anything that is a challenge or difficulty). I understand that the economic view is the first for Bytro - it's just business, nothing else. Still, it's a pity. I have been playing CoW for many years (in waves), I have won 47 of the 59 games. The development towards version 1.5 and the further addition of stupidities, simplifications and nonsense to the game (especially to the game that plays in WWII :) discouraged me from further playing. I tried to give it a chance, but it's extremely boring and without invention.
      I agree that version 1.0 should be maintained in parallel.
      I don't understand the argument that two versions still need to be tuned - 1.0 was done about 2 years ago - all other "improvements" were just concessions to non-players who cried that they ran out of oil on the third day (when they play for Spain, it's quite logical: )). Today's settings, when there are giant oil fields in Marseille or Barcelona, are just funny and roughly correspond to my idea of the general intelligence of the next generation ...

    • BMfox wrote:

      Let me quote the developer freezy here: "Since CoW Classic is already played by only a minority nowadays we came to the conclusion that this is the right time to fade it out. But as we said we still plan to bring it back in form of Events occasionally."
      Lol, developers. It is only played by a minority because you made it that way. By creating 1.5 and making it the common game, of course, only a minority will only play 1.0. If there was no 1.5, then 100% of players would play 1.0. The reason for creating 1.5 was to make it easier to understand and play for new players if I recall correctly. But by doing that, you are also leaving us, classic players, behind.

    • Mr. Bridger wrote:

      It is a pity that Bytro has decided to go the 1.5 version to increasingly easier and less demanding reality-uncomplicated games, which are full of the Internet. CoW lost its exclusivity (previously it was more for Hearts Of Iron players, today only for childish players who are bothered by anything that is a challenge or difficulty). I understand that the economic view is the first for Bytro - it's just business, nothing else. Still, it's a pity. I have been playing CoW for many years (in waves), I have won 47 of the 59 games. The development towards version 1.5 and the further addition of stupidities, simplifications and nonsense to the game (especially to the game that plays in WWII :) discouraged me from further playing. I tried to give it a chance, but it's extremely boring and without invention.
      I agree that version 1.0 should be maintained in parallel.
      I don't understand the argument that two versions still need to be tuned - 1.0 was done about 2 years ago - all other "improvements" were just concessions to non-players who cried that they ran out of oil on the third day (when they play for Spain, it's quite logical: )). Today's settings, when there are giant oil fields in Marseille or Barcelona, are just funny and roughly correspond to my idea of the general intelligence of the next generation ...
      I just bought 1 year of High Command without realizing that 1.0 was being deleted. As I said before, I have bought many things since 2015. But now 1.5 is just boring and disappointing. I have been trying to play like 20 times, but the way it is bores me. Guess I will be leaving Call of War once my last 1.0 games finish, and I'll be taking some time until I hear something back from my alliance. Otherwise, I don't plan to come back, sadly. Maybe this doesn't affect Bytro as much, I am just one player and that's alright. But Call of War was my favorite game, and now it's changed a lot and it seems there is no "turn back."

    • jefin b wrote:

      old players love 1.0 and new players(like me) love 1.5 thats how it is.
      new players CANT play 1.0. Older players can.. and tell me... erm... why is 1.5 considered to be easier? There are definitely more unit and building types along with terrain.. is it due to how damage is calculated?
      "In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass

      "The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"

      Secretary of Nova0213

    • Karl von Krass wrote:

      jefin b wrote:

      old players love 1.0 and new players(like me) love 1.5 thats how it is.
      new players CANT play 1.0. Older players can.. and tell me... erm... why is 1.5 considered to be easier? There are definitely more unit and building types along with terrain.. is it due to how damage is calculated?
      1.5 is more easy
      “ To command is to serve, nothing more and nothing less.”


      For support ticket click here

      forum rank list(the better one)

      join my discord server>discord.gg/nbydn7sEaS

      :00010166:

    • jefin b wrote:

      Karl von Krass wrote:

      jefin b wrote:

      old players love 1.0 and new players(like me) love 1.5 thats how it is.
      new players CANT play 1.0. Older players can.. and tell me... erm... why is 1.5 considered to be easier? There are definitely more unit and building types along with terrain.. is it due to how damage is calculated?
      1.5 is more easy
      what makes it easier?
      "In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass

      "The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"

      Secretary of Nova0213

    • Karl von Krass wrote:

      new players CANT play 1.0. Older players can.. and tell me... erm... why is 1.5 considered to be easier? There are definitely more unit and building types along with terrain.. is it due to how damage is calculated?
      It's because of nonsense in the gaming system.
      It is absolutely not worth building on areas that are not cities. More types of buildings - who would build a tank factory, a cannon factory and a barracks in the one city? WTF? More types of units? You won't even start inventing half at all because of the profit / loss ratio. You have so many resources that you don't need a deal at all. The policy is therefore zero, limited to military alliances. After all, when I play for Germany, I assume enough metal, goods and a lack of rare materials and a huge shortage of oil. And so on ... It looks more complex - doctrines, bonuses for the territory, a lot of buildings, units, etc ... But I have not yet seen someone win to use the whole thing. Useless.
      A militia stronger than a regular army, a surplus of resources ... let maps be randomly generated and then whatever it is called. But not WWII - it's a mockery of everything we've ever learned about history. Like this - each city for 10 points regardless of importance, the others nothing. Stupidity of AI when declaring wars, I'm not even talking about tactics. In Palestine or Bhutan, a dozen divisions of heavy tanks will appear on the 10th day of the game!
      Bytro simply heard the voice of players accustomed to mobile applications for simple (even primitive) games and moved CoW in that direction. There are many games like CoW 1.5 on the Internet and there is really no reason to pay more attention to it. It's a shame...
      It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't see it after a few games and doesn't have experience with the core 1.0 version (not the last with the illogical (and again - simplified (so that players don't have it that hard) research system))

    • Mr. Bridger wrote:

      Karl von Krass wrote:

      new players CANT play 1.0. Older players can.. and tell me... erm... why is 1.5 considered to be easier? There are definitely more unit and building types along with terrain.. is it due to how damage is calculated?
      It's because of nonsense in the gaming system.It is absolutely not worth building on areas that are not cities. More types of buildings - who would build a tank factory, a cannon factory and a barracks in the one city? WTF? More types of units? You won't even start inventing half at all because of the profit / loss ratio. You have so many resources that you don't need a deal at all. The policy is therefore zero, limited to military alliances. After all, when I play for Germany, I assume enough metal, goods and a lack of rare materials and a huge shortage of oil. And so on ... It looks more complex - doctrines, bonuses for the territory, a lot of buildings, units, etc ... But I have not yet seen someone win to use the whole thing. Useless.
      A militia stronger than a regular army, a surplus of resources ... let maps be randomly generated and then whatever it is called. But not WWII - it's a mockery of everything we've ever learned about history. Like this - each city for 10 points regardless of importance, the others nothing. Stupidity of AI when declaring wars, I'm not even talking about tactics. In Palestine or Bhutan, a dozen divisions of heavy tanks will appear on the 10th day of the game!
      Bytro simply heard the voice of players accustomed to mobile applications for simple (even primitive) games and moved CoW in that direction. There are many games like CoW 1.5 on the Internet and there is really no reason to pay more attention to it. It's a shame...
      It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't see it after a few games and doesn't have experience with the core 1.0 version (not the last with the illogical (and again - simplified (so that players don't have it that hard) research system))
      thank you for clearing the doubt, i never looked deep into 1.0 mechanics
      "In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass

      "The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"

      Secretary of Nova0213

    • Here is my opinion
      1.0 is for like the old players and not very new player friendly
      Don't get me wrong 1.0 involves a lot of strategic thinking but the entire point was new players did not have that strategic thinking
      The old players could cope because when they joined-almost everyone else was new so they could develop
      Last year due to Covid-19 many players joined the game (including me)n and did not have the time to develop the strategic thinking and thought the game was too slow.
      So in my case in the start it just did not feel like that because I used to not play so much
      But when I did it was to slow
      So I think that was one of the reasons for them to add 1.5
      The catch is if you got used to 1.0 it did not take much to get used to 1.5
      But if you get used to 1.5 it is hard to get back to 1.0
      That is what happened to me during dawn of patriot

      But I do have a solution

      Once or twice in a month they can add all the game modes of 1.0 (just for 2 days)
      So if there are any bugs they have a lot of time to solve them
      And they do not lose the players who liked 1.0
      YeeHaw

    • Miradosh wrote:

      Here is my opinion
      1.0 is for like the old players and not very new player friendly
      Don't get me wrong 1.0 involves a lot of strategic thinking but the entire point was new players did not have that strategic thinking
      The old players could cope because when they joined-almost everyone else was new so they could develop
      Last year due to Covid-19 many players joined the game (including me)n and did not have the time to develop the strategic thinking and thought the game was too slow.
      So in my case in the start it just did not feel like that because I used to not play so much
      But when I did it was to slow
      So I think that was one of the reasons for them to add 1.5
      The catch is if you got used to 1.0 it did not take much to get used to 1.5
      But if you get used to 1.5 it is hard to get back to 1.0
      That is what happened to me during dawn of patriot

      But I do have a solution

      Once or twice in a month they can add all the game modes of 1.0 (just for 2 days)
      So if there are any bugs they have a lot of time to solve them
      And they do not lose the players who liked 1.0
      Nah. 1.0 is easier than 1.5. 1.5 seems like it adds alot of content but that is false. Most of new content in 1.5 serves no purpose other than annoyance. 1.0 was more simpler and had more content and was more fun since you didnt have to spend all your time micro managing. What 1.0 needed is better unit balancing since some units were more OP than others.