Game balancing

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

    • Game balancing

      Game balancing of historic scenarios is just plain wrong. If you make weaker countries stronger, and stronger countries weaker, then aside from the map it is not historic is it? You reduce the challenges faced by weaker countries and frustrate the stronger ones by giving tiny countries on their borders large armies, ships and planes that they never had, or could possibly support even if they could produce them. Most people I talk to on here want historical accuracy to see if they can do better with what was available at the time. Make a new game that is non-historic and balanced if you want, but don't turn your historical games into something they are not and still call them that. It is bad enough that countries like Britain, Japan, and the USA start the so called 'historic' world game with Battleships and carriers but no level 3 naval bases that built them, and bombers also magically built without any level 2 airbases at the start. I was seriously thinking of working for your company but I am having second thoughts. I would change, improve, and scrap a lot of things you have in your Call of War games, and make you way more money selling gold, but since I can't even open my favorite games at the moment (which are unarguably the best online I've judged so far) like so many others who have had the same problem dating back years, and other serious glitches that still exist that you claim fixed, I'll withdraw my offer for the time being. No good attaching a horse to a burning wagon. Don't get me wrong. I don't see flames or even smell smoke yet. Bytro is still my first choice out of all the other companies I've checked out for a variety of reasons, but that won't last long if I see your organisation has been, "Shall we say,compromised?" Hope not. Living and working in Hamburg would be awesome (I have many friends in Europe who enjoy my books) so give me a shout if you're not too scared. On a side note, More or less as a hobby over the years, I've designed other games of war, comedic economic games, and political ones as well. All play tested for decades and therefore perfected and ready for electronic assimilation.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by simon ().

    • Correct my friend. I was going to mention that with other examples of less fortunate countries that historically didn't want or could not afford an armiy, and were sometimes, only protected by a highly corrupted skeleten thin force of cowardly bullys, masquerading as police. But I decided to omitt my rage and use of invective vernaculor that would have accompanied it. Ha ha ha! You almost got me started! I'd better shut up before I get in trouble.
    • simon wrote:

      Game balancing of historic scenarios is just plain wrong. If you make weaker countries stronger, and stronger countries weaker, then aside from the map it is not historic is it?
      Yes the map is unbalanced, yes the map is historical and it is ment to be this way. The map is more or less historical and accurate, the devs made only minor changes to enhance the game play. If you want to play a balanced map then there are plenty other maps to join. The historical is the only unbalanced map that COW has.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!
    • I played 1 historic scenario so far (before the balancing) and did not played any other yet.
      I often enter games when there are few places remaining and I played this game with Manchoukuo.
      In the first days of the war I saw Japan units starting packing at my borders so I took the initiative to attack him using arty I produced to weaken his forces.
      I managed to take the advantage and seized his neighbouring provinces but then I had to go for the main island ... and realised how powerfull was his navy.
      Remember I started with NO naval forces and NO naval reserach. I was a "small" one. So I had to sneak my troops around to reach his land using subs as spies and avoiding engagment. Which was a failure.
      His battleships were a nightmare to me as I couldn't hold the coast and especially the corean peninsula.
      In the meantime China (I contacted for help but who did not step in so far) attacked me. I was relatively safe from Japan ground forces as they were not as developped as his navy so I turned against China with the main of my troops, keeping up against potential Japan landing though. USSR was no help on an other hand as almost all his forces are based west and he choosed to ally Germany to invade Poland and focus on Europe. We agreed on an alliance though which helped me in a way I knew I was safe from him.
      I defeated China and was expanding more west but couldn't invade Japan cause of his navy power. Contacted USA who agreed on shared map (and will be my ally in a coalition till the end of this game) but he actually did not sent much troops to destroy the Japan Navy. He was focused on south america.
      Mid-game, as I was holding most of asia (invading Mongolia, India, and so on ...) but I was still unable to claim the Japan territory, still struggling for the corean peninsula. My naval forces were mainly composed of subs and some cruiser to kill small groups of japan destroyers but I couldn't build a navy able to match the japan one. My ressources were prior going in air and land reseaches.
      I also realised how insane was the gap between big and small countries after I shared map with the USA. The high reasearch level of his planes and ground units (medium tanks) early game when I started with milita and almost no research.
      Do you realise ? I was still unable to invade Japan mid-game and was still far to do so without navy. I was waiting for the USA navy strength that wasn't coming.
      The war with Japan lasted to the end of this game and he was defeated with the help of the US. We ended up wining the game together too.
      The only thing that allowed me to overcome Japan and China was my connection time higher than them (and arty to avoid looses + strategy).

      Looks like you know well the strength of big nations such as Japan, USA and Great Britain you mentionned, so you seems to be one of the "frustrated big players" you talk about. And you claim this balancing "reduce the challenge of small countries" but tell me more about your experience in those games, which countries did you play, did you actually played a "small one" and how much did you like it ?

      I also talked with someone who played Yougoslavia in another game and he told me he started with milita (yougoslavian partisans were well known during WWII) but he was no match for the german airforce and ended up loosing the game in one day. And he used those words I totaly agree with to describe small countries in those scenarios : we are walk-on actors.

      So I agree this balancing distort the accuracy of those "historic" scenarios but I do support those changes to make everyone's experience enjoyable.
      And one more thing about "historical accuracy". It happened in my game and I'll bet it happens in most of those scenarios: Germany allied with USSR to invade Poland but he also allied with France to be safe west. They built a coalition France - Germany -USSR - (and one of the scandinavian country). How accurate is this ?
      China supporting Japan and attacking me, how accurate is that ?
      People play strategy before historical accuracy. They go for the weaker and try to find strong allies. The only historical thing I often witness whatever the scenario is is Poland be torn appart by Germany and USSR (poor Poland ...).

      If you are looking for an accurate historical scenario a community game would be better as everyone could agree to follow some historic facts ("you play Germany ? then you will attack France", "you play USA ? Don't invade Mexico, focus on pacific theater and send some reinforcement to Europe", "you play Poland ? huh OK, was nice meeting you" ...).

      My opinion. The opinion of a player who likes challenges but who's also looking for fair fights.
      This remember me another unbalanced game with 3 set up coalitions all fighting for world domination. I started with Tibet and ended up beeing a superpower and wining with my mates ... but this is another story ...

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Merlin Pin-Pin ().

    • Greetings my friend! I enjoyed your response. What I meant by 'historical accuracy' was not what players should try to recreate or repeat ( I've already played that old scenario many times in other far more complex games, decades before 'Call of War') but in the starting levels of technology and industry, as well as assigning the correct provincial resources with a realistic numerical value. And don't get me started about my shock at seeing the four most important capital cities of the entire show, London, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow reduced in value from 25 to 10 and adding insult to injury, raising underdeveloped towns or small and insignificant cities with no political, economic, or strategic value what so ever, raised from a ridiculously high number of three, even higher to ten!? With all cities or their supposed sites given the same value, you put the final nail in the coffin of historical accuracy and devolve a great creation to nothing more than an old game of 'Risk' Before computer times, A large group of us in high school who were greatly interested in military history, were lucky enough to obtain some of the most sophisticated war games ever made. We played all the deadly accurate WW2 scenarios on the giant hexagon covered map of Europe that barely fit on two ping pong tables and a small desk needed for Iceland. Over 20,000 unit counters, a thick phone book of rules and other info, and between 7 and 17 people playing as generals on different sides. That was fine for a long while, but later the senior members of our war game club took it one step further and announced one day, that now each person got his own country and had to handle all the military and diplomatic exchanges on their own. They also decided that in order to free us up from dealing with the economy, what ever your country produced historically would be what you got and only minor changes would be allowed depending on things like major cities falling early or not at all. This new way of playing a game changed everything. Good roll players on line is one thing, but gathered together over a few drinks watching a minor battle between Russia and Finland. The latter had no player so the German and Swedish leaders played for them. The battle itself was not very eventful save for special rules concerning that particular theater, but I never laughed so hard watching a simple war game over a three day period. Insults, harsh jokes, classic lines from well known war movies with accents and all, had us in tear rolling hysterics. The roll playing became equal if not sometimes more enjoyable than battle itself, but only because we each represented a real country that either strong or weak did not matter. Anyway I was going to reread your response so I could answer more of your questions, but I'm getting sleepy. I'll keep it short then. I've played lesser countries like Sweden, Turkey, and Spain and won solo victories. I've played India and won a solo. I almost won as Australia once. My best game was playing South Africa. I was fighting alone against Great Britain, Yugoslavia, and their Chinese coalition partner. Without any gold I managed to set up one of the most deadly ambushes I have ever come up with on the Brits and Chinese and after three weeks of playing night and day it was set to begin in one hour when our building lost the internet. I ran to the only place I knew that I could get back on line and when I hooked up my lap top, it died and I lost the game and everything else stored within. It took me 48 hours to acquire a replacement but I had been destroyed long before then. Too bad. Winning a solo with one of the worst countries in the game would of been so sweet. Any way, good night my friend.
    • simon wrote:

      Game balancing of historic scenarios is just plain wrong. If you make weaker countries stronger, and stronger countries weaker, then aside from the map it is not historic is it? You reduce the challenges faced by weaker countries and frustrate the stronger ones by giving tiny countries on their borders large armies, ships and planes that they never had, or could possibly support even if they could produce them. Most people I talk to on here want historical accuracy to see if they can do better with what was available at the time. Make a new game that is non-historic and balanced if you want, but don't turn your historical games into something they are not and still call them that. It is bad enough that countries like Britain, Japan, and the USA start the so called 'historic' world game with Battleships and carriers but no level 3 naval bases that built them, and bombers also magically built without any level 2 airbases at the start.
      (Sorry if your suggestion was meant for 1.0 but that has been removed and only comes in events now, so.) This is 1.5. You do not need level 2 aircraft factories for bombers and lv3 naval bases for battleships. All you need is lv1, the whole point of upgrading them is to reduce the production time of a unit to its minimum production time.
      I partially agree, but sometimes you have to do slight changes to the army of the countries to make their overall power historically accurate. You just can't reflect one nation having a radar system and good administration for example. You have to give it different units to offset you can't reflect that. But yes, if you try hard enough you will always find flaws on a game or scenario, there can be some there too, I'm not doubting that.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper
    • Greetings Hornekeeper, I hope all is well with you. In my last statements about the historical world games inaccuracies, I was talking about both of them, but first let me compliment those responsible for some of the changes and additions made in 1.5 The air craft carriers are now as they should be and not like the ridiculously over-protected ones in CoW 1.0 Cutting production time for buildings and units with further bonus's from their doctrines keeps the game moving much quicker and more enjoyable than having to wait an hour for battle results. The new industrial buildings only making one type of unit is realistic and will test peoples foresight. So not all bad, but as for not being able to reflect a nation having a radar system and good administration, that could easily be done with what is already in the game. Anti air units at a certain tech level could double as radar units and have their detection range increased for aircraft only, and good administration could be reflected like it is in the doctrines by building things faster, cheaper, and better. Anyway I didn't realize how late it is and better go to bed. Oh yeah one more thing. My achievements have still not been added from the last ranked game I played around 3 weeks ago.
    • 5 weeks since I last played and won a coalition victory in the 'historical 1939 world war 2 scenario, and my achievement scores have still not been added. in the six years I've played CoW, that particular, and also the last game I played, had more glitches throughout the 15 days it took to win, than all the other games I've played combined and multiplied. It was insane! At first I thought I was hallucinating due to lack of sleep, being such a slave to the game, but when I asked another player if he had experienced any bizarre things going on in the game that seemed unlike the normal glitches that still happen or new ones having minor or temporary effects, he said yes. We exchanged stories, I contacted people outside this forum and after describing our super glitch filled game, they mostly felt it was something more than a rare epidemic of continuous computer malfunctions. A hacker was not ruled out because on one of my quiet peaceful fronts over half a dozen wounded units I had recovering, suddenly attacked a neutral country. I only learned that I was now at war with a country that had 5 times the troops I did, by checking the world paper for the latest casualty reports from battles I did plan. I ordered them to stop and on my other front, the units I ordered forward froze or retreated. I had to change all orders for my air force to save the situation, and the planes would not respond to commands and some even flew backwards. My carrier planes wouldn't fly and melted into the ship's decks and even rebooting the system did nothing. The other player I talked to said he saw an entire army, teleport away to another front. I can maybe see why my stats have not been added. I was close to getting lots of free gold for destroying just a few more units.
    • Getting over it might be easier for some people who don't care about their stats, but for those of us who do, when this unfixed problem continuously happens over the years, and NOTHING is ever done about it, and no one ever gets back to me or the countless others this has happened to, people tend to get legitimately angry when their hard won rewards are denied. Hey Ivan, I have 19 solo victories too! What if one day a glitch wiped yours out? Oh I know. You would just get over it and move on right? Man I would freak. Anyway, I am very impressed by your record, and I always look forward to hooking up and having deep discussions with the most successful military minds I can find, where we can exchange thoughts and ideas beyond the comprehension of the mortals we destroy. Yeah, I saw some pretty glitchy shit go down in a couple of Pioneer games many years ago. Bytro just invited me again today to join a pioneer game, but my work schedule usually screws that up. Anyway, If you would like to chat about anything revolving around the game, I would be more than happy to hear what a successful commander of your caliber have to say. All for now, take care, Simon
    • I have a problem with balance on 'balanced' map. Can someone tell me the reason why you can play a country with 21 provinces when there are countries with 32 provinces? Yes, provinces with resources are everywhere the same but empty provinces give a lot of manpower.

      So when there's a difference of 11 provinces that means fully built there will be difference in manpower production of 14 850 thats about 150 conquered provinces. At the game start there's a difference of 3850 manpower production and with 100% morale that's 4950.

      To match that difference (4950) you would have to build 5,5 recruiting centers to lvl3 (in province).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sewur ().