Increase the hit point regeneration per day and other suggestions for mechanics

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

    • Increase the hit point regeneration per day and other suggestions for mechanics

      You devs should make like the regeneration for armoured vehicle, tanks, artillery, planes, AT gun, etc a lot faster, because does armoured cars take a 6 days to FIX 90%? NO, so WHY??? You guys should make armoured cars 50% per day, light and medium like 35% idk, and heavy of course like 20%, guns like AT or arty should be 50% because its so easy to fix, Planes should be like 30% i guess? Maybe do like if the stuff is in a city, then repair time is faster, which is the armoured car 50% thing, and when it is on the road, it will only regenerate like 25% or smth per day. Infantry should also can be replaced when in city unless the city itself is under attacked, so theortically, wounded Infatry units can be up to full health every time they eneter a city because the wounded infantry is being replaced by new ones. That kinda reminds me that why not add veterancy in the game too in the future, like higher veterancy deals idk, for example 5% more damage and stuff and highest veterancy is 5 stars which is 25% boost? Just suggestions, but please INCREASE THE REGEN AMOUNT PER DAY FOR SURE
    • Wow, it's remarkable of often this gets suggested. Yes, voodoo temple would make more sense, or Miracle Max's for those of you who've seen the movie: The Princess Bride. Maybe I'm dating myself with that.

      No, hospitals don't make sense. Many casualties are either dead are permanently disabled. If someone has a leg amputated, how much does it matter when they're released from the hospital...they're not going back to the front lines. Plus what is a hospital going to do for a ship with a punctured hull?

      What would make more sense would be to have units recover at a facility that produces new units of that type. Those same facilities are churning out new units. These units would "repair" in much the same way a new unit is created in the first place. Think about it, to use the example of a 1,000 man unit suffering 50% casualties, you would recruit, train, and equip 500 new infantrymen instead of 1,000. This would largely be similar to how a new unit is created in the first place, but with "repairing" a damaged unit, you would use the exiting unit as a frame to bring the unit back to full strength.

      Presumably this would be easier as you would use the original unit with an established chain of command composed of experienced NCOs and officers and integrate the fresh troops. To stand up a new unit from scratch, you would need to identify and transfer experienced NCOs and officers from other units. It's not like you can just produce mid and high ranking personnel straight from your officer academies and boot camps! I think it would be more rational back at a facility that produces these units, especially for ships and other unit types that would require extensive refurbishment to bring back to full functionality.

      The unit would be immobilized for this time, similar to upgrading, but otherwise it would make sense.

      I even think upgrading a unit would warrant a slight increase in the health of a damaged unit. The manpower cost of upgrading units is too high. Why would you need to replace half the personnel? What happens to the old troops?
    • 6thDragon wrote:

      What would make more sense would be to have units recover at a facility that produces new units of that type. Those same facilities are churning out new units. These units would "repair" in much the same way a new unit is created in the first place. Think about it, to use the example of a 1,000 man unit suffering 50% casualties, you would recruit, train, and equip 500 new infantrymen instead of 1,000. This would largely be similar to how a new unit is created in the first place, but with "repairing" a damaged unit, you would use the exiting unit as a frame to bring the unit back to full strength.
      I believe such a suggestion exists where you can repair units for a cost at their individual production building, like what you said.
    • To take this a step further in a direction that makes logical sense, there should be no free repairs of units. All repairs should cost resources and time, in a factory appropriate to the unit type. The higher the level of the unit, the better the factory has to be to repair the unit. No repairing level 4 bombers on a remote level 1 air base.

      In fact, units in the field should lose HP over time. Equipment is wearing out, men get into accidents and get injured. A unit in the field should be breaking down the longer it stays in the field. Units garrisoned in core territory should be immune from this wearing out, because they are on home turf, close to their supply and repair depots.

      The more damaged a unit is, the harder it should be to repair. Units that lost a big chunk of the command structure can't just be filled with new men and new equipment. You need new officers, a new HQ, etc. This avoids the unnatural situation where a worn out, close to death unit half way around the world from its home base will magically gain men and material. The more damaged a unit, the faster it recovers. This is ass-backwards. Units that lost all of their officers and equipment are not easily recovered, in fact they should just be cannibalized for their remaining men and equipment.
    • The consensus really has turned 180 on this huh. Back then everyone was so hostile to anything that had to do with revamping the healing system, but now this seems to be gaining traction.

      Yeah I guess something needs to be done about worn units. Either a replenishment or a disbandment system will do, personally leaning on the latter if i have to choose tho.

      6thDragon wrote:

      These units would "repair" in much the same way a new unit is created in the first place. Think about it, to use the example of a 1,000 man unit suffering 50% casualties, you would recruit, train, and equip 500 new infantrymen instead of 1,000.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      To take this a step further in a direction that makes logical sense, there should be no free repairs of units. All repairs should cost resources and time, in a factory appropriate to the unit type.
      Definitely. A 1000 manpower unit at half hp should cost 500 manpower to fully replenish. Cost for replenishment should be relative to the unit's missing hp with regards to the resources and time spent to produce the unit.

      Maybe to balance its convenience, there should be an additional +10% fee on top of the cost, effectively so that with the example above, the cost would instead be 550 as opposed to 500 manpower.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The higher the level of the unit, the better the factory has to be to repair the unit. No repairing level 4 bombers on a remote level 1 air base.
      Lower lvl facilities should still be able to replenish higher lvl units, just with longer time. Same as how a lvl 2 unit would take 2x more time to produce in a lvl 1 prod building, replenishing a lvl 2 unit at a lvl 1 prod building should also take double the time than if it were done in a lvl 2 facility.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      In fact, units in the field should lose HP over time. Equipment is wearing out, men get into accidents and get injured. A unit in the field should be breaking down the longer it stays in the field. Units garrisoned in core territory should be immune from this wearing out, because they are on home turf, close to their supply and repair depots.
      But why? That's only if you don't have logistics, like when your units don't heal because they're in unfriendly territory at daychange.
    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      The consensus really has turned 180 on this huh. Back then everyone was so hostile to anything that had to do with revamping the healing system, but now this seems to be gaining traction.
      In a sense, I suppose. I'm totally fine with a disbandment system, but please, just don't bring hospitals into this mess.
      Have an amazing rest of your day. =)

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself." - the Lord Buddha

      Need support? --> Send a ticket here!
      :00010166:
    • Uhh why? isn't this a hospital thread already?

      6thDragon wrote:

      What would make more sense would be to have units recover at a facility...
      "units recover at a facility" - that's literally a hospital. Sure hospitals don't make sense and this does, and you can't revive the dead and this doesn't try to, and unlike hospital's this isn't voodoo, and that this is totally different from a hospital... but it isn't, it's literally the same thing. It's a building that enables faster regeneration of units - that's a hospital.

      We can label it all these other things and argue from a realist standpoint that this isn't another nonsensical hospital proposition, but in its essence, it really just is a hospital.
    • And just so we're clear, it's not that I'm saying this because I'm still a hardcore anti-hospitalist (yea let's just call the camps pro & anti-hospitalist lol), I'm no longer, I've warmed up on my opposition of this subject.

      Let's just not pretend that its isn't what it really is.
    • I'm okay either way.

      I think the current set up dramatically favors artillery (and naval) units as they can bombard all day without taking damage in return. I just approach the game with an opinion that the lead developer (or creator) was a very biased artilleryman and have adapted my strategy accordingly. I do well enough with the current set up. I think from a realism perspective, allowing units to recover by backfilling losses with new recruits makes total sense. Plus it would make strategies that rely on melee units more viable. It's not an instant fix for those units as you would need to move them to a production center, then have them recover.

      I would say from a time perspective, it should be a little faster than standing up a new units as you have a working command to build off of.

      Z. Sakki wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      In fact, units in the field should lose HP over time. Equipment is wearing out, men get into accidents and get injured. A unit in the field should be breaking down the longer it stays in the field. Units garrisoned in core territory should be immune from this wearing out, because they are on home turf, close to their supply and repair depots.
      But why? That's only if you don't have logistics, like when your units don't heal because they're in unfriendly territory at daychange.
      I agree, I think the 15% replacement represents a minor influx of new personnel to replace those whose enlistments are over and retirements that would normally be suspended during a time of war.

      Now if there were a hostile terrain introduced, I think the units wearing down over time makes sense. Something like deserts. Which always struck me as odd that they weren't included. But that's probably a topic for another tread.
    • I have much to say on this matter. Just to clear this up, I am what Z. Sakki would call an "anti-hospitalist" in this scenario, but I do find many of the points from the pro-hospitalist side valid. There are however, some key concerns I would like to address.

      Z. Sakki wrote:

      Uhh why? isn't this a hospital thread already?
      What I mean was: don't reintroduce the topic of hospitals when they have time and time again been shut down. The idea is sound, but no need to divide the community when this isn't really the biggest issue with CoW (The optional merger of near dead units into a single unit, however, I will throw my support behind).

      So, a key point I have to disagree with is

      6thDragon wrote:

      units recover at a facility that produces new units of that type.
      I don't see the reasoning behind this. A barracks could not magically replace the men anymore than a hospital could. Wouldn't this justify a need for buildings to have an upkeep in manpower, since where would the replacements come from? What if the country is out of manpower, and has extremely slow production of it? Same for resources, if the said country has none of a particular resource, how could the unit recover at any faster rate?

      It'd make more sense if the system was similar to upgrading; you pay a certain amount of resources and manpower, keep the army immobilised, then have an army which has 100% of its HP. I'd argue that it'd need to be time-consuming; otherwise it'd be cheaper than just producing a new unit, which is what should be done. For example: if the US is invading Canada, they should be producing new units to replace the damaged ones. But if this invasion is of, let's say, Morocco, then it'd be justifiable to replenish those units, instead of making new ones.
      Have an amazing rest of your day. =)

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself." - the Lord Buddha

      Need support? --> Send a ticket here!
      :00010166:
    • Also, kind of unrelated, but I think we should change the +15% missing HP change from a once-a-day change to gradual, to make it more realistic. Also, it'd only work in you're territory, so you are punished if you are stuck in enemy territory and rewarded if you get to your own land. I was thinking maybe there could be a slight increase from 15% to 20% or 25% in core territories, but that might just be unbalanced, especially in historical games.
      Have an amazing rest of your day. =)

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself." - the Lord Buddha

      Need support? --> Send a ticket here!
      :00010166:
    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:



      So, a key point I have to disagree with is

      6thDragon wrote:

      units recover at a facility that produces new units of that type.
      I don't see the reasoning behind this. A barracks could not magically replace the men anymore than a hospital could. Wouldn't this justify a need for buildings to have an upkeep in manpower, since where would the replacements come from? What if the country is out of manpower, and has extremely slow production of it? Same for resources, if the said country has none of a particular resource, how could the unit recover at any faster rate?
      It'd make more sense if the system was similar to upgrading; you pay a certain amount of resources and manpower, keep the army immobilised, then have an army which has 100% of its HP. I'd argue that it'd need to be time-consuming; otherwise it'd be cheaper than just producing a new unit, which is what should be done. For example: if the US is invading Canada, they should be producing new units to replace the damaged ones. But if this invasion is of, let's say, Morocco, then it'd be justifiable to replenish those units, instead of making new ones.

      There wouldn't be anything magic to it. If a barracks can produce new troops for the purpose of creating new units, why can't it produce new troops to send to units that have suffered losses? If anything, under the current system, only magic prevents that. By my reasoning, it would be easier to bring existing units back up to full strength. When you're standing up new units, you would need to transfer in a large number of veterans from other units to form as the chain of command for the new unit.

      I even think it would be fair, to have the unit being "repaired" in this way, to occupy that cities troop production slot.

      I don't see the value of having buildings require manpower to upkeep, that would just overcomplicate things.

      If a country is already out of manpower or other resources, all the standard rules continue to apply...anything in their build queue stays there until they do.

      Personally, I don't understand why units can upgrade without being at a production facility either. That makes no sense, but I'm not going to overthink it.
    • Agree 100%

      All repairs and upgrades should be done at an appropriate factory/barracks. Upgrading a ship in the middle of the ocean, or a tank brigade on the middle of the desert, makes no sense in terms of realism or in terms of game play.

      And a repair should occupy a production slot, same as new production. Nothing magical about it. Want to replenish 20% of the fighting force, pay 20% of the production cost. Easy peasy.
    • I disagree strongly with the regeneration needing to be upped:

      - it promotes simple spamming until you cant push your mouse button anymore.
      - requires even less or no economy
      - reduces the need to be tactical and economical.

      Regeneration at specific sites more realistic? Field repairs are really not that uncommon. Tank crews can do some essentials themselves, specialized support can do much more outside.

      Of course not everything can be done in the field, maybe a enhanced regeneration at the appropriate production facility would be nice., but not more than double from what it is in the field.

      We dont need more Putin-like strategies in Call of war ;)

      BTW the repair option above by z00mz00m could be an interesting concept to explore, albeit it that maybe for high level repairs high level facilities are needed, or repair is slowed like production is.

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