Release Notes - 2022-08-31

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

    • If I play a remote island nation like New Zealand it's mostly navy for the early days, so Rares not so useful in that situation. Otherwise, I need a LOT of Rares. Everything is situational and many of my opinions on the game design somehow seem to change, as something I didn't like before turns out to be the solution to a new problem. I recommend keeping an open mind.

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

    • Nooberium wrote:

      If I play a remote island nation like New Zealand it's mostly navy for the early days, so Rares not so useful in that situation. Otherwise, I need a LOT of Rares. Everything is situational and many of my opinions on the game design somehow seem to change, as something I didn't like before turns out to be the solution to a new problem. I recommend keeping an open mind.
      I always keep an open mind. And everything I post in forums is to make the game better. Someone at some point said we have enough units. I disagree. And I have played an insane amount of war strategy games.
      The common issue is boredom.
      Ive stated to have more units. They do not have to be the same strength, they can be lower stats but just more units. Players need more stuff to build, do etc.
      I see these common threads in many games. Be it Civilization or Cow, CoN, I could go on. CoW is based on the old Japanese game called 88/Panzer/Armor .. the entire game is almost similar. Save for building buildings which takes from Warcraft and Civ. To deny game creators have been influenced by other earlier games is silly. My love for strategy games stems for my love of games such as Risk, Axis and Allies, Dungeons and Dragons etc.

      And I also hold on to one recommendation that I think is absolutely necessary. @freezy highlight the roads. so we know which have been "paved" lol
    • 6thDragon wrote:

      I'll agree with this one too on manpower. I make a habit of building a recruiting center in a starting city up to level 2 before the first day change then increase it to level 3 on the second day so I don't get into trouble around day five or six.
      Some of the manpower costs do defy logic. I get infantry units, as they are manpower intensive. Other units like planes and rockets have manpower costs that appear too high. Perhaps it's in the interest of game balance.

      I also think the manpower costs of upgrading is non-sensical as well. If you have a unit at full strength, why do you need to spend half the cost in manpower to improve it to the next level? It defies any logic I can follow. Manpower is different from other resources in that you cannot trade it. This is common sense. Hopefully common sense will prevail someday with manpower costs of upgrading.
      It is mainly a balancing reason. If you want a realism reason: You can imagine the manpower cost to be the cost for the mechanics that upgrade and maintain the new unit type, and also the training to the personell to be able to use the new unit.

      Z. Sakki wrote:

      Rares are just too one dimensional of a resource. The fact that their prices drop drastically very early on even though they're artificially made scarce (10k instead of 15k staring) really just speaks for itself.
      This is mainly due to AI though, as I explained. It is pretty rare (pun intended) that human players put offerings into the market themselves, I would argue that most of the trading volume is inserted by AIs. But as I said, AIs only build a little amount of units which require Rares, because AIs cant handle Airplanes well for example. Thus, AIs usually have more rares left over than other resources, and those rares are put to the market by the AI. Since alot of AIs do it, Rare prices fall.

      I mean, we could certainly lower Rare production or increase Rare costs for example to really make it rare, but I feel like alot of experienced players would not like this change as they like to go for the type of units which require Rares.

      And removing Rares entirely is a bigger revamp of the game, which may also spark some protests I assume.
    • @freezy lol you skimmed over the manpower costs. I was speaking on new builds and ongoing manpower needs. It needs to be lowered across the board.
      The bigger maps you feel the pinch. 22 not so much, but 50 and WaW for sure. I have not tried Pacific Conquest.

      Please consider some tweaks on this particular issue. :) With a cherry on top lol
    • Oh no don't get me wrong, I'm not for removing rares altogether. I just think they need some balancing, they just feel flat.

      freezy wrote:

      I mean, we could certainly lower Rare production or increase Rare costs for example to really make it rare, but I feel like alot of experienced players would not like this change as they like to go for the type of units which require Rares.
      I don't think I'd like that too. Increasing the cost of rares is essentially just increasing the cost of planes and rartys. I still think getting more units, viable units (tanks and rockets don't count), to use them is the way to go.