Release Notes - 2023-05-30

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

    • Release Notes - 2023-05-30



      Release Notes - 2023-05-30

      Attention, General!

      It’s time for a meeting at headquarters! Old strategies will have to be reviewed, as we released a set of balance changes with today’s update. These changes will only apply to newly created games.

      Battleships, Railroad Guns, Infantry, Paratroopers, Motorized Infantry as well as Light and Heavy Tanks all have received buffs to make them more competitive with other units in their class. We also made Rockets, Flying Bombs and Nuclear Weapons hit harder against all targets by unifying their damage dealt to ground units and buildings.
      These are only the highlights of this balance pass, please check out the detailed Release Notes for the complete list of changes made.

      Finally, it wouldn’t be a complete update without bug fixes. Units with partial stealth, such as Militia, will no longer be invisible when entering hostile territory on terrain that doesn’t provide them stealth benefits. And ranged units with an “Aggressive” fire control setting will now finish upgrades in progress, before attacking enemies in range.

      We want to hear your thoughts on the new balance pass, so share your feedback with us right here on the Forums and on our Discord Server.

      Best of luck General!

      Your Bytro Team
      Discord: Call of War
      Facebook: Call of War
      Twitter: Call of War
    • Is this affecting games that have been going for a while?
      I also notice the advertisement panel can now longer be removed. I don't think this contributes to the gameplay well, and impedes screenshots and uglifies the UI. What was the rationale for that change?
      I think it might be a bug, is it deliberate?
      :) :( ;) :P :D ^^ ;( X( :* :| 8o =O <X || :/ :S X/ 8) ?( :huh: :rolleyes: :love: 8| :cursing: :thumbdown: :thumbsup: :thumbup: :sleeping: :whistling: :evil: :saint: <3 :!: :?: :tumbleweed: :beer: :wallbash

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Lord Crayfish ().

    • i think the way to balance strategic bombers is not in numbers but in mechanics.

      1. If you destroy the airbases doesnt matter if they are expensive or cheap, the better solution to this i think is bring back the mechanic of airplanes keep flying if theres another airbase in their range but limiting them to interceptors or rocket fighters.

      2. If a strat bombers patrol over a city deal full damage to building even if there are units in there, it could be better if distribute damage similar how different armor classes works, so in this way if you put anti air on a city is better protected against strategic bombers

      3. Airplanes can choose their battles, if you want to protect all your initial provinces against estrategic bombers, you either use fighters and beeing active, distribute too few anti-air on every province and being taken down by bombers or over invest on antiair.
      For this point could be easy resolve by adding anti-air range similar in CoN.

      Strat bombers are curious, not saying they are OP but they are frustrating and annoying to deal with, those are the problems i identifying and my proposals to make them more balanced in design
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • jubjub bird wrote:

      Rrg buff, interesting choice...

      Agreed. It's the one change that makes life easier for expert players who use RRG in the late game.

      Most other changes try to help less skilled players by making what they build more effective. Light tanks. Heavy tanks. Rockets. Battleships got another buff and cruisers got another nerf.

      This doesn't change the basic equation. Battleships are still too slow and too vulnerable to both subs and bombers. Cruisers still see further, deal more damage to subs and move too fast for subs or battleships to catch up, and they scare off bombers. Nothing really changed.

      The way to make good players move away from cruisers is to decrease their bombardment range, view range, and anti-submarine damage. Until these things change, the cruiser will continue to rule the oceans in CoW.

      The rest is all meh. Who cares about infantry and armor in the late game? The late game is decided by air power and RRG stacks.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      jubjub bird wrote:

      Rrg buff, interesting choice...
      Agreed. It's the one change that makes life easier for expert players who use RRG in the late game.

      Most other changes try to help less skilled players by making what they build more effective. Light tanks. Heavy tanks. Rockets. Battleships got another buff and cruisers got another nerf.

      This doesn't change the basic equation. Battleships are still too slow and too vulnerable to both subs and bombers. Cruisers still see further, deal more damage to subs and move too fast for subs or battleships to catch up, and they scare off bombers. Nothing really changed.

      The way to make good players move away from cruisers is to decrease their bombardment range, view range, and anti-submarine damage. Until these things change, the cruiser will continue to rule the oceans in CoW.

      The rest is all meh. Who cares about infantry and armor in the late game? The late game is decided by air power and RRG stacks.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      jubjub bird wrote:

      Rrg buff, interesting choice...
      Agreed. It's the one change that makes life easier for expert players who use RRG in the late game.

      Most other changes try to help less skilled players by making what they build more effective. Light tanks. Heavy tanks. Rockets. Battleships got another buff and cruisers got another nerf.

      This doesn't change the basic equation. Battleships are still too slow and too vulnerable to both subs and bombers. Cruisers still see further, deal more damage to subs and move too fast for subs or battleships to catch up, and they scare off bombers. Nothing really changed.

      The way to make good players move away from cruisers is to decrease their bombardment range, view range, and anti-submarine damage. Until these things change, the cruiser will continue to rule the oceans in CoW.

      The rest is all meh. Who cares about infantry and armor in the late game? The late game is decided by air power and RRG stacks.
      nah, battleships is still the king of the oceans for me, cruisers are just too weak
      知己知彼,百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:
    • The main problem with cruisers is that they have too little bombardment value. Once you secure naval superiority, you want to exert it, and cruisers are generally too weak in that respect. Truth is that you seldom have to fight for naval dominance in the recreational games; and in that case, the BS simply has way more bang for your buck, especially in the early game.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • Brando Dilla wrote:

      Does this update affect all games, or just games created after the update was launched?

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Is this affecting games that have been going for a while?
      I also notice the advertisement panel can now longer be removed. I don't think this contributes to the gameplay well, and impedes screenshots and uglifies the UI. What was the rationale for that change?
      I think it might be a bug, is it deliberate?
      nope, only newly created
      Hier könnt Ihr ein Support-Ticket erstellen. :00000450:
    • Cruisers requiere you micromanagment in order to be cost efective against BS, if the battleship found your cruiser and you are at work or sleeping and cant check your games cruiser dont necesarily rule the oceans, also they are not too useful if they are not great for support land units.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • LT BUFF LETS GOOOOOOOO


      Edit: LTS is now a much more valid strategy, just checked buff.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Fox-Company ().

    • jubjub bird wrote:

      Rrg buff, interesting choice...
      Well, let's say it's an experimental change :D We might revert it in another balancing update, just wanted to see how the community reacts to it.

      jubjub bird wrote:

      Would it be possible to get the actual numbers for some of these changes? The detailed release notes don't say how much infantry costs have been decreased, etc
      Sadly not, the list would be too long, too much work to compile miniscule changes and too much to read for the average user. You can simply compare the values in an old game and a new game. Usually we communicate big changes, but most cost changes in this update were really small (~5%).

      Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      i think the way to balance strategic bombers is not in numbers but in mechanics.

      1. If you destroy the airbases doesnt matter if they are expensive or cheap, the better solution to this i think is bring back the mechanic of airplanes keep flying if theres another airbase in their range but limiting them to interceptors or rocket fighters.

      2. If a strat bombers patrol over a city deal full damage to building even if there are units in there, it could be better if distribute damage similar how different armor classes works, so in this way if you put anti air on a city is better protected against strategic bombers

      3. Airplanes can choose their battles, if you want to protect all your initial provinces against estrategic bombers, you either use fighters and beeing active, distribute too few anti-air on every province and being taken down by bombers or over invest on antiair.
      For this point could be easy resolve by adding anti-air range similar in CoN.

      Strat bombers are curious, not saying they are OP but they are frustrating and annoying to deal with, those are the problems i identifying and my proposals to make them more balanced in design
      Mechanics changes are alot more work to implement, so they likely won't be done. I disagree that balancing is powerless here. If we increased the cost of the bomber by 1000% and decreased the hitpoints by 1000%, the bomber would be useless. So balancing changes can totally solve this, no need to implement expensive mechanics changes. The fact is that we see bombers as strong (thats why the slight nerf was done) but not as too strong, so we did not do drastic changes to them yet.

      Brando Dilla wrote:

      Does this update affect all games, or just games created after the update was launched?
      Only new games.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      Agreed. It's the one change that makes life easier for expert players who use RRG in the late game.

      Most other changes try to help less skilled players by making what they build more effective. Light tanks. Heavy tanks. Rockets. Battleships got another buff and cruisers got another nerf.

      This doesn't change the basic equation. Battleships are still too slow and too vulnerable to both subs and bombers. Cruisers still see further, deal more damage to subs and move too fast for subs or battleships to catch up, and they scare off bombers. Nothing really changed.

      The way to make good players move away from cruisers is to decrease their bombardment range, view range, and anti-submarine damage. Until these things change, the cruiser will continue to rule the oceans in CoW.

      The rest is all meh. Who cares about infantry and armor in the late game? The late game is decided by air power and RRG stacks.
      Well we did not intend to completely change the meta with these changes. After all, the changes were rather small, so mostly some quality of life improvements for people using these units, to make them feel more fun or worthwhile. If our intend is to change the meta completely you would see more drastic changes. Maybe in the future :p But your balancing feedback is appreciated!
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      This doesn't change the basic equation. Battleships are still too slow and too vulnerable to both subs and bombers. Cruisers still see further, deal more damage to subs and move too fast for subs or battleships to catch up, and they scare off bombers. Nothing really changed.


      The way to make good players move away from cruisers is to decrease their bombardment range, view range, and anti-submarine damage. Until these things change, the cruiser will continue to rule the oceans in CoW.
      Try winning a WaW with only Cruisers, Subs, and Destroyers as your navy, tell me how that goes, play a Coastal/Navy oriented country, if you insist that Cruisers are better then surely this is no problem, i would honestly and non-sarcastically would like you to show me how you would do it.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.
    • freezy wrote:


      Mechanics changes are alot more work to implement, so they likely won't be done. I disagree that balancing is powerless here. If we increased the cost of the bomber by 1000% and decreased the hitpoints by 1000%, the bomber would be useless. So balancing changes can totally solve this, no need to implement expensive mechanics changes. The fact is that we see bombers as strong (thats why the slight nerf was done) but not as too strong, so we did not do drastic changes to them yet.
      understand, but in any case have to keep pointing that losing interceptor to bombers even when the player of interceptor is active its very akward.

      At least i think should come back planes keep flying if theres another airbase on range or make bombers need to direct attack to damage buildings just how its was before.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • Fox-Company wrote:

      Try winning a WaW with only Cruisers, Subs, and Destroyers as your navy, tell me how that goes, play a Coastal/Navy oriented country, if you insist that Cruisers are better then surely this is no problem, i would honestly and non-sarcastically would like you to show me how you would do it.
      It's a topic for another thread, but navies are absolutely not required to win a WAW and can often be a waste of resources. Using battleships almost always requires keeping destroyer and cruiser levels upgraded too, so it becomes a very costly investment into units that can't capture or hold territory.
    • jubjub bird wrote:

      Fox-Company wrote:

      Try winning a WaW with only Cruisers, Subs, and Destroyers as your navy, tell me how that goes, play a Coastal/Navy oriented country, if you insist that Cruisers are better then surely this is no problem, i would honestly and non-sarcastically would like you to show me how you would do it.
      It's a topic for another thread, but navies are absolutely not required to win a WAW and can often be a waste of resources. Using battleships almost always requires keeping destroyer and cruiser levels upgraded too, so it becomes a very costly investment into units that can't capture or hold territory.
      Yes, another thread indeed, but i mean with country such as Japan.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.