Officers and Head Quarters?

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

    • Officers and Head Quarters?

      So i was thinking of unit that could have some benefits on the field. Officers would boost morale both attack. Head quarters Well I'm not sure what its benefits would be. Maybe this Idea would or maybe not, but I want to hear your Ideas are.
      In war there is no substitute for victory-- Douglas MacArthur

      Decisions! And a general, a commander in chief who has not got the quality of decision, then he is no good.---Bernard Montgomery

      Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning
      ---- Erwin Rommel

      The longer the battle lasts the more force we'll have to use!
      ----georgy zhukov
    • In my opinion, officers would only be used to command divisions or groups of units to give them a combat edge, and Headquarters to order units around after you give them a primary objective. Those in my opinion are the only uses I can see. Officers are already included to run the army, so though it is a great Idea, I see few uses beside the ones I have displayed. Headquarters is basically like moving your capital, so any bonuses would be combat capabilities, and commanders would be to either increase combat effectiveness, or to increase moral over time, because Unit regen doesn't even seem to happen.

    • I like this and this sounds interesting, I`m sure this unit can fit in game and help us in the front lines
      In war there is no substitute for victory-- Douglas MacArthur

      Decisions! And a general, a commander in chief who has not got the quality of decision, then he is no good.---Bernard Montgomery

      Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning
      ---- Erwin Rommel

      The longer the battle lasts the more force we'll have to use!
      ----georgy zhukov
    • Officers have been put forward before to boost morale, and but these would be better named 'Political Commissars' or 'Chaplins' something which reflects the time period, and that world war 2/Korea were conflicts of ideology.
      "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian

      "Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher

      "The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher

      Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW

      Game Username: LordStark01
    • That's very true. I don't have a lot to say though.
      In war there is no substitute for victory-- Douglas MacArthur

      Decisions! And a general, a commander in chief who has not got the quality of decision, then he is no good.---Bernard Montgomery

      Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning
      ---- Erwin Rommel

      The longer the battle lasts the more force we'll have to use!
      ----georgy zhukov
    • We have a capital in this game which is perfect for the moral at home, but what this game needs is a mobile moral booster for the front line, his could be a single General/field marshall unit you could move around the battlefield to increase moral to all units or just the army. You could have a flagship battleship for the navy, and an air marshall or something like that for the airforce that flys around in an air force one type plane. In reality moral was always increased in the field/frontline when the big commanders where present.
    • Hello fellow players,

      I'm a little sceptic as to having any form of army command in the form of units. The scale seems of for these units, units in the game are battalion sized. So how a 'commander unit' or 'command battalion unit' would relate to the rest of the game's units in terms of resources would be a mystery to me. I think it would be quite hard. So I would suggest not having them as a moveble unit. Fighting someone that pays to spam rockets just to kill your command unit/general would also really bum me out...

      I have read K.Rokossovski's mentioned way of how Army's HQ could work and I advise all of you to do the same.

      My suggestion on having army command would be that you would be in charge of your own command structure. Perhaps much to complicated but It could surely work. In opposition to officers or HQ being a controlable unit, I think 'army command' could get its own tab. Much like way the spy tab works. In this tab different layers of command would need to be filled in order for your army to perform effectively. Perhaps without enough commaners and officers units in the field would have 90% combat effectiveness and with a saturated command they would have a combat effectiveness of 110%.

      The need for the amount of officers could be made dependant on your total army size, number of divisions, units per tech tree, individual units or a combination of any of these. Maybe it could also be possible to assign more officers or even generals to the different army branches.

      This would provide the option of C3I (read K.Rokossovski's link) being part of the game, without them specifically be able to be targeted as units on the ground. This seems important to me because no other units in the game can be singled out.

      Spies could also get an additional mission in ''disrupt command'' and kill some officers or whatever, making spies more interresting early on in the game.

      What do you guys think, good suggestion or not?

      Kind regards,

    • How important is it that the unit size be the same for everything? I would say they dont have to be the same.
      Some units were not intended to fight on the front line in the same numbers as others - commando's and paratroopers are both good examples where their fighting size was less than that of standard infantry units. Battleships could operate on their own, where as smaller ships usually operated in small groups of there own type.
      I accept that each unit has its own headquarters, but the mobile command headquarters I am talking about is field marshal/general level. It is not a fighting unit. The capital building is more of a political headquarters and administration centre for your civilians/industry/trade, not so much your military. Maybe more so at the beginning of the game, but as your empire expands, it would be more important that your military command at general level keeps up with your military forces. If you are concerned about size, this mobile military headquarters could be said to also contain all your higher level field hospitals, field repair workshops for equipment, and field supply depots. You can send low strength units to near this mobile HQ for repair/recovery rather than to the capital.
      You are correct in that the enemy would target this unit - I would. It need not be right on the front line.
      I am not sure whether you should have on HQ for Army, another for Airforce, and a third for Navy - I am thinking yes. For maps like Pacific Conquest it probably would be good if the Navy had its own mobile command centre.
    • No I don't mean that unit size should be the same. Its just that unit sizes being the way they are in Call of War, commanders and such are already part of every unit. The scale difference between every unit in the game and a 'command unit' would just always seem off to me.

      Also I don't see how a unit on the ground would have all these different effects for whatever it may cost. What would the cost of such a u unit be? And its defenses against other units? How fast could it go? Is it an airborne unit for air force, land unit for army and a naval unit for navy? Keeping such units alive at sea would sure be a challenge. Or a command unit in the air flying around solo would become a prime interceptor target. I just see it being to much of a nuisance instead of resulting into fun gameplay if 'army command' is introduced as a unit into the game.

      I think having a spy like tab where certain positions in the army can be filled in a manner similar to how spies work would be better. Perhaps you can also prioritize your army branches that way. One player emphasizing its army command towards its air force, another perhaps its armored force and so on.

      Why does army command need to be visible and killable in the way a unit is? I do not see the fun in it.
    • What I did not probably emphasis enough was why have a mobile command unit - several reasons.
      One of the weakiness in this game is the long slow repair/recovery of units? What I wanted to encourage is that units are not expendable, and should not be used until destroyed, but rather repaired/recovered, but at the moment this is a long slow process in this game (and also in reality), and in this game currently to repair/recover damaged units, means you have to send damaged units all the way back to the capital for quickest recovery, which can take a long time to get there, then to recover and then get back to the front line, which players dont always do because it takes too long, and is too difficult. Having been a soldier I dont want players to think soldiers lives are cheap and expendable, but at the moment the game incourages this because it is too hard to do otherwise. This forces command/HQ I am wishing for would have a zone around it that would greatly increase the morale/strength recovery of any other unit within that zone/range. Being movable it can be moved as you advance or move to another continent.
      A general or field marshall is not in charge of any one unit, so please lets separate unit command/HQs from forces command. See this unit as a coordinator of multiple units (eg infantry & artillery) or multiple forces (army/airforce/navy), hence command outside their own particular unit command. Also having a general about in reality was always a morale boost.
      In terms of costs - I dont know the answer. I would place its cost similar to a capital city, and say you would start with it. Its effects on unit morale could be +30 or higher. You maybe able to separate the capital city moral effects to being only on buildings, whilst the mobile hq could be only on equipment/units. I am not sure about morale effects on provinces? Can they all be treated as different?
      It would be a slow unit like railway guns. In defence i would imagine it to be again similar to that of a capital city, and in reality did cover a huge area, if you counted the area taken up by large field hospitals, large field supply depots, large field workshops etc of which I am saying this forces command unit would consist of.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by BattleIvan ().

    • Someone please educate me if that is possible - I am totally confused.
      In this game there are three main components (for lack of a better word):-
      1. Provinces;
      2. Buildings/structures; and
      3. Units/equipment.
      When talking moral/damage is this different for each of the above, or is it the same, and do different influences effect these three components differently.
      I am aware that there are different influences that affect morale, namely:-
      1. Distance/time from capital;
      2. Number of countries you are at war with. -5 for every country you are at war with up to a max of -25;
      3. Enemy Neighbours -5 per province per enemy neighbour;
      4. Enemy Troops in your provinces;
      5. Nuclear radiation;
      6. Fortifications;
      7. Certain resource shortages; and possibly
      8. Your army strength in that province.
      Note sure - someone please tell me, is 8 above a real influence in the morale of a province.
      I think i am starting to get it.
      When CoW talk about Morale I think they are just talking about that of the provinces.
      What I have been talking about as unit moral I think CoW refers to as the units condition; and
      When talking about what I have been talking about as building morale (how can a building have morale?), CoW is referring to the buildings state/damage level.
      I think it is fairly safe to say that the 7 to 8 influences above affect the morale of your provinces.
      What I have been trying to determine (although rather poorly) is the influence if any of a provinces morale on:-
      1. A units condition; and
      2. A buildings state/damage level.
      I think I can answer the building one now in that the morale of the provinces doesnt effect the buildings state unless the provinces morale gets that low that the province changes hands, which does result in damage to the buildings, and the building repair is given a repair time and a repair cost in resources needed to restore back to ''functional''.
      A units condition is measured in Hit points (HP) and is given in points and a percentage. This measurement is affected by the number of units in a stack. Hence the condition of a poor unit can be increased if you stack it with a good unit of a better condition, but be aware the good unit will no longer be of such good condition if separated later. I think it works on averages of the conditions of all the units of the same type in the stack.
      I believe now that the morale of the province has NO effect on the regeneration/repair of any unit. This regeneration/repair is done on every unit at the end of day calculations on units on your provinces at I believe a repair rate of 0.15 per day of the number of hit points needed to bring the units HPs to max.
      The general/formation HQ unit I was asking to be created would have an additional positive effect on improving this repair/regeneration rate of your units HP within a certain distance of this HQ unit (possibly another 0.15 per day), irrespective of if it is on your provinces or the enemies.
      Sorry I took a while to get there, but the sentence immediately before this one is probably all you need to read.
      I was taking units back to the capital for repair thinking the 25% morale bonus of a capital was helping increase the repair/regeneration of my units. I WAS WRONG, but I think it should, and the higher the morale of a province that a unit is on, the higher the repair/regeneration rate to the HP of the damaged unit.

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

    • @BattleIvanvan

      Here is my best shot at explaining:

      Both units and provinces have morale.

      Units their hitpoints are related to displayed morale and Status Based Damage Efficiency (SBDE), but these 3 are not the same thing.

      I think the main confusion arises in the way the game names all (morale for units and provinces), considering you are a soldier IRL.

      The green bar that units carry with them which is named the 'morale' bar is actually not their morale at all but their amount of hit points in %. Hitpoints % of a unit is named 'morale' in the case of units. I think it is named morale because of lack of a better word for it. Its more of a body count than anything else. The more dead comrades in your regiments the lower morale is, sure. Since morale is not visible IRL but still an important factor for a game like this, I think developers chose to link morale to body count within units and named it 'morale' to make it visible. So yes, in the case of units, their morale and hitpoints are directly linked.

      The morale of a unit, if compared to real live, is perhaps better translated into Status Based Damage Efficiency (SBDE). The SBDE of a unit varies vetween 40% and 100%. Meaning that a unit with 0.1% hitpoints (shows as 0% morale) has 40% of its damage/defense numbers. SBDE and morale are linked in that the higher the amount of hp, the higher a units SBDE is.

      The morale of provinces is entirely different. This is about the morale of the inhabitants of a city (in a province center). The army % strength present in a province represents only the units that are present in a province's center. Don't know how and if enemy units are counted that are not in a center though.

      Buildings do not have morale. Although their green bar also directly indicates their HP in % of their current upgrade level, but since they are buildings it is not named morale. Meaning that a level 3 fortification can show 50%. This means that level 1 and 2 fortifications are fine, but the level 3 fortifications on top of this are 50% damaged.

      Hope this helps, I totally understand your confusion. Perhaps devs should re-evaluate some terminology within the game.

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

    • @freezy

      You are right, I didn't notice this. I could have sworn it used to say morale though?.. :whistling:

      Since the game gives an explanation of all the clickable buttons if you hover over them, that is also what I did for the repair button of units to get some info about the green bar. If you hover your mouse over the button to repair units with gold the apearing pop-up states the following.

      ''Army Reinforcement
      Sends reinforcements to improve the
      morale and condition of of each unit in this
      army by up to 10%.
      Costs: xxxx gold.''

      So perhaps that is what causes confusion?

      I will be making adjustments to my previous post that are in line with your response.

      Thanks Freezy

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

    • Edepedable wrote:

      You are right, I didn't notice this. I could have sworn it used to say morale though?
      It did in the past, now it doesn't. :P I think it changed along with the balancing changes in May of 2017 if I had to guess without looking it up.

      I think the word "morale" was carried over from S1914, where the unit "health" and replenishment works differently. There when troops are stationed in a province with low morale they lose morale if I understand it correctly, but that is a whole separate game. Here in Call of War the morale of the province has no effect on the units within or their rate of replenishment/healing.

      For unit healing / replenishment, see this thread:…about-units-regeneration/

      Ivan, have you read my guide to province morale?…ions-and-province-morale/

      BattleIvan wrote:

      In this game there are three main components (for lack of a better word):-
      1. Provinces;
      2. Buildings/structures; and
      3. Units/equipment.
      When talking moral/damage is this different for each of the above
      Provinces have morale, which refers to the happiness and productivity of the province, and the chance of rebellion.

      Units and buildings have hit points, such as say 20 hit points each (varies of course) and if they have 10 hit points left out of 20, then units are at 50% condition. Buildings I don't believe are described with the word condition, but the principle is the same. An airbase or a fort with 10 hp out of 20 is either 50% complete or 50% damaged, however you wish to see it.

      BattleIvan wrote:

      8. Your army strength in that province.
      Has no effect on the province morale, but will reduce the chance of rebellion.

      BattleIvan wrote:

      When talking about what I have been talking about as building morale (how can a building have morale?), CoW is referring to the buildings state/damage level
      As I said above, buildings have hit points

      Certain buildings do influence the morale of the province they are in, forts and infrastructure for example.

      The morale of the province has no effect on the condition of the buildings.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill

      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<