Release Notes - 2024-04-09

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

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I agree that militia was OP and needed to be nerfed... but BOTH removing overall stealth AND mountain stealth seems a bit much?? They always did a great job in the Himalaya's in WaW... do we REALLY need them debuffed twice in the same update??

      Commando: Good job, way overdue
      Airborne: did you know that I didn't even realize that airborne troops HAD any stealth lol? Seems a bit over-the-top cause they fall from the sky carrying big parachute signs saying "here I am"... I think airborne troops would be served better by reducing the cooldown.

      TD: a matter of choice, of course. It seems a bit of a buff, and surely in competitive games, they were sufficiently effective (and popular) already. I hope it won't kill any tank efforts in those, pretty soon. On the vanilla maps, no idea yet. It sounds like a great will to kill your standard noob tank rusher.
      defense against medium tanks on flat terrain was the only role i think for heavy tanks.
      tanks were already questionable choice anyway
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • OutOfIdeasX wrote:

      I like the rebalancing overall - its a step in the right direction. The stealth nerf on the TD's is too harsh in my opinion tho. 25% more power on plains is not enough. Why don't you grant them a 50% powerup (like all the other tanks) to be a good counter on this terrain?

      Lets see how the commando/paratrooper buff works out. I somehow have a feeling that this isn't enough.

      PS: There might be a mistake in the patch notes regarding tank destroyers.
      That's is a typo indeed, fixed it. Thank you!
      Discord: Call of War
      Facebook: Call of War
      Twitter: Call of War

    • Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I agree that militia was OP and needed to be nerfed... but BOTH removing overall stealth AND mountain stealth seems a bit much?? They always did a great job in the Himalaya's in WaW... do we REALLY need them debuffed twice in the same update??

      Commando: Good job, way overdue
      Airborne: did you know that I didn't even realize that airborne troops HAD any stealth lol? Seems a bit over-the-top cause they fall from the sky carrying big parachute signs saying "here I am"... I think airborne troops would be served better by reducing the cooldown.

      TD: a matter of choice, of course. It seems a bit of a buff, and surely in competitive games, they were sufficiently effective (and popular) already. I hope it won't kill any tank efforts in those, pretty soon. On the vanilla maps, no idea yet. It sounds like a great will to kill your standard noob tank rusher.
      defense against medium tanks on flat terrain was the only role i think for heavy tanks.tanks were already questionable choice anyway
      I don't think we need to include HT in any equasion anymore. In the eight years I have been playing, they have never been a viable unit despite all sorts of balancing efforts. Unless an entire new idea is tried about them, we'll just have to accept that they are only a noob trap (similar to building industry in non-resource provinces)
      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.

    • @Geden (or any other staff online) seriously why was militia stealth removed in mountains?

      Nerfing the stealth a bit makes sense kind of (although frankly as buffing the commandoes and paratroopers does basically the same thing, this update essentially buffs commandoes twice) but in mountains? Apart from maybe forests they'd be more concealed there than any other terrain.

      As well as K. Rokossovski in this thread, BMFox has also complained. Somebody in the video commented "basically just ruined stealth, great job Bytro". Some parts of this update are great, but it don't look like that is too popular.

      I for one think this doesn't help the update and removes one of militia's few advantages (especially with the nerf this nerfs them twice).

      Please, can we bring back militia stealth in mountains?

      freezy wrote:

      FYI: We realized there is an issue with the supposed terrain change of the Tank Destroyer. It was supposed to get a 25% strength buff in plains, and have their 25% strength buff in Urbans removed, but sadly this change did not make it to the game yet. So it will be included in a later update then.
      Tank destroyers were in reality strong in cities, and proved it during the war. At present it is (and IMO should be)o the only tank to get buffs in cities. Still, plains suited them, provided they could find cover in hedges etc., but cities were suited to their ambush and "shoot-and-scoot" tactics.

      I hope the tank destroyer update can be implemented, but while you're doing so, would you consider the case I mentioned for militia?
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

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

    • Fritzinator wrote:

      Will there be differences in production or will the resources and work duration remain the same?
      Only the changes mentioned in the news, so nothing changed in regards to resource costs or production time

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I don't think we need to include HT in any equasion anymore. In the eight years I have been playing, they have never been a viable unit despite all sorts of balancing efforts. Unless an entire new idea is tried about them, we'll just have to accept that they are only a noob trap (similar to building industry in non-resource provinces)
      I mean, if everyone feels Heavy Tanks are underpowered it would be easy to just increase their damage or their hitpoints, or reduce costs. There isn't really a new concept needed to make them viable, tweaking their raw stats should be enough.

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      @Geden (or any other staff online) seriously why was militia stealth removed in mountains?

      Nerfing the stealth a bit makes sense kind of (although frankly as buffing the commandoes and paratroopers does basically the same thing, this update essentially buffs commandoes twice) but in mountains? Apart from maybe forests they'd be more concealed there than any other terrain.

      As well as K. Rokossovski in this thread, BMFox has also complained. Somebody in the video commented "basically just ruined stealth, great job Bytro". Some parts of this update are great, but it don't look like that is too popular.

      I for one think this doesn't help the update and removes one of militia's few advantages (especially with the nerf this nerfs them twice).

      Please, can we bring back militia stealth in mountains?
      The Team felt that Militia had Stealth on too many terrains, which was almost like a Commando. But only the Commando is supposed to be the all-around stealth unit. So it was discussed on which terrain we wanna remove the stealth of Militia. For their partisan role we wanted to keep their stealth in Forests and Hills. For the fact that they were often ordinary people being able to blend in with the citizens of a city, and for stuff like Volkssturm and such we also wanted to keep their buff in cities. So it was decided to remove it in mountains. Because Commandos already have a buff in mountains, which serves to additionally diversify both units, and because we didn't think of Militias (ordinary citizens doing resistance) as experienced mountain fighters as much. Maybe there were such cases but we want to focus on particular use cases for differentiation purposes.

      The video is a bit hyperbole btw ("The END of Militia and Tank Destroyers") :D

      Lord Crayfish wrote:


      freezy wrote:

      FYI: We realized there is an issue with the supposed terrain change of the Tank Destroyer. It was supposed to get a 25% strength buff in plains, and have their 25% strength buff in Urbans removed, but sadly this change did not make it to the game yet. So it will be included in a later update then.
      Tank destroyers were in reality strong in cities, and proved it during the war. At present it is (and IMO should be)o the only tank to get buffs in cities. Still, plains suited them, provided they could find cover in hedges etc., but cities were suited to their ambush and "shoot-and-scoot" tactics.
      I hope the tank destroyer update can be implemented, but while you're doing so, would you consider the case I mentioned for militia?
      This is again a case for differentiation of units with similar roles. We indeed discussed the differentiating factors of Tanks vs Tank destroyers, and of Anti Tank vs Tank destroyers, and concluded that we rather want to differentiate the role of Anti Tank and Tank Destroyers more. Thus now if you want to defend cities it is better to build Anti Tank, and when you want to defend Plains it is better to build Tank Destroyers.

    • freezy wrote:

      I mean, if everyone feels Heavy Tanks are underpowered it would be easy to just increase their damage or their hitpoints, or reduce costs. There isn't really a new concept needed to make them viable, tweaking their raw stats should be enough.
      Even with potential tweaks to damage output, HP or costs, other units outshine them dramatically. With it being so slow and expensive, any smart player would use those resources for other units. HTs also have the same counters as MTs; you don't need some special unit to deal with HTs. The only threat they pose is their HP, which is easy enough to whittle down with attack bombers or artillery (or even RRGs in certain cases). Perhaps a buff to SPAA, to dissuade attack bombers? I honestly can't think of a way to incentivise using HTs when most experienced players prefer ranged attacks over melee.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Even with potential tweaks to damage output, HP or costs, other units outshine them dramatically. With it being so slow and expensive, any smart player would use those resources for other units. HTs also have the same counters as MTs; you don't need some special unit to deal with HTs. The only threat they pose is their HP, which is easy enough to whittle down with attack bombers or artillery (or even RRGs in certain cases). Perhaps a buff to SPAA, to dissuade attack bombers? I honestly can't think of a way to incentivise using HTs when most experienced players prefer ranged attacks over melee.
      Oh so you think a Heavy Tank with 10000 Hitpoints and 10000 Damage that only costs 100 resources would be outshined by other units? 8) What I'm saying with this: This is just a simple matter of tweaking their stats. If those stats need a strong buff to make the unit viable, then a strong buff can be done. But they won't require an entirely new role or feature to make them viable.

      Btw the balancing has to also work for regular matches and not only for veterans matches. So for example if veterans have fancy tactics to deal with certain units efficiently, that doesn't mean that the majority of players do that as well. Just a general thing to keep in mind in balancing discussions.

    • freezy wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Even with potential tweaks to damage output, HP or costs, other units outshine them dramatically. With it being so slow and expensive, any smart player would use those resources for other units. HTs also have the same counters as MTs; you don't need some special unit to deal with HTs. The only threat they pose is their HP, which is easy enough to whittle down with attack bombers or artillery (or even RRGs in certain cases). Perhaps a buff to SPAA, to dissuade attack bombers? I honestly can't think of a way to incentivise using HTs when most experienced players prefer ranged attacks over melee.
      Oh so you think a Heavy Tank with 10000 Hitpoints and 10000 Damage would be outshined by other units? 8) What I'm saying with this: This is just a simple matter of tweaking their stats. If those stats need a strong buff to make the unit viable, then a strong buff can be done. But they won't require an entirely new role or feature to make them viable.
      Eh, if it had the same aircraft defensive stats as before, the speed low enough, and operating under the assumption that its very expensive, then I could still prolly beat it ^^

      Amazing how far ABs and ACs can get you ;)
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • freezy wrote:

      The Team felt that Militia had Stealth on too many terrains, which was almost like a Commando. But only the Commando is supposed to be the all-around stealth unit. So it was discussed on which terrain we wanna remove the stealth of Militia.

      For their partisan role we wanted to keep their stealth in Forests and Hills. So it was decided to remove it in mountains. Because Commandos already have a buff in mountains, which serves to additionally diversify both units,

      and because we didn't think of Militias (ordinary citizens doing resistance) as experienced mountain fighters as much.
      Yeah, kind of the answer I expected but still doesn't really make sense. Partisans could be and were an absolute bugger in mountains, as they demonstrated against the Axis in Shansi, the Balkan theatre, etc.; I think Mao and Tito would disagree that militia would not be experienced or at least concealed in mountains.
      But I suppose the mountain buff covers that.

      freezy wrote:

      This is again a case for differentiation of units with similar roles. We indeed discussed the differentiating factors of Tanks vs Tank destroyers, and of Anti Tank vs Tank destroyers, and concluded that we rather want to differentiate the role of Anti Tank and Tank Destroyers more. Thus now if you want to defend cities it is better to build Anti Tank, and when you want to defend Plains it is better to build Tank Destroyers.
      Fair enough I suppose. Both plains and cities would be a bit buffed.

      freezy wrote:

      The video is a bit hyperbole btw ("The END of Militia and Tank Destroyers") :D
      Well of course it is, YouTubers need to use clickbait. But I think he has a point.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • I found this update rather confusing and a little disappointing as someone who regularly builds these troops. Maybe some of you can enlighten me to the upside.

      This update ended stealth and in my opinion, took a lot of gameplay depth with it.

      - The TD rework is welcomed and makes sense to get them out where the tanks are fighting. Kudos. Though I doubt we will catch many tanks off guard with the stealth nerf. But I am excited to experiment with this.

      - The claim is this is intended to encourage defense and trapping with these units. How is this possible when the opponent can reveal your trap with a simple LV2-3 scout now, even at endgame? Only a fool would allow it to happen, its going to be difficult to set any trap that makes a difference.

      - Militia is now stealth in Hills, but not Mountains. That seems illogical. No more hiding in the mountains where they have a terrain bonus? We know commandos cannot be used effectively for defense, and nothing else can be hidden there. So, no setting traps at all in the mountains.. Just use arty I suppose. But now you have lost gameplay depth.

      - I see no incentive to build or research militia when infantry will do the same job. With stealth ineffective beyond day 2, its rendered militia simply a weaker, but only marginally cheaper infantry unit.

      - Militia were already the defensive & trapping unit and perfectly designed for it. It was also versatile enough to allow for creative use in other ways to make it worth researching & producing. That is really no longer the case. It seems to me that if you are in need of militia now, you have already lost your war.

      There are too many more things to touch on. Ultimately this update takes away so many of the tools that good players will use to get the advantage over opponents, and allows noobs to get away with bad strategies and careless planning.

      I'm trying to stay open minded, and ill adapt, but I struggle to envision the outcome they wanted here.. the game now just seems...simple.

    • Humph. Militia was my second-favourite unit (first place goes to artillery) precisely because of its stealth properties. Thanks, Bytro.

      I'll read through and meticulously respond to the full discussion when I have more than 15 minutes to spare. This is outrageous and deserves a proper weigh-in, but for now I just wanted to put myself on the side of 'what did you do that for?')
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Humph. Militia was my second-favourite unit (first place goes to artillery) precisely because of its stealth properties. Thanks, Bytro.

      I'll read through and meticulously respond to the full discussion when I have more than 15 minutes to spare. This is outrageous and deserves a proper weigh-in, but for now I just wanted to put myself on the side of 'what did you do that for?')
      Well of course people who like using Militia because it was super powerful won't like the change. But objectively speaking the unit was too powerful and it was never intended to be used offensively. Many people saw it as the best Infantry unit by far, so nerfing it seems warranted.

      SendNubes wrote:

      I found this update rather confusing and a little disappointing as someone who regularly builds these troops. Maybe some of you can enlighten me to the upside.

      This update ended stealth and in my opinion, took a lot of gameplay depth with it.

      - The TD rework is welcomed and makes sense to get them out where the tanks are fighting. Kudos. Though I doubt we will catch many tanks off guard with the stealth nerf. But I am excited to experiment with this.

      - The claim is this is intended to encourage defense and trapping with these units. How is this possible when the opponent can reveal your trap with a simple LV2-3 scout now, even at endgame? Only a fool would allow it to happen, its going to be difficult to set any trap that makes a difference.

      - Militia is now stealth in Hills, but not Mountains. That seems illogical. No more hiding in the mountains where they have a terrain bonus? We know commandos cannot be used effectively for defense, and nothing else can be hidden there. So, no setting traps at all in the mountains.. Just use arty I suppose. But now you have lost gameplay depth.

      - I see no incentive to build or research militia when infantry will do the same job. With stealth ineffective beyond day 2, its rendered militia simply a weaker, but only marginally cheaper infantry unit.

      - Militia were already the defensive & trapping unit and perfectly designed for it. It was also versatile enough to allow for creative use in other ways to make it worth researching & producing. That is really no longer the case. It seems to me that if you are in need of militia now, you have already lost your war.

      There are too many more things to touch on. Ultimately this update takes away so many of the tools that good players will use to get the advantage over opponents, and allows noobs to get away with bad strategies and careless planning.

      I'm trying to stay open minded, and ill adapt, but I struggle to envision the outcome they wanted here.. the game now just seems...simple.
      Thanks for the feedback. There was a similar discussion on the CoW Discord. I want to disagree with the notion that a lower Stealth level equals to no stealth at all. Maybe that is the case in Pro matches but you have to consider that in regular public matches (vast majority of matches) not everyone will have scout units of sufficient levels everywhere. So there still will be lots of instances where people will run their armies into stealth units even if they have low stealth levels. The potential that there can be stealth units also forces players to build and level up scout units in the first place, so it still has some impact and is not the same as having no stealth.

      Here is the Discord thread if you wanna join in:
      discord.com/channels/861599559176028180/1227291149954187294

    • freezy wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Humph. Militia was my second-favourite unit (first place goes to artillery) precisely because of its stealth properties. Thanks, Bytro.

      I'll read through and meticulously respond to the full discussion when I have more than 15 minutes to spare. This is outrageous and deserves a proper weigh-in, but for now I just wanted to put myself on the side of 'what did you do that for?')
      Well of course people who like using Militia because it was super powerful won't like the change. But objectively speaking the unit was too powerful and it was never intended to be used offensively. Many people saw it as the best Infantry unit by far, so nerfing it seems warranted.
      I don't know, I didn't even think of it as that powerful. The fact that you need a lot of them unless you know you're sending them into empty provinces is already enough of a balancing factor imo. I just liked the stealth aspect, and the fact that you could get that cheaply.
      I can see why people would think they need to be changed but I still don't like it.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Removing and reducing stealth for militia pretty much makes them useless, they light up for players that couldn't be bothered to level up their scout units beyond lvl2. They're not really stealth any more, commandos and militia are visible everywhere!!! One of the satifying roles was setting up ambushes in forests and cities.

    • Vanrendo wrote:

      Suna232 wrote:

      Soo tank destroyers are very good unit now?
      I think so.They've lost the city bonus though but they still are useful along with Attack bombers and Artillery.
      I am still going true release notes and I haven't really looked into details but my first thought after seeing this was pairing mechanised infantry with tank destroyers (with AA support ofc) and you have dealt with all three units classes
      Фарис Синановић, Суна

    • Vanrendo wrote:

      Suna232 wrote:

      Soo tank destroyers are very good unit now?
      I think so.They've lost the city bonus though but they still are useful along with Attack bombers and Artillery.
      They apparently forgot to switch the city buff with the plains buff so the city bonus is still there for the time being. It'll be phased out in the next update.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7