Resources Reforged - Test it now on Beta!

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

    • AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

      Geden wrote:

      Phillip Bosley wrote:

      What would nukes be made of? You can’t realistically make a nuke out of food, metal, and oil.
      Sounds like you are not trying hard enough... :D Serious answer: we are favoring a gameplay > realism approach at the moment. That's also why we added the Pan-Asian doctrine to the Europe map. The doctrine name/art style is more of a hinderance in that case, and ideally we rename it on the Europe map at some point. We just prioritized having the variety of a fourth docrine that focuses on mobility/surprise attacks over the realism in that case.

      Same thing here with the production costs. We see a benefit to the gameplay, so we are willing to forgo some realism to make it happen. But as we can see with the feedback there seem to be some hard limits with how far we can go before the game becomes less fun to immerse yourself in, so we'll have to do look into solutions for this issue.
      Will nukes use more metal and oil instead?
      I would think so.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Geden wrote:

      They will be converted, i don't have the specific details for that yet though. As with past updates where we had to convert booster cards to a new variant we'll make sure that no value is being lost.
      Geden, thanks for reading and replying to our posts. A big change it's always met with cries of dismay, so your patience is appreciated.

      I've been enjoying CoW since the 1.0 version and I still miss it.

      The use of rares to power research, industry, and special units gave us an additional layer of strategy that no longer exists. Now, rares are no longer rare or special.

      Another fun aspect were the building requirements, like needing infrastructure to build a heavy tank. You couldn't just crank out units in a recently demolished city. Keeping cities whole was important. Areas of the map that changes hands too many times would become a de-industralized wasteland only good for conscripting infantry. That added another layer of strategy to the game, which is now gone.

      Regarding resource trades.

      The reason players don't trade resources on the market is because the system is broken. Posting a trade costs 10% up front, even if nobody picks up the trade. On the other hand, direct p2p trades are free, and easy to execute. What is the incentive for using the market? There is none. Eliminating resources will not change that basic reality.

      Regarding mixing resource requirements within a tree.

      This removes another strategic element of the game. The choice of which tree makes economic sense for a given starting location. With the proposed changes, a player no longer needs to care which tree needs what, dumbing down economic decisions.

      In summary, if you want to improve game play at a strategic level, please consider bringing back some 1.0 elements. Removing 2 resource types and mixing up the trees takes the game in the opposite direction, making it less special, and less strategic in character.

      Thanks for your attention!
      Great reply.

    • Geden wrote:

      Erecon wrote:

      What about the legal issues? Someone properly bought some of those "payday operations" with booster stuff that contains rare or goods. What about the ad boosters that gives goods ? will all these boosters be converted, or will they be deleted?
      They will be converted, i don't have the specific details for that yet though. As with past updates where we had to convert booster cards to a new variant we'll make sure that no value is being lost.
      So they removed the Goods and Rare material boosters, I dont see any compensations/conversion for the lost boosters, is that intented? Or a bug?

    • Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

      Read @Geden’s post
      I noticed the boosters I had came back today,(goods, and rares) so I guess it was a bug that they simply disappeared last week.

      there is a missing spot on the daily mobile ad gifts ( where the usual 6x125 goods where ) - but the top gift icon is back ( with other boosters hurray )

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

    • Obviously, primary intention of this update is to bring back uneven starting resources.
      So far I totally agree - doing that (on some of the maps) indeed would make things more interesting, increase difficulty to find the right strategy for the nation you play this time and increase need to trade. All very positive.
      Additionally, it opens for you (game designers) the great opportunity to distribute resources more like they really are located around the globe. But since we all know that you don't care about realism, I write this addition in grey to make it easier for you to ignore.

      Well so far. But then, you must have thought
      "Hmmm, with 5 starting cities per nation and 5 resources, we cannot use any other distribution but 1-1-1-1-1 because otherwise nations would start with practically 0 income for at least one resource. Which would be too drastic. So we must reduce number of resources to 3."
      And that was a bad mistake. We all love having the five resources - goods and rares totally have their right to be part of the game. It's more beautiful, more interesting and also more strategic with 5 resources. Like all the others already wrote, reduction to 3 is a(nother) major downgrade.
      Why didn't you just create disparity of starting resource provinces with the rural provinces? I suggest not to release this update and to stick to 1-1-1-1-1 or 2-1-1-1-1 for the urban provinces, but to change distribution of resources in the rural provinces. You have all options there. Why not make most or all rural resource provinces of the Ukraine grain? Or all rural resources of Saudi Arabia oil? Would have achieved same goal without destruction of features we all like.

      Geden wrote:

      Before, similar units all used the same resources, but now there’s a lot more variety!
      Again, this basic thought is very positive! I'd totally L-O-V-E this change if you'd done it in a realistic way. Unfortunately, as we're used to since CoW1.5, you chose the opposite of realism. To name just one example: Tank destroyers suddenly not needing oil, but food instead. I didn't know that biofuel had already been invented in the 1930s(?)
      That's too abstruse. Please, pretty please, make units need the resources they really needed in real life. And you will see that interesting, intense and intuitive strategic gameplay will come by itself.
      As example:
      Milita needs a respectable amount of food; bit of manpower; little bit of money.
      Infantry needs same amount of food; bit more manpower; moderate amount of money; some goods; maybe tiny bit of steel.
      Mot. Infantry needs same amount of food; bit more manpower; bit more money; some goods; bit of steel; some oil.
      Commandos need same amount of food; even more manpower; very much money; some goods; tiny bit of steel.
      And so on...

    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Milita needs a respectable amount of food; bit of manpower; little bit of money.
      Infantry needs same amount of food; bit more manpower; moderate amount of money; some goods; maybe tiny bit of steel.
      Mot. Infantry needs same amount of food; bit more manpower; bit more money; some goods; bit of steel; some oil.
      Commandos need same amount of food; even more manpower; very much money; some goods; tiny bit of steel.
      We could already see diverging paths/ideas here))) I'd say the MP requirements for militia and infantry would be roughly the same, but the militia requires less basic equipment (i.e. goods); while commando's are small-sized highly trained units which would require few MP but lots of training (money??) and specialized equipment (rares??)

      Of course I agree that (mainly) food for interceptors as proudly boasted in the original post is just plainly ridiculous. Maybe the story here is: the pilots lead a dangerous life; they need to blow off steam when off-duty; they need lots of booze for that; and you need foodstuffs to create booze.

      btw - I think it could be fun to make more theories on why building operating fighter planes would need food))) About your tank destroyers, I know the Germans used synthetic fuel in the forties although I have no idea what they made it of...
      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.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Milita needs a respectable amount of food; bit of manpower; little bit of money.
      Infantry needs same amount of food; bit more manpower; moderate amount of money; some goods; maybe tiny bit of steel.
      Mot. Infantry needs same amount of food; bit more manpower; bit more money; some goods; bit of steel; some oil.
      Commandos need same amount of food; even more manpower; very much money; some goods; tiny bit of steel.
      We could already see diverging paths/ideas here))) I'd say the MP requirements for militia and infantry would be roughly the same, but the militia requires less basic equipment (i.e. goods); while commando's are small-sized highly trained units which would require few MP but lots of training (money??) and specialized equipment (rares??)
      Of course I agree that (mainly) food for interceptors as proudly boasted in the original post is just plainly ridiculous. Maybe the story here is: the pilots lead a dangerous life; they need to blow off steam when off-duty; they need lots of booze for that; and you need foodstuffs to create booze.

      btw - I think it could be fun to make more theories on why building operating fighter planes would need food))) About your tank destroyers, I know the Germans used synthetic fuel in the forties although I have no idea what they made it of...
      Coal. That's why later on the RAF and USAAF targeted their synthetic oil plants. Coupled with hitting the railways this finally caused a collapse in their economy.