Yes, only killing elite AI units grant ranking points. Killing regular AI in older games does not grant ranking points.
All of the 500 maps you are playing right now have normal AI enabled. Therefore it was regular AI that moved your troops, and the behaviour of regular AI did not change in years. Therefore I don't see any new issue here. You basically just had bad luck with the normal AI.
Elite AI is only active in games that were created after the 3rd of September 2019. You can check if your game runs on elite AI by checking player profiles in your match. If a "popularity" value is listed in the profile, it uses Elite AI.
Thanks for the feedback. Glad you like some aspects of the game. To clear up a few points:
We do not market the game to a wrong audience because marketing on this game barely even started. We are not even marketing yet in english speaking countries. The game is still in a test phase, so you will have to live with rather empty maps for a while unfortunately, until we ramp up the marketing.
Players who try the game and then abandon it are only abandoning the tutorial map as they don't even join a second map, and naturally we can't have a minimum rank on the tutorial map because new players need to be able to join it. Therefore the minimum rank is neither a problem nor a solution to the activity problem due to beginner dropouts. That said we have the Veterans Front map for experience players, which has a minimum rank. First we need more players to reach that rank though.
Please regard this game as NEW game. Therefore we did not remove any features from this game at all, because what is in there is the base set of the game that was in it from the beginning. So it would be great if you wouldn't constantly spread your discontent that you have with CoW into these S1 forums as well, as it is off-topic.
We are still in the process of developing alot of new features and content for S1, which will arrive in the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned.
I guess w need more players first who fulfill the rank requirements to make the map worthwhile to play.
Yes the third map serves exactly that purpose that is demanded, a battlefield only for veterans. The normal Flanders Front map instead is the tutorial map, so it can't have any minimum requirements.
Regarding the AI feedback: The team is planning to improve and normalize how AI behaves, so look forward to some improvements there.
Hey Oktan, I would recommend that you use the "relation view mode" (you can turn it on and off in the settings in the top right). This colors all enemies in red, all allies in blue, yourself in green and neutrals in yellow. This could help you in distinguishing friend and foe better.
The performance on large maps with the old Canvas system was just as awful. Problem there is that there was also no room for optimization anymore. With WebGL there is luckily, and we are currently also taking further measures to improve its performance.
Additionally to the factors mentioned above you also gain reptuation by granting higher diplomatic settings (right of way, shared map) to AIs, and you also gain reputation by joining AIs in declaring war on nations that have a low reputation.
The exact values I cannot tell.
Hi guys, first of all, thank you for the feedback again. Of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.
The reasons behind the update were already stated in the news. To close loopholes, make it harder for "cheaters" and make it harder for all kinds of players to circumvent our intended map balancing. The last point is actually one of the most important reasons. We already expected that not all players will like such changes. Player opinion is always helpful but as this was for the most part a change to enforce balancing we will in this case focus more on observing statistics and data to determine the right course of action. And believe us we have no intend to deliberately tank this game, quite the opposite. Given the climate in this thread there is not much else to say on this topic from my perspective.
As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!
Btw, the "Fire at will" problem, got somehow solved in CoW in the same patch(yesterday), I guess we'll have to wait another week.
It was forgotten in the S1914 release notes.
I can confirm that "Fire at Will" now functions again as before it was changed, so wars are no longer triggered with neutral nations on the default settings.
I was refering to the fact that the bugged troops appear as if they weren't in combat. The troops that defend a city appear as being attacked, but the bugged ones never do, so was wondering if it was clear why they stay like that as I thought it was what triggers the bug.
If an army is standing inside a city and is attacked, it won't have the combat symbol displayed and it will also not have the "next attack in ..." tooltip, and inside the army bar you will also not see "attacking XYZ". Instead, you will only see "is attacked by XYZ" in the army bar. When now 2 armies are standing in the same province, only one of them is directly targeted, because every army can only target 1 other army at the same time. That means that only one of the armies has the "is attacked by" written in the army bar. The other army however received splash damage of the attack, so effectively both armies are attacked and share the incoming damage, but only one of the armies is targeted so to say.
So yeah the bug would likely also be solved if multiple units in the same attack location are directly targeted and all armies receive the full amount of damage, instead of the damage being split via splash damage. It would also make ranged weapons very strong against split stacks though, which may be an unwanted side effect. Maybe then another check would need to be implemented to only apply the new behaviour for close combat attacks. On the other hand maybe fixing the calculation of how defensive damage is returned is the more balanced solution, but it could have other pitfalls. Every solution has some tricks or edge cases, so we would need to investigate first how to best solve this, and then the fix itself will also be complicated and take quite some time, including through QA. That's why it wasnt done until now. We will see about the future.
All units deal attacking damage and defending damage, you can check that in the unit details panel. Normally during battles on paths, both sides attack each other using offensive damage, and also return defensive damage (basically 2 ticks in parallel). In cities or during disembarking or when a single patrol tick happens one side is only defending with its defensive damage and one side is only attacking with its attacking damage (only 1 tick happens then).
So when meeting on a path both sides attack both ways and also defend both ways, which often times nullifies the advantage of multiple stacks. That's because each smaller stack attacks the bigger stack and each time gets defensive damage in return, just like the bigger stack gets defensive damage from each of the smaller stacks.
That's why the bug is most often only noticeable when the side with the multiple stacks is defending only, due to the behaviour I explained in my previous post.
Splash damage is there to prevent the exploit of splitting up stacks in alot of smaller chunks so that artillery shots or plane attacks are wasted for example, so just removing it is also no solution. And yeah removing the behaviour that troops only defend in certain situations should also solve most of these situations (though maybe not all edge cases). And although there would be several ways to fix this that sound easy on paper, implementing that is a different beast because the combat system is a giant knot with alot of possible edge cases, and changing it can break alot of things. We plan to touch the combat system anyway in the upcoming months and I will make sure that investigating this issue again is on the agenda for that.
As for allowing players to use it until it is fixed: With shoot'n'scoot players already actively use an unintended bug that wields far greater advantages, with which its possible to defeat hundreds of enemy ranged units without losing any ranged units on your own. Allowing this but not allowing the splitting bug would be a little hypocritical in my eyes. It would also create alot of player reports that need to be checked and many of them probably cannot be proven, creating alot of support work, witch hunts and frustration. That's why I back the CM's statement that bug usage is allowed unless we announce it globally as a banned exploit or until we fix it. In this case it is "until we fix it".
The game can be accessed already but it is not the release version yet, which will come next week. The release version will have additional features and bugfixes.
If you experience bugs in the game, feel free to submit a bug report ticket from within the game.
To explain this bug:
It has to do with the way size factors (SBDE) and splash damage are calculated. An army is always spreading its damage among all enemies in a 5km circle around the point of attack (splash damage). In turn also all enemies in that 5km radius defend back, and their damage values are added up.
The problem is that the size factors (SBDE) are calculated for each enemy stack individually instead of calculating the size factors after adding the damages together. The result is that SBDE limits are circumvented.
Example: Lets say the stack limit of a unit would be 50 and each unit deals 1 damage. If 5 stacks of 50 of these units are attacked in the same position, their return damage is 250 instead of 50, like it would be for a single stack of 250 of these units.
In fights where both sides attack each other (on paths for example) this is often alleviated a bit, because also the multiple stacks would attack the single stack and get return damage each time they attack, making the fights more even than fights where only one side attacks or defends.
This bug is also the reason for the "plane patrol exploit" (known more in the CoW community) or the "flower bouqet exploit". All share the same underlying reason.
So in order to fix this bug we would need to rewrite the combat calculation in a way that size factors are applied after adding up damage values. Or by making an attacking army attacking each army in an area individually instead of spreading its damage among all of them. It could also be alleviated a bit by removing the functionality that in certain situations only one side in a battle attacks and one only defends.
There is no immediate solution in sight and I won't make any promises here if or when and how this will be fixed, although we will certainly talk about it again in the team and may put it on an agenda to investigate this again in detail.
Until this is fixed I personally would argue for allowing to use this bug (but that call should be made by the CMs & support staff), as it is too hard to judge if someone is using this intentionally or accidentally (e.g. you cannot really punish someone just for defending an allied city together with his ally, most people don't even know that this triggers the bug). Plus for example the plane patrol exploit is also not banned in CoW although it has the same reason, and we already allow even more decisive bug usage like Shoot'n'Scoot.
Thanks everyone, we were also able to reproduce this and will work on a bugfix asap. So no need to post additional evidence
Ok thanks for the additional details, will forward this to our QA.
it is likely that this was due to a loss of connection:
1. connection of your client to the server was lost
2. bombardment of your artillery started
3. AI infantry started moving out of province towards your artillery, but you did not see this due to lost connection
4. connection is established again once you gave your infantry a new move command
5. game state is updated and the infantry position visually "jumped" to the actual position on your end, but in reality it did not teleport.
Could be that connection issues became more frequent, we will investigate.
With all the due respect, that can't be the answer in a war simulator game. It's not possible to tell the player "be risky with the RoW if you don't want your troops attacks neutrals". They're neutrals precisely because we haven't trust enough to give RoW to them.
I just lost a round due to players "clashing" with my troops to provoke wars. It practically became impossible to control naval passes. Hence, you know what we can expect when potential enemies discover we gave them RoW just because we wouldn't want to enter in a war with them.
I'm sorry for your lost war. After we soon revised the "fire at will" setting again this won't happen anymore by default. Then you will have all the choices yourself if you want to avoid attacking neutrals. You could give right of way to them if you want to use aggressive mode near them, or you could use "fire at will" mode when near them (default for everyone), or you could avoid moving near them when using aggressive. If you still end up at war then it will be the consequences of your own actions.
This change will just be the best compromise between all different player requests and we will roll with it. It really won't be hard to get used to that behaviour, and to plan accordingly.
The only reasoning would be that the change only applies to the games made after the update was live, but that isn't stated in the news.
We didn't change anything yet and the change should apply to all games. So either it is a bug or you gave that nation right of way.
I still think this is a mistake. I think the offensive option is a lot better.
The only thing we gain is that our troops might start a war while we are offline or if we don't see a neutral unit getting in to one of our units range. That defensive scenario you talk about I think will be less than a 5% of the wars it will start, other 95% being unintended wars.
And I think everyone cares that their troops might start a war without them wanting it and in most situations it's impossible to be sure that a path won't have any neutral units.. I guess we will just have to stop using agressive mode, that's what I will do, I have basically lost the only fire mode I considered useful.
You still can use aggressive fire mode as you did before. Just give the countries you don't want to attack right of way. Even if they don't give RoW to you it is enough that your ranged units won't attack them. Normally most players give RoW to all AIs at the beginning of the game anyway, so shouldn't be a problem. And later in the game most AIs "in between" will be destroyed anyway as well. And regarding larger blocks of human players that you would not want to give RoW: Well you just have to keep your distance to them then or temporarily set to "fire at will" while near their borders. That will probably be the only behavioural change, and that is imo warranted.
That means after we implemented the fix for fire at will you should be able to make use of the new blockade behaviour while for the most part not losing any old options.
It was in frontline pioneer games. No feedback received.
I'm wondering, why didn't this make it first to the Frontline Pioneer games? Isn't the FP supposed to try things first and deliberate whether or not it's balanced and whether or not to include it in the game?
It was in frontline pioneer games. No feedback received.
Why maintain this new aggressive mode? It starts wars we don't want to start.. I tend to use aggressive mode when I'm going to be offline and want my troops to advance, but I won't be able to do this if they are going to open fire against any neutral units that get in the way causing an unintended war.
There are basically 2 use cases which contradict eachother and we can't serve both with the options we have. You can either use it defensively (new), to give out pre-emptive orders to protect your country from soon-to-be enemies who are sneaking up on you on land or on sea while you are offline, or you can use it offensively (old) to advance with ranged units while being offline (actually you can still do the latter, if you choose paths which dont go into range of neutral countries or if you don't care about starting wars).
The much bigger issue was that the new behaviour of "fire at will" was forced on people and that there was no way to opt-out without having high command. By reverting this the new functionality is then opt-in and knowing the new behaviour you then have a choice to make use of it or not.