Posts by freezy

    Maybe I'm dumb but I'm failing to see the difference between Aggressive and Offensive other than one no longer attacks neutrals. Please explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old. :)

    Yes that's the only difference, but it makes a big difference in practice. With aggressive you can prevent "soon to be enemies" from landing on your shores or going into your country, with "offensive" you can let your artilleries move along the frontline without the risk of triggering unwanted wars.

    What I am seeing and have been seeing since I joined a number of years ago is that bugs and upgrades are implemented but then this invokes NEW bugs coming into play. (Latest one being the loss of Day Change display) Also, be aware that the 3D graphics look cute but whatever you're using to generate them is very resource needy and has overall slowed down the performance and draw on the servers which trickles down to the clients (Users) causing frustration. As a computer graphics pioneer and specialist, I suggest you rethink some decisions like 'moving water' to save resource.

    Why I'm posting this and what I want to know since I've seen this pattern of fixing something and having it break something else has been ongoing for awhile now, is do you NOT have a Sandbox where you test and take note of what's broken BEFORE you release or invoke change? I understand that there will be bugs "appear" that won't happen until a special set of circumstances go into play but basics being ignored is just lazy coding.

    Hi, to answer some things:

    Graphics are not calculated on the server, they are all being rendered on the client side. Therefore the addition of the new graphics have not slowed down the server. For many people with newer hardware the game actually runs smoother in new graphics than the old graphics. This requires more computational resources on the user's end of course. Still much less resources than in typical client games. The new graphics should run fine also on hardware that is some years old.

    Yes we have test servers and QA before releasing things. There can never be 100% coverage though, and we try our best to minimize and fix bugs (many are fixed before release actually).

    Not one

    Simply not true btw. You can check the patchnotes since the release of the Revamp. We did alot of fixes and optimization for the WebGL version already and also stuff listed in this thread got improved. For example the missing army composition was improved by providing army labels that show more information on composition and which show the diplomatic relation more clearly, and later last year we brought back positioning dots & lines for all units on roads so you can always see where the exact position of a unit is. We also updated the positioning system to create less overlap in crowded areas, and we made units always facing the direction they are attacking for more clarity. There will be more bugfixes and improvements coming soon, for example scrolling the screen when moving the cursor close to the edge while in drag mode, or further improvements to the positioning system.

    We won't give up on the new version and keep improving it further. So I recommend you check it out from time to time to see if it is finally to your liking :)

    How exactly is better?

    You shouldn't compare lvl1 of units that unlock at different days of game.

    The Light Tank for example is balanced to be as strong & expensive as lvl2-3 of a Heavy Tank, because the Light Tank unlocks at a later day and also has less levels overall (LT: 4, HT: 5). Light Tank lvl1 also needs a higher building level for production. Level 2 heavy tank should already beat a level 1 Light Tank.

    The idea behind is that you can immediately switch your strategy to producing the new units without the need to first research lower and weaker levels of these units, because for these later units you basically skip 1-2 research levels.

    Comparing the maximum level of each unit is a better comparison for units of different days. Still units unlocked at later days are a tiny bit better on max level overall.

    Please also note that units which are good in both def and off have usually lower peaks. But if you add up both off and def values they are competitive.

    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.

    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.