if you don't have share the map with anyone or none of the players you have it with have steel, you are out of luck.
Friend,even if you have Share Map with someone,you STILL cannot trade with them. You have to be in a coalition with them. And that means that you cannot trade with anyone in games that do not allow coalitions.
I am attacking a unit that is embarking, already lost one unit and it is still showing the embarking unit has strength of 1.0 >>>> I was taught that units are 1/3 rd strength while disembark and embarking, I attacked 2 inf units that were in embark time and I have lost one unit, now one remaining unit still states that the unit strength is 1.0, unit strength should be less than 1.0 and I should not have lost one unit while attacking 2 inf units that were embarking https://prnt.sc/p5i0q4 I sent a ticket on this, will see what staff says, but this is the strange kind of stuff which has been going on since the latest update about a week ago
I am attacking a unit that is embarking, already lost one unit and it is still showing the embarking unit has strength of 1.0 >>>> I was taught that units are 1/3 rd strength while disembark and embarking,
It has always been only when disembarking. When embarkign they are considered 'on land' when disembarking they are considered "In the sea"
I will need Carrier or battleships carrying 1-2 planes to be made valuable so I can spread my air supremacy faster and further
Is it possible to be part of a new update?
1 plane for LC ( scouting plane)
2 planes for BBs ( scouting)
50 for Carrier
I like Idea of adding a carrier and to make it make it more realistic need to have a limit on amount of planes which can use carrier at any given time... probably also need to use some fuel limits on the planes which attempt to make it to carrier out at sea but can not land because carrier is at its limit of planes and plane must patrol until another plane takes off from carrier...maybe too much math to keep track of fuel and travel distance of planes using carrier? would be interesting especially to cross seas with planes able to attack from sea
The idea of aircraft carriers/seaplanes was suggested long time ago in the old forums. The use of them were limited seeing only little action in ww1 where the true aircraft carriers were invented after ww1. it be interesting but i would find it a bit to much like playing a ww2 game/CoW than a ww1 game if they were added in.
However the best place to discuss new or missing features please post in the Missing Feature forum.
Worst update ever. It removes a large portion of the game's scope, and quite frankly doesn't seem to make much sense at all gameplay wise other than limiting the level of strategy possible and thus players' enjoyment of the game.
Omg,this thread has attracted a ton of activity. 186 replies! And there will certainly still be more and more people complaining about this update. If I got one dollar for every reply this thread has attracted,I would be able to buy a ton of M&Ms,chocolates,and other sweets. But unfortunately I do not get any dollar for every reply.
Display MoreI don't know how to give civil feedback other than to say your history of constantly making the dumbest changes possible to fix non-existent problems is killing this game. One of your greatest hits:
The "corruption" feature. You introduced a pointless feature that makes it harder for a player to produce resources. This was done over the guise of "realism" which is hilarious given that when in the history of gaming when we the customers are thinking up cool new units has anyone ever said "hey rather than an aircraft carrier, you know what will make this game cool...how about frustrating administrative bureaucracy?"
Now that you limited domestic resource production, you are also working to limit trading to acquire resources as well. Hey genius, you know how the entire freaking core of your game revolves around having imbalanced resources per country? Some countries have double oil and no grain whereas others have double grain and no oil? Your only recourse is the stock market. But guess what? The stock market is killed off with these changes. So if you don't have oil, you are shit out of luck when people start building battleships. Or if you have oil and build those ships, too bad ==> food shortage.
Can you just admit that you are trying to kill independent play? Your goal is to kill independent play which was the backbone of S1914 in the first 6 years of its existence to support the newer coalition feature. Once coalition came out your vision is to have 100% of all players in a coalition. And you are making independent play as miserable, pointless, and impractical as possible in order to achieve that goal.
Can you also admit that every single time you have had the chance, you have tried to decrease resource availability in an attempt to increase GM spending on resources? I can think of five major examples where you stretched resources even thinner but not one example where you made resources more abundant.
Another backbone of the game, your great profile/medals/awards/badges system that encourages players to try different strategies, join new games, play all the different maps, use different units, to collect them all? ==> You introduced map limits making half of them impossible to get for no reason.
At what point do you realize that most of your updates kill the game? And don't even get me started on the two dozen different changes to map creation rules that you introduced after almost a decade of those limits not being in place for god knows what reason. When did joining after day 7 magically become a problem? Or creating world maps by the player become a problem? Or maps not being full suddenly became a problem? Or creating more than one game a month suddenly become a problem? Or hell, why did you kill the highly popular players' tournament that was awesome in the first three years of the game?
It's as if Bytro specifically asks, what are the best things the vets love about this game just so they can intentionally take it all away. And don't say you guys listen to the players. Remember when you gave us a poll for a new unit and the players voted for calvary, then you guys gave us armored cars instead which was a fast attack unit that was identical to calvary? Then when you offered up the next new unit it was calvary which we no longer wanted because it was fundamentally identical to the same fast attack unit of Armored Cars? And we wanted a new unit that would introduce a new role such as aircraft carriers rather than having another unit that was fundamentally identical to a preexisting unit/role? Bytro literally refused to give us a unit when we wanted it and then gave it to us once we didn't want it. That sums up Bytro rather perfectly.
When you say "realism" what you really mean is: "How to justify a new feature that makes the game worse, but drives profit." It's a justification for an unpopular change and you treat us all like we are stupid by trying to pitch changes that way.
Wait really? They actually reduced resource availability? When was this? I started playing this game fairly recently,only just last year. When was the corruption feature added? I never noticed the corruption feature until a few months ago,because it was so unnoticeable. Was it added before 2018?
and damn,I wish they hadn't reduced resource availability,because I certainly would like more resources 
Corruption was added in 2012, but to be fair, I don't think it really affected the game as much as the latest updates..
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.
"Thank you for the feedback", I do appreciate you taking the time to answer, but as usual, judging on the past, it doesn't mean Bytro has actually taken on board any of it.
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.
Don't you think cheaters will find new ways of cheating? All you are doing is destroying our gameplay. Cheaters can simply exchange resources through de market with a trade embargo to everyone else, buy and sell between themselves same product for different prices to exchange money, etc. So no "loopholes" have been closed, you have simply destroyed the game even more. I guess the next step will be to remove the market...
As for map balancing, you have done exactly the contrary. Limiting trade makes it harder for countries without oil for example to get oil, making it even harder for them. So it's now much more unbalanced. You have done exactly the contrary to what your "main reason" was and upset most of the players in the meantime. I really can't understand how you think this is positive for the game and I'm finding it really hard to believe that you are not deliberately trying to destroy the game.
As for me, I really don't see the point of playing this game anymore.. My options are to play normal games (90% AI and can't trade resources anymore), alliance games (that's a joke, bugged combats and dead alliances) and the only thing that was left before this update, internal games in the alliance (now can't play as a team as you have limited unit transfers and trade, which destroys 90% of the strategy). So I guess that's it, after 9 years, you have finally done it.
I would be able to buy a ton of M&Ms,chocolates,and other sweets.
Say no to sugar. Go get some fruits. Stay healthy. 
Say no to sugar. Go get some fruits. Stay healthy.
Well,I rarely eat sweets at all. By rare,I mean that I eat an M&M packet,or a chocolate,once in a few months. I remember eating M&Ms only 2-3 times this whole year,and about 10 chocolates this year,and maybe 5-6 ice cream buckets this year.
Most of the time,I eat rice,with either chicken curry or Rihaakuru (A local Maldivian paste made with fish,with a salty sort of taste. It is the only fish product I like; I will vomit if I eat any other fish product),and on Fridays and Saturdays (School holidays in my country. Yeah I know that most countries have the Sunday/Saturday weekends but my country has Friday/Saturday weekends),I eat Biryani (Im addicted to it) or Fried Rice (My heart automatically goes down when my mom says she is making Fried Rice and not Biryani).
Of course,all these foods I listed are only eaten by me on lunches and dinners. In the morning and evening,I eat either Nutro Biscuits dipped in Black Tea,or Kawaabu (A local Maldivian snack).
User A fighting against user B.
User B asks for peace between the countries.
User A offers User B a peace treaty if he pays 50.000 oil.
User B accepts and goes to diplomacy to send the oil for peace, but....
OH WAIT, yeah, WE CAN'T TRADE RESOURCES ANYMORE
users B:
1. quits game
2. joins coalition of user A to pay him and then leaves coalition
LOL
AHA,meme time,I see!
Well,heres a meme.
Another meme.
.
