• I have joined many games since my first game on march and I hate the fact that Infrantry or other forces that are on land can destroy Ships(but not subs), like one time my cruiser was destroyed due to a stack of land forces and I hate it. I do not now why land forces can destroy cruisers and battleships in general.

    First, land forces in nowadays and even in the WW1 and WW2do not use land forces to attack ships as it is like going to a suicide mission with a very low chance of survival.

    Second, land forces can't just finish all the seamen on the ship and then blow up the ship and just go on their own ships again. It is nonsense as I have never seen as in nearby history anything like sending a group of troops to destroy the ships, this is totally logical and the Moderators should have just thought of it and shouldn't they improve it?:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::?:

    Third, other Bytro games such as Call of war, Call of Nations, or maybe S1, troops can't destroy the ships when they are on sea against them (or have a 0.1% chance), this makes the game acceptable, as troops wont get a chance to get near the ships as convoys. I also don't expect them to wave their swords and guns, use a machine gun on a transport ship to shoot against the Enemy navy ship and then board it and fight? No, nothing happens like this in WW1 as this is totally unacceptable!

    At last, I hope that Bytro can improve this bug? or should I say unlogical thinking system in S1914; I hope that this problem can be solved as it has made many players lose their ships.

    Thanks and have a good day!

    Get going with strategy at first of the game, always be prepared, and win the game with an amount of skills and take the trophy up with your allies or yourself!:D:) It is just a game:!:

  • A sufficient amount of infantry on armed transport vessels could very concievably overpower a single ship. We're not talking 1 Inf here afterall but several thousand men. Historically, Battleships in WW1 were indeed vulnerable to situations like this as they were often not equipped with any weapon system to engage enemies at such close range at all. These things for example were used to some success against much larger vessels, however under the provision that they came close enough.

    I'm by no means an expert on WW1 naval warfare though, so just from a gameplay perspective as well, making ships immune to infantry attacks would give them a massive buff. Any AI with exposed shores would be meaningless as soon as cruisers become a thing. Making them completely invulnerable to infantry on transport vessels also doesn't seem much more realistic, might I add. It's not like Inf deals a lot of damage on the water as it is or you couldn't protect your vessels from them. I consider it a big blunder on my part if one of my vessels gets caught with infantry.

  • land forces are moved by ships.. transporters as you wish.

    These might be poorly armoured/armed yet they do have some protection

    Like said above already.. if you got enough weak fire power the total amount gets to be big

    Sure the losses on behave of the landbased units will be massive yet if you fire one gun at one point it wont do much dammage though 100.000 guns.. that will still do damage even to heavy armoured ships

    look at it this way:

    you send a warship towards a large fleet of comercial and passegerships.. some will ram your warship as they know they are dead anyway

    if the manage to get close enough (and in large numbers they will) they will board your warship and cause havoc if they are less in numbers they will still cause damage by ramming you..

    It takes forever to kill an elephant with cottonballs.. Yet it will die eventualy even if from boredom alone..

  • My only guess is balancing issues, because if a player were to neglect their navy or not have enough resources to build one they would get stomped by anyone who even built just 1 ship. This happens often to me where I have a navy and my enemy doesn't. Making them totally defenseless because they couldn't afford a navy would be unfun for many, so that's just my take. Even with the fact that land forces can sink ships in mind, having a superior navy can overcome even the largest of land forces.


  • true ships cannot capture a city.. do keep in mind that if they bomb the city long enough it might just switch owner as rebellion will be caused by low moral.. bombing cities with ships will lower moral.. hard

  • Bombing them with anything will lower morale. Depends on the firepower I reckon. The point is that you can't win a war with a navy alone. You can win battles with it, you can win major battles with it, it can turn the tide of a war for you - but your navy will never gain any points for you.

  • hmm your navy will gain points for you.. lowermoral in a city means less points from that city esp if theres not a building left standing

    Besides the fact you kill all units within range there for making your opponent weaker.

    Sure you need land units esp because most maps navy alone does not reach every city. Yet if moral gets to low the city might even become yours

    And the effect of bombing a city.. depends on firepower and time.. more fire power means less time till moral reaches 0% and less fire power means more time.. one cruiser... naa wont get it to 0% yet low enough to cause serious trouble

    10 battleships? less then 24 hours and the moral will have dropped way below the safe 34% moral

  • lol a good tactic? not really more like a last effort if all other fail and you lost your landbased units..

    though bombing his homecities so nothing remain standing and moral is very low is a good tactic..

    no buildings to enhance production.. no new units and hardly any production at all because of the moral will cripple them