An option to "Grant Command"

  • Meaning that you can grant your allies to control your units. This could be turned off at any time


    For example, let's say Canada and USA are preparing an attack on Europe. Canada is building the battleships, and USA is building the submarines.


    Then when they attack, USA can give the command of his submarines for Canada so he can protect his battleships without having to constantly tell USA where to put them.

  • Bytro changed rules about Trading Units a year ago (10% daily), this controlling allies units was a game changer and will not likely be reverted.


    Bytro also stopped resource trades at this same time and later reverted the trading of resources


    IMO Bytro should limit resource trading to Coalition members only, which would in effect also clarify and limit 'Account Pushing'.

  • Hello!

    I am glad that u came here (from Reddit). Well this is unlikely to appear as it can misused heavily and can't be checked easily.

    Well think about real life scenario why soldiers under your command will take orders from someone else.

    What if when you are sleeping your Allie use it against you like making all your troops go and die in another country and side by side he is also capturing your provinces

    Results you are eliminated while you were sleeping and also weakening other player so that he can capture that too. In end you will file multiple tickets on this.

    Ik it sucks when you want to attack someone but your allie is offline.

    First never trust your allie I said bever.

    Always keep plan B or C on stand by to deal with things like that.

    GL HF

  • I strongly agree with Raman and like what he said, always be prepared for things that either you expect or might not expect to happen, such as a backstab, a ally destroyed etc. espeically in 100p and 500p maps which things may get worse every time. Hastings is right, bytro switched off that times ago, and there is only little chance of it returning as it might have many dispuses when it comes back. So Leny, you should produce subs and BSs in a times in maybe 2 ports, or work with your ally to destroy the enemy together.

    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:!:

  • You could prevent that by making a better and more interactive system. Example:


    You could allow coalition members to "donate" their troops to the coalition. The members of that coalition can then vote to elect their "General", who then controls those troops. You could also give other players the ability to "suggest" where the troops should go and such, while final decision falls on the "General" to do so. I think this would avoid the necessity of discord for example.


    As for backstabbing, I think its part of the game. I see this game as a political sandbox where you are not locked into relationships (like in other games). With this system however, each player will give portion of their army willingly. If they want to be stupid and give up control of their armies, then its on them.


    You could prevent some additional abuse by blocking the attack option of troops donated by "Player A" to attack nations that "Player A" is allied to. Plus, in this case the "General" cant use donated troops to attack "Player A" since after kicking them the troops will go back under their control.


    Raman02334 I like your skepticism. But I agree that adding this kind of action is a good idea. IMO coalitions dont provide any advantage other than finishing the game "safer" and faster. This would make them more useful and fun, id rather not use discord or other social media to coordinate if i dont have to.

  • I agree but be little bit practical here how you gonna feel like if your army is not being commanded by you but someone.

    This will lower morale of your army making them think that you are in capable to be a leader.


    I will support this but there should be some penalty to balance this as I see it can highly imbalance gameplay resulting multiple tickets and increase workload of GO.

  • I agree but be little bit practical here how you gonna feel like if your army is not being commanded by you but someone.

    This will lower morale of your army making them think that you are in capable to be a leader.


    I will support this but there should be some penalty to balance this as I see it can highly imbalance gameplay resulting multiple tickets and increase workload of GO.

    I agree, there should be limitations/penalties that are based on game balance and historical elements (like cooperation between allies and Germany/Italy during ww2).


    The opportunities that this provides in terms of game experience can be significant tho. Think it motivates people to coordinate better in terms of their time zones and activity times. Maybe it even makes the experience better for more casual players. Plus keeping the interactions in the game makes the spy reports more relevant.


    We losely discuss it here but I think this topic should be explored in more detail. Only thing that I worry about tho is if this would make the game more complex. I love that S1914 is minimalistic compared to other strategy games, even when comparing to S1. I would also love to see this game grow, but i dont think its worth it if it changes the game itself. But that depends on to what extent / how something like this is implemented.