I've heard a rumor that cavalry are now considered over-powered, and are intended to have either their hit points or att/def reduced in a coming update. Any truth to that? If it is a plan, I would like to register an objection. I think they're perfect as they are.
Is there a specific reason the workshop is now visible alongside the factory in the buildings list? Is there potential for a damaged workshop to prevent the construction of factory-relevant advanced units?
i think there should be a better option looked into to make managing morale easier i understand it can be overcome as is but i think another option should be looked into ie building which i have talked about on disc and posted about here or another option but i think it should be at least looked into
I like the new setup and display of the unit information when you click on a unit, but I don't think the kill counter for a unit should have been gotten rid of. I believe it was both interesting and useful information. I know that when I now go to the unit card, I open it up now and every time think o crap I can't know that information anymore. I think it should be added back into the unit information
I've heard a rumor that cavalry are now considered over-powered, and are intended to have either their hit points or att/def reduced in a coming update. Any truth to that? If it is a plan, I would like to register an objection. I think they're perfect as they are.
Is there a specific reason the workshop is now visible alongside the factory in the buildings list? Is there potential for a damaged workshop to prevent the construction of factory-relevant advanced units?
There are no plans for nerfing the Cavalry right now.
The Workshop is displayed alongside the Factory because it now exists separately. For example it can be destroyed while the Factory is still intact.
Having the Factory separate makes it easier for new players to realize that there is a Factory building, because in the old version it was not shown unless you build a Workshop lvl2.
I like the new setup and display of the unit information when you click on a unit, but I don't think the kill counter for a unit should have been gotten rid of. I believe it was both interesting and useful information. I know that when I now go to the unit card, I open it up now and every time think o crap I can't know that information anymore. I think it should be added back into the unit information
The kill counter is still shown for the army itself, just in a different place. Open the army details for that (click on the name of the army after selecting it)
Hi.
After some months of break I played 3 maps. 2 with applied new mechanics.
I am not sure if I like the new mechanic about building times. With low moral you cant build anything.
My main problem is/was the moral factors in late game are not balanced enough.
I have again dominated the maps (30 maps). But in both maps I had concquered like 150 provinces and that killed everything. It is and was just not possible to keep moral (high) in that provinces.
One map I finally joined a coalition (never liked them much since they got introduced) to finish and win it (but not alone).
The other map I delayed for several days mainly for testing purpose. But the picture was quiet similar. My points came down from +500 and shrunk lower and lower.
After I captured 3 more AI countries (each valued around 100 points) I even had less points.
I know that building stuff may increase points but come on. If the target moral is only 10 even 5 fortress will bring it only to 30. And if bulding 1 fortress takes 6days (due to low moral) it is just not possible.
So for me - I feel it is just not possible to win a map alone anymore. If a player with only 40 provinces - that went offline for 5 days - is able to reach better points in the end...
I have won several maps alone, some even by accumulating 1.000 points and more.
So my question is: What is the exact formula for points (did it change as well)? Earlier you got some bonus for 100 % provinces but now I feel it must have be connected to moral.
And my second and main point is: Maybe adjust some of the moral malus. Like do we realy need -35 % in ALL provinces ? That in combination with the -35 for distance. Please - come on, its just to much.
After 5 days with half my provinces a that state even my ressources started to deplete (yes a 250k stock will be used after a while).
So I am sure I am not the only one facing that problem.
Can we do something against that? What ?
Maybe make the moral malus less or make the winning points less dependend on moral.
Anyhow - I am open for any suggestion/feedback.
everything sucks, roll it back.
Yes, Moral is making this game to a building simulator... It´s supposed to be an strategic game. But in my opinion it´s not good if you have to build lvl 5 forts in every Province to may have a chance to keep the Moral up to a minimum. It makes no fun and no sense as well.
It destroys the flow of the game!
In the old mechanic, the maximum morale hit from war was -25, and the maximum corruption hit was 15%, for about 40. If that's your metric, I understand using -35 for Expansion. However.
Veteran players very rarely engage in more than two wars at a time, and even if you're fighting a coalition all together, on the smaller maps that's only -15. Make the metric -30, not -40, with a maximum expansion penalty of -25. It would also be easier to explain if it flowed as follows:
At 6% expansion, the penalty begins at -3, and adds 0.5 for every 1% expanded, capping at -25 for 50% of the total provinces. It'll hit harder at the beginning, but be much more manageable (and playable) in the end.
An alternative solution would be for the capital effect to not only decrease the "distance from capital" penalty, but also to decrease the Expansion penalty, at a lower rate, say 50% of the distance penalty. This would effectively alleviate the majority of the expansion overage while maintaining the current Expansion calculation. Only the very distant provinces would receive the full Expansion penalty, and the provinces closer to home would experience better morale. I think this actually makes more sense to implement.
Attention Generals!
We are happy to announce that new game mechanics as well as all balancing changes are live! Please find the full list of changes here!
We appreciate your feedback on the new mechanics. Want to report a bug, share your thoughts and suggestions? - You are in the right thread. All comments are taken into consideration, so don't hesitate and feel free to tell us what you think!
Please note that the changes are available only in the rounds created after the update (2023-01-10)
Talked already with freezy, but I think it's worth to put it here.
I don't think it was a good idea to eliminate the economical news at the newspaper. The "defeat the purpose of the fog of war" argument is countered with the current espionage (and not even the ones paid with Goldmarks, but the normal ones, paid with silvermarks/pounds), which features more complete and precise information at a reasonable price, in contrast with the vague and incomplete info provided by the newspaper for free.
The value of the newspaper lies at informing players about events. By removing pieces of info from that resource, the newspaper will become more and more irrelevant, and that's not good for the playability and inmersion the players need in this game.
Knowing what building was built in which province is what a newspaper exists for, since is making aware to the players about the competition and who's developing the country really fast (maybe because goldmarks?), while, at the same time, is not giving sensible information that can determinate victory or defeat in a match and, thus, is not worth of making some kind of datamining (for that, as I said, there is the espionage section)
I think players would be grateful if you step back in that regard, which is not a critical topic, fortunately.
Greetings.
I didn't know the stacking penalty got removed or it would not have happened, but even still, a single submarine can cut down 7 cruisers in 1 day? That is a drastic change. Every major change since the new morale system and the listing of hit points, while intended to create balance, has been to the detriment of individual players. Best change things back.
Thanks for the feedback in general. The update won't be rolled back though, please don't get your hopes up regarding that.
We also won't roll back specific mechanics or parts of their mechanics, because those parts are coded together with them (e.g. removal of newspaper posts together with hidden buildings on map), and those mechanics are cross-title, so removing parts of them would also affect CoW and IO1919, which we don't want. (not going into detail again why we want those mechanics in the game, has been discussed in the past).
But we can do balancing tweaks to the new mechanics based on the feedback (e.g. adjusting values etc.) because they can be specifically made for S1914. As we already did in recent patches. Just today a new update is released with balancing tweaks based on veteran feedback.
So my question is: What is the exact formula for points (did it change as well)? Earlier you got some bonus for 100 % provinces but now I feel it must have be connected to moral.
Thanks for the detailed report. The points calculation didn't change, it doesn't matter if the province is at 97% or 10%, you only get a points bonus for provinces at 100%.
The expnsion penalty is even bigger in our other games but not a problem there, due to them having a different point calculation that is solely based on conquering provinces. It seems S1914's "weird" point calculation might indeed lead to some strange situations where conquering will actually reduce points (although that was possible before as well in old mechanics). We will discuss your feedback.
In the old mechanic, the maximum morale hit from war was -25, and the maximum corruption hit was 15%, for about 40. If that's your metric, I understand using -35 for Expansion. However.
Plus in old mechanics capital distance penalty was -40 and happened at an smaller distance, now it is -35 max and at a larger distance.
Changing how distance penalty and expansion penalty interact with eachother is more complicated and likely won't be done, but we can think about making simple balancing changes to either one of the formulas. We will discuss your proposals.
I didn't know the stacking penalty got removed or it would not have happened, but even still, a single submarine can cut down 7 cruisers in 1 day? That is a drastic change. Every major change since the new morale system and the listing of hit points, while intended to create balance, has been to the detriment of individual players. Best change things back.
Stacking penalty is for the whole stack, begins at 20 and degrades until 50.
7 Cruisers have 350 HP in total and 70 damage, 1 Submarine has 100 HP and 40 damage. The 1 submarine will certainly lose vs. 7 Cruisers (otherwise something else would have been at play here as well, like another damage source).
freezy - das Balancing überdenken, wollte ich anstoßen. Have a look into it. You might be able to do an overview based on several games played.
I know loosing moral happened before but now the effect is just to effective :-). I played "only" a small 30 EUROPE map. I cant remember while collecting provinces (from 120 to 170) and countries, that at the same time a drop in points happened.
The whole dynamic has been fundamentally undermined with the new HP system- artillery are significantly devalued- instead of chipping away at a total number of units, they chip away at the hp, so as a stack under bombardment is reinforced, it does not actually lose units, it just continues to chip at forever repleneshing HP. This has the same effect on cruisers. Siege is fundamentally altered by this. Artillery are the main building block of the game since anyone ever started playing it, and shelling was the primary determinant of battles in the actual first world war. This is a massive setback to being able seize the advantage by getting out those first vital weapons early, alters resource management and allocation significantly, and basically takes the game from slow to a halt. It is actually better to now create a stalemate against a human player that understands how the game is played and look to your other borders for AI to play whack a mole with trying to create an overall overwhelming numerical advantage- which is both tedious and lends to gameplay being dependent on "who drops first", not fun at all.
I suppose the actual war fought in 1914 was characterized by the modern armies of their times just getting stuck and digging in against their enemies, constant shelling without any actual movement, but that is a terrible objective for a game that is supposed to be a fun, strategic exercise. So points to the creators for their commitment to realism I suppose, but for shame on what has been done to play-ability and fun factor of the game. I'd gone through several updates without so much as registering for the forum since 2020, I just rolled with the punches, but this one is completely detrimental to the gameplay. I for one will play out my existing games, it was fun getting back into the game for something to do during COVID, but no new games for me unless a major course correction is made in the short term.
I understand the developers work hard and are always trying to improve the game, but this time, like in many ever evolving games out there, they just overthought it.
The new morale-based building setting also turns the game to the extreme. The morale effect on building buildings is understandable, but it is far too pronounced. The influence morale has on the construction of buildings should be reduced by a factor of 2/3, or at least 1/2 from where it currently stands vs the baseline building time. Also, morale should have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the building time of units. If you seize new territory, new construction and repairs of buildings would conceivably take longer, but if you seize a working factory you could crank out cars and tanks the same as the day before you walked in. This update ruined the strategic importance of emphasizing the industrial heartland of a state on offense and defense.
The Supremacy 1914: Stuck in the Mud combat update, and the Supremacy 1914: Swamp of Sorrows morale update really ought to be walked back or immediately rethought. I'm sure they had the best intentions, but the combined effects of combat, morale, and victory progress impairment are taking this game from strategic and deliberative to a tedious unit and building spamming game.
Plus in old mechanics capital distance penalty was -40 and happened at an smaller distance, now it is -35 max and at a larger distance.
Changing how distance penalty and expansion penalty interact with eachother is more complicated and likely won't be done, but we can think about making simple balancing changes to either one of the formulas. We will discuss your proposals.
I don't think you need to change these. I had a game collapse not because of the expansion or distance penalties but their mingle with the neighbor penalty and increased build times. As much as you don't want people blitzing you have to understand that allies are going to support theirs and if doing so sends them into an unrecoverable morale nose dive then the mechanic is flawed. As the neighbor+expansion+distance compound the buid time for the fort goes to 2 1/2 days. In that two and a half days I could have three adverse day changes. So three morale hits to one fort and now my fort 2 is trying to build on a province with 15% target.
If the forts built normally I would still have a terrible morale but I could start to mitigate at least the neighbor penalty and allow the province a chance to get above 35% so I don't go from 1st with 750 points to 315 points and no resource production in 5 days. My troop morale went crashing too as each province required more and more troops and day after day lost morale. So I was using 10% hp troops in the teens to hold provinces and i had 30 of them like that.
I don't believe it was the intent of the game to penalize an active ally helping his teammates by crushing their game to the extent it is unrecoverable and all they can do is watch as their game crumbles no matter what they do. I even tried to get the provinces to revolt. If you think what I have said can't happen the game number is 6737622
Are you going to make a feedback thread for the new changes made today/yesterday?
Need to opine.
freezy - das Balancing überdenken, wollte ich anstoßen. Have a look into it. You might be able to do an overview based on several games played.
I know loosing moral happened before but now the effect is just to effective :-). I played "only" a small 30 EUROPE map. I cant remember while collecting provinces (from 120 to 170) and countries, that at the same time a drop in points happened.
Dropping in points after conquering provinces could happen even in old mechanics, I know for certain because this often happened in our company test games 
It is a weird quirk of S1914 because it has a points calculation where every player is put in to relation to other players, and is also based on stuff like morale. Due to previous war penalties you could also drop from max morale in old mechanics and then lose points even though you conquered land. It might just be more pronounced now than previously, but as I said we will discuss the morale topic in the team again.
The whole dynamic has been fundamentally undermined with the new HP system- artillery are significantly devalued- instead of chipping away at a total number of units, they chip away at the hp, so as a stack under bombardment is reinforced, it does not actually lose units, it just continues to chip at forever repleneshing HP. This has the same effect on cruisers. Siege is fundamentally altered by this. Artillery are the main building block of the game since anyone ever started playing it, and shelling was the primary determinant of battles in the actual first world war. This is a massive setback to being able seize the advantage by getting out those first vital weapons early, alters resource management and allocation significantly, and basically takes the game from slow to a halt. It is actually better to now create a stalemate against a human player that understands how the game is played and look to your other borders for AI to play whack a mole with trying to create an overall overwhelming numerical advantage- which is both tedious and lends to gameplay being dependent on "who drops first", not fun at all.
I suppose the actual war fought in 1914 was characterized by the modern armies of their times just getting stuck and digging in against their enemies, constant shelling without any actual movement, but that is a terrible objective for a game that is supposed to be a fun, strategic exercise. So points to the creators for their commitment to realism I suppose, but for shame on what has been done to play-ability and fun factor of the game. I'd gone through several updates without so much as registering for the forum since 2020, I just rolled with the punches, but this one is completely detrimental to the gameplay. I for one will play out my existing games, it was fun getting back into the game for something to do during COVID, but no new games for me unless a major course correction is made in the short term.
I understand the developers work hard and are always trying to improve the game, but this time, like in many ever evolving games out there, they just overthought it.
Thanks for the feedback.
It is intended to open up the game to more strategies besides spamming artillery. They still give you big advantages though cos they still allow you to deal damage for free.
Chipping away HP or chipping away units has a similar effect - in both cases the stack gets weaker and will die at some point. When you land a hit and units don't die but you remove HP, then don't be disappointed. A stack which lost no units but lost 50% of its HP still basically lost 50% of its value, it is significantly weaker and will have a lot of casualties in its next fight. Don't look at unit count the same way as before, HP amount is equally important now.
I think we actually should show the HP bar on the map to drive the point home that the HP bar is as significant as the shown unit count.
The new morale-based building setting also turns the game to the extreme. The morale effect on building buildings is understandable, but it is far too pronounced. The influence morale has on the construction of buildings should be reduced by a factor of 2/3, or at least 1/2 from where it currently stands vs the baseline building time. Also, morale should have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the building time of units. If you seize new territory, new construction and repairs of buildings would conceivably take longer, but if you seize a working factory you could crank out cars and tanks the same as the day before you walked in. This update ruined the strategic importance of emphasizing the industrial heartland of a state on offense and defense.
The Supremacy 1914: Stuck in the Mud combat update, and the Supremacy 1914: Swamp of Sorrows morale update really ought to be walked back or immediately rethought. I'm sure they had the best intentions, but the combined effects of combat, morale, and victory progress impairment are taking this game from strategic and deliberative to a tedious unit and building spamming game.
It is intended that you cannot immediately capitalize on conquered provinces and have to endure some penalties if you wanna use them. Have to build them up and plan ahead. This is done in pretty much any grand strategy game or 4x game.
I don't think you need to change these. I had a game collapse not because of the expansion or distance penalties but their mingle with the neighbor penalty and increased build times. As much as you don't want people blitzing you have to understand that allies are going to support theirs and if doing so sends them into an unrecoverable morale nose dive then the mechanic is flawed. As the neighbor+expansion+distance compound the buid time for the fort goes to 2 1/2 days. In that two and a half days I could have three adverse day changes. So three morale hits to one fort and now my fort 2 is trying to build on a province with 15% target.
If the forts built normally I would still have a terrible morale but I could start to mitigate at least the neighbor penalty and allow the province a chance to get above 35% so I don't go from 1st with 750 points to 315 points and no resource production in 5 days. My troop morale went crashing too as each province required more and more troops and day after day lost morale. So I was using 10% hp troops in the teens to hold provinces and i had 30 of them like that.
I don't believe it was the intent of the game to penalize an active ally helping his teammates by crushing their game to the extent it is unrecoverable and all they can do is watch as their game crumbles no matter what they do. I even tried to get the provinces to revolt. If you think what I have said can't happen the game number is 6737622
Noted, we will think about the neighbor penalty effect.
Are you going to make a feedback thread for the new changes made today/yesterday?
Need to opine.
Can just post it here.
so here's a suggestion- the need for iron was already imbalanced- maybe add 2 cheaper buildings with building times not (or less) affected by morale (or just lower build times and HP in general)
mess hall- costs wheat and fish and a small amount of lumber- reduces expansion penalty by 50-66%
supply depot- costs coal and gas and a small amount of lumber- reduces distance from capitol penalty by 66-75%
this might help get over the slow grind of conquest brought on by the last unnecessary update and would also spread out the resource diversity required for an expanding empire
