[Idea] Reduced damage for Artilleries (and other long range weapons) against other ground units.

  • I have a feeling the topic kind of moved offtopic a bit. Arty has it's use cases, cav and tanks have their usecases. Depending on how you play you focus on one of both or on a mix. But that's a totally different discussion

    To reply on the original discussion "should arty be reduced in power" I disagree. The only thing I'd personally would like to see removed is SnS, But also that is a different discussion. In supremacy the theoretical right use of Arty is behind a line of infantry (or other units) which is exactly how it was done in WWI, huge artillery fire days before the attack between units. Offcourse arty had limited effect on the enemy because they had bunkers to hide in during this barrages.

    If you'd want to make it more realistic you should allow trenches and bunkers to be build on infantry locations. and those would be damaged by arty with only limited unit loses... However that would slow down the game heavily, a standing trench was in WWI almost impossible to take without arty covering and smoothing up that trenches defence. However don't forget WWI was a war with months of fighting over several meters of land due to this relation between the high defence of trenches (combined with machine guns) and the rather ineffectiveness of arty against these trench networks. Do we really want to make S1914 more stalemate defence war of attrition wait game? A true realistic WWI game sounds a bit boring.

    Arty had it'smain use in destroying fortifications, because the arty in these didn't reach far enough to fight the offensive arty, they were outdated but without arty to destroy those fortresses they'd be rather impossible to take. That was the original use of arty not killing units indeed but destroying the defense of these units. Reducing their effectivness without giving them their use against other defences (e.g. trenches) would render them rather useless or only usefull against city forts and upgrades. But implementing that realistic relation would make the game slower paced to my opinion so not more fun either.

  • I'd have to disagree about removing SnS, from a pure gaming point of view this is one tactic out of many available for use. Also not out of the realms of reality whereby returning artillery fire would be delayed as they were repositioned/targeted.


    As a game I agree we cannot slow it down any further and it is already quite possible to spend weeks fighting over single city.


    There are ways to counter pretty much every tactic in Supremacy, if you take away SnS you give those who use tank armies a greater advantage - do we then do something to hobble the tanks to even it out again?


    The complaint about SnS players being 'too active' is quite lame - every game has players with different activity levels and those who only play once a day are always going to be at a disadvantage however what gaming company is going to punish those who play long hours? If someone is willing to put on the hours and check often then they deserve to be rewarded with a win IMO.


    Instead of trying to remove a feature you can't/won't use why not find a way to counter it that your playing style allows. I hate coming up against a blitzkrieg player however I hunker down and deal with it.


    Each weapon type has it's pros & cons it's up to the individual to learn how to use them to their advantage.


    You could equally say planes are overpowered and as yet no real defence against them (other than to fool the game into targeting the wrong army while you flee), not even the likes of anti-aircraft guns that were available in WW1 - before we start changing what we have why not add the things still missing.


    Some things just wouldn't fit well into a game, as Narmer already mentioned to include trenches & bunkers would not add much value but it would slow everything down, but I think there is still room for some things and since planes were introduced we have been missing the obvious counter weapon for them.

  • Don't surprise, but your last paragraph actually supports my idea. Indeed, that's also why I said the artillery's power to destroy buildings should remain unaltered, had my idea being implemented.


    Exactly, the original use of arty isn't killing units but destroying the defense of these units. But today in S1914, artilleries have the power to destroy an ENTIRE army, and by destroying, I mean to reduce it to zero. That's why it's unrealistic: in WWI you could bombard for days and days, but those cannons never achieved total annihilation of the enemy. Here, you don't really need any other unit than infantry and artilleries. The former to invade, the later to protect the former (not even for the purpose to conquer)


    In fact, since 1916-17, WWI Commanders got that the best way to gain a position was to heavily bombard with artilleries during a short period of time before sending their soldiers to fight and take the point, taking advantage of the enemy's fear and confussion. If artillery had been allmighty, tactics like that hadn't been needed.


    My idea only gives close ranges units (infantries, cavalries, cars, tanks) a more offensive function, comparing with their everlasting defensive task of protecting artilleries and other long range units, which do all the conquering work today. Also, I doubt the game becomes slow-paced since you can conquer provinces quickly by attacking them with your overwhelming force against the diminished one from the enemy.

    Demonaire
    EN Moderator
    Bytro Labs | Supremacy 1914


    b78//+

    All the things you need to play this game can be found here, here and here.

    Do you want to experience new ways to enjoy Supremacy 1914? Click here and here.

    Have you problems with the game? Send a ticket.


  • Bokoli,


    I have the slight suspicion your understanding of English his not sufficient to be constructive in this conversation?


    You are talking reaaaally strange mate :)

    I'm now back for 1 month. Nothing really changed.


    Because planes are now playable outside GM rounds, AFTER the initial rush there are now more strategies possible.

    Epecially in the larger maps.


    But that has nothing to do with the arguments Demonaire is bringing in this topic.

  • It does. He start Arty are so epic you can kill all. Alright if so strong tell his mister you game better: Macdouwe how many arty you need have a change kill a stack 250 Heavy tanks? hm know let's see if can answer. Since are back saw Heavy Tank doesn't a addition Blue Prints or did you not? so only need ress . But in this topic ofcourse arty are Heaven why because of SnS? you can counter that. Ever army can be counter by other army you need know use it. Make a statment Arty overpower will make happy. Also in other games since play Strategy game since I was 12 and 18 years a go a Moderator need know a lot in game,here doesn't seem this way but ok I will stop at make post so you will be happy.


    P.S. I still want a answer from mister pro Macdouwe  

  • That's why it's unrealistic: in WWI you could bombard for days and days, but those cannons never achieved total annihilation of the enemy.

    I beg to differ. If a post was bombarded for day after day and the troops stationed there just stayed and took it I think you would find eventually all would die. Even if it was through attrition as no supplies could get there. However in WW1 armies didn't not just sit there and knowing this is why those bombarding with artillery did not wait to take the position as they not only wanted to advance but to kill enemy troops as well. So they pushed forward when the losses became 'acceptable'.


    In the game it has been simplified somewhat from real warfare to make it fun for those playing and not to get down to too much micro management which would put a lot of people off.


    If you opponent chooses to just sit there and take your arty bombardment then yes they will die - they have options, they could withdraw or they could rush the artillery positions - just like the real thing. It is not a fault of the game when players choose to do neither but just sit there and die.


    Here, you don't really need any other unit than infantry and artilleries. The former to invade, the later to protect the former (not even for the purpose to conquer)

    Again sorry disagreeing. While in the early stages of the game artillery are definitely the king of the battlefield if you chose never to build other units your will soon find yourself overwhelmed by air & sea power (depending on your country and map). It may be possible to win a map with limited armament but the longer a map lasts the more difficult that will become. As everyone plays different you need to adapt your game play to some extent to counter what your enemy brings to the fight.

    Bokoli,


    I have the slight suspicion your understanding of English his not sufficient to be constructive in this conversation?


    You are talking reaaaally strange mate :)

    At least get his name right if you are going to insult him :P

  • Bobokil,

    1) my apology for the misspeling of your username :)


    You are only talking about 1 specific tiny aspect of this game, the large longtime games.

    I keep indicating that I am discussing about the generalistic view.


    As long as that difference isn't clear, it is difficult to make any progress.

    I agree with your opinion being valid for the specific niche you play in.

    But not for the niche I play in :)


    Any 10/15/31playermap in which someone gets a stack of 250 heavy tanks is, well, bloody weird => that is my niche

  • I beg to differ. If a post was bombarded for day after day and the troops stationed there just stayed and took it I think you would find eventually all would die. Even if it was through attrition as no supplies could get there. However in WW1 armies didn't not just sit there and knowing this is why those bombarding with artillery did not wait to take the position as they not only wanted to advance but to kill enemy troops as well. So they pushed forward when the losses became 'acceptable'.


    In the game it has been simplified somewhat from real warfare to make it fun for those playing and not to get down to too much micro management which would put a lot of people off.


    If you opponent chooses to just sit there and take your arty bombardment then yes they will die - they have options, they could withdraw or they could rush the artillery positions - just like the real thing. It is not a fault of the game when players choose to do neither but just sit there and die.

    Precisely, the simplification of game also means it shouldn't be assumed troops are "stationated" there to be left to die by artilleries or another long range units. Indeed, trench warfare is also simplified by the fact there is only a road connecting between two cities, so there is no way troops can be flanked by the enemy.


    In the same way, it's correct to assume "stationated" troops can elude artillery fire while not abandoning the position, being the use of proper soldiers or mechanized units the only way to get them out of there. As a matter of fact, the overreliance on artillery was a factor in the prolongation of the First World War, not one for an early finalization, because high commanders thought that, after a long bombardment, the only thing left to do was to take the position, but then they found there was many well-armed soldiers still in place that, again, got the upperhand by being at the defensive. Again, while artilleries and other long range units were very important in WWI, they only were decisive when as part of a combinated effort, something armies only arrived to understand circa 1916-17.


    Again sorry disagreeing. While in the early stages of the game artillery are definitely the king of the battlefield if you chose never to build other units your will soon find yourself overwhelmed by air & sea power (depending on your country and map). It may be possible to win a map with limited armament but the longer a map lasts the more difficult that will become. As everyone plays different you need to adapt your game play to some extent to counter what your enemy brings to the fight.

    As you like, I add also railguns, battleships, light cruisers and even planes. The order of the factors don't change the product: To win a match, you only need long range units protected by many soldiers. So, long range units as kings of the battlefield is clearly an issue, IMHO, since there should be needed a combinated effort from all units (long or short range), not expecting to win by having more cannons than the enemy.


    Greetings.


    P.D. The S&S is also used until abuse thanks to that long range units' feature of being able to wipe enemies off. If that wasn't possible, that tactic would be reasonably limited by, again, the need of short range units to end that wipe off.

    Demonaire
    EN Moderator
    Bytro Labs | Supremacy 1914


    b78//+

    All the things you need to play this game can be found here, here and here.

    Do you want to experience new ways to enjoy Supremacy 1914? Click here and here.

    Have you problems with the game? Send a ticket.


  • Please remain respectfull to one another. A difference in opinion is no reason to attack someone personally. As this Thread was created in the Game discussion -> suggestion part, please remain at that topic.


    Insulting messages have been removed from this topic.

    Community Support

    Bytro | Supremacy 1914 | NL Senior Moderator

    Bytro | Supremacy 1914 | EN Game Operator

    Bytro | New World Empires | EN - DE Main Administrator

    Bytro | Call of War | NL - Senior Game Operator

  • In the game it has been simplified somewhat from real warfare to make it fun for those playing and not to get down to too much micro management which would put a lot of people off.

    well S&S is too much micromanagement IMHO. when you add AC Warp Jump related to it there you have it. People with no skills at all - but knowing S&S can kill the best player with the best defensive setup, if attacked pro-player is ie. on the party, wedding or working. And please do not tell me that pro-players should sit all the time- people without GMs and skills have to sit all the time. Regular players use time, rich players use GMs, pro-players use skills. Holy Trinity: time-gold-skill.


    there is another overpowered feature related to arties- harvesting something. Who knows- knows what I am talking about. You create such a snowball and add infnatry to it rolling it from one side of the map to another with S&S. This is greatly OPing arties and should be stopped in my opinion as with S&S creates somethign that is hard to kll without skills.


    when it comes to SnS/S&S - just change a game code so if player is hit by a range unit and has this range unit in a range ( arty vs arty as it is mostly) both stacks are hit at the same time and dmg is applied without one shooting earlier than other. Problem solved. Ofc there would be guys sending 100 inf to get bombarded as a decoy - but this alone will require more micro thus SnS will become less and less valiable option. It is strange that someone with 10 arties can kill someoen with 1000 arties without losing a single arty.... It is not even strange, it is not worth a comment. Imagine other game where two groups of untis of the same class meet and unit that is 10-100 times smaller wins without a single loss. Do you know such a game- I only know one company producing them. There should always be some casualties if units of the same type fight.

  • when it comes to SnS/S&S - just change a game code so if player is hit by a range unit and has this range unit in a range ( arty vs arty as it is mostly) both stacks are hit at the same time and dmg is applied without one shooting earlier than other.

    This would not be in the slightest bit realistic, the delay in firing back actually mimics real life.


    I am also at a loss to work out why tactics that are available to everyone in the game should be changed just because someone doesn't like them.


    Warping is available to EVERYONE (and not limited to AC) always has been for years, if you don't know about it or use not the games fault.


    SNS also available to everyone, and there is a simple counter to it if you know you are not going to be online, make sure your armies are a safe distance away. Retreating is also a tactic available to everyone and can be the best thing to do in many situations and guess what - after retreating it is still possible to win you just need to use your armies well.


    You need to play to your limitations and not try to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, punishing people with more time, or more patience or more money is not going to make the game any better.

  • This would not be in the slightest bit realistic, the delay in firing back actually mimics real life.

    answer is- who cares what is realistic if this exploit giving advantage only to a player who is active. from what I know exploits should be removed from game so everyone has same chances to win engagement. If I saw in another game 100 troops killed by 2 without looses I would have only one thing in mind.


    I am also at a loss to work out why tactics that are available to everyone in the game should be changed just because someone doesn't like them.

    quote above from me and add: why should players be punished with the exploit left on purpose in the game just to artificially support active players? I would not mind if this exploit was balanced but it is unbalanced and is a reason why better player quit a game since 2012.


    Warping is available to EVERYONE (and not limited to AC) always has been for years, if you don't know about it or use not the games fault.

    another classic from a players: let me ask you that- if someone kills 300 of your planes without loosing single one of his ( and I know guys who can do it) will you say the same: it is available to everyone and it is your fault you lose against 10 times small player, because you do not know the trick? Same with walking straight through your armies , being untouchable while attacking enemy and so on.


    SNS also available to everyone, and there is a simple counter to it if you know you are not going to be online, make sure your armies are a safe distance away. Retreating is also a tactic available to everyone and can be the best thing to do in many situations and guess what - after retreating it is still possible to win you just need to use your armies well.

    now lets imagine that account is active 24h/per day. I am guessing 3-5 people has to run it. How long will you retreat? accounts24 hours overuse SNS and this is the only reason why they have chance in this game. Never think about SNS alone - it is hard attached to overactive accounts.



    You need to play to your limitations and not try to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, punishing people with more time, or more patience or more money is not going to make the game any better.

    this is exactly what happens now- lowest common denominator is unproductive activity related to mindless SNS which results in exactly 0 new tactics or strategies . This is punishing people with more skills and more GMs but less time. Doing that is not going to make game any better but on contrary- it makes it worse and full of weak players whose only advantage is sitting longer and then attacking. Person with more activity wins- super, why then to bother playing this game? Imagine playing poker and people who sits more- wins. Or playing football and team with players standing longer on the pitch- wins. Exactly same patern.


    I am guessing I contradicted every of your commonly used arguments with exactly the same logic you guys are using to defend SNS or activity. If I missed something - let me know.

  • I think you want to change the game to suit your limited hours - as a result will make the players who play more leave and ultimately SUpremacy will become a game where everyone just logs once a day and it will slowly die as a boring game.


    I can be online 24/7 if needed and no-one else can access my account. I am one of those mindless players who just uses SnS to win (when a situation calls for it) and clearly have no skills at all. If you force players like me to reduce our play to suit those who only want to do anything for an hour or 2 a day I guarantee you will make the game much worse. We all have our preferred way of playing which is what makes the game interesting, you never know what you will be fighting next. There would be no fun if everyone had to play the same cos there was only one available tactic to use.


    But hey you will be able to say you got rid of all those cheats who chose to commit to being able to log at any time needed, when I can't log I only retreat as far as I need to for the hours I will be away - it has nothing to do with my enemies hours but my own so your point there is moot.


    There are turn based games that would suit those with limited hours much better - a real time strategy game leans itself to those who can commit longer hours. Maybe we should see if they can change sup so everyone can only give orders to their armies once a day, I'm sure that would make it much fairer for everyone and get rid of all those pesky players with more time to play.

  • Punishing activity would be very weird indeed.


    That being said, a deployment & deassemble time woudl still make the game more strategic in my opinion.

    And very active players would not be punished by it.

    Supremacy used to have this for airplanes. Which made airplanes use much more strategic then it is now.

  • I am one of those mindless players who just uses SnS to win


    It is SNS explopit that is mindless, not a players themselves. If someone will join a game today and I will show him how to properly use SNS, how to defend against attacks (SNS,melee,planes) and how to produce arty then he will be able to win most of maps just by staying longer than oponents on the map. If 1 day player can defeat players with years of experinece- there you have my description of mindless exploit.




    There would be no fun if everyone had to play the same cos there was only one available tactic to use.

    As you may not noticed there is only one tactic/exploit ( call it how you want) used in Supremacy and it is called SNS. That is why nerffing it will make game more interesting as you nicely pointed out above.


    Maybe we should see if they can change sup so everyone can only give orders to their armies once a day, I'm sure that would make it much fairer for everyone and get rid of all those pesky players with more time to play.

    there were questions about that but no answer was give. It was more about how many hours you will spend in game per day. But as you said it is enough to retreat - that is why peopel without time IMHO should play only 500. There you can defeat anyone by spending 1-2 hours per day.




    But hey you will be able to say you got rid of all those cheats who chose to commit to being able to log at any time needed, when I can't log I only retreat as far as I need to for the hours I will be away - it has nothing to do with my enemies hours but my own so your point there is moot.

    +

    Punishing activity would be very weird indeed.

    it is not about active players but connection between SNS exploit and activity so the balance between time, GMs and skills could be restored. Ofc I can sit longer and for a player throwing 6 mln GMs in a week I used more time than for a player who was SNS 24/day 365/year but there is less Milions-GM-Worth-players than super-active players. I am guessing 98-99% of players use only SNS and when they figure out opponent is more active they just surrender dropping from a map. I will also drop if I have more important things to do in a real life as I already know I could defeat that opponent without problems but he is not worth my time. I slowly getting to this point where supremacy is not worth my time if only sitting longer decides if I win or lose a map. How much strategy is in that- you tell me.



    But I must say I like to watch players with 1000 arts and 20 mln troops chasing my faster units, watching them loosing undefended provinces as they do not keep steady frontline, their economies collapsing from to many wars, their huge stack enricled and loosing morale in freshly conquered provinces, stacks dying on sea or shores, their swears in DE that you are a cheater because you can win against their obsolete SNS strategy and all of that small things they do not know about that you throw on them every single day.

  • I am guessing 98-99% of players use only SNS and when they figure out opponent is more active they just surrender dropping from a map.

    I don't know what maps you are playing but I rarely find I am against an opponent who only uses SnS and even less who can get the better of me - I enjoy the challenge of people who use tactics over just ramming everything with a massive tank army, I consider SnS a tactic not an exploit but I guess those who don't like it will try to get it banned. IMHO the mindlessness of the game in those who do nothing but send huge armies marching through everything, they take heavier losses and when they do come up against a half proficient player they will lose.

  • I don't know what maps you are playing but I rarely find I am against an opponent who only uses SnS and even less who can get the better of me - I enjoy the challenge of people who use tactics over just ramming everything with a massive tank army, I consider SnS a tactic not an exploit but I guess those who don't like it will try to get it banned. IMHO the mindlessness of the game in those who do nothing but send huge armies marching through everything, they take heavier losses and when they do come up against a half proficient player they will lose.

    Yes you are true - I am not getting to a point where I play some random players. I mostly meet guys with small empires that were created mostly by SNS. Casual player who are ramming everything with numbers - it is hard to call them even players as the chance they will survive till the end of map without single valid strategy is equal to 0.000001%. They are more like AI countries , destinated to be eaten, but led by casual people. Do not get me wrong - I do not want to make anyone angry but everyone knows that this kind of casual players are next to go after AIs are down.


    So in general what you feel about casual players on the smaller maps doing same,simple,mindless ramming activity in hope of better future - I feel the same about SNS players in a bigger map. They are everywhere, they do exactly the same thing, they even react the same way to your strategy as they have to use /protect arts. This is why I use my strategy because it is valid for SNS , GM rush and superactive players, not so much against other type of players. So I am pretty sure you understood how I feel because you feel the same about other type of players. One sidenote here- ramming opponents with hundreds of horses before arts - it is very efficient strategy of winning alliance games on a small europe 1914. I also won couple of tournament/ players league games with horses supported by heavier equipment later and I must say that if you have a plan how to attack and encircle arts - then it is a valid strategy.



    Last paragraph leads me to one thought- why arts are so powerfull in hand to hand combat? they should have 2 factors- one is range factor, second is melee- which IMHO should be much lower like it is with planes on the ground. Now melee arts are very efficient against ACs/Cavs and Infantry- what about nerffing it from 1.5 points to lets say 0.15. This will lead people to chasing and attacking them with melee units even more fun. I must say that could lead to changes in thinking and hopefully decreasing number of players who do not see any other way to counter SNS than SNS itself.


    give it a think.


    still killing enemy armies, with a same units, without single loss is freaking huge exploit and something should be done about it.

  • I must say that could lead to changes in thinking and hopefully decreasing number of players who do not see any other way to counter SNS than SNS itself.

    2 players using SnS if on at the same time may as well just melee fight as there is no advantage to, the larger army will win, and also SnS is not always guaranteed to get you free hits, many time the enemy units will return fire immediately. There are also places on the map that are buggy and your 30 second countdown to engaging jumps back to 2 mins over and over again forcing you to move closer. Eventually you are will in range and your advantage is lost again. So to suggest SnS is a mindless easy way to win I'd say you are wrong as you need to still understand some quirks the game throws at you and know how to deal with them.


    Personally I rarely play 500s, I'm sick of the multi accounts in them, SnS is the least annoying thing to me.


    Last paragraph leads me to one thought- why arts are so powerfull in hand to hand combat? they should have 2 factors- one is range factor, second is melee- which IMHO should be much lower like it is with planes on the ground.

    In my experience if you catch artillery in a melee fight they will die quickly, I would not agree they are too strong, I also find cavalry to be pretty weak too so we are seeing totally different result which I assume is due to different playing styles. That is part of my point, if people use units differently you need to adapt your tactics to the situation. That is where people with skill will win over mindlessness.

  • ofc there are exploits within exploits - years ago I saw a guy who was able to shoot 3 minutes before time on his ground and almost 90 seconds before on the enemy ground ...


    I generaly speek about guys who know how to use SNS and are active 24h per day for couple of weeks ,sometimes months

    they firmly believe they can win just by activity and it takes milions killed in ratio 100-1 to convince them to quit fighting. As you noticed- I do not like to waste my time but the more stacks are send, the more time I have to spend killing them. In general no skills nor GMs help against such a combination of SNS and hyperactivity that is why I am forced in the crucial moments to sit longer just to make sure I stay in a game. And this is why I think SNS should be not related to activity so much or the link SNS+activity should be nerfed somehow. Unfortunately in this only more activity beats hyperactivity.


    Reasonable SNS for 4-8 hours per day is not bad but non-stop SNS for months- this is very sick. Especially if it is supported with GMs to run on speed march after enemy. Or produce 50 arts from empty province in 30 secs.



    I once played against guys who were said to be the best among RolePLaying users- they somehow catch my arts with over 2 times bigger armies but I was able to use melee stranghts of art infs and cavs and managed to survive almost whole day till relief force broke them. Trick was to divide untits properly and use arts harvesting strenght to maximum. OFC I was called cheater and they did everything to harm my reputation but it did not stop me from littering map with their corpses. This is when I saw I do not have to worry about my stacks because even if they get caught I will obliterate enemy without to much problems. You just set up defence perimeter and wait till relief can come.


    anyways:

    1. nerf SNS by increasing reload time to 90-120 minutes / or by allowing return fire every single time

    2. decrease melee strengh of arts. Arts were never stronger than cavs or infnatry when it came to hand-to-hand combat so this is very unhistorical.