Posts by Jakob von Binnyworth

Quote from Demonaire

Yes, but, in this case, the 20 grains of upkeep per unit means you're not only providing the vehicles, but the troops with them, and putting them under a russian commander. That, of course, isn't the rule in WWI. Remember how GB and France suggested USA to integrate their troops into british and french armies, encountering with a clear negative response from the United States men, who wanted to fight as AEF. Finally, french, british, US mens, canadians, indians, ANZAC, etc., should fight according to teamwork under a unified command, with their own troops and weapons. Unit trading avoids to replicate that.

How about volunteers? I addressed literal boots on the ground, Canada, Poland, and USA is known to have done this in ww2. Or perhaps the Spanish Civil War volunteers, troops joined that from all over the world, though USA nor any other countries did not declare war on that from what I can tell. And under your argument, shouldn´t bytro be working on something similar then since, idk, you admit it happened historically?

I suggest we fix the unit trading, rss trading, and etc...

<posted this before>

Quote from Demonaire

PVP Community

1. Standard doesn't always mean that's great. And mechs trading doesn't improve teamwork. If your team want to exploit that breakthrough, then the best positioned player must be there to execute the task with his/her own resources, not giving others that task by trading mechs. As everything, that's reduce to the "knowhow about choosing your allies". In this case, IMO, minus (remove units trading) means plus (promotes improved teamwork) Also, I don't see why people hates cavalry so much...

2.. As you surely have read from me. I'm against the remotion of neutral trade and I think Elite AI diplomatic treatment must be relaxed to a "dumb" AI status. In this case, we agree.

3. Same as 2., except with the "providing troops" apart, per 1. If you want to protect your ally, fight for him/her with your troops and leave that part very clear in the diplomatic channels available. (GB guaranteed Belgium's neutrality in WWI, but the brits doesn't put their own troops under Leopold's orders in the most cases. Great Britain had their own commanders)

4. Reads like a Elite AI defense. So, it's OK.

RP Community

1. Agree, per PVP. 2.

2. That means you and the new players must be more cautelous and checking the reputation status before taking any action. In this point, you're vilifying and overestimating Elite AI too much. The Elite AI's true weight is its diplomatic management, designed for the players not to be warmongers. Military-wise, instead, it's not different from the "dumb" AI. So, as players understands they can't go out and declaring wars for teh fun, everything will be alright. Indeed, for me, that's really supportive for the RP community, since you're foremost against players declaring wars without good reasons, so Elite AI serves for that purpose. With the former said, however, I repeat as in PVP. 2.: the trouble now with Elite AI is them not giving ROW or Peace, as "dumb" AI did, at all, and that must be corrected.

3. Agree, per PVP. 2. I never tire to repeat how infamous is for S1914 community the remotion of neutral trade.

4. Agree, again.

Social Alliances.

I agree the update, as a whole, is a disaster. But I think that almost all that "whole" is due to neutral trade remotion, since that practically had destroyed the diplomacy in S1914 by becoming all wars in annhilitation wars where no diplomacy is needed. By that reason, I ask in the official channels about the issue, where it's observed that people are not happy with the update. That's all.

If any, we must wait.

Greetings.

P.D. As temporary measure against the neutral trade removal, you can "pact" resources with other players in the stockmarket as part of diplomatic ceasefire or peace treaties. And now having information spies on your allies becomes a must for that enforcement, despite how cumbersome it is.

PvP Community, #3:

Well, in world war two, for example, USA provided around 2/3 of the Russian Vehicular army, and did supply a lot of the allies, while remaining neutral. I believe it´s not *unrealistic* to trade units, as USA did it, a lot, via lend lease act; and our volunteers, same with Canadian and Polish, served under different banners. This is ww2 examples, I am not *too* keen on ww1. But I thank you for the reply.

Display More

God Otto / Lord Nice Boy denounces Bytro´s crusade and genocide of the RP community, Call of War´s and Supremacy´s recent updates has virtually stopped Role-Playing. These updates are, but not limited to, the one banning giving units, the one that requires coalitions to trade resources, the ban of roleplayers getting world maps on Call of War, and the need of membership just to get a game made, or the simple mechanic of Fire at Will being the automatic command to start with, as it makes Land swap difficult. This is why I denounce all of Bytro with exception to New World´s Empires. and shall move my glorious community to it until my concerns are addressed..

I am Don Kuban, we are the cossacks in this Kaiserreich rp!