I noticed that through the months,they have slightly changed the appearance of the Frontline map,with it now looking more like the Legacy map than before. Personally,I prefer the first Frontline Map design,like in the OPs screenshots.
Posts by Warriorgu
-
-
Another meme.
-
Well,heres a meme.
-
AHA,meme time,I see!
-
LOL
-
Say no to sugar. Go get some fruits. Stay healthy.
Well,I rarely eat sweets at all. By rare,I mean that I eat an M&M packet,or a chocolate,once in a few months. I remember eating M&Ms only 2-3 times this whole year,and about 10 chocolates this year,and maybe 5-6 ice cream buckets this year.
Most of the time,I eat rice,with either chicken curry or Rihaakuru (A local Maldivian paste made with fish,with a salty sort of taste. It is the only fish product I like; I will vomit if I eat any other fish product),and on Fridays and Saturdays (School holidays in my country. Yeah I know that most countries have the Sunday/Saturday weekends but my country has Friday/Saturday weekends),I eat Biryani (Im addicted to it) or Fried Rice (My heart automatically goes down when my mom says she is making Fried Rice and not Biryani).
Of course,all these foods I listed are only eaten by me on lunches and dinners. In the morning and evening,I eat either Nutro Biscuits dipped in Black Tea,or Kawaabu (A local Maldivian snack).
-
I'd pay premium for a bare-bones editor where I can just set owners and make RP maps. It asks a lot of the devs to allow you to craft provinces entirely when simply being able to edit who owns what on maps that are already available is enough for me.
Agree. I don't think it will be entirely viable to make new provinces with new borders. I would propose that we would be able to:
-Rename provinces
-Set province resource production
-Number of troops in province
-Which nation owns which province
-Morale of province
-Buildings in the province
-Capital of a nation
-Name of a nation
-Ruler of a nation,his picture and his title
Such kind of editor would make landswapping obsolete,and make it easier to make RP maps.
-
Display MoreI don't know how to give civil feedback other than to say your history of constantly making the dumbest changes possible to fix non-existent problems is killing this game. One of your greatest hits:
The "corruption" feature. You introduced a pointless feature that makes it harder for a player to produce resources. This was done over the guise of "realism" which is hilarious given that when in the history of gaming when we the customers are thinking up cool new units has anyone ever said "hey rather than an aircraft carrier, you know what will make this game cool...how about frustrating administrative bureaucracy?"
Now that you limited domestic resource production, you are also working to limit trading to acquire resources as well. Hey genius, you know how the entire freaking core of your game revolves around having imbalanced resources per country? Some countries have double oil and no grain whereas others have double grain and no oil? Your only recourse is the stock market. But guess what? The stock market is killed off with these changes. So if you don't have oil, you are shit out of luck when people start building battleships. Or if you have oil and build those ships, too bad ==> food shortage.
Can you just admit that you are trying to kill independent play? Your goal is to kill independent play which was the backbone of S1914 in the first 6 years of its existence to support the newer coalition feature. Once coalition came out your vision is to have 100% of all players in a coalition. And you are making independent play as miserable, pointless, and impractical as possible in order to achieve that goal.
Can you also admit that every single time you have had the chance, you have tried to decrease resource availability in an attempt to increase GM spending on resources? I can think of five major examples where you stretched resources even thinner but not one example where you made resources more abundant.
Another backbone of the game, your great profile/medals/awards/badges system that encourages players to try different strategies, join new games, play all the different maps, use different units, to collect them all? ==> You introduced map limits making half of them impossible to get for no reason.
At what point do you realize that most of your updates kill the game? And don't even get me started on the two dozen different changes to map creation rules that you introduced after almost a decade of those limits not being in place for god knows what reason. When did joining after day 7 magically become a problem? Or creating world maps by the player become a problem? Or maps not being full suddenly became a problem? Or creating more than one game a month suddenly become a problem? Or hell, why did you kill the highly popular players' tournament that was awesome in the first three years of the game?
It's as if Bytro specifically asks, what are the best things the vets love about this game just so they can intentionally take it all away. And don't say you guys listen to the players. Remember when you gave us a poll for a new unit and the players voted for calvary, then you guys gave us armored cars instead which was a fast attack unit that was identical to calvary? Then when you offered up the next new unit it was calvary which we no longer wanted because it was fundamentally identical to the same fast attack unit of Armored Cars? And we wanted a new unit that would introduce a new role such as aircraft carriers rather than having another unit that was fundamentally identical to a preexisting unit/role? Bytro literally refused to give us a unit when we wanted it and then gave it to us once we didn't want it. That sums up Bytro rather perfectly.
When you say "realism" what you really mean is: "How to justify a new feature that makes the game worse, but drives profit." It's a justification for an unpopular change and you treat us all like we are stupid by trying to pitch changes that way.
Wait really? They actually reduced resource availability? When was this? I started playing this game fairly recently,only just last year. When was the corruption feature added? I never noticed the corruption feature until a few months ago,because it was so unnoticeable. Was it added before 2018?
and damn,I wish they hadn't reduced resource availability,because I certainly would like more resources
-
Omg,this thread has attracted a ton of activity. 186 replies! And there will certainly still be more and more people complaining about this update. If I got one dollar for every reply this thread has attracted,I would be able to buy a ton of M&Ms,chocolates,and other sweets. But unfortunately I do not get any dollar for every reply.
-
if you don't have share the map with anyone or none of the players you have it with have steel, you are out of luck.
Friend,even if you have Share Map with someone,you STILL cannot trade with them. You have to be in a coalition with them. And that means that you cannot trade with anyone in games that do not allow coalitions.
-
Hi guys, of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.
The reasons behind the update were already stated in the news. To close loopholes, make it harder for "cheaters" and make it harder for all kinds of players to circumvent our intended map balancing. The last point is actually one of the most important reasons. We already expected that not all players will like such changes. Player opinion is always helpful but as this was for the most part a change to enforce balancing we will in this case focus more on observing statistics and data to determine the right course of action. And believe us we have no intend to deliberately tank this game, quite the opposite. Given the climate in this thread there is not much else to say on this topic from my perspective.
As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!
The update does not really bother me,but,as I have stated numerous times in this thread,the trade restriction to coalition is the biggest problem in this update. I do not really understand why you would remove trading with neutral countries.
-
Lol,so much drama in this thread. I have never seen such a thread.
-
Thinking more, I logged into a game today and bought out the oil. Normally I would ask a neighbor to trade but I can't trade. This is going to be a rising demand I know because in my day It tool me a whole year to realize you could sell on the market. So now I have to go start a war to get oil. This led me to realize what about the games with no coalitions? What will they do? Start a unfeasible war or starve? Is that really strategy. To have simple game mechanics force you to act early?
This is what bugs me the most about the update.
-
that were called
-
I do not exactly know the solution to the problems posed by the update,or whether they are problems. However,I have a solution for the landswap problem. I have already made a thread about it.
So,my idea is that there should be a 'map editor' of sorts. You would have to have HC,and above a certain rank to be able to make an editted map. Then,you would have to pay about 2500 goldmarks to make such a game.
In the editor,you can edit:
-Which province belongs to which nation
-Province Morale
-Troops in the province (Eg: You could put 10 infantry,1 cav,1 mechanical car,etc in a province)
-How many resources the province produces. 100% is the standard rate,and the lowest rate is 25%. The highest rate is 200%,and once a province has a 175% or higher rate of resource production,it becomes classified as a double resource province)
-Flag of a nation
-Ruler of a nation and his title
-Capital of a nation
-Playable nations/Non Playable nations
What do you guys think of this? Im sure that you wont have a need to landswap,if you can just assign provinces to nations without having to conquer or trade provinces.
-
and their dads
-
Historically some nation's traded with thier enemies so to say it's good and realistic to restrict trade to this degree is untrue.
Even if in real life,enemies did not trade with each other,neutral countries certainly did trade with each other. The way Bytro has made it,we cannot even trade with nations with Share Map. We have to be in the same coalition,and in most maps,coalitions can only have 3 members. THREE. That means a coalition member only has two trade partners in most maps. And what about games that do not allow coalitions? I am currently playing a game as France and I need oil. I want to ask Morocco for oil,but I notice that I cannot propose a resource trade. In that game,Coalitions are disabled. That means that nobody can trade resources and units in that game.
-
Wonderful update! Keep up the great work, Bytro!
It IS a pretty good update,except for the trade restriction.
-
who were muslim
-
By far my biggest qualm about this update is the trading issue. I mean what the hell? This restricts resource and unit trade a ton. There can only be you and 2 other members of a coalition,so,at max,you can only have 2 (4 for 100p map,6 for 500p map) trade partners. And there is the issue of games without the ability to make and join coalitions.
.
