Posts by HetCigarr

    This suggestion is nearly as old as the game itself. It has never been considered in the past and I would not expect it to be in the future. The actions of the Bytro teams from a financial standpoint are not to offer subscription play, closed pay to play individual games or a standardized 'fee' to play on equal footings. Instead, they offer new pay to win tools: Cards. The money is the driving factor, as it is for most all businesses, but to criticize or bring about a threat of penalizing action against those that point out the obvious is like trying to stop your kid from seeing violence when attending a cage fight.

    I'm not following; who is threatening who, for saying what?

    I'm talking about the "main menu" that you find in "Games" (S1914 - New games (

    Right now the games are ordered from your last login, which right now is very inconsistent and inaccurate. If Bytro made the 'last login' tracker more accurate, that would do the work.
    As of now it's quite difficult to go through your games step by step when you have 5+ ongoing matches and your short term memory isn't the sharpest.

    Other than just improving the timetracker here are other (perhaps easier?) solutions:
    1. Make the list static, so you can go through them 1 by 1 from up to down.
    2. Let us color code them
    3. Let us rename the match titles.

    Pretty self-explanatory title.
    Supremacy 1914 is such a good game in many ways, but games where it becomes a bank account- battle is something that really kills the fun for most people. (except the ones who gets the thrill through swiping their creditcards, obviously)

    Obviously it's a great source of income for Bytro, so removing that part of the game would take a serious toll on their IRL economy. My proposal is a workaround, that instead of removing the creditcard wars, just introduce an additional type of game mode where people can pay the monthly fee to have a place where all players are on equal footing, allowing skill expression independent of the size of their fathers oil company. The base game is so awesome that I think there is room for more.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts

    Update: 3 of my teammates hasn't logged in for almost 2 days so i'm pretty much left for myself against multiple nations. I suppose this is an example of "anything could happen". However as there are only two teams, replacing my teammates with someone who is active isn't an option. The core issue remains, the lack of agency

    I started playing supremacy a month ago and I'm really enjoying it. I had heard of x10 speed being a thing and it's something I have longed for. A action packed, intense version of supremacy.
    I was absolutely thrilled today when I saw the current event, Swift strike. 10 player map? Cool my actions will really matter I thought...

    But then I realize the max coalition size is 5 players. In a 10 player map. My coalition has 5 members, and a outside nation is squeezed between us, he's completely defenseless against our numbers. That means we are now 5 guys against 4 others.
    The winner of this game got decided before any player even had set foot outside their nation... It's a couple minutes of coalition-building then the game is practically over. :rolleyes:

    If the max team size was somewhere between 1 - 3 it would make such HUGE difference, for the better. Please fix<3