Posts by panasonic307

    What tier do you put South USA in?

    I have had good experiences with that country. I played SOuth USA 4 times,and once,I won and the rest of the time I didn't (Because I was too lazy to play those rounds). If you pay a lot of attention and get good allies,Southern USA is really nice. If Morocco or West Algeria are your allies and dont want French West africa,or are fighting each other,you can go and grab French West Africa for the oil.

    Funny that you posted. I was inspired to make this thread because of your best countries in the 31 player thread.

    South USA is a solid C-tier to me. I think it belongs higher up in C-tier but doesn't break into B.

    The only thing that stops it from being an S-tier like North Canada and Arabia (two of the other corner countries) or A or B-tier are it's bad options in many situations.

    Like you said, "if you pay attention and.." Southern USA is situationally good. But here is the kicker: what you described is the best possible situation for Southern USA other than conquering all of North America. But, even what you described is highly suboptimal. Reason being, you must cross the Atlantic to get to your African provinces. This causes them to gain morale at a devastatingly slow rate. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that your allies in North America are competent and will not betray you (in this situation, this need for trust alone makes SUSA suboptimal).

    So in this hypothetical situation you leave your ally Central USA alone to take over the continent slowly. You send everyone over to Africa to capitalize on the rich provinces there. You conquer FWA and secure it against the Africans.

    What do you think the chances of sending your army home are? They will probably never see Florida again. That is, unless you are under attack or betrayed, but back on point. Those troops will conquer the provinces and they will go to 25% morale. And, since the distance from Tallahassee is around 3 days (iirc), those provinces will gain their morale back extremely slowly. Every day your troops are stationed in one of your African provinces is a day where it loses 15% of the difference between it's current morale and that province's morale. So, assuming everyone is doing early expansion in the most optimal possible way, you will have the weakest troops in the game by strength points.

    That is the major flaw of the SUSA player. If they decide to expand in North America and wait to go to Africa late game, they will still be disadvantaged. A strong Africa player is the bane of Southern USA. And, if you are in a coalition that has split up North America, none of you individually will have enough resources for X-TREME Battleship Rushing (patent pending).

    In the late game where a strong coalition dominates Europe and Africa and a strong player or coalition dominates North America, North America is easier to attack than Europe and Africa. It's because Europe and Africa are have an irregular horizontal shape and North America has an irregular vertical shape. ie. Europe and Africa are fat and North America is tall. If the North American players don't control the Atlantic with an iron fist, it will be extremely difficult to see where the enemy will invade at because there are numerous options with the most obvious being Richmond, Miami and Halifax.

    Conversely invasions against Europe and Africa are very, very predictable, even without deep scouting. Portugal, FWA double fish, Ireland, England. 95% of the time, the invasion will go to one or more of these points. If they are crafty, they may sneak guys from Greenland above everything and land in Norway. But when was the last time you saw a NA player land in France? If they are crafty, they may also try to go to Casablanca or Tangiers etc.

    So all they have to do is move their troops westward and stock up on railguns and bombers in the critical invasion points to ward off battleships and suddenly Europe and Africa are impregnable. Conversely, North America will have a hard time choosing exactly where to build aerodromes and railroads and where to place the railguns.

    What's my point in all this late game strat? I was beginning to ask the same thing. It's that North America is faaar better to dominate with one person than to have a coalition splitting it up. With a coalition, you are pretty much guaranteed to be unable to produce enough iron to make 3 battleships every 3 days. But as a solo that is very possible. The players might feel disheartened at not having enough resources and opt to build subs or cruisers, but North America cannot afford to pull punches with their navy late game. They absolutely need it to breach the heavily defended Europe of the late game (this is all assuming optimal play).

    So in summary, the way to get the most out of Southern USA's lack of good options is to exploit Central USA and not ally with them. Just wait for them to attack the AI day one like they always do. Once they have it all conquered, strike at the weakest point and mop them up while you control your border. In this way, I think Southern USA may be an A-tier because it leads to a very strong start. But, thinking about their lack of options puts them in C-tier. For whatever reason, the CUSA invasion may not be possible because of diplomacy or great play by Central USA or maybe they just go inactive after building forts and offices. Even if they build nothing at all, attacking them day one without them being weakened by the AI will weaken you very badly so that North USA will have an easy time taking the entire USA. For a Northern USA player, this prayer is the absolute best case scenario (but even then they still need like 5 forts with South Canada with garrisons). Yea NUSA is really bad.

    Great things about SUSA (you already know) position, AI double to take, resources, oil province in North America.

    Jesus that was an essay. What am I doing with my life?

    Do you know anything about the plane patrol exploit or the flower bouquet exploit? Ijust saw them mentioned in Sckopen's damage stack bug thread. I hadn't heard of them but it sounds like they belong in here.

    Maybe remove splash damage from all non bombardment attacks? Then to circumvent an attack wasting bug, you could make melee attacks reserve their damage until all of their damage is dealt to any and all units.

    So for example if my 10 stack has 10 potential damage and you rush 10 stacks of 1 at them, my stack would damage and kill all of the 1 stacks until it is out of damage to give. And no matter what, once the next attack round starts, my stack would have it's full potential damage again.

    My picks for the three top tier countries and the only S-tier nations in the 31 player map are Arabia, West Libya and North Canada.

    I know WL is a controversial pick but let me explain. Quadruple grain is all I have to say. Neighbors? East Algeria doesn't want to mess with Libya. It's psychological. They just don't want to mess with it. Usually it's very easy to get an alliance with them. East Libya is a low B tier to high C tier nation. It just is a middle of the road country. They have one of the best provinces in Africa though - a nice little double iron by the name of Sarir Tarbisti. I'll take that, thank you very much.

    It is waaay easier to unite the Libya's militarily from West rather than East. It is mainly because of Egypt. The thing is, Egypt is one of the thirstiest nations in the 31 player. They hurt very badly for iron. They are by far the worst in Africa for materials. To remedy this, Bytro has provided the Egypt player with a tiny fish province belonging to the AI. And the AI of that country ALWAYS builds a fort on it as soon as they can. Great.

    So Egypt will disregard this province 99% of the time and opt to play conservatively or attack East Libya to solve the problem rapidly. More likely, they will quit. Either way, it is easy for West Libya to capitalize on this situation.

    If they quit, East Libya would find it easier to quell their grain shortage by taking that satisfying double grain province from Egypt. So you, as West Libya, just needs to run in there and take everything from the two of them. If Egypt attacks East Libya for the iron, you also run in and take everything.

    So in summation, West Libya - S tier, East Libya - C tier, Egypt - D tier or maybe E tier.

    Arabia is a no brainer really. The oil.... ohhhh the oil... and in a corner.... OOOOHHH

    This brings me to another reason why Egypt is terrible. It also gives Hejaz the advantage over British Egypt in the 100 player.

    Egypt's, perhaps, most valuable single resource province, the lumber province of Bur Said, can only be defended effectively against Arabia by sending troops through water.

    When I get Arabia, regardless of anything, I don't care if my own mother is playing as Egypt, I IMMEDIATELY nab Bur Said. It's simple: Arabia needs lumber badly, taking it will cripple Egypt badly, if they get mad and send troops to take it back, you fully commit to it's defense and eventually you will be killing their troops on the beaches during disembarking. If it goes that far, you will be able to take their whole country. A good Egypt player will just give up Bur Said or quit. If I get Egypt, I send around 40 troops to it immediately and play conservative, barring better options.

    And the distance from Bur Said to your capital is practically the size of an inchworm's you-know-what. So the morale will raise very rapidly once you conquer it.

    Disregard Syria, Acquire Bur Said.

    North Canada is another great corner country. Two words - (free) double iron. It is for this reason I might call North Canada the single best country in the game. Not only does it have a corner position, not only do you only need to build two forts to secure the border, not only do you have the best access to Corner Brook, a 10 province (high tax revenue to steal) AI's capital, not only do you have another gas province to take, not only do you get the double iron province from the AI making it one double fish, one double iron and one double gas (the resource balancing trifecta), not only is Labrador City (your capital) not accessible to a battleship while also being a double gas with harbor capability (the perfect capital) BUT IT TAKES FOOOOOREVER for someone to invade you.

    Invading North Canada is like watching paint dry. If a good player is taking advantage of this defensive capability, they are unconquerable.

    Disadvantage of NC - coal deficient mid game and bigness double edged sword... oooohhh noooooo whatever will I dooooo?

    In regards to your point about Rumania - I can't comment on personal experience because I have never played them. I have conquered them plenty of times. They have great food resources with the double fish and double grain. And I always notice during the early game that, regardless of how well I or anyone else is doing, if Rumania (or Greece) conquered the entire Balkan AI's, they stay at first place for a very, very long time. They could have 1/3rd less provinces than me, but yet somehow they are consistently in first place until I get to a snowballing situation with insane expansion. Then they just join the avalanche. But I would like to try that country sometime.

    A link to the no fix proof. Man that's messed up, but Supremacy 1 is gonna be great. Hopefully the combat bugs will be fixed in that one. But anyway I'm getting off topic. I do have a combat bug to add now that I think about it. I posted about it in the missing features forum to try to get it fixed.

    Though it isn't really a bug, it may be exploited if you know better than your opponent.

    Let's say you and I are allied. You have a fortress in an important province. The enemy is moving to attack that province, but for some reason you have no guys there. I have a big army nearby and I go to defend it. I will get the fortress bonus from being in your fort, but once the enemy gets to the city, instead of a normal fight, they will instantly conquer the province, and suddenly, they are in the fort killing my guys who have been booted out!

    I am pretty sure this applies too if you have guys in the province and your guys are killed. Once they die, I suspect, the enemy will take the province and my guys will be sitting outside, now in a position of attack instead of defense. Though, I admit, I have not seen this actually happen.

    I think Supremacy 1914 is a nicely balanced game. All of the countries have a good chance to win when led well. But, some are certainly better than others. I was attempting to create a tier list for Supremacy and I came to the conclusion that Northern USA is the worst on the 31 player map.

    Prove me wrong.

    Protip: you can't.

    The (mostly) good -

    It's capital is New York. A real pain to invade from Toronto. It takes about 12 hours to go from there to New York with infantry. Overall this capital isn't bad. It is on the water, but it is difficult to commit a battleship to go in there without prior intel. It is a double province which is good to have as the capital in my opinion.

    It's resources are very good with the exception of oil. It has a great mix of iron, lumber, coal, grain, fish and gas. However, it is a double edged sword because it's resources cause it to be a jack-of-all-trades country, where it might be better off if it were really good at materials or food. It's best assets are it's energy. And that is one of the reasons it is actually bad. Read on.

    It's double resource provinces are New York, an iron and............

    The (mostly) bad -

    Scranton, a coal. Scranton is in my opinion one of the most valuable provinces north of Washington D.C. If Greenland has attacked Canada and conquered it all, they will certainly be chomping at the bit to invade you just for Scranton alone, never mind everything else. The rest of your energy resources compound this issue. Central USA is a material heavy country, and would just love to expand their border's into North USA as opposed to South USA more often than not. And it is unlikely they will attack Detroit and then attack South Canada. They will take Detroit and go right for Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

    By far though, the WORST feature of North USA is it's access to AI provinces. It has none. Detroit is your oil source and, to get it, you need to go through Toronto or Cleveland. There is no way Central USA won't be defending their double fish province Cleveland. And even if you line up the diplomacy with Central USA, South Canada will likely have already taken it.

    But let's say you do ally with Central USA or South Canada or both. What SC or CUSA player in their right mind would allow lousy North USA to take Detroit??

    I wouldn't. That won't even be an issue though. When was the last time you saw NUSA, CUSA and SC being allies? The answer is never. It has never happened in the history of The Great War 31 player map unless the teams were pre-arranged and then that coalition would have lost anyway haha.

    If by some miracle you get Detroit, what AI can you hit next? Halifax. Wow you got a fish. Great work. I love playing as South Canada and if NUSA got Halifax, I would nuke their country, I would go to the shop, buy 1000 dollars worth of Goldmarks and just keep hitting that military sabotage button until their capital is destroyed. Then I would repeat that with my entire bank account. I would take out a loan against my house and sell my car to afford more Goldmarks to grind that slimy North USA player into the dust for seizing my Halifax. I would go to the player's house and ask them to move in. Then I would steal their credit card and run up a massive Goldmark charge on it to destroy him. Then I would purposely get us both banned from the game for multi-accounting because I was stealing his internet.

    One more thing before all of you tell me I'm wrong and you think "X" country is worse. Assuming North USA wants to play conservative and opts to stay out of alliances for a while, how many fortresses do they need at the beginning to secure their borders? 5? 6? 7?

    8. 8 fortresses to secure the border completely. I don't think any other country is worse when combining all of the negative factors afflicting them. The only countries worse for defense than that that I can think of off the top of my head are Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania. I think Lithuania needs 10, Ukraine 9 and Poland 9. But these countries are much easier to play than North USA because everyone in Eastern Europe is just as scared as everyone else in Eastern Europe. It forces diplomacy over there. But, in contrast, Central USA and South Canada are extremely safe and easy countries to defend.

    When was the last time you saw NUSA win? Never. When was the last time you saw North USA take over all of North America? Probably never. When was the last time you saw them being bodied by anyone and everyone? Every. Single. Time.

    But go ahead. Prove me wrong.

    the well-known problem with resource sliders i guess

    it also happens in legacy and last news was that they weren't going to solve it, sadly.

    Thank you for your input, but the thread is more focused towards those bugs that can be exploitable, not those that are simply a pain in the ass :S

    You got a link to the resource slider thing? No way they won't fix that...

    The one in the new UI that causes you to lock all of your sliders and the resource percentage adjustment field if you use the resource slider for too long. Drives me insane. The workaround that I find to be effective for this is to move the slider just enough to get a decent adjustment, declick the slider and then readjust. Rinse and repeat that until you get the exact adjustment you want. But the key is to not use the slider for too long or use it too fast. Such an awful bug.

    We have started a 4v4 historical map with free team selection. We need a group of four to be Germany, AH, Ottomans and Bulgaria. It is random country selection with 1 day peace with ai and players. The Bulgaria player must play. Lol.

    Ideally, I would like to get an alliance of 4 to join so that there is some comraderie between you guys. We want a challenge. We have two lower ranked players and two higher ranked players. We all understand the fundamentals of the game. Though, I might be hesitant to let a group of four Brigadiers join.

    Show some interest and in the next few days once there are enough people posting in here, I will give the game number and password.

    Yes sir. It is in 3.4.7 - Forts.

    [INDEX] Frequently Asked Questions

    At the moment you will only get bonuses from forts in province you control and only when your army is in the garrison or very close to it.

    I'm glad you stand in agreement with me. It means a lot. Is Bytro even doing missing features anymore? When was the last one done? Because, man, this needs to change yesterday. The game has too much of a focus on alliances right now to have such a exploitative element. It used to not be so bad because coalitions weren't in the game.

    I am in favor of implementing a loot crate system akin to counterstrike go or team fortress 2.

    We would get a loot crate every 5 hours of gameplay and then be able to spend real money on keys to open them.

    Inside them? Cosmetics. Revamp the entire customization system. Maybe even add player-created avatars that can be customized with a wide variety of clothing and features to make our very own WWI general or soldier look how we would like. There would be a bunch of historical uniforms and stuff to take from. Gas masks, grenades, rifles, boots, helmets, hats. All that cool shit. There could also be silly stuff like sunglasses and dumb hats. And if the player would rather use the historical default country avatar like Franz Josef for example, then they would have that option. But the feature to upload your own picture should be removed to fit this model.

    And every time you unlock an achievement, that badge would then be equip-able to your avatar's uniform. So the players with the most achievements would truly look the most decorated. I think this model would also give Supremacy a much-needed mainstream appeal. And the new players coming to the game would make a greater effort to actually learn the rules instead of building a workshop in every province before never logging in again.

    Then, as the customization makes more and more revenue, you could scale down the role of goldmarks. I'm not going to disparage GM. But as a player, when someone uses them against me, I just feel completely cheated. The only time I use GM is when a player uses them to advance a factory or unit production. In that case, I will as well if they are my enemy. Just so as to not fall behind. Otherwise, if someone makes me feel cheated by GM I just throw my hands up and quit the game.

    When you have share map you should have allied fortress bonus.

    On the attacking part this is how that mechanic is designed your units will only fight against enemies not against neutrals as your units don't know whether or not those are enemies or friends of your ally. So what happens is that the scottisch basically told your troops hey we're friends we come to help you guys out, go drink a coffee int he city, and then opened fire.

    (sorry was a bit of a joke there) I do kinda agree if your allied with a nation your units would need to be able to defend the city before it's taken. This is however programming wise harder to do. In real life there would indeed be few cases where an allied force says "Hey I'm here dont come in ... Ooh you're here too... okay welcome here you have all the guns now we're going to sit outsite and you can shoot us" There should be a check when the city "Falls" and you have no allied relation to the nation taking it you should declare war and as such defend the city before it falls

    Yep, as Narmer says you need shared map with the ally to get the defensive bonus and you should declare war if you want to fight. Also, there has to be some italian troops to defend the province, you can fight the enemy and have the defensive bonus, but once the troops of the city (the italians in this case) die, he will conquer the province even if you still have troops fighting. So actually, you aren't really defending the province, only he can do that.

    Haha. I swear you guys are wrong. I even read the FAQ the other day written by, I think, you Narmer. And it specifically states than the fortress bonus is not available to allies yet.

    Like I said, I had another game as Greenland where I had right of way with the ai and I tested to see if I had a fortress bonus in their province and I did not get it. So I would need share map but right of way does not work? I dunno...

    And this game with the Scottish situation that provoked me to write this was the 50v50 game. I don't know if you guys are running that event but, in it, you automatically have share map with your allies and are at war with your enemies from the very beginning. And, not to talk any trash about the Scotland player, but he is not good enough at the game to have any high-tier exploitation knowledge. I'm almost sure of that. But hey, apparently I am not either.

    So I was certainly at war with Scotland and I was certainly in a share map with Italy. And I was for sure in the absolute center of the city. If Scotland did put his troops to peace with mine then I would still be in a condition of war with him, thus provoking my own troops to fire at his regardless of his personal relation with me when they came in range. Unless I am not understanding something here.

    I know you guys know the ins and outs of this game. I read your posts on here all the time. But, man, I swear you are wrong on this. I am actually in an allied fortress right now in that game. Lemme check and I'll edit here if I have the fortress bonus with a screenshot.

    Edit: Yea damn you guys are correct! I can't put the screenshot in, too stoopid. But it very clearly states here that my guys have a 67% fortress bonus from my allied fort. It all makes sense to me now.

    So the missing feature I claimed is actually an included feature. BUT that doesn't mean nothing should be changed.

    I think it should be made so that the enemy only takes over the province if there are no more enemy troops inside the city in the fight. As soon as the last enemy is defeated, then they should take over the city. I changed the thread title.

    The basis for my idea is to allow allied players to use each others' fortresses and get the bonuses that they provide like hiding troop count and type and of course the defensive bonus. I think it is very clear that this is necessary and I will illustrate why.

    I am in a current 50-50 event game on the one hundred player map playing as Norway. I decided to send a bunch of troops into Europe to help my team. Scotland sent a big army to capitalize on their turmoil and began to take the French provinces which Germany controlled.

    His army eventually started marching towards Italy. Italy had sent all of his men into Africa and Spain and had no defenders. He has a level two fortress in a province he controlled in France. Scotland was going for it and, since Italy had no defenders, I decided to hold that position to help. I knew that in a level two fortress, my army of 42 would win against his army of 57.

    So Scotland's men get closer and closer to my guys in the fortress. To be clear, mine was the only country's army in the fortress. I had never been in this situation before, so I was explicitly sure to be smack-dab in the middle of the fortress. Not off to the side or anything, but right in the province just as if it was a brand new unit that was just recruited there.

    Scotland took the province from me and immediately had control of a level two and a half fortress and my men were in combat with his forted units. I was furious.

    Needless to say, I lost the battle. But it begs a few questions from me:

    1. Did Italy lock the fortress before my guys got there? Did he not leave my guys the key?

    2. Did my men not see the Scottish troops mounting ladders and climbing into the empty fortress? Why didn't my men attack the Scots before he took the fortress?

    3. If they saw them, then why would my guys let them take over the fortress, only to rush the fortress and die en masse? Senseless.

    4. Isn't in counter-intuitive to be able to use allied railroads, aerodromes and harbors easily, but when you try to use an allied fortress it doesn't work as you might expect, if at all?

    Now all of these questions are rhetorical. And I don't mean to be sarcastic. I contacted the bug report guys and the message I received back confirmed it was intentional. He told me that I was supposed to attack the Scottish before they got to the fort. Now, that isn't good enough for me. I love this game and I want it to be the best it can be.

    And how am I meant to figure that out? I would never do that if an army was attacking my own fortress. I would wait there and if I wanted an additional attack round then I would issue an attack order only after the enemy army was in combat in the province center -contacting the fort-.

    And as it stands, I don't know if you get a fort bonus from an ally at all. In another game, I am Greenland with a right of way with ai Finland. I was in his fort during the situation in the 50 50 game, so I decided to check it with the fortress bonus indicator at the bottom. It said I had 0% defensive bonus. But would I have a bonus if it were a coalition member? I don't think I would. Would I have a bonus if it were a player? I don't think I would.

    So, in short, please help me get Bytro to add allied fortress bonuses to the game so this insane situation which is totally non intuitive in the aspect of Supremacy 1914's gameplay and totally unrealistic in terms of actual warfare never happens to another player whether they assumed that their guys would get a bonus or whether they knew they wouldn't but wanted to help a defensive situation anyway.

    And, even if, for some reason, getting an allied fortress bonus was impossible or unwanted by Bytro, there is absolutely no excuse for an enemy army to walk right past your army on an allied province and take over that fortress. In other words; capturing the province should be secondary in programming order to fighting any enemy troops in that province's capture point. This is the part that incensed me the most: just unrealistic and counter-intuitive.

    What are your thoughts or experiences with this bad mechanic?


    I am in multiple games with my friend. We do not wolfpack. In some games we are allied while in others we fight against each other. Verifiable by games right now. When we hang out, we play Supremacy.

    I guess Bytro updated the anti-cheat system and now when he goes into these games that I am in, he gets a message saying 'Anti cheat warning. You have one more warning and then you are banned from the round.' because we are playing on the same IP I suppose.

    We have always played regardless of the anti-cheat warnings because we were not cheating whatsoever. Now, I am afraid to sign in to my games because of this warning.

    How do I contact Bytro about this to get it resolved?

    Thank you.