Posts by _Pontus_

    I decided to not do anything but spam PO's up to level 3 in EVERY province before doing anything else.

    So exciting to pop in, check the building progress and order new PO upgrades.

    The only risk I am at is that my generals won'tlet me back in the map next I try to log in, because my troops are bored silly, standing at the borders of their next targets.

    There are cases where the morale trend is 'rising', when the day to day change is negative.

    Indeed the provided information is confusing.

    Places with a high combined penalty, which by far outdoes the effect the effects of the PO in place, still rise.

    Places with higher level of PO and a combined moral boost that exceeds the penalties don't seem to rise (0r not much) or even slump.

    This way it is made very hard to know the effect and thus worth of ones investments in PO's and such.

    >> Does a moral trend get calculated on the basis of: (PO's + positive neighbors) - (expansion penalty + distance to capital + negative neighbors) ?

    >> If yes, does moral growth or decrease in anyway relate to the outcome of the above sum? I.e. a +10 total value results in 10% moral growth?

    >> Additionally: is there still a penalty for more wars? If yes, I do not see the indication of that. Or is this now incorporated in the AI attitude towards you, but has no direct moral influence?

    Added question:

    5. Where is displayed whether an army has fortress protection? Or is fortress protection for the whole province now?

    It matters, since in CoW and s1914, one could place multiple separate armies under fortress protection, because the fortress had 'cover range' going slightly out of the province centre.


    First of all thanks for sharing that.

    Indeed I used the empty Amsterdam and Rotterdam cities to build barracks and factories, so their construction does not delay productive constructions.

    Nevertheless it simply feels strange that there is nothing there in these important places.

    Maybe it is an idea to start out with a barrack lvl1 or a factory lvl 1 in such places? It would certainly look and feel better and more natural.

    In the past there was a toggle icon that switched from PvP and AI in the player statistics, also within the AI score there was another combat/ranking score for Elite AI...just wondering if Elite AI is now added to combat and statistics same as fighting PvP score... Thankyou Boris

    PVP: Elite AI counts as PvP for ranking ... notably as it has always done when Elites were a gold feature when setting up maps.

    AI/Elite AI scores: Since there is no 'normal' AI anymore, it thus follows from logical deduction that ... it is impossible to display AI and Elite AI scores....

    Old Toggle AI/PVP: That was to show the performance vs AI (RIP) as opposed to PVP, whereas AI scores did not count for ranking.

    As just 1 example of the 34% of males that have a form of color blindness, I wish to point out that the red figures on the greenish-greyish background (for lacking cash or resources), in the research and production panes, are literally a pain in the eye.

    Since 34% of all males have a form of this condition, it is likely the same for male gamers...

    Something to take into account when choosing colors. Instead of red on greyish-greenish, a bright yellow or even a brighter red would make a huge difference.

    Troop behaviour while waiting.

    Say I have an army on 'waiting' in a spot for a number of hours.

    But while they wait, their position is attacked.

    In the current case, which triggered the question, I have 1 garrison holding a position and I had a 2nd army waiting to depart in a few hours.

    I see the garrison. in the spot under attack, stating it is fighting back (attack w/o timer).

    The 'waiting' only states it is 'waiting'.

    Does the waiting army also defend? It is in the same spot after all.

    We do not market the game to a wrong audience because marketing on this game barely even started. We are not even marketing yet in english speaking countries. The game is still in a test phase, so you will have to live with rather empty maps for a while unfortunately, until we ramp up the marketing.

    @freezy: pardon my Dutch, but I am Dutch and thus direct to the point of being blunt. So, here goes:

    - Yes, you do marketing to the wrong public or with the wrong tools attracting the wrong public. For decades. Take a look at the number of inactives in CoW and old s1914 per map.

    I suggest to be more transparent about the true nature of the game from the onset. Be more specific. You will attract less people, but more dedicated ones. And only dedicated players tend to want to support their game with cash.

    Unless I am wrong about the latter - and thus fly-by one-day-flies are the bigger source of income - focus on attracting the right kind of client should be a priority, when aiming to increase revenues, while reducing wasted effort and increasing client satisfaction.

    Btw, this is meant as constructive criticism. You have a fresh start here, so what is against spending some thoughts on how to change your marketing approach?

    Players who try the game and then abandon it are only abandoning the tutorial map as they don't even join a second map, and naturally we can't have a minimum rank on the tutorial map because new players need to be able to join it. Therefore the minimum rank is neither a problem nor a solution to the activity problem due to beginner dropouts. That said we have the Veterans Front map for experience players, which has a minimum rank. First we need more players to reach that rank though.

    - The number of players is less important (for now). The percentage of players already going inactive - even with so few players - in the Great War map (as in CoW and old s914) is already simply shocking.

    - Pls also take note of my post about the ranking system. If you would care to look into what I mentioned there.

    You will see that a large number of players is attaining a high rank in the low hundreds, without significant kills and/or victory. That, however, NOT even being the point: the point is joining and building some stuff gets them enough points, even when they never return to the map.

    - The tutorial is a full fledged game with basically all features of the full game. This is TOO complicated for the new players. That is a big reason to abandon the game early and not try it out further.

    If you want to lure new players into playing your - for the instant gratification generation - rather complicated game, I would suggest to :

    a. have a simpler tutorial map with reduced features, which will be easier to handle for a new player;

    b. gradually unlock more features with progress by allowing access to a new map, including more units, moral influences and other in-game management mechanics;

    c. only unlock the full game after attaining a good rank.

    For point [c] you would have to change the ranking system (anyway an an urgent issue, ref map-trolls), which should be simple enough through incorporating the number of maps played in the equation, instead of only the accumulated points from maps joined (and gone inactive).

    Another factor you might want to incorporate for the ranking: no points if the map ends w/o being active (for a larger number of days).

    The current ranking system is totally inadequate to determine playerl progress.

    The third map is exactly that. It's basically a Flanders front map, but with higher requirements to join the map. One needs to be at least lvl 20 in order to join that round

    Good, Haven played the 3rd one yet. However, rank 20 is not really a barrier for map-trolls.

    This being a game requiring some dedication, I think serious players would be served with a map-troll-free environment.

    The dedicated players (whether good or bad doesn't matter; the dedication does however!) surely love it to play with less inactives.

    It therefore might be an idea to have another Veterans Front map (until a 4th comes out) with a significantly higher entry requirement.

    2. maximum rank limits, especially good on the tutorials.

    Yes, but then reversed pls!

    Minimum ranks are required more than maximum ranks.

    As long as Bytro keeps attracting the wrong type of player with the wrong type of marketing, maps will be flooded with dimwits that come by for half a day to never return.

    Besides, the Flanders map is more of a challenge than the Great War, so I am sorry that I can't play that one anymore.

    Haven't played the 3rd one yet.

    In connection with my post about a new ranking system: there should be maps with rank requirements that should be really high, to prevent the players like I mentioned in my post about ranking from entering.... Until a good new ranking system is in place, those ever returning, always inactive-going map-trolls should be warded off somehow.

    A suggestion in that respect: use average score per map as an entry barrier. Should be simple enough to program into the entry requirement of a map:

    If ((cumulative score/number of maps joined)>X; Entry allowed; not allowed)

    That could also be the basis for a new ranking system, to prevent map-trolls attaining a high rank from map farming, while never playing.

    @Oktan: Yes, with Elite AI it poses quite a challenge to know that you will be at war with the entire AI world regardless what you do.

    Further, the game lacks tools to improve your reputation. In the old stand alone 'Making History', you could do a bunch of things to improve relations, like send gifts (goods or troops or provinces to the AI. I mentioned the old 'Making History; , bc this game and the other Bytro war games are much alike.

    I had had hopes for a better ranking system with this new game. Alas, we are stuck with the same.

    Example: I have met player PRXUJ(+something more, but this suffices to find him). Check his stats. He doesn't play the game at all. He is just there and I always hope he stays inactive when he goes. But he always comes back, though our team would be much better off with AI playing his spot.

    I have to asume that:

    - Either this player is a map-troll, just there to annoy other players,


    - he is a multi, who is helping himself through this account.

    Fact is however, that his rank is pretty high!

    Excuse me? Yes, his rank is pretty high for someone he does absolutely NOTHING.

    Really, the ranking system needs to be changed. URGENTLY.

    A suggestion in that respect: use average score per map as an entry barrier. Should be simple enough to program into the entry requirement of a map:

    If ((cumulative score/number of maps joined)>X; Entry allowed; not allowed)

    That could be a sound basis for a new ranking system, to prevent map-trolls attaining a high rank from map farming, while never playing.

    PS: dear Devs, I do not mind the multi accounting. Multies are multies because they are extremely bad players, so, pls refrain from game ruining attempts to stop those few extremely bad 12 yrs old players (like you did try and fail in CoW, but ruined gameplay along the way)

    Another thing that is a bit overdone in S1: I am 2 days in the in the Great War, I have only 1 war... but my popularity is already down to 6% and all AI have me on Trade Embargo already...

    The only reason I can think of is that I took Oldenburg. Hamburg is next on the menu and... Bytro is located in Hamburg. Scared that I will blast the offices with my artillery? Well, rightfully so after mutilating CoW :)))

    it would definitely made a lot more parts of the game more in-depth

    Definitely! But... Bytro is not on a road of improvement of CoW. Rather it is removing features (mainly concerning player interaction) and changing features (like the most important HC feature to me: Agressive Stance = now practically useless).

    And old issues persist for years which are just bloody irritating: i.e. jumping chat text, jumping addressees, bad position marking in crowded situations, position markers not shining through army flags/tags etc)

    CoW is not getting any better I fear.

    But was is really weird about all this:

    - On one hand CoW is being dumbed down and features changed/removed. So, I am not renewing my 12 months HC, bc I severly doubt I will want to be as active as I used to be. I am just not very interested in dumb slaughter. That was the always the boring part at the end of a map w/o any human enemy left.

    Especially now, having been put at a severe disadvantage vs map-mobbing coalitions from 1 ally (encountered that in 3 of my event maps) , because independent players can't trade anymore, I have become less interested in event maps. So, w/o events to play and becoming less active, I have no need for HC anymore.

    - On the other hand, in S1 - being a tactical and logistical game (not the pure strategy as we know from CoW and old s1914), and it being a lot faster - I do not need HC in S1...

    How is this a winning proposition for Bytro?

    I looked at the tax output of every province but the empty and added them up, and I got the same amount the top of the screen says I am producing. You would think that the cities would have a greater tax output, but they do not have anything.

    That is really weird. Playing the Netherlands, both Amsterdam and Rotterdam are empty and thus not producing a thing nor taxes... That added to Maastricht being depicted as Belgian... Injury upon insult!

    Oh, that makes since, sorry. I would have to agree that not having those kind of spies makes the game different, and less about strategy and more about charging into the enemy.

    Indeed. More a tactical and logistical game, than the real strategy I loved in s1914 and CoW.