Posts by Golden Buddha

    small contribution


    I have 2 500s where I am not able to move single unit in a new UI

    we have dozens of millions soldiers in armies and it is impossible to play it with new Legacy


    I am staying with older version as it is much lighter from what I see for supremacy servers.

    even on my machine it is seen that processor usage for Legacy is 2-3 times higher, peaking to 35% sometimes

    and RAM usage is substantially higher than for the older version

    Simple concept


    new ribbons


    Builder ( or Simcity ) ribbon for the player with the most building points in a week and month

    Warlord ribbon - for the players with the most fighting points in the week and the month


    same mechanic that works for player of the week and player of the month but with the building and fighting score taken into consideration


    this way you can spot straight away which players are dangerous as a fighting opponents, and which are dangerous as a economy builders


    I do not know how you guys but I like statistics and if you play same 2-3 500 maps the only interesting thing are changing statistics.

    improves trolling skills

    improves backstabbing policy


    i just like things that are connected to planning:


    1. force you to plan ahead

    2. to value your time as the most scarce recourse

    3. prioritize everything

    4. learn quickly from better players (otherwise you die)

    5. forces you to look for patterns and reverse engineer them

    6. requires cooperation with others to meet deadlines and results


    in short it forces you to be logistic expert

    OK, so I guess I will have to wait till map is finished- I will finish it around Christmas as I am grinding some additional exp there.

    In a meanwhile I wait for permission from defeated nations to post they casualties.

    Great


    Thank you for your clarification.

    Where is the safest place to store such a topic? General Discussion?

    Quite lengthy article but worth reading. I got 300 k points in this war - statistic players will love it.

    "How to become marshal in one war"

    Hey thx


    I do not think Conversation system works

    I cannot even find my message sent to you.


    so showing name of the country is ok, but showing name of a country ruler is not ok without their consent?

    Problem is you need to show when you start a war and how much dmg have you done to this country and I do not think anyone will agree to show that his KD is 100-1 :-)


    That is why I asked if showing name of countries is ok.

    Hello


    I wanted to create topic that will allow people to compare their achievements during first 24h of a war.

    generlaly comparing K/D after 24 h.

    unfortunately to do that you need to show screenshot of DE from the time when war started and screenshot of casualties after 24 h - suc ha screenshot icludes number of a game and name of the countries, but not the names of a users.

    Now I have read rules and they do no forbid that but I know that there are mods who will ban for publishing any info from DE as it is seen by them as a unfair behaviour, giving information to other players abotu the map and I saw people getting forum bans for such a posts.


    I just wanted to make sure before I post anything that it is allowed. I already used private conversation channel to no avail that is why I am posting my question about idea here.


    I woudl be grateful for quick response.


    Thank you

    Golden F

    Well I do admit that currently they are under the impression that they're an independent Kingdom but they are on my to do list. As are the Goths who's decedents are living in Southern Spain.


    I'm young and this will be the 1700s ^^

    Visigoths lived in Spain and France, Ostrogoths died in Italy and Pannonia. There is a reason why they are separated as even when they lived in Russia and Ukraine ( before Huns) there were two nations.

    Anyways - idea of tournament is good


    But maybe instead of creating groups - lets start straight away with a Playoff ladder.


    If you face better team- it does not matter how many even alliances you have defeated as the better one will always beat you.


    I am guessing we can gather 8, 16 or 32 alliances

    If there is more alliances: preliminary games between alliances with lower ELO to lower their number.


    You know you have to win every game and noone will be manipulating with a places in the group.

    out of topic/


    there was another problem with league- winning bigger maps = more poitns in the league

    so it was point grinding based on activity and S&S for the alliance I know, not to much strategy, thinking, planning - only reactive play based on activity


    I am not sure but small europe 10 players looks liek the most balance map in a whole supremacy , like a clear chessboard with everyone having even chances. If we can add GM free feature to it and allow ie. ELO free games then I am guessing most of work is done.


    when it comes to work of support - some teams are better than others and that is the way how it goes. If the teams can agree to have same set of rules for every server , original written down on DE org ENG serwer, that could be useful as some interpret Bytro Rules as they understand them and this creates chaos and confusion.

    1. if you see any team using exploits just report it and it will eventually cost the game and maybe the account for them

    2. i understand you mean account-sitting, which is also punishable

    3. i think i do not really get the point here, you mean multiple persons with 1 account, right?


    1. they were reported but the games were lost anyhow

    2. yes

    3. account-sitting, main problem when it comes to S&S

    In Supremacy League, I believe this was the name, there was option to buy GM free game/limited GM use games. Not sure exactly how it worked but I heard of it being used.


    Is it possible to copy this part of game code into superchan's tournament? They should have it somewhere in 2014-15 backups


    // From what I have seen in a last 8 years:

    1. in general alliance do not like to play each other in comparison to 2010-2014 as you loose a lot of ELO and there is small amount to gain. That is why I sometimes saw GMs and exploits used by better alliances just to make sure they will not lose ELO against weaker opponent. ELO is based on ranking but better aloiance have nothing to gain playing weaker ones but they have a lot to lose in weaker alliance is better/uses gms/ sits longer/knows betetr exploits.


    2. other problem is ofc GM ( golden rush / golden fortress/ checking enemy troops every hour). No GMs games or limited use of them can fix the problem.



    3. activity based gameplay related to Shoot & Scoot (S&S) or reactive form of playing that is basically based on waiting for opponent to go afk and catching her/his troops in the middle of move. There were initiatives to make it fair and square for everyone ie. creating sitter accounts who can play for you with limited number of option: moving troops, no gms, maybe attacking and building units/building as it was successfully used in other games but it stays the way it is and alliance games turned into butchery shops where account ( not person) with more time for S&S wins.


    4. coming from the number 3 - remote control of other alliance players by one Sentry Player who has access to all account in this alliance game. It is ofc forbidden but never the less a lot of teams within alliances do that. Sometimes alliance leaders do not even know about that and deny use of remote control. technology went way ahead of security measures and we cannot do anything about that. I believe solving issue nr 3 with ie. Sitter Account can make a change.


    5. Less known but also practiced - account run 24h/day by group of players. If you have such an account in your team all you need to do is to give him arts, resources for arts and , yes you got it, everything that is required to fight with arts. Then it ( the account) take all of this and shoots opponents 24h/day all the time winning alliance games alone. I saw weak alliance without any skills of experience, without GMs or activity, donating everything to 1 player. Pure example straight from 2012: Small Europe 5 vs 5. Weak alliance lost everything except Spain when they produce infantry and arts. Last man standing gather everything and started campaign- first ofc Morocco to take hold of oil fields. Then the rest of the map. It shot down all 5 enemy players holding 9 countries . It was close to loosing on points but eventually managed to do that.


    6. Bugs, exploits,errors - in general it is known that team with better knowledge of game mechanic and its faults is better suited for winning. Long ago I saw guy who shot down enemy alliance as he was able to shot enemy troops 3 minutes in advance. They did not need anything else to win games - just this one trick. In another game friend told me someone was using teleportation to patch up holes in defense and make quick raids. Possibility to shot RG cannon from the sea ... battleships swimming to Moscow to destroy enemy stack, landing of troops in 22 minutes instead of 4,5 hours. Troops passing through my army unharmed and taking undefended provinces behind. or the worst - seeing how you gather 3 armies of 120 in allied fort and they are beaten by 60 men of enemy.



    Now sir- if you see such a things and alliance from place 9715 below taking 40 ELO points from you - will you be still willing to fight? All this things happens mostly in higher ranks like top 30 but you never know if a wise guy hasn't not started a new alliance.


    ColossalIdleFinwhale-size_restricted.gif


    My idea would be to play non-ELO games , non-GM games and solving somehow limited activity problem of less active players ( in contrast of trying to limit overactive accounts).


    I believe I covered all topics related to alliance games but feel free to comment.

    yeah something working like excel sheet


    Most important are region filters


    then choosing ie all Asian provinces with harbor and factories lined up from the 4th level downwards. You choose provinces with lvl 3 and 4 to produce let say BBSes, then you go below and you choose Asian provinces factory lv 1 and 2 to produce LCs.

    You are done with navy in Asia


    then you do the same for Asian provinces with factories and airfields. 3rd and 4th lvl for bombers, 2nd lvl for fighters. 1 lvl for arts.


    at the end you check Asian provinces without port and airfield- you decide where to build HT, where to build Tanks and where to build artillery.


    You build in Asia first as it is the closest to frontline with Europe. Then you may decide to build something in Australian factories if you think it is worth it and you still have resources.


    Small thing but it will change management of war effort greatly.

    yes good point

    6 mlns were spent in 5 days while for example 1 mln GMs was needed to win Supremacy Solo Tournament final in 2014.
    I would say that limiting GMS to lets say 100 k per day would allow me to win a game easily just by skills.

    200-300 k Gms per day- I would have to sit 2-3 h more

    400-600 - I would have to sit a lot and as I dont like that I would spend money on GMs

    600-1200 k GMs per day - you have to sit a lot plus pay Gms.



    But as I say - just forbidding him to repair his units with GMs all the time, after speed march or getting hammered by bombers/range units, would make a huge difference on the battlefield. Now it is enough to make sure unit is not targeted by arts, RG or planes and you can click Golden repair. We can stop that by starting melee fight with targeted stack but what chances do you have against golden stacks?


    Normally I would quit a game and move to next one but because I made some promises and I invested a lot of time int that map, plus I saw how weak golden player is I decided to give it a go. It was hard but at least I learned how to play against this kind of opponent. I cannot imagine how to win if opponent knew half of the things about game mechanics I know now.

    Hello


    I noticed that a lot of players has huge problems with managing empires of 1000-3000 provinces on the 500 maps



    1. I myself often finish angry as I cannot choose provinces by the region and I have to click the ones I need/un-click the ones I do not need. Would it be possible - like in NWE- to manage provinces by the regions?

    Small change but it will save a lot of frustration.


    2. Query option to exclude inland ports from building naval units- sometimes you can loose a lot of resources on the huge fleet in the middle of Asia of Africa and we do not want that. Especially if map has a huge lags counted in minutes and you cannot be bothered to spend an hour un-clicking inland ports.


    3. Option to query ie. factories 4lvl with (plus) airfields at the same time so I can make sure that I choose provinces that will produce my airforce the fastest.


    4. Possibility to highlight big number of provinces in Build queue with ALT pressed so we can remove ie all queued cavs.


    5. Possibility to query Build Queue by regions.


    6. Possibility to query Build Queue by an item build.


    I would expect at least HQ to have this options allowing me to manage my empire on a medium level.

    Or maybe special Town Hall building allowing this options to be available.

    You can also do a hybrid and give a building to non-HQ and free building to owners of HQ.


    Any way would be good as now managing empires is very problematic.

    Feel free to add you queering proposals as I just covered the ones that make problems to my war effort.



    Thank you

    Frieza

    Yeah something like Total War did with Assembly Kit . You can download it and make your own battles, factions,scenarios, battle maps, even storytelling.


    Opening on the creativity of the community payed off many times. Probably there are dangers and problems that devs see, which we cannot see - that is why I would be more than happy to listen to their opinion in this topic and better understand their position and policy.


    Just to add info to what Mopp2 said- U need to know when and how to use GMs.

    Sometimes buying one railway or one bomber is worth more than creating 50 golden artillery piece.


    When I was fighting guy who has spent over 6 000 000 GMs solely on the war with me I was forced to use gold recon as he was creating stacks of 30- 50 x every equipment out of nothing and it was impossible to rely solely on the spies. I was also forced to rebuild airfields GMbombed by him. And to keep advantage in the air against his golden fighters I had to repair my machines.

    Same with 100 uboots made out of thin air and sinking your fleet of 500 LCs because he GMed you route and produced 100 uboots out of one empty province. Even if you are the best player in a whole gamee- you will not be able to do a thing against such a trick. Well you can hide in the middle of the ocean and stop using your fleet- but does it make any sense?


    So in general I had spent around 220 000 GMs against his 6 000 000+. Without them I would not stand a chance even though I crushed him time after time. basically because he GMed other wars too from what I saw and heard and finished having 2000 provinces against my 400 and army 10 times bigger.


    So I am not sure if balance that Mopp2 talks about is real - but in my experience it is not.

    You can outmaneuver account (I do not believe you can have players who can sit that long) which sits 24h/day with superior knowledge,experience and skills but against millions of GMs they will mean nothing.

    As I see it - using GMs forces opponent to use GMs, quit a map or become the best player in the whole game.


    It is good model for seeling GMs but I would be more happy if experience and skills could rival GM gameplay on an even terms as they rival activity based gameplay.



    I would be even more happy if free GMs (moderator GMs, tombola GMs, map winning GMs, ) would be used only in economy - not in a war ,spying activity or building/repairing units. This would make sense from both ends as you would know straight away that the guy who just build 50 BBses paid for them 10 dollars and it is now up to you if you will invest any dollars to win a war. Same for devs- if someone wants to win a map - she/he needs to invest money in the map, not randomly received free GMs.

    I believe crating scenarios instead of just maps will boost Supre community even more. Pre set countries, economy, diplomatic relations, units

    hec, If I can rename units ie. call HT - elephants, artillery - archers, cars- chariots and so on I can bulit scenarios in different histrical periods using same engine.


    I have example from another game where 95% of maps and scenarios are created by users and game is real fun


    i am not sure if I can post it here as this is another game product so I will stop here.

    Hello


    I just wanted to point out one thing when it comes to use of GMs in Supremacy

    In most of the games GMs allows you to boost troops 10-50%


    Now it is slightly different in Supremacy.

    You can have army with 10% of morale/stance and you boost it to 100% in a matter of seconds that makes difference of 1000% in couple of seconds.


    So my thinking is - why no to block repairing of units -if they will die players using GMs will have to spend more GMs to build them once more.

    Players not using GMs will have bigger chance to win encounters when they will finally catch enemy army out of morale.



    I met a guy lately who was able to spend 6 mln GMs just on the war with me. He was buidling fac lvl 4 in a destroyed province, building couple of stacks made of 50 arts, 40 tanks, 40 cars, 50 cavs and was atacking on speed march healing units after every encounter against my planes. I do not have to say that railways were also build to speed up march. Gold Rush in a finest form.


    Then he decided to build 90 planes and repair them instantly to get rid of my planes. I do not have to say how much time, skills and GMs it cost me to finally stop him.


    So yeah, if he was not able to repair units I would kill more of his units while he would spend more gold on producing them. Because it is cheaper to heal a unit than to buy gold resources and speed up unit production.


    Small idea but may be helpful.