and the sollution would be so simple "confirmation message"which for the people that do spend a lot can be disabled in the settings. It's been pointed out several times. Many other games have it some don't. To my knowledge appealing can't be done as its hard to proof if it was an accident. And the resources might already have seen their use
But because I know I am playing someone who is weaker than Narmer or Nemuritor ( ;-)) t
I'm not a very well player, I used to have time as my main defence, and waiting my strike out at the right locations/timings. However with a job, moderating and other hobbies my time is more limited then ever, I'm more then likely a sitting duck in most maps.
I do agree on some points I hate the backstabbing and massive wolfpacking which is why I stick to the smaller maps, with my favorite being the 2v2 map with right skilled players this map can be very fun and usually ends before planes come about and heavy micromanagment is needed.
This however does not change my opinion about pre-game alliances.I think that should not be punished, also because its hard to proof and the same can be achieved by just regular in map diplomacy, even thought higher chance of failure. I like playing with people I know from time to time. And the only maps I drop randomly in are anonymous as for some reasons some users think Moderators are clay ducks xd
and a large
I have a feeling the topic kind of moved offtopic a bit. Arty has it's use cases, cav and tanks have their usecases. Depending on how you play you focus on one of both or on a mix. But that's a totally different discussion
To reply on the original discussion "should arty be reduced in power" I disagree. The only thing I'd personally would like to see removed is SnS, But also that is a different discussion. In supremacy the theoretical right use of Arty is behind a line of infantry (or other units) which is exactly how it was done in WWI, huge artillery fire days before the attack between units. Offcourse arty had limited effect on the enemy because they had bunkers to hide in during this barrages.
If you'd want to make it more realistic you should allow trenches and bunkers to be build on infantry locations. and those would be damaged by arty with only limited unit loses... However that would slow down the game heavily, a standing trench was in WWI almost impossible to take without arty covering and smoothing up that trenches defence. However don't forget WWI was a war with months of fighting over several meters of land due to this relation between the high defence of trenches (combined with machine guns) and the rather ineffectiveness of arty against these trench networks. Do we really want to make S1914 more stalemate defence war of attrition wait game? A true realistic WWI game sounds a bit boring.
Arty had it'smain use in destroying fortifications, because the arty in these didn't reach far enough to fight the offensive arty, they were outdated but without arty to destroy those fortresses they'd be rather impossible to take. That was the original use of arty not killing units indeed but destroying the defense of these units. Reducing their effectivness without giving them their use against other defences (e.g. trenches) would render them rather useless or only usefull against city forts and upgrades. But implementing that realistic relation would make the game slower paced to my opinion so not more fun either.
1. I do like the suggestions. It's indeed annoying if a border that for weeks was inactive suddenly returns to enter undefended territory. Offcourse you could say that you should always be prepared but after day 14 users can't join a map anymore so I'd suggest 14 days could also be a limit for rejoining a map.
2. Also this sounds logical it is a complaint You can't defend against it WHile he can still rebuild his army even if they can't fire outwards till you can fire back. So sounds logical to implement
from you if some irresponsible kid-mods will decide they do not like you any more.
If there are kid-mods banning without reason you contact me and I"ll revoke the ban. However most of the cases it's the "kid-user" that can't behave. The chatrules are for EVERYBODY and also for EVERY CHAT.
High Command CHat is a public chat in which rules can be broken. And also wispher is by trolls used to insult and spread hate. If I can give a hint... Follow the chat rules and no ban would have been given in the 1st place, what is the use of a chatban if they can just private the people they were insulting,....
So I disagree the strongest, "Ooh your driving license was revoked. However driving to work is something that helps the economy so you can still drive to work, and you do actually pay car taxes..., it would be unjustfull to actually even revoke it".... real world for the same reason doesn't work like that. If you're punished you're punished globally which is logical as if you remove the negative effects of the punishment can you truly call it a punishment? If you don't want to be banned... follow the rules...
The Punishment offcourse doesn't have as goal to sieze your communication with your allies, so only ally chat I'd actually feel something for. As usually if you break rules which your ally members report... you'd probably be kicked from the alliance instead. But wishper, HC chat, ... Are chats that by trolls would surpass their punishment which renders the punishment useless.
Anyway I just checked the title of this thread and this all goes a bit offtopic so feel free to if you wish to reply on this to contact me. SO that this thread can truly focus on the monetization model of Supremacy1914
2 years ago there was a limit :up to 3 ppl joining together were not considered wlfpacking, everything above - was wolfpacking
Was also before maps counted 100's of users, however the EN server even 2 years ago inforced it as "joining late game to support or destroy a user" other servers did indeed inforce a hard limit.
if the group plays normally is not considered wolfpacking
if the group joins to harm a user, is wolfpacking
if the group joins with the purpose to assist 1 of the group and not to play by themselves, it's wolfpacking
This sums it. If you join a map only to support or destroy one player it's wolfpacking. premade alliances are not under wolfpacking. Wether it's unfair to others is a topic for discussion but if all can do it even with your supremacy friends and not rl friends, I wouldn't claim it's unfair. It's a way of enjoying maps with friends.
i was thinking about the push notification mobile users will recieve.
Discord could serve as a computer platform, sending notification in case of war declaration ect ...
Aaaah I get it you might be able to actually push it the same way news sites etc push windos notifications
=> Closed and archived
Also input more capital farming or wolfpacking or multi-account I know 3 time can put paragraph here to since are missing , all 3 we're old forum and if were interest you have read rules. Know we're in the rules is forbitten external chat? you have nowhere it is. So no paragraph to copy and past it feels bad.
What demonaire ment was that it should be added to the rules, not that it is in the rules already.
I would also like to mention that regardless of his duty as moderator Demonaire is allowed to express his opinion.
Now is it true that using external tools is circumventing a game feature, the spies. SO theoretically it's cheating.
However, no realistically we can't ban it. Even if we'd ban "external tool use" then our own chat and forum conversations could be used. Or we'd have to ban our own game features? I don't think so as with many things the theory lies apart from the realistic scenario's. COmes with it that there is barely anyway to proof there is an external tool used.
Regardless of this all, I never used spies to get information from messages tbh. The information I want as military information, whenever I use spies then.
Lot of players (most of them ?) are now using discord as an alliance plateform or just to discut a game without being catch by blue spy. I think we can say today discussion about supremacy are happening more inside the discord platform than inside the game discussion. Wouldn't that be a solution to link supremacy to discord with a bot app for exemple ? I do know nothing about how it could work so i don't even know if this would be possible. But it would be a really nice feature if you'd do so.
You'd mean like linking the supremacy chat to a discord chat so that messages written on supremacy show up there and vice versa?
But hey, I'm just someone who used to play the game everyday for well over a year (maybe longer, I can't remember) so I doubt my opinions will matter all that much. They never were taken into consideration before after all...
If you had been around for the last 5 years like I was (and willing to see) you would see many occasions where the devs eventually did listen to the communities. The new interface was needed for several reasons, mainly to allow mobile support which should attract new users in, however the feedback of thecommunity is valued and that s also why the revamped mode is being tweaked to implement stuff that need change according to the users
I will try to find a similar game that i can play and i will try to enlist friends to that game. Supremacy gave me a good taste and now i want more.
There are few simular browser games to my knowledge (at least not that don't run on the same game Engine, Call of War, New Worlds Empires, Conflict of Nations).
Regardless of that I do get the rest of your feedback however the new mode isn't finished yet and will be heavily polished,, before you go I'd ask to give the new mode a try onces legacy is terminated to see if the updates and tweaks have made the game more doable for you.
1. How many people can now be in an alliance?
If not mistaken we settled on 40
2. As the leader, how can I message everyone under the new system? I can't seem to find it.
If not mistaken this option is yet to be introduced
3. Is there a way for officers to be able to message everyone in the alliance at once?
Same as above
I'm sure there's no room for dead ducks if that's what this is/was
Supremacy was/is not really a dead duck. The absolute figures show a slow decline of user base. Supremacy has this loyal base Where many people who expressed their opinion here belong to. The decision was made to be before we'd be a dead duck. Slow decline is still decline. Bytro is trying to revive it before it reaches the point of no return.As a game this old needs its loyal base to attract new users too. Activity makes activity. If you have nice alliance chats, battles, ...you are more likely to stick around then when you end up on a 31player map with only 3 users on. That is also why I keep stating that it takes both worlds to be satisfied in order for this to be a succes. This also means we need the feedback andbytro needs to listen to the feedback. It is a bumpy road ahead but I'm certain we'll make it. But sadly we will not all make it I'm aware some will leave, but hopefully the succesformula will catch on and our user base will grow so that we can have more active games.
I too have tried out CoW on 3 occasions and each time lasted not more than a few minutes and quickly returned to Supremacy
Same, The task of the developers is to combine both worlds as stated before. Supremacy the old format doesnot attract new users. Seems young people want all those upgrades. The first thing I said internally when they announced the revamp was "DOn't make it to much as CoW there is a reason Sup players never stuck to CoW". And that should still not be the goal.Supremacy just needs to look shiny and work on mobile to attract new users. Meanwhile the mechanics need to keep being functional and clean to keep the supremacy users around.
But in bytro's defence it is logical to look at CoW which attracts new users, and then to Sup that is stagnated on new users. And bytro did take a look what the new CoW users used and must have decided that a lot of them played largely mobile. And looking at the youth, I can think that is true younger people use mobile more then laptop except when playing really heavy games, rarely RT
you can only join games before day 14 so very old games tend to never fill again.
A succes is indeed mainly capitalistically decided, the main numbers that they are to release publically is revenue. (are posted in bytro's investors departement) But also active user amount CoW does better althought those numbers are not publically posted. And Mobile and Steam attracted more users maybe a small amount actually sticks. but Supremacy in contrary does not attract new users due to it's old look and mobile incompatibility.
Sorry for hard word, i felt i had to say it honesly. It is not like it need some minor fix. The revamp need HUGE fix to be accepted by your community.
We are luckily aware of this, (I'm volunteer so not really a representative) The revamp is inspired by the succes of CoW but needs some fixes and also fixes that were non existing for CoW as CoW does have some stuff that are different to Supremacy luckily there are updates rolling out int he comming months to make the new mode fully functional