Posts by LostRealist

No they cannot, much like artillery.

They are special event games, hence the special event-ness about them. The regular game speed is the "slow" one that still resonates well with a lot of people.

The reason I care at all is that more speed games would mean even more regular games where absolutely everything turns AI on day 3. So I'm against it. Please accept the fact that the game's pace is not what you're used to from modern mobile games or the fact that the games you prefer to play don't start every other day. Afterall, you can make a game last for a few weeks, even a speed game, no? Should hold you over until you can dive into another one.

Quote from Demonaire

I just want to add that the game offers features to, let's say, "play while nightshift": Forced March, Add Targets, Delay Troops, Add armies.

As people above said, this game wasn't meant for the players to stay glued in front of the screen. Of course, people making micro-management of tactics will get better results than the ones not doing that because they have more strategical thinking, but that's a reality hardly avoidable despite the fact the devs truly wants to give more weight to strategy before tactics.

Personally, maps with speed 0,75x or 0,5x should be created, but those are hardly attractive for the community.

Greetings.

Display More

Much agreement. It takes some trial and error I guess, but you can learn how to make things happen very efficiently while you're not there.

Slower games really would be interesting, but you're right, there's for sure not enough interest. Regular game speed is already considered too slow by many who were shown something different in the tutorial.

And further diversifying the amount of game modes out there probably isn't what you want. Inactivity is already a ridiculously huge problem as it is. It is tough enough to keep the crowd's attention up in a normal game anyway.

I get that to a degree, but I mean, "the last years" really wasn't my frame of reference - the game has recieved every gameplay update so far without games being cut off like that. I'm not on the inside, I don't know how that was possible and how impossible it may become. It just seems hard for me to understand.

The clogging of the servers was what I immediately assumed would be the main reason and it's obviously hard to argue. I just feel like those times are too short and too intrusive. I'm definitely not going to say it makes sense to offer server bandwidth to host those kinds of games forever, but between "forever" (or the practically irrelevant cutoffs that already existed from what I understand) and "90-180 days" there's still a lot of gray area I would love to see explored.

Because that "challenge" wouldn't really help me past the fact that a game that I am probably seriously invested in, maybe in the process of culminating in a major, final, world war, just kinda... ends. Nah, "It's just about the points now, there's no time to have a war anymore" is not Supremacy to me, sorry. This is seriously putting me off. If there's a realistic chance that I'm playing a game that will eventually just end in an "unresolved" state, I have serious issues finding motivation to take games deep now. I don't want that to happen. I grow attached to a game. Especially after three months. If it's still going on actively at that point, just having to walk away from it would be the absolute worst.

And 180 days for a 500p map? Do any of them ever end before that by regular gameplay? Serious question because I do not know. But it seems incredibly tight to me. That's just twice as long as you'll now allow a 31 player game. The map is vastly more than twice the size though.

Also, it doesn't seem to state any of the new maximum runtimes in the game info. All I know is how long a 31p map and a 500p map will last now because it states that in the post. Maybe I'm just blind but I'm not finding any more information on it anywhere.

Quote from Slyx

while 500 Player maps will automatically close after 180 days

I don't love this. I guess it's quite easy to see the practical reasoning behind those cutoff times but they seem quite intrusive. Imagine playing a game that is so hard fought constantly that it goes on longer and then suddenly, it just kinda ends. I don't love this. As far as the "future updates" rationale - that hasn't made this change neccessary in over ten years, so I don't know about that.

The answer to both questions is "yes".

Again, this game can be played without issue while it runs on through the night. Every other human player in the game is subject to the same biological needs as you.

I'm a very long shot from being a therapist or something but it sounds like this kind of game in general could be trouble for you. It is, after all, just a game. If your partaking in it leads to such distress that it constantly robs you of sleep or peace of mind and you cannot "let it go", as just a personal note I would urge you to reconsider your attachment to it for your own benefit. A game should be a fun pastime to take your mind off of other things, not the other way around. It doesn't sound healthy to me, the layman.

The game was never meant to be played with you glued to the screen. It's meant for you to apply foresight and planning, give orders and then step away from it for hours at a time. That's absolutely normal and pretty much near everybody has played the game like that for over a decade. It's how it was designed to be played. Remember that your opponents are in the same situation and will also need to eat, work, sleep...

That's why the pace of the (regular) game is so slow. So that checking in every once in a while is how you can play it. Of course we've all been there and felt the pull of an urgent situation in the game, but such a drastic remedy as the one you're suggesting would change the entire fabric of the game. Would construction orders then also be paused during the night? Why should I not be able to give an order during the night that will be executed to completion at some point during the day anyway?

I think you're sort of approaching the game the wrong way. Yes, high activity can benefit you massively. But it's not the backbone of success by any stretch. People have won games by only checking in every couple of days.

You're kinda on the right track. If you divide the stack further, all the above will keep applying just by different factors depending on how much you divide it.

And "the flower" utilizes the defensive bonus the game assigns to the defending stack, or in that case stacks.

ScaredyCat's explanation is currently the most reasonable one to me as well although the hole in it is how you would miss that they've set up troops in every single one of your provinces before this went down. If and when that was happening, that really should have raised a number of red flags.

Either way, yeah, you got played like a fiddle I'm afraid.

There is no difference, he got confused by an ingame message apparently. There's only one kind of Goldmark. You can either buy it or watch ads for it on mobile, or so I hear.

Those lists have nothing to do with the Index of Power points or the Rewards. They're just there to add some interest and for in-game reference by players. Some of them have some impact on your popularity with AI, too, but that's it. Where you are or are not on any of them has nothing to do with the final results.

The Rewards will be given out exactly the way they would have been had the game ended with a player or coalition reaching the point requirement.

That's loaded. And fun.

A) As a member of a coalition, you cannot attack other members of that coalition at all. Only after you are thrown out or drop out of the coalition you can. It's not possible otherwise.

B) If you're saying that what you've been told is that the game will just give your entire country away to someone else, coalition leader or not, then no. That's proposterous. You have indeed been set up if that's what you were led to believe.

C) Revolts can occur in provinces with a morale below 35%. If they are not suppressed by a sufficiently strong garrison (at 35% morale that would be 6 dudes), those provinces can revolt (at a random chance determined from probability of an uprising, which itself is determined from morale and then adds a dice roll) and change allegiance. They will have a higher chance of joining countries with high global popularity, plus, anecdotally, a country they may have previously belonged to, should that country still exist.

Those are the conditions for revolts. A province at low morale and not enough firepower in it to suppress the uprising. Nothing else will cause a revolt far and wide.

Specific number for what? There is no golden number that wins you every war, no.

You should probably go and give the manual a read, especially the sections on econnomy and governing your country:

https://forum.supremacy1914.com/index.php?game-manual/

You can balance your available resources against one another in the resources tab to control which resources are used to fill the demands for Food, Materials and Energy. Then there's the "Stock Exchange" where you can sell and buy resources. If you lucked out, whatever it is that you do produce en masse scores good prices there and can easily cover the cost of having to buy what it is you lack for a few days.

If you're then still left with pressing deficiencies, taking other action might be neccessary. "Taking over all of Europe" really isn't needed to simply alleviate a single resource deficiency but some thinking ahead will be. Then again if you're planning on winning the game, taking over a bunch of stuff is essentially what you'll want to do anyway.

Well whatever, now that I'm in this thread already might as well go ahead and quote you the manual where it confirms what you've already heard and specifies as follows:

Quote

If you conquer the capital of another nation you receive two special benefits:

• The morale of all of your provinces is increased by 10%.
• You receive half of the countries money reserves.
• You receive the daily resource production from the captured province.

The losing nation suffers the following consequences:

• Morale in all of their provinces is reduced by 20% morale.
• The maximum morale in all of his provinces is reduced by 40%.

It just is, yes.

I came back to take a look at ReVamp and what changes had been made after the pull of legacy, which I had expected to have happened at this point. Sadly, the big ones, the ideas and wishes that would have brought its playability back towards where it used to be with legacy haven't really happened it seems. Still no tactical army view, still everything has to be cluttered all the time. Lower graphics mode is definitely the right idea, but it's way not low enough. Revamp still forces my 2017 multimedia Laptop PC to commit to it with unholy amounts of CPU, way more than I personally think should be considered acceptable for a board game.

Nevertheless, here I am again. And I don't wanna be negative about anything right now. There's probably things you could say about making the choice to keep Legacy alive rather than making Revamp function more like it. But right now, I'm just happy it was made. It's like a surprise visit from a good friend you haven't seen in years.

Quote from Slyx

We will therefore commit the resources and time required to re-enable and keep Legacy running for now. This provides us with the necessary time to work on the adjustments to the Ultimate Client, while allowing you to continue playing Supremacy 1914 in your currently prefered way. You’ll find a button in the game settings that allows you to enable Legacy as an option again. Only players who previously had access to Legacy will see this option, though.

Now that is something I did not expect when I inevitably came back around here again. Kudos and thank you.

I take it development has decided not to take into account any of the suggestions players have made to improve the Revamp UI at all since the announcement was made to make it the one and only? Just trying to figure out if it's worth still monitoring the homepage or if I can spare myself the spectacle of watching this game slide comfortably to the "low mediocre" tier of free to play games forever.