Posts by LostRealist

Attention, Generals!

Supremacy 1914 and Tesla Wars will undergo a server maintenance from 9am CET until 10am CET on Tuesday the 15th of June 2021. Please note that within the maintenance window servers and/or game rounds will have a short downtime and will not be available for a few minutes. We will keep you posted about the status of the maintenance.

    Any GO could look at your ingame newspaper and see the same stuff...

    The one that really gets me is the peace after it's done. Before that it's hard to call. People move their entire armies out to attack some freaking AI sometimes and get sweeped. I've expanded totally legitimately before in cases that wouldn't have looked much different from yours there in the paper. It happens a lot. Making peace right after the last province has fallen so there's no morale drop however is the giveaway here I think.

    The bugfixes for Legacy were quite honestly very unexpected and are very much appreciated.



    In the new UI, notably not in Legacy, the province morale factors now include "Province order" and it reads absolutely insane boosts. The further away from the capital, the higher it is. I'm looking at numbers like +36, +38, +20... What the hell is going on here? Since nothing changed in legacy I am still fairly sure this is just an old number being presented in a new way and there is no actual change involving it to the morale calculations but the way it's presented would suggest that every single province in every single game will be at 100% morale after the next calculation because those +X lines normally mean "Plus X morale points" and they all get incredible numbers for "Province Order". So what gives? Why isn't this mentioned in the patch notes?


    Edit: So thanks to some helpful people in the chat I managed to narrow down that the number for "Province order" is always that province morale's difference to 102% for whatever reason or especially for whatever benefit, as if I couldn't do that math myself. Apparently the mobile version and only the mobile versoin, for whatever reason, is nice enough to tell you that at 102% a province is considered "stable", which is an unachievable number, making this apparently new gameplay dynamic all the more intricate.

    What is "stability"?

    Why is the difference of a province's morale from a seemingly arbitrary, fixed number output with the name "Province order"?

    Why is this "province order" displayed as if it was a factor that influences the province's morale trend?


    Why isn't any of this mentioned in the patch notes?

    Hey, just wanted to chime in again to clear up some misconceptions. Our game is actually not for children. Our Terms of Service clearly state that you have to be 16 years old to play this game. Of course children can disregard that and still register and still spend, but then it is up to the parents to monitor that and to not hand their children their credit cards. That's the same everywhere in the internet. We definitely do not market the game to children, we have clearly defined audiences our marketing campaigns are running for. The spending playerbase is also mature, with a rather high average age. So we are totally unreliant on any child spending in this game, and we also don't want them to.


    That is interesting! I honestly didn't know the cutoff age was 16 per ToS and not 13, but I mean you know as well as I, in fact you surely know better than I, what the spread looks like. As far as who's making the majority of purchases here I will not deny that I wonder how you could ever be so sure about that as it's not like you're actually checking someone's age before you sell them something (that's potentially addictive) but I will take you word here and I will say that's good on you and on us as a society.

    It's also a little werid how the community is supposed to be moderated in a "family friendly" way then. The chat filter bans words like "bollocks". Who exactly are we worried we might offend there? Whatever. The ToS mandating 16 years of age is interesting to me.


    Much, much more important I think is what I happened upon when looking that up:


    Why on earth is there no english version of the ToS? You guys care about your product and then this? This partially paid service is advertised internationally but the only official documentation is in German? That's a massive, inexcusable, unprofessional oversight guys, seriously. How long has this game been running? Oh, what's that, eleven years? It is not any significant amount of work to translate that thing. Hell, I'll do it for five bucks.



    The rest of your reply pretty much spams the "It works financially, we can't touch it" argument over and over again the way I see it. It's fine if you feel that way but I just don't get it. We're not talking about an overhaul here, a removal of the core features or a complete removal of GM. We're talking about possibly small, gradual, testable and undoable changes. Don't worry, I have absolutely understood that that doesn't matter to you at all, just not why.


    And nemuritor... dead-on, man, thanks for that reply and the comparison with some other services. I'll be honest enough to tell you I couldn't be bothered to put them side-by-side comprehensively anymore as no amount of convincing will ever change anything here, clearly. But thanks for that post. Nice to see that kinda thought put in.

    Pretty much they are words, meaning they hold very little value in game. Yes u can have surrenders, but it comes with a lot more then that, u cant claim land, resources, or more.


    You can claim whatever you want with just words. There's just no easy guarantee you will get it and you might have to be in a position to actually enforce the conditions of someone's surrender, thus adding a little more to your words than just words. That's how it works. Anything's possible with words but you have to make it so.

    I would help but I have the button.

    Same here, it does work for me however. Adding or removing "&legacy=1" loads the game in legacy or current respectively. I have a feeling though that the lockout is coded into the account system and if your account is locked out because it's too young, it will always redirect you if you try that. Can't test without making a new account.

    An "inactive player" already is AI. As admin you can remove those players from the game entirely. Their country will then no longer be considered an "Inactive Player" by the game, but as a "Large AI": a country that is controlled by AI but can be chosen by a new player to play if he joins the game. An "Inactive Player" is allowed to return at any time and take his country back over from the AI, so his slot in the game round remains occupied by him. To prevent this you can kick them if you want new players to be able to join and replace the inactives which is not a thing that typically happens.

    I'm all for participating in a good RP game, but I don't see me hanging out in your Discord for it.


    Took the words right from my mouth. I actually don't like having a seperate forum of communications for an RP game. People wind up taking their issues there instead of resolving them in character. If everything's debated and talked out on a discord and you just wind up converting the discussion to some era-appropriate wording for the Daily European, I'm bored.


    Edit: Ah gosh darnit I keep slipping into the S1 forum via the most recent posts. Whatever, argument remains.

    If we're already talking about this, since from my observations this isn't a very well-known mechanic anymore, this doesn't just work on infantry, it works on any target if it's destroyed in that tick and also if the target had been fired at for several ticks before. You can spend five ticks wearing down a battleship to breaking point and will get another tick 60 seconds after you finally destroyed it instead of 60 minutes. If you choose your targets deliberately and call it right on the occasional gamble (is that gonna kill it or is it gonna take me an hour?), this is a much more powerful mechanic to use to your advantage than it might already appear. It's also something to be wary of when bringing units into the range of an enemy's mechs that's already firing at low-number infantry or a low-condition mech. It can turn on you quicker than expected then.

    Well, you seem to like pulling my comments out. Considering I just added to the OP i don't see why you felt the need to quote what I had to say. Seemed like you're trying to give me a lecture on the game as it stands, which I know. OP proposed a new feature and I even agreed with you by questioning how it would work. Only added to the conversation, didn't start it.

    I'm going to show something to you right here, bear with me for a second.



    You see what that was? I'll do it again.



    Those are "newlines", they separate "paragraphs". That's what I put under my direct reply to your post, in which I actually agreed with you and added a minor thing, to seperate it from the other part that was not directly aimed at you. I see it's not such a clear one thanks to the formatting, but come on. It ain't my fault there's like four active members in this forum and not much else to quote. I didn't even look at your username when I quoted that, or anything else of you for that matter. No need to take stuff personal.

    Even though this has turned into a discussion about something else I want to continue it.

    It absolutely is a more realistic battle mechanism than the flower technique. The flower technique is a game mechanic hack. There's no way around that fact. I am not saying it should be removed. I understand its part of the game. But you cannot argue that it isn't a hack in the game mechanics.

    This statement clearly points out it is a game mechanic hack.

    As for the historical accuracy of the unit i proposed it is just false to claim it did not exist. It did. The boat actually sailed thousands of miles from port and launch and received fighter-like aircraft at sea.


    I did not bring up the flower technique, and it is a viable comparison because it IS more realistic. Which was my claim.


    Yes, again, carriers existed, we all get it. But they played an extremely minor part in this war, much more minor than many other unit types that aren't in the game in fact. There is absolutely no way you can argue from a historical accuracy point here that these things should play any sort of role in the game.


    And for how the flower defense is "realistic" I'm not following you at all, but again, it's an error. It's a mistake in the code. If this game had better developers, it wouldn't exist. You're not going to get a fair comparison out of that with any intended mechanic.

    This perspective is ridiculous. Why even have this section of the forums then? If everything is just "beating a dead horse" when players want to make realistic, dynamic game play changes to an outdated (yet amazing) game then why even have this forum? Just get rid of it.. stop looking in it if the game is perfect the way you like it. Even with clunky mechanics that don't let you utilize dynamic techniques that were available even before WW1. You can't call this a true tactical RTS without having true tactical options.


    You don't? I'd say you do, but an entire army of 50.000 soldiers dug into trenches just packing up shop and hightailing outta there happens to not be one. That's a thing you can plan around. And going down the "true tactical options" road is really futile anyway. There's always gonna be a next tactical option that was used back then but isn't in the game. And a next, and a next. This is, at its core, a casual game and not meant to be a combat micromanager to that extent.

    And while it's true that I personally wouldn't want this dynamic and, as the glitchmaster himself has already pointed out it exists via bugs already that you're free to exploit to your heart's desire, my main point of saying that is that if there was any realistic chance of this being added to the game, it probably would have happened at some point within the last ten years which is about the time since this has been brought up the first time. Hell, they probably would have added it right at 1.0, but they chose not to for fundamental reasons. I explained above how embedded the lack of a retreat option is into the way the gameplay of this game functions. Changing it would be a little like adding another piece to the game of chess: Sure you could do it but what seems like a minor change would cause ripples that would eventually wind you up with a completely different game. This isn't a little tweak that's being proposed, it is in its effect a fundamental overhaul of the entire way this game works. I'm not sure you guys understand that.

    Not sure what mechanic would drive this. Given that prices are set by players, not true supply-demand principles. Maybe it could calculate the average of all prices available for a resource? then plot that? I mean you could almost manipulate the market by placing an order for a cheap price and pulling it back at day change, if someone doesn't grab it. Like sell 1 grain or 0.02 silver at day change and the graph would represent that and it would be incorrect against the actual market.

    Yeah that's a good concern I think. You're gonna run into real-life statistician's problems here where the average can very easily be misleading or even manipulated. Using a median value to prevent this would probably not be as useful to players though.


    I've been playing very on-and-off for close to nine years now and I've observed a lot of markets. For obvious reasons, the market is mostly driven by supply and demand in the average game. The more AI there is in the game, the more it will be. Players tend to not have standing offers on the market nearly as much as AI so the value of goods is basically determined by which AI offers the players pick up. AI will then try to make offers that match the "current price", a value that actually used to be displayed in the market tab for each resource years ago but is long gone from the public eye. I believe it's still tracked internally to control the AI's market behaviour. How exactly this number is formulated and protected against manipulation, if at all, I'm not sure, but it does depend heavily on what was most recently actually sold, not just the asking prices that nobody ever pays. If I ever get around to it I'll test it in a private game.

    Now as the AI nations make their standing offers, players come in and take them up on them. They will naturally buy the cheapest stuff first, then depending on the available supply the average selling price rises. AI is smart enough to cash in on this to an extent even if there's still supply and make offers for higher prices. This is where players can sometimes come in and stir things up by getting rid of stockpiles they accidentally accumulated at really low prices. These, however, often go very quickly in the larger games at least and don't impact the price for very long. That goes for all short-lived stunts players do on the market, including the dumping prices and the highway robbery ones. If you don't do that stuff consistently, several times a day over a number of days, you will not have a lasting impact on the prices that AI asks.


    Due to all this, the market really isn't that complicated and the dynamics surrounding it are fairly predictable if you've payed attention to it for a few games. There's the "tech days" 5, 8 and around 14-16 when Iron and Lumber (or Oil, depending on the map) develop aggressively, there's the general rule that the more AI remains deep into the game, the more lively the market will be and prices for the more maintenance-oriented stuff like fish and gas remain pretty decent.

    If you had a graph that tracked your game's market and relied on that to make your decisions, I think you'd always be one step behind anyway. It would reflect changes on the market that have already happened - I mean, if the price for oil is high right now and rising, you can see that with your own two eyeballs right on the market, you don't need a graph for that. And the market itself reflects changes in the game world - AIs disappearing, resource-relevant regions engulfed in war - that have already happened as well. If you pay attention to those is where you can get a step ahead of the market and really skim it.


    tl;dr: I think the market dynamics in supremacy are very interesting but also very simple and easily predictable to the human without the aid of additional tools or statistics that could wind up being just as much misleading as they are helpful.

    I think its a great idea. On your last point (with your force retreating and the enemy force advancing) maybe they could stay in combat mode (normal dice roll every 60 minutes with A:D ratio) but the combat can move at reduced rate. So lets say two forces (fA and fB) meet between province A and B and and fB wants to retreat while fA wants to press province B. I think fA and fB should stay in combat but move toward province B. This could be used to bait into arty, RG, or BS fire.

    Alright, but then what happens if the other army chooses to retreat as well? The battle just ends and everyone goes home?

    While I see some use for a retreat option (which is also more than a dead horse at this point, by the way), it should certainly not come for free. Previous discussions often included the idea of a severe morale penalty to the retreating army as they scamper with their tails between their legs. They could also, quite realistically, suffer major, unconstested losses in their "retreat tick" as covering a retreat, when you have your back against the enemy, is a really difficult thing to do. Afterall, the army you just swung by to harrass and then bolt would have an interest in not letting you get away so easily.

    I don't believe you're ever going to see this option though and the reason is quite frankly that it would change the entire basis of Supremacy1914's gameplay. The fact that units get locked into battle is a fundamental aspect of the combat mechanics not only concerning their calculations but also the player's approach. It puts a further emphasis on planning and preparing rather than just executing to know that your troops will be committed to an altercation once you send them in. The entire combat system would chance very, very deeply by adding a retreat option and I do believe it would change to a point outside of what would be considered tolerable to most players and the company providing the gameplay.

    that is more realistic


    Nah. Absolutely isn't, though.

    If you were to force an aircraft carrier into the game despite the historical inaccuracy, the saving grace might be to have >90% of your fighters just straight up crash into the tides as they attempt to land on it.


    Please don't compare something as fundamental as a new unit type to an exploit of the game mechanics. Of course the latter isn't going to be historically accurate or add to the balancing of units in a beneficial way. It's a glorified glitch. It's like comparing Missingno. to the other Pokemon and then complaining about how useless it is.

    It is just fact that a navy carrying a fleet or airbourne fighter aircraft with them across thousands of miles of open ocean for protection, starting, landing and harbouring them on a vessel was not a practically possible thing back in 1914, sorry. They had to rely on other tactics to protect their navy and so do you.

    I kinda don't see the bfd about the battleship and railgun names after never paying any attention to those for nine years now. I mean, they were never displayed very prominently in any UI, they were always mostly just for the paper. So I don't really care either way.


    Daily Spin I agree though, something like that should return I think, but I think this time it should be tied to the individual game and not as an overall daily login reward. E.g. give players a chance to earn a small reward in every of their games to give them an incentive to stay active in them. Many 100p games are in a really sad state of affairs after a few days at the moment and I think an "activity reward" could be beneficial to everyone.