Posts by Joe B

Are multis such a huge problem? I wouldn't have thought they were all that numerous. Personally, I don't think I've ever encountered one, and I've been playing for years.

I couldn't agree more ortz3, it's baffling that the devs have retained this restriction, I can't see any sense in it at all, because all it does is make the game very boring for the first couple of weeks, leaving players with little to do. They must lose absolutely heaps of noobs who try out the game for a day or two and then quit because they can't build anything.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind the decision to prevent people building factories earlier than day 8, because it's extremely difficult to fathom. And no, playing a faster map is not the answer, because not everybody wants to play on those.

I decided for a change to try a 500-player map as I usually play the smaller maps.

I made an early decision to join an alliance as I didn't see much hope of survival without one. So I joined an alliance nearby, we currently have six members.

A couple of days ago, we got attacked by another (larger) alliance. And I cannot believe the stupidity of players on both sides!

Firstly, in my alliance, numerous members have left many border provinces - some of them fortified - completely undefended and let them get taken for free - even though they have substantial armies nearby. Secondly, one member has somehow run out of both oil and food, and stayed that way for days, in spite of the fact that he has more than enough provinces to cover his needs. And now, instead of moving his armies up to the front where they are needed, he is sending them to "reinforce" very low morale provinces of his own that are way behind the front line and already have garrisons - ensuring that his new troops' morale will also be dragged right down for no benefit.

Meanwhile, our most powerful member WON'T move his armies to the front line because he wants to wait for a couple of artillery units, by which time it will be too late to save our allies. He's got the most powerful army, basically, because he hasn't done a thing since the start of the game. But now, in response to my pleas for him to attack the enemy, he's finally decided to attack - not the invaders, but a powerful neutral country next door to him. In the middle of a major invasion by another alliance!

On the other side, in the meantime, two of its members have decided, instead of joining the attack on us, to go on long overseas jaunts attacking far off neutrals. One of the players doing this is adjacent to our own territory and has left his own country virtually undefended as a result!

I was annoyed as hell at first over all this, but now, I am just sitting there in awe waiting to see what spectacularly stupid thing one or more of these guys is going to do next. Are the 500-player maps always like this? It's a freaking riot!

Mods could you move this thread to the Supremacy 1914 forum please? I started this thread in the wrong forum, thanks.

Thank you for that Golden Buddha. I had a feeling there had been changes to morale in combat and to combat against small units because I noticed that small units seemed to be hanging on more tenaciously than they used to.

I can't say I'm a fan of either of these changes though. The morale drop during combat was a fun addition that I thought worked well, it just doesn't make sense that units hardly lose morale even though they are taking losses round after round. And IMO small units were already hanging on a little too tenaciously before these changes.

But Bytro seems to make a lot of changes I'm not keen on. I actually quit playing several years ago because I thought the cav and AC bonuses were ridiculously ahistorical - coming back to the game now, I think they definitely add extra flavour - if you ignore the ahistorical element.

Where is this Supremacy 1 game? Is it a beta or something? Because none of those features are apparent in the game I'm playing, which is basically Supremacy 1914 with a new skin.

Edit: Oh wait, I see there are two forums now, one for Supremacy 1 and one for Supremacy 1914 - looks like I've posted this in the wrong forum, sorry.

with vacant stare

Heck my thread just disappeared again. I'm guessing there is some sort of moderating going on, so I'll sit tight for a bit and see if it reappears.

Okay, I see there's been a game added called "Supremacy 1" since I've been away, which is presumably the game we are all playing now as Supremacy 1914?

Anyhow, it looks like I last played near the end of 2016, so I've been away for probably about three years. And certainly the combat results look a lot more random than I remember, I'm simply asking if the combat results have been altered since I've been away?

I just started a thread here and it's disappeared. Did somebody take it down or something?

Sorry, I don't understand your post, could you elaborate please?

I just came back to this game after a couple of years away, and I think I've noticed a change in the combat, namely, that units fighting a long battle don't seem to drop in morale the way they used to. I've been watching two countries pounding away at each other for hours in a large battle and losing large amounts of troops, yet the morale of both sides looks unchanged. Do armies no longer lose morale when they take losses?

The other thing is anomalous combat results - they seem worse to me than they used to. For example, in one battle I watched, an army with 80 inf and 2 cav was attacking an army of 16 inf, and in two consecutive rounds, the larger army lost 10 units per round while the smaller lost only 3, so total losses for the two rounds were 20 to 6. Both armies with similar morale and neither with fortress bonuses etc. Are battles more unpredictable than they used to be, or was this just an unusually bad result for the larger army? Because results as lopsided as that would seem to make battles a real lottery.