Posts by Edwylm

    This is a complicated matter its much like the topic of banning backstabing. I have played many a game and seen this happen. i have had allies message me to take over their lands when they were or were not at war. one time after we defeated an enemy my ally had not a lot of units left. he messaged me to take his lands because he felt that he was going to lose and would be a hindrance to our alliance pack. In his perspective it was a mercy kill.

    In another round a ally attacked a nation and his armies got destroyed. there he knew that he was finished and he didn't want to let his coalition members to also die. he requested that we invade him to prevent his enemies from taking his land. he also sent resources and units. the thing is this is seen in irl in past and in current life. ww2 and ancient period wars are big examples of this action. its an act of preservation and to prevent your enemies from gaining to much power and to protect your people. however his enemy called us backstabers so eh. but the mentality of it is for-filling a death wish and prevent your enemies getting stronger.

    now another situation you might seen is giving land and resources after allies taken over a enemy nation which there in lies a problem about your donation cap idea. its so hard to set what is and what isn't acceptable in a complicated matter where context is needed. 1 it could like backstabing, 2 mercy kill, 3 some kind of deal, 4 something else. the best option in your case you could report it for suspicious activities and see how things go from there. but as boris stated "If one player in a later stage of the game decides to surrender this isn't a violation of the rules."

    There is no unit that acts like AA guns when you look at any unit the only good unit to defend against planes are fighters 4.0 air attack. ground unit is .5 which is a balloon and slow. tanks are better due to them have HP. but all these ground units do not have much air attack. 1 bomber vs 1 balloon well the bomber will take no real damage where it will destroy the balloon. the max balloon air attack is 50 in a stack which is only 25.0 air attack compared to 50 bombers or even fighters

    A more effective AA Guns would be like artillery which can damage passing air units in an area, even patrolling zones should be able to intercept planes flying in the zone but nope.

    i wouldn't see a problem about damage air fields adding more time for re-fueling/re-arming realistically damage runways would slow down the rate of how many planes can land/take off.

    As with the use of GMs denouncing the use/users is against the rules keep that in mind


    block possibility to divide stack under bombardment

    plus fighters are great against ground units , i have maps in which they kill more than bombers, you just lose them more often because you make more runs

    fighters are more balanced compared to the bomber. the reason why they "kill more" is merely because there are more fighters. before bombers most players didn't use fighters much because there were more effective methods back then. most players used them to find subs and to see what is in high level forts. when bombers came fighters had more uses and became used more. The fighter is the only unit to counter other fighters and bombers. fighters also don't deal a lot of building damage and thus forts would still provide its protection. unlike bombers where they can level a entire city in a couple of hits.

    as with blocking that wouldn't work and you would see many exploits when it comes to it. example all you need is to send out planes but have them never attack thus the stack would be stuck. if you have a big battle group this would be a huge problem .

    Overall yes the planes are unbalanced and are broken at times.

    fighters are not that great against ground forces and in irl fighters were used to strafe ground units. but the main problem is that planes do not take/deal normal damage. example 1 fighter could kill 5 fighters without getting damaged. one could say this is realistic others would say no.

    There was an option for players to vote in the past about adding in Call of War plane mechanics into S1914. but the community shot that down.

    as with split stacks is a bit tricky, there is a 4 min window that you are able to change target right after a split stack. there was a suggestion about having code that would identify a split stack so planes couldn't re-target better units in the area.

    all units have a hidden range there is splash damage that is about 5pixels same as with the melee range.

    overall it might be best just to come with different mechanics than trying to fix the current. its very confusing units in the game. i did suggest have AA guns to help fight against the op planes.

    I don't see what you are cheering for however it is unlikely that they will add this feature. S1914 already has its hands full with the revamp.

    It be a nice addition but i can't see it coming in the near future. This suggestion has already be asked before on the old forums many a time. Since then it has never been added. Its even possible that they will never add such a feature.

    This is quite a complicated addition it be a massive diplomacy overhaul.

    1st .one has to set trade routes and what determines the trade route. most games have predetermine trade routes so are players able to create pathways or will it be auto generated.

    2nd. blockades which has been suggested in the past. without how to work the pathway one can not simply blockade plus along with which units are able to do a blockade. will it be captured or destroyed shipments.

    3rd. on doesn't need the cost of money for transport look at railroads. one could use other resources as consumption. with this the harbor will need changes from increase production to that of trade unless its a fish resource which would increase that production. overall you don't need to have a trade harbor just a regular harbor.

    4th tariffs are a complicated matter. governments are the ones to determine how much of a tariff. this could be simple to add it in with the trade and be like the stock market.

    I can see this being more engaging for players and possible to help prevent abuse from trade as it would be slower. But with the addition of this the entire map, diplomacy, and balancing will need to change. the biggest problem is balancing.

    Incorrect maps have directly affect to strategy of the game.

    remember that the game is just a game it can not live up to 100% realistic standards. one problem is that units have predetermined pathways and thus limited to map strategy.

    another is to also have to edit the range of each unit from example 50km for artillery would have to be reduced down to about 9kms. All of these would make the game last much longer than what it currently is.

    games can get around realism to fit what is needed. this doesn't affect strategy for the game as you are dealing with the game. the only affect of the "incorrect map" is that it is not realistic.

    Zeppelins were limited and used as a long range bombers and scouts. they were never used to transport infantry. they only had the history of transporting civilians before and after war.

    A similar suggestion was posted a long time ago about armor cars being able to transport infantry faster. The same reason applies to such a case.

    However the time frame around ww1 is that there were no planes big enough to transport units besides zeppelins but even than they were not used that way. It was more effective at the time to use rail roads and ships as air travel was still experiment based.