Posts by Rotekatze

    I must say that could lead to changes in thinking and hopefully decreasing number of players who do not see any other way to counter SNS than SNS itself.

    2 players using SnS if on at the same time may as well just melee fight as there is no advantage to, the larger army will win, and also SnS is not always guaranteed to get you free hits, many time the enemy units will return fire immediately. There are also places on the map that are buggy and your 30 second countdown to engaging jumps back to 2 mins over and over again forcing you to move closer. Eventually you are will in range and your advantage is lost again. So to suggest SnS is a mindless easy way to win I'd say you are wrong as you need to still understand some quirks the game throws at you and know how to deal with them.


    Personally I rarely play 500s, I'm sick of the multi accounts in them, SnS is the least annoying thing to me.


    Last paragraph leads me to one thought- why arts are so powerfull in hand to hand combat? they should have 2 factors- one is range factor, second is melee- which IMHO should be much lower like it is with planes on the ground.

    In my experience if you catch artillery in a melee fight they will die quickly, I would not agree they are too strong, I also find cavalry to be pretty weak too so we are seeing totally different result which I assume is due to different playing styles. That is part of my point, if people use units differently you need to adapt your tactics to the situation. That is where people with skill will win over mindlessness.

    I am guessing 98-99% of players use only SNS and when they figure out opponent is more active they just surrender dropping from a map.

    I don't know what maps you are playing but I rarely find I am against an opponent who only uses SnS and even less who can get the better of me - I enjoy the challenge of people who use tactics over just ramming everything with a massive tank army, I consider SnS a tactic not an exploit but I guess those who don't like it will try to get it banned. IMHO the mindlessness of the game in those who do nothing but send huge armies marching through everything, they take heavier losses and when they do come up against a half proficient player they will lose.

    Unfortunately I am sure Bytro gain quite a significant income out of accidental clicks. I have lost count of the amount of GM I have spent unintentionally. It's way too easy to click the wrong button - the GM buttons are placed prominently and close to other buttons you would click on a lot - this is no accident. It is very clever placement and a way to increase sales, I would be very surprised if Bytro would want to add a warning message as it would decrease their income.

    I think you want to change the game to suit your limited hours - as a result will make the players who play more leave and ultimately SUpremacy will become a game where everyone just logs once a day and it will slowly die as a boring game.


    I can be online 24/7 if needed and no-one else can access my account. I am one of those mindless players who just uses SnS to win (when a situation calls for it) and clearly have no skills at all. If you force players like me to reduce our play to suit those who only want to do anything for an hour or 2 a day I guarantee you will make the game much worse. We all have our preferred way of playing which is what makes the game interesting, you never know what you will be fighting next. There would be no fun if everyone had to play the same cos there was only one available tactic to use.


    But hey you will be able to say you got rid of all those cheats who chose to commit to being able to log at any time needed, when I can't log I only retreat as far as I need to for the hours I will be away - it has nothing to do with my enemies hours but my own so your point there is moot.


    There are turn based games that would suit those with limited hours much better - a real time strategy game leans itself to those who can commit longer hours. Maybe we should see if they can change sup so everyone can only give orders to their armies once a day, I'm sure that would make it much fairer for everyone and get rid of all those pesky players with more time to play.

    when it comes to SnS/S&S - just change a game code so if player is hit by a range unit and has this range unit in a range ( arty vs arty as it is mostly) both stacks are hit at the same time and dmg is applied without one shooting earlier than other.

    This would not be in the slightest bit realistic, the delay in firing back actually mimics real life.


    I am also at a loss to work out why tactics that are available to everyone in the game should be changed just because someone doesn't like them.


    Warping is available to EVERYONE (and not limited to AC) always has been for years, if you don't know about it or use not the games fault.


    SNS also available to everyone, and there is a simple counter to it if you know you are not going to be online, make sure your armies are a safe distance away. Retreating is also a tactic available to everyone and can be the best thing to do in many situations and guess what - after retreating it is still possible to win you just need to use your armies well.


    You need to play to your limitations and not try to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, punishing people with more time, or more patience or more money is not going to make the game any better.

    I have nothing against 20 players playing together. But if they are giving all lands resources, troops and lands to one player who is the best between them just to save their skin. Now this I will call cheating and wolfpacking.

    The problem is with your suggestion the legitimate players will be affected just as much if not more than the cheats, those who give all their resources away are most likely multis of one or 2 players and not even real people. So to limit in any way the amount of players that can work together (and not even sure how you would go about that) you are punishing many more real players who just enjoy working with friends but all play to win and do not give everything away.


    The real issue is muti account, if there was a way to get rid of those then bog maps like the 500 would be a totally different story. I agree with Narma on the smaller maps they are much more fun mainly because the multi account players all want the glory of a win in the 500s and stay out of the smaller maps.

    That's why it's unrealistic: in WWI you could bombard for days and days, but those cannons never achieved total annihilation of the enemy.

    I beg to differ. If a post was bombarded for day after day and the troops stationed there just stayed and took it I think you would find eventually all would die. Even if it was through attrition as no supplies could get there. However in WW1 armies didn't not just sit there and knowing this is why those bombarding with artillery did not wait to take the position as they not only wanted to advance but to kill enemy troops as well. So they pushed forward when the losses became 'acceptable'.


    In the game it has been simplified somewhat from real warfare to make it fun for those playing and not to get down to too much micro management which would put a lot of people off.


    If you opponent chooses to just sit there and take your arty bombardment then yes they will die - they have options, they could withdraw or they could rush the artillery positions - just like the real thing. It is not a fault of the game when players choose to do neither but just sit there and die.


    Here, you don't really need any other unit than infantry and artilleries. The former to invade, the later to protect the former (not even for the purpose to conquer)

    Again sorry disagreeing. While in the early stages of the game artillery are definitely the king of the battlefield if you chose never to build other units your will soon find yourself overwhelmed by air & sea power (depending on your country and map). It may be possible to win a map with limited armament but the longer a map lasts the more difficult that will become. As everyone plays different you need to adapt your game play to some extent to counter what your enemy brings to the fight.

    Bokoli,


    I have the slight suspicion your understanding of English his not sufficient to be constructive in this conversation?


    You are talking reaaaally strange mate :)

    At least get his name right if you are going to insult him :P

    I'd have to disagree about removing SnS, from a pure gaming point of view this is one tactic out of many available for use. Also not out of the realms of reality whereby returning artillery fire would be delayed as they were repositioned/targeted.


    As a game I agree we cannot slow it down any further and it is already quite possible to spend weeks fighting over single city.


    There are ways to counter pretty much every tactic in Supremacy, if you take away SnS you give those who use tank armies a greater advantage - do we then do something to hobble the tanks to even it out again?


    The complaint about SnS players being 'too active' is quite lame - every game has players with different activity levels and those who only play once a day are always going to be at a disadvantage however what gaming company is going to punish those who play long hours? If someone is willing to put on the hours and check often then they deserve to be rewarded with a win IMO.


    Instead of trying to remove a feature you can't/won't use why not find a way to counter it that your playing style allows. I hate coming up against a blitzkrieg player however I hunker down and deal with it.


    Each weapon type has it's pros & cons it's up to the individual to learn how to use them to their advantage.


    You could equally say planes are overpowered and as yet no real defence against them (other than to fool the game into targeting the wrong army while you flee), not even the likes of anti-aircraft guns that were available in WW1 - before we start changing what we have why not add the things still missing.


    Some things just wouldn't fit well into a game, as Narmer already mentioned to include trenches & bunkers would not add much value but it would slow everything down, but I think there is still room for some things and since planes were introduced we have been missing the obvious counter weapon for them.

    The game has alliances and with those encourages players to form groups that play together. To then limit them and suggest they have an unfair advantage because of it is not right.

    You have 2 choices, you can join an alliance and play with people you know and trust or you can chose to go it alone and hope allies you make in games will work out for you.

    My experience of allying random players in maps is that most will stab you in the back and that is the reason I chose to create an alliance and play with people I know I can rely on.

    There is already a limit to how many troops & cities you can transfer, limiting resources would have little effect IMHO, when a group of good player chose to play as a team it is their combined experience and tactical knowledge that wins for them.

    I think the main problem is not with groups of real players but of individuals running multiple accounts, even when you can get them banned from a game the damage has already been done. I do not know what the answer to them is as it is pretty simple to set up proxy servers if you really want to cheat your way to victory.

    One thing I would really like to see initiated is some kind of limit to when someone can return to a game after they have gone inactive. This is particularly important in those maps where home cities cannot be attacked such as the Dominion maps.


    It is far too easy for players towards the end of a map to change the outcome simply by reactivating the game and attacking players who after weeks have trusted that those borders are safe. Sometimes they receive, messages from losing players to come back and help them (a form of wolfpacking?) or they are just the kind of player who like to cause misery to others after months of hard fought battles.


    I appreciate some people go away on vacation and cannot log the game so do not want to lock them out but I would say after 3-4 weeks of inactivity we are getting to the point they should not be able to log back in other than as a guest to watch.


    I have played a number of the Dominion maps now and in all but one of them players returned weeks later to hit other players from behind and as they are able to use long range weapons from the protection of their home cities those being attacked are helpless to do anything as they cannot fight back.


    The feature to not allow home cities to be attacked is fine until it allows this inequality. Players should not be able to attack from behind an invisible barrier stopping all retaliation - where in any war ever was this possible?


    So I am really suggesting a couple of changes


    1. After X days of inactivity player are unable to return as an active player to maps

    2. In Dominion type maps ranged weapons in home cities cannot fire outside of the home base but must first be moved into a position that will allow retaliatory strikes.

    A huge thank you for the toggle tactical armies option, that one thing makes a big difference to the playability of the new look. We're not there yet I still find myself reaching for the legacy mode button to make sure I am not missing anything. It's a mixture of having to get used to the new look which will happen with time and some things just not being clear enough yet.

    Every alliance worth anything in Supremacy will have some kind of team page, either facebook or similar. Every alliance worth anything in Supremacy will also have their preferred chat be it Discord, Messenger, Skype etc.

    Even the mods use Skype and not any kind of in game communication so please that ship has sailed long ago.


    How on earth would you police banning the use of 3rd party communication. It would be impossible to confirm it's use unless you intend to start using the illegal use of spyware installed with the game so all our other online activities are logged and sent back to Bytro?


    That's a slippery slope you are on if you want to suggest that friends are no longer allowed to chat to each other while playing a game. What about those who live close to each other are you also going to ban them from meeting up and discussing games?


    It's unworkable and a ridiculous suggestion.


    Saying that I am not a fan of linking with Discord as that would then require everyone to instal and use Discord which will not be to everyone's liking.


    Push notification could be emailed as there are already some system mails being send, push notification to the browser I assume requires the game to always be running which again will not suit everyone.

    Sad day for long term players.. It is now official to get the 'exclusive' content you now need to move to the mobile platform. Is this the beginning of the end for PC players I wonder. I have no intention of moving to the mobile platform, if the intention is to slowly 'encourage' everyone to do so how about you just tell us now, or at least admit anyone playing on the PC will now be disadvantaged.


    I'm trying very hard to learn to live with these changes but each new release puts another nail in the Supremacy coffin for many of us.

    It is possible to play more than one acct in the same location - you have 2 options.

    1. Disable the anti-cheat which will allow you to play together however the game will not be ranked.

    2. Contact a mod and explain the situation and they can register the 2 accounts on the same IP and allow both to play the same map.


    I had the same issue when i also has a family member wanting to play, as long as your IP address doesn't keep changing it will work fine one the IP address is registered with both accounts.


    There are a few partners who both play the game so there is a solution

    I have to agree with Wiltshire Yeoman on this. I too have tried out CoW on 3 occasions and each time lasted not more than a few minutes and quickly returned to Supremacy. It's just individual taste regarding the type of game we want to play and as I think is becoming quite clear Supremacy players are not CoW players.


    I can understand the need to modernize the look (I'm not a fame but understand many will be) I get you want to get on the mobile platform and also steam but do we really need a CoW clone? If we all wanted to play CoW then that game would be full and Supremacy would be empty. When I start a new game now no matter which map it is full in a few hours, from what I am reading that is not so with CoW.


    But if your justification for this change is solely based on "the success of CoW" then I can't help but feel once again my days of enjoying the game are numbered. I have not yet had a chance to check the new look after today's patch however I am finding it worrying the talk of "let's make it more like CoW" that I am hearing. That will be a huge disappointment to all of us who have tried CoW and decided it is not for us.

    The original post was about both GM & HC so i will start with HC.


    I don't think there should be any changes made to HC, it is very good value for what it offers, it does not give a ridiculous advantage to players and offers some very convenient features that are available to everyone at the same cost so there is no concept of pay to win.


    The same cannot be said for GM, if someone is determined to win I have seen them drop $100s of dollars into a single map - this is great for Bytro but for everyone else in the game not so much fun. It would be interesting to know the statistics of GM usage, I think they would help in working out a more equitable way to move forward.


    Obviously there has to be a premium currency, no company is going to put effort into a game that doesn't raise revenue.


    I would suggest more options when starting a game to allow player to decide what kind of game they would prefer.


    1. No change, open GM spending for all

    2. Buy in with no GM allowed in map (say 5k GM per player)

    3. Limited GM - 2K buy in then a cap on daily spending

    4. Delayed GM - No GM spending allowed for first 2 weeks


    These are just suggestions and amounts are just pulled out of the air. Knowing what the average spend per map is would help determine fair amounts that would not reduce the income for Bytro and not be too rich for most players. There will still be the free to play maps as available now but also a range of options for those who prefer to use tactics over their wallet. There will always be players who want to pay to win in every game where there is a premium currency these people exist and let's be honest they are the ones keeping the game free for others. However there are those who are also happy to pay to play, that option does not exist in Supremacy at the moment, that could be a market worth tapping.

    Remember that only PvP military fights are scored (including Elite AI), so, it's possible to have economical score higher than military one.

    Yes it is, however in the example the military score is 3x the economic therefore the military bar should be 3x longer too but the economic bar is longer. I fear you are not quite understanding what the actual issue is we are trying to bring attention to.

    I would have to agree with Golden Frieeza on this (nice kdr btw), I noticed the same thing, the bar underneath the scores does not accurately represent the scores, it's irrelevant what colours each is allocated, the bar beneath should be (in the example above) much longer for the military (blue) score than for the economic (red) score. As it i it makes no sense.

    Mobile version will be better in new UI. Just give them time to clean the version up and 100% will retire will never happen firstly because only a few actually say they'll leave and most of them bark louder then they'll bite onces the new version is finished and cleaned

    I think this is the whole crux of this issue - Bytro want a slice of the mobile market and will butcher a great game to get it. Your current user base are PC gamers, sure some may also play on the mobile platform but will they play supremacy that way? I for one cannot imaging trying to play a game with so much involved as Supremacy has, on a 6" screen, the only way to make it playable will be to cut down much of the interface, make it a game that can be played by prodding on a screen. I've seen other great PC games move to the mobile platform and I have watched 90% of their existing player base leave. It's sad to watch and when it's a game you have enjoyed for years very disappointing. However as Bytro moves on with their pretty new graphics we will also move on to other games.


    More than happy to wait and see if the new look is cleaned up enough to be able to play but as it is if legacy goes I, and many other will be forced to leave - not choose to but if we simply can't play the game any more then our hand is forced.


    Make the game playable and I am sure large numbers will come around but right now, as it is now the new look is not one that we compel people to stay nor I suspect attract new gamers either.