Posts by ottmera1960

    The next request would be to destroy your own province infrastructure a /buildings when another player is invading your country... it has been suggested many times in past, this is essentially revisiting familiar ground

    Sorry, didnt know that. I personally can see how that can be a big topic as it would impact the game significantly. I am personally not a fan of the idea, but I want this feature for harbours because you can choose where to build them specifially. Its a unique feature and I think it could benefit from being able to relocate them (with a cost) instead of destroying them.

    Yes it's a good idea, and in fact I think it would be good if you could dismantle anything you build. It would enable you to conduct a scorched earth campaign when the enemy is advancing, to deprive him of vital infrastructure such as factories.

    It would need to take a certain amount of time though, say, 25% of the time it required to build something. Also, you would get a small number of resources back.

    I like the idea but im not so sure as it could slow down the game by a lot, but having that choise makes sense. Harbor is more of a passive thing, as it cant slow down the game that much but instead speed it up.

    I agree but be little bit practical here how you gonna feel like if your army is not being commanded by you but someone.

    This will lower morale of your army making them think that you are in capable to be a leader.

    I will support this but there should be some penalty to balance this as I see it can highly imbalance gameplay resulting multiple tickets and increase workload of GO.

    I agree, there should be limitations/penalties that are based on game balance and historical elements (like cooperation between allies and Germany/Italy during ww2).

    The opportunities that this provides in terms of game experience can be significant tho. Think it motivates people to coordinate better in terms of their time zones and activity times. Maybe it even makes the experience better for more casual players. Plus keeping the interactions in the game makes the spy reports more relevant.

    We losely discuss it here but I think this topic should be explored in more detail. Only thing that I worry about tho is if this would make the game more complex. I love that S1914 is minimalistic compared to other strategy games, even when comparing to S1. I would also love to see this game grow, but i dont think its worth it if it changes the game itself. But that depends on to what extent / how something like this is implemented.

    Wasnt there a similar event but for 30p map a while ago?

    Dont remember how it was called but you started with 3 fully upgraded provinces, 20 artillery orso and tanks.

    I didn't enjoy it as much personally but a historical version would be interesting

    You could prevent that by making a better and more interactive system. Example:

    You could allow coalition members to "donate" their troops to the coalition. The members of that coalition can then vote to elect their "General", who then controls those troops. You could also give other players the ability to "suggest" where the troops should go and such, while final decision falls on the "General" to do so. I think this would avoid the necessity of discord for example.

    As for backstabbing, I think its part of the game. I see this game as a political sandbox where you are not locked into relationships (like in other games). With this system however, each player will give portion of their army willingly. If they want to be stupid and give up control of their armies, then its on them.

    You could prevent some additional abuse by blocking the attack option of troops donated by "Player A" to attack nations that "Player A" is allied to. Plus, in this case the "General" cant use donated troops to attack "Player A" since after kicking them the troops will go back under their control.

    Raman02334 I like your skepticism. But I agree that adding this kind of action is a good idea. IMO coalitions dont provide any advantage other than finishing the game "safer" and faster. This would make them more useful and fun, id rather not use discord or other social media to coordinate if i dont have to.


    Think everyone can agree that placing a harbor at a specific location can give you a significant advantage. I think it would be a great addition to the game to have the ability to destroy the previously built one, so you can build a new one (relocate) somewhere else.

    Personal example: Took over The Ottomans but the player did not build the Harbour next to Constantinople. Now my troops go all the way around the black sea cus its shorter :|


    Didnt S1914 have that already? I dont remember specifically when but when they added planes in the game and option to pick a nation yourself, you had to spend goldmarks to join such a game.

    I like the idea. However, I dont really have a problem with GM users. More money they spend the better the app gets (i think you also remember the days when there was no app).

    The problem in my opinion is the amount of GM you get from winning a game. It doesnt seem to be much. Id even prefer if they had different currency for winning games (especially when you use limited or no GM). The exchange rate of that currency for ingame actions can be lower and would kinda motivate me to join more games