Posts by Vatonage

    Why were these changes even considered in the first place? I don't recall anyone being upset about army or resource trading. It's entirely optional and, if done improperly, can screw up the participants far more than anyone uninvolved. The realism excuse doesn't make any sense in this context because, unsurprisingly, nations traded with other nations outside of their own alliances. Additionally, there were plenty of examples of troops from other nations being placed under the command of a different nation.

    Please revert these changes, they don't add anything to the game; rather, they actually remove from the game by making roleplay rounds nearly impossible to setup. It is already hard enough to get players together, coordinate with eachother, set house rules, and have things run smoothly in an RP match - it's even harder when the game's mechanics actively discourage it.

    Or, give us the option and allow us to set up non-ranked, no reward RP matches with custom rules and nations.

    Anyway could you think out which terrain types you'd add, and how you'd make your army work, can you then assign an army additional training in a terrain type? like you always have normal units but when stationed in a city with a barrack you can train them to be mountain units, forest units, ...? Or how would it work?

    I think five terrain types would be a good start: forest, hills, plains, desert, and mountains.

    Units could maybe adapt to terrain the more the fight in it, which would be tracked per regiment. So if you have infantry repeatedly fighting in the Alps, their adaptation value for that terrain would increase, and they could become crack mountaineer troops who are experts in that terrain (combat bonus) while still remaining an infantry unit. Otherwise I think you would need to add specialist units in addition to the base infantry, like mountaineers, which I personally think would be too inflexible for the game.

    Keeping in mind new players, I personally like the adaptation method better, since it doesn't require you to micromanage individual types of specialist units and the issues that go along with it (oh, I've captured the mountains and am now fighting in the forests, guess my mountaineers are on retirement).

    Terrain has played crucial roles in nearly every conflict in human history, with the Great War showcasing this in a variety of ways since it encompassed many theaters, and thus many different areas with differing terrain. Fighting on the Italian Front was very different than that of the Eastern Front, or the Western Front, or in the Middle East. Terrain was key in shaping tactics in these areas. It would be a great improvement if Supremacy 1914 included this feature in the game.

    Although visual terrain features on the map could be added, I will mainly focus on the gameplay implications of this feature.

    Each province tile could have an assigned terrain value, such as dense forests, open plains, hills, mountains, etc. Each terrain type would have different effects on combat. For example, open plains would give a positive combat modifier for cavalry, armored cars, and tanks, while mountainous terrain would give a negative modifier to those units. Terrain could also give a general positive or negative modifier to attack or defense; it's easier to defend in the mountains than it is to attack into them.

    In terms of game strategy, terrain would make players consider the value of certain provinces. For example, one might face the decision of having to reinforce a sparsely-manned mountain province to create a chokepoint against the enemy, or fall back to regroup while allowing the enemy to occupy it.

    Likewise, it would also play a role in army composition. Playing as Germany, do you decide to invest in artillery and infantry to fight in the forested western regions, or dedicate your industry to tank and armored car production for use in the open east?

    This could be extended onto the sea regions of the map as well, although it'd have to be handled much differently.