In the update tomorrow we will make morale management easier btw, by reducing the capital distance penalty, adding bigger morale bonuses to several buildings and making the expansion penalty kick in slightly later.
Posts by freezy
-
-
Well it is basically not intended that your far away provinces reach 100% morale, so it is not needed to have morale boosting buildings completely negate the maximum possible penalty. It is enough if you can keep the morale above 30% so they don't revolt. But the morale boosting buildings should be enough to at least keep your core territory at 100%. In your core you only need to negate the expansion penalty and you are helped in that by your neighbor province morale influence.
As I said in my previous post we are aware that there might be some challenges now in the endgame. I hope you agree though that the early game definitely got less challenging morale wise due to the removal of the at war penalty, and expansion penalty only kicking in in mid to lategame. So maybe the meta now is to use the easier time in early game to prepare for the harder time in lategame. It also only harder if you try to win solo, as coalition players won't be hindered by the expansion penalty much (they only need to conquer like 15-25% of provinces each). But we will think about the topic again, and potentially make some adjustments.
-
Please explain the reasons why you think this is the case.
-
Thanks for the Feedback!
1) Since the first completed level gives 50% bonus now, then half of the first level should give half of it. We deliberately lowered the defense bonus based on alot of feedback from veterans so we currently don't intend to increase it again.
2) The point of Inf in a stack is that it protects your expensive powerful units. Inf is basically cannon fodder. As someone who builds a tank you probably want your tank to survive and not your Inf because Inf you get basically for free. But in the previous version Infs blocked a bit too much damage, that's why we made to block less damage from other units. Note that the total amount of damage for the whole army will remain the same, this is only about the share of damage each unit in the stack gets when it is a mixed stack. The new values were shown in the changelog. Inf was reduced from 1.0 to 0.5 for example, meaning half of the damage that Inf previously received will now go to other units in the stack.
Your suggestion with configurable battle rows is nice and we thought about it many times in the past. But this is essentially a new combat system which is a big task. Currently it is not in the scope, so won't be coming any time soon, sorry.
3) The balloon change is currently being discussed internally. It may be reverted in the next release.
Regarding the reported bugs:
1) Yes that is known and was like that since forever, that is sadly due to how the engine works. Would be expensive for server performance to do it differently, but maybe it will be fixed at some point (not soon).
2) noted.
3) I doubt that this universally the case, it might happen in specific situations due to the time interval in which the server updates unit states. Unfortunately it is too expensive for performance to update units all the time, so there are intervals, if you are lucky the next update is shortly after the enemy unit entered the attack range.4) Its a point of discussion, maybe it will be changed at some point but sadly it also enables exploits. In the engine airplane attacks are similar to ranged attacks, so for example you could block gold usage just by giving an attack command to airplanes even if you have no intention of actually attacking. So stuff like that needs to be fixed first.
5) noted.
6) Expansion and Distance are not the same thing. Distance only affects far away provinces, Expansion affects all provinces. Similar to how previously there was distance penalty plus "at war" penalty. The at war penalty was also for all provinces, but it got replaced by the expansion penalty.
Currently the penalties are beign reviewed, there is a chance that they will be revised in a future update. -
freezy - das Balancing überdenken, wollte ich anstoßen. Have a look into it. You might be able to do an overview based on several games played.
I know loosing moral happened before but now the effect is just to effective :-). I played "only" a small 30 EUROPE map. I cant remember while collecting provinces (from 120 to 170) and countries, that at the same time a drop in points happened.
Dropping in points after conquering provinces could happen even in old mechanics, I know for certain because this often happened in our company test games
It is a weird quirk of S1914 because it has a points calculation where every player is put in to relation to other players, and is also based on stuff like morale. Due to previous war penalties you could also drop from max morale in old mechanics and then lose points even though you conquered land. It might just be more pronounced now than previously, but as I said we will discuss the morale topic in the team again.
The whole dynamic has been fundamentally undermined with the new HP system- artillery are significantly devalued- instead of chipping away at a total number of units, they chip away at the hp, so as a stack under bombardment is reinforced, it does not actually lose units, it just continues to chip at forever repleneshing HP. This has the same effect on cruisers. Siege is fundamentally altered by this. Artillery are the main building block of the game since anyone ever started playing it, and shelling was the primary determinant of battles in the actual first world war. This is a massive setback to being able seize the advantage by getting out those first vital weapons early, alters resource management and allocation significantly, and basically takes the game from slow to a halt. It is actually better to now create a stalemate against a human player that understands how the game is played and look to your other borders for AI to play whack a mole with trying to create an overall overwhelming numerical advantage- which is both tedious and lends to gameplay being dependent on "who drops first", not fun at all.
I suppose the actual war fought in 1914 was characterized by the modern armies of their times just getting stuck and digging in against their enemies, constant shelling without any actual movement, but that is a terrible objective for a game that is supposed to be a fun, strategic exercise. So points to the creators for their commitment to realism I suppose, but for shame on what has been done to play-ability and fun factor of the game. I'd gone through several updates without so much as registering for the forum since 2020, I just rolled with the punches, but this one is completely detrimental to the gameplay. I for one will play out my existing games, it was fun getting back into the game for something to do during COVID, but no new games for me unless a major course correction is made in the short term.
I understand the developers work hard and are always trying to improve the game, but this time, like in many ever evolving games out there, they just overthought it.
Thanks for the feedback.
It is intended to open up the game to more strategies besides spamming artillery. They still give you big advantages though cos they still allow you to deal damage for free.
Chipping away HP or chipping away units has a similar effect - in both cases the stack gets weaker and will die at some point. When you land a hit and units don't die but you remove HP, then don't be disappointed. A stack which lost no units but lost 50% of its HP still basically lost 50% of its value, it is significantly weaker and will have a lot of casualties in its next fight. Don't look at unit count the same way as before, HP amount is equally important now.
I think we actually should show the HP bar on the map to drive the point home that the HP bar is as significant as the shown unit count.
The new morale-based building setting also turns the game to the extreme. The morale effect on building buildings is understandable, but it is far too pronounced. The influence morale has on the construction of buildings should be reduced by a factor of 2/3, or at least 1/2 from where it currently stands vs the baseline building time. Also, morale should have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the building time of units. If you seize new territory, new construction and repairs of buildings would conceivably take longer, but if you seize a working factory you could crank out cars and tanks the same as the day before you walked in. This update ruined the strategic importance of emphasizing the industrial heartland of a state on offense and defense.
The Supremacy 1914: Stuck in the Mud combat update, and the Supremacy 1914: Swamp of Sorrows morale update really ought to be walked back or immediately rethought. I'm sure they had the best intentions, but the combined effects of combat, morale, and victory progress impairment are taking this game from strategic and deliberative to a tedious unit and building spamming game.
It is intended that you cannot immediately capitalize on conquered provinces and have to endure some penalties if you wanna use them. Have to build them up and plan ahead. This is done in pretty much any grand strategy game or 4x game.
I don't think you need to change these. I had a game collapse not because of the expansion or distance penalties but their mingle with the neighbor penalty and increased build times. As much as you don't want people blitzing you have to understand that allies are going to support theirs and if doing so sends them into an unrecoverable morale nose dive then the mechanic is flawed. As the neighbor+expansion+distance compound the buid time for the fort goes to 2 1/2 days. In that two and a half days I could have three adverse day changes. So three morale hits to one fort and now my fort 2 is trying to build on a province with 15% target.
If the forts built normally I would still have a terrible morale but I could start to mitigate at least the neighbor penalty and allow the province a chance to get above 35% so I don't go from 1st with 750 points to 315 points and no resource production in 5 days. My troop morale went crashing too as each province required more and more troops and day after day lost morale. So I was using 10% hp troops in the teens to hold provinces and i had 30 of them like that.
I don't believe it was the intent of the game to penalize an active ally helping his teammates by crushing their game to the extent it is unrecoverable and all they can do is watch as their game crumbles no matter what they do. I even tried to get the provinces to revolt. If you think what I have said can't happen the game number is 6737622
Noted, we will think about the neighbor penalty effect.
Are you going to make a feedback thread for the new changes made today/yesterday?
Need to opine.
Can just post it here.
-
The original post in the thread states that this is an avenue for discussing the business model, so that we don't get the usual derailing goldmark discussions spread in other threads. Usually those threads will get closed or users get warned for denunciation or derailing topics. So having this one shared avenue here where critique about the business model can be freely posted probably serves both sides better. It was not stated that this thread was created because the business model is supposed to change.
It is unlikely that the business model of S1914 will completely change for the standard games, for the reasons explained in my above post. When it comes to entirely new business models it is more likely that this will be explored in new games at some point in the future.
For S1914 itself I still see chances that experiments with limited gold use or gold entry fees may be done, but those would only be limited in scope probably (e.g. for tournaments or a monthly event) and not replace the standard public games. Also possible is that new monetization options may be added so that the monetization focus can be shifted a bit (e.g. skins, event units, metagame...).
Currently our Community Managers explore ideas for more competitive matches (in fact we already support the gold free community tournaments).
-
Thanks for the feedback in general. The update won't be rolled back though, please don't get your hopes up regarding that.
We also won't roll back specific mechanics or parts of their mechanics, because those parts are coded together with them (e.g. removal of newspaper posts together with hidden buildings on map), and those mechanics are cross-title, so removing parts of them would also affect CoW and IO1919, which we don't want. (not going into detail again why we want those mechanics in the game, has been discussed in the past).But we can do balancing tweaks to the new mechanics based on the feedback (e.g. adjusting values etc.) because they can be specifically made for S1914. As we already did in recent patches. Just today a new update is released with balancing tweaks based on veteran feedback.
So my question is: What is the exact formula for points (did it change as well)? Earlier you got some bonus for 100 % provinces but now I feel it must have be connected to moral.
Thanks for the detailed report. The points calculation didn't change, it doesn't matter if the province is at 97% or 10%, you only get a points bonus for provinces at 100%.
The expnsion penalty is even bigger in our other games but not a problem there, due to them having a different point calculation that is solely based on conquering provinces. It seems S1914's "weird" point calculation might indeed lead to some strange situations where conquering will actually reduce points (although that was possible before as well in old mechanics). We will discuss your feedback.
In the old mechanic, the maximum morale hit from war was -25, and the maximum corruption hit was 15%, for about 40. If that's your metric, I understand using -35 for Expansion. However.
Plus in old mechanics capital distance penalty was -40 and happened at an smaller distance, now it is -35 max and at a larger distance.
Changing how distance penalty and expansion penalty interact with eachother is more complicated and likely won't be done, but we can think about making simple balancing changes to either one of the formulas. We will discuss your proposals.
I didn't know the stacking penalty got removed or it would not have happened, but even still, a single submarine can cut down 7 cruisers in 1 day? That is a drastic change. Every major change since the new morale system and the listing of hit points, while intended to create balance, has been to the detriment of individual players. Best change things back.
Stacking penalty is for the whole stack, begins at 20 and degrades until 50.
7 Cruisers have 350 HP in total and 70 damage, 1 Submarine has 100 HP and 40 damage. The 1 submarine will certainly lose vs. 7 Cruisers (otherwise something else would have been at play here as well, like another damage source).
-
I've heard a rumor that cavalry are now considered over-powered, and are intended to have either their hit points or att/def reduced in a coming update. Any truth to that? If it is a plan, I would like to register an objection. I think they're perfect as they are.
Is there a specific reason the workshop is now visible alongside the factory in the buildings list? Is there potential for a damaged workshop to prevent the construction of factory-relevant advanced units?There are no plans for nerfing the Cavalry right now.
The Workshop is displayed alongside the Factory because it now exists separately. For example it can be destroyed while the Factory is still intact.
Having the Factory separate makes it easier for new players to realize that there is a Factory building, because in the old version it was not shown unless you build a Workshop lvl2.
I like the new setup and display of the unit information when you click on a unit, but I don't think the kill counter for a unit should have been gotten rid of. I believe it was both interesting and useful information. I know that when I now go to the unit card, I open it up now and every time think o crap I can't know that information anymore. I think it should be added back into the unit information
The kill counter is still shown for the army itself, just in a different place. Open the army details for that (click on the name of the army after selecting it)
-
Late reply to the initial 2 posts: It is indeed no bug. Losing/gaining morale for inflicting/suffering casualties was removed in anticipation of the new mechanics, because this mechanic was too OP with other new mechanics. It was released to live by accident, therefore also not mentioned in the news. It will stay that way, so point in fixing it since new mechanics go to live soon anyway).
-
We released an update today that lets player's disable the big unit images on the map. You can find it in the view settings. Hope some old veterans like it.
-
Hello,
Is it planned that a filter be added to the existing ones in order to display or not the symbols of the units on the map so as to keep only the "flags" with the number of units of the army ? (for more readability)
Yes, it will get released next week with the update, due to popular demand. It will be in the "unit icons" section in the map filters menu.
-
Following this change, when a player in the coalition who turned AI subsequently become active again, this player's relation to the coalition members remains at right of way.
This leads to the situation where coalition members don't have shared maps with each other.
I am wondering if it makes sense to programme it such that shared maps will be given to coalition mates automatically?it will be fixed in a future update, so that the relation wont downgrade to right of way anymore.
-
In the past, players going inactive automatically made them leave coalitions. So basically the AIs left the coalitions when taking over.
This had several downsides and often resulted in complaints:
- When a player became active again, they had to endure the leave cooldown and couldnt immediately join back, they had to wait several days.
- joining back in of itself was an extra hassle for both the person coming back and the coalition mates who had to clarify why the person left, "cleaning up after them" etc.
- it often resulted in the AI turning on their former mates, resulting in sometimes sudden wars that could completely screw the game. By keeping the AI in the coalition they cannot declare war on their mates.
So all in all I consider it a good change
It was based on user suggestions.Display MoreHey,
just wanted to let you know:
the information given under "countries at war with" in the new tooltip seems to be bugged.
It says "0" for every player I checked in my anonymous FFA games from 2 weeks ago.
Maybe its only a thing in games created before the update?
Thanks, that's a bug, it will be fixed.
-
For me it still works. But right after splitting it often times is still a bit tight together, because the system spread the graphics out over time. You can speed that up by reloading the page, just tested it. It can be improved further for sure though.
-
The white lines connecting the sprite to the actual position are still in the game. Same as the mechanic that visually pushes army images away from eachother, also still in the game (of course not possible anymore at some point when you have 20 armies in the same spot). I can see both of them in effect in my games.
When I look at those early screenshots the map nowadays looks much more pleasing imo, back then it looked more straining to the eye (too shiny oceans for example), and map icons / army labels were of less quality.
-
And you're comparing two spans of time that differ in no other way whatsoever, only the clients that were available? There wasn't like, I don't know, a global pandemic? A much larger marketing push on the company's part? Apparently not then, okay.
Stuff like this has been accounted for of course, and we looked at many more things. We also saw the better numbers much earlier, before the pandemic, after all the new client is 3-4 years old now. I only gave you the top level reasoning. We have professional marketing people and analysists who's career it is to analyse such data and derive the right decisions from that. So you don't need to worry about it
I also feel like that this discussion is turning in circles now. This will therefore be my last post in this discussion, as I said everything I wanted to say in this thread. You can still continue to post feedback of course, we still read everything and see what we can apply to the game in the future.
To reiterate the 2 main points a final time:
- The old client is not coming back. There are many reasons for it which were explained earlier.
- We are continuing to improve the new client and the game overall. Specific feedback is always helpful for that. Improved usability features like the view option I mentioned are in the works.
Thanks, and hopefully you will start to enjoy the game again over time.
-
Not only that but as they quoted, most players use regular UI instead of Legacy UI, well because vast majority of players DONT EVEN HAVE THE OPTION TO USE LEGACY MODE. They are selling themselves the lie that the new UI is better, its pure garbage and the vast VAST majority of players would opt for the Legacy UI were they given the chance to even try it.
Well you have to understand that when I say "users prefer legacy" I do not mean that users were presented a choice, I know very well that we restricted access to Legacy. Still it's not a lie. It was proven by quantifiable numbers. And with that I mean data from hundreds of thousands of users, such as retention, activity, revenue, all the major stuff most companies look at when making decisions. Which are much more objective than the subjective opinions in this thread. We compared those numbers to after the new Clients were made the default with numbers when Legacy was the default. The new clients performed better in every aspect (all numbers were better), which allowed us to grow the game since the Legacy days significantly, because we could attract more players and retain them longer. The amount of players and the amount of income is multiple times higher compared to the level it was back in the Legacy days. You can say "the market has spoken" to that if you want.
At least they are trying to improve it but they should just cut their losses and grant everyone access to Legacy Mode and truly see how many players will prefer it over time. They have fallen trap to their own fallacy.
We are doing exactly that. Cutting our losses by shutting down Legacy.
they dont know when to admit defeat
Hmmm so could this apply to you as well? Beause I have already said there is absolutely no chance that Legacy will return. It already got deleted from the codebase. I think you should put the energy into suggesting specific improvements for the new client.
The defeat for us is that we cannot retain all Legacy players in the new clients. This is unfortunate and as I said earlier I am sorry for everyone who feels they have to quit now. I really do! But it won't change our decision as we have to think about the bigger picture. We unfortunately cannot please everyone, we will try to invest our resources in a way that it serves the big majority of the current playerbase the best. And that means not splitting time and money into maintaining multiple clients, but spending this on improving just 1 client for everyone.
Outright making Supremacy 1914 into another one of those posh ugly looking strategy multiplayer games that is pure trash and have they ads plastered everywhere.
To my knowledge there is no other online game from competitors (not made by Bytro or Dorado) that has exactly the same gameplay of S1914. So even with the new interface the unique selling point of S1914 still remains the unique gameplay that no other successful online game was able to copy yet.
-
An option to hide the big unit images on the map is already planned, I expect it in the near future (thanks for your patience on that one!). The labels will also try to point to the exact position of the unit then and not just float in the air. Unless many are in the same area and overlap, in that case labels are spread out for readability and the line connects them to the actual position.
-
Thanks for the feedback! We are always striving for improvement, so we still look for feedback. About general taste we can't do much, so if you just dont like the new graphics and get migraine from it, well then we unfortunately we cannot solve this
Legacy was turned off because the costs of maintaining it were higher than the revenue it generated. It also made developing the game more cumbersome as 2 clients had to be maintained in parallel.
The impact on playerbase from the shutdown is very miniscule, nearly non existent in the grand scale of things, that is because the amount of Legacy users nowadays was tiny compared to the total amount of active users. The very big majority of players was already using the new client and has no issues with it. Legacy won't be turned on again.
-
The system stocks up the market at daychange as well with some basic offers (but for worse prices).
