Posts by freezy


    it is likely that this was due to a loss of connection:

    1. connection of your client to the server was lost

    2. bombardment of your artillery started

    3. AI infantry started moving out of province towards your artillery, but you did not see this due to lost connection

    4. connection is established again once you gave your infantry a new move command

    5. game state is updated and the infantry position visually "jumped" to the actual position on your end, but in reality it did not teleport.

    Could be that connection issues became more frequent, we will investigate.

    With all the due respect, that can't be the answer in a war simulator game. It's not possible to tell the player "be risky with the RoW if you don't want your troops attacks neutrals". They're neutrals precisely because we haven't trust enough to give RoW to them.

    I just lost a round due to players "clashing" with my troops to provoke wars. It practically became impossible to control naval passes. Hence, you know what we can expect when potential enemies discover we gave them RoW just because we wouldn't want to enter in a war with them.

    I'm sorry for your lost war. After we soon revised the "fire at will" setting again this won't happen anymore by default. Then you will have all the choices yourself if you want to avoid attacking neutrals. You could give right of way to them if you want to use aggressive mode near them, or you could use "fire at will" mode when near them (default for everyone), or you could avoid moving near them when using aggressive. If you still end up at war then it will be the consequences of your own actions.

    This change will just be the best compromise between all different player requests and we will roll with it. It really won't be hard to get used to that behaviour, and to plan accordingly.

    The only reasoning would be that the change only applies to the games made after the update was live, but that isn't stated in the news.

    We didn't change anything yet and the change should apply to all games. So either it is a bug or you gave that nation right of way.

    I still think this is a mistake. I think the offensive option is a lot better.

    The only thing we gain is that our troops might start a war while we are offline or if we don't see a neutral unit getting in to one of our units range. That defensive scenario you talk about I think will be less than a 5% of the wars it will start, other 95% being unintended wars.

    And I think everyone cares that their troops might start a war without them wanting it and in most situations it's impossible to be sure that a path won't have any neutral units.. I guess we will just have to stop using agressive mode, that's what I will do, I have basically lost the only fire mode I considered useful.

    You still can use aggressive fire mode as you did before. Just give the countries you don't want to attack right of way. Even if they don't give RoW to you it is enough that your ranged units won't attack them. Normally most players give RoW to all AIs at the beginning of the game anyway, so shouldn't be a problem. And later in the game most AIs "in between" will be destroyed anyway as well. And regarding larger blocks of human players that you would not want to give RoW: Well you just have to keep your distance to them then or temporarily set to "fire at will" while near their borders. That will probably be the only behavioural change, and that is imo warranted.

    That means after we implemented the fix for fire at will you should be able to make use of the new blockade behaviour while for the most part not losing any old options.

    It was in frontline pioneer games. No feedback received.

    I'm wondering, why didn't this make it first to the Frontline Pioneer games? Isn't the FP supposed to try things first and deliberate whether or not it's balanced and whether or not to include it in the game?

    It was in frontline pioneer games. No feedback received.

    Why maintain this new aggressive mode? It starts wars we don't want to start.. I tend to use aggressive mode when I'm going to be offline and want my troops to advance, but I won't be able to do this if they are going to open fire against any neutral units that get in the way causing an unintended war.

    There are basically 2 use cases which contradict eachother and we can't serve both with the options we have. You can either use it defensively (new), to give out pre-emptive orders to protect your country from soon-to-be enemies who are sneaking up on you on land or on sea while you are offline, or you can use it offensively (old) to advance with ranged units while being offline (actually you can still do the latter, if you choose paths which dont go into range of neutral countries or if you don't care about starting wars).

    The much bigger issue was that the new behaviour of "fire at will" was forced on people and that there was no way to opt-out without having high command. By reverting this the new functionality is then opt-in and knowing the new behaviour you then have a choice to make use of it or not.

    I really hope to see tomorrow a removal of this new "feature".

    As stated earlier in the thread, it will be reworked again (to be specific, "the fire at" will setting will return to it's former behaviour, while the "aggressive" setting will stay as it is, so that it is an opt-in behaviour instead of opt-out), but due to our development, QA and release cycles this won't happen over night, so also not in tomorrow's update. Soon...

    Well the 1 stands for being the premier Supremacy game of course :)

    Also it will help the visibility of the game, as it will redirect more search machine traffic to the game that way, e.g. people searching for ww1 or world war 1, or some other well known game of that time period with a "one" in the title that you may probably have heard of :)

    Thanks for the detailed report.

    Keep in mind that you used your strategy while heavily cooperating with another player, while the enemy team may have consisted of uncoordinated newbies or barely active players. Therefore I would not jump to conclusions that this strategy is the ultimate strategy. Plus the event content was very new and even experienced players did not know entirely what to build and may have gone with a suboptimal build and may also not have expected such a fast rush due to fast build times. It would be interesting to see how this strategy would fare against a team that consists of experienced active players that also know the different meta strategies available.

    I am still quite certain that it can be countered, by also cooperating heavily, reacting quickly (being active) and by building the right counter troops. Although Cavalry is fast, you still have time to produce many defending units when you see it coming, since speed on enemy terrain is still only 30% and Lvl.1 build times are low. The standard Inf only needed 5min to be built (a quarter of the time the cavalry needed to be built) and also costs slightly less ressources than the cavalry. Even though it's a 1:1 trade it probably is enough to block the rush until more reinforcements arrive. I for example used alot of fast offensive units (cav/assault inf) in my event game as well, though my enemy used fast produced defensive troops very well to play for time until reinforcements arrived.

    Also keep in mind that this balancing was basically only the first draft and will be refined. If we see that rushing is too strong we will certainly change the balancing in that regard. We already made some adjustments on our end that would make this type of strategy harder, for example. Please give us your opinion when you play the map in the future, how your perception of this strategy changed.

    So all in all nothing is set in stone balancing wise yet and we thank you all for shaping our balancing with us :)

    If you only build cavalries the enemy could have defended easily by producing flame throwers (same build time as cavs), which hard counter cavalries stats wise. Even defending armored cars or Infantry would have traded equally with cavalry.

    It is true that cavalry rush is a strong opener in the early game, especially due to the mobility, but you can still counter it. Every tactic has a counter tactic in this game, but it seems your enemies did not explore the rock-paper-scissor system to the fullest.

    There will be more rebalancing going on though and stronger units will become more xpensive in comparison.

    The relation view mode (can be enabled in the game settings in the top right) is actually pretty nice for color blind people, because the different colors for allies, neutrals and enemis all have different brightness levels. And if your color blindness is limited to green and red, the relations view is also very frendly to the eye, as you can still see the difference between the blue allies and the red enemies.

    I cannot even recognize if I am attacking French , British or Neutrals. Or if my southern neighbour is in front of me or behind me.

    I post the advice here again: If you have trouble keeping enemies, allies and neutrals apart you are probably not playing with the "relation view mode" turned on. In this mode all allies are painted in blue, all enemies in red, all neutrals in yellow and yourself in green. Much better map overview that way. In case you did not try it, please try it :) (Otherwise please ignore this :D)

    Also, don't worry about the S1914. The game you currently love will stay as it is, there is no plan to forcefully push all this new content into the main game. We will communicate more about our plans with the new content in the future.

    Maybe they are just hiding... 8)

    To add to that, we feel like that the old Espionage system would have taken the focus away from the action on the map, as the espionage system is rather detached from the game and also very obscure and cumbersome. That's why we intend to integrate spying and scouting in a different way going forward.


    1. I wanted to ask if we can create Flanders with SUpremacy units and Legacy graphic .I would be good to have comparision between bot approaches

    There are resons why some people do not play COW- and bringing COW mechanic and units into supremacy puts me off that event.

    Thanks for the suggestion, although it is sad to hear that you did not enjoy the event. The map is specifically designed for the new game mechanics and would not really work well with the normal S1914 game. Therefore currently it is not planned to mix the map with the old gameplay. Many of the new map features are also not supported in the Legacy graphics, so just turning it on is also not an option.
    With the event we wanted to try something exclusive, new and different.

    2. Other thing is that map and graphic is completely unreadable to me that is why I am constantly flanked, surrounded- I am not able to follow roads and units movements. without huge effort on my side. can roads and units movement be visible and easy to read?

    Although concerns about readability and usability are valid, I feel like that this is often times a "training" issue. If you played with the new graphics for a while you will get used to them. I also played the Legacy mode back then and now I played the event myself, and I never felt that anything was unreadable. Still, your concern is valid and we will continue to improve readability of the new graphics version, we have it on our roadmap.

    Btw, for those who haven't, I suggest to turn "relation view mode" inside the game settings on (gear symbol in the top right). This will paint all allies in blue, all enemies in red and all neutrals in yellow, and yourself in green. This will give a much better overview on the map itself.

    edit: Ok Arcorian beat me to it, sorry for the double answer :D

    Do you intend in adding SBDE(State based damage efficiency) or will the combat system be always health points based?

    We intend to add a new stack limiting mechanic, that reduces the combat efficiency (SBDE) when the unit count in the army exceeds a certain amount of units. In comparison to prior limits, this one counts for the whole stack and not anymore for each unit type individually inside the stack. In the future it will also allow us to set different size values for units and unit levels, so that certain units contribute more towards the stack limit as others. This system will also limit the circumvention of SBDE by stacking different unit levels together.

    In the future even more mechanics could be added, but nothing set in stone here.

    We also plan to implement a much better damage overview tooltip that you can access from the army bar that lists numerous things like damage per armor class and damage efficiency per armor class, for the whole army.

    In relation to the question above, why does units die when the whole army reaches 0HP instead of dying unit by unit? What do you intend with that?

    Currently units start to die when the hitpoints of that unit type drop to 10%. This value can be tweaked of course. In the old system, when you have a bunch of units in an army, it was more obscure when a unit would die and how much progress you are making in defeating a stack, because the condition was always shown as being between 90% and 100% (it jumped back to 100% when a damaged unit died) until the army dropped to a really low amount of units. In the new system you clearly see a health bar (it even allows us to show a health bar on the map) for the whole army and you can grasp much better how much damage this army has taken. It also allows for an interesting new dynamic of tactical retreats, which we wanted to promote, as well as the importance of planning ahead and where to go into battle.
    In the future we plan to add more penalties to heavily damaged armies, so that battles do not result in such big advantages for the survivor.

    The formula for the Victory Points in Supremacy1914 is something that I always thought it was special, like something so well thought that it should never be deleted, even if playing Capture&Secure, like in Flandes Front, from what I've seen in this event, that formula changed, are there any plans in keeping it somehow? Maybe mixing both styles?

    It is not planned to use the old Victory Point formula for this game mode, as the old formula is very obscure and hard to understand, and also for us hard to predict. With the new system we can plan and balance a map very well, and design where the points of interest and major battles on the map will be, for example. It is also easier to understand for players. In the current event version the points were not displayed on the map itself. This was an oversight that is now fixed, so it will be much more clear going forward.

    The AI is very reckless, but it also moves in kind of a "stupid" way, which is already an improvement from what we have in the normal version, are there any plans in improving it to behave more like a player with some knowledge about the game?

    We have plans to improve the AI, so that it behaves more sensical. But AI improvements are a large task, so I cannot tell when this will be done.


    Day 7 now in my game, Entente about to win (missed the win by 2 points on day 6), but fierce resistance by Central powers. Even without all players being active the elite AI ensures alot of action on the map :)

    Well Damn, this should be the default option.

    It actually is the default option since several game updates ago, if it isn't for you then you probably changed this view option at some time in the past (toggled it on and off) and the setting was saved for your account. Please spread the awareness then if you encounter more players getting confused with country colors :)

    Light Tanks were developed later in the war, thus they unlock later than the heavy tank and their first level is already as strong as lvl2-3 of a heavy tank. But in turn the Light tank also has less levels to research. This system goes for all the unlocks in the game. Day 1 unlocks have 6 levels, day 3 unlocks have 5 levels and day 6 unlocks have 4 levels.

    Thanks for the feedback so far!

    Furthermore I have difficulty making out my own country. When I first joined the new map I took some time to see which part of this colourful painting belonged to me.

    Please switch your view mode to "country relations", as this will make everything much more clear! Your own country will then be green, all allies are blue, all enemies are red and all neutrals are yellow.