Posts by Sckopen

    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).

    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.

    Carrying on the discussion that started in this post (Alliance Tournament) regarding certain game breaking bugs and no clear rules, I would like to know what Bytro's position is on this.

    Obviously, I think that these bugs in the combat system should be fixed and all the problems would be solved. But if they don't want to or can't, I think they should be allowed to be used and discussed (same as S&S). Basically, anything that can be done in a game, should be legal, and if there is a bug that is a gamebreaker, then it should be fixed. What doesn't make sense is to have a broken combat system for years, let the support team deal with each case individually without a clear set of rules and not allow for this situations to be discussed in public which makes it look like they don't want anyone to know about it.

    So, are we able to create a post explaining certain bugs like the combat system bug? I can't see why this wouldn't be allowed, but I sense this is quite a sensitive matter.



    while the "aggressive" setting will stay as it is, so that it is an opt-in behaviour instead of opt-out

    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.

    Sure, keep blaming everyone else. As I have already told you before, if I used bugs the combat would have been very different, but as they aren't allowed, then I don't use them and no one else should either. And the only way to keep your feet off maps watched by "those people" is to leave the game, because they moderate every game.

    I do agree with you that they should make all the bugs/exploits public, then they could simply be considered "mechanics" like S&S is.

    I think this is precisely what should happen.. I don't want bots as mentioned, I think things should simply be clearer and not left for interpretation, support team can make mistakes like anyone else can so it's up to Bytro to make that work easier.

    They can either fix the combat system and you would avoid all these problems, or if they don't want to or can't, simply allow them to be used and discussed (again, same as S&S). So anything that can be done in a game, would be legal, and if there is a bug that is a gamebreaker, then it should be fixed. What they can't ask for is to ban people for things they don't know is not legal and try to cover it up so the rest of players don't know about it.

    So talking about this, is it actually ilegal for me to create a post explaining certain bugs like the combat system bug?

    Yep, been like this for a couple of years now.. Military and economic sabotage spies are bugged, they give out incorrect reports.. Military ones tend to report damaging a lot more than what they really have, impossible figures like that train and economic spies also exagerate the amount of morale they reduce, have seen -70% when in reality was only 5/10%.

    Agreed, very much doubt there will ever be another official tournament or league.. They have simply said it's down to support team to organise.

    no offense but I would preffer BOT to be a judge on my maps in tournaments.

    At least I know everyone gets the same punishment and I do not feel like a victim

    No offense but I think you would find an excuse whenever you lose and would feel the victim ;)

    You really should make these changes public when you make them.. I always counted on these extra units recruiting pretty much instantly at the beginning of the game. Specially in alliance games where all troops had to be moved instantly, although these games died a while ago.

    The team worked for quite a while on the Flanders Front event and the features you can experience in it. Although we are proud of the result we decided to have these as event exclusive features in Supremacy 1914 as it would change the game quite drastically and we do not want to take anything away from the game. You might see other new events like Flanders Front, but it is highly unlikely that Supremacy 1914 as a whole moves in that direction.

    So why do these events that take so much work? It seems like you are making a new game instead of fixing the one you already have. The only reason I can see to do this is to eventually change S1914 in to something similar.

    The legacy mode is already available to veterans only. New players do not have the option to switch to legacy any more.

    Yes, I play the legacy mode and when it dissapears so will I and many other old players. It seems to me this is another step towards the end of legacy mode.


    Well, I have a couple of questions:

    This new event seems like a big change to the S1914 we all know and have played for many years. So is this the path you are intending to follow for Supremacy in the future? A gradual "Cowification"?

    Also, there is no legacy mode for it for whatever reasons, so is this the beginning of the end of the legacy mode?

    I'm also a legacy user and I believe the day they remove it, they will also say goodbye to a big part of the players.

    I completely agree with you, the new version is confusing. I don't really care about the new unit images, the zoom, the fancy sea, or any of the new graphics.. It's a strategy game so I just want to have a clear vision of the game situation. In the legacy mode you can see exactly where the troops are, where they are heading and the composition, whereas on the new version you can't.. It's as simple as that I think.

    It would be nice indeed.

    A little workaround is to hit the responde option, then you will have that message in your response and you can copy it.

    As usual, we have to find ways around supremacy errors or missing features.


    Well, If you go AFK, it's the AI that takes over and actually wins.. So I think it's right that it works like that. If you have spent a lot of time in it, I doubt you wouldn't log in for a couple of days when you are about to win.

    Well, I can't be sure how it works now, but I'm sure that in the past I have had team mates that went AFK when the enemy was defeated but the game hadn't actually finished, and they didn't get the medal.

    But I guess they might of changed it or it might be bugged..

    Coalitions would be a different situation to fixed teams. I'm not 100% about this, but I belive you get both in coalitions. Top 3 players get their medals and members from the winning coalition get their coalition victory (can coincide or not with top 3).

    AFK players don't get the medals either