Posts by ScaredyCat

    This is how it has been for some time now. I think the change occured quite some time ago. And it can also fire more than 2 shots.

    This is also how other ranged units (ships, railguns) work now.

    Edit to add: I feel that it can sometimes be a bad tactic to send single infantry to feed enemy artillery stacks. This is because the enemy stack will gain ~1-2% morale for each single-infantry stack they kill. How detrimental it is depends a lot on the composition of the enemy stack. If they have 1000 infantry in the artillery stack, then it is very detrimental. If the stack is mostly artillery and has little infantry, then the effect of this is negligible.


    I started noticing a potential bug with revolt chances today.

    In the past, approximately 33% province morale is needed to prevent revolt. Now, it seems that revolt chances is shown as 0% even if the morale is low and has no troop garrison. For example:

    - Province morale = 25%

    - Garrison strength = 0.0 (no troop there)

    - Chances of an uprising = 0%

    Not sure if this is a display bug, a bug with the formula, or unannounced game change

    Hey SC you may have gotten the idea that Legacy still exists or has the potential of returning. It does not. It apparently stayed in existence a long time past it was profitable to maintain it. Regrettably you can't have infinite backwards compatibility.

    With that being said, as has been told to the people that keeping bring up legacy, if there are features it had that you heard about and interest you, they can be requested. The game has developers who continue to work on S1914 in an effort to continually improve and make it more fun for the vast majority of players. :)

    Hmm, I understand that it is going to get phrased out eventually. But I have read that it is still going to be around for "several months" ([S1914] Release Notes - 2021-06-22).

    My point is that having a better understanding how legacy works will still level the playing field between new and legacy players to some extent for the next few months.

    I would like to suggest a new feature that allows users to choose to stop receiving/hide communications from a particular user. This includes the option to block the following:

    - In-round messages

    - Newspaper article written by that user (

    - Message (the one that is outside of game rounds)

    Sometimes, I am just sick of reading the rubbish messages from specific user(s). Maybe this could even reduce the workload of game operators by reducing the number of reports concerning abusive language. I, for one, would rather block a user sending me abusive message than to take the effort to submit a report and wait 2 days.

    Thanks for consideration.

    is it possible to allow new users to use legacy for a week or weekend?

    I would really like to try out legacy, at least for a few days. From reading this read, I realised that the difference between legacy and the revamp is not just about appearance. It seems that there are some differences in functions that can affect gameplay. More specifically, from what some others have written, legacy mode can confer some advantages. As an example, someone said something about a green circle ["in legacy mode there was a circle around the cities (the green one)"].

    If new players like me can try out legacy for at least a short duration, then at least we can understand what we are up against when fighting players on legacy mode. For example, I will at least know that legacy player will see a mysterious green circle so I can try take that into consideration when making decisions. This can at least level the playing field to some extent..

    Mobilization is only a factor at start of map, day 1 = 50%, day 2 = 70%, day 3 = 90% and by day 4 = 100% so long as resource requirements are meet, mostly Grain and Oil will affect this...This is my understanding and much testing on this was conducted by Boris DE and Petruzz, is possible Petruzz has info on his s 1914 discord server >

    Yea, but he could have resource shortage, leading to reduced mobilisation. This could potentially explain the difference in attack damage. If so, there is no need to do anymore extensive testing..

    I am quite curious and want to understand this difference in damage. If this is real (not due to display bug) and not due to reduced mobilisation (due to resource shortage), then it means that there are some important aspects of the game that I don't know about. The damage difference is huge!

    I am not sure how to check mobilisation on the web-browser, but apparently, reduced mobilisation is visible on the phone app. See the screenshot at the following link:…lisation_10_mean_and_how/

    Will you be able to check if you have reduced mobilisation? I think mobilisation changes with the day-change, so the screenshot of attack damage and mobilisation needs to be from the same day.

    I know the game operators don't discuss individual cases on forums.

    But out of curiosity, are you saying that you:

    1) Played together with a friend (both using the same VPN; thus the same IP address), and

    2) You "backstabbed" this friend in the first four days to "gain land quick"?

    If so, this sort of gameplay seems quite unfair (sounds like 'pushing' even if not multi-ing) and likely against the rules (Forbidden Actions).

    I presume you are referring to the mesopotamia map. Its a unique map with unique rules and requires unique strategy. I dont think this is a 'weak spot'. It's clearly stated upfront as part of the rules. Maybe you should read it before you start...

    1. Only one player can win.
    2. No retirement or coalitions available.
    3. Starting provinces cannot be trespassed.
    4. Starting provinces cannot revolt.
    5. Spy actions on starting provinces disabled.
    6. Units and buildings in starting provinces are invulnerable.
    7. Trading units or provinces deactivated.

    Our morale is the same, 66%.

    Then the only other explanation I can think of is that your mobility is lower.

    See the part about mobility in this post: supplements

    If you look at the formula in the bottom-left panel of the graph (damage% = mobility% * (45 * morale% + 55), you will see that mobility also affects damage. Maybe you have oil shortage that reduced mobility?


    I have the recurring problem, that the troops travel the segments of the map from one extreme to the other, when they arrive at the intersection of the provinces and even when they change from one province to another, they return they lose time, deviate from their path, and even they stamp with other armies unexpectedly.

    I have been experiencing this same problem since some time back. I am still experiencing this on a daily basis.

    The lighter green color is to help especially newer players to orient themselves on the map as we often saw less experienced players struggling with spotting their own territory next to allied territories for example. In the low graphics mode the color became too bright though by accident, in that mode we will make it a bit darker again in the next update probably.

    Oh, maybe its due to color blindness.. but if so, i am not sure if changing the shade is sufficient. for example, those with 'protanopia' (see pic below; need to click to expand) may have difficulties differentiating light green (own province) from red (enemy province).


    My feelings are mixed about the smaller army labels.

    • On one hand, the smaller labels is more taxing on the eyes (more difficult to see the troops number), which is a downside. I don't think it's a matter of not getting used to it, because I have been playing with the smaller labels on a Frontline map for several days before today's update and still cannot get used to it.
    • On the other hand, I do think that the smaller labels can reduce the confusion when there are many units cluttered together. But units cluttering is not a common occurrence in typical gameplay.

    In sum, I think this change greatly improves gameplay in relatively rare situations at the expense of slightly degrading gameplay in most other situations. Therefore, I agree with the suggestion to allow users to adjust the size of the labels.

    On another note, I also want to suggest that more to be done to promote Frontline pioneer games (I see that others have also suggested this elsewhere on this forum). I suspect that a lot of the bugs were undetected in the frontline games because there are too little players. For examples:

    • I seldom end up getting to use planes on Frontline maps (because I tend to retire on Frontline maps as players go inactive). Maybe that's why the 'invisible planes' issue that accompanies this update didn't get picked up?
    • Frontline maps are usually small maps with little players. Maybe thats why the lag that accompanies the new province administration menu 2-3 weeks ago wasn't detected?

    As for the change in the shade of green, I prefer the older shade of green, but I guess this change is something I can get used to, so it's not a big deal to me. I don't quite get the point of this change though. Personally, I never had any problems differentiating my provinces from those that belong to my ally/neutral/enemy.

    On a more positive note, I think the province administration menu works very well now.

    Yes, he is definitely using some goldmarks. For example, building a harbour 10 minutes after building a factory in the same province can only be achieved with goldmark speed up.

    • 10:01 pm Beirut has a new Factory.
      10:11 pm Beirut has a new Harbour.
    • 10:13 pm Fudukwan has a new Railway.
      10:14 pm Fudukwan has a new Factory.

    As for the battleships, it is harder to tell from just the newspaper, because it could be that these ships were constructed in different provinces. You could tell if you were online at looking at the newspaper during the time window in which the ships were constructed (because the top headline in the newspaper can tell you about where the battleship/railgun is being constructed).

    I guess its too late for you now - there is nothing much you can do to resist him at this point. Most of the tricks and tactics requires at least some mechanical units (planes, artilleries, ships) to be effective. Once you lose most of your mechanical units and have little chance to rebuild them, then there is no coming back. It's hard to achieve anything with pure infantry in late game.

    You can find some of the strategies in this compilation. I learnt a lot from these posts when I first started this game.

    Ok.. i would say this amount of GM usage is uncommon. I have played 100+ maps, and I have encountered heavy goldmark usage like what you have described less than 10 times. On these rare occasions, I mostly ended up losing. But I still find it quite satisfying to make the person spend as much goldmarks as possible. Just note that this is not very prevalent. Moderate level of goldmark usage, yes. But using goldmark to constantly maintain troop and province morale at 100% is rare.

    Also, despite appearances, there is a chance that he may not be keep up his goldmark usage.

    • His use of goldmark is highly inefficient. For example, using goldmarks to keep morale of infantry stacks and province at 100% is very costly.
    • There is a goldmark sale which gives a 1000% (10x) bonus for goldmark purchase. This sale is only available once per account. He might have gotten his goldmark from this one-time sale. If so, when he depletes this batch of goldmarks, he will have to spend more real life money to buy it (at a more expensive price), which he may not.

    He would want you guys to think that he has unlimited goldmark to spend, so you all will give up. But there is a chance that if you guys keep up the fighting, he will run out of goldmarks...

    As a sidenote, I do think the 1000% sale is quite unbalanced as it encourages people to keep recreating new accounts just to take advantage of it.