Posts by Thenatos2u

7 Ideas to Upgrade S1914

1. Army additional moral penalty at day end change if:

(i) Being attacked from multiple directions, that is according by roads; and/or

(ii) Completely surrounded by enemy provinces and/or its coastal sea area controlled or conquered by enemy navy.

2. Introduce coastal sea area like a province with borders. But coastal sea area can not rebel.

Conquered coastal sea area can produce fish resource. As such, land provinces with fish resources can be replaced by other resource types. Non-coastal sea area shall be a free sea area or international waters;

3. Province surrounded by enemy provinces and/or coastal sea conquered by enemy shall suffer additional morale penalty at day end change;

4. Introduce poison gas as what was found in Tesla War. Gassed area will harm enemy and friendly units. Province gassed will have a lingering harmful effects for a few hours. The poison gas can be fired specialized equipment, that are from “gas artillery”, “gas bomber” or “gas cruisers”;

5. Introduce a chance that surrounded army will surrender when morale is <50%. When it surrenders, up to 20% of the surrendered army will join the attacking army and the rest into POW (Prisoner of War). A higher % joining the attacking army if the army surrendered at a lower morale;

6. Introduce and record POW holding by each nation.

When warring nations agreed for peace, all POW will be released to that nation and back to the original nation’s army.

Introduce the “POW free to choose” option, up to 20% will join the host nation’s army if the food ration is 50% and the remaining join back to the original nation. The nation holding the POW may offer this to the POWs.

Holding of POWs will consume food by default 50% of normal ration. The player may reduce the food ratio % but it will cause a certain % of the POW to die off at day end change or ordered all POW to be executed. Execution of POWs is only allowed for nations who are not a member of the League of Nations.

Reduction of food % ration to POW, number of POW deaths or ordering execution of POW has a chance of being leaked to the press or revealed by any type of spies.

7. Introduce League of Nations to the game.

Advantage of joining League of Nations:

(i) Upon joining, a global 10% morale boost to all their provinces (just like capturing a capital) and a permanent +5% morale for all provinces;

(ii) Upon all member nations points reached 51% of total points of all nations, all member nations will have another one round of global morale boost of +10 morale to all their provinces;

(iii) Member nations are free to make war with one another although they are members of the League of Nations;

(iv) free to leave League of Nations without additional morale penalty except the permanent +5% morale for being a member is removed; and

(v) member nations can make exchange of POWs or unilaterally release all POWs due to the presence of Red Cross in the member nation.

Disadvantage of joining League of Nations.

(i) Disabled button the use gas artillery. Member nation can build gas artillery/bomber/cruiser but they can’t be used;

(ii) Disabled button to execute POWs;

(iii) Unable to exchange or release POWs; and

(iv) Must declare war. Can’t do a surprise attack.

Advantages of NOT being a member of League of Nations.

(i) Can use gas artillery/bomber/cruiser;

(ii) Can execute POWs and

(iii) Can do surprise attack.

These can be in the newspaper:

(i) Members of the League of Member joining and leaving the League of Nations;

(ii)members of the League of Nations reached 51% of global points,

(iii) use of poison gas for the first time; and

(iv) execution of POWs

A note on Iron Order:

Being playing a game at the recently released Iron Order since 4 Aug 2021. Seems that it’s just mainly graphical changes with recycled ideas from S1914, Call of War and Conflict of Nations. So far, I have not discovered any fundamental change in the game that could cause me to rethink war strategy afresh. I hope that Bytro will introduce new ideas into the game that affects the strategic thinking part which is the core, that makes S1914 such a great game. For the moment, I would think that Bytro could better use their resources and investment to make a major upgrade to the current S1914 game. Changes that focused on the strategic aspects of the game, while making small improvements on graphics and user interface and playing experience.

All the best to Bytro’s team.

Thanks for responding. I always declare war in case it would impact my popularity with the AIs. But if someone could confirm that there is no impact on morale, that would be great.

What area the impact of doing a surprise attack instead of declare war? I think everybody knows declaration of war is an honourable and surprise attack is condemned by the newspaper. But I want to know if there is any difference compared to doing a surprise attack game wise.

Hope some veteran players could share knowledge on this tactic.

I send out 1 infantry towards enemy artillery. After the enemy artillery fired its shot and killed the 1 infantry, I move up my artillery to shot at the enemy artillery within the 60-minute tick and escape. Theoretically, the enemy artillery should not shoot back but it did.

Perhaps the program has been changed to give 2 shots within a certain window period where this 60-minute tick is not applicable or that the enemy artillery is placed under Return Fire mode?

Anyone knows?

Logically, it can be 2 difference persons playing in the same location. I don't think the program can detect if the playing patterns are normal.

I played about 5 S1 (Tesla Wars) and 2 Call of War games. Not really that good. Although there are more unit types and better graphics, they don't really make the game better. S1914 is a simpler game with less unit types and lower graphic, but it seems more complex.

One feature that is absent from S1 and Call of War that is available in S1914, is the choice to choose which resource to use. For example, if we are short of grain, we can use fish. And there is also production choice and interplay with buy and sell. This is not available in S1 and Call of War. In this aspect, these 2 newer games are rather static in regard to resource management.

The other important aspect is the players. S1914 has many hardcore and veteran players that makes the game very intense especially on the 500 player map. S1 and Call of War don't seem to have such type of players. May be, I have not met them yet and are playing on a small map of mostly new and casual players.

I find that its hard to raise up newly conquered provinces morale in comparison to S1914 game which is much easier provinces especially near capital.

Substantial troops are tied up to garrison the cities that can be up to 3-5 units per province. Further, huge amount of resources are needed to invest in propaganda office. Tend to slow down the game and towards a less aggressive play.

Suggest to rebalance this to make it slightly easier to increase the province's morale.

Ok thanks for the tip. Appreciate it.

Refueling can be just 10 minutes. Fighters can attack them unless, there is a land stack just beside it or within range of artillery which seldom happen. Normally, the planes would be relocated to another air base.

Thanks for your reply.

However, I can't see how plane "refueling" is a tactical gameplay opportunity as its too short of time to attack it.

You can see that this province is deep inside a safe territory but the morale calculation still shows -79. Is this a bug?

And players need to be learn which country is which with frequent changes of name.

In fact, i feel that country name should be as short as possible and use familiar historical names to reduce learning curve. I do not see much point in giving long country names like:

1. "Emirate of Nejd and Hasa", Prefer to call it "Arabia". Easy;

2. "Union of South Africa". "South Africa" will do.

3. "Dominion of Canada", "Canada" will do.

On the other hand, certain countries are given short and simple name like "Persia"? If you like long names, you may like to call it "Enlightening Kingdom of Persia"? Ha ha ha

Same with "Peru", "Colombia" and so on. Strangely have short names.

Ya, i read that thread. It says that capital has no role, then why need a capital?

But i noticed that in Sone (Tesla Wars) the following:

1. Capital do cost $30k to relocate. I did that for fear of being captured by the enemy;

2. When i capture an enemy capital, there i news similar to S1914 where morale is up for me and down for the enemy; and

3. Seems that there is an increased of production output for the capital province.

Grateful if someone confirm or comment on these. Many thanks.

Ok understand. Thanks for the information.

Does this applies to Supremacy 1914 too?

Thanks for the explanation Slyx.

If a fighter or bomber refuel, what is their defence value if attacked by bombers?

Seems that there is no province morale penalty for distant from capital. The strategy for a centrality of the capital is removed. Wondering if capturing any enemy capital has any effect? Can someone clarify on what is the role of the capital?

I find that plane refueling is so trivial. If refueling is so important why not reload ammunitions, do routine maintenance and give time to vacuum and wash the the plane?

Slows down the game for no good reason.

It takes a few minutes and waste our playing time. The plane can't move at all or execute any orders.

Suggest to remove this refueling requirement. Thanks.

Seems like planes have same defence value when on ground.

My bombers attack enemy fighters on the ground but got badly damaged. Value of fighters should be zero when on ground unless they are flying for attack or patrol. Appreciate if you could check this out. If it is true, its a bug.

Hi Doc Ski,

Thanks for reading my long post. So far, you are the only one who responded. I don't know what happened that day when I had the mood to write my thoughts on the game development. Ha ha.

When I first discovered Supremacy 1914, I was so happy that finally i have found my dream WW1 simulation game. I subscribe to HC mainly to do my part to financially support the game development. I hope it will continued to develop towards the direction of a realistic WW1 simulation game. Becoming more complex in war game strategy execution and options.

Supremacy 1 (Tesla Wars) may develop towards a fantasy war game direction catering mainly for the younger players.

If the developers wants to bounce game development ideas with me, I am more than happy to give my views and input.

Regards

TH

Allow me to give my view on your game development direction.

[Background: Just started playing Supremacy 1914 last Oct and found that it's a fantastic game!]

You have 2 directions in your game Supremacy 1 (Tesla Wars) development:

1. Go on the direction of improving the ideas from Supremacy 1914 game, by making it more realistic by increasing its complexity.

Examples of ideas are as follows:

i. As someone suggested, introduce the element of decreasing morale of defending troops if it is being attacked from more than 1 direction. Flanking game play strategy.

ii. Introduce the concept of supply lines between the Capital to the provinces. If a province is isolated and surrounded by enemy province, there will be a morale penalty for the province and the the player is not able to do any new construction. Construction under queue could not be started for this isolated province. Siege game play strategy.

iii. Introduce "sea region" of control for the sea by naval units. As such, if a country has total control of a sea region, the effect an enemy province by the sea where the adjacent sea is an enemy region, has a province moral penalty like bordering an enemy land province. Naval blockage game strategy.

There are no shortage of ideas to make the Supremacy 1 towards a more historical realistic game. These ideas may be applied to Supremacy 1914 game too.

2. Complete breakaway from historical bounds of WW1, though Supremacy 1 (Tesla Wars) can be a game themed on WW1. This would be towards a fictional and fantasy game development direction where there are fictional unit types. I think you are going towards this direction from I read in your announcement.

Some thought on your business direction in the game development

I thought that you should be very clear on which game player market segment you are targeting to make your money from:

1. If you want to make a game for a more matured and older players that appreciate realistic and historical game play, those who enjoys political negotiations among players, international relations, alliance, friendships and what nots, then continue developing Supremacy 1914 and/or Supremacy 1 (Tesla Wars) towards this direction. I believe the income from this market segment is more steady and stable as these players have the money to spend on the game. Many are working adults or retirees, i suppose. Many like me, get satisfaction fro not only playing the game but from reading to find and learn more on every aspect of WW1. If possible, visiting museums and site of WW1 battlefields. As such, interest in the game is sustainable, not only on how good the game is but also on interest on the history of WW1. Players are likely to stay on playing the games for years to come and keep coming back for it to replay what if scenarios, i guess. In fact, i have encountered many players who keep playing Supremacy 1914 for years.

2. If you want to make a game for younger players and elementary or high school kids, then a fast pace, with high destructive power and good graphics are the direction to go. In order to have such game features, creative and imaginative ideas that are not bound by WW1 historical and reality are required so that the game's new game features are possible. The income from this younger player segment should be good too, i believe, Probably they are impulsive and willing to spend money on the game on impulse, upon been challenged and to satisfy their egoistic need to win. But I am not too sure it is sustainable business without constant heavy advertisement expenditure to recruit new players. These younger players may not have the loyalty like matured players. They probably have short attention span and easily bored.

There should be a clear game directions and not a mixture of both. Otherwise, the matured game player segment would be frustrated and the younger player segment would found it not interesting enough. It should be direction 1 or 2. Otherwise its neither here not there. A case of trying to please everyone but in the end all are not pleased.

What say you? Some response or views from other players and the game developers/owners would be interesting.

I referring to the mobile version Telsa Wars. The laptop version is fine.