Sounds more like for an event. Funny thing is: that event is coming soon...
I think somebody told you earlier, but I've no problem with repeat it:
Are you sure they are AI? (In other words, do you verified that status in diplomacy?)
Because in that event, all countries are playable.
Besides, it's still the option to ask somebody to hire military saboteurs or to bombard that city to destroy that port.
I remember some complains from players because people could pact peace with other countries in those events, which, according to them, it was destroying the event purpose. I suppose that is part of some update regarding that issue.
1. I doubt that's unrealistic when history have examples of great armies stopped by small units.
2. That's part of the art of war.
3. If you consider that, please send a ticket to a Game Operator, who, in turn, will contact the administrators to verify and , if it's true, correct that bug.
1.000 men, well entrenched, can be a pain to any invasor. So, I think that's a good recreation.
Had you sent a ticket?
The problem is killing AIs is incredibly boring and believe it or not the reason we play a game is for fun not to be forced into the mindless grind of clearing a map of AIs. But if Bytro feel to 'win' a map players have to suffer that boredom then they are not providing us a fun game but a mundane task instead. It's a shame you feel like that but I do realise some players prefer killing AIs as they are predictable and easy to kill, those ones would happily keep playing a map when the real fighting is over but many of us really don't consider that challenging or fun.
I won't deny to fight against normal AI is boring (In fact, I think AI should be smarter, at Elite AI level, and become that Elite AI even smarter), but by that reason the system gives people a procedure to end the match sooner when there are 3 players or less. However, some players decide to not ending the match until they have got a better position in the table, and that's a valid stance. As I said, it's a good dilemma whether decide to save time by renouncing some prizes or gain a big reward by consuming some time.
The fact is no map ends with all their players active, and I don't think it's fair that players who were outsmarted by others win "free" prizes just because they endured more than them. Even more, I think that's a very boring, not funny, way to play.
Prizes are there to take it. They're yours. But don't tell me it's funny to gift rewards to people who didn't fight them.
Not necessarily - there are many reason why a player will expand quickly this could be as a result of being a muli who used alt accounts to run Kamikaze for him. Or a big GMer who simply ran out of funds so quit, could have been a lot of luck involved in placement. However the players who stick it out to the end and show that kind of activity and commitment to the game should be given some kind of reward - it's not gifting when the rest of the map has chosen to forgo any reward.
As for the first case, you can report it. If that report doesn't punish that player, then that player played better than the others.
As for the second case, that is still to play better than the others. Twisted in some way, but that's the logic here.
Finally, the players that show activity until the end of the match already receive a reward for that: their puntuation in goldmarks (something inactive players doesn't) And they can pursue bigger rewards by conquering inactives (something very easy to do, given the AI). But "gifting" the Top 3 just because activity, or even semi-activity (and not by "play the game"), is clearly an inadequate reason to prize them.
I am speculating (and if I'm wrong, please correct me Pershing), but I believe he was suggesting that forcing the active players to grind out points against inactive opponents is simply a waste of time.
Thus removing the AI and inactives so as to give rewards to the top 3 active players results in virtually the same outcome but allows them to move on to a new active game sooner.
Did I get the gist of your argument?
Yes, maybe it's a waste of time, but it's part of the bargaining: Gain time by renouncing merit? or sacrificing time to improve your position?
Reality is the inactive players in Top 3, before going inactive, played better than the others. So it's fair the active players must fight for grabbing those points and not simply "gifting" them just because they were active throughout the match. After all, since they're active, they already have a big advantage against them.
tell "Awww, nuts!"
They should really change that tbh, the AI and/or inactives shouldn't get anything for quitting, and the still active players should not be deprived of a reward if they are still playing.
Nothing prevent you to attack those inactives and, in that way, to get better index of power and improve your position in that table. A change isn't needed by that reason.
Besides, AI and Inactives doesn't get anything. Rewards are only given to active players.
Indeed, I've recently received a complain from a player about that issue. Although I agree with some inactivity limit, I think the Dominion map shouldn't be modified in nothing more than that limit.
I beg to differ. If a post was bombarded for day after day and the troops stationed there just stayed and took it I think you would find eventually all would die. Even if it was through attrition as no supplies could get there. However in WW1 armies didn't not just sit there and knowing this is why those bombarding with artillery did not wait to take the position as they not only wanted to advance but to kill enemy troops as well. So they pushed forward when the losses became 'acceptable'.
In the game it has been simplified somewhat from real warfare to make it fun for those playing and not to get down to too much micro management which would put a lot of people off.
If you opponent chooses to just sit there and take your arty bombardment then yes they will die - they have options, they could withdraw or they could rush the artillery positions - just like the real thing. It is not a fault of the game when players choose to do neither but just sit there and die.
Precisely, the simplification of game also means it shouldn't be assumed troops are "stationated" there to be left to die by artilleries or another long range units. Indeed, trench warfare is also simplified by the fact there is only a road connecting between two cities, so there is no way troops can be flanked by the enemy.
In the same way, it's correct to assume "stationated" troops can elude artillery fire while not abandoning the position, being the use of proper soldiers or mechanized units the only way to get them out of there. As a matter of fact, the overreliance on artillery was a factor in the prolongation of the First World War, not one for an early finalization, because high commanders thought that, after a long bombardment, the only thing left to do was to take the position, but then they found there was many well-armed soldiers still in place that, again, got the upperhand by being at the defensive. Again, while artilleries and other long range units were very important in WWI, they only were decisive when as part of a combinated effort, something armies only arrived to understand circa 1916-17.
Again sorry disagreeing. While in the early stages of the game artillery are definitely the king of the battlefield if you chose never to build other units your will soon find yourself overwhelmed by air & sea power (depending on your country and map). It may be possible to win a map with limited armament but the longer a map lasts the more difficult that will become. As everyone plays different you need to adapt your game play to some extent to counter what your enemy brings to the fight.
As you like, I add also railguns, battleships, light cruisers and even planes. The order of the factors don't change the product: To win a match, you only need long range units protected by many soldiers. So, long range units as kings of the battlefield is clearly an issue, IMHO, since there should be needed a combinated effort from all units (long or short range), not expecting to win by having more cannons than the enemy.
P.D. The S&S is also used until abuse thanks to that long range units' feature of being able to wipe enemies off. If that wasn't possible, that tactic would be reasonably limited by, again, the need of short range units to end that wipe off.
I have a feeling the topic kind of moved offtopic a bit. Arty has it's use cases, cav and tanks have their usecases. Depending on how you play you focus on one of both or on a mix. But that's a totally different discussion
To reply on the original discussion "should arty be reduced in power" I disagree. The only thing I'd personally would like to see removed is SnS, But also that is a different discussion. In supremacy the theoretical right use of Arty is behind a line of infantry (or other units) which is exactly how it was done in WWI, huge artillery fire days before the attack between units. Offcourse arty had limited effect on the enemy because they had bunkers to hide in during this barrages.
If you'd want to make it more realistic you should allow trenches and bunkers to be build on infantry locations. and those would be damaged by arty with only limited unit loses... However that would slow down the game heavily, a standing trench was in WWI almost impossible to take without arty covering and smoothing up that trenches defence. However don't forget WWI was a war with months of fighting over several meters of land due to this relation between the high defence of trenches (combined with machine guns) and the rather ineffectiveness of arty against these trench networks. Do we really want to make S1914 more stalemate defence war of attrition wait game? A true realistic WWI game sounds a bit boring.
Arty had it'smain use in destroying fortifications, because the arty in these didn't reach far enough to fight the offensive arty, they were outdated but without arty to destroy those fortresses they'd be rather impossible to take. That was the original use of arty not killing units indeed but destroying the defense of these units. Reducing their effectivness without giving them their use against other defences (e.g. trenches) would render them rather useless or only usefull against city forts and upgrades. But implementing that realistic relation would make the game slower paced to my opinion so not more fun either.
Don't surprise, but your last paragraph actually supports my idea. Indeed, that's also why I said the artillery's power to destroy buildings should remain unaltered, had my idea being implemented.
Exactly, the original use of arty isn't killing units but destroying the defense of these units. But today in S1914, artilleries have the power to destroy an ENTIRE army, and by destroying, I mean to reduce it to zero. That's why it's unrealistic: in WWI you could bombard for days and days, but those cannons never achieved total annihilation of the enemy. Here, you don't really need any other unit than infantry and artilleries. The former to invade, the later to protect the former (not even for the purpose to conquer)
In fact, since 1916-17, WWI Commanders got that the best way to gain a position was to heavily bombard with artilleries during a short period of time before sending their soldiers to fight and take the point, taking advantage of the enemy's fear and confussion. If artillery had been allmighty, tactics like that hadn't been needed.
My idea only gives close ranges units (infantries, cavalries, cars, tanks) a more offensive function, comparing with their everlasting defensive task of protecting artilleries and other long range units, which do all the conquering work today. Also, I doubt the game becomes slow-paced since you can conquer provinces quickly by attacking them with your overwhelming force against the diminished one from the enemy.
I'ld say there is only one change necesary for Artilleries: after & before movement they would require an hour of deployment/packing time.
This would stop the hyper-activity (ab)use of artillery. And make the game more strategic, as i think it is intended to be?
Artilleries aren't trebuchets, or at least not the AOE ones. That's why, I think, it wasn't implemented the packing/deployment time until now.
Mechs are already underpowered. In former times you could kill 50 infantry units with 50 artilleries, now you fire and at least 9 of 15 units survive the first shot. I think the long range units need more power instead of less power!
Still, you can destroy all those units with only arties. No infantry/cavalry/AC/tanks needed whatsoever unless for the sake to protect your own arties.
Artillery was always important in a war, but in this point it's the only thing you need to conquer provinces, completely far from the practice of combine artillery with infantry attacks, as that was made in WWI.
As it's today, short ranged units are in the match solely to enter in the city as a military parade, with musical band and whatelse.
Reviewing from many sources about WWI, I just thought that long range weapons in this game (Artys, Railguns, Cruisers and Battleships) are truly overpowered, with the ability of decimating entire armies with much ease and without compromising other units in the fight (infantry, cavalry, tanks, etc.)
Although I recognize artilleries and other long range weapons were truly essential in that war, I found, in some way, unrealistic that fights can be decided by player's ability to build and use as many artys as possible and to neutralize enemy's artys. Since most of the battles fought in World War I were mainly combats between soldiers and tanks AFTER artilleries and other long range units barrage, my idea is to handicap those units' damage against those short range units.
In other words, while long range units still would have the power to destroy enemy units, they'll lose effectiveness progressively as those units are reduced from army groups to armies and corps, whatever the number of long range units used in those attacks, until being useless against divisions and brigades, since such low quantity of men can protect themselves against that fire power, hence compelling the player to use short range units to destroy the enemy force.
Of course, other features of those long range units (damage against air force or buildings) will remain unaltered.
Dude like told 2 more post you want to forbit alright tell how you forbit me from make a external chat?:) you make a opinion you make jokes that all. If show will forbit make a Facebook chat . Not a paragh in can read for myself if I want. Since this one Finally, the info spy have that "message cracking" feature read myself if intereted about spy. Read or put like copy past won't nothing great. I ask a question that not replay or mabye no paragraph to do?
Also input more capital farming or wolfpacking or multi-account I know 3 time can put paragraph here to since are missing , all 3 we're old forum and if were interest you have read rules. Know we're in the rules is forbitten external chat? you have nowhere it is. So no paragraph to copy and past it feels bad.
P.S. waste time replay if not answer my question.
Your question, for all that matters, was already answered with my second paragraph. Other than that, I think you are confusing an opinion from mine about some topic with me supposedly saying external chats is forbidden by rule (which I never said)
Your message is a joke nothing more:) and can take it personal or what you want. How can forbiddet some that no access your post make 0 sense. Here a simple explantion why you post is none sense. Let's were old divice for comunication mirc. You make a chanel there call the coalition empire all member of it from map let's call it 1944038939 how can forbit to do that? you can't! wft I can speak your post are like something from paper that need read if customer tell this you read paragraph 101 and speak hole paragraph. You can't forbit some like that is inlog what speak. Every game has there backdoor and if find can use it. Make forbitten ok forbit my fb account or discord you can't no right to do that. Stop post like that. Here suggestion how post need sound: if for fairness of all player that you use the diplomacy and sent message ingame, not a other external surce if posible. But not yours then practice should be forbidden how??? are going close my fb account or what every external I use? we're getting right to do that? wft think before posting something! You dissapoint me I expected more come a Moderator.
First, I would thank you don't use ad hominem or disqualifications towards me just for standing an opinion. You have no right to tell me how I must give a thought about something.
Second, If some player does wolfpacking, multi-accounting or capital farming, that player can be sent out from the match. In the same way, that measure also could be applied if, let say hypothetically, it's decided to forbid the external chat practice to elude the blue spy (and I repeat: it's just my opinion, I'm not announcing nor predicting some measure in that sense, not even in the far future)
Finally, the info spy have that "message cracking" feature. And as far as such feature exist, it seems not so fair to allow people to elude it when the other part is expecting results in that sense when hire such spy. Besides, there is still the option to erase messages if people don't want their messages being extracted by that spy. We can either to remove that feature or to protect it.