Posts by Demonaire

    Well, we are clear here that mechanical issues are more important than historical ones.

    But, again, in the historical ones, you are still to show me a moment where soldiers were stripped from their nationality for another to fight a war, or armament sold to other countries including their operators.


    Greetinfs.

    Okay, so you're saying the troops operating the vehicles are from the original country. But see, that's where we differ. Although I play the games as various different countries, I replace ALL the troops with men from my own country, Canada. I also change the flag to one that represents Canada. OH, and before you argue that with me, not only do I replace the regular men and women, I also put two Generals in charge who aren't even human. May I introduce General Basil Catticus and General Jasper D. Kat.


    CATS in Uniform.jpg

    Great, now show me, in the matches you played here, how were those replacements registered.


    Oh, right.. you can't. You only had show me how you ran out of arguments. ;)


    Nice cats, anyway. 8)


    Greetings.

    Because, as I said before, the feature disabled not only trade armaments, but also the troops who manage them.


    If you don't want to see this as relevant, it's okay (after all, even devs also said realism is less important than playability), but from the realistic grounds, armaments were never sold with the operators in them, thus, rendering the feature non-realistic.

    I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, so, fine, let's limit the "armies trade to mech ONLY, no infantry or cavalry allowed to be traded to another player."

    No, it would be "armies given until war is over. When over, armies goes back to their country of origin" and/or "one infantry unit converted in and out per mech unit traded"


    Not like I agree with that, of course (S1914 with no troops trade is better game than before), but if we want to be fair...

    Firstly, I think you're trying to split hairs to defend your argument, however, it has NOTHING to do with transferring men over to become another country's men. The Polish never gave up their nationality however they WERE under the command of British AND Canadian officers and were given an RAF Squadron number.

    I beg to differ: it has ALL to do with transfering men over to become another country's men, because that's the essence of troops trade feature, since S1914 assign you a country with troops that, with that option, you can gift to another country which can take them forever. Poles still are Poles, no matter if they're under command of British and Canadian officers, and that situation is already covered with the coallition feature. And since those poles weren't stripped from their nationality to fight alongside the british (among other examples) as it's troops trade suggest in the match context, troops trade feature is hopelessly unrealistic.

    Quote

    ...according to you, the British sailors would have had to accompany the subs....err...I don't think so. Australia recently sold some used F-18s and I'm PRETTY sure they didn't include the pilots who flew them.

    A great, faithful description of the troops trade feature. Effectively, troops trade make it seems like you don't only sell the subs: you sell the sailors too (as if they were slaves)


    Greetings.

    But the tanks, arts, cars, ships, planes, ballons and horses doesn't manage themselves, they need troops to operate them.


    So, the belgians in those armored cars never stopped being belgians.

    The russians in Verdun never stopped being russians

    The Salonica Army never stopped being british.

    The german generals directing Central Powers in Romania or Syria never stopped being germans.

    The crews inside the cruisers given to the ottoman fleet neither (in fact, they still served german orders)

    The chinese in western front never stopped being chinese.


    Lawrence of Arabia could be called in that way, but he never stopped being english...


    And so on

    And so on...

    Yes? I don't remember a situation in history where one high command told a whole brigade/division: "Hey, you know we're allies with France, right? Well, we decided to transfer you to the french army and, hence, you had been stripped from your american citizenship forever by the government. You're french soldiers now. and don't forget to say 'Vive la liberte!' when all of you present yourself to General Föch"


    In your example, Polish, Czech and French soldiers never left to be polish, czech and french. They fought for Britain but never abandoned their nationalities for that. Troops trade do that: strips troops nationality to fight under a new banner (unrealistic AF) Instead, putting troops alongside your allies to fight together fits better with your vision about Battle of Britain. And you can design a Commander in your coallition for him to give orders to all troops (it will depend of teamwork, and that's way much better than transfer troops for no reason because people finds too much for their ego the fact of somebody giving them orders about their own troops)


    And your "step further" is something I see with better light, but the problem remains: you don't capture the cannon, the tank, the bomber or the battleship alone. you also capture the troops who manage them. But that's more realistic, certainly: countries forcing other nationalities to fight under your cause... but, again, that coerced troops have far less motives to renounce their nationalities.


    P.D: I remembered Adolf Hitler while writting those words, but even his enlistment to German Imperial Army wasn't a request or a offering from Austria-Hungary. That wasn't even legal... and he was only one man...

    Despite the fact multies, friendpacks, sitters and cheaters does exist, a feature can't be created for fight against those players, since bona-fide presumption is all users play here in fair and square fashion and, thus, features are created for those users. Also, you told that as if those players would never use troops trade for your own purposes.


    If you want to fight back as a group, then look for good companions and coordinate with them, instead of appealing to a cheese for that. Troops trade is just laziness acolyted.


    And I pass from mentioning the unrealistic approach of that feature.


    Greetings.

    point of view is related to a point of sitting


    I can also write without any arguments - banning unit trade was a wrong idea which forced a lot of players to leave

    "Point of view is related to a point of sitting" is called Ad Hominem Fallacy, and a textbook one.


    And I think I talked long and extensive about that in some topics in the forum, so I feel no need to repeat myself again.

    ENTENTE





    CENTRAL POWERS

    Hello, what level player do you accept. Also, I do not seem to be able to find it. I found the word but when I click it, your alliance does not appear. More about me, I am a Bytro fan. I play COW, CON and Supremacy 1914. I am new to this game and CON. I am pretty good at COW and very active in the forums.

    It's free to join alliance.


    Also, you can look for the alliance here: https://www.supremacy1.com/gam…ust=1#/ranking/alliances/

    Lanceros.jpg


    Since there is still not option to challenge/create internal matches for the alliance, I thought it's a good idea to create one anyway that, at least, have some identity.


    Lancers is a free-to-join alliance for those who prefers to create and improve cavalry, infantry and stormtrooper units (in other words, units that uses cold weapons) and fight for dominating battlefields in the World War I with them. Of course, that doesn't mean other units are banned, but the core of our army will be based in powerful horses with lances, brave soldiers with bayonets and troops with courage enough to assault any enemy position with a club.


    You can look for the alliance in this section: https://www.supremacy1.com/gam…ust=1#/ranking/alliances/, with "Lancers" as keyword.


    Greetings.

    I have just built a couple of level-1 factories. The option to build a level-2 factory is ghosted and unavailable. I can't figure out why. I seem to have all the required things in these provinces; why can't I build a level-2 factory?


    What are the requirements for level-2?

    1. You only can build a level 2 factory in a province with level 1 factory already built. Having built a level 1 factory doesn't enable a level 2 factory in all your provinces.


    2. Maybe you don't fulfill resources requirement to build it. (3250 Tools, 3250 Supplies and 1000 SilverMarks)