300,000 Arabic players aka 300,000 Arabic accounts on Bytro? Really? Could somebody from Bytro confirm or deny such a...interesting claim, please? Oh and btw, if such a wild claim is in fact valid, I concur with them, please provide them their own server.
There is no need for that. A reliable source should be enough. Alexa? Google? Jstor?
"When do we get rid of the racism that we suffer from?"
Personally, I resent being called racist and if you're hinting that Bytro is racist, I would suggest you change that because it will do nothing to help your request for an Arab server.
It's funny, indeed, because I look and find turkish server and turkish and farsi languages in the forum.
Petty and superficial as it can be, it's all reduced to $$$$$$$$. Maybe the establishment of an arab server isn't profitable for Bytro. So, there is no racism involved, it's just a simple financial calculation.
I mean, S1914 isn't the first game I log in ever. And in various other games I was, there always were very few arab players (if there were 100 players in a game with hundreds thousands of users, that was a actual rarity, assuming, of course, those arab accounts weren't multiaccounts).
I could make assumptions about why are there so few arab players in internet, but that fact remains.
without further provocation
even in def LT is better... owned
That's the point: LT could be able to defeat HT even in defensive thanks to LT's big amount of hitpoints (?)
It makes sense that LT can defeat HT thanks to their firepower and speed, but not in an endurance battle.
Clearly, once LT is enabled, you don't need HT in the match anymore, because LT provides you with all the HT features, but improved. And, in that way, you can invest in many other worthful heavy weapons.
it's not as strong as it seems on paper. Yes, maybe 3 times better than cavalry, but it has the same disadvantages as her. I still stay heavy.
Artillery is a serious enemy for them, and many units that easily counter light armor.
heavy tanks are good versus light, as they are a universal (good for def and atack) unit and have massive damage vs light armor.
How exactly is better?
I forget who it was but somebody from the much higher ups in Bytro once said, and I am paraphrasing...
"We don't care about historical accuracy, we care about playability."
Playability-wise, people expects light tanks with features other than just being an overpowered heavy tank.
In the current situation, heavy tanks can be removed from TGW altogether because they are clearly unnecessary. Armored Cars can comply with the needs in the battlefield in defensive while you save resources for investments in light tanks and investments in other heavy armor weapons (thanks to savings in chemicals and metals). Needless to say, less redundant options will improve playability whatsoever.
I get the faster part, not the stronger one.
At least in specifications (and correct me if I'm wrong), FT's cannon was 37 mm, against Mark's 57, Mark's also had better armor.
Of course, disregarding those two features and evaluating overall, FT was better tank.
Am I the only one who find strange light tanks in TGW are shown as overpowered in firepower in comparison with the heavy tank?
I mean, I've got the french Renault FT is considered the best WWI tank against the british Marks, but in firepower, "male" Marks cannons do more damage than FT.
In my honest opinion, there are two reasons that justify the current expansion penalty: a mechanical one and an historical one.
Mechanical reason: it's intended for the player to consolidate territories (via moving HQ and building/upgrading Propaganda Offices in provinces) taken before continuing expanding. TGW, as a game, will lose the reason for exist if allows players to conquer all the map, without neither support from their allies nor problems. Of course, conquering the whole map is still feasible, but it will have to be step-by-step. Also, I know the enemy may possibly move swiftly to take as many territories as possible, however, if you just take the territories enough to avoid your opponent victory, in the long term you will be able to get the upper hand with a well-prepared army.
Historical reason: Conquering territories in WWI (especially in the Western Front) are all but motives to enhance morale in the troops. It wasn't only to take a trench: it was also to defend that mile gained against the enemies counterattacks. And that would mean more dead, disappeared or, what worse, wounded, impaired soldiers. So, considering all the horrors of the war, troops were not interested in gaining trenches after bloody battles: they only wanted to go home. Thus, the apparently humongous disproportion of the expansion penalty in the match only looks to portray a simulation of the terrible conditions in the battlefield as realistic as possible.
You also get a warning in advance that you might provoke war if you do so. But something that can be easily tested no?
I think I saw somewhere a war started only by placing troops in a enemy province.
Its not only 'neutral' trade removal. It is Majority trade removal. I mean,you cannot even trade with nations who you have Share Map with. They are arguably your allies and not neutral.
Then we can call it by its true name: Trade Removal. Without specifics.
And, again, it's certainly questionable the devs' knowledge in Foreign Affairs and International Trade. To tell that's for "adding another layer of realism", with all the due respect, is to think players doesn't know what they are playing...
If they had told "to improve fairness in the game", at least it would have had some people supporting that decision...
In this moment, I would be securing an important diplomatic relationship with an ally, but I can't because I can't give him 5.000 oil units for that action and, in that way, trying to give him assurances and receive loyalty from him.
Neutral trade removal has all the potential to damage S1914 beyond fixing.
1We should be allowed to trade resources with whomever we want. By restricting this, you are making interacting between players harder. You are restricting interactions to only 3 players in a coalition or whomever you trust with share the map. Who I am willing to trade with and who I am willing to show my troop movements to are 2 very different things. Also, trading on the stock market isn't the same because you can't control who buys your product. If you are in an arms race with your neighbor and need steel but don't want it from them because you would be giving them money, you send trades to specific people. In the current update, if you don't have share the map with anyone or none of the players you have it with have steel, you are out of luck.
Indeed, considering the way devs advertised that update ("to add another layer of realism"), that sowed me many doubts about how they understands Foreign Affairs and International Trade (the ones happening in real life, of course)
Thank you for responding to the thread Freezy.
I will also ask that all RPU members keep civilized while giving there feedback.
I already sent some minor changes that could be implemented to make it so the RP community can continue to exist on the community without effecting the PVP or social side to Dutch while keeping this update mostly unaffected if you are looking not to reverse it. If we would like to coordinate a meeting with some of the RP & PVP leaders with the staff to better discuss the topic at hand I can also coordinate it.
At the end of the day, all I want to see is the game and RP community to continue to grow and thrive for many years to come.
The only alternative I see to compensate the neutral trade removal (and not entirely) is to make Stockmarket's buyers and sellers public. In that way, countries will be able to choose the countries they want to support with trade.