Posts by Demonaire

    The reasons behind the update were already stated in the news. To close loopholes, make it harder for "cheaters" and make it harder for all kinds of players to circumvent our intended map balancing. The last point is actually one of the most important reasons. We already expected that not all players will like such changes. Player opinion is always helpful but as this was for the most part a change to enforce balancing we will in this case focus more on observing statistics and data to determine the right course of action. And believe us we have no intend to deliberately tank this game, quite the opposite. Given the climate in this thread there is not much else to say on this topic from my perspective.

    I understand the reasons. Still, I think it's a very regretful decision to keep the removal of neutral trade.

    I'm not the one who like being overly tragic about measures taken, but I believe neutral trade removal will become S1914 biggest liability. Indeed, RolePlaying is no more with this change, as many people already had said in this thread.

    It's truly a pity.

    What is this supposed to mean?

    I won't quote the rest because I think I had enough of the same old replies talking about nothing and justifying nothing without even reading the content you are replying to.

    As for the update, Bytro usually updates the game on Tuesday, so let's hope they reply tomorrow.

    That means you know we report in the Bytro channels what players think about the update. So, don't come here at me with that stuff.

    And if my answers are so unimportant for you not mentioning it, then, please, don't make me lose my time writing them.


    Demonaire do you even know what Customer support mean? because I feel like you don't or reading and writing down from a document. Example here is a list that you will need to if ask you this . Got it? and replay yes. The update is bad for every map and player base will go done . I think enjoy if join a 500 map and 10 ppl and rest AI I won't maybe you will, because that future for game how I see it. Know come we will get new player from we're? stream and negative comments definitive not. Also get one and see how game is he will leave because will lose to the AI. Elite AI are not easy:) first played them they surprised me attack 2 border city with fort 4 and 5:) ,give that a newbie that no clue and will leave good update. Next the coalition trades I personally played solo and join late a coalition to give a free win to others that help me with ressurses .All 4 x speed like that joining 11 coalition wins 10 and 1 lost fight half map every time. Trade Units in 500 I generally play 3-4 ppl and trade our units how on continue the bombarding we call it 24 h bombard of fighters and bombers not more possible. Also like we kill a lot heavy gm and if speak heavy I mean that game got from 40m to 200m gm from the spender:) make free others not possible again. Know tell how it help the game? you think I will spent this game if take all because fell like it definitive not. So good luck with the game make it even worse and worse and have 10 ppl in a 500 map gone be hilarious since then Bytro will lose a lot money or change only 10 map:).

    Don't worry: I'm fighting right now against 34 Elite AI countries. Very fun, I may add...

    Again, if you want to think "Community is always right", be my guest. I'm not interested in convince you otherwise.

    Of course you are, but I think I have supplied reasonable explanation about why those posed scenarios doesn't really apply there. And the Occam Razor I quote is precisely about the scenario, not about the game, by which I think the unit trade removal is a correct decision. Your explanation, albeit good, is too complex for me to accept it, when the alternative is simpler.

    About PvP: With a 120 units army, 10% means 12 units. That could be 6 arties, 2 rainguns, 2 tanks and 2 light tanks that can be used for shoot n' scoot. And then, the base keeps growing, so more units can be transfered.

    Then yes, it's only 10%; yes, the contractor still have to use army for expansion; but he counts now with that 10% army leased to a expert player who might be the dominating factor in the war between two players with equal skill. That thing, of course, wouldn't be an issue, had the expert player (or well, "mercenary") assist his average ally against the common enemy using its own troops and assuming the opprtunity and distance costs from that. Instead, those units transfered are already ready for use in battlefield and means two people fighting against one, who is fairly expecting a one-to-one duel. Not very fair, if you ask me. At least, without the transfer, that mercenary/ally still has to move their troops to assist the player. That's not happening there.

    But, now, let me view some of your points and I put them upside down to ask you: if it's only the 10%, if that not happen frequently, if you're fighting with the same amount of troops and if you're fighting with two countries (although I already explained the unfairness here), then why are you complaining about a so irrelevant removal? If units transfering isn't that important, as you want to show me, then there is no difference between remove it or leave it as it is. Again, I'm not of the kind of believing more options are better and a feature practically irrelevant but with the risk to be used in unfair way deserves to be removed.

    I think this thread has perhaps become side-tracked, that being said I think the community has clearly expressed that they are not behind latest update regarding unit trading and the limitations to resource trading specifically. The primary advocate (and only from what i gather? at least here.) for the update is Demonaire, and although he is entitled to an opinion, and to the expression of said opinion. He is, however, still a member Byto's staff base and thus perhaps inclined to side with his employer, no offense or anything demon but you are a member of staff first before you are a member of the community. It is literally your job (also i'm low-key annoyed you didn't respond to my counter-argument, but it be like that sometimes.).

    Thus I suspect it is now up to Bytro as to whether they wish to implement any changes or revert any of the changes they have thus far put into place. Some of these include:

    Well, Uncanny, big news: me being member of staff first before member of the community is a troublesome vision you and other people have and, hence, see me and other staff members like that is really your problem, not mine.

    It's clear for me my argument has less respect or less importance for you, not because that argument is good or bad. No, no, it's because I AM Bytro's staff member. A really nice ad hominem fallacy representation. And as far you hold and defend that vision, you really never fulfill to comprehend the dissent opinions, because you'll always focus in the person telling those counter-arguments before the counter-arguments themselves.

    Gosh, you're not even recognize that my opinion about the update as a whole is frankly bad (mainly due to the neutral trade removal). Of course, I get that, since that can't fit in your "distress community vs. evil staff" narrative.

    But well, you're right in something: it's now up to Bytro. And I suggest you to look for a couch, prepare a very good cup of colombian coffee, a good book to read and start to wait, until devs can be convinced the update is not that good as they think, and I hope that happens sooner than later.


    CM: "How's everything going?"
    Mods: "Oh, yeah, super cool, users loved last update"

    Those same users who allegedly loved last update: "What a bullshit update man"

    The funny thing there is: I know some games where that situation not only happens, but it's enforced by the same developers. Even in one game, developers have one good point to keep that behavior. Bytro, until now and AFAIK, doesn't show any of those situations. The correction of the Fire At Will update is an example. And considering you're retired veteran, I find very strange those words from you.

    The problem here is, Demonaire, that in fact, there's no answer at all, because the fact that only support team members are participating in those threads saying, "Added to the list", "Maybe", "This couldn't be done", it's just a bunch of words with no real weight on them because those support team members have no way to influence Bytro's decisions on what's the next step, specially if after adding it to the list, that is nice to gather all the ideas but doesn't have a way to see how good is an idea, it makes all the ideas equal, even if one of them it's the best(most amount of likes) and the next one is the worst(least amount of likes), you can't tell by just barely looking at the list. Also the fact that from the Support Teams there's no active pursue towards getting those suggestions reviewed by Bytro's game designer's or developers themselves and maybe even to try to add them in the game.

    Something most Support Members forget some weeks/months after they joined the team is that, you don't work for Bytro, you work for the community. As a volunteer, anywhere you'd be, you are dedicated to the cause, towards the community. You care for the company, because is the one giving the support to the game and community you love, but don't forget, it's the community who you have to commend to.

    If you think answers like "added to the list", "maybe" or "that couldn't be done" aren't enough, it's a OK for me. I disagree, of course, because those answers shows those ideas were read by Bytro members but they have the right to consider an idea is good or bad for the game and when it is the right time to implement it. Plus, in many cases, the likes a idea get isn't a good indicator that idea is really good: those only indicates the idea is very popular, and developers shouldn't be compelled to implement ideas just because popularity if those can damage the game. Finally, more people involving in decision making means more bureaucracy (hence, more inmovility), especially when people doesn't know the technical aspects, which explains why the devs can't give people a more elaborated answer about why an idea isn't feasible. although I certainly agree that if people ask for that elaborated answer, devs could give it.

    Something most of the community forgets when they say "You work for the community" to support members and volunteers is that "work for the community" doesn't mean support members and volunteers must become community "yes men". "Work for the Community" is, for example, dedicating some of my time to answer you and other people who's disturbed (in many cases, rightfully disturbed) by updates like this and deliver some of those concerns to the upper echelons, instead of joining brainlessly to all of you and say "Down with the unit trade removal!, Down with the Elite AI as standard!, Down with the trade removal!" If you think my disagreements means "me not working for the community enough", then I think community are the actual problem here, not the support members.

    I'm sorry but that's not Mods work, that's CM's work, because no one below CM's works at Bytro and therefore no one could talk to the developers/other employees or have internal conversations. If a CM needs 200 volunteers to know if an update has good or bad reviews or to interact with its community, the one he's supposed being paid for, then I'm sorry to say this but that CM isn't doing his/her job right.

    The joke here is, you'll see developers, CM's and other employees be active in the forums of the games they are working in, you have plenty of examples, League of Legends, Fortnite, CS:GO, Starcraft, Europa Universalis and many many others, how comes that an INDIE company like Bytro can't do that, are they too busy to interact with its community or is it just the amount of interest in the game itself?

    PS: Sometimes even support members don't interact with users. Just the idea of being a volunteer in a game you say you love and that you don't even interact with the community, simply insane.

    OK, If you want to wait for the CM. please, be my guest.

    As I said before, even in LOL. Fortnite, Starcraft, etc., I'm pretty sure developers doesn't applies brainlessly community ideas and suggestions. And I know pretty well the consequences of developers implementing in a game, without reserves, whatever idea community can have.

    If you want to think "Community is always right", go ahead. Just allow me to disagree.


    Well, in some sense, we, as mods, are the bridge between users and developers. So we're the ones in charge of keeping communication with the users and inform the developers about users' reaction on the updates they implement.

    I can empathize with the feeling of seeing most ideas and suggestions user gives took a long time to be implemented or aren't implemented at all. However, those answers, in some way disheartened, are better than not giving an answer at all or to promise your ideas and suggestions will surely be implemented only to not fulfill that promise.

    People must understand that NOT all the ideas and suggestions will ever be implemented and the best thing we can do in those cases is, at least, read those proposals and give a proper answer, even if opposed to the expectatives the player has.

    On the other hand, as you surely have had the opportunity to see, topics like this, in some cases, serves as applause committee for the people disagreeing with the updates implemented. Answers from mods disagreeing with them aren't welcome here and, in that context, it's understandable the devs prefers to not involving in such discussions. After all, their work isn't to interact with players, but develop the game in the way they think better serves for Bytro and the community. Hence, Mods are here for that interaction, including the communication to them about players' concerns and worries.

    I'm sorry for the fact there is no better way to manage those affairs.



    are you writing above as a mod or a a simple user trolling another user with spam in the topic about updates?

    No, I'm writing as an everyday player in Supremacy1914, which it's allowed for everyone who participate here. Of course, due to me participating here, I don't have allowed to exercise my power as Mod in this topic, as that would be an evident conflict of interests. If any violation results to happen here, I only could do the same thing an user would do: report the content. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Finally, trolling implies nonsense replies only for the sake of provocation. My reply to Momo only appoints to the fact that her considering my opinion wrong just because I'm Bytro Moderator is so off-of-the-mark (because of the evident ad hominem fallacy) that clearly remember me the same character from Girls und Panzer, who miss the mark even if her target was at point-blank range.

    Im quite frankly not surprised that a EN mod for bytro is defending these updates. I was enjoying a good amount of hours and pay from my job. When i became critical of them, my hours dropped significantly, i will not be working for the company in the coming weeks. Probably the same with you demon. (...)

    ...and then I stop reading. But don't worry: I'll compensate you with this image, which I think it reflected "sharply" my thought about your point of view:


    It's simple, Jeck: games aren't made for you having an easy playing, neither for the newbie (we can be considerated with their first steps, though) nor the expert. If you don't like challenges, that's fine, but spare me from that "standard".

    Greetings. :*

    And again, if your worries isn't about, let's say, the damage done by neutral trade removal, but because the AI is too powerful for you to face, then your conception of roleplay is essentially wrong, no matter how old are you in this game or how comfortable you are in the "standard".



    I used the destroyer as an example last time, this time I will use artillery as the example as you have. If I sell another country an artillery piece I sell them the artillery equipment, normally my artllery crew would cost 20 grain to operate this. However once I sell the artillery I keep my arty crew and the other country uses one of their arty crew to man the artillery they just bought. Thus they pay the 20 grain for the use of there artillery crew. No transaction of soldiers or nationals have occured, only the transfer of the artillery pieces themselves. This is done literally all over the world in billion dollar arms deals. I don't know were you got the notion that you have to merge infantry with a mech in order to use it, perhaps you are saying that you need soldiers to man the artillery. However these crews are not infantry, they are simply trained artillery crews that do not show on the map as they are not used to fight.

    On the idea of giving men to someone in your group that is a better PVPer. This is simply teamwork and i can tell you right now this would never happen between randoms. Is it a bad thing, no, you are still playing against the same amount of men with the same amount of land as if you had fought them all when they were controlling there own soldiers. Could this even happen, not really, 10% of an army being slightly upskilled is not enough to turn the tide of war. I mean ultimately if they employ this tactic you were going to fight the two of them anyway as they are friends outside of the individual game and will fight for each other regardless. Really this does not occur commonly, I myself have literally never seen it in my 2 years of play, and the negatives clearly out-weigh the positives (particularly if this is your 'positive').


    You perceived like this. I don't. Again, for your "I'm only buying the equipment" being true, the arty should only cost 5 oil as upkeep, without the 20 grains. You saying "I have my own artillery crew" makes no sense because I don't see, between my troops, the crew from the artillery I just transfered, in the same way you haven't that crew before you got the arty. Occam Razor, they call: the arty with the crew being transfered is simpler to assume than the "complexity" of imagine non-existent arty crew on both sides while you're receiving just the equipment.

    And no: giving troops to another player for him to use is anything else but teamwork. Teamworks requires coordination between those players (with the flaws that implies). Giving units to a better player is just shirking their work. That's all. Again, you perceived negatives clearly out-weigh the positives. I don't: the benefits of that removal overwhelmingly surpass the costs, as I saw it. More options isn't better and the content of that option in particular denaturalize that fighting since contractor can dedicate only to his country economy, since the mercenary will care their borders and expansion, forcing other players to do the same thing.

    That just remember me the SImpson episode where tennis doubles match between Bart/Marge vs. Homer/Lisa transformed in Sampras/Serena vs. Agassi/Venus. Yep, the same denaturalization.


    The Roleplaying I know involves NOT attacking countries with so menial reasons like you're writing. And if your main concern is about AI countries not being such a lousy weaklings, then you know nothing about what RP is.

    Or maybe your conception about RP is really different from mine.

    For that being true, the mechs you receive from me means me gaining one infantry (with mobilization 0%) as result of that transaction. The arty would cost only 5 oil for the upkeep, not the additional 20 grains. And, of course, that mechs would render unoperational unless merged with one infantry of yours.

    About my last statement, I summarize in this way (also for Golden Buddha ) : player X is fighting against player Y. If player Z wants to help player Y, go ahead, but with its own troops, not with player Y leased troops. With player Y managing economy and player Z in charge of military affair (because it's the expert player in the game) in Player Y country, Player X will always face an unfair disadvantage. Unit trade removal precisely resolves that unfair disadvantage, so if Player Z want to help his ally but he's in other corner of the map, then he can takes their own troops and move them to Player Y country, with the hardships that implies. And use forced march if he want to arrive faster.

    (Hehehe, the more I think about what Golden Frieeza said, the more I think the unit trade removal is a marvelous update.)


    But, if you had noted, mechanized units spends 20 grains and 5 oil as upkeep. That means you're not only trading mere cannons, planes, tanks or warships: you're also trading the troops who operates them. And putting national troops under a direct foreign commander was always an issue, at least at WWI (let alone the mere, pure, infantry/cavalry)

    As I said before, that's the case of USA refusing their troops integrating the british and french armies for 1918. prefering create the AEF in response. That was also true, in most cases, in ANZAC, canadians and indians troops: even if the overall commander was foreigner, almost all of the remainder chain of command must be nationals, to guarantee loyalty.

    That, of course, is the realistic argument, but then Golden Frieeza helped me to realize that the unit transfering is being used for superplayers hired by other players to obliterate an enemy player who's playing well. all while the contractor players just have to wait until that superplayer defeats the enemy and, then, distribute the war spoils. About that, the defeated player was expecting to fight against one of the contractors, not against the contracted superplayer, in a form of "legal" account-pushing. So that's the playability argument.


    I suggest we fix the unit trading, rss trading, and etc...

    <posted this before>

    Yes, but, in this case, the 20 grains of upkeep per unit means you're not only providing the vehicles, but the troops with them, and putting them under a russian commander. That, of course, isn't the rule in WWI. Remember how GB and France suggested USA to integrate their troops into british and french armies, encountering with a clear negative response from the United States men, who wanted to fight as AEF. Finally, french, british, US mens, canadians, indians, ANZAC, etc., should fight according to teamwork under a unified command, with their own troops and weapons. Unit trading avoids to replicate that.

    PVP Community

    1. Standard doesn't always mean that's great. And mechs trading doesn't improve teamwork. If your team want to exploit that breakthrough, then the best positioned player must be there to execute the task with his/her own resources, not giving others that task by trading mechs. As everything, that's reduce to the "knowhow about choosing your allies". In this case, IMO, minus (remove units trading) means plus (promotes teamwork) Also, I don't see why people hates cavalry so much...

    2.. As you surely have read from me. I'm against the remotion of neutral trade and I think Elite AI diplomatic treatment must be relaxed to a "dumb" AI status. In this case, we agree.

    3. Same as 2., except with the "providing troops" apart, per 1. If you want to protect your ally, fight for him/her with your troops and leave that part very clear in the diplomatic channels available. (GB guaranteed Belgium's neutrality in WWI, but the brits doesn't put their own troops under Leopold's orders in the most cases. Great Britain had their own commanders)

    4. Reads like a Elite AI defense. So, it's OK.

    RP Community

    1. Agree, per PVP. 2.

    2. That means you and the new players must be more cautelous and checking the reputation status before taking any action. In this point, you're vilifying and overestimating Elite AI too much. The Elite AI's true weight is its diplomatic management, designed for the players not to be warmongers. Military-wise, instead, it's not different from the "dumb" AI. So, as players understands they can't go out and declaring wars for teh fun, everything will be alright. Indeed, for me, that's really supportive for the RP community, since you're foremost against players declaring wars without good reasons, so Elite AI serves for that purpose. With the former said, however, I repeat as in PVP. 2.: the trouble now with Elite AI is them not giving ROW or Peace, as "dumb" AI did, at all, and that must be corrected.

    3. Agree, per PVP. 2. I never tire to repeat how infamous is for S1914 community the remotion of neutral trade.

    4. Agree, again.

    Social Alliances.

    I agree the update, as a whole, is a disaster. But I think that almost all that "whole" is due to neutral trade remotion, since that practically had destroyed the diplomacy in S1914 by becoming all wars in annihilation wars where no diplomacy is needed. By that reason, I ask in the official channels about the issue, where it's observed that people are not happy with the update. That's all.

    If any, we must wait.


    P.D. As temporary measure against the neutral trade removal, you can "pact" resources with other players in the stockmarket as part of diplomatic ceasefire or peace treaties. And now having information spies on your allies becomes a must for that enforcement, despite how cumbersome it is.

    Reading your first three paragraphs (and especially your "mercenary" work), now I think unit trading removal is the real star of this update and, noblesse oblige, it almost make me to say "kudos" to the developers (almost, of course, because of the infamous trade removal between neutrals).

    Essentially, your "mercenary" work is falling at some distance from account-pushing. It isn't, of course, but it's like a legal trick to do it. And if that was the mode people was using the units trading, removal decision is totally correct. People wants to play against another people, not playing against the level 1000 superplayer who resulted to be there and the other players make him to do the dirty job because the opponent was a good player.

    And, of course, things like the former are the ones you only can see when you only have some tens of games in your description, instead of your zillions. That's why, for me, you scrubbing in my face your zillions of games played is a fallacy, not an argument. So, spare us from your "I've played zillions of games" bragging.

    Do you think you must be compensated for GM by updates thrown like a bomb? Maybe, I think updates shouldn't be launched in the way Bytro does. It should have a previous announcement before the implementation to take note from player's reaction. And, if the update is a surprise bomb, Bytro may compensate players who feels harmful by that, if they can't exempt those matches from the updates. But, on the other hand, I don't see how a player can ask for compensation when he asks another players to transfer troops to him and, in that way, face another players whom doesn't meet with your "moral" criteria (HNR,activity players, Gm players and rushers). That, again, is falling at some distance from ruining game experience for players.

    You can despise realism all you want. For me, it's a variable that can't be ignored. I think, however, playability is more important. Your post is a good proof: transfering troops not only shows realistic flaws, but playability flaws too. Clearly, it generates more troubles than benefits, so its remotion is, IMHO, benefical for S1914. At least, that surely allows RPGers and medium tier users to have some fun, by avoiding some superplayer obliterates them if they don't fulfill superplayer criteria.


    Unit trading can be a very useful tactic for a coalition to use against "some" players and should be instituted again. Also, when a person is leaving a round because they had an emergency or work or some other reason it would be good to be able to give their mech units to one of their team mates. Elite AI for all games is useful because now it will affect your stats with all the wars. It ALSO will change a lot of tactics that some players have been using against "dumb" AI.

    For me, unit trading destroyed the purpose of teamwork, leaving aside the unrealism of such action, precisely by the reasons you mention in your post.

    If you have a strong and trustworthy team, your allies can accompany you in your wars, instead of taking the highway of giving you troops. In that sense, I don't oppose to such update.

    Indeed, the roleplaying would have been improved with the elite AI and the unit trade removal update... but then, they also decided to destroy the trade between neutrals...

    I think I'll be the lone dissenter in some of the valid critics this update have received...

    + Elite AI: For me, that's a great update, whether you're roleplaying or not. Talking about realism, there's nothing realistic at all in moblilize all your troops against one enemy without worry about the other countries you border with. I think it's good to punish the warmonger players and this update serves that purpose. However, as nothing is perfect, I think that Elite AI should be less obstinated when players proposes peace or RoW on them. If a player have good reputation, the Elite AI have to prize that player.

    + Units trade removal: another great update. Sorry, people, but, for me, it was making no sense at all, in the realistic POV, about giving soldiers or war material to another country like "Hey, you, brit chap, your government have decided you're not brit anymore! Since we lost the war with Germany, we decided you're german now, so sing "Deutschland Über Alles" and you must say "Ich bin ein Berliner". And yes, that's applies with artys, planes, tanks and navies. After all, those units consumes 20 grain per day. If you want to be a good ally, either in normal or RP games, moves your troops towards your allies battlefield, not take the easy way of give them your troops.

    That's all. Because yes, the removal of trade between neutrals sucks and easily can be the most infamous update ever.