Is that game really a success? There seem to be 500,000 more register users yes but a much much larger percentage seem to be inactive. I last week tried to play it again and am now a private have joined but not finish 2 games. I'm already in the top 300K players. As a Lieutenant you'd be in the top 100 players! Not so on here.
None of the games on the home page are full. Even the one at 300+ days. My game after a couple of days only has 5 active players the highest ranked of whom is a Sergeant.
CoW is a poor game with apparently few active players.
Also as to the point about the real world be 3D so 3D is more realistic. Firstly if we wanted realistic graphics we'd be playing Call of Duty or some such. Secondly this game is about Strategy if you want a realistic depiction of what staff officers see when dictating strategy then they are actually staring at maps and reading incoming reports. That was true in 1914 and it was true as recently as 2003 in Iraq, for me at least.
Unfortunately, wars aren't fought in staff officers' posts, but on terrain. There is where it counts.
And that returns back to my statement about Legacy being just a upgraded RISK board, not a well-conceived WWI representation. Legacy is good today by playability, because in other aspects, it was well outdated.
makes more sense to build military and conquer simcity than build simcity and be conquered
ultraoff- 90% ress into military
I am guessing that swapping position of red and blue bar will solve the thing. looks like someone forgot to run final test after finishing codding
Remember that only PvP military fights are scored (including Elite AI), so, it's possible to have economical score higher than military one.
Can you not do nested quotes on this form to allow addressing individual points?
1) I personally don't see how 2D is Napoleonic and 3D is WWI? NGA Planets is set in space and that's very simple 2D maps. Still feels futuristic.
2) But the units haven't changed in the new version? So I don't see the difference. Still Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery plus Tanks, Planes and Ships.
3) They do look nice but like CoW they make game play more difficult.
That said I can totally see the need to be able to get onto mobile and steam platforms to drive the product forwards.
I think it's great that the MODS and Staff have so much belief in the new game but personally I think it'll end up very similar to CoW.
You have your way of quoting, I have mine.
I don't know NGA Planets, but if that game would go under a similar revamp, it would be aesthetically better a 3D rockets than 2D ones. And since this discussion is clearly aesthetic, then it's pretty obvious the units' changes are pantagruellian and sums up to a big WWI environment.
I don't know CoW either, but here I assume (considering the recurrent comments about that) Bytro wants to uniform their games under a same design. Of course, that policy have pros and cons but, IMHO, as far as they wants to improve the game in a way where there is a WWI feeling, that should be enough.
As I said, nobody is telling you TGW is easier for the players to use than Legacy, but, from visuals, the new map is already an great improvement against the old one.
hahahahahaha :))))))))))))) bring memory back to support ticket way back [#ERH-621725]: [Bytro-Moderator] 2523055: [Bug Report]: no city no units . The new is super great huh?
Yes, and a bug in the log in don't give you a right.
Well, the fortress is NOT destroyed in the image. It's clear that is a fortress level 2+, which have the feature to hide troops quantity and composition.
So, no, it isn't a bug.
You've said twice now it's a representation of the Napoleonic Wars why do you say that? Also specifically which parts of the TGW design feel more like WWI?
I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'd genuinely like to here your take on those points?
If you had played RISK and then you see the "Legacy" board, you can see the similarities: very simple map, both land and sea, and "napoleonic" units (infantry, cavalry and artillery) with only the improvements required (tanks, planes, ships, etc.) Even designs we related in Legacy with WWI could show as "napoleonic" and there will be no difference (newspaper, diplomacy, and so on)
The TGW map show us 3D units truly related with WWI (infantry with drill uniforms and rifles, 21 cm Mörser 16, Mark IV, Renault FT, Dreadnought, etc ) plus the barbed wire to signal the enemy border-No man's land kind of.
Of course, "TGW" map still needs more work (this font, for example, is too modern for this game), but, comparatively, it's certain the new map is more loyal to a WWI style than Legacy.
That's actually what I like about this game. It's very much like Risk Plus most games are won or lost through strategy and alliances and relatively few people pay to win.
There are LOTS of other games out there with more complex tech trees etc but this had it's own niche. I guess they'll move this game more towards Call of War. Personally I didn't like that game, although perhaps I should try it again, but if it's significant'y more popular than the current S1914 then of course it makes sense for the owners to move it in that direction.
At the end of the day it's about building a game with the widest appeal because at the end of the day it's a business.
The point of "most games are won or lost through strategy and alliances and relatively few people pay to win" remains unchanged in the "The Great War" design. The true difference here, until now, is that Legacy excellent playability is still not implemented in the new design.
But the criticism remains: design-wise, Legacy is a RISK-esque representation of Napoleonic Wars, and yes, everybody loves RISK, but S1914 wants to close to the WWI theme and, for that, designs like "TGW" are needed.
If i need to define them it'll mean you didn't play them, so why vote for it?
You're right, but also people could not distinguish between one event and another. It would be more clear in that way.
that may kill they game most likely since a lot will retire from they game.The new mode far to many point that are not good, and legacy is all perfect,
OK, I wasn't gonna enter in that field, but I think it's a good moment now...
Sorry, but I don't see perfection in a mode that, like Legacy, looks more like a big RISK board with more features (more truthful to the Napoleonic Wars) than a true representation of World War I, which is devs are looking for with the new map.
I'm totally for playability before aesthetics, and that's the commendable thing about Legacy, but since S1914 is a game about "The war to end all wars", it have no sense to prefer a mode that's completely far from that concept.
Firstly, Have you read the respective section in the manual?
1. Nobody really use spies/saboteurs in the early stage of a match, since they're expensive and you'll need money to replace some of them when they're captured by the enemy. Besides, developing your country comes first to work to destroy another. I recommend to hire them when you have more than 300k in your account and your income flux is above +2000/h
2. Information Spy is basic for you to know about other countries. That applies for both allies and foes. (for example, that spy will give you info about your ally's available resources, so you can do a transaction giving him resources he need and him giving you resources you need. In the same mode, you could "sabotage" an enemy by buying all existences of a resource in the stock market thanks to that info)
3. Out of the two types, military saboteurs are the best since they directly impact on the enemies war machine. Economical Saboteurs, instead, are more effective on a province without any relevant building. So, if you want to destroy a province to make its population to revolt, first destroy its infrastructure with MS before using ES. Note, however, it would be needed too many days (and too much money) to achieve that goal. Otherwise, if you only want to harm the war capacity of that country, MS in its relevant provinces are all you need for that.
I really hate those speed rounds. I'm so used to normal speed that I used to be late when there are critical decisions to be taken.
Of course, that's my subjective view. Objectively speaking, those round give variety to the game.
I think that, to not making too complex and for a start, the terrain should be related with troop's speed and fog of war features and reduce the options to forest, plains and mountains. In that sense, artilleries and tanks would have its speed halved in mountains, so the infantry and Armored Cars in forests (Cavalry would be esentially inmune to those terrains). Besides, troops in mountains will have their sight doubled but halved in forest.