I would like to reiterate another poster's comment that expansion penalty+distance penalty should penalise poorly managed morale.

It is also valid that it tries to slow down run away dominant players, especially those who get an early start and can never be caught as a result. I think the idea behind the expansion penalty is a good one.

But it is a curse to any solo player. It castrates talented, successful solo players.

It needs to be moderated to work more fairly in it penalising of solo players.

Coalitions already have an advantage because they dont need to individually conquer as much territory.

But the expansion penalty is destroying the game of good, naturally dominant solo players because of how it is designed.

And this shouldn't be the case. Because to win and dominate as a solo player (without using GM) takes a vastly higher amount of skill than to win as a coalition member.

This imbalance needs to be fixed.

I wrote a lengthy response to the expansion penalty comments - did it get disallowed?

Either way - my simple response.

I have won my last 4 games as the dominant player (3x solo wins, 1x coalition). 3 of them since the expansion penalty was introduced.

All I do now is build frickin fortresses - and then if I get enough wood - I build railways as well.

About 12 hours per week I get to build weapons. Then I attack someone for 12 hours to create some movement in my points score. Then I go back to building fortresses and railways for another 5 days. Repeat.

Its become a very boring building simulator. I usually have defeated the significant opposition by the 10-14th day.

After that's it usually 4x weeks of building forts and railways.

C'mon!! It's killing the game!

In my last letter which took me 2 hours to compose after many re-edits - I suggested creating a "stabilisation" +modifier to reduce the impact of expansion penalty on existing territories. Perhaps this idea is why my posts were not posted here?

This would still slow down the leading player by a week for every time he took territory (time it takes to re-stabilise morale once the expansion penalty really starts to bite at around 15-20pts). But it would mean that territories that had been well developed in response to the expansion penalty would reflect the "stabilisation" of their population. Therefore instead of paralysing the leading player for 4-6 weeks, the penalty would slow them down enough to give others chance to become competitive. Currently I'm unable to both build weaponry and stabilise morale. if I had any stiff competition that was attacking me in that situation, I would have to pick between not-building weaponry (maybe lose war) or allowing a morale-death spiral to take hold (probably lose the game). Luckily by the time the expansion penalty has taken hold I have taken out all serious competition. But truly once the expansion penalty takes hold I feel castrated as a player.

Surely the purpose of the expansion penalty is to slow down steam-rolling early achievers (especially those that achieve a fast start using gold mark (damn their eyes!)) - surely the purpose should not be to paralyse successful skilful players to the point that the game barely functions beyond a building sim (that is my experience from the last couple of months)

In addition to my critique of the expansion-penalty I would like to say that the former being "at war" penalty actually made alot of sense (to some degree). And I would support there being a penalty for being at war with everyone all the time. At least with this penalty you could manage that in a realistic way - example by choosing to focus on one enemy at a time. It was an interesting and realistic penalty - even though it didn't really represent the spoils-of-war adequately. Again that "at war" penalty needed a "glory/military success" modifier so that nations who kept winning wars got less penalties than nations who were in just as many wars but were not having any military success. So there should be an "at war" penalty but there should be a "military success" bonus modifier as well.

So, if possible, if you consider mitigating the expansion penalty with a "stability/cultural dominance" modifier (as suggested in my former commentary) please try to reinstate the "at war" penalty. as part of the mix. The idea behind it was a very good one. BUT please also mitigate that with a "military success/glory" modifier to both penalise AND reward players who are at war with lots of nations but also having major success militarily. This is a more accurate representation of "real-life". (nations who wage lots of war unsuccessfully should suffer a heavy "at war" morale cost that kicks in after a certain amount of time). Thats just quite realistic.

Quote from freezy

As I said in my previous post we are aware that there might be some challenges now in the endgame. I hope you agree though that the early game definitely got less challenging morale wise due to the removal of the at war penalty, and expansion penalty only kicking in in mid to lategame. So maybe the meta now is to use the easier time in early game to prepare for the harder time in lategame. It also only harder if you try to win solo, as coalition players won't be hindered by the expansion penalty much (they only need to conquer like 15-25% of provinces each). But we will think about the topic again, and potentially make some adjustments.

I am tending to win most games I play lately since the expansion penalty came in. I only play 1-2 games at a time. I am basically playing a "building-game" pretty much full-time these days (and a boring one at that). Due to my strategy (not GM) I am coming to the lead usually in the first 10 days - and usually by 14 days I have knocked out the significant competition - but by then, as a solo player I'm getting up to a significant expansion penalty. Because I understand this, I then am spending almost all my time building fortresses - and then when im big enough or have enough wood, railways. As a solo player (but also in my coalition games where I am usually the largest country) the game is becoming tedious because in this scenario, I have limited choice but to maintain my morale pretty much full-time. Example in my last couple of games, when the expansion penalty really starts to bite, I built nothing but fortresses for a whole week!! In all these games I have had masses of double metal and still it has taken me 7 days to stabilise my morale (not build it, just stabilise it and recover it). In my most recent game I played Sweden so I had quite a lot of wood provinces near my centre so I could build more railways which is a good boost. But still I only get these tiny windows of opportunity to build weapons. Then my score starts stagnating (because you can only build limited score via buildings and morale) and to win the game solo, I then have to keep pushing to get more territory. And then, as a result, the expansion penalty shoots up (along with Distance to capital because more territory = further away) and so then im stuck for another 3-7 days of just building buildings.

I am finding that being a good solo (or even the dominant coalition player) is becoming tedious and somewhat joyless under this new expansion penalty. I like what you are trying to achieve but there is kind of no end to it for a successful solo player. I should not be penalised for being good at winning the game alone (this is obviously undesirable when a player shoots to the front and dominates using gold mark early on - but for players who manage this "ala naturale" via skill, the expansion-penalty combined with distance-penalty is very punitive). The effect of the penalty is way too strong for way too long.

I wondered if the expansion-penalty could be partially mitigated by a "stabilisation/cultural dominance" morale bonus each time you go through the "expansion VS stabilisation" cycle? Surely if you spend a whole week building fortresses throughout your whole empire (and building NOTHING else) this should have some kind of perpetual adjustment to your overall morale? This seems to be the imbalance in the application of the penalty - that you get no credit for your good works.

Example - Like if I expand to 20% of the map as a solo player, and then I spend a week stabilising my empire (at the 20% of map size) - the system should acknowledge that achievement somehow and make a recalculation - there should be a global reduction in the expansion penalty for that 20% of the total map (which represents the concretisation of my culturel influence over that part of the map = which is a real-life effect). New territory acquisitions after that would then be subject to the full effect of expansion penalty but the original "20% of map" gains a "stabilisation modifier" for rebuilding and maintaining morale over a period of time. This could be symbolised by a "stabilisation" or "cultural dominance" +modifier that counters the expansion penalty in each territory in the original "20% of map". In this way, the dominant player has been slowed down by a whole week but then gains a reward that represents the solidification of his cultural influence over 20% of the map. This 20% of the map then becomes somewhat more "stabilised" (meaning the expansion penalty becomes somewhat mitigated in this older more established territory.) Say I then conquer 30% of the map, the most recent 10% of map is subject to the whole expansion penalty but the prior 20% has lower expansion-penalty. Perhaps I spent the next week stabilising the morale on this whole 30% of the map (there's another week I can't build weapons or expand for other players to catch up). But then my current "30% of the map" then receives a "stabilisation" bonus. Then I am not being crippled to the point that it is almost impossible to win solo. Im getting rewarded for stabilising and maintaining my morale over a significant period of time - and then I have a chance to enjoy some warfare and strategy. In the current model, my hands are so tied-up in managing morale that it feel like I have no room to breathe militarily.

Surely the purpose of the expansion penalty is not to destroy the ability to enjoy the strategic essence of the game?

In the current game success is being penalised so heavily that the essence of the game is being lost for talented solo players or dominant players .

I totally support the idea behind the expansion penalty - of slowing down and interrupting the dominant player - to allow other players a chance to get back into the game - and to avoid early growers (especially those using GM) from completely dominating the game. But it has now swung the other way too far and im thinking of giving up the game because as a building game its rather dull (lets face it, its not designed to be like Civilisation with all the cool facets of culture and research etc - its a strategy game. period. ) And I am not able to get any space to explore my power strategically under the current conditions. Its just morale-building-grind over weeks and weeks and weeks. If you are winning each game you play and focusing into one main game, then the fun strategy stuff is over in the first 7-10 days - then its just a build-fortress/railway-morale-grind until the end of the 6 weeks / time period.

Until this recent game mechanics update introducing the expansion penalty, MANAGING MORALE was still THE CRITICAL factor in winning the game. It ACCURATELY represented the significance of ECONOMIC power behind any Military power. That was what I loved about this game. It was so hard to win. You had to manage both economy & resources & military strategy & diplomatic relationships all together to succeed at the game. It was quite well balanced and the most accurate strategy game I had ever played (not withstanding that a player could run away with a constant expansion and pretty much just steam roll everyone, up to a point - that was the only drawback). But the expansion penalty does interrupt that steamroller effect now but the application of it needs to be mitigated.

I think the previous comment of mine is the essence of my current experience - that I do know how to manage my morale under the expansion penalty. BUT, that all the strategic fun happens in the first 7-10days as a solo dominant player. And after that its just a morale-build-grind after that interspersed with tiny moments of weapon-building/attack-someone and then back to another week of morale-build-grind. Its becoming boring as f##k and its also a massive time-suck even using the build-menu. Because I'm powerful in these games, I get to destroy 1 country per week really quickly usually in less than a day. And then the next 4-7 days is spent managing my build cues. Its boring.

Please consider introducing a "stabilisation/cultural dominance" bonus modifier as I explained earlier to counter the impact of the expansion penalty. The current expansion penalty is killing the game for successful solo players.

In summary - we need to radically adjust the application of the expansion penalty so that it interrupts and slows down the relentless advance of dominant players. BUT they should then be able to integrate the expansion and therefore be able to mitigate the expansion penalty with a "stabilisation/cultural dominance" modifier, as a result of successfully managing their morale through sustained building and infrastructure development.

Secondly - the issue of morale pre-expansion penalty was already very significant in game success - it was closer to reality before the expansion penalty - so the expansion penalty has made the game less realistic because it impact is over-the-top, especially on solo players. Its application needs to be quite radically reconsidered.

Thanks for considering my feedback.

Display More

Hi there. I am playing 100 player event. I use the chat function extensively. My internet and rest of game is fine but there is a huge lag ongoingly with this part of the game. Its costing me hours and hours of extra time waiting for the message screen to load. Repeatedly I type and it takes up to 20-30 seconds for the text to appear. I have no lag in any other aspect of the game.

How can I get Bytros to address this problem?

Does anyone else have this problem?

I am a huge user of this function so it is really effecting my quality of experience.

Note - I have been using the game hours per day for last couple of weeks. The problem is very consistent.

Correction - now I am experiencing big lags in other pages loading within the game eg messages, switching between views like espionage. Its so annoying and its pretty constant. it wasn't always like this. I have very fast internet.

Aaaargh. Its sooo slow!!!

Please see my new post regarding this in the post

Goldmark-free Supremacy Game - create Supremacy League (Pay-per-Game).

Here I suggest creating a GoldMark-free League which is Pay-per-Play instead which in itself solves the problem of poor participation. If you pay to play Goldmark-free, you already increase participation because you have paid to play the game. There is an option within the game to refund players who get knocked out super early. check out my new post in the General Discussion section.

I reckon tonnes of people have left the game in such frustration and lots of people would say "nah don't play Supremacy 1914 - it's pay to win". Imagine if all those people came back to the game and subscribed to it, and then told their good friends, and they told their friends how awesome Supremacy is, and so on. Bytros would be making plenty of dough.

Another advantage of this model is that without goldmark, you can't buy your way to a win, and so it stops the players that keep winning using Goldmark from winning more Goldmark and becoming the dominant players. Goldmark is a self fulfilling prophecy that rewards those that support the system financially (helping them become the dominant players) - but ultimately it makes Supremacy a lesser game that you really can't win without cheating (Goldmark). Lets be honest. Almost everyone hates that except the few. Goldmark driven games dumbs down the collective by rewarding poor strategy and big spending and penalising skill that is not backed by a big wallet. If the collective pays for the games, then we can incentivise good gameplay, intelligent strategy and gamesmanship, hence creating a smarter, more evolved gaming community. As different from a divided, money driven, ultimately dumbed down gaming community. Pay-to-win is only good for Bytros. its not good for the community. Functional subscriptions or Pay Per Play is a win-win for BOTH the community and Bytros. The game improves, the players improve and largely everyone is happier. Participation is higher when you pay to play. The game becomes about how you play the game rather than rewarding unskilled victories fuelled by pay to win.

Lets Support PLAY-to-WIN, not PAY-to-WIN.

I wrote earlier in the thread about creating a goldmark-free subscription based version of Supremacy. Since talking to other players I realise that Bytros makes WAY too much money out of some people via Pay -to-Win. So I guess this is not an option. What I would like to suggest to Bytros and the community is the creation of a Goldmark-free Pay-to-Play League.

It could be called "Supremacy League"

Meaning it is the Goldmark-free League.

A Pay-Per-Play League for people who want to play Goldmark-Disabled games would be super easy to test out on the community.

You just offer the Goldmark-free games to existing talented players (like the Frontline pioneer offers) and rejig the account system to make those games

1. Goldmark free

2. Payable via account for Pay-Per-Play.

Then you get feedback from the players.

Did they like it?

What changes would they suggest.

Pay-per-Play could use the existing Goldmark payment system without having to set up any complication subscriptions. A good way to test the water. Prices could start at

$2 for a 10 player game.

$5 for an Event 100 game

$3 for a 100 or 500 player non-event game.

$3 for a 30 player game.

All Goldmark free.

Longer term, you aim to make it so you just register an account and link a debit card or PayPal.

Then you have choice of pay per play, subscription or free service.

Man I reckon people would pay to play Goldmark-free. Imagine 500 players paying $3-$5. Thats good money for Bytros and totally scalable for massive future growth.

Existing players would totally go for the Goldmark-free option.

All those players who have left in the past due to disgust with the unfairness of Pay-to-Win (and that would be ALOT of people) would potentially come back and play this new version.

To make it fair, there could be a algorithm that notices how fast you get knocked out. If you get knocked out first day you get your money back. If you get knocked out really early (in first 3 days?) you get 50% refund. If you go inactive, you get NO money back. This automatically encourages participation. Kills 2 birds with one stone. People paying per play with no goldmark are automatically motivated to higher levels of participation. This would be a GREAT secondary outcome.

To facilitate this you have a single account. and you can automatically manage your account to be monthly, or pay-per-play.

Once you get people signing up to accounts you are getting like Steam. Very good for Bytros's business model. they could then consider buying up other strategy games to add to the stable. That is how Steam got started with a central good game.

the only person I am able to message is the alliance leader

Quote from mnemloch

This has been an issue since the beginning. The only way you could probably do it is punitive. And even then, people would just create new accounts probably to get around it.

I think if people have to start a new account then they lose all their progress. I think anyone who likes this game would like to progress. It good to see the ranking improving. I will keep working on my proposal.

does that mean I cant message anyone in my alliance? It seems the message function is blanked out.

Thanks for replies guys and gals.

I think we could change it. We have AI right? So there could be an algorithm that tracks peoples game behaviour. I dont mean this to be punitive. Its good that people have the opportunity to learn by starting new games. What we want is for people not necessarily stay to the end, but incentivise them to make an effort even if they are losing. it makes sense to give up and leave when you are dow to a few territories or are out of resources with no options. But I have banded together with people against the odds in the past and taken down some dominant players using strategy. Its really satisfying . And to be honest, most people really respect you when you put up a good fight.

So the question remains - how to incentivise gutsy behaviour?

I'm thinking of a metric that reward deeper player engagement rather than just starting lots of games and bailing. Which is fine, and shouldn't be punished or made wrong. it just shouldn't be rewarded. Any currently the incentive is to leave the game you dont like and start up somewhere else. Thats nice for the individual but its pretty crappy for the collective. ITs pandering to the short attention span of the player rather than encouraging a really rewarding level of gameplay that is possible with this game.

I am writing up my proposal for this metric as we speak.

I will post here later on when I have finished my proposal.

hey can anyone help me with this? I cant message anyone in my alliance

I am going to have a really quick rant.

The downside of this very intriguing game is that if you are effective in playing Supremacy 1914 (10 players) I find people just disappear when things aren't going their way. It really shits me. Its like short attention span. Its the downside of the thing where you can just go and start a new nation as soon as your not winning. With the 10 player game, as soon as you get a decent 3 player alliance, everyone drops out. We recently smashed one of a 3 player alliance, and the other 2 just left. It totally destroys the game when everyone leaves. To me its bad sportsmanship. What happened to fighting the good fight? Can we create a way to regulate this to try to encourage people to stay in the game and take responsibility for the fact that they joined the game (for better or for worse). The game becomes meaningless when people do this. And its happening to me a lot. Suggestions people?

Hey. I am unable to send any messages to members o my alliance. Why? The send button is never highlighted even if I write a subject name and text