Posts by Colonel God

    A quick note to say "I hate stormtroopers"

    Simply put they destroy game dynamics by making anyone who has them so ridiculously powerful early game that it makes a mockery of any player not using them. They so ridiculously upend natural game-play that whoever doesnt have them (if they can manage to survive long enough) has to wait for tanks to show up to find an equaliser (unless of course if they have mountains of food and can make unlimited cavalry).

    Anyway the joy of this game for me is using skill and game play to squeeze every victory possible out of any game. Stormtroopers destroy any nuance and by the time tanks come around, your likely being so dominated by those flush with stormtroopers (who got a MASSIVE early start for the first 12 days) that you will never catch up.

    CANNOT WAIT for them to just disappear.


    BTW - I was leading a 4xspeed Free for All 100 player event for first couple of days. still second on Day 11. but the guys with buckets of stormtroopers are filling out the rest of the top 10. And the number one guy has double my territories - which is just not possible to do without either mega cav or stormtruppen because without them, every time you take out an army of 50 or similar, you have to go rotate your troops for a days rest to recover morale (which is a great rule). But the stormtroopers are so powerful when you use x3, that they can just keep smashing their way through everyone (hence double my # of territory).

    (Also I still have no food so haven't been able to build a barracks or a cav. ).


    Anyway, its not that im only coming second. its all the poor bastards that just HAVE ZERO CHANCE. To me it just ruins the game play.

    Anyone else feel this way?


    PS I have plenty of metal so I have dozens and dozens of cars. but they fatigue when they are used to attack repeatedly even with say 14AC + 40INF.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?