The Problem:
Heavy Goldmark (GM) spending on unit speedups and morale boosts frequently ruins the grand strategy experience for long-term tactical players. While the recent inclusion of free grindable Hero medals attempts to bridge the gap, it has inadvertently widened the power divide between veteran players and beginners. We recognize that GM sales keep the game alive, so outright removal is economically impossible.
The Solution:
Introduce a premium, isolated game mode called "Tactical Buy-In Matches" with the following structural rules:
Upfront Entry Fee: Entering these specific maps requires a developer-defined fee, payable either via a real-money "Tournament Pass" or a large, flat Goldmark buy-in deduction upon registration.
In-Match Zero GM Lock: Once the match begins, all premium functions are entirely disabled. Players cannot use Goldmarks to speed up construction, instantly heal troop stacks, sabotage enemy infrastructure, or alter province morale.
Pure Skill Resolution: The match relies 100% on economic optimization, micro-positioning, real-time alliance diplomacy, and vanilla engine mechanics.
Why This Benefits Bytro Labs & The Community:
Monetizes the Core Base: Players who refuse to play on standard "pay-to-win" maps will gladly spend their accumulated GM or cash to access a safe, fair ecosystem.
Preserves standard maps: Whale spenders can still enjoy traditional maps, while competitive purists get an official environment to test true strategic skill.
Do you think a flat buy-in fee of 5,000 to 10,000 Goldmarks would be a fair entry barrier for these premium maps, or should it be restricted strictly to a paid monthly Battle Pass feature?
@soccer random I particularly like the idea of competitive buy-in matches without Goldmark spending. It levels the playing field and may make strategic play more important than just who can spend more money. Wouldn't it risk alienating some people if they couldn't keep up in other ways?
This is a fine idea, but you would have to disable more than GM spending. You would have to disable heroes and boosts from inventories as well. If you are going to play a purist game, it has to be a completely leveled playing field. Not everyone has all the heroes, the same level heroes, or the same amount of boosts in their inventory. I would pay 5K GM for a game of pure strategy, but the payout would have to be worth it.
I strongly support this idea.
I used to play Supremacy 1914 a lot, but I eventually stopped playing because the competitive experience changed too much with Goldmark, Heroes and boosts.
I still really like the game and I would genuinely like to come back.
However, I don't want Goldmark or the current monetization system to be removed from the normal game. I think the better solution is to create a separate competitive mode where everyone starts on equal terms.
I believe Goldmark, boosts, and Hero advantages should all be disabled or standardized in these matches. Otherwise, simply disabling Goldmark would not completely solve the problem.
The winner should be decided by strategy, diplomacy, economy, positioning and tactical decisions — not by how much someone can spend or how developed their Heroes are.
Please consider testing this as an official competitive or limited-time game mode.
I would genuinely come back to Supremacy 1914 if a mode like this existed.
This thread is worth reading. Thanks for sharing.
Please log in to post a reply.
