|
Post by hardlec on Dec 18, 2018 22:50:32 GMT -6
A series of historical variants would be useful. Political events March as historical, technology marches as historical, even only historical ship designs are allowed. These would be useful as learning experiences. Of course, the fewer choices players get the more boring the game gets, but there is value to simple "drills" have a use.
AI vs AI was needed in RTW. The original version was the player against the world. This eliminated several options, such as joining a war when the situation was no longer in doubt or playing "let's you and him fight."
The March of social evolution was no March. There were many forks in the road. The Tsar decides not to over-react, the battle of Tshushima never happens. The Russo-Japanese war is a stalemate. A Russian Monk disappears. An Austrian Duke decides not to change his planned route. The Romanovs survive. An Austrian corporal doesn't. There are many Nexus points in history. Many options.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Dec 24, 2018 5:05:34 GMT -6
I'm glad to see the large amount of responses to this thread both from those who support these ideas and from those who are more or less indifferent - they ought to be discussed either way. Having said that, I'd like to clarify my personal position at this point. First of all, a reminder of the collation of my own and others' ideas which I presented earlier: - I'm not suggesting that any of these items should be a higher priority than highly polished combat mechanics. - I'm not suggesting that the game should in any way be railroaded in its tension mechanics and the outbreak of wars. - I'm not suggesting that any of the more complex solutions about which I have speculated need to be implemented before the game can be considered complete. All I'm suggesting is that at least some of the least complex solution which have been proposed would be worth adding to the game, either before or after release. My reasons are as follows: 1. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, (though I have not been corrected so far,) that the most simple solutions that have been proposed would not involve a large amount of work to implement relative to the brain power and man-hours required to implement the very complex mechanics that are currently already implemented or being implemented. 2. The major attraction for this game is not the improvement of the mechanics which pertain to the first game's time period, but the implementation of new mechanics which pertain to the new time period of 1925 - 1950. Since the game does already include a political / diplomatic element, I believe that without emphasising this element any more than was already the case in the first game, new mechanics should be implemented to make the new time period feel distinct in the political / diplomatic arena. I therefore believe that a mechanic to modify tensions depending on ideology differences is the most important suggestion as well as being, I presume, one of the easiest to implement. The events which drive the 'diplomacy' element of the first game are tailor - made for the world of the early 1900s, and offer a very good abstraction of the diplomacy of that period; it's all about colonies, prestige, and imperial rivalry, and it pits every nation against every other nation. This system is not appropriate, however, for the period of 1925 - 1950/74, which ought to be defined by grand ideological confrontations in peace and war. If all we had was the current system of tensions, alliances and wars, I would feel that the game had not captured the essence of the new time period which is its major selling point as successfully as the original game captured the essence of its time period. 3. AI vs AI wars are of secondary importance, but do not necessarily need to be of greater complexity, as I hope I have at least somewhat successfully laid out above. I believe that the implementation of even the most rudimentary system will be beneficial, because it would be much more than flavour. Of course, it will as others have pointed out make the game feel more 'real' and 'alive'; it will increase player immersion. However, perhaps more importantly, it will also add new dimensions of strategy for the player to consider. If I am playing as Britain in 1904, I may decide to sign a treaty with France not because I need the help of the French navy, but because I do not want to see the France defeated by Germany. If I am playing as the USA in 1917, I may decide to enter the ongoing world war not because I am directly threatened by one side or the other, but because I will be directly threatened if one side should overthrow the balance of power. If I am playing as Italy in 1940 or Japan in 1941, I may decide to go to war with the western alliance not because I am strong enough to beat them by myself, but because their war with Germany creates a window of opportunity. Some further new thoughts / clarifications of old ones:
Nations should 'flip' ideology either by random events, or by total defeat in war as in the first game. Thus, every game ought to turn out differently. Of course, an optional 'historical' mode could not hurt, but it is not necessary. It should be entirely possible for a player to avoid war with a nation of a different ideology, if he is willing to make the necessary sacrifices to budget, prestige, etc. in the events that pop up. It should even be possible for a player to go to war with a nation of the same ideology, if he so chooses. All that needs to be modified is the likelihood that an event which has the possibility to raise or lower the tension with a given nation will occur. Couldn't agree more; On my own part, for what it's worth:aeson , I wasn't entirely suggesting wars be "forced" on the player, just that weighted dice rolls would make wars more likely with some nations than others and at times closer to our own historical World Wars, roughly for example a 1910-1915 start for the first and a 1935-1940 start for the second, although with the possibilty (depending on how those weighted dice fall) to have it occur early, late or not at all. As many say, and I agree, you are only playing as the First Sea Lord, not the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, the ability to dictate foreign policy and control your country's actions should be limited as it does not fall within your perview. To that end I would contend that a system which "forces" wars on the player is more realistic. hardlec , Many contend that the First World War and indeed possibly the Second were inevitable, even if the involved parties weren't, whilst as you say there are many forks in the road regardless of the route Franz Ferdinand takes or whether Hitler survives WW1, it is possible a Great Anglo-American War could have broken out, or indeed without Hitler a Communist Germany (given that Communists were the growing political parties in Germany in 1920-1933) might have allied the USSR and seen a "Allies" vs "Communist" scenario. These are of course just theories, but it certainly fits human nature, we'd gone a long time without a proper war and had lots of stuff to test out on eachother, sadly. williammiller and Fredrik W and indeed everyone else, Merry Christmas! Best of luck with the new year, the launch and hopefully everything it brings.
|
|