A possible expanison of the invasion mechanic

[akosjaccik]

To start with, let me admit that I am not overly concerned about the current state of the invasion mechanic, nor do I think that my idea is well thought out. However, perhaps it can serve as a basis or a framework for a modified approach, or if nothing else, for a simple discussion.

I have noticed that people sometimes would like to

- get rid of the 10-point cap on invasion targets and/or

- screw around with the invasion radiuses.

My idea was simply that this could perhaps be incorporated into the doctrines:

Very similarly to how "Diving shells" unlocks a doctrine option under AP tech which is otherwise generally used for - again - similarly "just" incrementing a given value, some techs could unlock new options regarding the amphibious operations tech line. In my example I envisioned two such techs, one dealing with the invasion scale (just to come up with some silliness quickly, say "Independent Marine Corps"?), and one in the later game with the range ("Logistical chain"?) - this latter can be an "invade wherever" or even "just" a simple multiplier to the existing range circles. The point is to show that these are "real possibilities, that are however not a given", and for that the player should sacrifice resources heavily. I can see this being similar to "Training", where time is needed to build up the capability, and money to keep it in an active state. That way the player can decide to opt into this possibility for a fairly heavy investment in peace-, or in wartime as well (but then the war might even end before the player can actually build up and utilize this capability - there is no Operation Overlord from zero in five months) and transport entire armies to the other end of the world.

...but it will cost as much as transporting entire armies to the other end of the world.

Naturally, all other requirements would stand, so even if the player coughs up the money and time for activating both "doctrines" at the same time and successfully gains the capability, he/she still needs fair weather, overwhelming superiority and all that jazz.

The main positive of this idea is intended to be that it mostly "just" utilizes the already existing gameplay elements, so everything is the same otherwise - invasion battle, invasion planning, land-based fighting.

Of course, there are problems as well, for example this way one could in theory get trough a hostile Gibraltar, pass by a hostile Malta, Greece and attack straight Rhodes - then again, some missions can already be generated in a similar manner.

[mycophobia]

I always felt that invasion range can just be a "cost"/"prep time" factor that scales with tech/range/target value/possible other factors. Rather than impossible to invade, most early game invasion should only be prohibitively expensive. (I am fine with very early game invasion being locked by a set range, but that should be more free later on)

Also besides improving freedom of range/size of targets, perhaps it will also be possible to increase transparency of preparation? Certainly the USN and RN are kept up to date with the preparation of Overlord and its scheduling. While the current "Invasion delayed due to weather" etc should still trigger and have effect, I think after an amount of preparation the army/government should be able to present the navy with estimates of timeline that get more accurate as the date closes, and can be further influenced by events like unbalanced naval power or rng events like weather.

Something like "Invading India" now will just be hugely expensive (but high tech/multiple neaby possession/adjcent home zone etc are factors that helps reduce cost), potentially taking years to prepare and can suffer set back all long the way, especilly if the player become lax in maintaining the naval advantage. But the player can slowly see the date goes from an estimate to a percise month, and finally launching, as he works hard to keep the naval presence in the sea zone. Given length of war/tech/cost consideration, such an invasion may remain impractical in 99% of the games, but its good the player can see some indiciation of "why" it does not work, and this will be much more relevant for mid cost possession like BC or Austrilia.

I think this can go great length in resolving the current player frustruation of leaving it all to RNG, and still maintain the uncertainty element of RTW.

Ofcourse I am fairly content with the current system although the range restriction does make things a bit annoying for me. But since we are discussing the topic I thought I'd throw out some ideas that hopefully are possible to implement/consider.

[barbarus]

Also it's would be great, if "Huge army success" event can capture some of enemy possesions. Why i need to cosplay "Overlord", if i want to capture Baltic States or Finland playing as Russia/USSR? We have land border, so just throw some tanks and crush that nasty airfields!

[akosjaccik]

Nov 28, 2019 0:47:27 GMT -6 barbarus said:

Also it's would be great, if "Huge army success" event can capture some of enemy possesions.

While that does sound good and undoubtedly realistic, this is one of those instances where I'd put gameplay first, for a rather simple reason: It would work both ways.

Now imagine the player outright losing a campaign while doing everything right, because RNG rolls decided that the enemy land offensive is unstoppable and as long as the player can't install tracks onto his warships, he can't do anything about that. Even if we aren't thinking about outright losing, imagine losing a possession that you built up for a massive amount of money, airfields, coastal defences, base infrastructure, everything - then RNG say "that's gone", and the absolute most the player can do is giving the army money with that one single event pop-up and pray that it does something.

[mycophobia]

Nov 28, 2019 2:29:15 GMT -6 akosjaccik said:

Nov 28, 2019 0:47:27 GMT -6 barbarus said:

Also it's would be great, if "Huge army success" event can capture some of enemy possesions.

While that does sound good and undoubtedly realistic, this is one of those instances where I'd put gameplay first, for a rather simple reason: It would work both ways.

Now imagine the player outright losing a campaign while doing everything right, because RNG rolls decided that the enemy land offensive is unstoppable and as long as the player can't install tracks onto his warships, he can't do anything about that. Even if we aren't thinking about outright losing, imagine losing a possession that you built up for a massive amount of money, airfields, coastal defences, base infrastructure, everything - then RNG say "that's gone", and the absolute most the player can do is giving the army money with that one single event pop-up and pray that it does something.

For "gameplay" that effect can be limited to the aftermath of player agreeing to give money to the army. It can be a sort of "gamble" with the worst result being losing a bunch(but not likely war changing) amount of VP, and if they get lucky they take out an airfield or maybe a low cost, adjacent possession.

I always find the 1500 VP from great army victory never worth diversion of the funding.  Then again, most self-respecting admiral probably wont believe the army can accomplish any more than "1500 VP"

[dorn]

I look at 1500 VP as your effect for diverting funds to army.

I consider VP as just for Navy and that you can loose war or negotiated peace even if Navy VP is different.