|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Sept 26, 2015 2:33:29 GMT -6
On a separate forum I frequent, we have a thread for Rule the Waves and one thing that has come up during discussions is that some players feel that Victory Points are of questionable importance in the game versus increasing the enemy nation's unrest to the point they suffer revolt. For example, you could lose several naval battles and the enemy has a few thousand VP advantage, but it doesn't really matter because your Commerce Raiders/Submarines are strangling their populace faster than they can beat your navy.
Personally, I don't use extensive commerce raiding and am usually likely to advocate for favorable peace terms when the event first pops up after gaining a modest VP lead (or deficit) instead of just holding on until the enemy nation crumbles into revolution. Thus I've always thought Victory Points are "fine", but I've been seeing the sentiment a lot more lately, so I thought I'd see what people around here think.
|
|
|
|
Post by networkpesci on Sept 26, 2015 8:34:04 GMT -6
I've played campaigns through as AH, CSA, and am now halfway through a game as Russia and even though the Japanese are bashing my balls in during most of the naval battles, I win every war with them thanks to cheap raider CLs and keeping 20-30 submarines in my home territory at all times. Every turn I lose one or two submarines but they sink five merchant ships and once or twice a decade they torpedo a AC or B outside of battle. I can decline literally every battle and they get 80 to 200 VP ahead of me each turn, but this never gets them to the winning score. You know, I don't even know what the winning score is, I've won some decisive battles and got a thousand or more VP from one battle, but I've never done it enough times in a row to decisively win a war. With the small nations I play I always win war by unrest in the enemy country forcing them to the negotiating table. "You hear rumors of food riots and unrest in the enemy capital" or whatever it is, turn after turn for years until they quit. Meanwhile my Unrest is 4 or 5 at worst. I actually won a war with Great Britain as AH the turn after a horrible defeat that gave them over 1000 VP and cost me two prestige. Unrest forced them to give me favorable terms and I ended up with Sierra Leone or Nigeria, I don't remember which. Pretty good deal for me considering my crappy fleet lost every single battle with them.  Maybe in my next campaign I'll play as the US or GB and actually see how many VP I have to get from winning battles before the game considers me to have won the war. |
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Sept 26, 2015 13:18:04 GMT -6
I think there are two problems here: "immortal" raiders, which may act whole war without any contact with home; and very weak economic of all countries, so losing 500 merchants during whole war means revolution. Their combination create effect you described.
First problem may be solved by fast reducing of crew quality which should increase risk of critical breakdown, and other features which should help to eliminate too reckless raiders, operating in same region for many months or even years.
Second may be solved by decreasing influence of raiding to enemy economic, as IRL even sinking more than 100 merchants per month in 1917 don't help Germans win the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Sept 27, 2015 0:01:20 GMT -6
I've played campaigns through as AH, CSA, and am now halfway through a game as Russia and even though the Japanese are bashing my balls in during most of the naval battles, I win every war with them thanks to cheap raider CLs and keeping 20-30 submarines in my home territory at all times. Every turn I lose one or two submarines but they sink five merchant ships and once or twice a decade they torpedo a AC or B outside of battle. I can decline literally every battle and they get 80 to 200 VP ahead of me each turn, but this never gets them to the winning score. You know, I don't even know what the winning score is, I've won some decisive battles and got a thousand or more VP from one battle, but I've never done it enough times in a row to decisively win a war. With the small nations I play I always win war by unrest in the enemy country forcing them to the negotiating table. "You hear rumors of food riots and unrest in the enemy capital" or whatever it is, turn after turn for years until they quit. Meanwhile my Unrest is 4 or 5 at worst. I actually won a war with Great Britain as AH the turn after a horrible defeat that gave them over 1000 VP and cost me two prestige. Unrest forced them to give me favorable terms and I ended up with Sierra Leone or Nigeria, I don't remember which. Pretty good deal for me considering my crappy fleet lost every single battle with them. Maybe in my next campaign I'll play as the US or GB and actually see how many VP I have to get from winning battles before the game considers me to have won the war. It all depends on how far you want to take it. I had a game where i was close to 300k VP vs GB as Germany. It was a long war of hit and run to finally break their naval supperiority. But this was a prolonged war where GB frequently asked for a peace deal... all of which i refused, since i really wanted him crippled. I think there are two problems here: "immortal" raiders, which may act whole war without any contact with home; and very weak economic of all countries, so losing 500 merchants during whole war means revolution. Their combination create effect you described. First problem may be solved by fast reducing of crew quality which should increase risk of critical breakdown, and other features which should help to eliminate too reckless raiders, operating in same region for many months or even years. Second may be solved by decreasing influence of raiding to enemy economic, as IRL even sinking more than 100 merchants per month in 1917 don't help Germans win the war. I have my raiders in my homewaters or waters with plenty of bases and they still get "interned" or "scuttled"... But yes, riding out a war with purely raiders is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 27, 2015 7:59:21 GMT -6
It appears it might be a little too easy to win wars using raiders and subs as compared to regular fleets, so I will see if I can tweak sub and raider effects or effectiveness for the next version.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Sept 27, 2015 9:21:04 GMT -6
I've found in my current game that it was easier during the first ten years and two wars for raiders to cause a lot of damage. It seems that later in the war, this is less of a factor. My war with Russia 1916-1919 found little to no effect from raiding.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Sept 28, 2015 14:34:19 GMT -6
It appears it might be a little too easy to win wars using raiders and subs as compared to regular fleets, so I will see if I can tweak sub and raider effects or effectiveness for the next version. Before going too far down that road... One of the things that makes this a very re-playable game is that a variety of strategies can be used to win. If every fleet is driven to "build big battleships, and don't fight the Brits" some of the fun goes away. |
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Sept 28, 2015 14:46:06 GMT -6
Agreed. The effectiveness of sub/raiders feels a bit too strong right now, but I would hate to see them hit too heavily.
If "Rule the Waves 2" ever gets made, I'd probably suggest a modifier/trait that makes certain nations especially vulnerable/resistant to commerce raiding. Say an "Island Nation" (EG: Great Britain, Japan) that makes them especially vulnerable compared to nations with plentiful overland borders from which they might engage in commerce (Though I guess rail in this period will never move as much bulk as ships, even if they potentially move it faster).
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 28, 2015 14:49:08 GMT -6
It appears it might be a little too easy to win wars using raiders and subs as compared to regular fleets, so I will see if I can tweak sub and raider effects or effectiveness for the next version. Before going too far down that road... One of the things that makes this a very re-playable game is that a variety of strategies can be used to win. If every fleet is driven to "build big battleships, and don't fight the Brits" some of the fun goes away. Thanks for the feedback, and I am certainly not going to nerf them completely, I am a believer in gradual change. I have been experimenting with some minor tweaks. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 28, 2015 14:50:21 GMT -6
Agreed. The effectiveness of sub/raiders feels a bit too strong right now, but I would hate to see them hit too heavily. If "Rule the Waves 2" ever gets made, I'd probably suggest a modifier/trait that makes certain nations especially vulnerable/resistant to commerce raiding. Say an "Island Nation" (EG: Great Britain, Japan) that makes them especially vulnerable compared to nations with plentiful overland borders from which they might engage in commerce (Though I guess rail in this period will never move as much bulk as ships, even if they potentially move it faster). That is a good point, though OTOH the nations that did succumb to revolution induced by blockade were all continental powers. |
|
sage2
Junior Member
Posts: 56 
|
Post by sage2 on Sept 29, 2015 14:05:21 GMT -6
That is a good point, though OTOH the nations that did succumb to revolution induced by blockade were all continental powers.
I think that's probably because the continental powers had weak navies and smaller merchant shipping fleets? I think the Island nations should be more susceptible to this, and the continental powers less.
My overall feeling here is that wars end by revolt a bit too often.
|
|
|
|
Post by hschuster44 on Sept 29, 2015 15:11:57 GMT -6
It appears it might be a little too easy to win wars using raiders and subs as compared to regular fleets, so I will see if I can tweak sub and raider effects or effectiveness for the next version. Before going too far down that road... One of the things that makes this a very re-playable game is that a variety of strategies can be used to win. If every fleet is driven to "build big battleships, and don't fight the Brits" some of the fun goes away. Second that! Please don't outbrake Jeune École. |
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Oct 2, 2015 0:15:27 GMT -6
Maybe the focus could switch gradualy from surface raiders to subs as far as efficiency goes?
Also, but maybe this goes a bit to far for the scope of RtW, would it be possible to make raiders work "better" when place logically on the map? By that i mean either in the homewaters or directly adjacent to them?
It seems silly that as the CSA and fighting with germany having my raiders all operate out of the carribean is just as good as haveing them in Northern Europe e.g.
|
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Oct 2, 2015 11:44:17 GMT -6
Actually, according to Fredrik in past threads, Raiders do get a boost to effectiveness when they're stationed in your enemy's home region, and also one when stationed in Europe even when the nation isn't located there (under the justification that everyone trades heavily with Europe).
|
|
