|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 23, 2023 22:56:32 GMT -6
As the title says, this is my pitch for the introduction of a (major) component in any national political (and war-making) endeavour: the Army.
Naturally, this Army should be AI-run, operating completely independently of the Navy (except when it comes to tension and attacking targets, of course (more on that later)) and, usually, being a bitter rival for the funding provided by the nation's ruler.
Also naturally, this is a game centered around the naval battles, so I'm advocating a 'as-minor-modifications-as-possible' approach: nothing major (or fancy) - using mostly what's already provided - and just enough to get the job done.
And, after all, let's be honest, here: the Navy cannot win wars by itself - you'll always need boots on the ground to actually end things.
This addition would provide a couple of basic bonuses to the RtW experience:
More Invasions:
There are 3 things at play here:
1. Using the current 'invasion' mechanism (and expanding it a bit to include land borders) to enable the neighbouring nations to invade over land (i.e.no Navy assistance necessary = automatic success) - this would simulate the land war waged since the beginning of time.
2. Providing funding for the actual naval invasions (if there are no convenient - friendly - land borders to cross) of the enemy nation's colonies - or even mainland. This would more accurately simulate most of the (for example) US's conflicts up until now - Spanish war of 1898 and Island hopping of WW2 spring immediately to mind - not to mention the Japan's or Britain's ones.
3. Making the 'Home Areas' invade-able gives you a chance to end the war completely in your favour by conquering the enemy's nation. Naturally, this would be quite upsetting to the Admirals (that we are) but, unfortunately, history is full of such examples, so ... yeah.
Army Air Force:
More airfields - and planes on them - than you can shake your stick at. On the other hand, you control none of them, and (at best) they'll provide CAP to your ports (and airfields) - and maybe go and raid the enemy's ports (and nearby ships).
In any case, this might be an interesting opportunity to provide us (the Admirals) with a dilemma:
- Independent Air Force: where we can build ships only (including carriers) but we have no control over aircraft on them.
- Partial (Army/Navy) Air Force: where we can design, buy and control only the planes on our ships - but not on land.
- Full (Army/Navy) Air Force: where we can design, buy and control our (Navy) planes - both on land, and on the sea.
Army planes' design and deployment would, naturally, be controlled by the AI - with heavy emphasis on attacking land targets and providing CAP.
Also, we might actually get to see a Heavy Bomber in action ... so: pretty please?
|
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 25, 2023 14:44:35 GMT -6
> Making the 'Home Areas' invade-able
This is a big thing that's missing from the present game.
In reality, one of the main reasons Britain kept a large navy was to prevent a continental power (or coalition of them -- hence the two power standard) from invading them.
But in the game, you know that however badly you do in a war or battle your nation isn't going to be invaded. The worst that can happen is you'll lose a few colonies. But that doesn't matter either, since in the game colonies are basically worthless (more so in RTW3 than RTW2). In many sytrategic wargames, battles matter because if you lose the fate of your nation depend on it. But in RTW3, nothing really matters, which is a large problem with gameplay (and also historially inaccurate).
|
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 25, 2023 17:28:58 GMT -6
> Making the 'Home Areas' invade-able This is a big thing that's missing from the present game. In reality, one of the main reasons Britain kept a large navy was to prevent a continental power (or coalition of them -- hence the two power standard) from invading them. But in the game, you know that however badly you do in a war or battle your nation isn't going to be invaded. The worst that can happen is you'll lose a few colonies. But that doesn't matter either, since in the game colonies are basically worthless (more so in RTW3 than RTW2). In many sytrategic wargames, battles matter because if you lose the fate of your nation depend on it. But in RTW3, nothing really matters, which is a large problem with gameplay (and also historially inaccurate). While I don't think you should be able to lose your home area I think it should be invadable and when border wars are going on in the background they should put pressure onto your game (the army is losing ground you better tighten that blockade NOW). I think having the home area occupied should lose you basing rights to it for the rest of the war (at least until reclaimed), massive prestige hit (like -15 potentially automatically getting sacked), and huge unrest penalty. As for background aspects of the war, maybe just have random events for the war when home regions border each other (Italy-France, Italy-Austria, France-Germany, France-Spain, Germany-Russia, Germany-Austria, Austria-Russia, China-Russia), partially based on home resources (manpower and industry), partially based on unrest, and partially based on blockade or convoy raiding status. A few possible events. - Friendly/Enemy offensive (essentially like the current event but more frequently and with bigger effects)
- Draft riots (high unrest, increases it further)
- Friendly/Enemy breakthrough (practically a countdown until a home area is occupied so either hold out a few more months or make peace ASAP at any price)
- Materiel shortage at the front (blockade or convoy raiding)
- Army mutiny (blockade or convoy, multiple failed offensives, massively spikes unrest and increases odds of an enemy breakthrough)
Put simply the end result should be that the player can't just mess around and sink a few ships before getting colonies, they have to be on the enemy from the start unless it's already a one-sided war even on the ground. Just because France can blockade Germany doesn't mean the war is won, maybe even have events to bombard enemy forces on the coast to support an offensive on the ground. If the Germans are dug in at Flanders the French fleet might be tasked with bombarding their forces along the coast so the army can push through the coast of Flanders. A player with perfect play should be able to win any war, but if France is at war with Spain, Germany, and Italy at the same time it better be actually perfect play for the navy to carry the nation so much that they can win a three front war.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 25, 2023 17:54:02 GMT -6
> I think having the home area occupied should lose you basing rights to it for the rest of the war
Surely if your home area(s) is occupied (some countries have more than one) then that's the end of the war because you've been conquered.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 26, 2023 0:46:05 GMT -6
> I think having the home area occupied should lose you basing rights to it for the rest of the war Surely if your home area(s) is occupied (some countries have more than one) then that's the end of the war because you've been conquered. That was my first thought too honestly but governments in exile existed during this period including the possibility of fleets resisting after an invader was successful. As a result perhaps one might be able to survive briefly with their home area under enemy occupation, although more likely than not the government would capitulate especially if fighting alone. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 26, 2023 0:57:17 GMT -6
It's an interesting idea but could make some, especially European, nations almost unplayable given the game's ahistorical warfare. Germany could basically kill any other single nation on the mainland in a straight fight, that's what drove all the alliances against it IRL.
France could likely beat Spain or Italy in a one-on-one?
A more belligerant US should be able to invade Canada reasonably easily (in lieu of jumping Mexico perhaps?) from the 1900s onwards.
Properly "conquered" countries could all get "Versailled"?
|
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 26, 2023 9:58:59 GMT -6
It's an interesting idea but could make some, especially European, nations almost unplayable given the game's ahistorical warfare. Germany could basically kill any other single nation on the mainland in a straight fight, that's what drove all the alliances against it IRL. France could likely beat Spain or Italy in a one-on-one? A more belligerant US should be able to invade Canada reasonably easily (in lieu of jumping Mexico perhaps?) from the 1900s onwards. Properly "conquered" countries could all get "Versailled"? Sure but in the game you have alliances and player fleets. A competent player could potentially stomp Germany so decisively at sea that their ground war is slowed down. After all if France is launching regular coastal raids Germany is having even short distance naval transit cut off (rather than international trade) and high value targets hit. Furthermore, should wars be this reliably easy? In the current game France can reliably beat Germany up until the 1910s just because of a bigger budget and better starting techs and dockyards, but if armies were better represented the French player would be much more incentivized to push hard for major battles while winning or to accept a lesser victory to avoid being crushed on land. Furthermore as naval fortifications already decrease enemy offensive speed in invasions the system could use the same for land vs land battles and airfields could also help in the ground war. So a French player could make up for a weaker army by fortifying and building airfields, so any German advance has to fight through a large French air force (or Naval-ground air force) and layers of fortifications. It would give players reasons to try alternative strategies, for example sustaining fortifications mostly to supplement the army. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 26, 2023 11:06:40 GMT -6
It's an interesting idea but could make some, especially European, nations almost unplayable given the game's ahistorical warfare. Germany could basically kill any other single nation on the mainland in a straight fight, that's what drove all the alliances against it IRL. France could likely beat Spain or Italy in a one-on-one? A more belligerant US should be able to invade Canada reasonably easily (in lieu of jumping Mexico perhaps?) from the 1900s onwards. Properly "conquered" countries could all get "Versailled"? Sure but in the game you have alliances and player fleets. A competent player could potentially stomp Germany so decisively at sea that their ground war is slowed down. After all if France is launching regular coastal raids Germany is having even short distance naval transit cut off (rather than international trade) and high value targets hit. Furthermore, should wars be this reliably easy? In the current game France can reliably beat Germany up until the 1910s just because of a bigger budget and better starting techs and dockyards, but if armies were better represented the French player would be much more incentivized to push hard for major battles while winning or to accept a lesser victory to avoid being crushed on land. Furthermore as naval fortifications already decrease enemy offensive speed in invasions the system could use the same for land vs land battles and airfields could also help in the ground war. So a French player could make up for a weaker army by fortifying and building airfields, so any German advance has to fight through a large French air force (or Naval-ground air force) and layers of fortifications. It would give players reasons to try alternative strategies, for example sustaining fortifications mostly to supplement the army. The current game only gives naval budgets, a 1910s Germany has a LOT more money and stronger ground forces than France. No naval action is going to bring a Great Power to it's knees fast enough unless there's already a balance of power. Britain and France combined could JUST hold Germany even when the latter was also Fighting on the Eastern front. I'm not against increasing ground forces content, I'm just warning that it could have big consequences. Maybe an optional system? Actual full sized 1940s airpower should really dominate naval forces nearby, especially if not distracted by a major ground war! |
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 26, 2023 12:37:27 GMT -6
The current game only gives naval budgets, a 1910s Germany has a LOT more money and stronger ground forces than France. No naval action is going to bring a Great Power to it's knees fast enough unless there's already a balance of power. Britain and France combined could JUST hold Germany even when the latter was also Fighting on the Eastern front. I'm not against increasing ground forces content, I'm just warning that it could have big consequences. Maybe an optional system? Actual full sized 1940s airpower should really dominate naval forces nearby, especially if not distracted by a major ground war! Oh yes any system would have to be very cautiously implemented to keep from ruining a game, however the game/setting is already highly naval focused (think of Strangereal/ace combat setting where apparently every war is entirely decided in the air) and even an army system with a light touch could still leave the navy with disproportionate influence towards the outcome of the war. Also France in 1914 was fighting over a fairly wide front as Germany could invade through Belgium which wouldn't be implemented in such abstractions. Besides it isn't as if the ground war isn't already mentioned in game, it's simply so abstracted that it only happens at the player's behest (decide to invade something or decide to allow and offensive) I think portraying ground warfare as ahistorically static is still superior to the current status where it's completely static and ground warfare only exists as a random event with next to no impact on the war. Even a major victory or defeat in a ground battle has no real effect. "Major victory gain 1500 VP" is less impactful than sinking a single capital ship. Even the lightest touch I think might be an improvement, let home areas be invaded, and if you share a land border (America/Britain-Canada, France/Germany, France/Italy, France/Spain, Germany/Austria, Italy/Austria, Germany/Russia, Austria/Russia, China/Russia) have more regular ground events, maybe even every month. Thus while Germany can't force an end to the war with France via ground combat, gaining 500-1500 VPs a month on average means the French navy will really have to pull its weight. |
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 4, 2024 9:48:52 GMT -6
If home areas are conquered when you have no allies/pre-1930 then it should be like a revolution, where you government changes to the government type of the nation that invaded you and you lose the war and have to pay big reparations. Post 1930 and/or when you have allies your ships should be split between the AI/Yourself with a greater bias for ships that are in foreign waters/in the same sea zone as allied nations and you can keep fighting with what ships you have left.
For example, if France loses a war against Germany when it is allied with, say, Italy then a good number of ships in the Mediterranean (50-60%) should stay with you while only, say, 20% of ships in Northern Europe should stay on your side. Ships based in your colonies should stay with you.
Maybe Military spending as a whole could be a proportion of base resources with the Navy getting part and the Army gets the rest, some events (hawk party increases funding for the military for example) but pushing for increased budget could take away some from the army. If you have too much money or have a naval treaty you should get reduced budget with the Navy getting more.
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Apr 5, 2024 16:51:42 GMT -6
Yeah, no, I disagree for obvious reasons. Having basically guaranteed collapse situations, like that with 1914 France and Germany, is, well, going to unbalance the game completely. In addition, you're introducing a lot of mission creep into a platform that is already suffering from a lot of it.
If you could make the army thing into its own gamemode, then that would be fine, although the mission creep is still there. Having a few new events, like the draft riots, makes sense. An invasion rework sounds like a good idea, but again, beware of complete collapse. And air reform is desperately needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Apr 5, 2024 19:47:01 GMT -6
Yeah, no, I disagree for obvious reasons. Having basically guaranteed collapse situations, like that with 1914 France and Germany, is, well, going to unbalance the game completely. In addition, you're introducing a lot of mission creep into a platform that is already suffering from a lot of it. If you could make the army thing into its own gamemode, then that would be fine, although the mission creep is still there. Having a few new events, like the draft riots, makes sense. An invasion rework sounds like a good idea, but again, beware of complete collapse. And air reform is desperately needed. Agreed, there are already enough problems without mission-creep into so ambitious and outside the original scope of this project. "Ideally" we would have a perfect game. But since that is impossible we must settle for cutting things somewhere. Sadly in this case, it is for any true army dynamics. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 5, 2024 22:13:44 GMT -6
It's a decent idea, but there's a lot more things that I think should be higher priority than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 8, 2024 22:35:30 GMT -6
Ok, tendravina & blarglol - now I'm curious: what mission creep are you guys talking about? I wasn't proposing any new missions - just more of the old ones: Naval Invasions, Convoy Defence/Attack and Coastal Bombardment. 'cuz, IMHO, more missions => more engagements => more fun ... right? Also, yeah - it would mean that Germany becomes OP and everybody should s#it their pants and gang up on it - or get rekt piecemeal. Austria would now become a major threat to Italy - unless Italy gets a friend to help (like, say, France or even Germany) - which is, once again, historically accurate. And yes, USA would totally capture Canada - which, IMHO, is the only reason the Brits wouldn't want to fight them (like they currently like to do all of the freakin' time) Any Russo-Austrian wars could be resolved in a normal amount of time - since, currently, any war between them is so hard to fight it's insane. In any case, the diplomacy and alliances would be much more crucial in this new paradigm - not to mention that some countries would get a new lease on life. Edit: Oh, and yeah, automatic loss can occur only when your Home Area(s) falls, and you have no allies: if you do have them, then your government is in exile, your ships escape, and you can continue fighting. But all the ships that you were building are now in enemy's hands, and you can only build new ones in your ally's shipyards - also, your budget is slashed, your ships are based in your ally's ports, you can kiss your planes goodbye (unless you have more than one Home Area, that is) and have to use your allies' - and your missile stockpile now comes from your ally, too. So, not fun, but also not the end. |
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 9, 2024 7:51:41 GMT -6
I think it might be good idea to simply add a little more interaction between the army and navy. I can think of two ways to do this that should be rather simple:
1. Doctrine Option to "Increase Funding to the Marine Corps" which gives bonuses on invasions, but costs the navy money.
2. If you have too high budget compared to base resources you can get an event that says "In order to continue funding the Navy the Government has been forced to reduce Army Funding" which gives debuffs to invasions. On the flip side, if the navy is performing poorly, and the army achieves a the 1500 VP victory maybe there could be an event that reads "In light of its recent failures, the government diverts money to the Army.
3. Japan and maybe other fashist nations (since they historically had the most difficulty with this) get a "inter-service rivalry" which lowers the cap at which money is diverted to the army, and causes several events:
1. Our lobbyists have convinced the government to increase our budget at the expense of the army/air-force (army is ground debuffs, air force reduces aircraft replacement time)
2. The Army/Air force’s lobbyists have conspired to increase their budget at the expense of ours (ground buffs, increase plane replacement rate)
3. (Upon building a carrier, maybe first time only, possible random chance per build, increasing with # of planes) The Air Forces are refusing to provide aircraft to CV (blank). which massively reduces aircraft replacement rate for a number of months
These are three things that could be interesting to allow the player to interact a little more closely with ground battles, and it could simulate things like the historical rivalry between the IJN and IJA
|
|
