|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 14:13:36 GMT -6
I don't mind a system that doesn't always reward the player appropriately. It makes for good role-playing, if not always for a good game mechanic.
However, I recently stomached the following series of events in immediate succession:
1) Eradication of the British fleet. Perhaps my best victory ever.
2) Of course we want to press our huge advantage!
3) After invading my Bismarck colony on turn 2 of the war, and successfully taking it over on turn 3, turn 4 I win a big battle but get a compromise peace.
In case you're interested, here is the state of the British fleet after that fight:
I don't mind a raw peace deal, but this was immersion-breakingly bad. If Germany had broken the naval back of Great Britain, I can't imagine anything that would have stopped them from gobbling up every colony they wanted.
This was part of my YouTube series, and the comments that I am receiving are not very flattering towards the game's peace resolution system. Feel free to check the comments section here. Here are the top-voted ones:
You get the point...
So that happened, but what do do with this information? I'm probably trying to imply an update to the peace resolution system might be in order
|
|
|
Post by Gerack on May 27, 2019 14:23:20 GMT -6
How you may try to rationalize this kind of scenario is by saying "Well, our army got badly beaten and the government used the naval victory to get a white peace before the situation got worse". That rationalization works better when fighting, idk, France. With GB? As soon as I had seen that peace deal, I would had closed the game and played that turn again. If the game wants to throw bs my way, first he'll have to face the might of my Task Manager. If you're playing for the challenge, you may want to accept the crappy peace and continue playing. If you're playing for "the story" (as at least I do), I'd say you're totally justified to replay that turn and get a better peace or no peace at all.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 27, 2019 14:44:28 GMT -6
Same here:
Yesterday I won this battle:
I am allied with France, GB with Italy:
Next month there was a negotiated peace offer. My luck was, that there was the option to "crush them completley..."
What the heck guys? That was a 3 hours game. The only losses were 3 2nd line DDs. And than a negotiated peace? Really?
Meantime I had 3 further battles with a total enemy losses of 4 BB/BC, 6 CA, a few CL, lots of DD, 2 CV and 1 CVL. There was an entire Italian cruiser force (2 CA, 1CL, 3DD) supported by 1 CV in the Baltic Sea, that was desintegrated by my own bombers while my "force" consisted of 1 10 year old CL and 4 DDs- ~16000VP to 75VP!
One month on top- same negotiated peace. Luckily this "crush them completely..."-thing appeared again.
I had victories in RTW1 with about 10k VP vs 2k VP and got large territories. So something is wrong!
Imagine you crush your enemy by winning 3-4 times the Battle of Jutland and they offer you nothing. Sorry guys, that´s not understandable.
Actually I saved the next BB-engagement near Texel with 8 BBs on my side (France joined me) and my entire fast CV-Force (I am going to play that when I am not tired anymore^^). Perhaps I have to crush them completely to get my territories!
And perhaps they should overthink the prestige point thing- 2PP for such a battle? I am THE HERO-ADMIRAL
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 27, 2019 14:46:13 GMT -6
This actually is comparable to what happened to Japan after Tsushima. Russian Navy was utterly annihilated but because of every other major power flipping **** over the implications Japan had to settle for much less than they would've taken. As always, blame the politics. That said I agree even if no land is grabbed you should've at least gotten something out of this. (Imo a "Boarder Change prevented by political situation, economic/political concession obtained instead" or a versille esque restriction on the loser can be an interesting alternative with these large victories givng something other than land)
Ironcially my current Russian Campaign have me losing to the Germans at 20k VP vs about 30k, my entire pre-dread fleet bled dry over 4-5 naval battles while the germans have about 60% of theirs left. I keep begging the tsar to surrender every opportunity I get, and it just don't happen until my unrest went up to 12...some how we are able to pull a "giving them some minor concession", so I guess that worked out?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 27, 2019 15:24:02 GMT -6
If military success rather than political will and diplomatic skill determined the outcome of a war and more particularly the results gained at the peace table, Britain probably wouldn't have returned a lot of the colonial possessions it had seized between 1793 and 1802 in the Treaty of Amiens, the First Barbary War probably would've ended with Tripoli ruled by an American-installed monarch and might've left it an American client state, Reconstruction probably would've gone a lot differently, the Seven Weeks' (Austro-Prussian) War might've gone a lot worse for Austria-Hungary and Italy probably wouldn't have gained anything from it, US intervention in South Vietnam might not have been the failure it was historically, and Saddam Hussein probably would've been toppled at the end of the Persian (First) Gulf War rather than by the Iraq (Second Gulf) War more than a decade later.
It can certainly be annoying when you don't get much of anything at the peace table despite doing well in the war, but it's hardly unrealistic, and if it happens, it happens. There's also flip side of the coin - sometimes you get a great peace deal despite the war not going particularly well and sometimes you get a white peace despite losing the naval war quite badly.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on May 27, 2019 15:45:15 GMT -6
In my opinion, the entire VP system should be overhauled. At the absolute minimum, I think Army victory/defeats need to increase over time to represent the changing nature of that area of warfare. Does it really make sense that a single cruiser or unharmed convoy is worth roughly the same as a complete Army offensive breakthrough in 1945? I think it would make a lot of narrative sense for those "Army offensive succeeds/fails" events to be amplified by even a factor of 10 by endgame. Even by that standard, a complete mauling of an enemy fleet would be enough to win a war, which I think is fair.
Now, if we instead decided to overhaul the VP system entirely, I've got some idea's that aren't fully fleshed out yet, but that I want to throw out there. I was envisioning a "campaign" system that dictates what's happening in the ground war, and thus where the most important naval actions should be taking place. Missions would take place in this area; success in these missions and funding granted to the Army would dictate the outcome of these "campaigns", which would be where Victory Points would come from. Of course, the player could always turn to raiding as an independent source of Victory Points. In my mind, this would result in a system where the player would be forced to accept battles they may not want to fight, but have to in order to meet the needs of war. This would stand in contrast to how it works now, where generally the player can simply turn down battles until getting a favorable matchup.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 27, 2019 15:53:52 GMT -6
In my opinion, the entire VP system should be overhauled. At the absolute minimum, I think Army victory/defeats need to increase over time to represent the changing nature of that area of warfare. Does it really make sense that a single cruiser or unharmed convoy is worth roughly the same as a complete Army offensive breakthrough in 1945? I think it would make a lot of narrative sense for those "Army offensive succeeds/fails" events to be amplified by even a factor of 10 by endgame. Even by that standard, a complete mauling of an enemy fleet would be enough to win a war, which I think is fair. Now, if we instead decided to overhaul the VP system entirely, I've got some idea's that aren't fully fleshed out yet, but that I want to throw out there. I was envisioning a "campaign" system that dictates what's happening in the ground war, and thus where the most important naval actions should be taking place. Missions would take place in this area; success in these missions and funding granted to the Army would dictate the outcome of these "campaigns", which would be where Victory Points would come from. Of course, the player could always turn to raiding as an independent source of Victory Points. In my mind, this would result in a system where the player would be forced to accept battles they may not want to fight, but have to in order to meet the needs of war. This would stand in contrast to how it works now, where generally the player can simply turn down battles until getting a favorable matchup. I've raised similar idea about the inclusion of a land war system making that would allow the landwar to kinda dictate what kind of naval mission will be given to you. E.G enemy land victory in one of your poession requires your naval force to fight a semi-mandatory convoy attack/land bombardment mission, which, if failed, will cause your land force to be pushed back more and cause further ticking VP to the enemy. The main concern raised back then in the suggestion thread was that a Land War system, if not done with great detail will feel arbitrary and potentially punishing the player without really adding meaningful choices. E.G imagine playing the French Navy and realize that despite everything you are doing, German is still gonna blitzkrieg to Paris 3 months in. It is not the most realistic depiction ofcourse, but it is for similarly reason that RTW2 decides to discount strategic bombing. It becomes another ticking VP drain that the player have very little practical ways to influence. (At least raiding/ASW require some consideration from ship design perspective). Thus while I support the idea of a better VP system, If we are gonna make land battles matter, it should be in service of making naval operations more interesting and their impact more significant. While not the most realistic depiction, until Rule the Wave becomes Rule the Earth, any land operation should always be in service of furthering the naval aspect of the game.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 27, 2019 16:01:07 GMT -6
another problem is the VERY low amount of vp given when you win a war or make them capitulate
the HIGHEST vp you can get from capitulating someone is 10 yet some colonies are worth MORE than 10 points which means they are litteraly impossible to get in addition to this compared to rtw 1 s system where you got 80 points you could choose colonies from if you capitulated someone in addition to this invasions are EXTREMELY expensive and take so god damn long to do
in total things i would like is more points for capitulating and winning the war
also yeah having a war then choosing fight on yet peace is concluded just after a giant battle where you nuke 60% of the enemy fleet
i had a battle as japan where is unk 14 american bbs and 4 carriers with a couple of cruisers and light carriers with 2 capital ship losses from my side
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 27, 2019 16:03:29 GMT -6
Yeah, I just complained about invasions being totally random.
I dominate the med and most of the time the enemy does not have a single ship there vs my battleship fleet, yet I can not invade Algeria from Tunesia (but I paid 1.8 million per month for the invasion planning for two full years).
But they can invade, through my north sea blockade, a pacific holding because one month they have a light cruiser in the pacific and my cruiser is repairing for two months due to an event...
Another time I bring the enemy to food shortages and wipe out all their capital ships and so on but get a white peace.
Then I barely do anything because the enemy refuses to show up all the time, yet I get 12 colony points to choose from...
It feels so random that I now dread the battles, since their outcomes (and the VPs/sea zone control) hardly matter (except when the AI wants to invade, then it somehow matters).
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 16:07:24 GMT -6
aeson I agree that the (abstracted) political/diplomatic background can lead to a poor results. I'm okay with this. It seems the game may allow too poor of results: my immersion is broken because the British lost roughly half of its entire navy, something like Trafalgar in reverse. They go to the peace table after only four months of fighting (having taken the Bismarck Archipelagos) in terrible shape militarily. Yet, the Germans concede and let the British keep their conquest. Especially considering the Kaiser and the time period, I couldn't invent a role-play reason that makes this believable. The German politicians at this time were over-aggressive (if anything) in their pursuits (e.g. Morocco ~1905), so it's impossible to imagine that when they had achieved supremacy on the high waters, they would just fold that advantage immediately. By comparison, the Battle of Tsushima was much less decisive than mine, by a minor power (Japan) that would have more of an up-hill battle diplomatically, and they still won concessions from the Russians (control of the Korean peninsula). tl;dr I'm okay with poor peace agreements, but this one is beyond the realm of possibility. Perhaps something should be tweaked.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 27, 2019 16:21:26 GMT -6
This works out historically. In the wars up to WW1, only Great Britain was interested in taking overseas colonies, though sometimes (France) powers did get back some that had been taken.
After the Franco-Prussian War, Chancellor Bismarck wanted to take reparations from France but not territory (certainly not colonies). His argument was prescient: taking Alsace and Lorraine would poison relations, make France unalterably opposed, force France to find allies and look for a chance to even the score. Kaiser Wilhelm and the generals insisted on taking Alsace and Lorraine for the fortifications... WW1 followed a generation later.
Perhaps someone is leading Germany with more foresight than Kaiser Wilhelm I or II. Perhaps they do not wish to make a permanent enemy of Britain, only get her sidelined while they pursue other goals. Perhaps, as with Victoruan England, some other territory or pieces of territory were offered to offset the loss of the archipelago; a mountain in Africa was once given away as birthday gift, as I recall.
You play the head of the Navy; you have input toward diplomacy but you do not control it. If you find this intolerable, use CTRL_ALT_DEL and redo the turn until you get a result you like.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 27, 2019 16:23:03 GMT -6
I wouldn't call Tsushima less decisive since the most of the Russian Fleet are essentially rendered non-existent following that battle(Including the ones surrendering later or destroyed in the night action after the day engagement), in your case, the Britain at least still had a comparable sized fleet remaining. (3 BB 3 BC to your 7BBs, equal number of Bs.) Also, considering this is already the dreadnought age, the loss of 8 Bs really isn't that significant if consider how they got tossed around like they are worthless in WW1. This is a significant blow, but I'd say its not unimaginable if the British chose to fight on. (Though I do agree that them fighting on makes more sense than the sudden peace in this scenario).
Again in this scenario, its not impossible to imagine that if something like the French/Russia threatens to the join the war, the top brass will think twice before continuing without allies. The German maybe bombastic but they aren't crazy. With that in mind tho, I do hope the peace mechanic take into account of tensions as well. If you have very high tension with everyone else, the government should be more cautious with their peace deals. On the otherhand, if the world have no problem with you smashing the UK, your nation should be able to push for very hard terms as long as you are winning just as hard.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 27, 2019 17:24:42 GMT -6
Main problem in this event IMO is its text, which confuse player. My suggestions to make white peace more "realistic": - Add narrative, explaining this decision (intensive hippie protests, illiterate leader of delegation, fear of international isolation, US\GB sanctions, losing land war etc) - If you have much more VP than enemy - give additional prestige to player - Gross-Admiral won HIS war, though his country did not, so Navy is the main hero of nation. - All possessions, occupied during war, may have status "temporary occupied". If there is big difference in VP, "winner" is allowed to hold all occupied territories, "loser" return their trophies. If it is less than 1:3, both should hold their own.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 18:00:52 GMT -6
I tend to agree with others - I see this as a perfectly OK feature, perfectly believable given historical precedents.
Not every winner of a war got a huge war booty or an enormous loot out of it even after an overwhelming victory. Some people have already mentioned Japan after the Russo-Japanese war. I would nominate Italy post WWI aswell as a nation that was in the same class.
You're an admiral and not a politician, you're the guy shooting stuff and not calling the shots. That at times the politicians totally crap on your victories and leave you with a WTF look in your face and angered to no end, is not only immersive...
it actually can't get more realistic XD.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 18:07:15 GMT -6
I wouldn't call Tsushima less decisive since the most of the Russian Fleet are essentially rendered non-existent following that battle(Including the ones surrendering later or destroyed in the night action after the day engagement), in your case, the Britain at least still had a comparable sized fleet remaining. (3 BB 3 BC to your 7BBs, equal number of Bs.) Also, considering this is already the dreadnought age, the loss of 8 Bs really isn't that significant if consider how they got tossed around like they are worthless in WW1. This is a significant blow, but I'd say its not unimaginable if the British chose to fight on. (Though I do agree that them fighting on makes more sense than the sudden peace in this scenario). I can see your point. Let's say "as decisive" then. I don't want to bog down in the details, but it's 1908, so battleships (B) are still very relevant (the only BBs are three turrets instead of two).
The main question is: is this a believable outcome? With the limited knowledge of history that I have, I firmly say "no". I can't see Germany essentially capitulating after such a staggering victory.
|
|