|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 28, 2019 0:25:12 GMT -6
What really bothers me is that when you win a war, you have a small chance to take a single ship from the enemy.
When you lose? Yeah, they're going to take around a quarter of your entire fleet!
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on May 28, 2019 0:33:40 GMT -6
What really bothers me is that when you win a war, you have a small chance to take a single ship from the enemy. When you lose? Yeah, they're going to take around a quarter of your entire fleet! That's funny, I had a Germany game where so got very unlucky with war timing and had to fight against Britain and the Soviet Union with unrest being at 6 at the start of the war. Germany suffered a revolution and the British wasted no time claiming from my fleet... A single DD. Apparently they weren't impressed with my Nelson-class knockoffs or my treaty cruisers. But even more amusing, I've had a nation claim AMCs after a war, which makes a bit more sense narratively but none in-game.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 28, 2019 1:10:01 GMT -6
tortugapower - Don't mistake me - I think it was a very poor outcome of a fluke random number, in essence a 'boundary' issue flaw. I'd much prefer to let the player have more 'levers' - giving up prestige to give more weight to his opinion, or some such. I do think it is important to have the final peace process out of the hands of the admiralty. As players, we prefer (indeed, insist upon) total and absolute control coupled with perfect and complete information. Sadly, none of this obtains in the real world and so game designers have to try to placate angry control-freaks (guilty! myself) and still provide historical verisimilitude. It's the AAR-writer in me coming out; I can't resist trying to 'square the circle' of strange events. The only one I remember passing on was a royal marriage between the Spanish throne and someone from Haiti.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2019 2:23:43 GMT -6
Also don't forget England had been "the Banker of Europe" for a long while- they didn't break their economy until the Dreadnought race had been won. If I were England's Prime Minister in (1910-ish?) and Germany had just soundly defeated me, I would instruct my Foreign Secretary thusly; "Right, we'll need time to make good our losses of course, so we need to wrap up this little niggle promptly. Meet with Otto in Copenhagen and remind them that we have global ports of call that could be opened to German merchants without tarifs. Additionally drop a few hints about your "secret meeting with the Czar" last month. Of course you didn't, but they won't know, and fretting about East Prussia being overrun will give him something to think about." Don't get me wrong- "losing the peace" like this would SUCK. I would be Horribly disappointed, and would probably take a breather for a bit. However, given the very 'hazy nature' of the abstracted diplomacy system I am afraid that this type of thing is exactly possible. Remember that William and Fredrik wanted to make a game about Ships and Navies. Every other factor in this global game has been filled in to the most required state and no farther so as to not distract from that. I thought of repeatedly simpler and simpler army systems to employ, only to finally realize that to do so with anything greater than an Event would depart from what their vision for this game was. With RTW, you need to keep a shot-glass of abstraction on hand and toast your ships. the major problem i see after a victory such as this is there is litteraly no benefit when peace is signed and in fact you might have LOST terretory because the way the game works is if a peace with no border changes is signed invaded terretories are kept which means if you got unlucky and britain got an island just before this you are assentially losing terretory for winning ?? also yeah you would get less tarrifs and certain economical benefits or other benefits but these should be reflected in game such as improved economy for a time large wars sinking a large part of your navy while you destroy the enemy navy yet you win NOTHING is HORRIBLY aggrivating because you know you just got sapped to hell of your combat strenght and you now need to replace a good part of the fleet while having gained nothing and the next ai you go up against has been in absolutely 0 wars at all and thus has a fleet 2-3 times as large as yours
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 28, 2019 2:39:00 GMT -6
director (et al.) Probably I'm thinking about this from a game standpoint, as in logical rewards in a personality-less game, and using historical information to prop that. Hopefully I wasn't influenced too much by the multitude of comments were outraged. (I was upset when this happened but I have never considered reloading -- I've dealt with worse peace deals, and it's good drama to have a vendetta from something like that) I also know this was a pretty bad spot of luck. First UK had to invade the colony in only one month at war. Second they had to defeat the defending forces on the next month. Third this outrageous peace deal had to fire in the third month. I'm guessing (and hoping) that's a four-sigma probability... Lastly, it seems people are relatively happy having the possibility of such peace deals there. There are historic grounds for having bad deals. This game is intending to be about role-play and not about "painting the map your color" like a grand strategy title. I will convey all these things to my viewers, and I think they will come to the same understanding that I am coming to -- peace deals like this are WAD. Regards to all, thanks for the sensible discussion. Nah, bad results are ok. But if they can not be explained as cosequences within that world, they are just immersion breaking. And no, just like GoT s7/8 or The Last Jedi or flat earth, some things can not be explained away by ever more mind bending redconning, some stuff just does not make sense. Though the mind bending can be entertaining, the immersion is gone. A savegame edit/reload is far less immersion breaking, than Britain even keeping the invaded colony after that defeat.
|
|
tc27
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by tc27 on May 28, 2019 3:17:16 GMT -6
I have had two conflicts where I have had a massive VP lead end in a 'white peace' in my current campaign which as Japan is particularly annoying as you are trying to hoover up all those Asian colonies from the European powers.
Definitely think whilst it should be possible for a conflict to end with no concessions even if one side is winning massively it does feel like (considering the other posters experiences above) that its happening more than it should.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 28, 2019 3:44:31 GMT -6
What really bothers me is that when you win a war, you have a small chance to take a single ship from the enemy. When you lose? Yeah, they're going to take around a quarter of your entire fleet!
That´s another problem. And I will see that in a few session, how this will work in return.
I had a war with the Kriegsmarine against GB with absolutely no BBs (because Versailles and 2 additional treaties- Washington and another). I sucked at one convoy attack, because I wasn´t firm with the CV-attacking thing (could have been my chance to get much VP against old British BBs). In the end I lost the war with 6000VP vs. 8000VP. The British got both of my Roon-Class CAs- the biggest ships in my fleet.
In the meantime there was another treaty that scrapped 80% of the oponent fleets and my entire submarine force (it was relatively large with 81 boats). Luckily my 2 BBs stand against 4 British BB and 2 BC.
Now in a 2nd war numbers are equal- my 2 BBs stand against 1 British BB. All the rest is laying at the bottom of the North Sea! I am leading 35k VP to 12k hardly lost anything except of a few DDs and planes. I will crush the Brits completely and than I will see, what I get. I bet it will be a small colony and I hope 1 ship as reparation (than I will take my last Roon-Class back- the other one was sunk in the last battle).
And that should be my suggestion for a future patch:
Why not reducing the "colony points" to an amount where you can take 1 medium or 1-2 smaller colonies (depends on the lead in VP you get), but get reparations like a fix amount of tonnage (depending on your VP-lead) and/or an increase of naval budget (maybe 5kk-10kk). If you crush your enemy and he collapses in revolution or murdering the Tsar/Kaiser (whatever), this should be the case, where you get 10 colony points and large reparations (if you can take ships, than give us the enemies Almanac to select proper ships).
Imagine you play 1900 A-H, fighting your first war against Italy for naval dominace in the Eastern Mediterranian, you crush them after 3 years of fighting, had several months with 6-8 points unrest and made it back into the game while beeing outnumbered 2:1 in Bs and CAs and all you get is Etiopia or Sardinia. I had this case in RTW1! Italy had nothing left except some interned raiders and a fleet of 4 CL and 9 DDs + some MS. All I got was Etiopia. That sucks! And what sucks even more is an Italien fleet regaining strength within 5 years after such a war with modern BCs and BBs, while you are building semi-dreadnought BB/BC and perhaps have your first class of 3 centreline turret BBs in the yards (all because of some strange building programmes I would not be capable to handle with the midgame US or midgame Germany!).
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 28, 2019 4:36:57 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 Wait, what? Yeah, I think that the number of points you get toward territorial concessions are frustratingly low, but I want to know how you ever got 80 points in RTW1, I never got more than 10 points and seldom more than six, which appears to be the same in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 28, 2019 4:55:37 GMT -6
Aaaaaaaaaaand here we go^^ 64k vs. 25k, no chance for "crush them completely" (only "longer operations secure our victory...") and I got nothing except the Baltic States via Blitzkrieg. Thank you England
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 28, 2019 5:21:53 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.
In my opinion this is realistic. In the real world politics are very messy and complicated. There are many reason for why this happens and the game are way too abstracted outside naval conflict that you can have your immagination run free here. There are all manner of reasons for other major power to interfere in peace processes after my major wars. This happened to me a few days ago too and I could find a few role play reason for the war ending as it did.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 28, 2019 7:50:41 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 Wait, what? Yeah, I think that the number of points you get toward territorial concessions are frustratingly low, but I want to know how you ever got 80 points in RTW1, I never got more than 10 points and seldom more than six, which appears to be the same in RTW2. The only way I know of to get more than 10 victory points in RTW1 is to play with skwabie's increased armor mod.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 28, 2019 9:15:32 GMT -6
Re. all the arguments that there's "external pressure" for Germany taking nothing IRL, that's somewhat irrelevant in RtW. You can start a RtW game as Germany and within 5 years be in a treaty with France against America or other equally absurd situations that would never work because of IRL politics. That background politicking is represented in the tension system; if we were to assign tension scores to the IRL relations, then America interceding after Tsushima would be represented by their relatively high tension score with Japan during the negotiations. Likewise, there's already both a domestic unrest score and feedback when it comes to land battles; if I have 0 unrest, I logically can't justify such a peace because of Vietnam-like circumstances, and if I've been diverting funding to the army and getting a string of "successful offensive" events and no insufficient supplies events, then a peace due to defeat on land seems absurd.
That leads into the second point - from a game design perspective, the whole system is poorly designed and arbitrary. If players knew that they were having issues diplomatically (as represented through the tension system and the submarine sinking affecting neutrals event), had unrest at home (as represented through the unrest and prestige scores), or land offenses were collapsing, then it makes sense for there to be a compromise peace. However, all 3 of those indicators can be telling the player "the war is going amazingly well on land and sea, the international community fully supports us, and the people at home are chomping at the bit to beat these other guys" and then the player gets hit by what's effectively a loss. Even if it's purely RNG, if the game is telling you that you're going to lose it's alright. However, as it stands, peace deals are basically as engaging as playing roulette because there's no gameplay loop or feedback involved. Your entire involvement is clicking the button and hoping that the RNG decides to give you the event that makes your past few hours of gameplay worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2019 9:31:22 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 Wait, what? Yeah, I think that the number of points you get toward territorial concessions are frustratingly low, but I want to know how you ever got 80 points in RTW1, I never got more than 10 points and seldom more than six, which appears to be the same in RTW2. might be due to me playing modded although im not sure keep in mind these are from total capitulations where i make the enemy collapse completely normal victories will not give this
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 28, 2019 9:57:12 GMT -6
Re. all the arguments that there's "external pressure" for Germany taking nothing IRL, that's somewhat irrelevant in RtW. You can start a RtW game as Germany and within 5 years be in a treaty with France against America or other equally absurd situations that would never work because of IRL politics. That background politicking is represented in the tension system; if we were to assign tension scores to the IRL relations, then America interceding after Tsushima would be represented by their relatively high tension score with Japan during the negotiations. Likewise, there's already both a domestic unrest score and feedback when it comes to land battles; if I have 0 unrest, I logically can't justify such a peace because of Vietnam-like circumstances, and if I've been diverting funding to the army and getting a string of "successful offensive" events and no insufficient supplies events, then a peace due to defeat on land seems absurd. That leads into the second point - from a game design perspective, the whole system is poorly designed and arbitrary. If players knew that they were having issues diplomatically (as represented through the tension system and the submarine sinking affecting neutrals event), had unrest at home (as represented through the unrest and prestige scores), or land offenses were collapsing, then it makes sense for there to be a compromise peace. However, all 3 of those indicators can be telling the player "the war is going amazingly well on land and sea, the international community fully supports us, and the people at home are chomping at the bit to beat these other guys" and then the player gets hit by what's effectively a loss. Even if it's purely RNG, if the game is telling you that you're going to lose it's alright. However, as it stands, peace deals are basically as engaging as playing roulette because there's no gameplay loop or feedback involved. Your entire involvement is clicking the button and hoping that the RNG decides to give you the event that makes your past few hours of gameplay worthwhile. While I acknowledge that this position is all fair and viable I do not agree that this necessarily is true, boring or a waste of time. It is an abstraction of politics the game simply don't detail and things that would be out of the players control even if it was included (or at least it should). So while I can agree that a more dynamic system for knowing what is going on politically and the chances for a white peace occurring even in the face of total naval dominance I don't think that pure role play and imagine the reasons makes it boring. I don't play the game for the campaign in and of itself. To me this is not really important... it is all about the naval engagements and each one is equally important and fun no matter the overall consequences of them later. AI being AI I think it is good that we can't just steam roll it like you can in most strategy games, makes things more interesting for a much longer time. Since it is the battles themselves that are the actual game I think this is only a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on May 28, 2019 9:59:33 GMT -6
Wait, what? Yeah, I think that the number of points you get toward territorial concessions are frustratingly low, but I want to know how you ever got 80 points in RTW1, I never got more than 10 points and seldom more than six, which appears to be the same in RTW2. might be due to me playing modded although im not sure keep in mind these are from total capitulations where i make the enemy collapse completely normal victories will not give this 80pts is only possible via mods. Maximum territory claim points is 10 for RtW1, 12 for RtW2.
|
|