|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 10:35:11 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. And then the pressures could come from Russia, Austro-Hungary or Italy. Who knows. The bottom point here is two fold. On one, you control the navy, not the nation, and most of what the leadership decides is beyond your control. On the other, most of what isn't directly under your direct control and/or management is extremely abstracted by a game that's already too complex for a small team like the one that created this one. The idea here is that historically, winners not always got to enjoy from getting massive spoils of war after winning a war. Other times they did. Sometime winners ended up in a far poorer position than before actually going into the war (See Italy in WWI). It all depended on a multitude of factors, most of them out of the reach of the chief of naval operations of the given navy. So, in game sometimes you get huge dividends from a favorable peace. Others you're left with the prestige of winning but nothing else. Both are perfectly credible outcomes, and work within the frame of the game and it's intention to portray the realities of navies of the time. Could we get a bit more feedback out of it? maybe an insight that explains why a peace was less rewarding or punishing that expected? sure. But I'd rather see the developers spending their time in fleshing out the mechanics that actually matter in the context of the game that some flavor texts and events.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 28, 2019 10:56:24 GMT -6
- 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. I like both ideas, especially the last one, which is partly why I think this peace resolution doesn't make sense. Kinda like these ideas, Im only on page 2, still reading...
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 28, 2019 11:51:37 GMT -6
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. It's 1908. Germany could muster maybe 10,000 soldiers in it's overseas territories while the British has a standing army in India which could and did send expeditionary forces in the hundreds of thousands. Yes Germany raised 100k men in East Africa but those were porters not soldiers. That wasn't so much an army as scorching the earth, taking away all the young men so that famine would make it uneconomical for the British to send an army in. That works as a defensive strategy if you dont particularly care about the welfare of the populace but it doesn't work offensively, that would require an outside army. To send an army overseas wouldn't just take a naval advantage, it would take complete naval domination. Think about all the trouble that uboats caused for allied supply lines in the world wars, that was when most of the shipping was far from enemy naval bases. You are talking about supply an army through thousands of miles of ocean close to enemy naval bases. This dynamic was a major inspiration for the Mahanian theory of sea conflict in the first place. During the European conflicts of the 17th and 18th centuries, the British consistently had an advantage from the colonies that would later be the United States. These colonies did not exploit native populations on a large scale to have huge profits per European like was possible from the silver mines of Peru, the plantations of the Caribbean or the fur trading posts of Canada. However the manpower they provided while small by European standards was massive compared to the manpower that could be raised in the other European colonies. This meant that in peacetime the British were forced into fiscal prudence but in wartime the other nations both lost their revenues and had to shoulder the burden of supporting a very expensive colonial army. Americans regiments were sent even as far away as Panama. American shipyards would continue to build in wartime. The result was a "heads I win, tails we tie" dynamic where British successes meant great conquests while British failures lead to more indecisive results and another attempt in a few years. It was a major factor in why the relatively poor British Kingdom became so financially powerful over the course of this period and that example contributed to the belief that naval empires were crucial to national power.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 28, 2019 12:26:38 GMT -6
I'd like to see a complete 're-do' of the war/peace mechanic, with a 'level of commitment' defined when war is declared - 4 points, 10 points, etc. That could be modified by events as the war goes better or worse, but it would let the admirals know what their goals are and what they should be doing.
After all, the Allies in WW2 required unconditional surrender from Germany, negotiated a relatively light peace with Italy and took every Japanese colonial possession.
|
|
|
Post by nuclearmoose on May 28, 2019 12:45:08 GMT -6
I have to agree with tortuga. At the end of the day the games main focus is naval combat and ship design, with the political stuff being a small part. If i have a huge lead in VP the game should reward me no matter what. In a game like hearts of iron where the game has a higher focus on politics sure, having a political reason for why i got nothing is fine, but in RTW where combat is the focus it feels like a bug or at best poor design.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 12:57:11 GMT -6
If i have a huge lead in VP the game should reward me no matter what. Uhhhh this game is not Super Mario, and it's already been mentioned what the spirit of the game is, which isn't conductive to the idea of "If I have a huge lead the game should reward me with this or that". If you have a huge lead in VP you're already being rewarded, you're winning the naval war. The point of this game isn't to conquer the world or to reduce nations to their minimum expression. Is to follow the progression of a nation's naval power since 1900 up to 1955 and see your decisions and design triumph in war. In real life it took 4 years of total war, the almost total collapse of it's internal economy, facing imminent complete defeat on the western front, and a failed communist revolution for Germany to be weak enough as to be forced to give up as much as it did in Versailles - and she had an almost intact surface fleet that had not been defeated in battle and a submarine arm that had sunk an unfathomable ammount of tons of shipping. I guess in this game you'd complain that your VPs weren't that far behind those of the allies to explain why all your colonies are gone, why you can't build more than 12k ton displacement ships nor anything with bigger guns that 305mm, or why your whole battlefleet has been captured by the enemy as war reparations. But in real war, as in the resulting peaces, there are a lot more things going that just how many ships you've sunk, and many more factors that define the terms of said peace than the result of the war at sea. Long story short, I can't disagree more with what I quoted. Yes, if you win a war you should expect rewards out of it - but if they don't happen as expected there's nothing wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 28, 2019 13:21:08 GMT -6
I'd like to see a complete 're-do' of the war/peace mechanic, with a 'level of commitment' defined when war is declared - 4 points, 10 points, etc. That could be modified by events as the war goes better or worse, but it would let the admirals know what their goals are and what they should be doing. After all, the Allies in WW2 required unconditional surrender from Germany, negotiated a relatively light peace with Italy and took every Japanese colonial possession. Definitely agree. I am totally for the politics ends up kicking you in the sheen, but you should at least be kept in the loop to prepare for what may come, and ideally having some limited ability to influence the way things turn out. I'd say at least a change that links tension/unrest with peace resolution (Although maybe this is already done and Tortuga was just super unlucky). I feel people can much better in coming to term with these "slaps in the face" if they can see it coming and brace themselves for it. It will also make things more interesting from an immersion perspective
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 13:37:35 GMT -6
I think that the game should have 2 start options: "(hi)story mode" and "stay where you are" mode. The last mentioned is basically what the game is now. If you want to earn some money as France to be as rich as Germany, forget it quickly, even 10 total victories over other countries including Germany is not enough to have comparable budget. The (hi)story mode can have 10-20 colony points for total victory and each unused point would add 5 000 to annual budget. This would make war somehow reasonable thing to do. Remember, wars were always fought ot gain something / hold it for yourself. If you cant gain any substantial advantage by crushing your foe totaly, you would not do it. I mean, if I fight in a war against comparable nation, and after almost 4 years of difficulties (I started with a bit smaller navy, but managed to equal the forces step by step and then smash them completely), and the enemy nation ends up in revolution, I want them to pay for at least those things that the war cost me, so I wont end up in deficit in comparsion to the situation before the war. I lost a battleship and a heavy cruiser during the war, I expect the enemy to pay at least enough for a new battleship and heavy cruiser. But what I get is that enemy nation still have more navy budget then I do - like a month after revolution. IRL they would probably not be allowed to build a navy at all, but whatever, I dont expect them to give me all their colonies, half of their homeland and restrict their navy to almost nothing, I just need the freakin money, and they apparently have enough to pay me. But as I see it now, we have to wait for some modder to do it...
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 28, 2019 13:41:47 GMT -6
I think that the game should have 2 start options: "(hi)story mode" and "stay where you are" mode. The last mentioned is basically what the game is now. If you want to earn some money as France to be as rich as Germany, forget it quickly, even 10 total victories over other countries including Germany is not enough to have comparable budget. The (hi)story mode can have 10-20 colony points for total victory and each unused point would add 5 000 to annual budget. This would make war somehow reasonable thing to do. Remember, wars were always fought ot gain something / hold it for yourself. If you cant gain any substantial advantage by crushing your foe totaly, you would not do it. But as I see it now, we have to wait for some modder to do it... “If your crush your foe totally” this is actually a very idealistic scenario since it assumes a world where only you and your foe, and perhaps a bunch of utterly indifferent spectators exist. Surely war are usually fought over something, but sometime over things that really have no significant material value to the player as a fleet admiral. Further as already pointed above, a lot of wars that players are winning in terms of VP are not necessarily “won”. That being said, if people want to have a experience where’s they have more direct control of war resolution I’m sure a mod will eventually be released
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 13:56:11 GMT -6
I think that the game should have 2 start options: "(hi)story mode" and "stay where you are" mode. The last mentioned is basically what the game is now. If you want to earn some money as France to be as rich as Germany, forget it quickly, even 10 total victories over other countries including Germany is not enough to have comparable budget. The (hi)story mode can have 10-20 colony points for total victory and each unused point would add 5 000 to annual budget. This would make war somehow reasonable thing to do. Remember, wars were always fought ot gain something / hold it for yourself. If you cant gain any substantial advantage by crushing your foe totaly, you would not do it. But as I see it now, we have to wait for some modder to do it... “If your crush your foe totally” this is actually a very idealistic scenario since it assumes a world where only you and your foe, and perhaps a bunch of utterly indifferent spectators exist. Surely war are usually fought over something, but sometime over things that really have no significant material value to the player as a fleet admiral. Further as already pointed above, a lot of wars that players are winning in terms of VP are not necessarily “won”. That being said, if people want to have a experience where’s they have more direct control of war resolution I’m sure a mod will eventually be released But player knows about the land army situation. Unlike IRL, in the game its rare to see some nations form alliances, so the others are mostly just a bunch of single nations, so they are really in a position of indifferent spectators. If they dont like that my foe is smashed into pieces, my navy rules everything that is farther than 1 mile from their ports and my army probably marches in the streets of their capital city, they can always come and try to beat me, but I doubt that they would like to fight with a nation that just smashed other nation without having too much loses. I dont mind that the player does not have the option to smash for example Austria-Hungary into oblivion and make a minor nations out of their coastal possessions, but I would really like to have my reparations. Also the nation that has been just smashed should have a recovery time (for example 2 years) during which the naval budget would be really small, because the country has to be rebuild almost from scratch, so there is no money or time for army and navy...
|
|
|
Post by nuclearmoose on May 28, 2019 14:30:50 GMT -6
“If your crush your foe totally” this is actually a very idealistic scenario since it assumes a world where only you and your foe, and perhaps a bunch of utterly indifferent spectators exist. That is how the game works though. If Japan starts taking GBs Pacific holdings the other major don't declare war or even care.
EDIT: Now that i think about it sometimes nations sign a treaty to contain your nation but that seems more random then anything.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 28, 2019 14:38:23 GMT -6
“If your crush your foe totally” this is actually a very idealistic scenario since it assumes a world where only you and your foe, and perhaps a bunch of utterly indifferent spectators exist. That is how the game works though. If Japan starts taking GBs Pacific holdings the other major don't declare war or even care. There will also be times where u are “winning” on VP but the peace deal does not grant you what you want. You can assume that is because other major are intervenening. The game is not a political simuator and I don’t think it needs to tell you exactly what happens when you can always fill the link in your head. If that’s not how you like to play that’s totally fair, but as the game is already framed to place politic outside of your control, that’s likely something you have to deal with or mod away
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 14:54:56 GMT -6
If the game/the devs does not consider politics to a player´s thing, then there should a an prize/cost for player´s doing only. For example if your nation won a war thanks to a navy, but gained just a minor territories, there should be a budget raise anyway, as the navy was found to be an effective, but critical thing and needs to be kept in the best shape to ensure naval dominance of next war. So if enemy nation does not pay your navy for smashing them, your nation should pay your navy for victory.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2019 14:55:02 GMT -6
yeah ok so it was the mod
but man is it painfull playing with 10 points
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 28, 2019 15:53:22 GMT -6
If the game/the devs does not consider politics to a player´s thing, then there should a an prize/cost for player´s doing only. For example if your nation won a war thanks to a navy, but gained just a minor territories, there should be a budget raise anyway, as the navy was found to be an effective, but critical thing and needs to be kept in the best shape to ensure naval dominance of next war. So if enemy nation does not pay your navy for smashing them, your nation should pay your navy for victory. From a pure gameplay perspective that make sense. From a realism perspective its more complicated. Look at the budget cut to the British Navy after WW1/WW2, and you realize that winning navy don't usually get rewarded, some time precisely because the enemy is so smashed that they cant fight back. To cite an old Chinese saying "When all the birds are shot down, you put away the bow. When all the hares are dead, you roast the hunting dogs"
|
|