Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 16:04:42 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" Yeah, but devs choosed to make the politics in the game far from IRL, so the gameplay perspective should be changed according to that. IRL Royal Navy was not needed, because Japanese, French and US ships were all friendly, Italian was not dangerous and German and Russian practically ceased to exist. However this is not the case of the game, where you can smash Germany and start war against other fleet 6 months later, so you must be ready ALL the time. |
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 28, 2019 16:20:57 GMT -6
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" Yeah, but devs choosed to make the politics in the game far from IRL, so the gameplay perspective should be changed according to that. IRL Royal Navy was not needed, because Japanese, French and US ships were all friendly, Italian was not dangerous and German and Russian practically ceased to exist. However this is not the case of the game, where you can smash Germany and start war against other fleet 6 months later, so you must be ready ALL the time. Politicians in the game will only see tension level, which are usually very low after a ingame war. They aren't player who knows that the "system" of the game makes it entirely possible for wars to occur in 6 months. In that sense any post-war budget cut makes perfect sense from someone seeing things from a perspective in game. Form a gameplay perspective, I prevents players from snowballing and keeps the game challenging till the end. (Otherwise players will likely have no real opponent after 3-4 wars and maybe 20 years to go in the campaign) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 16:35:30 GMT -6
Yeah, but devs choosed to make the politics in the game far from IRL, so the gameplay perspective should be changed according to that. IRL Royal Navy was not needed, because Japanese, French and US ships were all friendly, Italian was not dangerous and German and Russian practically ceased to exist. However this is not the case of the game, where you can smash Germany and start war against other fleet 6 months later, so you must be ready ALL the time. Politicians in the game will only see tension level, which are usually very low after a ingame war. They aren't player who knows that the "system" of the game makes it entirely possible for wars to occur in 6 months. In that sense any post-war budget cut makes perfect sense from someone seeing things from a perspective in game. Form a gameplay perspective, I prevents players from snowballing and keeps the game challenging till the end. (Otherwise players will likely have no real opponent after 3-4 wars and maybe 20 years to go in the campaign) If you are good enough to cause and win enough wars, then yes, you deserved the right to have the biggest budget, own the biggest fleet and still put a lot of money into research. The money cut after the war is reasonable, but overdone. In my playthrough, my navy had 500 000 annual budget with low tensions when first war ended and 504 000 with low tensions after second war ended, 5 years later, so the increase in budget was most likely just economic growth and the defeated enemy gave me close to nothing (after endind totaly defeated). |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 28, 2019 19:20:18 GMT -6
If you are good enough to cause and win enough wars, then yes, you deserved the right to have the biggest budget, own the biggest fleet and still put a lot of money into research. The money cut after the war is reasonable, but overdone. In my playthrough, my navy had 500 000 annual budget with low tensions when first war ended and 504 000 with low tensions after second war ended, 5 years later, so the increase in budget was most likely just economic growth and the defeated enemy gave me close to nothing (after ending totaly defeated). Again... to reiterate the spirit of the game... it is HIGHLY abstracted. You are suppose to fill in the blanks with what happens. The game just generate a scenario where your victory is just a weight on how "rewarded" you as the player will be after each war. This is basically to reflect reality in an abstract way. If things worked like they do in HoI or basically every grand strategy game out there in real life we would all live under one authoritarian super dictator a long time ago. Thing is that the real world are so much more complicated, things you can't EVER simulate in a game where you have a player that have nothing to loose if things go sideways. In order to make the game NOT snowball and keep being interesting until it ends this is a fairly good mechanic. The game is all about the combat not the conquering on the map, that is just a sideshow. I would not mind if AI nations did have dealing with each other and the world felt a bit more realistic/dynamic and there were more alliances and even neutral countries and regions acting out more. There should be more neutral ships going about their business in fleet battles as well, good for the scouting part of battles. I would be very much against anything where the player have a sure thing to get something out of a war just because they win, likewise should they be able to gain something (or not loose anything) even if they loose, but not as often as if they win obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 20:32:58 GMT -6
If you are good enough to cause and win enough wars, then yes, you deserved the right to have the biggest budget, own the biggest fleet and still put a lot of money into research. The money cut after the war is reasonable, but overdone. Tell that to the US or UK after WWII. In 1949 there were already more than than 2000 ships in mothballs, and the US Navy was well in the way to have it's budget cut so short it would've had problems to keep their CVs operational. Only the Korean war saved their bacon because budget projections for 1951 were abysmal and the Air Force was already lobbying to get all control and ownership over naval aircraft transferred to them. On their side of the pond, the UK couldn't even build a proper light cruiser with the alloted budget they had to survive on (so they built Tiger...). That after winning the most epic war of humankind. And it was not an one of a kind. Things werent that much different post-WW1. After a war military budgets are almost always drastically reduced, so in game they are not overdone at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 21:20:17 GMT -6
You all are just comparing the game to the reality in a way that is not gonna work anyhow you look at it. First of all, the game is naval strategy. Second, the game already contains decisions that have nothing to do with navy (social reforms, sending a revolutionist etc). Third, the game does not contain any international situation simulation at all, its all just player does X -> tensions +, player does Y -> tension -, so there is not a single point in comparing in game wars with the IRL world wars. Also no AI navy can fight other AI navy without you - in other words, its you (+ some ally if you are lucky enough) VS THE WHOLE WORLD, so the player really should be able to prepare for it. And even if you have an ally, the chance of his navy actually helping you is almost non-existen from what I´ve learned as far, your ally is probably just gonna loose a few cruiser and a battleship in a battle with enemy KE or something, so in practice the only naval loses is yours and the nations you are fighting against. If for example my French navy just won a war against Italy and lost a few ships during the war, it would be quite logical to prepare for the war against Germany, which is coming soon...
But back to the topic - if your nation is fighting in a defensive war, you are clearly winning, army of your nation is winning too, your unrest is 0 and enemy is blockaded, it would make sense to just push them until they collapse, just like the allies did to both Germany and Japan in WWII, not because its based in history, this game is alternative history, not the real one, but based on logic. You can smash your enemy, so you do it. He started it, you end it. If its going better than expected and the chief of the navy suggest crushing the enemy completely, it makes absolutely no sense to sign white peace, or some other piece of... peace
I tend to use task manager in such situation, so I dont really see the point of forcing the player to do that, I mean I´ve never seen a game before that I would play with task manager constantly showing in the corner of the screen just to be sure to not waste too much time if some nonsense happens again, and I´ve really played a lot of games...
|
|
|
|
Post by director on May 28, 2019 21:33:57 GMT -6
Guys, this is a design-and-combat game.
it is NOT a map-painting game. Nothing wrong with those - I enjoy some good empire building - but this one is more like Victoria than EU4 or Total War.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 21:38:21 GMT -6
Guys, this is a design-and-combat game. it is NOT a map-painting game Once more my whole point summed up in two lines by someone else. Damnit, I should give up trying to putting up arguments. I suck at this XDDDD. |
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 28, 2019 23:35:51 GMT -6
Guys, this is a design-and-combat game. it is NOT a map-painting game. Nothing wrong with those - I enjoy some good empire building - but this one is more like Victoria than EU4 or Total War. I don't think design-and-combat is mutually exclusive with map-painting: they seem like orthogonal design directions to me. I agree that RtW's design focus is not on world domination.
I've taken a step back from this discussion for the moment, trying to reflect on where I stand. I'm shelving the historical comparisons because we came to an impasse on that, but I'm still enjoying the discussion.
I tried to re-frame the question as whether luck should dictate how the game goes at the strategic level or not, or to what degree:
1) Skill-based reward system. For instance, Chess. It's a purely skill-driven result: if you do well, you are rewarded so.
2) RNG-based reward system. For instance: Risk. A person with good strategy has only a marginally better chance of winning. The game is strongly dependent on die rolls. You can have situations where a massive, obviously superior army is decimated. I think role-playing becomes more of a necessity with this approach.
We probably have different opinions about whether the current peace resolutions are too luck-based or too skill-based -- hey, maybe the possible results aren't absurd enough! Ideally, we could mod the peace terms event and everyone can choose what they want, but that will require Fredrik to allow access somehow.
(edit: I'd be happy to create a mod with peace condition parameters, if we are given access)
|
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 0:09:34 GMT -6
A person with good strategy has only a marginally better chance of winning
I think the core of this discusion resides on what "winning" is in the context of RtW. Winning here has never been getting a hand on every single colony out there and flying your flag across the globe. Amongst many other things because foregoing using VPs for colonies means you get war reparations. And those boost your economy so it scales faster and bigger - allowing for larger budgets after a while than what colonies do. But that still is besides the point. The goal of this game can be many things, and is a sandbox in many ways. In general I think that given what the devs had in mind when designing this game, winning is measured in prestige points, in seeing my designs do well in battle, or in establishing my supremacy in certain zones where I was weak at the beginning of the game (SouthEast Asia for Japan could be a good instance)- supremacy that doesn't have to come from owning every single little flag in the place, just the key ones to project air and naval power. Winning wars where I'm the underdog is kinda scoring extra points - but in the end the game gives you an objective way to measure your performance, and is not how many of your nation's flags are in the maps; it is the ammount Prestige Points you collect through the game. You don't get those by peace treaties, you get them by winning battles. So, if you objectively won a war, whatever the peace result is, that means you've had a good go getting a lot of VPs through won battles , and that means you've been rewarded towards winning the game. The game was designed this way. Getting colonies as war booty is part of the game, but is neither the objective nor the end goal. Now, I get the frustration of people when they won a war and get little material benefit in the aftermath - been there, been annoyed for that, moved on to win other wars. It's all part of what it means to be playing a game that intends to recreate what went on in history, and in history things like that weren't rare at all (for many reasons). |
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on May 29, 2019 4:58:57 GMT -6
The problem is the Bismark Archipelago. It makes sense that Germany demand it be returned in order for the British to have peace. As it stands Germany actually lost this war since the British are already rebuilding their fleet and will soon have a more powerful fleet than Germany once again and they kept their new territory. This peace deal rewards the British right when the German Navy had the maritime power on the rocks. This seems to have set up a continuation war after a rearmament period.
While it can be intriguing for some its also very frustrating. I know it was a design choice but a lot of this goes back to the all nations versus the player nation that has been set up. Even in RTW 1 you could run into scenarios where one war doesn't go particularly well so you need a rebuild period only to not get that when another nation declares war. You get beat rather soundly only to have a third nation jump on you for whatever reason and now you're facing the end of the game with a sound defeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 29, 2019 12:26:38 GMT -6
Yeah, I think you've hit on something jeb94 . Because of the game mechanics, this blow to the Royal Navy ends up being a great thing to their in-game representation, as it acts to scrap all their old ships and forces them to build nothing but the best from here. With the way RtW works, there is no penalty to UK while they rebuild (where the penalty should be us or someone else going to war with them because they have a weak navy). |
|
|
|
Post by director on May 29, 2019 21:20:28 GMT -6
tortugapower - Sure. Gradiations on a scale, not binary choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiruth on May 29, 2019 23:39:41 GMT -6
A person with good strategy has only a marginally better chance of winning
I think the core of this discusion resides on what "winning" is in the context of RtW. Winning here has never been getting a hand on every single colony out there and flying your flag across the globe. Amongst many other things because foregoing using VPs for colonies means you get war reparations. And those boost your economy so it scales faster and bigger - allowing for larger budgets after a while than what colonies do. But that still is besides the point. The goal of this game can be many things, and is a sandbox in many ways. In general I think that given what the devs had in mind when designing this game, winning is measured in prestige points, in seeing my designs do well in battle, or in establishing my supremacy in certain zones where I was weak at the beginning of the game (SouthEast Asia for Japan could be a good instance)- supremacy that doesn't have to come from owning every single little flag in the place, just the key ones to project air and naval power. Winning wars where I'm the underdog is kinda scoring extra points - but in the end the game gives you an objective way to measure your performance, and is not how many of your nation's flags are in the maps; it is the ammount Prestige Points you collect through the game. You don't get those by peace treaties, you get them by winning battles. So, if you objectively won a war, whatever the peace result is, that means you've had a good go getting a lot of VPs through won battles , and that means you've been rewarded towards winning the game. The game was designed this way. Getting colonies as war booty is part of the game, but is neither the objective nor the end goal. Now, I get the frustration of people when they won a war and get little material benefit in the aftermath - been there, been annoyed for that, moved on to win other wars. It's all part of what it means to be playing a game that intends to recreate what went on in history, and in history things like that weren't rare at all (for many reasons). New player here. I think the design choice of the game are good to prevent too much snowballing of the player, the problem is that gamers expect some kind of reward for doing good. I think the frustration could be tone down a lot by giving the player some minor concession (that could also help the "fiction" if the player is roleplayng), for example in case of white peace after a decisive winning war we could have one of these events: * Proud of the navy! The country is united after the victory of the navy in the last War, the unrest goes to 0. * Mutilated Victory! The country is displeased on how the last war ended, a nationalist movement press on to keep financing the navy for the next war. The cabinet is forced to not cut down navy budget. * Merchant navy boom! The last war caused serious issue to the other nation merchant navy and your nation shipping companies took advantage of it. An industrial boom is looming. * Proud to serve! The last inconclusive war springed a spike in the young generations desire to serve in the navy, boast to research for XXX (or boast in morale/readiness for the fleet...) Or something along those line... |
|
|
|
Post by chrinik on May 30, 2019 4:44:45 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. Yes, but what isn't really realistic is an enemy coalition winning slightly, declaring "TOTAL WAR!" upon you...then surrender immediately in a white peace because I asked them too...what....the....F....? |
|
