More (but not too) informative invasion progress messages
Aug 24, 2019 10:07:10 GMT -6
King-Salomon likes this
Post by sloanjh on Aug 24, 2019 10:07:10 GMT -6
Suggestion: Add extra information to the invasion status text that gives the player a rough idea (albeit with major fog of war noise) of when the invasion will trigger, e.g.
"Our admirals tell us the invasion of Burma will be ready in 5 months", where the actual ETA might be e.g. 3 months or it might be 10 months (i.e. +/- 50% from the actual time).
Motivation: I think this would ameliorate a major frustration that I know I have (and suspect others do as well), in that the current mechanism has too much fog-of-war; IRL the naval command will have a target date for a particular invasion that will correspond to how long it takes to gather the resource for the operation. In the current system the player has no information upon which to base the decision to keep paying the significant invasion fee or to give up on that invasion objective. I have seen on the forums that the practical result of this is players just don't take advantage of the invasion mechanism at all, i.e. they never pay the fee. I know my experience in the last several games (invasions rarely fire, and when they do it's typically when the zone that has no enemy forces and so you end up not landing troops because the enemy declined to be invaded
) has led me pretty close to this stance.
I suspect that part of the reason for "invasions rarely fire" is that I'm being too ambitious in my invasion targets (e.g. Egypt), but I have zero feedback on whether this is the case and what the costs of my ambition are likely to be, even at the +/- 2x level.
Another thought: perhaps different invasion targets should have different preparation costs. Invading the Marshall islands is likely to require significantly more resources than invading Ireland, for example.
Yet another thought: should there be a cost associated with the on-going battles associated with an invasion? This can be justified in terms of naval budget as cuts to all branch's budgets in order to fund the incremental invasion cost.
John
"Our admirals tell us the invasion of Burma will be ready in 5 months", where the actual ETA might be e.g. 3 months or it might be 10 months (i.e. +/- 50% from the actual time).
Motivation: I think this would ameliorate a major frustration that I know I have (and suspect others do as well), in that the current mechanism has too much fog-of-war; IRL the naval command will have a target date for a particular invasion that will correspond to how long it takes to gather the resource for the operation. In the current system the player has no information upon which to base the decision to keep paying the significant invasion fee or to give up on that invasion objective. I have seen on the forums that the practical result of this is players just don't take advantage of the invasion mechanism at all, i.e. they never pay the fee. I know my experience in the last several games (invasions rarely fire, and when they do it's typically when the zone that has no enemy forces and so you end up not landing troops because the enemy declined to be invaded
) has led me pretty close to this stance.I suspect that part of the reason for "invasions rarely fire" is that I'm being too ambitious in my invasion targets (e.g. Egypt), but I have zero feedback on whether this is the case and what the costs of my ambition are likely to be, even at the +/- 2x level.
Another thought: perhaps different invasion targets should have different preparation costs. Invading the Marshall islands is likely to require significantly more resources than invading Ireland, for example.
Yet another thought: should there be a cost associated with the on-going battles associated with an invasion? This can be justified in terms of naval budget as cuts to all branch's budgets in order to fund the incremental invasion cost.
John
