Post by dia on Dec 31, 2020 16:30:38 GMT -6
Wars in game are very simple and decided by submarine spam naval warfare. Land combat is mostly random with some influence from naval battles and decisions. There's also no influence from the distances between the belligerents. Furthermore, the concept of borders and area doesn't exist in game. Nations are defined by possessions which are defined by single points. I know this is a naval oriented game and I don't want to change that, but I find that wars get very old and very fast. There's also the oddities of having random land combat events in situations like Japan vs Italy when neither side even have possessions that share sea zones. It's very immersion breaking to me.
I propose a system for simulating land combat that won't force the player to manage it and shouldn't distract from the naval aspect of the game while at the same time adding another level to the decision of who you want to fight against and how.
Since there are no borders and raw distance doesn't take into account geography, all nations are given defined relation-like variables to determine how close they are to each other and whether or not they even share borders. This is to simulate that nations like Italy and Japan won't have much land combat outside of their colonies while nations like Italy and France will. The value of this variable will determine the intensity and impact of (non-invasion) land combat during a war. For now I'll call this a distance variable, but in reality I think it should probably be two variables, one for distance/geography (e.g. distance=x) and one for shared borders (e.g. borders=x),. The predefined value will be determined by the locations of real world home possessions and unconquerable possessions in 1900 and 1920, not colonial or possessions that can be invaded or taken as part of a peace deal. ( I do realize this adds a massive complication to creating custom nations so by the slim chance devs ever implement something like this, they would have to let the players know how the values of this variable or variables work and scale). As I explain how the variables will influence land combat, I think it probably should be noted that the values would be treated more like multipliers.
Land combat will also be defined as a value or score during the war that determines how well land/non-naval combat is going and the impact it has on the overall war. The land combat score would work on a scale like a war score you see in other games. Before I continue, this land combat score is not a war score like you see in other games and does not replace the VP mechanic. For example, it could be a scale from -100 to 100 with 100 being the player overrunning the enemy, -10 to 10 being stalemate, and -100 being the player being overrun. This is from the player's point of view and there's a different score and scale for each opponent. Every turn VP is distributed based on this score to the party winning with the amount of VP scaled to how much they are winning by. This happens for each opponent the player is up against. Of course this wouldn't be a large amount of VP because at the end of the day, it's a naval oriented game. The range of the land combat scale would be based on game year and the predefined distance variable(s) I mentioned earlier. Early game, the scale would be hard-capped to stay close to the stalemate range to simulate trench warfare and early logistics, but later years would allow the scale to widen to simulate new technology and evolving warfare. The distance variable(s) I mentioned earlier would also act as range cap, this is why they should probably be considered multipliers. For example Italy vs Japan will never have a scale as large as Germany vs France no matter the year. Since there would be two factors impacting the range of the scale, the smaller scale would be the limiter. Perhaps this distance variable(s) can also have less influence over time to simulate technology advancement and evolution of logistics and long range non-naval aircraft. Take it a step further and actually allow the amphibious/invasion technology tree to reduce the impact of the distance variable(s) as well.
The score itself starts out dead even (maybe except for nations with blitzkrieg and surprise attack attributes) and changes mostly at random, much like land combat events already are and to simulate this is an area the player doesn't control. But it would also be impacted by decisions (similar to how it is now), unrest, blockades, and most importantly winning large naval battles, with convoy battles holding a higher weight.
At the beginning of each turn, the player will get a message saying how much VP is being distributed based on the land combat score from each opponent. All VP acquired from opponent nations will be pooled into the Enemy VP score. Personally I think no matter what scale is chosen from the land combat score, the player should be able to view it's value for each enemy nation (similar to tension levels).
>Why does each opponent have a separate score, why not combine them like enemy submarines are combined in trade warfare?
I have major issues with how trade warfare is implemented, but this proposed land combat system is defined by values set between two nations only so it complicates the equation that defines the range of the land combat scale. Yes, it does make more sense to have a single combined land combat score during a war. Honestly it probably is possible to set up a combined land combat scale and score system, but you'd have really have to start coming up with actual values and equations to make sure it works. Just some random examples. Assuming a -100 to 100 scale, a Japan (human) vs Italy war in 1905 has a land combat scale range capped at -10 to 10. A German vs Italy war in 1905 would be capped at -30 to 30 scale. A Japan (human)/Germany vs Italy game in 1905 could be capped at -25 to 30 or something like that. I should note that I think it a combined score/scale is implemented, a lopsided range should be considered. In the last example, Japan and Italy can cause significant damage to Italy, but Italy can only really touch Germany. If anyone is serious about considering such a system I wouldn't mind trying to figure out how it could be calculated.
>How does the land combat score system work between allied nations vs opponents if there is no combined score?
The issue here is that alliances aren't really well implemented and relations between AI nations practically doesn't exist outside of pacts against the player. Based on my observations, allied AI nations are not even affected by trade warfare and do not contribute to ASW. So I wouldn't be surprised if the solution is that allied nations don't contribute to land combat at all. Ultimately it comes down to how this distance factor is implemented. Theoretically every possible pair of nations should have a set value so that the game should be able to come up with a land combat score scale for allied AIs vs enemies no matter what nation the player is using. But if the distance variables are defined in the warinfo files, then you can't really have values between AI nations because the warinfo files define AI nations based on a specific player nation. Personally I would have a file specifically for listing the values of every possible pair of nations, but I didn't code this game so I'm kind of talking out my ass here. Also I can see that being an issue with mods, including the official ones like CSA and Spain. Based on my limited knowledge of the game data files, the easiest way to implement distance/border variables is to define them in the warinfo files. This would allow for changed "borders" between the 1900 and 1920 starts and would make it easier for making custom nations. But if you that, not only will you lose the ability to implement this system between AI belligerents, you would not be able to use a combined score/scale either.
>Can/should the value of the distance variables change during the game?
I would love that, but I think that would add a huge level complexity to this proposal. And even if you manged to figure out how, you also have the issue of no AI wars and poorly implemented alliances where only the player sees the changes. Just like how only the player suffers attrition, the player can never be neutral. So yes you can have a border change result in a changed distance/border value, but there are too many factors that would influence how the changes would be implemented. Victory or defeat alone don't determine if shared borders are reduce or enlarged. Unless you plan on completely rewriting the diplomatic, war, and victory system in the game, I think it's best to leave the values set in stone for the whole game.
>What about possessions that give you a border or land connection to a another power?
Again the issue is that borders don't exist in game and the game doesn't known which possessions are adjacent to each other. Yes, France gaining Finland will give them a border with Russia but the distance variables aren't defined with conquerable possessions in mind. Unless you wanted to give a border relationship to every single possession in game (for example, Finland and the Baltic States have an attribute called "borders Russia" that means if the player controls one of them, then their nations border= value for Russia is changed to reflect having a shared border), I think it's best to leave conquerable possessions as a separate world determined by naval invasions and peace deals.
If you lasted this long, please also read my Expanded Invasion Ideas thread. I think everything would complement what I'm proposing here except maybe the Invasion of Home Areas section. You could probably integrate that section into what I'm proposing here. Perhaps for example if your amphibious/invasion technology is high enough and you have significant strength, you could get an event to trigger that asks if you want to invade the home area of your enemy. If you accept, at a cost, you would get an invasion battle. If you win, then the land combat scare range increases for you only. I'm going to think more in detail about this one.
I just want to repeat that this proposed system does not mess with naval invasions or land combat associated with those invasions in any way. They will continue to exist as their own feature. Apologies if I'm misusing the terms of variables and values.
I propose a system for simulating land combat that won't force the player to manage it and shouldn't distract from the naval aspect of the game while at the same time adding another level to the decision of who you want to fight against and how.
Since there are no borders and raw distance doesn't take into account geography, all nations are given defined relation-like variables to determine how close they are to each other and whether or not they even share borders. This is to simulate that nations like Italy and Japan won't have much land combat outside of their colonies while nations like Italy and France will. The value of this variable will determine the intensity and impact of (non-invasion) land combat during a war. For now I'll call this a distance variable, but in reality I think it should probably be two variables, one for distance/geography (e.g. distance=x) and one for shared borders (e.g. borders=x),. The predefined value will be determined by the locations of real world home possessions and unconquerable possessions in 1900 and 1920, not colonial or possessions that can be invaded or taken as part of a peace deal. ( I do realize this adds a massive complication to creating custom nations so by the slim chance devs ever implement something like this, they would have to let the players know how the values of this variable or variables work and scale). As I explain how the variables will influence land combat, I think it probably should be noted that the values would be treated more like multipliers.
Land combat will also be defined as a value or score during the war that determines how well land/non-naval combat is going and the impact it has on the overall war. The land combat score would work on a scale like a war score you see in other games. Before I continue, this land combat score is not a war score like you see in other games and does not replace the VP mechanic. For example, it could be a scale from -100 to 100 with 100 being the player overrunning the enemy, -10 to 10 being stalemate, and -100 being the player being overrun. This is from the player's point of view and there's a different score and scale for each opponent. Every turn VP is distributed based on this score to the party winning with the amount of VP scaled to how much they are winning by. This happens for each opponent the player is up against. Of course this wouldn't be a large amount of VP because at the end of the day, it's a naval oriented game. The range of the land combat scale would be based on game year and the predefined distance variable(s) I mentioned earlier. Early game, the scale would be hard-capped to stay close to the stalemate range to simulate trench warfare and early logistics, but later years would allow the scale to widen to simulate new technology and evolving warfare. The distance variable(s) I mentioned earlier would also act as range cap, this is why they should probably be considered multipliers. For example Italy vs Japan will never have a scale as large as Germany vs France no matter the year. Since there would be two factors impacting the range of the scale, the smaller scale would be the limiter. Perhaps this distance variable(s) can also have less influence over time to simulate technology advancement and evolution of logistics and long range non-naval aircraft. Take it a step further and actually allow the amphibious/invasion technology tree to reduce the impact of the distance variable(s) as well.
The score itself starts out dead even (maybe except for nations with blitzkrieg and surprise attack attributes) and changes mostly at random, much like land combat events already are and to simulate this is an area the player doesn't control. But it would also be impacted by decisions (similar to how it is now), unrest, blockades, and most importantly winning large naval battles, with convoy battles holding a higher weight.
At the beginning of each turn, the player will get a message saying how much VP is being distributed based on the land combat score from each opponent. All VP acquired from opponent nations will be pooled into the Enemy VP score. Personally I think no matter what scale is chosen from the land combat score, the player should be able to view it's value for each enemy nation (similar to tension levels).
>Why does each opponent have a separate score, why not combine them like enemy submarines are combined in trade warfare?
I have major issues with how trade warfare is implemented, but this proposed land combat system is defined by values set between two nations only so it complicates the equation that defines the range of the land combat scale. Yes, it does make more sense to have a single combined land combat score during a war. Honestly it probably is possible to set up a combined land combat scale and score system, but you'd have really have to start coming up with actual values and equations to make sure it works. Just some random examples. Assuming a -100 to 100 scale, a Japan (human) vs Italy war in 1905 has a land combat scale range capped at -10 to 10. A German vs Italy war in 1905 would be capped at -30 to 30 scale. A Japan (human)/Germany vs Italy game in 1905 could be capped at -25 to 30 or something like that. I should note that I think it a combined score/scale is implemented, a lopsided range should be considered. In the last example, Japan and Italy can cause significant damage to Italy, but Italy can only really touch Germany. If anyone is serious about considering such a system I wouldn't mind trying to figure out how it could be calculated.
>How does the land combat score system work between allied nations vs opponents if there is no combined score?
The issue here is that alliances aren't really well implemented and relations between AI nations practically doesn't exist outside of pacts against the player. Based on my observations, allied AI nations are not even affected by trade warfare and do not contribute to ASW. So I wouldn't be surprised if the solution is that allied nations don't contribute to land combat at all. Ultimately it comes down to how this distance factor is implemented. Theoretically every possible pair of nations should have a set value so that the game should be able to come up with a land combat score scale for allied AIs vs enemies no matter what nation the player is using. But if the distance variables are defined in the warinfo files, then you can't really have values between AI nations because the warinfo files define AI nations based on a specific player nation. Personally I would have a file specifically for listing the values of every possible pair of nations, but I didn't code this game so I'm kind of talking out my ass here. Also I can see that being an issue with mods, including the official ones like CSA and Spain. Based on my limited knowledge of the game data files, the easiest way to implement distance/border variables is to define them in the warinfo files. This would allow for changed "borders" between the 1900 and 1920 starts and would make it easier for making custom nations. But if you that, not only will you lose the ability to implement this system between AI belligerents, you would not be able to use a combined score/scale either.
>Can/should the value of the distance variables change during the game?
I would love that, but I think that would add a huge level complexity to this proposal. And even if you manged to figure out how, you also have the issue of no AI wars and poorly implemented alliances where only the player sees the changes. Just like how only the player suffers attrition, the player can never be neutral. So yes you can have a border change result in a changed distance/border value, but there are too many factors that would influence how the changes would be implemented. Victory or defeat alone don't determine if shared borders are reduce or enlarged. Unless you plan on completely rewriting the diplomatic, war, and victory system in the game, I think it's best to leave the values set in stone for the whole game.
>What about possessions that give you a border or land connection to a another power?
Again the issue is that borders don't exist in game and the game doesn't known which possessions are adjacent to each other. Yes, France gaining Finland will give them a border with Russia but the distance variables aren't defined with conquerable possessions in mind. Unless you wanted to give a border relationship to every single possession in game (for example, Finland and the Baltic States have an attribute called "borders Russia" that means if the player controls one of them, then their nations border= value for Russia is changed to reflect having a shared border), I think it's best to leave conquerable possessions as a separate world determined by naval invasions and peace deals.
If you lasted this long, please also read my Expanded Invasion Ideas thread. I think everything would complement what I'm proposing here except maybe the Invasion of Home Areas section. You could probably integrate that section into what I'm proposing here. Perhaps for example if your amphibious/invasion technology is high enough and you have significant strength, you could get an event to trigger that asks if you want to invade the home area of your enemy. If you accept, at a cost, you would get an invasion battle. If you win, then the land combat scare range increases for you only. I'm going to think more in detail about this one.
I just want to repeat that this proposed system does not mess with naval invasions or land combat associated with those invasions in any way. They will continue to exist as their own feature. Apologies if I'm misusing the terms of variables and values.