Post by hawkeye on May 23, 2023 9:21:16 GMT -6
This post is inspired by my report of a possible bug with re. to unrest.
I assume (haven't checked yet), unrest is lowered by huge victories in RTW3 (i.e. you gain 2 prestige) just like it is in RTW2. This is all fine and good, the navy does extremely well, you are the leader of the navy --> people like you more.
The problem I see lies in the way VPs are calculated, which is, afaikt, directly from the cost of the ships sunk (this is a bit of a problem in RTW 2 as well, but is magnified with a 1890 start).
I (Germany) had a war with Russia in the mid 1890s. In one battle I sunk 4 Russian battleships - and I got about as many VP as if I had sunk a single heavy cruiser in 1930.
This means, lowering unrest via successful battles is virtually impossible early game. Those ships are simply too cheap to get you to +2 prestige - and that's rather silly.
My prestige should change in relation to how victorious (or not) I am and if I sink half the enemy's fleet, then I should gain a _lot_ of prestige. It doesn't matter that those ships are cheap, compared to battleships from the 1940s - nobody has ever _seen_ a 1940 BB.
I guess, what I'm trying to say is that VP and thus gain and loss of prestige for battles should be scaled in accordance to the available technology in the game.
It shouldn't matter if the 4 SOTA battleships I sunk were from 1895 or from 1935. I would be known as the admiral that sunk half the enemy's battle line and my prestige should rise or fall accordingly.
I assume (haven't checked yet), unrest is lowered by huge victories in RTW3 (i.e. you gain 2 prestige) just like it is in RTW2. This is all fine and good, the navy does extremely well, you are the leader of the navy --> people like you more.
The problem I see lies in the way VPs are calculated, which is, afaikt, directly from the cost of the ships sunk (this is a bit of a problem in RTW 2 as well, but is magnified with a 1890 start).
I (Germany) had a war with Russia in the mid 1890s. In one battle I sunk 4 Russian battleships - and I got about as many VP as if I had sunk a single heavy cruiser in 1930.
This means, lowering unrest via successful battles is virtually impossible early game. Those ships are simply too cheap to get you to +2 prestige - and that's rather silly.
My prestige should change in relation to how victorious (or not) I am and if I sink half the enemy's fleet, then I should gain a _lot_ of prestige. It doesn't matter that those ships are cheap, compared to battleships from the 1940s - nobody has ever _seen_ a 1940 BB.
I guess, what I'm trying to say is that VP and thus gain and loss of prestige for battles should be scaled in accordance to the available technology in the game.
It shouldn't matter if the 4 SOTA battleships I sunk were from 1895 or from 1935. I would be known as the admiral that sunk half the enemy's battle line and my prestige should rise or fall accordingly.
