MAJOR PRESTIGE OVERHAUL

[Deleted]

This suggestion is connected to my previous MAJOR ECONOMICS OVERHAUL and MAJOR CONFLICT OVERHAUL suggestions.

1) PRESTIGE GAINED FROM BATTLES
- Prestige gained from battles should be based on the size of the battle, the type of capital units, and the amount of losses.
- E.g.: A) A destroyer battle - a few DDs are lost on both sides - no prestige
- B) DD battle, but its 3 of your DDs against 10 enemy DDs, and you manage to sink a few of them - a prestige point is given
- C) CA vs CA, 1vs1, and you win - get a prestige point
- D) A fleet battle, and you sink just a CA and a few CLs - no prestige
- E) A fleet battle, and you sink enemy newest flagship, and 2 older battleships - 3 prestige points

2) SPENDING PRESTIGE
- Declining a call to arms to a major war would cost a lot of prestige
- If player´s nation is considered a major nation (which should be one of top 4 nations in terms of naval tonnage), then calling enemy ships "better" in dialog options should cost a lot more prestige (2 or 3 points) but should also increase budget substantially with a chance to increase unrest by a point or two.
- The eastern empires (Japan and China) should have a permanent buff with a 20% chance to remove one unrest point per turn. But on the other hand, any form of disagreement with your superiors would cost MUCH more prestige (like 3 to 6 points)

[wlbjork]

Or, more simply, make either each ship class has a prestige rating attached - including fractional ones (DDs for example could be 0.1 PP). Total up prestige earned and subtract prestige lost.

Alternative 2: tonnage sunk/20,000 minus tonnage lost/20,000 and truncate the result. Could use another value, but I think 10,000 would be too low late game - maybe it could increase as the game progresses?

[Deleted]

May 30, 2023 0:59:45 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

Or, more simply, make either each ship class has a prestige rating attached - including fractional ones (DDs for example could be 0.1 PP). Total up prestige earned and subtract prestige lost.

Alternative 2: tonnage sunk/20,000 minus tonnage lost/20,000 and truncate the result. Could use another value, but I think 10,000 would be too low late game - maybe it could increase as the game progresses?

Yeah but it should all be multiplied by the amount of enemy tonnage superiority. So if you have 2 times stronger fleet from the get go, you get half the amount of prestige. But if enemy has 2 times more, then you get twice the amount of prestige.

[arminpfano]

The biggest problem with prestige in RTW2 was, that it had no use at all, apart from a final judgmenent at retirement. This is much better now, when you have to use prestige for officer promotions etc.

Still this aspect is not really balanced. I found it too easy to gain prestige points, whereas there are not enough opportunities to spend some. After 1920 or so (1890 start) I have so many prestige points that it is not any more a challenge.

If you give more prestige points for bigger battles, you also have to find a sink for using them somehow sensibly. One way could be that your opinion to political questions ("the next enemy will be..." etc.) could be weighed more by the public if you invest prestige, leading to a faster change in tension.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2023 2:38:25 GMT -6 arminpfano said:

The biggest problem with prestige in RTW2 was, that it had no use at all, apart from a final judgmenent at retirement. This is much better now, when you have to use prestige for officer promotions etc.

Still this aspect is not really balanced. I found it too easy to gain prestige points, whereas there are not enough opportunities to spend some. After 1920 or so (1890 start) I have so many prestige points that it is not any more a challenge.

If you give more prestige points for bigger battles, you also have to find a sink for using them somehow sensibly. One way could be that your opinion to political questions ("the next enemy will be..." etc.) could be weighed more by the public if you invest prestige, leading to a faster change in tension.

Well, some options are really suitable for increased prestige cost, so that should not be a big problem. All this basically does is that it moves the game from +1 or -1 to a slightly higher numbers, which are more appropriate to the various situations.

[epsilon19]

May 30, 2023 2:38:25 GMT -6 arminpfano said:

The biggest problem with prestige in RTW2 was, that it had no use at all, apart from a final judgmenent at retirement. This is much better now, when you have to use prestige for officer promotions etc.

Still this aspect is not really balanced. I found it too easy to gain prestige points, whereas there are not enough opportunities to spend some. After 1920 or so (1890 start) I have so many prestige points that it is not any more a challenge.

If you give more prestige points for bigger battles, you also have to find a sink for using them somehow sensibly. One way could be that your opinion to political questions ("the next enemy will be..." etc.) could be weighed more by the public if you invest prestige, leading to a faster change in tension.

The use for prestige in RtW1 and 2 was to unlock infinite budget by realizing that you can just go massively into debt and have nothing bad happen for literal years.

[hawkeye]

I don't really have a problem with how prestige is currently calculated (i.e. monetary value of ships sunk determines victory points, amount of victory points determines earned prestige) except for the fact, that the era we're in isn't accounted for.

Let's say I'm in a war in 1937 and I sink one heavy and one light cruiser. I'll get around 50 to 70k VP and usually at least one point of prestige.
Now let's assume I'm in a war in 1893 and I sink half the enemy's battle-line. I'll get maybe 50k VP and perhaps one point of prestige.

Obviously, if prestige is meant to represent, well, prestige, then sinking half the enemy's battle-line should make me much more famous than sinking a lone heavy cruiser.
But with the current mechanic, that's not the case.

My suggestion would be to go with: 
Percentage of enemy fleet sunk vs. Percentage of own fleet sunk.
If I sink 50% of the enemy fleet and lost only 10% of my own fleet in the process, that should be a LOT of prestige.
If I sink 50% of the enemy fleet and lost 30% of my own fleet, that should still give me some prestige, but far less than in the above example
If I sink 50% of the enemy fleet and lost 50% of my own fleet as well, no prestige
and so on, you get the idea.

Yes, this would mean sinking a pair of cruisers will probable not get you any prestige - and that's how it should be, IMO (see below)

As for the original suggestion, I'm not sure. Remember, it's not about the commanding officer's prestige, it's about your, the Secretary of the Navy's and/or commander naval forces' prestige.

Sure, that Fregattenkapitän (or what have you) that commanded those 3 DDs in a fight against 8 enemy DDs, sunk 4 of the enemy and didn't lose a single one of his own will be famous for his deeds, but does this fame also make you famous?

[cabalamat]

May 29, 2023 23:52:20 GMT -6 @pavelsvt said:

This suggestion is connected to my previous MAJOR ECONOMICS OVERHAUL and MAJOR CONFLICT OVERHAUL suggestions.

1) PRESTIGE GAINED FROM BATTLES
- Prestige gained from battles should be based on the size of the battle, the type of capital units, and the amount of losses.
- E.g.: A) A destroyer battle - a few DDs are lost on both sides - no prestige
- B) DD battle, but its 3 of your DDs against 10 enemy DDs, and you manage to sink a few of them - a prestige point is given
- C) CA vs CA, 1vs1, and you win - get a prestige point
- D) A fleet battle, and you sink just a CA and a few CLs - no prestige
- E) A fleet battle, and you sink enemy newest flagship, and 2 older battleships - 3 prestige points

2) SPENDING PRESTIGE
- Declining a call to arms to a major war would cost a lot of prestige
- If player´s nation is considered a major nation (which should be one of top 4 nations in terms of naval tonnage), then calling enemy ships "better" in dialog options should cost a lot more prestige (2 or 3 points) but should also increase budget substantially with a chance to increase unrest by a point or two.
- The eastern empires (Japan and China) should have a permanent buff with a 20% chance to remove one unrest point per turn. But on the other hand, any form of disagreement with your superiors would cost MUCH more prestige (like 3 to 6 points)

Having more ways to spend prestige, e.g. strongly advising peace/war, would make prestige more valuable, so players would care about it more.