|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also just a pet peeve for future paradox games: I wish they wouldn't include numbers that derive directly from real world numbers unless they roughly match plausible real world numbers. Like I can buy ducats and bird points because those are abstract, but when the game is like "250k soldiers died in a war over one province in 1457" it just seems silly. Are you saying that the Roman republic putting a million men in the field before 27 BC isn't realistic???
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Are you saying that the Roman republic putting a million men in the field before 27 BC isn't realistic??? All at once, sure, but weren't the Romans notable for always having more troops ready to go after each loss?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:All at once, sure, but weren't the Romans notable for always having more troops ready to go after each loss? that was more on the scale of "they lose 30,000 dudes and then drum up 30,000 more" though
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Reinforcement wasn't instantaneous and losing 10,000+ troops in a battle like Caudine Forks would be devastating. I'm struggling to imagine any ancient battles that reached 100,000 soldiers deployed in a single battle. Maybe the Mongols came close but I'll let a real historian weigh in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Also the romans were fielding armies bigly compared to europeans a thousand+ years later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Reinforcement wasn't instantaneous and losing 10,000+ troops in a battle like Caudine Forks would be devastating. I'm struggling to imagine any ancient battles that reached 100,000 soldiers deployed in a single battle. Maybe the Mongols came close but I'll let a real historian weigh in. cannae was 80,000 vs 50,000, some of the civil war battles were enormous - philippi involved 50,000-100,000 on each side. ancient battles could in fact be mind-bogglingly large, but most weren't
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Asimov posted:I'm struggling to imagine any ancient battles that reached 100,000 soldiers deployed in a single battle. Maybe the Mongols came close but I'll let a real historian weigh in. Maybe? Especially in china we do have battles like Red Cliffs or Changping where it's claimed that there were hundreds of thousands of casualties, but it's hard to say how accurate those numbers historically are. Red Cliffs / Chibi is a good example, because Wei sources at the time claim they had something like 800 thousand troops, whereas Wu reports put it closer to 250K. Are either of these figures right, who knows
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
The Chinese warring states all had universal drafts and the evidence is that Qin especially was actually startlingly effective at enforcing it, in their core territories anyway—it was really the principle reason they were able to unify China. The numbers in the official histories are surely inflated but from what I’ve read most modern historians do seem to think they really were fielding absolutely enormous armies and probably easily over 100,000 per side (although spread over a somewhat wide area). Probably bigger than anything until Napoleon; the universal draft was actually abolished after Western Han, so for all its fame the battles of the 3 Kingdoms likely weren’t actually on quite the same scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
drat I was interested to hear what Waypoint Radio would say about pdxcon, but Rob Zacny was so disappointed he refused to even talk about it and just talked about the DDR museum in Berlin instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
fuf posted:drat I was interested to hear what Waypoint Radio would say about pdxcon, but Rob Zacny was so disappointed he refused to even talk about it and just talked about the DDR museum in Berlin instead. Sounds like the parts he enjoyed will be coming out as a couple interview podcasts. I liked the one he did with Johan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
If games modelled actual casualties as casualties and not fatalities, it would make a lot more sense. It isn't typically until modern warfare where most of the soldiers deployed who die do so in the actual battle. The manpower system to make that work would be interesting and probably open to abuse, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Westminster System posted:If games modelled actual casualties as casualties and not fatalities, it would make a lot more sense. But you'd still have to model fatalities in some way though. So all you'll add with differentiating them from casualties is another extra step before you lose your manpower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Westminster System posted:If games modelled actual casualties as casualties and not fatalities, it would make a lot more sense. The current manpower systems are weird to me because the only way a soldier ever leaves the army is dying in battle or from attrition. You can raise a regiment in 1444 and then never use it and the 1000 immortal geezers will still be happily serving in 1800. There should really be a permanent manpower "upkeep" on raised units as people age out of the army or die of natural causes (or a randomly struck by a bullet fired out of a window)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The current manpower systems are weird to me because the only way a soldier ever leaves the army is dying in battle or from attrition. You can raise a regiment in 1444 and then never use it and the 1000 immortal geezers will still be happily serving in 1800. There should really be a permanent manpower "upkeep" on raised units as people age out of the army or die of natural causes (or a randomly struck by a bullet fired out of a window) Honestly, modelling this today as a constant, low-level background attrition isn't a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Honestly, modelling this today as a constant, low-level background attrition isn't a bad idea. It is a bad idea, because it means the unit will always display signs of attrition. It should be a manpower-side malus, if represented at all. I'd rather just assume that's abstracted in the manpower pool system without direct representation though, it offers little to no gameplay benefit in a game that doesn't track pop demographics. Vic 3 however should have that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Yeah it's kinda pointless to have a constant 1% drain on your MP if all that it leads to is a 1% buff in MP gain for balance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:But you'd still have to model fatalities in some way though. So all you'll add with differentiating them from casualties is another extra step before you lose your manpower. Oh of course. I'd think in a very basic way you'd have a battle result where you say, took 1000 fatalities and 2000 casualties. Then there'd be some tech etc modifer to how many casualties end up as fatalities, and the game would represent a final fatality number with a "more info" showing the behind the scenes working it all out with things like casualties that mean they are no longer combat effective, if you wanted to really go into it. Essentially you'd functionally not see much different, and it'd depend whether you want individual units to have a reinforcement up front or over time of the casualties, or if you add them into the manpower pool again and let normal systems workings handle that (maybe with a modifer of some kind). It is a bit more complicated, but it'd be a lot more realistic than losing 100k soldiers in their entirety than in a battle to the death over Ulm in 1500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Yeah if you want to model upkeep for your standing armies, cutting your max manpower by some % would work better, as you don't feel you're constantly losing troops just by standing around. Especially given that Paradox army stuff is more....getting the idea of armies than anything resembling historical circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Armies of the time were a lot more uhm, fluid in terms of membership as well. Like if you look at the (first ten years or so anyway) thirty years war as an example a rough campaign would see the army literally mostly dissolve as people hosed off but next year around after the harvest a whole shitload of them would show back up. And this was kind of accepted as just how it was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Saros posted:Armies of the time were a lot more uhm, fluid in terms of membership as well. Like if you look at the (first ten years or so anyway) thirty years war as an example a rough campaign would see the army literally mostly dissolve as people hosed off but next year around after the harvest a whole shitload of them would show back up. And this was kind of accepted as just how it was. Yea there's no "fun" way of getting this shown in the game really. You could do it if the army was a much bigger focus generally but at least for me that's not what paradox games are about. I just feel like it's abstracted and takes place in the background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Honestly, modelling this today as a constant, low-level background attrition isn't a bad idea. I have a vague memory that Paradox have addressed this and said they decided against it because attrition suggests the player is doing something "wrong" and it's unsatisfying if they can't do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
Yeah, one of the devs chimes in with that when it pops up in thread every few months. It would be effectively the same sort of system as sailors, which are loving terrible with it's upkeep with missions. I dunno why you think that'd be a good idea at all. Just accept it as something gamey and move on. Vicky 3 can do that instead. (It won't, nor will it be real.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
I suppose one way to model losing men to retirement rather than battle would be to make Maximum Manpower = Force Limit. So if a country could at most raise 20 000 troops and had a standing army of 10 regiments, that would give them an effective max manpower pool of 10 000 and halve their manpower gain since half the young men coming of age would be sent directly to the regiments to replace retiring soldiers. I'm not sure this would be fun, and it would certainly require a rework of how manpower is calculated, but it's a way it could be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
I have the design docs for Vick3y and machine guns will replace the manpower pool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
I would absolutely want to play Mauser/Browning simulator, where you are in charge of a weapons manufacturer from the mid 19th century to ww2-ish and you have to develop and sell weapons / get around blockades / lobby militaries to use your inferior tech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:I would absolutely want to play Mauser/Browning simulator, where you are in charge of a weapons manufacturer from the mid 19th century to ww2-ish and you have to develop and sell weapons / get around blockades / lobby militaries to use your inferior tech. Same. Give me a game where one of the hardest choices in the game is to use a commonly available round or design your own proprietary special snowflake round that performs better but runs the risk of pushing costs over what the government might want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Same. Give me a game where one of the hardest choices in the game is to use a commonly available round or design your own proprietary special snowflake round that performs better but runs the risk of pushing costs over what the government might want. i think the point of the proprietary round IS that it costs more
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Same. Give me a game where one of the hardest choices in the game is to use a commonly available round or design your own proprietary special snowflake round that performs better but runs the risk of pushing costs over what the government might want. Absolutely, or stuff like: Do you make it out of wood and get a bonus in the civilian market or stamp it out sheet metal to lower costs for the military.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Senior Dog posted:i think the point of the proprietary round IS that it costs more Exactly, so now you have to decide if the proprietary round is worth the risk of potentially losing a major contract because of logistic concerns and a higher cost that the widly available round.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
If my insistence on maintaining my market share in artisanal bespoke panzer turrets is a critical production and logistical bottleneck that costs us battles and lives, do I win for ensuring production in my factories or lose because the economic dumpster fire that was me and my competitors is now half bombed out and half producing lovely soviet export cars
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
your objectives are determined by what kind of company your controlling, so if your owned by a bunch of rich failsons you can end up getting fired for refusing to send guns to paramilitaries that want to overthrow the government because they want to tax the rich more
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Taear posted:Yea there's no "fun" way of getting this shown in the game really. You could do it if the army was a much bigger focus generally but at least for me that's not what paradox games are about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:
This.. is not why sailors are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Exactly, so now you have to decide if the proprietary round is worth the risk of potentially losing a major contract because of logistic concerns and a higher cost that the widly available round. You make the guns cheap but the bullets expensive!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Or you can develop a rifle that fails to win a government competition, and get stuck in a financial hole, until you opportunistically sell them to the dutch on paper, and never deliver them, and then sell them again to the French for marked-up lend-lease prices. See: Johnson M41 rifle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Selling guns at a cut rate to companies that run rubber plantations so the increase in supply in rubber drives down production costs for an armored car your working on. just don't mind the atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm not sure the army needs to be a much bigger focus to include that, just divide it into levied troops and standing armies, each with their own force limit and maintenance slider. The standing army has a constant maintenance cost, while the levied army starts off essentially maintenance free and then has its cost increase over time while the levy is active. The gameplay effect of this being to incentivize shorter wars that end due to finances rather than the complete destruction of enemy armies. On top of that, it'd make the progression towards more professional armies in the late game something the player would actually feel. Yeah I think an EUV in particular would benefit not from necessarily more military focus but a more consistent military system that ties into the nation's general development more- and ultimately I'd like to have playing a (proto-)nation-state in 1792 feel substantially different from playing a feudal kingdom in 1450. Currently your EU military is a bolted-together set of things that you mainly notice as "number going up" but spread over several screens. Some even feeding off the same resource (tech and ideas both being huge military priorities just fed by monarch military points- so why even have them be two separate things?) I'd like to really feel what it's like to be fielding condotierri vs. knights and sergeants-at-arms vs. a professional army of career soldiers vs. a levée-en-masse. I don't know how best to achieve this which is why I don't make games, but that sort of transition is what makes the EU period so cool and it's not super flavourful about it right now. Expanding on it would really help EU get the same distinct feel that Vicky and CK do so well instead of being Map Painter: The Default Version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Same. Give me a game where one of the hardest choices in the game is to use a commonly available round or design your own proprietary special snowflake round that performs better but runs the risk of pushing costs over what the government might want.  but also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U682yOpNafg&t=754s
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Arms are one thing, but I'd love an entire Milo Minderbinder style business sim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Agean90 posted:Selling guns at a cut rate to companies that run rubber plantations so the increase in supply in rubber drives down production costs for an armored car your working on. just don't mind the atrocities. If we are getting into armored cars, then give me full on Ferdinand Porsche simulator, where you completely ignore all sense and create an endless loop of problems for yourself where the gun that you want increases the weight, which requires you to develop new transmissions, but they aren't sufficient, so you start developing electro-transmission drives at a time where no one really understands electronics, and so mass-production is impossible. So it's really just you, and your friend Friedrich hand-assembling a 180 ton monstrosity with a bespoke electrical transmission system and submarine engines powering the whole thing and no one remembers how you got to that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:27
|
|