Nim i do agree with you. Dont misunderstand me, or maybe i simply dont make some posts clear. First off i 100% consider this a sandbox type ahistorical game. My issue only comes that as opposed to the many many games i play so much of this game you cant pin down. A means A over here but really A means B over here. C isnt really C it just looks like C it really means D etc... National Unity doesnt represent what you think it would, Manpower doesnt represent men etc... If the terms and their representatins were a bit more clear it would be easier. Also some more consistency across the board with different nations would be nice. It appears that the game was modified in all aspects to make it work but it is sort of thrown together sometimes so that you dont have a clear understanding of really what some things are.
People say Manpower represents more then Manpower however in the rules their is no indication of that, in fact the game allows you to modify your manpower (laws, techs etc...) that leaves you to believe that manpower can only be manpower. If thats the case then the manpower ratios per nation are off, certain nations get bumped way up others get hammered way down, in order to make the game work. From the Rules;
When Producing units, there is not only an economic demand but also a requirement to have sufficient Manpower to populate the unit. Manpower is generated as a Resource from every Controlled province, though there is less from
conquered provinces than from your Owned provinces which you still Control. Overseas provinces, even if Owned, provide less Manpower than those on the same continent as your Capital. Manpower is considered a pool which can be used to
produce units, and is thereafter “contained” by those units. However, units will also “leak” Manpower in terms of Attrition through routine turnover, or losses due to sickness or the environment. As such, each unit has a monthly demand on
Manpower in the form of Reinforcements.Manpower is impacted by Mobilization and Conscription Laws.
Players say that National Unity doesnt represent what you would believe it does so that the inconsistency between some nations shouldnt really be looked at, but by Paradox's own definitions that is not really true. By definition;
National Unity is how a country commands support for its Policies and marshals Resources (mineral, military or Manpower) to its own defence. A disunited country is weak and vulnerable so, obviously, it is always better to be
united. National Unity is affected by Government Decisions, War losses, and Strategic Warfare. Some Laws or Decisions may affect National Unity even though they’re not the “smart” choice – i.e. Soviet Purges create higher National Unity but
hurt the country in some ways. Some Laws will negatively affect National Unity and/or Dissent. A country whose National Unity drops too low may suffer a Revolt, or it simply may see a change of Government through an Election. Naturally, a Party that has allowed the National Unity to fall so low is not likely to remain in power after an Election.
I like the game as much as anyone and in many ways think they have done an outstanding job, but i feel entitled to discuss as many do the various shortcomings. We have purchased this game and its xpacs. I do not feel that because i respect the effort that went into game design that not only can it not be better but that i owe some undying loyalty to the designers anymore then if im not happy when i by a car or a food item. This game could be improved in many ways, and in many ways rather easily, in some ways much more difficulty would be required. We discuss the game like this and it has led to many positive changes done by the modders, not because we want to throw stones at the developers. I feel when i play this game like the rules and information cant be counted on and that the game is abstracted all over the place, like tiny little bandaids. If it was a football game it would be like each team gets different pts for a touchdown (3,6,8,11 etc) in order to balance the game out. And i dont really consider any game ever "balanced" even if it ends up somewhat historical, too many non historical things have happened.
I play WOW the MMO and have since it was launched, and personally think they have ruined the game over the years in order to make more money (but that is a diff issue). I see the same thing here, many people discuss the games shortcomings and look/ask for change while others defend it to the death as it is Gods gift to humanity or that someone was insulting their mother.
I myself welcome all posts, some i have no interest in, some i do, when i do i respond, but i assure you it is always in a clinical analysis of the game. Ill banter about with Happy and guys like Eric above, but i enjoy reading other peoples takes on the game and even hearing arguments against my arguments. All in all i think that makes the game better for all.
As much as i credit the developers for their skill in putting the game together i think the modders deserve a ton of credit. I have played most of them, some i prefer more then others, but that is usually due to minor personal preferences, but they have done outstanding work on our behalf. Thx again guys!