You don't work for the Australian Department of Defence by any chance, Magoo?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You don't work for the Australian Department of Defence by any chance, Magoo?
Everybody here is making some really good points (except last post excluded from my lengthy appraisal which follows).
Firstly, Titan’s opinion that training should be considered to a greater degree than I was giving it. It’s a viewpoint which seems generally shared.
Pang Bingxum corrects my earlier notion (and I agree) that standing army in terms of AoD does not mean that different equipment is used than in drafted armies; but he also reinforces my other concern with pointing out the “German Armour Exploit”.
Epaminodas correctly, I think, reinforces that professional soldiers do train more quickly on new weapons than draftees would on those same weapons, which leads to a most interesting concept by Pang Bingxum that – while upgrading time should be quicker for standing army – the cost should not be less. Instead, the slider should have removed from it the phrase "less upgrade cost", and total IC cost to upgrade be made the same by simply charging more daily IC to upgrade something quicker.
The principle is very similar to being able to upgrade quickly in your capital at higher daily cost, or upgrade more slowly but at a lower daily cost the further the item is from the capital.
While it takes a bit of time, the principle that total upgrading should be “a fixed quantum” is eventually established with Mr_Bonarpte getting this key point clarified.
Pang Bingxum’s other point of there being a remaining problem in that the drafted armies get better gearing bonus which is somehow “tampered” I don’t quite follow, because – discussing the slider moving to more standing – the player is already accepting loss in gearing bonus for the other benefits. It would not surprise me if this last sentence of mine is also not followed by anybody because I myself am having difficulty trying to join the concepts.
But before I continue with this analysis, I would just like to interject that – in my experience – the loss in gearing bonus is delightfully small and even (seemingly) totally non-existent for some units when making a slider move towards more standing. According to the detailed records I made, Tirpitz construction is not delayed by even a single day (presumably because it is only 2nd unit) but still there should be some gearing loss (?) and even the final unit delivery of a serial of 4 aircraft seems to result in no more than a few days later delivery for last unit, and a long serial of CLs has the final unit arriving only a week later (looking 2 years down the road). This might be because a 5% difference in gearing computes to just so little actual delay in last unit of a serial delivered.
Anyway, the result for someone preferring Fully Standing Army really is most wonderful – something candidly picked up on by MagooNZ who believes “there shouldn’t be a heavily biased, preferred slider position”. I have to agree, but suggesting just dispensing with the slider seems a bit radical as I would also lose everything else good about that slider move. So I guess that lament of mine just proves MagooNZ’s correctness about his opinion anyway. I think it is pretty clear which way any experienced German player moves that slider.
However, MagooNZ seems to stand alone on thinking that actually standing armies should be upgrading faster – which was also my original thoughts when I was thinking mostly of upgrading cost as being a material component instead of the strong focus on training which Titan suggests.
WOW! Do away with the slider? Switch it so drafted upgrades faster? Or baseline the total IC cost so smart players at least don’t also benefit from that? For sure, that IC reduction gotten with a move to more standing army when applied to all things that might be upgrading can be substantial.
I really like MagooNZ's idea of “It should be; which-ever way you go you will get some advantages and you will get some disadvantages. Combine that with the special circumstances of your country’s position and the best slider position for your country won’t be the same as the best slider position for another country.” Clearly, there is hardly any negative impact for Germany to go Full Standing (even the slight loss in gearing is so minimal).
Building standing armies should not be mostly a “free ride”. They are more expensive than drafted armies – by far – and I wonder if the extra 4% Military Expense with slider moves to more Standing is really the problem; which is literally nothing if you are running your army on ZERO MILITARY EXPENSE in the first place!
I think, if any country paid its professional soldiers what many AoD players pay their standing armies from 1936 to mid 1939, there would be a serious shortage in strength in every unit due to thousands deciding quite correctly that soldiering is about as low an income as it gets!
Maybe there is another correction to be found by dishing out heavy penalties to the practice of underpaying your standing army in peacetime, but these would reduce in huge steps if the army is more drafted?
Firstly, Titan’s opinion that training should be considered to a greater degree than I was giving it. It’s a viewpoint which seems generally shared.
Pang Bingxum corrects my earlier notion (and I agree) that standing army in terms of AoD does not mean that different equipment is used than in drafted armies; but he also reinforces my other concern with pointing out the “German Armour Exploit”.
Epaminodas correctly, I think, reinforces that professional soldiers do train more quickly on new weapons than draftees would on those same weapons, which leads to a most interesting concept by Pang Bingxum that – while upgrading time should be quicker for standing army – the cost should not be less. Instead, the slider should have removed from it the phrase "less upgrade cost", and total IC cost to upgrade be made the same by simply charging more daily IC to upgrade something quicker.
The principle is very similar to being able to upgrade quickly in your capital at higher daily cost, or upgrade more slowly but at a lower daily cost the further the item is from the capital.
While it takes a bit of time, the principle that total upgrading should be “a fixed quantum” is eventually established with Mr_Bonarpte getting this key point clarified.
Pang Bingxum’s other point of there being a remaining problem in that the drafted armies get better gearing bonus which is somehow “tampered” I don’t quite follow, because – discussing the slider moving to more standing – the player is already accepting loss in gearing bonus for the other benefits. It would not surprise me if this last sentence of mine is also not followed by anybody because I myself am having difficulty trying to join the concepts.
But before I continue with this analysis, I would just like to interject that – in my experience – the loss in gearing bonus is delightfully small and even (seemingly) totally non-existent for some units when making a slider move towards more standing. According to the detailed records I made, Tirpitz construction is not delayed by even a single day (presumably because it is only 2nd unit) but still there should be some gearing loss (?) and even the final unit delivery of a serial of 4 aircraft seems to result in no more than a few days later delivery for last unit, and a long serial of CLs has the final unit arriving only a week later (looking 2 years down the road). This might be because a 5% difference in gearing computes to just so little actual delay in last unit of a serial delivered.
Anyway, the result for someone preferring Fully Standing Army really is most wonderful – something candidly picked up on by MagooNZ who believes “there shouldn’t be a heavily biased, preferred slider position”. I have to agree, but suggesting just dispensing with the slider seems a bit radical as I would also lose everything else good about that slider move. So I guess that lament of mine just proves MagooNZ’s correctness about his opinion anyway. I think it is pretty clear which way any experienced German player moves that slider.
However, MagooNZ seems to stand alone on thinking that actually standing armies should be upgrading faster – which was also my original thoughts when I was thinking mostly of upgrading cost as being a material component instead of the strong focus on training which Titan suggests.
WOW! Do away with the slider? Switch it so drafted upgrades faster? Or baseline the total IC cost so smart players at least don’t also benefit from that? For sure, that IC reduction gotten with a move to more standing army when applied to all things that might be upgrading can be substantial.
I really like MagooNZ's idea of “It should be; which-ever way you go you will get some advantages and you will get some disadvantages. Combine that with the special circumstances of your country’s position and the best slider position for your country won’t be the same as the best slider position for another country.” Clearly, there is hardly any negative impact for Germany to go Full Standing (even the slight loss in gearing is so minimal).
Building standing armies should not be mostly a “free ride”. They are more expensive than drafted armies – by far – and I wonder if the extra 4% Military Expense with slider moves to more Standing is really the problem; which is literally nothing if you are running your army on ZERO MILITARY EXPENSE in the first place!
I think, if any country paid its professional soldiers what many AoD players pay their standing armies from 1936 to mid 1939, there would be a serious shortage in strength in every unit due to thousands deciding quite correctly that soldiering is about as low an income as it gets!
Maybe there is another correction to be found by dishing out heavy penalties to the practice of underpaying your standing army in peacetime, but these would reduce in huge steps if the army is more drafted?
Last edited:
Massive attrition penalties for bringing them down too low when you have a standing army.
defence lobby and interventionsm are more of a no brainer than standing army. With 1940 tech level drafted army gives you up to 11.92% more units per time, in 1964 gearing bonus increases further, then it is up to 18.22% more units per time. When at peace or when everything is researched drafted army has some advantages. In general the lower upgrade costs of a standing army make much more of a difference.
Yah, I was thinking hit the brown strength column. It might work like this:
Say you at mid Standing-Drafted slider position. You can pay only 50% of your military expense and no consequences (except your ORG climbs slowly which is "no point" in 1936). But you only pay 40%, and a 10% increment of whatever the degree of penalty you decide is fair starts attritioning your strength. The rate of attrition needs to be considered and be reasonable.
Pay ony 30%, attrition is 20% of its rate. Pay only 20% military salary, attrition now at 30%. Pay only 10% salary / attrition 40%. Pay nothing (like many players probably do!) and attrition is 50% of rate.
I think if one tries cheating their army for 3 1/2 years by paying nothing, application of 50% attrition rate might reasonably result in one having only empty counters. Of course, it's open to perhaps less severe opinions.
But as you go each step towards drafted, you need pay only 40% (30%) (20%) without any consequences. If fully drafted, one needs only pay 10% of the military expense and be attrition free. I'm assuming it is 4 slider steps each way, or is it 5?
Last edited:
Yes, so what is your conclusion?
The lower upgrade costs do make a huge diference (advantage). Too much advantage, correct? Standing Army is nearly a free ride.
Or are you saying that - because of the more units built going drafted - one should not reduce the IC advantage regarding upgrading a Standing Army?
Just re-reading. All I discovered so far is the minimal gearing loss for Germany 1936-39 I mentioned. The increases you are indicating with later years, I wonder how important they are compared to what you will really have more units built of, say, by Barbarossa? I wonder if there might not be a window of time when the gearing difference is rather important. If so, it is probably more in the earlier years - exactly when the gearing figures are the least beneficial according to those stats you mention. It seems wrong - disadvantaging if going to more drafted. Why not receive the best gearing benefits early?
Just like to add - if I understand your stats correctly - and gearing benefits with going drafted increases more in later years the game concept might be flawed. It seems more logical that the first year of any draft would result in the easiest and most acceptable implementation of draft.
Consider Vietnam. Not to many people complained when the draft started. Towards the end they were rioting against it. While that was influenced by public opinion against the war (and is probably not a good example) there is the other issue of population base to draft from. If drafting is exceeding population growth, its becomes harder to maintain draft rate simply because the population one can draft from is proportionally shrinking each year. So, really seems to me, whatever benefits one awards by going more drafted, really should be giving more of those benefits in the earlier years.
But, as it is 3:30 AM here, got to go guys. Back tomorrow.
Last edited:
I have no real conclusion. Drafted army is less disadvantageous when you have free markets, but in general standing army is clearly preferable. Did drafted armies offer significant advantages IRL?
But doesn't including consideration of the standing-drafter slider get complicated if comparing it to what the setting is on other sliders?
Just to attempt an answer, I think in real life drafted armies had huge advantages - the main one being they succeeded in raising armies that simply would not have existed in those sizes if the draft had in any way been reduced. Draftee quota applied to population = army size. You can't come close to achieving it with paying people because the majority don't want to be in an army. And I think it will be more successful in the first year of a draft then next year. I mean, you are forcing people to do what they don't want to choose for a job, and neither volunteer for. THe draft is used because it is necessary to fill the quotas for such a particular size army. It really becomes a consideration of small standing armies are possible thru pay, but huge armies invariably are mostly formed via draft.
I am not sure if that would be correct - depending on what the manpower advantages are - since how MP is basically handled in the game I think is quite good.
Is the shift from Dove Lobby to Hawk Lobby with its greater MP gain really not the country raising its draft quota?
This shift in defense lobby (if I am following you correctly) does not affect either Standing or Drafted armies directly I believe, but only affects what the country with specific defense posture has less - or more of - available in MP to so apply that factor to whatever degree of standing/drafted army their army is. It is not the same as discussing Standing-Drafted army slider as regards which army types should be enjoying what advantages for the men in those different armies. I think any "cross slider" application of effects will be confusing.
If promotion would result in a skill loss, then generals with a staff function would never be able to promote beyond major general because they didn't gain any experience from battles. Generals in fact (and especially in wartime) engage in wargames, scientific studies, and other activities which even without a field command, would keep their skills up to date and give them a sense of how to work even above their command level.
One should also note, that in the Prussian army (and almost every nation including Allied ones tried to mimic their training methods), all commissioned officers were expected (and did most of the time prove able) to function at 2 command levels above their ranks. This means there would be no 'loss of skill' once someone is promoted, and the other thing mentioned here, the 'period of adjustments' etc. is modelled by a commander only being combat-effective a week since his appointment. I am 100% sure there wouldn't have been a major difference for example in the work of a German field marshal in command of an army group, or a German Generaloberst (one rank below) in charge of an army group. Also, historically, major generals commanded brigades rather than divisions like in the game, rather with lieutenant generals being divisional commanders. The system is therefore flawed anyways (not to mention the discrepancies in ranks between major combatants), but the question is how does one model reality in something working on a gameplay level? I think the way it's been implemented now is mostly fine.
The skill of commanders has been assessed by the developers and that skill has been simplified in a value from 0 to 5 to start with. IMHO the only thing that should change is to give a -1 skill penalty for commanders promoted prematurely. I know every commander has a promotion year and a max ranking set in the database, these data could be shown in the game and used to calculate wether or not promotion would result in a loss of skill. The AI wouldn't need to worry about this since I presume it uses the years of promotion in the database anyways.
One should also note, that in the Prussian army (and almost every nation including Allied ones tried to mimic their training methods), all commissioned officers were expected (and did most of the time prove able) to function at 2 command levels above their ranks. This means there would be no 'loss of skill' once someone is promoted, and the other thing mentioned here, the 'period of adjustments' etc. is modelled by a commander only being combat-effective a week since his appointment. I am 100% sure there wouldn't have been a major difference for example in the work of a German field marshal in command of an army group, or a German Generaloberst (one rank below) in charge of an army group. Also, historically, major generals commanded brigades rather than divisions like in the game, rather with lieutenant generals being divisional commanders. The system is therefore flawed anyways (not to mention the discrepancies in ranks between major combatants), but the question is how does one model reality in something working on a gameplay level? I think the way it's been implemented now is mostly fine.
The skill of commanders has been assessed by the developers and that skill has been simplified in a value from 0 to 5 to start with. IMHO the only thing that should change is to give a -1 skill penalty for commanders promoted prematurely. I know every commander has a promotion year and a max ranking set in the database, these data could be shown in the game and used to calculate wether or not promotion would result in a loss of skill. The AI wouldn't need to worry about this since I presume it uses the years of promotion in the database anyways.
At the risk of getting OT. No, they definitely wouldnt have me for a number of reasons, but would likely pay quite well. I have no real idea how professional they might be. This thread has proven difficult for me to follow, probably because I havent made the time to document all the numbers & mathematical formulas to gain max advantage. When I replace my ageing PC, I would like to try MP. And no doubt, after suffering a number of losses, I would either give up or attempt to sharpen my pencil
ghd glattejern
qsasjd ghd glattejern
lox2
EenrIRAO ghd glattejern
tolvCMLqi http://www.ghdglattejerncheap.info
ulpjpifsjs ghd iv styler
UVEfHaocw huvrqg ghd iv styler
LwmQRYGThge
qsasjd ghd glattejern
lox2
EenrIRAO ghd glattejern
tolvCMLqi http://www.ghdglattejerncheap.info
ulpjpifsjs ghd iv styler
UVEfHaocw huvrqg ghd iv styler
LwmQRYGThge
Last post by Commander666:
… I think any "cross slider" application of effects will be confusing.
I LOVE FORUM!
Seems topics can shift back and forth endlessly like the tides. Pop up anew like an underground peat bog fire never properly squelched in the first place.
Did I miss something in the last post?
… I think any "cross slider" application of effects will be confusing.
At the risk of getting OT. I have no real idea how professional they might be. This thread has proven difficult for me to follow... I would either give up or attempt to sharpen my pencil
I LOVE FORUM!
Seems topics can shift back and forth endlessly like the tides. Pop up anew like an underground peat bog fire never properly squelched in the first place.
Did I miss something in the last post?
Last edited:
This says yes some leaders would lose some skill in pomation but I didn't ;-P Does bloody old guards..
Should there be a limit in that way, that after a promotion of a leader his next one has to wait 360 days?
This suggestion seems very appropriate.
That would satisfy my main objection with the current system. It will make me think twice before I use Rommel to lead the invasion of Poland.
I have to do this already.
DARN! You beat me trying to sneak in my edit; to "command" the invasion of Poland.
I think the suggestion by DJSixthSense makes... well... good sense!