Conflicting Idea Groups

[balmung60]

I've been thinking about the idea groups and how many are opposed to others, and military ideas are the most blatant here, falling into three sets of conflicting ideas (which, as I understand, were governed by sliders in EU III) - Plutocracy and Aristocratic, Offensive and Defensive, and Quality and Quantity. As it stands, you can easily take a pair of these opposing ideas with no penalties, despite the fact that one would think that such focuses would increase the risk of internal tensions and be hard to maintain, rather than easier, as it is now, with taking certain sets of opposed idea groups (particularly Quality and Quantity) removing a great deal of bad events from both. For example, take the "Offense or Defense" event. It might make sense to greatly reduce its likelihood if you only have Offensive XOR Defensive, but perhaps it should be much more likely if you have both.

It should be harder to maintain an army that is both huge and well-disciplined, not easier. One idea group is focused largely on your troops being expendable, and the other, on them NOT being expendable, and instead, on their individual competence. There should be events that bring up the conflicts that might exist between such opposed ideas. Having both Plutocratic and Aristocratic should put your nobles and burghers in conflict, having Offensive and Defensive should create opposed camps of officers, each pushing one or the other, having Quality and Quantity should be very expensive and carry with it many similar conflicts to Offensive vs Defensive.

 

[Stategem161803]

I've been thinking about the idea groups and how many are opposed to others, and military ideas are the most blatant here, falling into three sets of conflicting ideas (which, as I understand, were governed by sliders in EU III) - Plutocracy and Aristocratic, Offensive and Defensive, and Quality and Quantity. As it stands, you can easily take a pair of these opposing ideas with no penalties, despite the fact that one would think that such focuses would increase the risk of internal tensions and be hard to maintain, rather than easier, as it is now, with taking certain sets of opposed idea groups (particularly Quality and Quantity) removing a great deal of bad events from both. For example, take the "Offense or Defense" event. It might make sense to greatly reduce its likelihood if you only have Offensive XOR Defensive, but perhaps it should be much more likely if you have both.

It should be harder to maintain an army that is both huge and well-disciplined, not easier. One idea group is focused largely on your troops being expendable, and the other, on them NOT being expendable, and instead, on their individual competence. There should be events that bring up the conflicts that might exist between such opposed ideas. Having both Plutocratic and Aristocratic should put your nobles and burghers in conflict, having Offensive and Defensive should create opposed camps of officers, each pushing one or the other, having Quality and Quantity should be very expensive and carry with it many similar conflicts to Offensive vs Defensive.

This...is a statement of fact.

 

[Xara]

Completely disagree, to the extent of believing the opposite. Taking both should reduce the weaknesses of the other. The event "we are too focused on the offensive and neglecting the defensive" is the sort of thing that should not happen if you also had defensive. And vice versa. "Loss of manpower for weeding out troops" should not occur if you have quantity as well as quality. and vice versa for the discipline event. If you had offensive and defensive, you should get a unique option to placate both sets of generals and avoid the -1 stability vs -1 stability event.

 

[Korashy]

The argument made during the development was that Napoleons amry for example was both Quality and Quantity.

 

[balmung60]

Completely disagree, to the extent of believing the opposite. Taking both should reduce the weaknesses of the other. The event "we are too focused on the offensive and neglecting the defensive" is the sort of thing that should not happen if you also had defensive. And vice versa. "Loss of manpower for weeding out troops" should not occur if you have quantity as well as quality. and vice versa for the discipline event. If you had offensive and defensive, you should get a unique option to placate both sets of generals and avoid the -1 stability vs -1 stability event.

1.) Makes some sense, but on the flip side, there should be new and different conflicts that also risk reducing the strengths of one or the other.
2.) Not really. The Quality guys are weeding out troops either way, you just have more to start with. In fact, given the kinds of people that Quantity advocates recruiting, you should also get a much larger hit since more of your recruits won't be able to meet the standards.
3.) Not at all. By supporting both Offensive and Defensive, you've essentially set yourself up for conflicts between military thinkers.

 

[1alexey]

I've been thinking about the idea groups and how many are opposed to others, and military ideas are the most blatant here, falling into three sets of conflicting ideas (which, as I understand, were governed by sliders in EU III) - Plutocracy and Aristocratic, Offensive and Defensive, and Quality and Quantity. As it stands, you can easily take a pair of these opposing ideas with no penalties, despite the fact that one would think that such focuses would increase the risk of internal tensions and be hard to maintain, rather than easier, as it is now, with taking certain sets of opposed idea groups (particularly Quality and Quantity) removing a great deal of bad events from both. For example, take the "Offense or Defense" event. It might make sense to greatly reduce its likelihood if you only have Offensive XOR Defensive, but perhaps it should be much more likely if you have both.

It should be harder to maintain an army that is both huge and well-disciplined, not easier. One idea group is focused largely on your troops being expendable, and the other, on them NOT being expendable, and instead, on their individual competence. There should be events that bring up the conflicts that might exist between such opposed ideas. Having both Plutocratic and Aristocratic should put your nobles and burghers in conflict, having Offensive and Defensive should create opposed camps of officers, each pushing one or the other, having Quality and Quantity should be very expensive and carry with it many similar conflicts to Offensive vs Defensive.

Because NIs are not about short term focus, but about institutions, or government departments, or methods of achieving goal.
You view on quantity and quality is particularly wrong. Quantity is focused on problems of equipping and supplying a large force. It doesn`t mean individual soldier is poorly equipped or expendable. Quality, again is focused on improving performance of soldiers. It doens`t mean that army force introduces some harsh requirements body strengt or something, it means more drill, more target practice, more marches, and such for everyone.

There is short-term focus on either quantity or quality that you seem to view as the only possible thing. Yes over small period of time country has to focus on one particular thing, because it is limited in terms of training facilities avialable and economic capacity to field a force.
But long-term focus is about building up the capacity to circumvent the limitations, hencewhy the NIs that are long-term focus do not conflict, because they are not opposite or eachother.

 

[Stategem161803]

Because NIs are not about short term focus, but about institutions, or government departments, or methods of achieving goal.
You view on quantity and quality is particularly wrong. Quantity is focused on problems of equipping and supplying a large force. It doesn`t mean individual soldier is poorly equipped or expendable. Quality, again is focused on improving performance of soldiers. It doens`t mean that army force introduces some harsh requirements body strengt or something, it means more drill, more target practice, more marches, and such for everyone.

There is short-term focus on either quantity or quality that you seem to view as the only possible thing. Yes over small period of time country has to focus on one particular thing, because it is limited in terms of training facilities avialable and economic capacity to field a force.
But long-term focus is about building up the capacity to circumvent the limitations, hencewhy the NIs that are long-term focus do not conflict, because they are not opposite or eachother.

You don't think there are inherent conflicts with trying to focus on Quality AND Quantity? You don't think military leaders will disagree on what standards there should be? I think we are talking specifically about events that should exist to represent the friction that will inevitably result from trying to "focus" on both offensive and defensive or quality and quantity. Say some Colonel has trained up a new regiment, but I(a general) am unsatisfied with their ability. Meanwhile, my superiors think they are just fine. Thus I appeal to THEIR superiors to insist we dedicate ourselves to higher standards.

Is there truly no possibility of internal conflict there?

This is opposed to a nation that focuses on offense and hires offensive oriented officers. Much less opportunity for friction in that situation.

 

[Xara]

A nation without either idea set has made no concentrated efforts to improve in any category. A nation with both sets has implemented programs meant to improve both. I don't see how that should result in MORE conflict.

 

[1alexey]

You don't think there are inherent conflicts with trying to focus on Quality AND Quantity?

Aside from economic impact- none.

You don't think military leaders will disagree on what standards there should be?

I`m sure they are not 21st century politicians, so they will arrive to a middle ground, with trial and error, wars and a number of people hanged for incompetence.

I think we are talking specifically about events that should exist to represent the friction that will inevitably result from trying to "focus" on both offensive and defensive or quality and quantity. Say some Colonel has trained up a new regiment, but I(a general) am unsatisfied with their ability. Meanwhile, my superiors think they are just fine. Thus I appeal to THEIR superiors to insist we dedicate ourselves to higher standards.

We are discussing NIs. Small conflicts are easilly taken care off with proper application of disciplining. In the end, it is possible there would be conflicts, but war practice will show what is proper, and what is not working.

Is there truly no possibility of internal conflict there?

I can`t see higher chance of conflict than people`s ego, ambitions, idiotism and other stuff would already provide.

This is opposed to a nation that focuses on offense and hires offensive oriented officers. Much less opportunity for friction in that situation.

What precicely fuels your huge dislike for frictions? IF everyone thinks the same, somebody is not thinking. A good plan, routine or rule would be the resould of a lot of friction and arguing and conflicts.

 

[Stategem161803]

What precicely fuels your huge dislike for frictions?

Well, mainly my desire to be not dead. Friction between powerful military factions tends to breed violence. Instability...some would call it.

I don't really disagree with most of what you're saying, all I 'm trying to say is these conflict resolution processes are not represented in the game. There should be events such as:

"Quantity focused officers"
"It would appear that despite our focus on quantity, some recruits are being washed out because they are deemed inadequate. We need to do something about this."
A: "Only the finest in our Army!" --> +10% discipline, -1 stability
B: "Some take longer to train than others" --> +10% of max manpower pool, -10 prestige

"Offense trumps Defensive"
"Due to our recent offensive wars, some of our more defensive oriented officers are being forced into retirement because they are unneeded."
A: "Explain why defense is as important as offense." -1 stability, +10 army tradition
B: "Let them retire." +1 stability, -10 army tradition


I mean, fundamentally, this game represents the effect COMETS have of national stability. There has to be some representation of how trying to adopt conflicting principles such as offense and defense GETS to the middle ground and how that process effects the nation.

 

[Korashy]

Any idea group already has negative and positive events tied to it.

 

[Stategem161803]

Any idea group already has negative and positive events tied to it.

Facepalm

But not for combinations of ideas.

 

[1alexey]

Well, mainly my desire to be not dead. Friction between powerful military factions tends to breed violence. Instability...some would call it.

Hardly. Look at the way Ottomans handles Janisaries. If Janisaries were to going to revolt, they would sent them to combat, if they would win, and if they would get crushed, well, at least they will not create problems.

 

[Xara]

Facepalm

But not for combinations of ideas.

Is it not bad enough what they already sack you with? Why do you want it made even worse? These events are already garbage and annoying. Here's how to replicate this thread's suggestion : Play non-ironman, set a timer to a random interval, and whenever it goes off, open the console, add -3 stability, slam your face in the wall, and pour boiling water on your crotch.

 

[Opus]

Is it not bad enough what they already sack you with? Why do you want it made even worse? These events are already garbage and annoying. Here's how to replicate this thread's suggestion : Play non-ironman, set a timer to a random interval, and whenever it goes off, open the console, add -3 stability, slam your face in the wall, and pour boiling water on your crotch.

Or, you could just not take conflicting ideas. Seems like way smoother sailing then facesmashing and crotchburning.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy those things as much as the next bloke. Just not when I'm by the computer. It's not the time, nor the place.

 

[Xara]

Or, you could just not take conflicting ideas.

This is way too skewed against military idea sets. The player should not be punished for picking multiple military sets. Where is the diplomatic conflict pair? Administrative? The sets already open you up to additional bad events. The player does not need further punishment beyond already suffering from BOTH sets of potential mishaps.

 

[Stategem161803]

Is it not bad enough what they already sack you with? Why do you want it made even worse? These events are already garbage and annoying. Here's how to replicate this thread's suggestion : Play non-ironman, set a timer to a random interval, and whenever it goes off, open the console, add -3 stability, slam your face in the wall, and pour boiling water on your crotch.

WTF are you talking about? I'm offering you 10% discipline for the measly price of 1 stability. I would take that in a heartbeat and thank you for it.

There are only 3 truly stupid events I can think of off the top of my head:
1. Comets
2. -50 prestige or -25 AT
3. -10 republican tradition or -50/50/50 monarch points

I probably missed some, but most of them I think are entirely fair and add flavor to the game. Opposing military schools is a great event, it should just be tailored to ideas and previous event choices.

 

[Xara]

If you mean "that event ONLY happens if you have both offensive and defensive" then fine. If you mean "tacking on additional crap that happens when you have both", then no. I hate that event as much as I hate the "religion vs philosopher" one. Both of those should have neutral options for no benefit or punishment. You're not "offering" something if I didn't want it in the first place.

 

[Stategem161803]

This is way too skewed against military idea sets. The player should not be punished for picking multiple military sets. Where is the diplomatic conflict pair? Administrative? The sets already open you up to additional bad events. The player does not need further punishment beyond already suffering from BOTH sets of potential mishaps.

I'm doing overtime on the facepalming with this thread. It. Is. Not. Punishment.

It is a choice between 2 positive effects with inevitable negative consequences. Would anyone really cry over 10% discipline for -1 stability for 5 years or so. Naturally it would have to be balanced. These specific conflict resolution events should only fire once anyways.

 

[Stategem161803]

If you mean "that event ONLY happens if you have both offensive and defensive"

Correct.

I hate that event as much as I hate the "religion vs philosopher" one. Both of those should have neutral options for no benefit or punishment. You're not "offering" something if I didn't want it in the first place.

I actually like that event. There should be a neutral choice for -25 prestige or something like that. Sometimes you really want a temporary boost to missionary strength or tech cost so events like that work well.