Equipment lost during retreat

[KiwiNoob]

Except the devs,

Wrong. They would like to see it in too, whether there is time to do it before release is a different story. It's not like PDS stop development once their games are launched (except maybe Leviathan Warships* - more SP campaigns please ) and good suggestions that don't make it into release can still be put on the table for patches/DLC.

given it isn't in the game and they have an approved Release Candidate (=nothing new will be added). The "community" has come up with the idea that you base it on org, even though the game tracks actual equipment? Lol.

That doesn't even make sense. The game tracks both division organization and equipment. Whats your point?

I think if the devs wanted to include it they can do the maths themselves on what proportion of the equipment lost by each side is destroyed and unusable, and what is captured

Of course the final calculation would be up to PDS but it makes a lot of sense to include org in the formula. Big difference between a well planned and executed withdrawal vs a broken division running for the hills screaming.





* I know - not PDS. Still Paradox though.

 

[potski]

Wrong. They would like to see it in too, whether there is time to do it before release is a different story.

Source? Other than your quote from Oct 2015 about capturing equipment when a country surrenders, which they have implemented.

There is no time before release. It would need weeks of balancing.

 

[JerkyJerry]

There is no time before release. It would need weeks of balancing.

Wouldn't that be months of balancing? Isn't the entire country of Sweden on vacation for the month of July?

 

[KiwiNoob]

There is no time before release. It would need weeks of balancing.

No-one said this has to be in for release (though it would definitely be nice). This game will be in development for years to come.

 

[Zaku]

Firstly - the calculation will only happen once per battle when the last defending unit retreats. The number of calculations involved would be a very small drop in a very big ocean.

This shows how you know zero about programming.

Secondly - You may very well be right for the AI in which case you should be asking PDS why their AI is not withdrawing earlier in appropriate situations. Players managing their divisions should definitely not have 95% of their battles going until divisions are broken (if you do then you're doing it wrong!).

Yep, you want something and it's PDSs fault that it is not feasible...
Maybe let the professionals create the game.

I say it again: I would like capturing equipment, but I think tying it to the org is unnecessary and a bad idea.

 

[KiwiNoob]

This shows how you know zero about programming.

Yep, you want something and it's PDSs fault that it is not feasible...
Maybe let the professionals create the game.

I do think it's feasible otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it. The AI will lose battles and the AI will win battles. The mechanic just needs to be balanced such that on the whole an appropriate amount of equipment is being lost and an appropriate amount of that is captured. Numbers that add to the flavor of the game without completely crippling the country doing the retreating.

Please try and keep your criticisms focused on the idea being suggested. As a professional programmer by trade I find those comment quite hurtful

 

[Lifthrasil]

Everyone agrees that it should be in the game. If the community can come up with a good way of getting it in there we're much more likely to see it happen than if we just wait for PDS to think of everything.

To keep things simple, I'd propose that equipment gets captured by destroying a division. Encirclements happen frequently in this game, so there will be a constant flow.
I think implementing a calculation about equipment lost on retreat can be very stressfull for the PC, as it has to calculate thousands of battles ALL the time on the whole globe.
Limiting it to encircled or overrun divisions will cut down on CPU usage, I figure. Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer, so no idea if this restraint is necessary.

 

[Zaku]

I do think it's feasible otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it. The AI will lose battles and the AI will win battles. The mechanic just needs to be balanced such that on the whole an appropriate amount of equipment is being lost and an appropriate amount of that is captured. Numbers that add to the flavor of the game without completely crippling the country doing the retreating.

Please try and keep your criticisms focused on the idea being suggested.

I'm keeping it focused on the idea.
It is not feasible to tie it to the org because it would take too many computing resources.
Just think about it for a second.
Every time something retreats the game has to make a calculation.

PDS games have infamously bad performance late game, now think about for a sec what would happen if the CPU would need to calculate the captured equipment for thousands of divisions duking it out on the globe every time something retreats.

A computer doesn't think like a human. It doesn't say that "oh a division retreated it's time to calculate". It needs to keep watching every division and if a variable becomes true or false(retreating in this case) to it then it can calculate.

 

[KiwiNoob]

I'm keeping it focused on the idea.
It is not feasible to tie it for the org because it would take too many computing resources.
Just think about it for a second.
Every time something retreats the game has to make a calculation.

PDS games have infamously bad performance late game, now think about for a sec what would happen if the CPU would need to calculate the captured equipment for thousands of divisions duking it out on the globe every time something retreats.

Lets leave that to the professional game developers to decide. If they post here saying that the computational power required for this feature is too extreme then I will humbly withdraw the suggestion.

I'll also post a video of me eating a raw potato because I believe the chance of that happening to be quite slim.

 

[Zaku]

Lets leave that to the professional game developers to decide. If they post here saying that the computational power required for this feature is too extreme then I will humbly withdraw the suggestion.

What makes you think they answer?
I mean the potential is there, because they listen to the forum, but I'm sure if they are thinking about improving this aspect of the game they already have a developement plan written up on this feature. It's not like they haven't thought about this before. This feature has been requested like a million times already, and that's the reason you get some equipment when you annex someone.

 

[KiwiNoob]

What makes you think they answer?

I've added an incentive for an answer

Lets leave that to the professional game developers to decide. If they post here saying that the computational power required for this feature is too extreme then I will humbly withdraw the suggestion.

I'll also post a video of me eating a raw potato because I believe the chance of that happening to be quite slim.

 

[Zaku]

I've added an incentive for an answer

That's not an incentive. That's you thinking you are the first one thinking about this feature. It has been already answered in some way, because obviously if they could/wanted to they could already implement such a feature. Podcat even said like 1 year ago that if they can they will implement it in some way or form, because he also likes this idea. Since they "only" implemented the captured equipment when you annex a nation I guess that answers the question.

Anyways, I'm not against this idea at all, capturing equipment is a great feature. It gives great immersion.
However I don't like how you would like to implement it, both for technical and both for gameplay reasons.

 

[KiwiNoob]

That's not an incentive. That's you thinking you are the first one thinking about this feature. It has been already answered in some way, because obviouly if they could/wanted to they could already implement such a feature. Podcat even said like 1 year ago, that if they can they will implement it.

I'll make this my last post on our little side-thread. Thinking that we shouldn't post ideas to the devs because "obviously if it was any good they would have already done it" is dangerous thinking. The more people offering up ideas the better. Let the dev's decide which ones are worth while.

(P.S. I don't think you actually read my post)

 

[Zaku]

(P.S. I don't think you actually read my post)

Why do you think so?

 

[Zaku]

I'll make this my last post on our little side-thread. Thinking that we shouldn't post ideas to the devs because "obviously if it was any good they would have already done it" is dangerous thinking. The more people offering up ideas the better. Let the dev's decide which ones are worth while.

You made a suggestion.
I told you why it's not a good idea in my opinion(implementation to be exact, nothing is wrong with the idea).
Or you only accept poitive posts in your thread?

 

[JerkyJerry]

Zaku you are 100% correct. I find it amazing that in so many posts people who do not work in the field know exactly how things should/could be done. It is always just a simple and easy as just listening to them and doing exactly what they post.
You know, the guy who flips burgers for a living. This is the guy who should be in complete control of a multi-million dollar enterprise. After all, what is the difference between creating a game and playing one? HELLO?!?!?!

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

@KiwiNoob
I like the idea and think it'll be fairly easy to implement. Since the team and I need to look at mucking with attrition and variable attrition rate anyways, can you please go post your idea over in
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rce-mod-requirements-document-and-rfp.922002/
Then I'll make sure I add it as part of the RFP.

Generally the idea is sound, and probably easy enough to implement crudely, but the math can definitely go deeper. I can think of three broad classes of: retreating, surrounded and over run.
The capture rate vs attrition will be different and idealy attrition can be modified for each type of equipment separately. A little RNG will likely be necessary too.

Cheers, keep up the good work.

 

[potski]

I like the idea and think it'll be fairly easy to implement. Since the team and I...

What team is that? You're not a developer. You have no idea whether the devs can implement it or not. And more importantly - whether they want to implement it. Everything that is possible doesn't mean that it is fun, or actually makes any difference to the gameplay.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

What team is that? You're not a developer. You have no idea whether the devs can implement it or not. And more importantly - whether they want to implement it. Everything that is possible doesn't mean that it is fun, or actually makes any difference to the gameplay.

*laughs* From Merriam-Webster since I'm too cheap to subscribe to the OED
Team noun
-a number of persons associated together in work or activity

Developer noun
-a person or company that creates computer software

While your grasp of the English language may be feeble, there's no reason to conflate the two words. But they are both nouns, so at least you got that much right. Have a gold star.

You're grasp of the painfully obvious is impressive. I concur, I have no idea what the developers can or cannot implement. It's a very good thing that I'm not interested in what they can or cannot implement, as that would lead to an insurmountable problem. I'm interested in what I want to implement. This is why first you issue a request for proposal (RFP) to establish the various ideas about how to achieve a goal or accomplish a task. Then you review the proposals to decide which to pursue. See how at the RFP stage you don't need to have established feasibility? Try to keep up, there's lots of new terms and concepts for you to learn here. You also have the opportunity to grade and select proposals based on many criteria, such as value, scope, difficulty, budget.

I mean, it's as if there's a well established and widely accepted process that is followed all the time across different industries and various projects because it happens to be incredibly successful. A process that naturally delineates a project into its various stages from conception to production/completion; provides gates and ensures that proper review of the work accomplished and the go-forward plan is carried out; and ensures that work carried out is focused on achiving the stated goals.

Feel free to come back to the other thread and contribute whenever you want. It's always good to have that crotchety person around telling everyone why things cannot be done. I'm a big proponent of proving something rather than accepting that it 'feels right', so push back is always useful before committing to doing something.