Huh, 687 British divisions?

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Tamerlan
Yes, this game looks really bad. This regiment-division issue is really odd. It really kills the game. So bad this game I do not have it.

I am sorry that it kills the game for you before you even have a chance to play it

From personal experience as a fan-boy and beta-tester, I do not find that the many divisions lead to a clickfest, since I tend to group my divisions in armies of 8-20 divisions, and seldom use all my forces in the same theatre of war. That means that, typically, I have to control 6-18 armies during a war, and I do not find that aggravating. If the excessive micromanagement of armies is what you fear, I would advise you to try Victoria anyhow.

If, on the other hand, it is the unrealistic army-sizes in general, then I have few words of comfort for you. The basic unit used by the game engine is the division of 10K, which automatically imposes certain restrictions. Most obviously, it means that any attempt at maintaining historical forces in general is doomed, if countries are to be able to field garrison troops in all the places they did historically or to be able to protect their borders. It also means that any visit to Howandaland to secure your colonial possessions from the natives will consist of tens of thousands of troops since a division cannot be spread over several provinces at the same time.

And it means that, when it takes months to mobilize reserve troops, and more months to recruit new troops, that any country that does not field a fair amount of troops to guard their borders or stand ready for a counterattack can be overrun by an attacker fielding a slightly larger army in short order.

In the end, it is a game, not a simulation, and it is about having fun playing a game - not a simulation. I hope to see the number of divisions go down in the next patch, mainly because of issues with which nations field large armies at the moment, and work is being done towards the end of fewer divisions overall, but I have no illusion that it will reach historical levels.... For the result would not be a fun game, and, for the vast majority of the players, that is what matters.

 

[Emre Yigit]

I sympathise with both camps. And I have a few spanners of my ow. On the one hand:

1. Raising troops during peactime equal to 9% of your population at such a low cost seems more a problem of the game engine rather than a feature which allows the AI greater flexibility. In short, should the AI not have been improved to allow greater success with smaller armies?

2. "Just consider them regiments" is, IMHO, an odd statement, given the fact that you are apparently subtracting men from your manpower pool... at division strength. And I agree, it is a trifle patronising - what if I wanted to consider them battalions or brigades instead?

3. Were Pink Elephants in the game, you'd get a completely different set of buyer for the game. And we don't view this as "just a game!"

4. Assuming China has a population of - what? 400 million? - I find the prospect of their fielding 20-40 million-man armies a trifle daunting.


On the other hand:

1. This does not seem to be a huge problem, just a silly "feature." Much more deletreious to the enjoyment of the game would have been an incompetent AI or CTDs galore or bizarre results. As I see it, this is an excellent game.


The purist in me is very offended (and on balance, I agree with the critics), while the gameplayer just wants to get the game and play! In Paradox I trust since the evolution of EU2 has been astoundingly good. In any case - as usual, sitting in Turkey - it looks as though I'll only be able to get the game come patch 1.03 or something.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Critisism when deserved is never negative. Only our reaction can be.

I was so sensitive not because JScott991 was wrong when he said the division count was too high compared to reality but because he thought that we (the betas) were ignoring the issue.

I think everyone has got their point across. Bottom line is that we would all like to see smaller armies in the next patch. And rest assured we will try to make it happen without breaking the game.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

I think this problem can be solved a bit by making the AI focus on building up a reserve pool army instead of a large standing army, maybe it is because the ai has problems with this that it isnt in the works now but maybe it is being solved. who knows? there are many ways to tackle a problem like this and i dont think it is much to worry about. now i have to get some sleep! godnight it was nice to have a mature discussion with you all and not a flame war!!

 

[MKSheppard]

Originally posted by ptan54
By 1900s I can accept multi million men armies, but 19th century certainly not. Absolutely absurd to have 500 division battles in the Franco Prussian war........

The US Army at the end of the Civil war was about 2 million men,
the Confederate army was half a million men.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Which is a feeble 200 divisions vs 50 divisions

There IS an issue. But it's a hell of a fun time playing the game right now - see Dark Teuton's AAR for a taste of war, Victoria style!

 

[unmerged(11486)]

This does not seem like nearly enough of an issue for me to respond to.

I hope the largish armies will be fixed. I hope that the AI will be capable of fighting without relying on such massive forces.

But I don't really care. I have already ordered the game, it has (in theory) already shipped, and even if I did care: what could I do about it? Complain and rant, and piss people off, and not accomplish anything, or try and look at the problem productively, and maybe get something changed with my valuable input.

Steele

 

[MKraemer]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Well, yes, the numbers are too high. A bit like early EU2 numbers. But at least its the majors who cause the problems not the minors. Trick is to keep building your army. You can find out that it is suprisingly affordable.

And yes it is being addressed in beta - but its actually quite fun to play right now with the high division count. Helps the AI when it needs to build fronts too.

If it really bothers you substitute regiment for division. And imagine the rest of the peeps are support staff, hangers on and civilian workers.

Substitute battalion for division and it sounds more realistic.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by MKraemer
Substitute battalion for division and it sounds more realistic.

I couldn't possibly comment

I'm sure we can crack this one....or at least make it much more believable

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

Originally posted by JScott991
Indeed. I agree with you partly. And when they read that people don't care about 700 division armies deployed by the UK, how does effect the chance for a patch?

JScott991, it's not that we don't care about the large armies.

It seems to be a legitimate issue to fix which we betas and designers will deal with ASAP.

What we don't care about, frankly, is you and your whining. Folks who endlessly whine about the inaccuracies in a game they've never played just deserve to be ignored. Your complaints are not helpful in the least, as opposed to just about everyone else who has posted in this thered and actually helped us to nail down the problem (I don't see it in my games, but then again I usually play earlier in the campaign and don't finish the games, as a new beta patch usually comes out before I can ).

I love Vicky. I think it's a blast. Best Paradox game yet. You seem to be assuming that Vicky is HoI 1.00. It ain't. It's better in many ways than EU2 1.07 or HoI 1.05c.

So buy it, play it, and THEN tell us what you think, as long as you keep it polite and constructive.

-GM

 

[Dinsdale]

Perhaps the time period is affecting people's attitude. Those defending the game mechanics remind me of 19th Century British chinless wonders, turning splendid defeat into a positive. Time to step out of character lads!

JScott's been around, been vocal, and provided decent suggestions since EU1. Likening that to "rock throwing" is completely out of order.

Let me get this straight, the honour roll of excuses appears to be

1) If you want history, read a book
2) It's a game
3) The AI needs it
4) It might be improved

Pretty much the bog standard which are trotted out for any problem, in all the games. So if this is such a trivial issue for so many of you, why bother changing it?

Why trot out excuses with one hand and then "it's being looked at" in the other, that is what can be infuriating when reading through problems such as this.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Hey GM.

Play nice, please.

We all got a bit overexcited.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Perhaps the time period is affecting people's attitude. Those defending the game mechanics remind me of 19th Century British chinless wonders, turning splendid defeat into a positive. Time to step out of character lads!

JScott's been around, been vocal, and provided decent suggestions since EU1. Likening that to "rock throwing" is completely out of order.

Let me get this straight, the honour roll of excuses appears to be

1) If you want history, read a book
2) It's a game
3) The AI needs it
4) It might be improved

Pretty much the bog standard which are trotted out for any problem, in all the games. So if this is such a trivial issue for so many of you, why bother changing it?

Why trot out excuses with one hand and then "it's being looked at" in the other, that is what can be infuriating when reading through problems such as this.

Because that is what we signed up to do when we became betas. Can't do any more than that I'm afraid. All we can do is try to make things better.

Yes harsh words were said. But he important thing is that the problem has been pretty devastatingly laid bare for all to see. All the betas and some of the Scandinavians are saying is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And JScott991 and I go back a LONG way


I respect his opinions - even though I reserve the right to violently disagree with them. As I'm sure does he.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Because that is what we signed up to do when we became betas. Can't do any more than that I'm afraid. All we can do is try to make things better.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, or are you saying that excuses and defending the game to the death are the responsibilities of betas?

All the betas and some of the Scandinavians are saying is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree, it's early. What worries me is entrenchment on issues such as this, US colonization etc. IMHO EU2 was butchered with late patches for a vocal minority who enjoy 400 years of warfare.

I understand it's early, I also expect that the game is fun (for a while) but for replayability I was expecting more of a sim. My problem is not that 600+ divisions exist, it's the contributing factors which worry me the most; economic and political infrastructure which allows such oversized forces needs to be addressed.

 

[Arkestra]

As has been mentioned before, we tried keeping divisions to historical numbers, it didn't work, so the present system was introduced.

What would rather have - a "historical" game where the human can go on a division building spree and defeat the AI every time, or a challenging game where the rules are bent somewhat and the AI is capable of handing the human player's arse to him?

I can see the same people screaming blue murder had someone mentioned that the AI wasn't building enough divisions to combat the human effectively.

It has been repeatedly stressed that this is a game, and that this issue is being carefully looked at. At the end of the day, gentlemen, no one actually wants to play a simulator of the Victorian era, because running the inner workings of a real country is actually monumentally dull, hence Paradox have made a game. I could point out a billion innacuracies with the game engine, but it would be an exercise in futility, because if these were made accurate, then the game wouldn't be fun. For example, how fun would it be if you couldn't build industry if you weren't a command economy, and instead had to leave it up to private business controlled by the AI? Realistic, but NOT fun.

Right now, the AI gives the player a run for his money. That, to me, is more important that some notion of having the right amount of divisions.

I find it interesting that some of the most vociferous complainers are people that don't even have the game yet - I am interested to know what justification they have for their comments, if all they are doing is regurgitating what other people have mentioned on the forums (and the attitude taken by some is quite frankly extremely rude)?

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Arkestra
As has been mentioned before, we tried keeping divisions to historical numbers, it didn't work, so the present system was introduced.

What would rather have - a "historical" game where the human can go on a division building spree and defeat the AI every time, or a challenging game where the rules are bent somewhat and the AI is capable of handing the human player's arse to him?

What I still do not understand is why either the player, or AI can support such armies. Perhaps rather than cliched options above, you could explain how that is possible?

I can see the same people screaming blue murder had someone mentioned that the AI wasn't building enough divisions to combat the human effectively.

Do I need the game to read what others have said? Should I wait until discovering the problem myself? What qualification is required to make a comment here?

Jeez, with Betas defending this like a lioness watching cubs I wonder what the point of discussing any issue is here.

Settle down, this does not need to turn into a fanbois with handbags ganging up on perceived critics. A little bit of understanding might be in order. If you're a beta, you've had time to absorb this information and discuss the implications, if you don't like us mortals doing the same, I suggest you switch off for the next few days.

 

[ptan54]

quote:Originally posted by ptan54
By 1900s I can accept multi million men armies, but 19th century certainly not. Absolutely absurd to have 500 division battles in the Franco Prussian war........



The US Army at the end of the Civil war was about 2 million men,
the Confederate army was half a million men.
-------------------------------------------------------
OK - but we're talking about a gigantic country here, America.

British Isles or European power (excluding Russia) reaching that manpower before late 19th Century??? I dont think so.

Glad to see that Dinsdale is in fact a critic.

 

[Arkestra]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
What I still do not understand is why either the player, or AI can support such armies. Perhaps rather than cliched options above, you could explain how that is possible?

Because we had two imperfect options, and whilst we are aware of the problem and working on it, we chose the present system to at least provide the player with a challenge.

Do I need the game to read what others have said? Should I wait until discovering the problem myself? What qualification is required to make a comment here?

Jeez, with Betas defending this like a lioness watching cubs I wonder what the point of discussing any issue is here.

Because if you haven't played the game, you can't really understand why the system we have now is in place, you haven't seen the whole story, as it were. For example, not every division is being maintained at full strength, as low army maintainance actually drops the number of troops in a division - something that is hard to know unless you've played the game and seen the troop tooltips showing the 1st infantry division as having 1,900 troops. I'm not saying you can't complain, I'm saying the attitude of certain people here is very odd - there's legitimate criticism, and then there's coming across as having an axe to grind.

Settle down, this does not need to turn into a fanbois with handbags ganging up on perceived critics. A little bit of understanding might be in order. If you're a beta, you've had time to absorb this information and discuss the implications, if you don't like us mortals doing the same, I suggest you switch off for the next few days.

Once again, certain people who haven't played the game and are relying on forum gossip for an understanding of the game laying into beta testers is rather annoying for those of us who have worked hard to make the game what it is, not least the developers who have truly been dedicated to this task. There's often a massive gulf between the image presented on a forum and the reality of the game... just take WW2OL for example, 80% of the complaints on the forum are just plain whack out of reality.

I'm just saying people should play the game and see the whole picture, before laying into the system.

 

[Zagys]

It seems that the justification for these outrageously huge armies seems to be that the AI needs them to maintain a continuous front, am I right? However, there generally wasn't any front scale warfare until WW1. If all combat in Victoria is WW1 style attrition warfare, then it doesn't sound very realistic (and not just because of the troop numbers), and doesn't sound very fun either.

Also, do I have any grounds to be worried about colonial manpower? The game should reflect that it was not as accessable as manpower from the home country. In WW1, the British Empire had 40,000,000 people in Britain, and 370,000,000 people in India, yet the vast majority of soldiers were drawn from the former. Does Victoria model the reasons why this was so?

 

[unmerged(14393)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Jeez, with Betas defending this like a lioness watching cubs I wonder what the point of discussing any issue is here.

*Sigh* I´m sure no one would be offended if you didn´t.

Seriously...they are saying that they are looking into it. Get over it all ready.