-
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.
Can you turn your "defend" mode off and re-read the question. How do economies support this number of troops? Have they been changed to produce more money and goods?
The German screenshot showed them at full strength. I can fully understand the system in place, it's not difficult to do so, this is not quantum physics it's feedback on a game.
Gossip? Gossip! Could you be more condescending
Looking at feedback and screenshots is not gossip.
1) I haven't laid into any beta-testers, I am asking that communication rather than "it works, shut up we worked hard" be used over the next few weeks.
2) How is criticism of the game a personal slur against you or other testers. I am going to say though that if you take as personal criticism of the game then you are waaay to close to it.
3) So is the image of 667 divisions, confirmed by betas, and Johan incorrect?
And it looks like I will repeat that it is unnecessary to discuss the issue to have witnessed the AI. If it makes you feel happier, then of course, we'll all wait until Thursday to comment, but somehow, I don't think that's going to make you any happier.
But I thought that was the whole point of the overlarge army sizes. If that's not the reason, then what?
I don't see the point of this - a number of us have repeatedly stated that this problem is being looked at, what more can we do? We chose the system we have in place now because limiting the number of divisions affected the AI's performance in wars, whilst the human player suffered no such challenge.
The key to a challenging game is the relative strength, that in my mind is far more important, so the UK having more divisions that Russia is a greater problem than both having over 100 divisions in peacetime.
Dinsdale, I was not attacking you, I was attacking other posters who have made thinly veiled attacks on beta testers, in this very thread no less, without having even played the game. I specifically stated that legitimate criticism is welcomed, slagging off beta testers as some sort of pro-Paradox secret cabal isn't.
The key to a challenging game is the relative strength, that in my mind is far more important, so the UK having more divisions that Russia is a greater problem than both having over 100 divisions in peacetime.
Dinsdale, I was not attacking you, I was attacking other posters who have made thinly veiled attacks on beta testers, in this very thread no less, without having even played the game. I specifically stated that legitimate criticism is welcomed, slagging off beta testers as some sort of pro-Paradox secret cabal isn't.
Wouldn't colonial manpower be a gameplay issue ? If you can take overseas manpower, or even neighboring manpower the same way as you could your own, wouldn't wars tend to snowball ? i.e You conquer parts of China, giving you more manpower to conquer France, which in turn gives you more manpower to take on Russia, etc. It would seem to me that raising colonial divisions should be rather difficult, 2nd hand troops, expensive, not a whole lot of them, etc. And using captured neighboring population should be on a smaller level. What would garner you (using an EU2 equivalent) 10 manpower in your own province, should garner you only 1 in a captured province.
(1) Dinsdale: You hit the nail squarely on the head with that question.
(2) And I'd add the follow-up question: are the armies deployed proportional to the country's manpower, industrial capacity, and infrastructure levels?
If the answer to #1 is no, and the answer to #2 is yes, then the whole issue is moot. The number of divisions deployed can be meaningless and a complete abstraction. If not, then IMHO, this is a flaw and a serious one at that, whether you consider Victoria to be a "game" or a "simulation".
Obviously I'm still not clear even after a whole lot of postings on this thread what the answers are...
The problem isn't that they are looking into it, the problem is the condescending, rude attitude combined with the "if you don't like it piss off" style of posting.
Seems to be a trend here. There is way too much defensiveness over every thread which questions what's going on in the game. To me, that's a bad sign. Not much point of discussion if the forum is under a cloud bordering on paranoia and an overly developed sense of personal involvement.
The greater shame is that it's never the Paradox folks who post like that, but they are the one's whose customers are being stamped on by people with no financial stake in the game.
A little politeness, a little dialog shouldn't hurt anyone, but that doesn't appear to be possible.
Okay now. Take a step back. Take a deep breath. Look at what you are crusading for. The number of pretend soldiers in this game is not on par with how many actual soldiers there were in 1840. Oh the travesty! How dare they!? They must fix this! Paradox is, like, totally ripping us off, man!
:wacko:
Really. Does this issue really deserve the energies you're devoting to it? Yes there are screenshots that prove it, and yes it's not a rumor. But who the hell cares? People who have it, seem to be having fun with the game anyway.
Maybe I'm out of touch here. But I thought that was the purpose of games.
:wacko:
Really. Does this issue really deserve the energies you're devoting to it? Yes there are screenshots that prove it, and yes it's not a rumor. But who the hell cares? People who have it, seem to be having fun with the game anyway.
Maybe I'm out of touch here. But I thought that was the purpose of games.
And yet you are forgetting that there are gamers out there who, in liking the possibility to 'create' history, would also prefer to work within the limits of historical reality to achieve that. having impossibly large armies also pose a problem for the player in the realm of micromanagement. in combating such incredible hordes, would not the human player be forced into raising large, perhaps unwieldy, armies as well? given the excessive micromanagement in the game already, managing so many armies certainly would suck the entertainment out of the game, at least for me.
The problem is when people post phrases like:
"Can you turn your "defend" mode off and re-read the question."
"Jeez, with Betas defending this like a lioness watching cubs I wonder what the point of discussing any issue is here."
"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?"
"Now I remember why I stopped using this board.
I'm glad that Derek and the other beta have condescended to make us privy to their deliberations and thought process, but can they really expect us to swallow that this isn't a problem?"
"You must be a beta. The easiest way to fix a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist or advertise it as a feature. The divisional count isn't unrealistic, its just the opportunity to command "the largest armies ever modeled in a historical strategy game!"
It tends to put the responders on the defensive with predictible results.
We've said numerous times the problem is being fixed, and have said why we went with this system in the interim, Johan himself has come on and said this is a game more than it is a simulation, what more do you want us to do? Do you deny we have acknowledged the problem - that doesn't strike me as defensive. We like "this feature isn't working properly" posts, we do not however appreciate "this sucks, it's HOI/EU2 all over again, how the hell did you beta testers not notice this" posts (of which there have been several, just read the thread), which do nothing for anyone.
Nice way to pull random quotes from select posts to prove your point. I'll spare myself the worthless excersise of matching and surpassing your examples from other posters, a simple read of this and the rant thread should suffice.
My post wasn't directed toward calm and well reasoned concerns like yours. In fact, I do see your point, and if it could be fixed, I'd be glad.
My post was to those who are screaming bloody murder over this.
Indeed, that's actually my biggest worry about the game. I'm not so much worried about conquered European land as I am about the colonies. Several nations in Europe possessed colonial empires with populations many times the size of the home country (UK, Netherlands, Belgium), but these great numbers of people were of very little industrial or military utility.
Dinsdale: The point about which this thread was started has been completely thrown out the window with your attack on Betas. I haven't seen anyone here be rude except you and JScott991. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think that you are blowing their comments way out of proportion, while ignoring both the original complaint, and the answer to it.
Steele
Steele
Sorry, I thought I was proving your point that "A little politeness, a little dialog shouldn't hurt anyone, but that doesn't appear to be possible."
And reading the thread, it is pretty obvious where this went off course.
Im not a fanbois, I'll bash any game that sucks. If Vic sucks i'll bash it ;p
I think alot of the questions here being asked are rather obvious. Dinsdale asks why the AI can afford to field such huge armies. My guess is that the economy is allowing them to do just this(mind boggling I know). Solution? 1) Tone down the high end economy 2) Increase the cost of supporting those troops. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Version 1.00 unchallenging AI, not enough troops being built.
Version 1.01 challening AI, more than enough troops being built.
Now lets revise.
Version 1.01 unchallening AI, still not enough troops being built despite changes.
IMO, it's better to take one giant step forward, and then smaller steps backward to find a reasonable middleground. Than to take itsy bitsy steps forward, all the while giving people whom have bought the game a rather unenjoyable and unchallenging AI to compete with.
I think you can be assured, we will see a patch in the relatively near future which will take a step backwards. Decreasing the army sizes by one or both of the two simple solutions I pointed out in the first paragraph.
Lets not all get our panties in a knot because the frontal penetration value of a 88mm flak AT gun isn't exactly correct against a 1943 cast turret t-34.
If it works, and its fun, those are the two most important issues. Get it working and make it fun. After those two issues are sorted out, then refine it. I think we should just consider ourselves lucky. Most game companies don't even get it "working and fun" let alone put out patch after patch refining and improving each time.
I mean, we could be MOO fans, and this could be MOO3...;p
I think alot of the questions here being asked are rather obvious. Dinsdale asks why the AI can afford to field such huge armies. My guess is that the economy is allowing them to do just this(mind boggling I know). Solution? 1) Tone down the high end economy 2) Increase the cost of supporting those troops. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Version 1.00 unchallenging AI, not enough troops being built.
Version 1.01 challening AI, more than enough troops being built.
Now lets revise.
Version 1.01 unchallening AI, still not enough troops being built despite changes.
IMO, it's better to take one giant step forward, and then smaller steps backward to find a reasonable middleground. Than to take itsy bitsy steps forward, all the while giving people whom have bought the game a rather unenjoyable and unchallenging AI to compete with.
I think you can be assured, we will see a patch in the relatively near future which will take a step backwards. Decreasing the army sizes by one or both of the two simple solutions I pointed out in the first paragraph.
Lets not all get our panties in a knot because the frontal penetration value of a 88mm flak AT gun isn't exactly correct against a 1943 cast turret t-34.
If it works, and its fun, those are the two most important issues. Get it working and make it fun. After those two issues are sorted out, then refine it. I think we should just consider ourselves lucky. Most game companies don't even get it "working and fun" let alone put out patch after patch refining and improving each time.
I mean, we could be MOO fans, and this could be MOO3...;p
What we have is the classic debate between the gamer, who just wants a balanced game above all, and the historical gamer who wants a game that represents what it is supposed to be about. It is usually impossible to make both sides happy in an issue like this. I hope the team a Paradox can come up with a reasonable compromise. Which will help correct the seemingly outlandish army numbers, without weakening the AI.
Personally, I fall more on the historic side of the debate, but am willing to accept some distortion to prevent the collaspe of gameplay. I will wait to hear from the design team that has brought us this magnificent effort. I feel they should be able to find a compromise, maybe a cross the board percentage limitation that affects all nations, or a major increase in the support cost of regiments to bring economics back in line with reasonable deployments.
It isn't time to get hyper. Lets see what the next patch brings. Now is the time to help Paradox find the bugs and problem areas, and let them know. They have a wonder record of trying to present the best historic games on the market with the best after game support. Cheers to all.
Personally, I fall more on the historic side of the debate, but am willing to accept some distortion to prevent the collaspe of gameplay. I will wait to hear from the design team that has brought us this magnificent effort. I feel they should be able to find a compromise, maybe a cross the board percentage limitation that affects all nations, or a major increase in the support cost of regiments to bring economics back in line with reasonable deployments.
It isn't time to get hyper. Lets see what the next patch brings. Now is the time to help Paradox find the bugs and problem areas, and let them know. They have a wonder record of trying to present the best historic games on the market with the best after game support. Cheers to all.
My attack on the betas?
Of course :wacko:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see any discussion on the economies which allow such armies be created.
What was it Dark Knight said yesterday to someone; "I can't help what you choose to find offensive" I don't think that asking for a less defensive mindset from betas is a personal attack, but that's just me.
Perhaps Steel, I am disappointed because I'm afraid this issue is going to be the same as "the AI just needs tweaking" arguements which were used for every criticism of HOI.
2.1 million served in the Union Armed Forces, roughly 800,000 served in the Confederate Armed Forces (we'll never know exactly since the records were burned with Richmond).
I have a question about division strength in WWI, weren't divisions in WWI only 7,000 men strong? That would still make Germanies 1250 divison an Army 8,750,000 men strong.
I think they were because I remember reading that in WWI American divisions shipped over to France were twice as big as their French counterparts at 14,000 men. Am I right about this or am I completely offbase