Prestige (no more RISK style)

[unmerged(11610)]

Like other threads tell it's a problem that conquering is always profitable. This remind me about old conquer the world game RISK. I've been thinking that adding Prestige points like Vic or CK could give player other goals than conquering as much land as possible. Building capital ships should give prestige points, sinking them should decrease it. Also victorious battles could give some prestige and losses lower it. It could be that high prestige lower dissend and vice versa. Also conquering another country's capital or other important provinces give prestige, much like now we have victory points. IMHO, victory points could be out of the game and replaced with prestige points. This way losing battles decrease prestige even if you own lot of land. We could have Stalingrad and it could effect dissent and lower prestige.

Any thoughts? I think prestige will give as much more real feel about war than RISK-style victory points based only owenership of provinces.

 

[unmerged(23231)]

Heh, I remember posting something similiar to this a while ago. It didn't go over well.

I do support this idea, however, I don't think we should completely eliminate Victory Points. Prestige should simply be added to them at some ratio like it is in Victoria. Prestige would also be a significant factor in cold war politics, if the modders ever get that far.

 

[unmerged(11610)]

I read your thread. It seems most of the people really didn't like the idea of prestige.

I think prestige could effect peace agreements. If you manage to sink 90% major country's (like UK) navy or destroy air force complitely country should be more likely to agree peace. Think about Winter War with prestige! If Finland is able to resist Soviet bear long enough and inflecting great loses. When Finland have more prestige, it's easier to get peace agreement. Soviet could conquer whole Finland, but with prestige lose.

And imagine modders face when they can make Cold War mod with prestige.

 

[unmerged(23231)]

I read your thread. It seems most of the people really didn't like the idea of prestige.

I think prestige could effect peace agreements. If you manage to sink 90% major country's (like UK) navy or destroy air force complitely country should be more likely to agree peace. Think about Winter War with prestige! If Finland is able to resist Soviet bear long enough and inflecting great loses. When Finland have more prestige, it's easier to get peace agreement. Soviet could conquer whole Finland, but with prestige lose.

And imagine modders face when they can make Cold War mod with prestige.

Yes, that sounds very good.

Hmm, I assume nuking countries would dramatically reduce their prestige as well; this might come in handy for a Japanese surrender, which is otherwise not very manageable under the current system.

 

[Chaplain]

I like the VP system because it nicely recreates the 3-way tension between ideologies.

However, the CONCEPT suggested above is a good one, which brings me to an alternative suggestion - why not give dissent hits to countries which engage in "unprestigious" activities? A 10% (or more) dissent hit for dropping a nuke (e.g.) would minimize their use, and would not be terribly ahistorical.

For example, in a recent game of WiF I was the UK and I was bombing the spit out of France and the Low Countries. Brussels, Lille, Paris, and Metz were all flaming ruins by the end of 1942, and I was trying hard to include Lyon. My opponent remarked that my Winston was acting like a regular war criminal. He was right. It got me to thinking about such things.

On the other hand, the fire-bombings of Dresden, etc., do not seem to have left an indelible stain on American history ... at least, not on this side of the pond.

 

[unmerged(23231)]

I like the VP system because it nicely recreates the 3-way tension between ideologies.

However, the CONCEPT suggested above is a good one, which brings me to an alternative suggestion - why not give dissent hits to countries which engage in "unprestigious" activities? A 10% (or more) dissent hit for dropping a nuke (e.g.) would minimize their use, and would not be terribly ahistorical.

You're thinking in retrospective and with over 50 years of 'nuclear experience' here, America had absolutely NO moral problem with dropping those two bombs on Japan, and I doubt many other nations would have experienced much of a public backlash (at least in the timeframe of the game) if confronted with a similiar situation.

Nukes did not carry the same stigma back then that they do today, and the general attitude of 'Hey, those guys on the other side might just be human beings like you and me' wasn't as widespread either.

 

[Chaplain]

You're thinking in retrospective and with over 50 years of 'nuclear experience' here, America had absolutely NO moral problem with dropping those two bombs on Japan, and I doubt many other nations would have experienced much of a public backlash (at least in the timeframe of the game) if confronted with a similiar situation.

Nukes did not carry the same stigma back then that they do today, and the general attitude of 'Hey, those guys on the other side might just be human beings like you and me' wasn't as widespread either.

You are absolutely correct.

I was just thinking that the end-game situation in HOI is naturally viewed from the perspective of how it would look in the present, so ...

But then again dissent is THEN and not NOW so my idea falls down.

 

[unmerged(11173)]

Like other threads tell it's a problem that conquering is always profitable. This remind me about old conquer the world game RISK. I've been thinking that adding Prestige points like Vic or CK could give player other goals than conquering as much land as possible. Building capital ships should give prestige points, sinking them should decrease it. Also victorious battles could give some prestige and losses lower it. It could be that high prestige lower dissend and vice versa. Also conquering another country's capital or other important provinces give prestige, much like now we have victory points. IMHO, victory points could be out of the game and replaced with prestige points. This way losing battles decrease prestige even if you own lot of land. We could have Stalingrad and it could effect dissent and lower prestige.

Any thoughts? I think prestige will give as much more real feel about war than RISK-style victory points based only owenership of provinces.

Your post got me thinking about a realy old WWII by SPI called War In Europe. The way they handled the urge to conquer every country in sight was through garrison requirements and something they called Political Points. Every country you conquer as a German needed to have a certain number of divisions in it at all time, or else partisan uprisings would occur. If German goes on a blitzkreig tour of Europe, the 5 divisions here, 10 divisions there (or 30 for Spain in the SPI game) really begin to mount up.

What political points did was to enable certain countries to join the Axis (or drop out) when political points got to a certain level. (ie - when you had 60 points Romania would join the axis. And it would drop out if you fell to 25 points) And you'd get the points for conquering countries, occupying important cities (Paris, Moscow, Suez). You'd also lose points for doing things like declaring war on a neutral country (or a whole bunch if you were stupid and DOWed Switzerland).

I have no idea if this could or should be implemented in HOI 2, just my 2 cents.