Quality vs. Quantity

[unmerged(9895)]

ok, so heres the system

every move towards quality you get
+.05 to moral
-10 % to manpower
+.4 ducats to infantry/cavalry cost
and if you make it to full quality you get +1 defualt leader fie value

and for quantity it is the opposite
-.05 moral
+10 % manpower
-.4 ducats to infantry/cavalry
and if full quantity -1 to defualt leader fie value

that thing comes that it makes no sense to move towards quality and makes total sense to move towards quantity.

It would be better proportionate if the price of the troops did not change which way you moved the slider.

or

keep the price change and remove the manpower percentage of troops.

now to make either of these changes make sense, you can look at it in two ways.

first, quantity/quality represents troop skill level. Are you going to put these poor soles out into the battlefield with little training, or are you going to build the best military schools on the planet.

second, could not represent the troop skill level, but the amount of recruiting. Are you going to actively recruit and encourage joining the army, or does your nation discourage warfare, only keeping the best soldiers around for national defense.

the first example would be a case for removing the manpower, because training or no training your still going to find the same amount of able bodies to participate. The second would be for keeping the manpower and removing the cost, because no matter how many you find to arm, training and equipment will still cost the same.

to have quantity/quality represent both troop training and troop recruitment at the same time makes it really a no questions asked choice of which choice to make. I think every, wether playing SP or MP, has run into times where they could just use ten thousand more troops (or in some cases its one hundred thousand more troops), so the thought of giving up manpower is not a happy one, ESPECIALLY if you have to pay more to have less. the math doesnt equal up in my mind.

The reason i believe this one dp slider specifically creates a problem, is because there is really no valid case for moving towards quantity. All the other sliders do have valid cases in moving from one way to the other, depending on which nation you are and on which century the game is currently in. So, to have a choice put into the game that is really not much of a choice at all, it kinda gives some nations an advantage, specifically the nations that start more towards quantity, and gives those that start more towards quality a disadvantage because they have to spend half a century moving there slider towards quantity, while ignoring there other dp settings.

so while typing this it put a question into my head

is there a way to change the slider settings at the begining of a scenario?? say could i go into the files and make all nations have the same starting setting for quality/quantity?

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

Good points. It is true quality is vastly inferior to quantity, IMO the cost should be dropped and manpower cut by half, since troops are cheap enough, and the manpower bonus/malus is insane. And/or a bigger moral bonus/malus.

To mess with the diplosliders for scenarios, either use the scenario editor, click on the country and edit the DP section, or goto the file, open it up, and change the quantity/quality slider to 5.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Good points as usual. I'll just drag up a standard answer I wrote for a quality-quantity debate

I think the price adjustments for infantry and cavalry are fine, but the rest of the modifications could be improved, thus:


1. Change the recruitment and combat effects

[font=courier new][color=white]
 0: +50% -0.25 100% chance for -1 fire applied each fire phase for generic leader (= -1 fire, current solution)
 1: +40% -0.20  80% ditto
 2: +30% -0.15  60% ditto
 3: +20% -0.10  40% ditto
 4: +10% -0.05  20% ditto
 5:   0%  0.00  no random modifier to fire value
 6:  -5% +0.05  20% chance for +1 fire applied each fire phase for generic leader
 7: -10% +0.10  40% ditto
 8: -15% +0.15  60% ditto
 9: -20% +0.20  80% ditto
10: -25% +0.25 100% ditto (= +1 fire, the current solution)
[/color][/font]

Quantity would probably still be preferable in the majority of the situations, but nothing like it is today.


2. More desertion and attrition for low-quality troops

I would really like to see higher attrition for low-quality troops because of less developed logistics coupled with higher desertion. Say, an extra +(10-quality) modifier (added like the mountains or tropical modifier to the army size). While not a dramatic change, in effect you'd overall lose more troops. And since many sieges already takes place near, or just below, the supply limit, long sieges just got a bit more expensive in men - for the quantity player. Additionally, it would mean that you would no longer have attrition 0 high tech armies in plains unless you were quality 10, so bye-bye to those 100K+ stacks of nearly attritionless armies defending plains provinces unless you are willing to take attritional casualties (or have the very best quality)

 

[Sikker]

The idea about higher attrition and defections in low quality armies are SO obvious and logical! I can't believe anyone (myself included) haven't thought of it before.

It is only natural that low quality armies should deteriorate faster than high quality ones. - It must be implemented!

Can this somehow be changed or is it hard-coded?

 

[unmerged(2778)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
2. More desertion and attrion for low-quality troops

I would really like to see higher attrition for low-quality troops because of less developed logistics coupled with higher desertion. Say, an extra +(10-quality) modifier (added like the mountains or tropical modifier to the army size). While not a dramatic change, in effect you'd overall lose more troops. And since many sieges already takes place near, or just below, the supply limit, long sieges just got a bit more expensive in men - for the quantity player. Additionally, it would mean that you would no longer have attrition 0 high tech armies in plains unless you were quality 10, so bye-bye to those 100K+ stacks of nearly attritionless armies defending plains provinces unless you are willing to take attritional casualties (or have the very best quality)

Good idea indeed. And not only for balancing the slider. It makes perfect sense as well. But I wonder if it ever will be implemented. Patch 1.06 won't include any major changes from what I've heard.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Moonwalker
Good idea indeed. And not only for balancing the slider. It makes perfect sense as well. But I wonder if it ever will be implemented. Patch 1.06 won't include any major changes from what I've heard.

I've heard the same

But this is obvious a thread for wishful thinking, so...

 

[Nikolai II]

But changing from -50% manpower at quality 10 to -25%, or even also changing quality 0 to +25% instead of +50% should be possible within the realm of bugfixing, c.f Centralization.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Centralization is not working as designed. Quality is. So I doubt it.

 

[Nikolai II]

Ah, but quality is obviously not working, since you only want to go one way, since quality 0 offers three times as many soldiers as qua 10.

If one would change this to +50/-25 the ratio would only be twice as many soldiers, which sounds much better

But I'm afraid you're right

Else I would probably have logged it as a bug already

But hey, what if we log it as a bug and start posting in that thread that we agree that it is a bug and that it should be +50/-25 for the slider to WaD.

Since Paradox is a caring company, maybe they would fix it?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Nikolai II

But hey, what if we log it as a bug and start posting in that thread that we agree that it is a bug and that it should be +50/-25 for the slider to WaD.

Any responsible moderator would close it with NOT A BUG immediately, I should hope. It may not fulfill all the desires of the players or the intentions of the designers, but it is WAD as is

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Exactly. A design concern, not an implementation concern.

 

[Nikolai II]

Most likely, but hey, this forum is all about dreams, right?

 

[BiB]

There's special sorts of entries for such things in Bugzilla and such though

 

[unmerged(5664)]

There is, but if you're not on the EU2 beta team you can't log any such Enhancement bugs.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Good points as usual. I'll just drag up a standard answer I wrote for a quality-quantity debate

...

2. More desertion and attrition for low-quality troops

I would really like to see higher attrition for low-quality troops because of less developed logistics coupled with higher desertion. Say, an extra +(10-quality) modifier (added like the mountains or tropical modifier to the army size). While not a dramatic change, in effect you'd overall lose more troops. And since many sieges already takes place near, or just below, the supply limit, long sieges just got a bit more expensive in men - for the quantity player. Additionally, it would mean that you would no longer have attrition 0 high tech armies in plains unless you were quality 10, so bye-bye to those 100K+ stacks of nearly attritionless armies defending plains provinces unless you are willing to take attritional casualties (or have the very best quality)

I honestly think this is one of the best ideas I've ever heard. Too bad that it won't be implemented, but my compliments on a truly original thought!

While I agree that this slider is broken, I favour ideas that strengthen quality without watering down the differences between it and quantity, and this really fits the bill

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
There is, but if you're not on the EU2 beta team you can't log any such Enhancement bugs.

Well there are a few of those around.

 

[Smirfy]

Sliders

Its not just the quality slider thats broke the MGC3 (check post from MGC3) I think has proved that the lot need reviewed. Damocleas won our particular game by 1728 but France resembled a high tech sort of communist china

None of the changes advocated are for this grand campaign to hamstring any player they are for the next game if this game has run it’s course yes I agree that it is my belief that Damocleas is the winner and is a first rate EUII player but winning (congrats dam) has thrown up inconsistencies in the game engine which now need to be addressed.
I don't care in the slightest about winning this game (I just wanted to play Sweden as best I could) and would play Huron if it would add to the general enjoyment of everyone’s game. But as I Think Bib, Mowers, PJL and others have come to realize if nations can become unhistorical unchecked superpowers the fluency of the game and its enjoyment for other players ceases

As an example the year is 1728 (and is no way a reflection on dam or trying to distract from his achievement)

The French Treasury stands at +4000
The French have 485,000 infantry
The French have 35,000 cavalry
The French maintenance costs for this army are 9.3 at 100% (the human ability to photosynthesize was perfected in Europe round this period)
The French support limit for troops is 1,236,000
The French manpower is 783.000
The French gain 393.000 a year
The French income is 330 approx
INF costs 4
CAV costs 9
ART costs 35
The French income could fall to approx 250 with a blockade and a colonial campaign against her
So France would still be able to recruit 62k a month infantry
So Frances war effort is sustainable no matter what efforts any coalition takes against her economically.
France is at military tech 41
France is at minus 5 innovation (their one draft dodging scientist must be in line for the Nobel Prize)
France has no Inflation and does not need governors
France is full aristocracy
France population is full serf (on their extensive lunch breaks they worked on weapon development helping keep France ahead in the arms race)
France is Decentralized (the first communist power to be so) (and in the age of the “Sun King” all the more curious)
French quality is full quantity (careful with those muskets lads)
France is at full Land
French naval tech is 24 (despite never putting one ducat into research)
French Naval supportable limit is 235 (I worked my balls off to get Sweden a reasonable navy and my limit is 175)
France is at trade level 10 (curious as she has no interest in trade)
France is at infrastructure 8 (all those serfs need infrastructure like………….)
France has 33 manufactories (given the nature of the work force it is no surprise that Nike and gap took options on several of these factories)

If anyone reading this forum believes that any of the above statistics reflect the era and don’t need amended then everyone will just end up playing the same way and we can call it 14-18 war and as PJL has pointed out, now that won’t be fun. I’m sure the low quality manpower and social settings were envisaged to help nations like the Ottomans and Russia that may not reach the level of conscription centers and not to be exploited by western nations. I believe in future western nations should have heavier penalties for such settings to represent what was historically possible.

 

[Kasperus]

hmm, interesting, i always go for quantity. I play always with one or two small cavalry armies only so I prefer better morale and leader values. The reason was that I can`t stand it when seening my zillions of troops losing to a coupe of rebels just beause my morale wasn`t high enough . And yes, it happened all the time to me while playing with low quantity....

 

[Smirfy]

sliders ii

The sliders just don't reward progressive societies it pays to be backward. Things like free subjects this should really boost trade and production like historically in England and Holland.
The Tech advantage should be far better for innovative society plus Stability costs should be lower. the full aristocracy that would really limit tech and harm trade. My real bug bear is that nations like holland and england where historically able to fund coalitions and suffered very little war exhaustion because they could still trade in wartime (check out mahan the influence of seapower on the subject) but the sliders punish you. the decentralization to with the stability etc just don't work for me in general the whole stability thing seems wrong. I really only care about multi player. heres my first post on the sliders issue taken again from MGC3

Sliders Stalin would Have dreamt of

I feel that no matter how proportionally you played with the game engine France would consistently model his style of play on how the engine would best serve him infantry at 4d and artillery at 35d with massive mobilization at sustainable costs.(insert own cost see if the tactics change) France loses any dynamic for colonial expansion. Why project the glory of France in the age of discovery just use the engine to steamroller the game. I cannot believe that any country with that level of troops would not suffer higher tech costs, stability hits etc and most definitely increased maintenance costs. Like is free thinking going to increase in that environment the country is more likely to put Voltaire in the first wave of a bayonet charge against canister than invite him to Versailles. For instance the slider Plutocracy the bonus should increase more than the production value 5% at max. It’s pathetic for the population that can actually get out of the saddle and make something. The decentralized slider no arguments come to mind, Being innovative gets you a stability hit whereas your narrow-minded ignorant peasants who almost any drunk half-wit could whip into to a revolt get a bonus plus. Poor innovative England what with all those revolts caused by innovation you must have had a terrible time of it. How did you find time and money to found the empire fight all those wars and for so long when your stability costs were so high and all your subjects were revolting? It must have been like closing time in Belfast on a Saturday night every day of the week. Not like those narrow-minded continentals who had stable government throughout the period. Next the free trade bonus why not give a bonus to ease the war exhaustion no country ever minded a war when it could still trade while the countries with the mercantile companies with limited trade in commodities which would soon dry up in war time and the population would suffer war boredom very quickly “No coffee dear”,”I’m afraid Louis is at it again dispute over Köln this time” “I can fix u one when the coalition suffers war exhaustion in 17 years time”. The naval slider I once heard argued would ruin the game because it gave a good bonus to trade and everyone would exploit it that’s proved a laugh you may raise that one.
Quality versus quantity this one is good. Soldiers that cost 4 dc to raise are not soldiers they are a mob the leadership bonus to this mob is still applicable attrition rates I believe are the same. You put Napoleon in command of 100k mob and you still have a mob. You wake up in the morning half your mobs gone the rest is drunk. The quality should reflect the disciplined leadership at every level and give good bonuses like lower attrition rates and a better +/- bonus to leadership. Do you feel the king and the populous would be delighted that there is a million “scum of the earth” running round his country and feel completely vindicated that he did not have to go to the expense of having his armed forces trained and disciplined with responsible officers.
And lastly we come to once again our malcontents the free subjects Give them a bad event and boy its expensive to get them back to work and efficiently at that. Not like our happy serfs who recover quickly from seeing visions of our blessed lady every five minutes, who are quite happy to work for their master in virtual bond that’s why agriculture in Russia never failed and in times of trouble they would pull together in a collective effort to help their masters out such good natured stable people always thinking of the greater good.
Unless people playing the game can deal with the nonsense of having first secretary Louis in Paris in 1728 with his high tech “people’s army” .“Brilliant” players are always going to exploit the engine with France and win and win well. So I believe it would take selfless efforts of the rest of the players to ensure that does not happen again but unfortunately two idiotic moves the English non intervention in colonial race and the now famous Austro-Spanish split killed any chance to find out if it were possible in this game.


Last edited by Smirfy on 28-08-2002 at 09:22