Realism Limits.

[mvsnconsolegene]

I originally was going to respond to a few posts, but realized I had the same core idea in each of them.

Basically, where do we draw the line on realism? I'm saying this not just because a game has to be simplified to the point where one person can proceed through it (unless this multiplayer multiple control thing kicks in ), but because there are obvious limits to realism that any simulation has to deal with.

There are a lot of posts on here that if implemented will make the game twice as complicated as victoria, but note that that complexity did not in my mind make Victoria more realistic than say, Europa Universalis.

In a system with set resources, game implementation has to be categorical - something that anyone will admit is inherently unnatural (something that EVERY discipline of science and art now realize). Now this might not seem related to HoI, some bizarre philisophical ranting, but let me give you an example.

In HoI there are set provinces with set characteristics. There are also Divisions with set characteristics. These are entities unto themselves. In the new version of HoI, advancing into another province results in an immediate attack and push into that province (something that is very nice), but realize that from my knowledge it is a uniform attack...all divisions simultaneously advancing into the provinces uniformly. What I mean is...even one division, a set entity, does not move uniformly. Anyone who has read military history knows that 1 division is never located in one position. They are often spread along a front (a core of a division is usually located at one point, but it is common to have brigades elsewhere - EVEN ON DIFFERENT FRONTS). When Divisons advance also, it is common that certain elements of that division enter combat and based on speed of advance leave other units behind...such as artillery in the advance into France in 1940...who were far behind the infantry and by the time they caught up and joined the battle it was all over.

Do you guys get my point? I'm just wondering about what people think should be the limit of realism that Paradox imposes in its games? Is the point to get endlessly more complicated as every new game comes out? As Victoria shows (a great game to itself), this didn't necessarily make it more realistic, and some would argue that it came at the expense of fun (which I don't agree with...I think it was great fun to micromanage...but not that realistic).

End of Rant of a Tired Person in the Middle of the Morning,

- MVSN

 

[unmerged(25612)]

I myself am a big believer in realism. I do not find it quite that amusing when someone conquers the world with Mongolian cavalry in HOI, or something...

I find it fun to create alternative histories, but only those that are possible. Would it have been possible within the limits of resources for Germany to conclude a successfull operation Barbarossa? Yes it would have. Would it have been possible for Estonia to conquer all of Europe through war of conquest, without any allies? No it would not have been. (With the timescale of HOI, that is...)

The game engine should be made so that it would restrict the impossible deeds, but leave the alternatives. Small issues are always small issues, and I see really no point in arguing whether artillery bonuses should take place in Blitzkrieg, when there are large malfunctions in the game engine, as proven possible by numerous AARs. It is possible to conquer the world as Mongolia... Why is that? There are numerous reasons and the most important ones are the following:

1.Troops are too cheap and too easily available. (The whole mongolian population could not breed so many divisions, and if no diplomatic alliances are made, then that is supposed to be the only force that can be used... Apart from miniscule voluntering.)

2.Conquest is always profitable. (Finland capturing Leningrad in 1941 would made the Finnish economy collapse, rather than benefit. The Finnish population was 3 million and so was the population of Leningrad, so feeding the doubled popualtion would have been impossible... However in the game you only recieve benefits from such conquests.)

3.The whole of Produce-->Consume channel is not complete. In HOI2 the introduction of food as a resource patches this up a bit, but still there are many errors, very small but still effective in reducing the whole game-experience. (The major malfunction here is of course the same as in number one, the fact that you don`t need a population to build men, or you do but a very small one...)

4.Technology and unit strenght do not always equalize each other, nor can a country uphold a high level of technology without testing it, meaning warring. (Germany, nor Italy gain nothing from testing their equipment in the Spanish civil war, other than from events...)

5.Naval battles can be avoided easily. I laughed myself to tears, winning a colonial war in Africa against the UK as Belgium in Victoria, having nothing but two crippled old transport ships which I used to play hide and seek, went by Iceland and landed 6 whole divisions of men to Africa, eventually winning the war.

6.AI, AI and once more AI. Point 5 was obviously partly due to the AI and its lack of sense in some situations.

7.Lack of real political field and revolts, coup d`etats and so on... We all know how easy it is to let half of your nation get run by the enemy, throw in a little abuse, by minimizing your tolerance towards a certain religion and let your rebels do the dirty work, and eventually win the war with those divisions you landed behind enemy lines a while back. This all in EU of course. In Victoria a similar effect would be changing governing styles just for your persnoal benefit, or couping every nation next to you in HOI. The fact that player can`t lose, if the country`s name does not dissapear off the map, makes the game odd. Why do I not "lose" when my governing is defeated by a revolt? Why do I not lose, when the head of state changes due to a coup?

8.Oddities of the reputation system... (BB wars give a great chance to expand, don`t you just love them... )




And even if I do, and I do try real hard for the sake of myself and perhaps the AAR I am writing of the game I happen to play that time, I try to avoid all abuses, I try to play fair with the AI... But still... It is mostly due to the reasons of poor representation with the fact, that soldiers of your army are indeed your own population not some robots bought off the shelf, that makes the game go "wrong".

 

[Orthank]

Hmm, i like realism, but one thing is for sure yoy cannot represent all aspects of for example military/political conflict by numbers in realistic way. But you can simplified system trying achieve a good strategic/tactical game. So realism is good but to hard to represent in games, perhaps our grandsons/doughters will but as far we can't.
Cheers

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

And even if I do, and I do try real hard for the sake of myself and perhaps the AAR I am writing of the game I happen to play that time, I try to avoid all abuses, I try to play fair with the AI... But still... It is mostly due to the reasons of poor representation with the fact, that soldiers of your army are indeed your own population not some robots bought off the shelf, that makes the game go "wrong".

That is extremely true; I often have the most rewarding games when I make an 'effort' to make the game play out realistically. As in, I do nothing that could not realistically happen.

- MVSN

P.S. I hope you realize I was not suggesting that the game be changed in order to simulate artilery catching up with infantry - then you might as well know where every single artillery piece is...leave one gun in paris for example :rofl:

P.S.S. Although if anybody has read Hitler's discussion with his generals, small things like that often came up. A man caught up into the detail of the moment at the expense of the overall strategy and goals.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

well of course everyone wants realism, but often the best way to realism on the grand scale is through abstraction which I think was what the poster tried to say, not to mention that abstraction saves micromanagement

 

[unmerged(18885)]

I imagine it would impossible to make a game with anything close to 100% realism today. But I think all attempts should be made to make a game as real as possible. If the limits of today are pushed as far as possible, soon enough we will have a game that is as real as is possible. Then in a few years a new game that will be even more real will come out.

 

[SecondReich]

I like realism, with an ability to do alternate history. I feel like often time the things that make the game realistic are just as gamey as the things that make it unrealistic.

I like to do whacky things like send millions of Chinese soldiers to fight against Germany in Europe and things like that.