Time and distance, the ultimate challenge for EU3

[Gezz Inti]

I'm dreaming of this concept for years now. But it will not be EU III, that's for sure. This aspect would be so central to the game, that it has to be a completely new one, no sequel of any sorts.

I think it would make a lot of sense to try this approach first in a smaller setting. It could be a bunch of competing fiefdoms in Germany. You would have external influences like the pope and semi-autonomous circles like guilds, monasteries, sects, etc. Messengers would be extremely important in times of crisis. etc. You get the idea.

 

[diskoerekto]

this is a very nice and delicate point to touch.

Now as it is, the system is somewhat stupid. I see the world as if there is an overmind in Wien and all the governors brains are somehow astrally tied to it for me to see. For example I am playing as Austria, France DoWs me, I pause the game and immediately send my troops from 20 different provinces in alaska, in tierra del fuego, in indonesia, in siberia... to 20 different provinces of France (or her allies') all around the world. In the end all the hopeless TP's of the AI alliance is burnt down to ground and a lot of colonies are lost. This way I cannot feel satisfaction because I feel like using satellite communications in 1600s.

Now this is nonsense.

On the other hand, giving away the control of the armies to the appointed generals (ie AI), or acting like the governors-generals of the era has no self-sufficiency hence waiting for a little messenger going from London to sacremento is as nonsense as above.

My opinion about this subject is as follows (a little complicated first but very simple indeed):

All provinces have a "view" of the world with a lag. For example I am portugal in 1 jan 1650 and I took Toledo from Spain 4 months ago. my colony in Goa in January 1 1650 will see my capital Tago as of January 1 1649 and will not recognize Toledo as a province of me because it will be taken in september 1649 and that time frame has not "arrived" yet to india. When I click on Goa or a unit on Goa the world map "as we know it" will change and Toledo will become yellow instead of green. The "default view" which is how we see the map on EUII would be accessed by one key (like "home") thus enabling us to see our empire alltogether.

A province would have 2 ways of updating its view:

1- news coming from the capital with some delay. For example in jan 1650 Goa "knows" what the capitel knew in jan 1649. And in jan 1649 the capital knew the province Guatemala of June 1648. Thus, in jan 1649, Goa knows the province of Guatemala as how it was in June 1648. This speed should be close to a unit moving from the source province to the destination province.

This delay is a little bit longer if coming from a province of a country which is an ally/vassal/RM. No information comes from other countries provinces.

2- news coming from surrounding environment. This means, Goa will not wait for the information go to first Tago and come back again to understand Vijayanagar lost a province to the Mughal empire. This spreading of information should take much longer than incoming news from territory.


As a result, every province of your empire will collect information about its surrounding with a slow pace, and send it to the capital with a fast pace. Than the information will be distributed to other provinces again with the fast pace. The default view will be the "overmind view" with all the map in its current position. But to make an action (move an army, attack a province etc) the "view" of the province that the army stands on should be used.

For armies on neutral territory or enemy territory, the fast pace should continue to reach the army via the nearest province.

The information spreading speed should be tied to naval-land slider. Naval spreading speed is faster if you are a naval country and vice versa.

For fleets, the "view" of the port province should be used and information should be spread from the nearest port province. The same way around, when armies or fleets "see" something that information should be spread back to the nearest controlled province and then back to the capital.

This is actually a kind of a "dynamic fog of war" instead of a static one. The point is; When France DoWs me Austria, they can attack to any of my provinces because they were "prepared" for a war and knew when it was to start. But as Austria, my provinces should "know" about the war when they are attacked or if they are not attacked, when they are aware of that information.

An addition to this might be this: According to the Centralization slider, every nation has the ability to put a limited number of "command centers" to any desired province. A fully centralized country can only have the capital as an information flow centre. But a fully decentralized country can have up to 10 centers of information (can be placed once, and can only be changed its place lets say every 20 years) that can be anywhere in the country. This means for example France DoWs on me Austria. I have a colony in India bordering theirs. I also have a colony in Jakarta bordering theirs. I have centralization 5 so I can have as much as 5 command center provinces. Lets say one is in jakarta and another in India. I can attack with my armies in Europe because there already "knows" about the war but I cannot attack with the ones in India or Jakarta. But France can do it because they are the aggressor side and they "planned the war ahead". They have an army in India so they attack to my province in india. Now I can use my army in India too because they are now "aware" of the war. There is no need to wait for the information coming from Wien. Then we can assume the governor-commander there is using its will for reality purposes. My colony in Table still does not know about the war but the colony in jakarta does not have to wait for the information come from all the way from Wien to Jakarta. Because now the information is available in India, it starts to propagate from there too. Information of war from India of course reaches Jakarta sooner than the information of war from Wien. Then I can use my armies there to attack French territory neighboring Jakarta. No attacks are being made to Table so the governor there still doesnt know about the war. My colony Table learns about the war as soon as a messenger arrives there. It may be the one from Wien when started its trip when the war is declared or it may be the one from India (which is closer geographically) when there was attacked weeks after the DoW.

I am waiting for any comments about this system.

PS: I am sorry for any grammatical mistakes above, as English is not my native language.

 

[GIG_I]

Wow. I really think your ideas are great, but...
It's too realistic for a game. Because this is a game. I would found annoying some points of the "delay system" or a view of the world for each prov.

You can play with delay if you want, as it's said in the EUII manual, simply don't pause the game. It's your choice. You can play with delay if you want... your own delay, of course, not one forced by the game.

And about the orders... There were no spies? There no were evidences of an army moving? If France sends an army to America and I'm playing with England, for sure I will know it, so I can send my own orders at the same time. I mean with this that it's a way to explain the orders you give in EUII; you can think the monarch send the orders when he received the news of his neighbour's intentions and you are giving the orders in the game when they arrive (and they should arrive short later than the enemy's).

When you play like this, you are usually... an ethereal being (or something xD) which inspires the decisions and movements of the country. If you like to think you are the monarch, you can play like that if you want, but force the players to play like a monarch... I find it annoying.

It's my opinion, though I think the idea of the delay and the other points of the system are great, maybe it's too radical. For another game it would be great.

 

[diskoerekto]

I can see that for an EU player who is familiar to all the other mechanics can adapt to this but a newbie who has no clue of the game can be frustrated. And the player should definitely be able to turn this on/off. But IMO this will be a great way to make the game both realistic but still keep it a game.

not pausing is not the point, the point is i can move my armies in jakarta to the neighboring french territory as soon as france DoWs on me. How on earth the governor-commander there would know the french declared war unless they are attacked by them?

of course there were spies or signs of an incoming war. Actually I thought of all the idea when I was in the boys room and forgot some on my way back to my cubicle. You can see french ships heading to america so you can start building troops there or send your ships full of troops to your provinces. This system does not stop that. But you cannot attack with those troops unless you are attacked, you DoW before them, or the information propagates.

I am not saying that the player is playing the monarch. But being an ethereal being that can use satellite telephony in 1600s is really gamey. I still insist on the point of attacking from all my provinces around the whole wide world as soon as you are DoWed does not make sense.

On second thought, I am a computer engineer and what the hell, I can make my own game based on this system if nobody from Paradox cares. In the end, they dont accept employees who dont speak Swedish so I dont stand a chance there

Wow. I really think your ideas are great, but...
It's too realistic for a game. Because this is a game. I would found annoying some points of the "delay system" or a view of the world for each prov.

You can play with delay if you want, as it's said in the EUII manual, simply don't pause the game. It's your choice. You can play with delay if you want... your own delay, of course, not one forced by the game.

And about the orders... There were no spies? There no were evidences of an army moving? If France sends an army to America and I'm playing with England, for sure I will know it, so I can send my own orders at the same time. I mean with this that it's a way to explain the orders you give in EUII; you can think the monarch send the orders when he received the news of his neighbour's intentions and you are giving the orders in the game when they arrive (and they should arrive short later than the enemy's).

When you play like this, you are usually... an ethereal being (or something xD) which inspires the decisions and movements of the country. If you like to think you are the monarch, you can play like that if you want, but force the players to play like a monarch... I find it annoying.

It's my opinion, though I think the idea of the delay and the other points of the system are great, maybe it's too radical. For another game it would be great.

 

[Gezz Inti]

Of course it (the omnipotent thing) is an abstraction and not fully satisfying, but games are abstractions anyway. I think both approaches have their place.

On second thought, I am a computer engineer and what the hell, I can make my own game based on this system if nobody from Paradox cares. In the end, they dont accept employees who dont speak Swedish so I dont stand a chance there

Oh. I see that you are from Istanbul. Please let me know if you should really play further with these ideas. I'd be very interested. I'm no programmer, but I might contribute conceptually (if you would be interested).

 

[GIG_I]

I can adapt, but what if I don't want?

You are talking about attacks in the colonies if you are or not at war... When this was important? The colonial attacks were oftenly without a declaration of war. The colonies are not Europe.

And I'm another computer engineer who doesn't speak Swedish

 

[diskoerekto]

maybe we can unite all graphic designers and computer engineers and other people that want to contribute who are on this forum but does not speak swedish and form a pirate game developing company (zaradox entertainment?) and become rivals ;p

about the "not wanting" thing, this may be turned on/off. Like this:

Fog of War: (x)Off (o)Static (x)Dynamic

I gave colonies as examples because they are far away. Take this as an example then:

I am playing as Sweden. Russia is an ally of Denmark. Denmark DoW me and Russia join on their side. Russia does not have troops on the border. I can send my troops from Sjaelland to Jylland when the information propagates there (which will be quite fast) or after they attack to my province Sjaelland. But I cannot attack from Ingermanland to Kola if the Russian dont attack me or the information propagates from my capital to Ingermanland (which will take some time but not months of course).

The province names may be out of context but I think the idea behind is clear.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

not pausing is not the point, the point is i can move my armies in jakarta to the neighboring french territory as soon as france DoWs on me. How on earth the governor-commander there would know the french declared war unless they are attacked by them?

Border skirmishes along colonial frontiers were quite frequent, to the point of being near continual. In fact, here in the US we use different names for the ones that got caught up in European wars (French-and-Indian War = Seven Years' War, etc). EUzen the 'move everywhere at once' syndrome as these border skirmishes not being smoothed out after the fact once the locals learn that there's a 'real war' going on.

And for the attacker, as you (I think) said, EUzen it as 'planned ahead'.

-Pat, who neither speaks Swedish nor programs computers

 

[Rich Oliver]

Time and distance would require vast amounts of computing power. 20 years ahead as long as Moores law survives? It could make for a great game, but i think you would want to put every army and navy under its own AI with its own map of the world. You would send these units orders unless your commander piece was with the army.

"commander Cortes has disobeyed orders and captured Mexico" would be a fun and historical message to recieve.

 

[diskoerekto]

the mechanics of colonial wars etc. being different from european wars can be understandable. but still it does not mean that the propagation of information is something wrong or is going to take something away from the game. IMO, it will add a unique flavor that no other computer game has ever implemented.

About computing time issues, I can clearly see that it will require more CPU time but it is definitely feasible with today's PCs.

Every unit having its own AI is not something that I'd prefer though. That will be like many people on this thread complains: "You press the "conquer the world" button and see how your commanders and governors are doing". That is not something I desire. Only added thing will be an array for each owned province referring to all other provinces that keeps a few entries for each, and a "last owned province" tab for every army or fleet.

The people at Paradox have been working on this project for more than 1 and a half year now and it is obvious that they wont throw away all they have done since and implement a whole new system but I still insist that this can be implemented easily on the game without building the engine from scratch.

At least, I'd be very happy to see this idea is valued by them in a way for future projects.

It would be really great if Paradox games were open source It would be the best way for me to show that this would rock.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

each unit would not need its own indivisual ai just as now in eu2, each country doesn't need its own indivisual ai. They can work with broader ais. The problem is the ai's paradox produces are generally not something that's very compitent and therein lies the problem.

 

[unmerged(485)]

........................................

The problem is the ai's paradox produces are generally not something that's very compitent and therein lies the problem.

Very true but in this case it may be quite realistic to have a (bumbling?) AI handle things until you are allowed to take control.

Not that I am endorsing the time delay idea.

Having said that - a modified version of the HoI "time of attack" could roughly represent the delay idea by having the earliest time allowed be the time of delay from the capital (or whereever) to where the unit is located. Just a rough idea though.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Very true but in this case it may be quite realistic to have a (bumbling?) AI handle things until you are allowed to take control.

Not that I am endorsing the time delay idea.

Having said that - a modified version of the HoI "time of attack" could roughly represent the delay idea by having the earliest time allowed be the time of delay from the capital (or whereever) to where the unit is located. Just a rough idea though.

No the AI should atleast be compitent. Doesn't mean optimum, but compitent. EU2 1.09 it isn't.

 

[George LeS]

I don't see why the lag should entail much ai control. IMO, the key is simply that units, not in contact with the enemy, have a lag in receiving orders. Once they've made contact, you'd have control as now, as the player is not just the government, but the country, as Johan said.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

The problem is that these units generally had the ability and knowhow to make descions on there own if the situation calls for it. That would be represented by the AI.

This is probably a bad analogy, but IMO if there was a compitent AI, i would view it similar to the AI in the latter Dragon Quest games where they become semi-compitent based on the general orders you give them and are able to respond to the situation as it emerges, but ultimately aren't as good as human player chosing the commands. Choosing your command is generally better, but it doesn't allow you to respond to things and sometimes that can be handy ingame.

The same would be true here. The AI would be able to respond more easily, but not nessarily the same way or quite as compitantly as you would if you were commanding. However, if you choose to command it, the downside is that you can't respond easily to the changes that occur ingame.

 

[unmerged(9829)]

It's doable, and I think more realistic

It would be doable. you would have to plan out campaigns, routes of march and rules of engagement. When you issue the order the unit will have a time peice in the information screen (hourglass to begin but by the end maybe a clock) the amount of time will be figured by distance from the captial, and any tech that would speed that time up (one of the main reasons the prussians beat the french in the Franco Prussian war was the speed of their orders) maybe put in a modifier for the maneuver level of the leader (maybe at top level -6- it can be instantanious). I think it can be done.
One of the reasons it would be more realistic is that most of the great battles (and great losses) had to do with this lag that is not simulated in games. It is too easy to get yourself out of scrapes. Would have any of the great disasters have happend if there would have been realtime movement of forces?
Another way this can be more realistic is explorers. The lag would be huge, therefore you would have to be more cautious in the beginning and not discover the entire world by 1470. :rofl:

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Another way this can be more realistic is explorers. The lag would be huge, therefore you would have to be more cautious in the beginning and not discover the entire world by 1470. :rofl:

No explorers are another matter and are fundimentally broken because people use their OOC knowledge about present ingame mechanics and future to go for the best areas or go for areas to stop other nations. No, nothing short a completely abstract system will solve that problem.

 

[Gwalcmai]

All provinces have a "view" of the world with a lag. For example I am portugal in 1 jan 1650 and I took Toledo from Spain 4 months ago. my colony in Goa in January 1 1650 will see my capital Tago as of January 1 1649 and will not recognize Toledo as a province of me because it will be taken in september 1649 and that time frame has not "arrived" yet to india. When I click on Goa or a unit on Goa the world map "as we know it" will change and Toledo will become yellow instead of green. The "default view" which is how we see the map on EUII would be accessed by one key (like "home") thus enabling us to see our empire alltogether.

And then you press the "viceroy of India" button on your skull so that you temporarily only know what is known in Goa, and can ignore the fact that you know what provinces you took even if they're not shown on the map?

Say I'm playing Parvonia (the fictional country) and my neighbour to the North attacks me. The attacked provinces know the news immediately, but those news will only reach my Southern border in a month. What will happen? Obviously, regardless of having received news of the attack, the player will order the garrisons there to move North. "But m'lord, we have received no word of trouble up North! - Regardless, I'm having a premonition, and By Golly! (snaps fingers) I'm following what it says!" Or do you want to prevent the player from moving armies in his/her own territory as he/she sees fit?

The end result? The player goes on unhindered, while the AI tried to follow the rules of time delays. An even less responsive AI, more computation and a worse game, at the expense of massive amounts of coding. Yay.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Say I'm playing Parvonia (the fictional country) and my neighbour to the North attacks me. The attacked provinces know the news immediately, but those news will only reach my Southern border in a month. What will happen? Obviously, regardless of having received news of the attack, the player will order the garrisons there to move North. "But m'lord, we have received no word of trouble up North! - Regardless, I'm having a premonition, and By Golly! (snaps fingers) I'm following what it says!" Or do you want to prevent the player from moving armies in his/her own territory as he/she sees fit?

Yes, even in their own territory, the exception is your own troop you are personally commanding.

I mean we could go as far as to not allow the player to know about the attack until later, but imo that would not be a good move with the limited capabilities of engines at this time.

However, the commanders in the north would know to:

• By default always defend against invasion.
• By default always liberate occupied territory.
• By default not go on suicide missions with their 10 000 troops vs the enemy's 500 000 troop stack.

Depending on the strategies setup:

• Attempt to occupy neigboring areas
• Defeat enemy troops in their own territory
• Recruit new troops
• Build better fortifications

 

[George LeS]

IMO, these are all over ambitious, & rely too much on a model which assumes the player has a particular location, & therefore on the AI being in charge everywhere else. I'd advocate having a set delay to change a unit's mission status, modified by tech & commander quality, plus proximity to enemy/rebel forces. For an example, look at the command control device often used in boardgames, of having the commander's rating determine the odds of the unit responding. My approach is analagous, but instead of a yes/no dichotomy, it's a matter of delay.

In this context, Gwalcmai, my answers are:

1. "Or do you want to prevent the player from moving armies in his/her own territory as he/she sees fit?"
Not prevent, but constrain, but yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

2. "The player goes on unhindered, while the AI tried to follow the rules of time delays."
I'd be inclined to let the AI cheat here, as it does with attrition. Give it a smaller lag-time, to balance the player's greater competence.

This also shows where I differ from Jinnai. In the general idea of lag times, I think we're agreed. But I oppose the "personal location" element of the model, & especially its ensuing reliance on the game engine to do handle the troops.