You are personally commanding all of them. You are the monarch, the government, the regional governor, the mayor of the cities, the commander of armies. You are the country you're playing.Jinnai said:
Time and distance, the ultimate challenge for EU3
- Thread starter donagel
- Start date
-
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.
No. You are not personally commanding them. You are delegating authority to others to command them when your not present and based on general orders given. Inbetween that time the generals and admirals must make their own descions, just like management makes in a company.Gwalcmai said:
Besides, even if you were, no country in the world ever practiced warfare or such with the OOC knowledge the player has. No, armies didn't 100% of the time know insitictively that a war had been declared half-way across the world, that an event would fire on day X, month Y year Z... They actually had to wait for this info and if you are suppose to be playing the country, you should play it the same way it would have been done historically (within the confines that an engine can produce...which an engine can certainly reproduce lagging effects).
A game like that would not be fun...
if you want a realistic game buy a FPS where you just see you and your surroundings and have no idea what is happening else where
if you want a realistic game buy a FPS where you just see you and your surroundings and have no idea what is happening else where
In that game you seem to be designing from scratch (which seems to bear no resemblance to EU) that might be true. In EU2, at least, you are in command of the whole enchilada. I don't think I particularly like the game you're designing. Imagine playing a chess game in which you only really controlled the king. The other pieces would be issued orders, that would propagate at the rate of 2 squares/turn, and when they got them they would follow them... or maybe they would deem it better to do something completely different. Instead of carefully crafting plans of the movements of your pieces, you would spend most of your time yelling "WTF are you doing?!" at your rooks and knights.Jinnai said:
I'd like to hear of a system of delays that still allows the player to have some sort of meaningful effect on warfare. I'd say most players would tend to enjoy the fact that their actions would actually somehow affect the outcome of a war, hopefully in a positive way.
I agree with making this game more realistic.
Therefore, in addition to the time delay, the game speed will have only one setting - 1 sec/sec. It will be impossible to save or load or even to shut the game off, and when your monarch dies, the game self-destructs, wiping itself from your computer and preventing the game from ever being installed again.
Therefore, in addition to the time delay, the game speed will have only one setting - 1 sec/sec. It will be impossible to save or load or even to shut the game off, and when your monarch dies, the game self-destructs, wiping itself from your computer and preventing the game from ever being installed again.
Gwalcmai, I think you didn't understand my concept. You can move your troops from south to north. The only difference is you cannot point enemy territory. You can attack after reaching the province with the news or the news reach your army. You can say that this has no difference, yes in this case this has no difference. This can be interpreted to real life as pure luck or very deep insight. But this is not always the case. If you read the whole post you can see the difference. Look at the example with denmark, russia and sweden for example.
Now, in this case, I take it Denmark is prepared for the war, and so their provinces all know of it, right? What about Russia? They didn't declare the war, they reacted to a Danish declaration. Should all of their provinces know? If all the Russian provinces on the Russian-Swedish border know of a war, how long would it take for the Swedes across the border to find out about it? Do the Russians know, but keep mum about it, snickering at the backs of visiting Swedes?praxiteles said:
And then, when the war ends, the hostilities keep going on until word reaches the troops about the treaty, right? That's another thing giving the player an advantage over the AI. If you know where the borders are to fall, why keep fighting? You pull out and save yourself the casualties, waiting for the news of the armistice. There you are, astral communication is still there. Meanwhile, the AI goes on happily playing like it is still at war and ends up with nothing to show for the post-treaty efforts it made.
Frankly, it just feels like a lot of coding (and chances for crashbugs) for something that doesn't seem to add much to the game in the way of fun, but adds a lot to it in the way of managing complexity.
I think we got to stick with basics. If something's going to add a layer of complexity but not make the game more fun, then it could potentially do more harm than good. This falls into that category, it's a fascinating concept but I could see myself being more frustrated by it than appreciating it in an EU2 style game.
Gwalcmai said:
In reverse order:
1. A lot of this is a matter of taste. I think most of the supports of the idea think it would be VERY fun if we could make it work. Some others clearly don't. Therefore, any such feature should be moddable out.
2. The AI can be helped by having smaller, or often, no lag time. Sure it's a cheat, but no matter what we'd like to see, we're going to have an AI which needs lots of help.
3. With that qualification, IMO, be kind of fun, & definitely realistic, to have hostilities continue after the peace.
4. I don't fully understand your DEN-SWE-RUS example. I take it you're assuming a DEN/SWE alliance. In EUII, if the Danes have planned for a war, with Swedish assistance, they can get screwed by a Dishonor decision. Or are you thinking of MP? If that's so, the Swedes could be told "we're attacking on July 12th".
But I don't really follow your reasoning here. Would you please state your postion?
5. With or without a time-lag feature we're discussing here, IMO it would be useful to be able to include a start date, when you order troops to move. That way, you could enter the orders ahead of time, & wouldn't have to do it all at once. (This would definitely be more like real life.)
I'm not a fan of the idea of delay. It would effectively remove much of the control you have over your nation's actions, and completely change the nature of the game.
Half There said:
But that is the point. Supporters of delay like it because it would effectively remove much of the control you have over your nation's actions, and completely change the nature of the game.
About 1/3 of the disagreements in this forum really come down to likes vs dislikes, do you like FOW, or TI, etc. Some people seem to love games to give them maximum control & knowledge, some love the unpredictable. Chess or Go vs Bridge or Poker. So I don't see how that kind of preference can be debated; at this level, one can only state one's preferences.
To me, wanting that much control is like hating chocolate. It just puzzles me, but no one can say who's right or wrong.
Sure you can: other people hating chocolate is a good thing, as it leave more for me!George LeS said:
I wouldn't like the feature, and would oppose making it the setting for the game. If such a thing does get included, at the very least have a toggle to turn it off as there is for fog of war. If I'm playing on more of the map than fits in one screen, I tend to forget where my units are; many is the fleet or army that attritted to nothingness because I forgot it even existed.
If I have to remember to give orders a month later, or worse remember a month later that I gave them orders a month ago, well, they do say memory is the second thing to go... . o -Pat
Realistic? Yes. But still pointless. If you were conducting a campaign (and assuming the player gets to somehow impact wars and they way they're fought in the system, instead of just hoping the commander AI doesn't screw up too badly) would you really let your armies continue to be exposed to casualties when you knew the war would be over for them in a couple of weeks? Would you carry on the siege of a province you knew would be kept by the enemy according to the terms of peace?George LeS said:
I was carrying on the example presented by praxiteles with a DAN-RUS alliance. DAN declares on SWE, RUS honours, but SWE has troops on the RUS border while RUS doesn't. Either RUS has to wait for the DOW to propagate to it (it isn't exactly the initiator) and if the mechanics make the news reach the SWE troops first it gets even more screwed than it would normally be, or it knows everything already. I was just saying that, if the RUS side of the border knows they are at war, the SWE side would logically tend to find out rather quickly. And if it did, the feature would do about 0 difference.
That sounds like HOI's combat control box. You can tell a bunch of units to start an attack on H hour of D day. I'm not completely sure it is appropriate to the time frame, though.
Gwalcmai said:
1. I did say fun, it's not something I'd go to the wall over. But I will say this: if you can be that sure a war when a war will end, you've got me beat. I often have to send many peace offers, with 100% WS, before the AI will take it. & humans can be even more stubborn.
2. There might still be bonuses, separate from the peace treaty. I suppose, if prestige is a factor, you could gain it with a postwar victory. Or it might please your own people. Think of New Orleans & Constitution vs Cyane & Levant. Also, I suppose if captures of guns & ships were included, you could still keep them. But again, I don't put this high on my wishlist.
2. If the units are adjacent, that is, if you can see the enemy moving, that's notice enough for me. Note, I am not one who wants an AI to handle units here. I just want the lag. As I've said before, what I'd like to see is analogous to the command control rules in some other games. (Common in board games; I can't remember the name of the ancient battles game -- board & PC -- which uses this.) The only difference is that, instead of move / don't move, I'd have more or less lag. This would be determined by leadership, tech, all the appropriate factors like that. And units in contact with the enemy, I'd leave under direct, immediate control, just as it is now.
So the effect on the Swedes at the border, would indeed be very nearly 0. Units further away would be affected, reflecting the time it takes them to hear about the war, or the results of the battles. So would Russian reserves, if you'd forgotten to move them earlier. My idea is just a lag in changing what the unit is doing now. Yes, it'd be an imperfect reflexion of reality, but it'd be closer than what we have now, & wouldn't involve an AI. (Again, the AI nations, I'd tend to let cheat here.)
4. There was nothing to prevent them from sending out orders to several commanders, saying "move on April 7". Getting them to stay coordinated is another thing, but that's also another issue. It's not really a matter of lag times, rather, the way to represent THAT would be to make movement times somewhat less predictable.
But EU2 is not chess. Chess itself is set to represent an abstract of a single army at best, ie your own personal one that would have no lag time. However if you have 50 chess games on actual at the same time each with a short time between turns (ie you can't take your time like you could in a turn based system), you can't hope to play every game. You have to delgate authority. Now if you happen to have some lines of communication, you can give orders on how you want them to play based on your strategy, but assumng your not in the modern era, which EU timeframe isn't, instant communication isn't possible.Gwalcmai said:
One chess game is comprable to playing one regiment as you might in a tactical game or an adventuring party in an RPG.
I'm not saying the lag need be as long as it was IRL during this era, but there should be some.Gwalcmai said:
I think it might be best as it could show people they can still do a good realstic historical sim and still have fun manuvering their armies even if there is delays and they have to have "missions" to have the AI take control inbetween.pjcrowe said:
However, Paradox would have to work on the AI somewhat more than it historically has.
Well i'd go with troops continuing their movement and battles in progress continuing until one wins or the lag catches up. Starting new battles might be a bit too much here.Gwalcmai said:
Last edited:
SecondReich said:
Yeah, I think i was always seeing myself as the current leader, but it makes more sense if you are some unseen force that makes can make generals make strategic decisions while over seas which would take months for the king to send a message and get the return reply.
vertinox said:
so we are playing as a kind of "overlord" who is nowhere and everywhere, and can coordinate attacks on the same day of the month before knowing the country is going to be in a war in 5 continents of the world through 20 provinces at once.
This does not make sense. This is the most "gamey" part of the game in my opinion.
But since most of the people think the opposite and since this is a "game", then so be it.
Cakravarti said:Why stop with time delays tho? IRL people had to deal with other problems like not being able to clearly read messages because of bad handwriting or smudges, or maybe the messenger minsinterpreted events. All these need to be included! You should receive messages in a slew of different qualities which extend from entirely readable to utterly unreadable. Most of the time you receive messages which are mostly readable, however if you are unlucky the unreadable bit happens to be very important. If you cant read the gist of the message you need to send for the message to be re-clarified at which point there will be another time lag. I also think there should be other factors like the accuracy of the information being sent to you ranging from entirely accurate to totally inaccurate. Imagine all the FUN that could be had!
Well... I think it would be a fun game if done right and player was properly informed, but we'd almost need a StrongAI of a supercomputer to pull this off. All our leaders would have their own personalities and so does all the other nation persons, but we simply don't have that kind of computing power in the household computer.
Maybe EU VI in 2012 or something.
Hmm
This will a complete different game, not a traditional strategy game but an RPing game.
To make it realistic, you will have to give up the all seeing mode, and only see your room, inside your own four walls.
I mean if you are limiting it to a personal view, does a ruler make any day to day decisions like budgeting, investing, collect taxes, decide all strategy, conduct diplomacy, comission exploring expeditions, manage colonies, handle religious matters, etc , etc. etc? Does Nelson have to wait for the king's order to take the initiative? Did Patton received all his important orders from the president? Did the Duke of Wellington waited for his majesties orders to do the important moves?
No, the sovereign in this case chooses the right person from the job, and gets informed of major developments, many times without making the decisions.
This will a complete different game, not a traditional strategy game but an RPing game.
To make it realistic, you will have to give up the all seeing mode, and only see your room, inside your own four walls.
I mean if you are limiting it to a personal view, does a ruler make any day to day decisions like budgeting, investing, collect taxes, decide all strategy, conduct diplomacy, comission exploring expeditions, manage colonies, handle religious matters, etc , etc. etc? Does Nelson have to wait for the king's order to take the initiative? Did Patton received all his important orders from the president? Did the Duke of Wellington waited for his majesties orders to do the important moves?
No, the sovereign in this case chooses the right person from the job, and gets informed of major developments, many times without making the decisions.