Training and World Tension

[hkrommel]

And apart from the bit higher attrition, I doubt that there is a disadvantage IN GAME by getting caught in a training exercise. Unless training also lowers ORG, it doesn't matter if your troops are doing push ups while being attacked.

It should have an adverse effect on ORG in my opinion. Your troops will be out of position, they will be confused as to whether the attack is part of the exercise or not, etc.

Again, I really don't see the problem with creating a training group away from borders and moving divisions to and from it. The German player did it during the stream with very little micro required.

 

[Lifthrasil]

This would just add to micro, in my eyes. Having to select troops, move them all one province back, have them train, and then put them back would become tiresome quickly. No thanks.

Again, I really don't see the problem with creating a training group away from borders and moving divisions to and from it. The German player did it during the stream with very little micro required.

The micro problem could be solved by "select whole army" then "draw defensive line away from border, AI moves your units there automatically" then "train and reposition via battleplan".

It should have an adverse effect on ORG in my opinion. Your troops will be out of position, they will be confused as to whether the attack is part of the exercise or not, etc.

I agree. One should think carefully if and when to train ones units.

 

[safe-keeper]

The micro problem could be solved by "select whole army" then "draw defensive line away from border, AI moves your units there automatically" then "train and reposition via battleplan".

Still needless micro.

 

[hkrommel]

Still needless micro.

Not if there are gameplay consequences. Something is only pointless if there is no appreciable benefit or detriment to doing something. Since there would be an appreciable benefit to doing this (mostly because there is an appreciable detriment to not doing it), it is not needless.

Needless micro is something like the airforce settings in HoI III where you had to adjust a ton of things that could just as easily be done the way they are organizing it in HoI 4. This would be as simple as creating a command group not on the front lines and then moving troops as needed.

Realistic. Simple. Intuitive.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Not if there are gameplay consequences. Something is only pointless if there is no appreciable benefit or detriment to doing something. Since there would be an appreciable benefit to doing this (mostly because there is an appreciable detriment to not doing it), it is not needless.

Needless micro is something like the airforce settings in HoI III where you had to adjust a ton of things that could just as easily be done the way they are organizing it in HoI 4. This would be as simple as creating a command group not on the front lines and then moving troops as needed.

Realistic. Simple. Intuitive.

What bonus would that be, though?
I honestly don't see how training 100 divisions on the border would seem more threatening than just stationing them there. (from a gameplay perspective).

 

[hkrommel]

What bonus would that be, though?
I honestly don't see how training 100 divisions on the border would seem more threatening than just stationing them there. (from a gameplay perspective).

From a pure gameplay perspective, no, but this is a game that tries to at least capture some form of realism.

In reality, training means preparation. Anyone can put a few divisions on the border for guard duty, but training means that they're training for something. You don't have large-scale maneuvers for no reason, you do that for preparation. Having large numbers of soldiers conducting wargames on your border is far more threatening than having them sit there doing nothing.

As for what the bonus is, it's more avoiding the diplomacy malus.

 

[Denkt]

abstraction is necessary to make a game, and it is a game, it isnt a simulation we are trying to make

 

[Lifthrasil]

From a pure gameplay perspective, no, but this is a game that tries to at least capture some form of realism.

In reality, training means preparation. Anyone can put a few divisions on the border for guard duty, but training means that they're training for something. You don't have large-scale maneuvers for no reason, you do that for preparation. Having large numbers of soldiers conducting wargames on your border is far more threatening than having them sit there doing nothing.

As for what the bonus is, it's more avoiding the diplomacy malus.

But it's useless to give the player a malus if he doesn't get a (chance) for a bonus as well => Risk/Reward System
I'd rather (if even) give them a malus when they are preparing a Battleplan. That's the "preparation" that fits best to what you have in mind, I think.

 

[hkrommel]

.

Your point? Yes abstraction is necessary but the question here is how much abstraction is needed, and at what point does the amount of abstraction detract from the setting.

I cannot emphasize this enough: having divisions on the border already affects your relationship with the other nation.

It's already in the game. It's there. What I'm asking is whether the diplomatic effect should be more realistic than simply affecting trade. It changes a few modifiers and that's it.

But it's useless to give the player a malus if he doesn't get a (chance) for a bonus as well => Risk/Reward System
I'd rather (if even) give them a malus when they are preparing a Battleplan. That's the "preparation" that fits best to what you have in mind, I think.

Useless in what sense? I can take 20 panzer divisions, park them in the Himalayas in January, and let them sit there taking attrition and I get no bonus. I get a malus. What I then want to do is move them to better terrain to avoid the malus. There doesn't have to be a bonus and malus for every choice, sometimes things are just bad or good. For a "good" example (purely random) let's say an event happens where I get +5 factories and I get to pick the type. There will likely be an optimal choice which I may or may not know about, but there is no downside to this situation.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Useless in what sense? I can take 20 panzer divisions, park them in the Himalayas in January, and let them sit there taking attrition and I get no bonus. I get a malus. What I then want to do is move them to better terrain to avoid the malus. There doesn't have to be a bonus and malus for every choice, sometimes things are just bad or good. For a "good" example (purely random) let's say an event happens where I get +5 factories and I get to pick the type. There will likely be an optimal choice which I may or may not know about, but there is no downside to this situation.

I understand what you say, I just think it there is a misunderstanding:
- having (too many) units at the border gives a malus to relation, but more trade priority: COOL, I'm all for it!
- preparing a battle plan near the border gives you negative relations, but they fight better later: COOL, I'm all for it!
BUT: just having the units there gives NO malus, but training them there gives a malus, but no benefit: Why? That's illogical.

Parking your divisions in the Himalaya is a strategic decision of yours. Maybe you want to start a surprise attack from there, but you are punished by attrition. This game mechanic is made to simulate harder situations for tanks in mountains. It works for and against all players.

But training your units at the border is NOT more threat than just stationing them there, so why should there be more punishment? The AI doesn't get a malus if it trains its division near YOUR border (since the player does not care for relationship-values). In MP, players will only care if the other player has troops near their border, not if they are trained there.

Regarding your factory example: The downside in this situation is the opportunistic cost of the factories you DONT take. Do you rather take the military factories or better the shipyards? What will you need more in the future? Again: Risk/Reward.

A good strategy game gives risk/reward decisions so the player has to think about it. If I only get punished for doing something, I just won't do it, and the whole mechanic was coded for nothing!

 

[hkrommel]

I understand what you say, I just think it there is a misunderstanding:
- having (too many) units at the border gives a malus to relation, but more trade priority: COOL, I'm all for it!
- preparing a battle plan near the border gives you negative relations, but they fight better later: COOL, I'm all for it!
BUT: just having the units there gives NO malus, but training them there gives a malus, but no benefit: Why? That's illogical.

Parking your divisions in the Himalaya is a strategic decision of yours. Maybe you want to start a surprise attack from there, but you are punished by attrition. This game mechanic is made to simulate harder situations for tanks in mountains. It works for and against all players.

But training your units at the border is NOT more threat than just stationing them there, so why should there be more punishment? The AI doesn't get a malus if it trains its division near YOUR border (since the player does not care for relationship-values). In MP, players will only care if the other player has troops near their border, not if they are trained there.

Regarding your factory example: The downside in this situation is the opportunistic cost of the factories you DONT take. Do you rather take the military factories or better the shipyards? What will you need more in the future? Again: Risk/Reward.

A good strategy game gives risk/reward decisions so the player has to think about it. If I only get punished for doing something, I just won't do it, and the whole mechanic was coded for nothing!

I wasn't really taking MP into account. Perhaps a malus for both then?

As for the opportunity cost issue, yes that is a factor but it's the same situation with training troops on the border. What's the opportunity cost of taking your divisions off the front line?

What I was saying is that there isn't any risk to the hypothetical factory issue. You aren't going to lose anything. The marginal benefit of factories, from what I can tell, doesn't drop below 0 unless you're really short on resources.

Similarly with the Himalayan issue, assuming there's no strategic value to having divisions there for the sake of the example, a player has no gain from keeping his or her divisions there. There's only loss.

I'm just saying that in any sort of game that involves player choice there are always going to be situations where there is only gain or only loss. Sure, there's ways to take the least possible losses as well as to optimize gains, but that doesn't mean the opposite is even possible. A gain of 10 is better than a gain of 6, for example, but both of those are still gains.

 

[Lifthrasil]

As for the opportunity cost issue, yes that is a factor but it's the same situation with training troops on the border. What's the opportunity cost of taking your divisions off the front line?

What I was saying is that there isn't any risk to the hypothetical factory issue. You aren't going to lose anything. The marginal benefit of factories, from what I can tell, doesn't drop below 0 unless you're really short on resources.

Similarly with the Himalayan issue, assuming there's no strategic value to having divisions there for the sake of the example, a player has no gain from keeping his or her divisions there. There's only loss.

I'm just saying that in any sort of game that involves player choice there are always going to be situations where there is only gain or only loss. Sure, there's ways to take the least possible losses as well as to optimize gains, but that doesn't mean the opposite is even possible. A gain of 10 is better than a gain of 6, for example, but both of those are still gains.

Please answer me this one thing: does it HAVE to be a malus for training units at the border, or can it also be for preparing a battle plan in your opinion?
Because I'm all for a simulation of threatlevels and threatening actions. It always bothered me in HOI3 that I could order 2 Mio men to the border and my neighbour just didn't care.
Having maneuvers and preparing for a war near the borders should be punished, like you said.

BUT: I think maneuvers ( in this game!) are better depicted by battleplan preperations, not by training. Because traning does NOT give you a combat bonus against a specific target, battle plans do!

 

[mursolini]

There is little point in this. Holding exercises and moving troops didn`t bother anyone at that age, unless the country had mobilised and the other side had reasonable suspicion of incoming attack.

When after Polish campaign Soviets moved their troops to the border with Germany and Germans had quite a bit of troops there also, neither was bothered. Now, IF SU would mobilise mid-battle of France, Germany would freak out, obviously, but then the Soviet attack is incoming in a month anyway.

 

[hkrommel]

Please answer me this one thing: does it HAVE to be a malus for training units at the border, or can it also be for preparing a battle plan in your opinion?
Because I'm all for a simulation of threatlevels and threatening actions. It always bothered me in HOI3 that I could order 2 Mio men to the border and my neighbour just didn't care.
Having maneuvers and preparing for a war near the borders should be punished, like you said.

BUT: I think maneuvers ( in this game!) are better depicted by battleplan preperations, not by training. Because traning does NOT give you a combat bonus against a specific target, battle plans do!

Yes I think it should be both. Both could be understood as "preparatory activity" in a sense. While one is preparing troops for battle in general, and the other is preparing troops to carry out a specific battle plan. Both would be threatening as both mean an actively preparing adversary on the border.

When after Polish campaign Soviets moved their troops to the border with Germany and Germans had quite a bit of troops there also, neither was bothered.

Are you serious? They both had large amounts of troops on the border precisely because they didn't trust each other. Both knew the M-R pact was going to be broken, it was just a question of when. They were certainly bothered by each other having that presence, or do you see a similar ratio of troop concentrations on the German-Swiss border, or the border with Spain?

 

[Lifthrasil]

Yes I think it should be both. Both could be understood as "preparatory activity" in a sense. While one is preparing troops for battle in general, and the other is preparing troops to carry out a specific battle plan. Both would be threatening as both mean an actively preparing adversary on the border.

But training near the polish border is NOT a threat towards poland. If anything it's a threat towards every neighbour of Germany. What stops me from training my troops near the Polish border and then attack switzerland? Or Denmark? Training in HOI4 =/= maneuvers IRL.
If traning troops is counted as a threat, it should not matter where you train them, but if you train them.

If training near the border is bad, but 2 provinces inland is ok, EVERY player will just train his divisions there. It's a nice idea, but i doubt it would add substantially to the game.

Well but we are arguing in circles. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here ;-)

 

[hkrommel]

But training near the polish border is NOT a threat towards poland. If anything it's a threat towards every neighbour of Germany. What stops me from training my troops near the Polish border and then attack switzerland? Or Denmark? Training in HOI4 =/= maneuvers IRL.
If traning troops is counted as a threat, it should not matter where you train them, but if you train them.

If training near the border is bad, but 2 provinces inland is ok, EVERY player will just train his divisions there. It's a nice idea, but i doubt it would add substantially to the game.

Well but we are arguing in circles. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here ;-)

It's less that training is happening and more that it is being seen within miles of one's border. The threat seems much more real if you can look over and see soldiers doing maneuvers (and podcat directly said this is what on-map training represents), rather than hear about them while you're safely hundreds of miles away. Training along the Polish border isn't going to freak out the Australians, for example.

 

[FUregistration]

Training and placement of troops near borders (1 or 2 provinces away) should lower relations between nations, (unless its a capital city) not only trade relations...
The reason why people would harm relations might be because their goal is to harm relations? Its not really my place or anyone's place to judge the strategy of another player.

 

[RMS Gigantic]

As a counterpoint to the idea of training exercises lowering relations, I want to submit the Fort Drum exercises in the 1930's, in upstate New York very near to the Canadian border. As War Plan Red's existence shows, the US and UK, and by extension Canada, were a bit more hostile than we are today, and the Fort Drum exercises were the largest peacetime military drills ever conducted by the US, with the fort's website describing how "[t]hirty-six thousand five hundred Soldiers came from throughout the Northeast to take part in the exercise. Some Soldiers travelled by trains, which arrived in town every 15 minutes, coming from as far away as Buffalo and New York City. For 36 hours, young men from offices, factories, and farms marched, attacked and defended in tactical exercises on the 100-mile stretch of land the Army had leased for its war games." Despite this, as far as I'm aware, this didn't significantly heighten tensions between the US and Canada.

... that, instead, came at a different time that year, when the fact that the US was planning on building three disguised Air Force bases along the Canadian border accidentally leaked and became a part of the front page story of the New York Times.

 

[FUregistration]

Despite this, as far as I'm aware, this didn't significantly heighten tensions between the US and Canada.

I would focus on:
"As far as I'm aware"
"significantly"
If you check the news of the past months, you will see a hundred examples of exercises near borders and placement of troops near borders that heightened tensions, with all that Eastern Europe bullshit going on. It certainly helped changing the status quo in Eastern Europe.