Wishlist of fixes to internal mechanics

[Michael Gladius]

One country being able to do a thing, even when it is based on history (germany's vast amounts of captured stuff - e.g. the Czech panzers), isn't really ideal to change how game mechanics work, now is it ?

Lend-Lease should also be affected- nations which received a lot of Lend-Lease had to ensure that they weren't mixing .30-06 rifles with 7mm Mauser ammo. So cutting off Lend-Lease could be catastrophic, as evidenced by China possessing lots of American-made equipment at the end of WWII but losing the Chinese Civil War after being cut off from spare parts and ammunition.

 

[Corpse Fool]

if the tactics made the division 25% narrower while the terrain became 50% wider, now you have an effective combat width of 15 and terrain width of 135 (allowing 9 divisions to fit like a glove).

You could also give the templates -50% width to fit 9 of these now-10w templates into the original 90w. Or you could add +100% to the width to end up with 180 for the combat, and fit 9 of the 20w. Or you can use the -25% to template and +50% to combat like you have mentioned. Which is my point. Whether we use template width reductions, combat size increases, or some combination of the two, the exact same result can be achieved.

And since it would be the same thing either way, it would be simpler for users to interact with if we only used one of the two methods instead of trying to use both. And if we're only going to be using one of them, it might as well be the one that is already in the game and people should be familiar with.

Yet why couldn't it be? Why should either of us remain stuck in the "that's what it is now, and it can never change, be overhauled, or re-purposed because reasons!" mentality. Combat width is quite capable of being made realistic, so why not do so?

It could be. You just haven't suggested anything that might actually do that for us to discuss that particular angle on things.

 

[Lamartine]

In these suggestion threads it's really important to remember Paradox' guidance, which is stickied on top of the Suggestions forum.

I quote these three pieces of guidance in particular

- Please keep your suggestions focused! Post a thread with a quite narrow span. Don't post long lists of many points that you think need improving. It's hard to maintain a constructive discussion when topics are mixed together.

- Give your thread a descriptive title Try to capture the main goal with your suggestion in one sentense. Don't just name it "Great Suggestion!" or something similar. A good name will also increase the likelihood someone who share your vision will read your thread and give you support through the "Agree" button.

- If it's just a matter of a small tweak, maybe create your own mod for it? Changing small things in the game is very easy to do yourself, and you can make a mod out of it. We keep track of what mods are being popular and if we find it viable, the purpose of the mod may be put into the live game.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/suggestions-on-how-to-make-suggestions-please-read-before-posting.944793/

This thread would lead to more constructive discussion if the OP clearly defined one problem rather than a broad and diverse list of solutions.

This thread would lead to more constructive discussion if it used words how they are commonly used in the community.

This thread would lead to more constructive discussion if it could point to real existing mods that implement these changes in ways that address the OP's single well defined problem.

I'm not saying this to imply that anyone is right or wrong. I'm saying it to remind posters that Paradox made these rules for a reason.

You need to ask yourself as a matter of prediction, when I make a post that doesn't follow Paradox' guidance, is this post likely to elicit constructive suggestions?

If the answer is No, then it doesn't matter how good or bad the ideas are, the post should not be made.

 

[LordWahu]

The AI's bad decisions are based on the mechanics, and the statistical math. Dumbing down gameplay to the AI's level of intelligence is not the fix.

The correct solution is to fix the mechanics that allows the AI to make bad decisions and human players can cheese. Once that is accomplished, the AI will make different decisions, and improving it will become easier. But trying to code an AI to make decisions that are mathematically nonsensical is futile.

This is almost entirely incorrect

The AI's decision algorithms are based on the battleplanner and using it. And while the coding behind that isn't entirely known, the math behind it has nothing to do with the units themselves. That's the reason it can't use tanks: It has no idea how to because to them it's just another unit

Therefore, changing anything about the units and their statistics will not change anything about the AI. There are no minor mechanical changes you could implement that would cause the AI to act any different aside from changing the AI itself

Hence why I proposed this as a way to fix the internal mechanics- fixing internal mechanics make the game smoother and requires fewer multipliers on top to compensate.

AI division spam is a performance-based argument. So why would smoothing out the mechanics and correcting design flaws that enable division spam to overload bad mechanics make the game "more complex/worse"? I'm going to the root of the problem, which is bad mechanics that enable these downstream problems. Oversimplification treats the symptoms, not the disease.

This proposal fixes nothing. There is nothing that it changes. Nothing that it alters. Nothing that happens any different

This proposal simply causes the same thing to happen in a different way. And that is a waste of developer time

There is a big difference between adding new words and shrinking existing ones. One enhances understanding, the other is arbitrary and isn't beneficial to anybody.

If the words you are saying isn't being understood the way you want to, then you need to use different words in order to be understood

It doesn't matter if the words you are using are technically correct. If people don't understand, then they are the wrong words to use

 

[Michael Gladius]

You could also give the templates -50% width to fit 9 of these now-10w templates into the original 90w. Or you could add +100% to the width to end up with 180 for the combat, and fit 9 of the 20w. Or you can use the -25% to template and +50% to combat like you have mentioned. Which is my point. Whether we use template width reductions, combat size increases, or some combination of the two, the exact same result can be achieved.

And since it would be the same thing either way, it would be simpler for users to interact with if we only used one of the two methods instead of trying to use both. And if we're only going to be using one of them, it might as well be the one that is already in the game and people should be familiar with.

Giving the templates -50% width (instead of the terrain) is the same as what I am arguing. But instead of taking an either-or approach, I'm saying what if the terrain and divisional widths got separate treatment? Because there's a big difference between doing just one or the other (and getting the same result either way) versus doing both simultaneously & independently, which gives a very different result and lends itself to all sorts of combos. If the terrain widens and the division contracts, then that's not the same as widening both or contracting both.

It could be. You just haven't suggested anything that might actually do that for us to discuss that particular angle on things.

So all the talk I've given about making historically-accurate templates viable rather than cookie-cutter solutions that break the laws of physics don't count?

 

[Michael Gladius]

In these suggestion threads it's really important to remember Paradox' guidance, which is stickied on top of the Suggestions forum.

I quote these three pieces of guidance in particular

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/suggestions-on-how-to-make-suggestions-please-read-before-posting.944793/

This thread would lead to more constructive discussion if the OP clearly defined one problem rather than a broad and diverse list of solutions.

This thread would lead to more constructive discussion if it used words how they are commonly used in the community.

This thread would lead to more constructive discussion if it could point to real existing mods that implement these changes in ways that address the OP's single well defined problem.

I'm not saying this to imply that anyone is right or wrong. I'm saying it to remind posters that Paradox made these rules for a reason.

You need to ask yourself as a matter of prediction, when I make a post that doesn't follow Paradox' guidance, is this post likely to elicit constructive suggestions?

If the answer is No, then it doesn't matter how good or bad the ideas are, the post should not be made.

This is a collection thread- most of the ideas have been posted as individual ones, but they're spread out over months. Consolidating them together as a single theme is not breaking the rules, but rather an invitation to discuss how to improve the game's mechanics.

The other problem is, most mods don't alter the game's guts. To know what those are like, one must play with no DLC enabled.

 

[Michael Gladius]

This is almost entirely incorrect

The AI's decision algorithms are based on the battleplanner and using it. And while the coding behind that isn't entirely known, the math behind it has nothing to do with the units themselves. That's the reason it can't use tanks: It has no idea how to because to them it's just another unit

Therefore, changing anything about the units and their statistics will not change anything about the AI. There are no minor mechanical changes you could implement that would cause the AI to act any different aside from changing the AI itself

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the AI used algorithms based on the battleplanner and can't manage its troops as well as a human. But it's hard to argue that bad templates being viable and cost-effective has nothing to do with it.

To use your tank example: the AI calculates how much IC it will take to build tank battalions, and uses multiplication/division to calculate how many tanks it can field. Tanks are much more expensive and resource-demanding than dismounted infantry, so the next logical question is: how well can dismounted infantry fare against tanks? Because if dismounted infantry can hold their own against tanks, then tanks are an expensive luxury that consume more supplies and have heftier penalties.

It's even worse for motorized infantry- they have all the cost disadvantages of tanks, but don't perform any better than dismounted. So for the price of a few motorized divisions, one can afford many times their number if dismounted. And since dismounted divisions with 18 battalions apiece have fewer penalties and can outlast motor/mech/armor in a contest of ORG loss, then they are mathematically preferential.

This proposal fixes nothing. There is nothing that it changes. Nothing that it alters. Nothing that happens any different

This proposal simply causes the same thing to happen in a different way. And that is a waste of developer time

False on both counts.

The proposal to fix game problems on the inside alters quite a lot about the game. Dismounted panzergrenadier-space-marines are now no longer able to march 500 miles through desert and overpower motorized infantry. Fortifications and entrenchment now require different attacks to be overcome. Units in low supply can't keep trudging on forever and outfighting other units in low supply for free- they now cost command power for short bursts. Instead of forever spamming divisions, now there's a dynamic cap to how many can be on the field, with crippling economic penalties if they field too many. Strategic movement isn't cheesed so easily. And so on.

The reason you think this is causing the same thing to happen a different way is because you are thinking in terms of single actions, not combos. This is one-dimensional thinking, and dumbs down gameplay to the AI's level of smarts. Simple single actions make the game easy to pick up for new players, but combos allow more experienced players to do more than press the same buttons over and over again. Focusing on combos and multiple ways to skin a cat also means players can choose the means as well as the ends- how a goal is accomplished can be just as enjoyable as accomplishing it.

If the words you are saying isn't being understood the way you want to, then you need to use different words in order to be understood

It doesn't matter if the words you are using are technically correct. If people don't understand, then they are the wrong words to use

The reader's illiteracy and single-mindedness does not make me wrong. Especially when I am trying to propose dual-purpose fixes to an audience that can only think in one-dimensional terms.

 

[The Colonel]

Whenever I play as the French, the Germans send bloated infantry divisions with no tanks and they sweep over the Maginot Line if it is defended by historical-template infantry divisions. I don't have the DLC for siege guns enabled, so they are not a factor.

I'm not gonna lie this just sounds like a major skill issue my guy.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Giving the templates -50% width (instead of the terrain) is the same as what I am arguing.

I'm glad we're making progress.

But instead of taking an either-or approach, I'm saying what if the terrain and divisional widths got separate treatment?

I must be missing a crucial piece of information about how you're going to be separating these things, and having the difference between them be meaningful at all.

Because there's a big difference between doing just one or the other (and getting the same result either way) versus doing both simultaneously & independently, which gives a very different result and lends itself to all sorts of combos.

I have no idea how you think that having them both is going to lead a different result that can be used for whatever amount of combos. No matter what we set either of these values to (sizes adjustments of templates or combats), we could get the exact same result by completely ignoring one of the values and only playing with the other.

If the terrain widens and the division contracts, then that's not the same as widening both or contracting both.

It is though. Continuing with the same 20w templates, 90w combat, and wanting to perfectly fit 9 of these templates into that combat. We've already gone over the -50% template, +100% combat, and -25%/+50% combination. But we could also do something absolutely silly like +25%/+200% which is widening both and gives us 30w templates in a 270w combat, which fits 9. We could also contract both, -75% template -50% combat, to get 5w templates in a 45w combat, that results in the same 9 templates in the combat.

We ultimately have a formula that looks like... (90x)/(20y)=9. We got the 90 width of the basic combat, x being 1+ the +% from tactics, 20w templates and y being 1- your proposed tactics-based modification of the template width, and the output of 9 which is the example being used. We can choose any value we want for either x or y, and still be able to solve for the other variable. There isn't really anything interesting or magical about this. Do you know why? Because we can simplify that formula into x=2y.

So all the talk I've given about making historically-accurate templates viable rather than cookie-cutter solutions that break the laws of physics don't count?

As laudable a goal as wanting to bring more historicity into a WW2 game might be... nope, none of that counts. Because none of it has to do with the combat width mechanics and problems of the combat width mechanics themselves. We can talk about that after we're done sorting through this other topic though, I'll say more about this until then.

 

[Michael Gladius]

I'm not gonna lie this just sounds like a major skill issue my guy.

Putting historical fortress divisions into the highest-level fortifications and then being overrun by 18-infantry-battalion (bear in mind, the biggest most unwieldy WWI divisions had 12 infantry battalions) panzergrenadier-space-marines is gameplay breaking the laws of physics. So the only way to not be beaten by physics-defying mechanics is to do a lot of statistical math.

When you break the laws of physics, things become less intuitive, not more.

 

[Michael Gladius]

I must be missing a crucial piece of information about how you're going to be separating these things, and having the difference between them be meaningful at all.

The crucial piece is that they are independent variables, and the difference is meaningful because you can change one without needing to change both.

I have no idea how you think that having them both is going to lead a different result that can be used for whatever amount of combos. No matter what we set either of these values to (sizes adjustments of templates or combats), we could get the exact same result by completely ignoring one of the values and only playing with the other.

It is though. Continuing with the same 20w templates, 90w combat, and wanting to perfectly fit 9 of these templates into that combat. We've already gone over the -50% template, +100% combat, and -25%/+50% combination. But we could also do something absolutely silly like +25%/+200% which is widening both and gives us 30w templates in a 270w combat, which fits 9. We could also contract both, -75% template -50% combat, to get 5w templates in a 45w combat, that results in the same 9 templates in the combat.

We ultimately have a formula that looks like... (90x)/(20y)=9. We got the 90 width of the basic combat, x being 1+ the +% from tactics, 20w templates and y being 1- your proposed tactics-based modification of the template width, and the output of 9 which is the example being used. We can choose any value we want for either x or y, and still be able to solve for the other variable. There isn't really anything interesting or magical about this. Do you know why? Because we can simplify that formula into x=2y.

You are going with flat rates for both, whereas I'm suggesting different terrain have different effects. So if one terrain has a +100% increase in width while another has +50%, but the tactic makes the division compress 30% in both situations, the mathematical outcome isn't identical. Or, if the terrain multiplier is the same in both battles, say +50%, but one tactic reduces division width by -30% and another tactic reduces it by -20%, then you get very different outcomes from one divisional template.

Or, alternatively, one variable could be multiplication/division and the other be addition/subtraction. It's entirely possible to have a tactic reduce combat width by (+/-5) while the terrain is multiplied by 20%.

As laudable a goal as wanting to bring more historicity into a WW2 game might be... nope, none of that counts. Because none of it has to do with the combat width mechanics and problems of the combat width mechanics themselves. We can talk about that after we're done sorting through this other topic though, I'll say more about this until then.

So fixing the problems with the combat width mechanics themselves to achieve historical (and laws of physics) accuracy isn't consistent with any of that? I thought the definition of a fix was taking something that doesn't work and making it work, and/or work better.

 

[Corpse Fool]

So if one terrain has a +100% increase in width while another has +50%

Plains allow for 12.5% more width than hills do, so we already have terrains throwing around different +%'s to the widths of combats.

the tactic makes the division compress 30% in both situations

Having the tactic compress the templates would be the same as adding width to the combat, just like encirclement currently does. The tactic modifier is also currently multiplicative with the terrain modifier, so the scenario you describe is functionally identical to what we have in the game already.

the mathematical outcome isn't identical.

I'm not sure why you would be expecting it to be. I'm not saying that a +100% with a -30% would be the same as a +50% with a -30%. I'm saying a +100% with a -30% is the same as a +~185%.

Using the same 90w combat with the 20w templates as examples. +100% to combat gives us 180w, -30% to template makes them 14w. We can fit ~12.85 templates into that combat. ~12.85 of the 20w templates would be ~257w of combat, and to get there from 90 we just need to have a total modifier of ~+185% to the width of the combat.

Or, alternatively, one variable could be multiplication/division and the other be addition/subtraction. It's entirely possible to have a tactic reduce combat width by (+/-5) while the terrain is multiplied by 20%.

Something like this certainly would actually change things. And once we've resolved the other issue I would like to focus on, perhaps we could advance to discussing something like this in an effort to achieve your goals. Until then, lets get back to the task at hand.

 

[LordWahu]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the AI used algorithms based on the battleplanner and can't manage its troops as well as a human. But it's hard to argue that bad templates being viable and cost-effective has nothing to do with it.

To use your tank example: the AI calculates how much IC it will take to build tank battalions, and uses multiplication/division to calculate how many tanks it can field. Tanks are much more expensive and resource-demanding than dismounted infantry, so the next logical question is: how well can dismounted infantry fare against tanks? Because if dismounted infantry can hold their own against tanks, then tanks are an expensive luxury that consume more supplies and have heftier penalties.

It's even worse for motorized infantry- they have all the cost disadvantages of tanks, but don't perform any better than dismounted. So for the price of a few motorized divisions, one can afford many times their number if dismounted. And since dismounted divisions with 18 battalions apiece have fewer penalties and can outlast motor/mech/armor in a contest of ORG loss, then they are mathematically preferential.

The AI doesn't make IC decisions

The AI has a specific set of templates it's supposed to make. It then spends the IC and XP to make those templates. Occasionally there will be a line of code saying "prioritize a specific equipment type" but that's pretty rare

The AI has nothing in it that makes any kind of cost analysis

False on both counts.

The proposal to fix game problems on the inside alters quite a lot about the game. Dismounted panzergrenadier-space-marines are now no longer able to march 500 miles through desert and overpower motorized infantry. Fortifications and entrenchment now require different attacks to be overcome. Units in low supply can't keep trudging on forever and outfighting other units in low supply for free- they now cost command power for short bursts. Instead of forever spamming divisions, now there's a dynamic cap to how many can be on the field, with crippling economic penalties if they field too many. Strategic movement isn't cheesed so easily. And so on.

The reason you think this is causing the same thing to happen a different way is because you are thinking in terms of single actions, not combos. This is one-dimensional thinking, and dumbs down gameplay to the AI's level of smarts. Simple single actions make the game easy to pick up for new players, but combos allow more experienced players to do more than press the same buttons over and over again. Focusing on combos and multiple ways to skin a cat also means players can choose the means as well as the ends- how a goal is accomplished can be just as enjoyable as accomplishing it.

The comment in question is specifically on the argument of combat width and tactics. Making tactics change the width of the battle, and changing the width of individual units both have the same effect, and therefore there is no need to choose one over the other. Therefore the optimal choice is the one that already exists

The reader's illiteracy and single-mindedness does not make me wrong. Especially when I am trying to propose dual-purpose fixes to an audience that can only think in one-dimensional terms.

Insulting your audience doesn't help your point. Ever

You want people to listen and understand what you say. That means you have to make a proposal to them in a way they understand and can agree with

If you want people to understand...you have to find a way to say what you want to say in a way they understand

 

[Had a dad]

when 1 person dominates the replies, you know the thread has gone off the rails