Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by AussieGiant:
There certainly is always a reason to go to war. The point is those reasons can be wide, varied and range from explainable to the average person to totally inexplicable to the average person.
If you refute this Didz, then it's going to be a long, detailed and painful experience.
I don't. I agree that the reasons can vary widely, only recently we have experienced a war that so far has killed over a million people and the basic reason my country was involved was that Tony Blair knew he needed a war to boost his popularity in the public opinion polls or he would lose his grasp on power. You don't get much more varied than that. There certainly is always a reason to go to war. The point is those reasons can be wide, varied and range from explainable to the average person to totally inexplicable to the average person.
If you refute this Didz, then it's going to be a long, detailed and painful experience.
However, I don't think even Blair thought the war would be the disaster it has been. I think he actually believed Bushes fantasy idea that it would be a quick surgical strike, that he would be hailed as a hero of democracy, get to parade around Iraq have his pictures taken being worshipped by its newly appointed overlords and walk into another five years of power just like Maggie Thatcher did after the Falklands War. Both he and Bush got a nasty surprise, Bush even made the mistake of declaring the war over. So, yes the reason for a war can be very varied but even Bush and Blair didn't think they would lose out, by starting one.
However, all that is irrelevent to the discoveryI've made and I think you are missing the point. This is a strategy game, and most of us bought this game because we wanted to play a strategy game, and no matter what the reason nations do not go to war unless they think they can gain something from it, even if what they hope to gain is actually based upon a political fabrication.
What I've discovered is that none of this applies to the 'dumb diplomacy' problem. Which is just the result of a programmer have laugh at our expense. The good news is that there is a way to give this little git the finger and carry on playing the game properly.
I am now at 1715 in my game and France has remained happy and silent in its own personal war of self-annihilation. Not very clever for France but at least I've managed to avoid going down with them.
The bottom line is that if you are happy to be shafted by a geek with a god complex then thats up to you, but a lot of people on this forum have expressed disatisfaction with the diplomacy system, and it seems most of these problems can be justifiably blamed on a geeks bad sense of humour.
Originally Posted by Didz:
I don't. I agree that the reasons can vary widely, only recently we have experienced a war that so far has killed over a million people and the basic reason my country was involved was that Tony Blair knew he needed a war to boost his popularity in the public opinion polls or he would lose his grasp on power. You don't get much more varied than that.
However, I don't think even Blair thought the war would be the disaster it has been. I think he actually believed Bushes fantasy idea that it would be a quick surgical strike, that he would be hailed as a hero of democracy, get to parade around Iraq have his pictures taken being worshipped by its newly appointed overlords and walk into another five years of power just like Maggie Thatcher did after the Falklands War. Both he and Bush got a nasty surprise, Bush even made the mistake of declaring the war over. So, yes the reason for a war can be very varied but even Bush and Blair didn't think they would lose out, by starting one.
However, all that is irrelevent to the discoveryI've made and I think you are missing the point. This is a strategy game, and most of us bought this game because we wanted to play a strategy game, and no matter what the reason nations do not go to war unless they think they can gain something from it, even if what they hope to gain is actually based upon a political fabrication.
What I've discovered is that none of this applies to the 'dumb diplomacy' problem. Which is just the result of a programmer have laugh at our expense. The good news is that there is a way to give this little git the finger and carry on playing the game properly.
I am now at 1715 in my game and France has remained happy and silent in its own personal war of self-annihilation. Not very clever for France but at least I've managed to avoid going down with them.
The bottom line is that if you are happy to be shafted by a geek with a god complex then thats up to you, but a lot of people on this forum have expressed disatisfaction with the diplomacy system, and it seems most of these problems can be justifiably blamed on a geeks bad sense of humour.
Hear, Hear !I don't. I agree that the reasons can vary widely, only recently we have experienced a war that so far has killed over a million people and the basic reason my country was involved was that Tony Blair knew he needed a war to boost his popularity in the public opinion polls or he would lose his grasp on power. You don't get much more varied than that.
However, I don't think even Blair thought the war would be the disaster it has been. I think he actually believed Bushes fantasy idea that it would be a quick surgical strike, that he would be hailed as a hero of democracy, get to parade around Iraq have his pictures taken being worshipped by its newly appointed overlords and walk into another five years of power just like Maggie Thatcher did after the Falklands War. Both he and Bush got a nasty surprise, Bush even made the mistake of declaring the war over. So, yes the reason for a war can be very varied but even Bush and Blair didn't think they would lose out, by starting one.
However, all that is irrelevent to the discoveryI've made and I think you are missing the point. This is a strategy game, and most of us bought this game because we wanted to play a strategy game, and no matter what the reason nations do not go to war unless they think they can gain something from it, even if what they hope to gain is actually based upon a political fabrication.
What I've discovered is that none of this applies to the 'dumb diplomacy' problem. Which is just the result of a programmer have laugh at our expense. The good news is that there is a way to give this little git the finger and carry on playing the game properly.
I am now at 1715 in my game and France has remained happy and silent in its own personal war of self-annihilation. Not very clever for France but at least I've managed to avoid going down with them.
The bottom line is that if you are happy to be shafted by a geek with a god complex then thats up to you, but a lot of people on this forum have expressed disatisfaction with the diplomacy system, and it seems most of these problems can be justifiably blamed on a geeks bad sense of humour.
Things that don’t affect game play are fine.
A very occasional surprise would be one thing, though in the game as it stands it is endemic and ubiquitous. Damn their eyes!
Well Didz, I'd have to say your point is theory at best and until CA confirm or deny your preposition it will remain only a theory.
More than likely there are random DOW coded to provide a level of uncertainty which is something that all strategy games are looking to represent, because with all strategy there must be a certain level of unpredictability. Strategy is a human endeavour and therefore unpredictability is an advantage and regarded as a positive attribute. Sun Tzu is a good read on this topic.
I certainly see your point but I believe we are unable to find common ground as you say:
This is a strategy game, and most of us bought this game because we wanted to play a strategy game, and no matter what the reason nations do not go to war unless they think they can gain something from it, even if what they hope to gain is actually based upon a political fabrication.
I say, that as a strategy game which is attempting to portray real strategy as attempted by people, then completely rational behaviour, which therefore would lead to very predictable behaviour is not ideal.
With that statement alone I can therefore not agree that the reason nations go to war is because they solely have something to gain. That can certainly be one of the reasons, but there can be other less obvious and therefore less clear reasons for declaring war on other nations.
This discussion is getting pretty theoretical at this time...which is a good thing, and I really do get the approach that there should be an explanation and perhaps something to gain by a DOW.
However, I'm sure Hitler thought he had something to gain, and to him it was very clear. To others it was maybe less clear and to even more people it was perhaps beyond comprehension as to what he could hope to gain from declaring war on the whole world.
In the end it's all about perspective. To think your perspective is right and another perspective is wrong is not accurate in my view. More importantly, to assume you understand anothers perspective is wholly unrealistic.
More than likely there are random DOW coded to provide a level of uncertainty which is something that all strategy games are looking to represent, because with all strategy there must be a certain level of unpredictability. Strategy is a human endeavour and therefore unpredictability is an advantage and regarded as a positive attribute. Sun Tzu is a good read on this topic.
I certainly see your point but I believe we are unable to find common ground as you say:
This is a strategy game, and most of us bought this game because we wanted to play a strategy game, and no matter what the reason nations do not go to war unless they think they can gain something from it, even if what they hope to gain is actually based upon a political fabrication.
I say, that as a strategy game which is attempting to portray real strategy as attempted by people, then completely rational behaviour, which therefore would lead to very predictable behaviour is not ideal.
With that statement alone I can therefore not agree that the reason nations go to war is because they solely have something to gain. That can certainly be one of the reasons, but there can be other less obvious and therefore less clear reasons for declaring war on other nations.
This discussion is getting pretty theoretical at this time...which is a good thing, and I really do get the approach that there should be an explanation and perhaps something to gain by a DOW.
However, I'm sure Hitler thought he had something to gain, and to him it was very clear. To others it was maybe less clear and to even more people it was perhaps beyond comprehension as to what he could hope to gain from declaring war on the whole world.
In the end it's all about perspective. To think your perspective is right and another perspective is wrong is not accurate in my view. More importantly, to assume you understand anothers perspective is wholly unrealistic.
Isn’t it said that everyone is right from their side?
It is just a matter of which direction the game should take.
The best example of an Idiot war I can think of was when Argentina attacked and took the Falklands.
Their government was very unpopular and they took a gamble to shore it up.
They managed to occupy the islands, though. They didn’t sit in their capital and look across at the enemy. They didn’t send a raiding part of one cannon to Surry. They didn’t blockade Bristol.
They wanted the islands and they took them, betting that they were too unimportant to waste lives over.
We know how it turned out and the Argentines had a change of government afterwards. They didn’t continue a hopeless war until Argentina was a British possession.
Can you see some of the differences to this and the game?
It is just a matter of which direction the game should take.
The best example of an Idiot war I can think of was when Argentina attacked and took the Falklands.
Their government was very unpopular and they took a gamble to shore it up.
They managed to occupy the islands, though. They didn’t sit in their capital and look across at the enemy. They didn’t send a raiding part of one cannon to Surry. They didn’t blockade Bristol.
They wanted the islands and they took them, betting that they were too unimportant to waste lives over.
We know how it turned out and the Argentines had a change of government afterwards. They didn’t continue a hopeless war until Argentina was a British possession.
Can you see some of the differences to this and the game?
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
The best example of an Idiot war I can think of was when Argentina attacked and took the Falklands.
The Falklands War was a perfect example of a war motivated by a desire to retain personal power.The best example of an Idiot war I can think of was when Argentina attacked and took the Falklands.
On the Argentine side Galtieri he had only been in office four months and already his popularity had sunk to an all time low and he was barely clinging onto power. He needed to do something desperate to try and boost his popular support before he got the boot and he honestly believed that Britain had lost interest in defending their possession of the Falklands Island because at the time the Conservative Government had their own problems at home and the Foriegn Office were giving out all the wrong diplomatic signals. He actually thought if he acted decisively and caught Britain off-guard they would accept the fait-accompli and at least limit their response to diplomatic pressure, whilst his populatity at home would soar through the roof and he would go down in history as a hero of Argentine people.
Unfortunately, whoever advised him was a total and utter prat. Under normal circumstances the plan might have worked, but in fact what he failed to take into account was the fact that his opposite number Maggie Thatcher was in exactly the same situation he was. Her popularity with the British people was at an absolute zero, 'get the bitch out' level after the disasterous introduction of the Poll Tax which was universally hated by everyone. Her own party vultures were circling and getting ready to fight over her bones.
Thatchers political career was about to 'crash and burn' and the only issue was whether she would take the Conservative Party with her. She was about to go down in history and biggest bitch since Marie Antoinette and so when the Argentine invaded South Georgia it was like someone had just come along side the Titanic in a luxury yaght. She had nothing to lose and the decision to jump was a no brainer.
In fact, there was no way that war was ever not going to happen and the American's and Peru were just wasting their time trying to negotiate a settlement. A settlement wouldn't have saved either Galtieri or Thatchers political careers, there had to be blood spilt and one of them had to be able to claim total victory.
Indeed when a peaceful solution looked like a real possibility it was Thatcher who issued to personal order to sink the Belgrano and force Galtieri to stick with the programme or lose everything.
Thatcher won, she got five more years of power as a result, and has gone down in history as a great woman with a lecture circuit in the US that kept her in corsets till she was too old to care. And all it cost was a few thousand lives.
Galtieri lost becuase his advisers were stupid and didn't look beyond the ends of their noses before telling him to go for it. He was removed from power and ended up standing trial on human rights violations, and with mismanagement of the Falklands War.
He was cleared of the civil rights charges in December 1985 but (together with the Air Force and Navy commanders-in-chief) found guilty of mishandling the war and sentenced to prison. All three appealed (this time in a civil court) while the prosecution appealed for heavier sentences. In November 1988 the original sentences were confirmed and all three commanders were stripped of their rank.
Galtieri served five years in prison before receiving President Carlos Menem's pardon in 1991.
Unfortunately, Tony Blair was more lucky even though the amount of blood on his hands is about 100x greater and mostly that of innocent civilians. He ran off and prostrated himself at the feet of the pope he was so scared of what might happen to him, but it seems that the establishment in this country protect their own and despite a lot of posturing he actually got away with it.
It was obviously the 'Thatcher Effect' that Blair was after when he agreed to join in Bushes private little war. And just like Galtieri he got the whole thing completely wrong. Thanks to him our grandchildren will still be paying the price for his ambition.
I agree Slaists, there need to be some degree of randomness, but it should not be insanely, suicidally random to often. Yes, they most definitely need to fix the AI and its inability to make peace with other AI factions, and its inability to build a decent military. We can only hope...
I also believe Slaists requested fixes would do a great deal to solve the situation.
Nice executive summary on the Falklands War Didz. It's been a while since I studied that excellent little skirmish.
It might be as easy as the:
"Ends justify the means."
So, the next time you upset the Sun King by canceling alliance (for whatever reason) you'd have 2-3 French linemen stacks marching across Pyrenees the very first turn Louis gets out of his bed on the wrong foot.
If this was the situation, then it all becomes mute as to why the war began...the real issue is:
"How the hell do we prevent the French Guards from pillaging all of Spain?!"
Nice executive summary on the Falklands War Didz. It's been a while since I studied that excellent little skirmish.
It might be as easy as the:
"Ends justify the means."
So, the next time you upset the Sun King by canceling alliance (for whatever reason) you'd have 2-3 French linemen stacks marching across Pyrenees the very first turn Louis gets out of his bed on the wrong foot.
If this was the situation, then it all becomes mute as to why the war began...the real issue is:
"How the hell do we prevent the French Guards from pillaging all of Spain?!"
Well it seems to me that someone has done a lot of excellent work in the background producing quite a nice factoring system to keep track of what the other factions think of you and why. Just a shame it doesn't seem to make much differece to game play.
I've been monitoring this quite closely since the random French Declaration of War and my reputation with France has risen steadily from the +35 it was then to somewhere around +88 the last time I looked.
Interestingly, I still have a -5 on most of the Factions Friend-o-meters for breaking an alliance even though the alliance wasn't with them, so thats worth noting for future reference.
Anyway, it seems that what other Factions think of you is quite well handled. What we seem to lack is any sort of routine that assesses what Factions think of themselves. There doesn't seem to be a system of sensible goals for each faction which drives their overall strategy,or even something like CIV4's (Builder, Expansionist, Aggressor) type motivation system, although of course that ought to be based upon the Head of States traits rather than the nation, and so could change over time. (Thats would actually give the assassins something useful to do)
More importantly, the AI factions never seem to do a proper Opportunity/Threat Assessment of their own position in relation to the other Factions. Nor, do they review their own performance and the performance of others to determine if their current policy needs to change.
As far as I can see, we are still looking at the basic reactive and short-sight faction attack system that existed in the very early TW games where all it does is check whether there is a nearby city with weak defences and tries to Ninja it if there is, regardless of the consequences.
The only good news, so far is that I haven't seen a Faction trigger a war by performing a pointless blockade on a friendly port. That was a feature of MTW2 as I recall, (or was it RTW.)
What is needed is something like the opening move script used in chess programmes that gives each faction a clear set of initial objectives (from a selection of different possible openings, and then constantly monitors the effect and modifies that strategy as needed)
It would also be nice to see a full implementation of the Friend-o-Meter system so that it influences foriegn policy according to your relationship with them.
Likewise the game needs a Threat-o-Meter that so that Factions correctly assess the danger they are in and from whom and used the results to influence their reactions.
Plus a How-Goes-The-War monitor that assesses their own performance, particularly in a war and encourages them to make peace or seek an alternative solution is things are clearly not going well. Nations do not go down fighting, they go down desperately seeking a way to avoid going down.
And a State-Of-The-Nation-System that assesses ways of improving the factions situation both by dipolomatic as well as military means and ensures that actions that are taken are goal oriented and viable. e.g. 'A successful nation first secures victory then goes to war, only an idiot goes to war hoping to secure victory.'
Add finally the factoring in the Head-Of-States personal influence based on his traits would add an element of interest to the state of the other nations governements which is completely lacking at the minute.
If CA did all that then we would be getting close to a decent campaign game. The good news is that most of it has already been done by other designers, so all CA really need to do is play a few other games and pinch the best of their idea's.
As far as Random Events are concerned, then I agree that they should exist. In fact, personally I'd dump all the meaningless crap about Blackbeard's Parrot Dying and Mozart's Constipation which is a complete was of data storage and replace these within meaningful Random Events that actually affect the game play. However, these events should influence the political and diplomatic situation they should not include 'screw the player' events, such as random declarations of war, unless of course the event just happened to tip your relationship over the edge.
In the meantime, I'm really pleased that I've managed to find a work around for something which was very much a game killer. Just wish I'd discovered it before I abandoned my Dutch campaign in disgust.
I've been monitoring this quite closely since the random French Declaration of War and my reputation with France has risen steadily from the +35 it was then to somewhere around +88 the last time I looked.
Interestingly, I still have a -5 on most of the Factions Friend-o-meters for breaking an alliance even though the alliance wasn't with them, so thats worth noting for future reference.
Anyway, it seems that what other Factions think of you is quite well handled. What we seem to lack is any sort of routine that assesses what Factions think of themselves. There doesn't seem to be a system of sensible goals for each faction which drives their overall strategy,or even something like CIV4's (Builder, Expansionist, Aggressor) type motivation system, although of course that ought to be based upon the Head of States traits rather than the nation, and so could change over time. (Thats would actually give the assassins something useful to do)
More importantly, the AI factions never seem to do a proper Opportunity/Threat Assessment of their own position in relation to the other Factions. Nor, do they review their own performance and the performance of others to determine if their current policy needs to change.
As far as I can see, we are still looking at the basic reactive and short-sight faction attack system that existed in the very early TW games where all it does is check whether there is a nearby city with weak defences and tries to Ninja it if there is, regardless of the consequences.
The only good news, so far is that I haven't seen a Faction trigger a war by performing a pointless blockade on a friendly port. That was a feature of MTW2 as I recall, (or was it RTW.)
What is needed is something like the opening move script used in chess programmes that gives each faction a clear set of initial objectives (from a selection of different possible openings, and then constantly monitors the effect and modifies that strategy as needed)
It would also be nice to see a full implementation of the Friend-o-Meter system so that it influences foriegn policy according to your relationship with them.
Likewise the game needs a Threat-o-Meter that so that Factions correctly assess the danger they are in and from whom and used the results to influence their reactions.
Plus a How-Goes-The-War monitor that assesses their own performance, particularly in a war and encourages them to make peace or seek an alternative solution is things are clearly not going well. Nations do not go down fighting, they go down desperately seeking a way to avoid going down.
And a State-Of-The-Nation-System that assesses ways of improving the factions situation both by dipolomatic as well as military means and ensures that actions that are taken are goal oriented and viable. e.g. 'A successful nation first secures victory then goes to war, only an idiot goes to war hoping to secure victory.'
Add finally the factoring in the Head-Of-States personal influence based on his traits would add an element of interest to the state of the other nations governements which is completely lacking at the minute.
If CA did all that then we would be getting close to a decent campaign game. The good news is that most of it has already been done by other designers, so all CA really need to do is play a few other games and pinch the best of their idea's.
As far as Random Events are concerned, then I agree that they should exist. In fact, personally I'd dump all the meaningless crap about Blackbeard's Parrot Dying and Mozart's Constipation which is a complete was of data storage and replace these within meaningful Random Events that actually affect the game play. However, these events should influence the political and diplomatic situation they should not include 'screw the player' events, such as random declarations of war, unless of course the event just happened to tip your relationship over the edge.
In the meantime, I'm really pleased that I've managed to find a work around for something which was very much a game killer. Just wish I'd discovered it before I abandoned my Dutch campaign in disgust.
Originally Posted by Didz:
The bottom line is that if you are happy to be shafted by a geek with a god complex then thats up to you, but a lot of people on this forum have expressed disatisfaction with the diplomacy system, and it seems most of these problems can be justifiably blamed on a geeks bad sense of humour.
I personally do not see as a geek's bad sense of humor but rather as a reasonable CA attempt to bring in some healthy randomness. OK, maybe in the end it has turned out to be not as healthy as some would like, but I, for one would definitely be darned bored, if ETW AI factions declared wars ONLY if the friend-ometer was at a certain point.The bottom line is that if you are happy to be shafted by a geek with a god complex then thats up to you, but a lot of people on this forum have expressed disatisfaction with the diplomacy system, and it seems most of these problems can be justifiably blamed on a geeks bad sense of humour.
I like randomness and I like being able to affect probabilities one way or another, but not being able to know the outcome 100% which actually is never the case in real life unless we are talking about death and taxes.... You get likelihoods in life, not assurances. Getting a good education, for example, is likely to help you out in life(improve the likelihood of your success), but it's not a 100% guarantee, etc., etc. If anything, I would welcome randomness (in faction characters, for example) having a boost in future patches.
But that, of course, should only come after the CAI get's fixed. For example, that French diplomatic situation you are showing is largely due to the bug that AI factions currently are unable to make peace with each other. CA has acknowledged this problem and according to their patch notes working on fixing it.
I see inter-AI diplomacy as being fixing priority #1 and then #2: the economic AI should be fixed so it actually would be able to build proper armies and fleets. So, the next time you upset the Sun King by canceling alliance (for whatever reason) you'd have 2-3 French linemen stacks marching across Pyrenees the very first turn Louis gets out of his bed on the wrong foot.
Actually, it's not that hard to fix as it seems. Imperial Splendor mod, for example, has supposedly managed to make AI factions as rich in the end-game as the player faction, by tweaking AI's development priorities. If a modder can do it, it means just that CA never really tried...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO