Suggested Option for Play against AI - Troop Type Ratio's

[anthonykevinluke]

Hi,

I was wondering if you could create an option or switch to limit a player to historical ratios of Arty, Cav and Inf. I find that it is too easy too win by creating lots of Arty and the AI cannot compete. Making it a 'switch' would not force it on anyone but enable it for those who are seeking more realistic ratios. For your consideration.

Tony

[moose1999]

I like this idea.
Sign me up for it!

Remember to mention it in the Wishlist Thread on the top of the page.
That way you can be sure the devs remember your suggestion a take it into consideration.

[ericbabe]

I've strongly considered making national limits on all types of artillery.  This would be something easy to mod, in any case.

[barbarossa2]

Once again, I am a "free market" advocate in games. In this case, that means that if people are building way more artillery units than were historically fielded, then the units are either a) too powerful or b) too cheap, or c) just too easy to come by.

Capping the number of artillery is a cheap and dirty fix. But it doesn't address the imbalance in the system. It is like putting rent caps on apartments.

I say either make artillery a) less powerful, b) more expensive, or c) harder to come by.

Some might say b and c are closely linked. But I don't think they are exactly the same thing. I am sure Peter the Great would have loved to make more cannon and could have afforded to pay for them IF the supply of bronze would have been better. For him, his problem was there weren't enough church bells to tear down and convert. You could raise the cost of artillery in terms of "metal" and then it wouldn't be the money capping its production, but the availability of the raw material. I do think it would be cool to give players an option to "plunder" the church bells of their nations in exchange for a drop in national morale.

I also think that you should use PBEM human mult games to see what kinds of artillery numbers humans are fielding against other humans to see if the system works. Who knows what kinds of tricks people come up with to beat a computer that can't learn and can't change its behavior.

[Franck]

I agree with barbarossa espescially since if you make this a special against AI only rule (as the original poster seems to indicate). I mean anyone can agree with himself NOT to build more than X artillery... no?

[Mike Parker]

I wish I hada better handle on the problem described.  Is it just that the AI builds too few Artillery, or is it that a Human can build very unrealistic amounts of artillery?
 
If its the AI not building enough, that is easily fixed I would think, just have the AI build more artillery.  if its instead that a Human player can build ahistorical amounts of artillery, then it becomes harder to control.  I wouldn't neccessarily limit the amount of artillery a nation can have, but rather change things in the game to discourage ahistorical builds (or strongly ahistorical).  You can do that by adjusting the $, or requiring certain resources.  You could also do it by making Artillery much more susceptable to being overrun without plenty of support.
 
if a corp of 2 Inf 6 Art is abusive (and it would be I think from a historical perspective) then changing how such a formation performs is a possible fix that could be implimented instead of or along with a change in how much arty costs. 

[Rondor]

What do you think of simply raising the maintenance costs on arty to a level such that a country can only afford upkeep on limited amount of arty and the larger you economy the larger your arty pool.

[Randomizer]

I am against imposed absolute restrictions on principle but...
 
Perhaps something like the limitations imposed on weapons purchases in FoF, there is a cap and it can be exceeded but it doing so results in rapidly increasing purchase and maintanence costs.  Any limitations should be doctrinal more than material and maybe a cap could be increased by an experiance upgrade requiring some significant prequisite upgrades.
 
I would also suggest that any limiting factors be tied to relative numbers of other arms rather than in the form of an absolute cap, for example one Artillery per Corps and Army and perhaps another one or two at the national level to represent the schools and depots.
 
The reason why all-artillery armies did not exist was that they would a.) be hugely expensive; b.) be hugely vulnerable and c.) be hugely ineffective in most battle situations.  If the game's combat system reflects these realities the reasons to build Corps of 6-Artillery and 2-Infantry goes away without imposing artificial limitations.
 
Regards

[Mus]

FOF had a way of discouraging players from concentrating Artillery in their Corps.  Your supply level was averaged across units in the Corps and Artillery units were harder to supply to any given level in FOF than an infantry unit, although the details from FOF are a little hazy as I have played it in some time.
 
 

[anthonykevinluke]

Hi,
 
Thanks for your interest and replies. For those 'opposed' to the suggestion I would like to point out that it was clearly an option that you can choose, not a compulsory requirement. My desire was soley based on a desire to more accurately reflect the balance at the time. The base ratio would probably be based on regular inf. There are a number of good references that enable you to work out the ratios of arty, Light and Hvy cav, GD etc. Again, just a desire for some historical ratios and not compusory by any means. For your consideration.
 
Tony

[ericbabe]

The AI is "encouraged" to purchase units in historical proportions -- so the Russians and French tend to buy lots of artillery; the Austrians, a lot of cavalry; and so forth.

This file can be modded if people want to increase the proportions of certain types of units (a Modder's Guide is on the way.)