Absurd War Support for AI

[RenzR_]

in my current run USA suffered 6.8 million casualties, war support 85%; UK 4.10 million casualties, 76%.

France capitulated; USSR collapsed; middle east, north africa, egypt ethiopia lost.

Isn't this ridiculous?

Shouldn't they at least seek some conditional peace?

 

[Joshua Happytree]

in my current run USA suffered 6.8 million casualties, war support 85%; UK 4.10 million casualties, 76% ... Shouldn't they at least seek some conditional peace?

So:

1. A human controlled GER in SP should have no chance to invade and fight on the Isles and/or CONUS. UK and US should just surrender and deprive players of a chance to fight.
2. Performance for all coutries involved into fighting in MP -- production, CP etc. -- should drown into abyss as combat is more even-handed and prolonged. And instead of concentrating on the war players should be busy tackling mass desertions, strikes and other nasty events.

Isn't THIS riduculous for a wargame?

 

[RenzR_]

So:

1. A human controlled GER in SP should have no chance to invade and fight on the Isles and/or CONUS. UK and US should just surrender and deprive players of a chance to fight.
2. Performance for all coutries involved into fighting in MP -- production, CP etc. -- should drown into abyss as combat is more even-handed and prolonged. And instead of concentrating on the war players should be busy tackling mass desertions, strikes and other nasty events.

Isn't THIS riduculous for a wargame?

well, no.

given that this particular wargame seeks to replicate more facets of a war than simply moving armies on the map, there is no reason to to exclude conditional surrenders.
I am not even saying that you should be forced to accept those.

Also, if a mechanic is in the game, why should it work only against me and not also for me? why does the player have to bother keeping it as high as possible lest he faces maluses and even defeat, while the AI should not? Pretty dumb gameplay design if you ask me. Also kills any and all immersion.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

given that this particular wargame seeks to replicate more facets of a war than simply moving armies on the map

What makes you think so? The very foundation of a wargame -- combat model -- differs so much from RL WWII that you cannot build WWII simulator on top of it. Putting naval combat aside there were no RL nearly instantenious land unit cycling, no orgwalls, no province supply that allows encircled but well-entrenched divs to keep fighting for very loooong time, especially if they're surrounder near capital hub of unlimited supply etc. You can kludge around one aspect of the game to make LOOK like RL but it'll inevitably create even bigger problems for others because evrything is interconnected.

if a mechanic is in the game, why should it work only against me and not also for me? why does the player have to bother keeping it as high as possible lest he faces maluses and even defeat, while the AI should not?

Again what makes you think so? There're no cheats for AI. Unless you tune it through difficulty settings or scripts are used in some particular cases to imitate RL history, whatever maluses you get due to low war support AI faces them as well.