How can little countries win so big?

[Onthebeach]

Hi to the Dev Team. I'd better preface my first post here by saying I am still eagerly waiting on my boxed game to arrive in the post so have not played SRCW yet, but I do have a query based on what I've seen on the forums.

Looking at the AAR section I have seen that little countries (Ireland, Afghanistan etc etc), when selected by a player in the sandbox mode, seem to be able to win really big - conquering neighbours and even, in one case with Ireland, being able to land a man on the moon.

Now, while I fully grasp that Sandbox mode is obviously not the meat and potatoes of this game - that must surely be the USA v the USSR - and it is obviously the best way to learn how the game works, by starting small, to my way of thinking there is no way a country like Ireland could ever have achieved so much clout and world dominion.

Little countries surely should NOT ever be allowed to win in this way. It doesn't happen in real life. It suggests to me that the game model needs tweaking so only big countries can achieve big things. Can the Dev Team comment on that?

Historically, for a country to achieve big things it needs, first, a reasonable range of natural resources, then a large population, and a good GNP. At a certain critical mass things start to expand and greatness can be achieved. I think the game engine treats all countries the same, and therein lies the problem.

My suggestion would be for the game engine to impose penalties (not sure what, the coders would know best, maybe something like a % cut in allocation of whatever values decide income, production, fighting efficiency) on countries which do not have at least a certain size, population, and range of natural resources. Again, the coders can figure out the cut off point.

It should be a sliding scale, so countries like the USA, USSR, Britain, France etc would not be penalised at all. Smaller countries like Australia and Canada may be penalised somewhat, while really small ones like Ireland and Afghanistan REALLY have an uphill battle to make their mark on the world stage.

Yes, unfair, but more realistic. Of course, very small counties would never dominate the world but it would still let players play them to learn the basics. AND, for the skillful players who have learned the game, playing a little country would provided a very challenging game to play with the dice loaded against them.

I hope this suggestion is practical. I just think little countries should not be getting the advantages they seem to be getting now. I apologise in advance to the game coders - so many people write in with "suggestions" to any new game that would involve huge re-writes of code, often for very little improvement in the game, I hope this is not one of those.
cheers, Kim in Australia
On The Beach

[Fistalis]

Small nations are penalized by a lack of resources, lack of population, lack of starting mlitary, lack of military production, lack of military designs Lack of technology at start etc. That doesn't mean its not possible for you to gain more of those by conquering neighbors, building up your country over time and diplomacy.

People tend to use small nations to increase the challenge, hence why you see many AARs based on small nations. The limitations of small countries are exactly like those in real life, not some abstract penalties. Once you play the game you will understand this a bit better.

As to the "no way a small country could achieve so much"... some people probably figured Germany could never achieve much given the state of that country after world war 1.

[Onthebeach]

ah, but Germany WOULD be one of the countries which would never be penalised by the game engine. It is big enough, has the population, and the resources. My point was that small counties - like Ireland but don't accuse me of anto-Irish sentiments - should not be able to put men on the moon, as apparently happened in one of those AARs. They simply don't have the huge resources and infrastructure to ever achieve something like that.

Yes, small counties do start off with few resources but if the game lets that sort of thing - moon landings - happen then the code appears to be unbalanced and the coders ought to give thought to introducing a hidden penalty system to make sure they get even more disadvantaged.

[Fistalis]

ah, but Germany WOULD be one of the countries which would never be penalised by the game engine. It is big enough, has the population, and the resources. My point was that small counties - like Ireland but don't accuse me of anto-Irish sentiments - should not be able to put men on the moon, as apparently happened in one of those AARs. They simply don't have the huge resources and infrastructure to ever achieve something like that.

Yes, small counties do start off with few resources but if the game lets that sort of thing - moon landings - happen then the code appears to be unbalanced and the coders ought to give thought to introducing a hidden penalty system to make sure they get even more disadvantaged.

Code is fine.. I think your perceptions of what is possible are off. What exactly is it about Ireland that makes you think that a moon landing would be impossible for them to achieve? Are the irish incapable of space flight? I don't get why you think small nations should be penalized more than they already are, just because some player decided to use all his resources toward achieving a tech victory with ireland. Did they do this in 1980? or 1990? 1976? or was it 2010? or does it matter to you? The irish just aren't capable of space flight...Even if they conquer the U.K and put all their resources into technological advances?

so by your thinking places in africa have a better chance to get a man on the moon than ireland because they have more people.. are a larger size and more resources?

I think you need to learn how many nations actually have the capability today... just don't put resources into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_agencies

Just about any of those nations could have achieved it sooner had they put more resources into it.


Oh well.. we'll agree to disagree.

p.s. Germany is a small nation.. smaller than 62 other nations in the world..

[Hundane]

Little countries surely should NOT ever be allowed to win in this way.

They should be harder to play but not ever allowed not to win.

for the skillful players who have learned the game, playing a little country would provided a very challenging game to play with the dice loaded against them

.

This is not the type of game you play to see if you can beat it or how fast it can be done although you can play it that way. Its more about how you win or how you get there.

The game doesnt limit you to what you can do but you can limit yourself as to what you can do to make your game more challenging. You dont have to max out your military spending, your research spending, social spendings, taxes etc... You dont have to become self sufficient in every commodity, you dont have to build upteen research centers or conduct tech trade or design trades. But you can if you want to... and the game is flexible enough to allow you to challenge yourself at any point during the game.

IMO, the game does lack a certain penalty when it comes to players becoming a "Supreme Ruler". Thats the loyalty of the military under his control. Its one thing to have loyal citizens in your regions armed forces but quite another when your armed forces are primarly citizens of conquered regions whose loyality would still be questionable. Give enough of those people guns and equipment and they may just try to retake their fallen region.

[KesslerK09]

I enjoy playing smaller countries because it’s easier to manage for me. I think you may have read my comment about me using Ireland and landing on the moon. Once you know the fundamentals of the game almost anything is possible. You also need to know your history and a general background of almost every country. Ireland for example is nice because it sits directly behind jolly ole England. To the west is Canada and United States. So why waste money on military when there is a very slim chance of being invaded. Invest the money you would have invested on the military into technologies and public spending. You increase standard of living plus increase population.