Jump to content

Kurt88's Forum on Unified Economic and Diplomatic Functions


JerseyJohn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kurt88

Like the existing R&D. It doesn't take more than a minute or so to determine where to put that R&D chit. And while it may take a bit longer to decide if you should spend the MPP's to purchase that chit, its because of the current game situation you are in.

I'm all for some sort of simplistic Diplomacy system that allows me to earn DP's, then spend them to influence the neutrals. But, like the others have pointed out, don't force me to manage it each and every turn.

After all, as the Supreme Leader of these nations, after we make that decision, it is up to others to handle the details (until it comes to the combat... then we want to control each and every unit!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt88

Like the existing R&D. It doesn't take more than a minute or so to determine where to put that R&D chit. And while it may take a bit longer to decide if you should spend the MPP's to purchase that chit, its because of the current game situation you are in.

I'm all for some sort of simplistic Diplomacy system that allows me to earn DP's, then spend them to influence the neutrals. But, like the others have pointed out, don't force me to manage it each and every turn.

After all, as the Supreme Leader of these nations, after we make that decision, it is up to others to handle the details (until it comes to the combat... then we want to control each and every unit!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka ,I don't think you'll have to manage it each turn.Given the nature of SC and diplomacy itself,sides will be chosen quickly.and once the full war on the whole map commences,diplomacy as goods as ends and events take over (get a good starting position is what its all about).Maybe towards the end of the scenario diplomacy again could play a few turns.

But your point is well taken.200 turns of useless dp spending is annoying when it comes down to that one resource hex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka ,I don't think you'll have to manage it each turn.Given the nature of SC and diplomacy itself,sides will be chosen quickly.and once the full war on the whole map commences,diplomacy as goods as ends and events take over (get a good starting position is what its all about).Maybe towards the end of the scenario diplomacy again could play a few turns.

But your point is well taken.200 turns of useless dp spending is annoying when it comes down to that one resource hex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

It can be an option, those who want to have a direct influence can fill the circle and those who want it random that circle. I don't see a problem.

SeaWolf

Good idea with the individual countries and their DP points. I'd go for it.

Shaka

What I think is great about Kurt's idea is you don't manage it every turn. You assign DP points to a target neutral and it progresses by levels as in the Research Techs.

Probably it would be best to have a list of countries the Axis might convince and a different list for the Allies with some countries being on both.

It isn't only a matter of convincing countries to join your side; it's also a matter of increasing the support you receive from them even if they don't join at all.

Kurt

Good counters to criticsm, you've been holding the fort admirably! smile.gif

[ February 06, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

It can be an option, those who want to have a direct influence can fill the circle and those who want it random that circle. I don't see a problem.

SeaWolf

Good idea with the individual countries and their DP points. I'd go for it.

Shaka

What I think is great about Kurt's idea is you don't manage it every turn. You assign DP points to a target neutral and it progresses by levels as in the Research Techs.

Probably it would be best to have a list of countries the Axis might convince and a different list for the Allies with some countries being on both.

It isn't only a matter of convincing countries to join your side; it's also a matter of increasing the support you receive from them even if they don't join at all.

Kurt

Good counters to criticsm, you've been holding the fort admirably! smile.gif

[ February 06, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings SeaWolf

Would love to but that's what all the fuss was about last month. I'm putting them in URLs now. I haven't consciously cut down on pictures but somehow not seeing them right on the screen has taken most of the fun out of it. I have one I'm trying to find now to post in your Bells & Whistles Forum where a bunch of Axis brass are standing around a T-34 looking intently at it, except Mussolini, who's traipsing by without even giving it a glance! :D I had it set aside and will try to find it before I go off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings SeaWolf

Would love to but that's what all the fuss was about last month. I'm putting them in URLs now. I haven't consciously cut down on pictures but somehow not seeing them right on the screen has taken most of the fun out of it. I have one I'm trying to find now to post in your Bells & Whistles Forum where a bunch of Axis brass are standing around a T-34 looking intently at it, except Mussolini, who's traipsing by without even giving it a glance! :D I had it set aside and will try to find it before I go off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hay JJ, I think that a pic once in a while wouldn't hurt! Thay really improve the forum. There are some things in bells and whistle I really want to see in SC2!

Would like to see the T-34, which model, 41 model?

It wasn't the best tank, Tiger had to be the best, you know the story of Michael Whitmann, can you imagine the experience of Goodwood with a T-34?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hay JJ, I think that a pic once in a while wouldn't hurt! Thay really improve the forum. There are some things in bells and whistle I really want to see in SC2!

Would like to see the T-34, which model, 41 model?

It wasn't the best tank, Tiger had to be the best, you know the story of Michael Whitmann, can you imagine the experience of Goodwood with a T-34?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaWolf

I think the photos are great for loosening things up a bit. Unfortunately I'm in an awkward position because Moon explained to me what the gripe about them is. I thought it was content but it turns out posting them slows the site down and I promised I'd only do it with URLs from now on instead of posting them as images.

The photo I'm trying to find has about fifty high ranking generals, several holding fieldmarshal batons, all gathered around a multi-holed, burnt out T-34 mounted on blocks. Everyone's practically staring at the damn thing and Mussolini is off to a picnic! I've searched through my online photos and can't find it. Also, I've just done a few Internet searches and can't find it. Most likely it's in a book, if I'd seen it on a site I'd have saved it. Hopefully I'll find the book and I'll scan the photo and send it to you as an attachment.

Your Bells and Whistles list is excellent. A few things might be hard to get but most of it seems extremely reasonable, like that minor change in the save option. I only made a brief entry because I didn't want to clutter it up till other posters added their opinions.

What gets me about the Tiger/T-34 issue is how, when the Germans first confronted the KVs and early T-34s it totally changed their thinking as to heavy tanks. Tiger was better but T-34s seem to have been mechanically more reliable and much easier to mass produce.

That's the thing with Germany, they saw tanks as precision instruments where the Americans and Russians just wanted to find one or two main models and churn them out like clockwork!

On the other hand, if the soviets had built more transport vehicles and fewer tanks their armies would probably have moved a lot more quickly.

[ February 06, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaWolf

I think the photos are great for loosening things up a bit. Unfortunately I'm in an awkward position because Moon explained to me what the gripe about them is. I thought it was content but it turns out posting them slows the site down and I promised I'd only do it with URLs from now on instead of posting them as images.

The photo I'm trying to find has about fifty high ranking generals, several holding fieldmarshal batons, all gathered around a multi-holed, burnt out T-34 mounted on blocks. Everyone's practically staring at the damn thing and Mussolini is off to a picnic! I've searched through my online photos and can't find it. Also, I've just done a few Internet searches and can't find it. Most likely it's in a book, if I'd seen it on a site I'd have saved it. Hopefully I'll find the book and I'll scan the photo and send it to you as an attachment.

Your Bells and Whistles list is excellent. A few things might be hard to get but most of it seems extremely reasonable, like that minor change in the save option. I only made a brief entry because I didn't want to clutter it up till other posters added their opinions.

What gets me about the Tiger/T-34 issue is how, when the Germans first confronted the KVs and early T-34s it totally changed their thinking as to heavy tanks. Tiger was better but T-34s seem to have been mechanically more reliable and much easier to mass produce.

That's the thing with Germany, they saw tanks as precision instruments where the Americans and Russians just wanted to find one or two main models and churn them out like clockwork!

On the other hand, if the soviets had built more transport vehicles and fewer tanks their armies would probably have moved a lot more quickly.

[ February 06, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt, glad to hear you're enjoying the mods. smile.gif

Here's another diplomacy idea, a little out-of-the-box thinking. Rather than some point system that gets used every turn, how about a pre-game menu for the Axis and Allies to assign limited points to various diplomatic initiatives, which then affect the chances for various events. This would better represent long-term diplomatic strategy.

Since diplomatic options and influence changes over time, a revised menu could pop up once a year to allow changes. Influencing the Low Countries isn't exactly important in 1941, for example.

I previously suggested some way to assess victory points during the game so that shorter scenarios could be played, say 1939-1942. Using each year's default scenario as a benchmark, some sort of annual score could be provided to players. If implemented, this would be an appropriate point to add a diplomacy menu consistent with starting a new game at that point. Diplomatic options and points could be updated based on the current game situation. This system would run in the background of the game, allow players to periodically make diplomatic decisions to influence events, but essentially retain a variable diplomacy model for replayability.

It's important that each year has something to offer - a reasonable number of plausible options but some limitation on points so that players have to make choices. If both sides can play the spread and cancel each other out each time, then there's no suspense. Likewise, any advantage gained should not be decisive - just a slight increase of chances rather than any definite result. Again, replayability has to be kept in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt, glad to hear you're enjoying the mods. smile.gif

Here's another diplomacy idea, a little out-of-the-box thinking. Rather than some point system that gets used every turn, how about a pre-game menu for the Axis and Allies to assign limited points to various diplomatic initiatives, which then affect the chances for various events. This would better represent long-term diplomatic strategy.

Since diplomatic options and influence changes over time, a revised menu could pop up once a year to allow changes. Influencing the Low Countries isn't exactly important in 1941, for example.

I previously suggested some way to assess victory points during the game so that shorter scenarios could be played, say 1939-1942. Using each year's default scenario as a benchmark, some sort of annual score could be provided to players. If implemented, this would be an appropriate point to add a diplomacy menu consistent with starting a new game at that point. Diplomatic options and points could be updated based on the current game situation. This system would run in the background of the game, allow players to periodically make diplomatic decisions to influence events, but essentially retain a variable diplomacy model for replayability.

It's important that each year has something to offer - a reasonable number of plausible options but some limitation on points so that players have to make choices. If both sides can play the spread and cancel each other out each time, then there's no suspense. Likewise, any advantage gained should not be decisive - just a slight increase of chances rather than any definite result. Again, replayability has to be kept in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill, I'm playing your Case White scenario now also, thanks for giving Germans and England more bombers, much more fun and I think, historic.

Also your idea of shorter scenario's is a great idea. Playing a TCP game for three days is hard to do, If you have a life! Making shorter scenario's e.f. Sept 39 thru Jun 41 trying to limit or excede what Hitler did. Another Jun 41 thru Jan 43 the Russian years up to Stalingrad. And one covering the rest Jan 43 thru May 45, hopefully around 8 hours worth each.

Keep up the good fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill, I'm playing your Case White scenario now also, thanks for giving Germans and England more bombers, much more fun and I think, historic.

Also your idea of shorter scenario's is a great idea. Playing a TCP game for three days is hard to do, If you have a life! Making shorter scenario's e.f. Sept 39 thru Jun 41 trying to limit or excede what Hitler did. Another Jun 41 thru Jan 43 the Russian years up to Stalingrad. And one covering the rest Jan 43 thru May 45, hopefully around 8 hours worth each.

Keep up the good fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for giving Germans and England more bombers
Huh?? I bumped up German and British airfleets to L1, and British bombers to L1, but no additional bomber units for anyone. The OOB is pretty much the same.

Good to hear folks are enjoying the Campaign mods. The revolution has begun! tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for giving Germans and England more bombers
Huh?? I bumped up German and British airfleets to L1, and British bombers to L1, but no additional bomber units for anyone. The OOB is pretty much the same.

Good to hear folks are enjoying the Campaign mods. The revolution has begun! tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

Several good ideas. Good point about each side's diplomacy cancelling the other out. Each neutral should be weighted according to it's historical bias.

Even without Axis Diplomacy countries like Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland should join the Axis around the time of their historical entry. It shouldn't even be worth either side investing DPs in them. DPs should instead go to nations like Spain and Sweden for the Axis, the Low Countries, Norway, Portugal and Iraq for the Allies.

DPs from both sides should be put toward the U. S., the USSR, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey . Germany should invest DPs in the United States and USSR to help delay their entry. I think Yugosavia, Greece and Turkey should be the only countries that might ente in either direction. Greece would be the most likely to enter the Axis with Yugoslavia most likely to enter the Allies; whichever commits itself first would then weight the other in that direction. If the Axis invades either the other ought to coups for the Allies.

Of the countries that can be swayed, Low Countries, Turkey, Portugal and Sweden ought to be the most difficult, despite the fact that Sweden is a big contributor to Germany's war economy (a reason for Germany to avoid invading her).

Neither side should be able to invest DPs in Switzerland. Only Italy had thoughts of invading her and was restrained from the attempt by Germany. I think both Germany and Britain wanted Switzerland to remain neutral and the Swiss themselves had no inclination to enter. Like Sweden, Switzerland should add a boost to the German economy.

The Baltic States , being the only temporary country in the game, should also be impossible to invest DPs in.

I think you're idea would work well in the above framework.

[ February 07, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

Several good ideas. Good point about each side's diplomacy cancelling the other out. Each neutral should be weighted according to it's historical bias.

Even without Axis Diplomacy countries like Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland should join the Axis around the time of their historical entry. It shouldn't even be worth either side investing DPs in them. DPs should instead go to nations like Spain and Sweden for the Axis, the Low Countries, Norway, Portugal and Iraq for the Allies.

DPs from both sides should be put toward the U. S., the USSR, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey . Germany should invest DPs in the United States and USSR to help delay their entry. I think Yugosavia, Greece and Turkey should be the only countries that might ente in either direction. Greece would be the most likely to enter the Axis with Yugoslavia most likely to enter the Allies; whichever commits itself first would then weight the other in that direction. If the Axis invades either the other ought to coups for the Allies.

Of the countries that can be swayed, Low Countries, Turkey, Portugal and Sweden ought to be the most difficult, despite the fact that Sweden is a big contributor to Germany's war economy (a reason for Germany to avoid invading her).

Neither side should be able to invest DPs in Switzerland. Only Italy had thoughts of invading her and was restrained from the attempt by Germany. I think both Germany and Britain wanted Switzerland to remain neutral and the Swiss themselves had no inclination to enter. Like Sweden, Switzerland should add a boost to the German economy.

The Baltic States , being the only temporary country in the game, should also be impossible to invest DPs in.

I think you're idea would work well in the above framework.

[ February 07, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...