Jump to content

Kurt88's Forum on Unified Economic and Diplomatic Functions


JerseyJohn

Recommended Posts

Kurt

Thanks for the good word.

An interesting finese I hadn't considered. Yes, by all means that possibility should exist. A human Axis player, unless extremely impatient, should be willing to wait the extra few turns.

No doubt the same principle applies elsewhere. Great point and glad you caught it. smile.gif

[ February 09, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kurt88 & JerseyJohn

Ok... based on the latest posts, here is the system as I understand it.

Some nations are biased towards the Axis, some are biased towards the Allies. DP's invested in those nations would be given more weight if received from the side they favored.

Other nations cannot be influenced by the DP's at all.

Correct?

As an example, if an Axis biased nation received 1 DP from the Axis and 1 DP from the Allies, the net result would be 1.5 Axis vs 1 Allies. Correct? The increase because of the bias is not relevant now. I just used 50% as a number.

So if Axis invested 2 DP, the Allies would have to invest 3 DP just to remain even with the the adjusted net DP total.

If the adjusted DP for both sides are even (as in the example above), then we are back to the same result right? So what happens now? No effect right?

If the adjusted DP influence by one side was greater than the others, than now the new diplomacy effects can take place?

If the above is correct, than the Allies would have to spend more DP's than the Axis, if they wanted to keep Romania out of the Axis. Since Romaina is biased towards the Axis, the Allies would have to spend alot more. However, if the Axis don't spend any DP's for Romania, then the Allies while spending more, will get the results they want. I am correct?

Isn't this the effect we have already in SC? It asumes that the diplomacy is being balanced by the other side reacting to your diplomacy. Without having to accumulate and spend DP's. So what have I gained so far by the new method? Unless of course, you are also considering each side having the ability to increase the number of DP's they have. Is this your intent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt88 & JerseyJohn

Ok... based on the latest posts, here is the system as I understand it.

Some nations are biased towards the Axis, some are biased towards the Allies. DP's invested in those nations would be given more weight if received from the side they favored.

Other nations cannot be influenced by the DP's at all.

Correct?

As an example, if an Axis biased nation received 1 DP from the Axis and 1 DP from the Allies, the net result would be 1.5 Axis vs 1 Allies. Correct? The increase because of the bias is not relevant now. I just used 50% as a number.

So if Axis invested 2 DP, the Allies would have to invest 3 DP just to remain even with the the adjusted net DP total.

If the adjusted DP for both sides are even (as in the example above), then we are back to the same result right? So what happens now? No effect right?

If the adjusted DP influence by one side was greater than the others, than now the new diplomacy effects can take place?

If the above is correct, than the Allies would have to spend more DP's than the Axis, if they wanted to keep Romania out of the Axis. Since Romaina is biased towards the Axis, the Allies would have to spend alot more. However, if the Axis don't spend any DP's for Romania, then the Allies while spending more, will get the results they want. I am correct?

Isn't this the effect we have already in SC? It asumes that the diplomacy is being balanced by the other side reacting to your diplomacy. Without having to accumulate and spend DP's. So what have I gained so far by the new method? Unless of course, you are also considering each side having the ability to increase the number of DP's they have. Is this your intent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka

As I said, countries like Iraq, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria would be so heavily biased in their original direction that it wouldn't pay for either side to try and influence them with DPPs.

The idea of DPPs is to try and influence other minor neutrals that normally do not take sides in SC. Countries like Yugoslavia (the random coup would be elimated), Greece, Spain, Turkey the Low Countries, Norway, Portugal and Ireland.

Iraq would join the Allies after the fall of France with a one time chance that Syria might also join, otherwise she remains part of Vichy.

This system is different from what we now have in SC. Even if the countries don't join the war their still lending support to one side or the other. Also, there's a chance that countries which always remain neutral in the game might be influenced to enter the war.

You have the weighted system down the way it should be. Yes, if a country has no bias and both sides invest equally in it they cancel each other out.

Spain would probably be the closest example of this; while providing MPP support to both sides, the Axis would only be able to collect it's portion if connected by land -- I don't know if it should then collect it's past support that was blocked, that would need to be worked out. As it mainly involves mineral rights I don't see why it shouldn't.

DPs invested in Spain would count equally for both sides. Additionally, if one of the conditions were met that commits Spain, such as the Axis capturing London, etc., Spain would join the Axis as it presently does.

The intent of the DP system is to work with the current game system and enhance it. Not everyone would want this, which is why I suggested earlier it be added as a toggle option.

[ February 09, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka

As I said, countries like Iraq, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria would be so heavily biased in their original direction that it wouldn't pay for either side to try and influence them with DPPs.

The idea of DPPs is to try and influence other minor neutrals that normally do not take sides in SC. Countries like Yugoslavia (the random coup would be elimated), Greece, Spain, Turkey the Low Countries, Norway, Portugal and Ireland.

Iraq would join the Allies after the fall of France with a one time chance that Syria might also join, otherwise she remains part of Vichy.

This system is different from what we now have in SC. Even if the countries don't join the war their still lending support to one side or the other. Also, there's a chance that countries which always remain neutral in the game might be influenced to enter the war.

You have the weighted system down the way it should be. Yes, if a country has no bias and both sides invest equally in it they cancel each other out.

Spain would probably be the closest example of this; while providing MPP support to both sides, the Axis would only be able to collect it's portion if connected by land -- I don't know if it should then collect it's past support that was blocked, that would need to be worked out. As it mainly involves mineral rights I don't see why it shouldn't.

DPs invested in Spain would count equally for both sides. Additionally, if one of the conditions were met that commits Spain, such as the Axis capturing London, etc., Spain would join the Axis as it presently does.

The intent of the DP system is to work with the current game system and enhance it. Not everyone would want this, which is why I suggested earlier it be added as a toggle option.

[ February 09, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka & JJ:

You seem to be forgetting that the results of placing Diplomatic Points (DPPs) would mostly depend on a RANDOM factor.

For example, Axis may put 1 more DPP into Spain on any particular turn, BUT... this would merely increase the likelihood that Spain might move a little further along the DPP-Track towards the Axis (... the further along the greater the tangible gains).

So. Spring of '41 Germany spends 2 DPPs to try and influence Franco's Spain. Anticipating, Britain places 1 DPP. Instead of, say, a 5% chance that Spain will agree to MORE political assistance (... these variants could be hidden or clearly stated, no matter) by granting economic aid, or actual lent-forces of Armor, etc, NOW there is a 7% or 12%, or 16% chance, etc.

Depending on how much is spent, these DPPs will only SLIGHTLY increase the chances of overt assistance, they will NOT drastically change the historical flow of the game.

This way, you have more Variant possiblities. And, the assistance provided may be anything from Intelligence (... say, reducing FOW in some areas) to shipments of material resources (... as Rumania providing Oil even before they enter the Axis side).

Now, this may be just another factor that would help Germany & Italy become TOO STONG early in the war, since the Allies cannot realistically afford to spend so many DPPs, given that they are hard-pressed to even muster sufficient military units or research.

But, if the DPPs were PRECISELY expensive enough, the dipomatic efforts by the Axis would surely hinder their own future operations in the field (... could afford fewer units), and/or ability to research new technology.

It is this random element that would keep the game essentially historical, BUT would provide even more variability so that each game would be slightly different. Too, receiving some favorable diplomatic result would THEN change that side's strategy.

For example, IF the Axis suddenly received some economic MPPs from Greece, the Allies would then have to decide whether it was advisable to alter their entire Med strategy. Apply more diplomatic pressure? Blockade Athens? Even, invade before the Axis? The more random variants in any one game, the more possible strands in the web, yes?

Some have decided that this would be too intrusive, and would create bothersome micro-management... in reality, how long would it take to decide IF or WHEN or WHERE you wish to exert diplomatic influence? Well, about the same amount of time it takes to decide whether to invest in research... which is nearly neglible.

Therefore, I absolutely favor some additional diplomatic gamesmanship in SC2. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka & JJ:

You seem to be forgetting that the results of placing Diplomatic Points (DPPs) would mostly depend on a RANDOM factor.

For example, Axis may put 1 more DPP into Spain on any particular turn, BUT... this would merely increase the likelihood that Spain might move a little further along the DPP-Track towards the Axis (... the further along the greater the tangible gains).

So. Spring of '41 Germany spends 2 DPPs to try and influence Franco's Spain. Anticipating, Britain places 1 DPP. Instead of, say, a 5% chance that Spain will agree to MORE political assistance (... these variants could be hidden or clearly stated, no matter) by granting economic aid, or actual lent-forces of Armor, etc, NOW there is a 7% or 12%, or 16% chance, etc.

Depending on how much is spent, these DPPs will only SLIGHTLY increase the chances of overt assistance, they will NOT drastically change the historical flow of the game.

This way, you have more Variant possiblities. And, the assistance provided may be anything from Intelligence (... say, reducing FOW in some areas) to shipments of material resources (... as Rumania providing Oil even before they enter the Axis side).

Now, this may be just another factor that would help Germany & Italy become TOO STONG early in the war, since the Allies cannot realistically afford to spend so many DPPs, given that they are hard-pressed to even muster sufficient military units or research.

But, if the DPPs were PRECISELY expensive enough, the dipomatic efforts by the Axis would surely hinder their own future operations in the field (... could afford fewer units), and/or ability to research new technology.

It is this random element that would keep the game essentially historical, BUT would provide even more variability so that each game would be slightly different. Too, receiving some favorable diplomatic result would THEN change that side's strategy.

For example, IF the Axis suddenly received some economic MPPs from Greece, the Allies would then have to decide whether it was advisable to alter their entire Med strategy. Apply more diplomatic pressure? Blockade Athens? Even, invade before the Axis? The more random variants in any one game, the more possible strands in the web, yes?

Some have decided that this would be too intrusive, and would create bothersome micro-management... in reality, how long would it take to decide IF or WHEN or WHERE you wish to exert diplomatic influence? Well, about the same amount of time it takes to decide whether to invest in research... which is nearly neglible.

Therefore, I absolutely favor some additional diplomatic gamesmanship in SC2. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immer

Good point. Yes, it would have to involve a strong element of chance to be worthwile. An historical example would be the German appointment of Ribbentrop to replace Neurath as pre-war ambassador to Britain. Things had been moving along well with many Brits interested in Nazi Germany (this is before Munich). Then, at the worst possible moment, Ribbentrop shot a Nazi salute to the King and Queen! An insane diplomatic mistake causing a backward slide which, combined with further Ribbentrop blunders, was never halted or reversed.

It seems safe to assume that in '39 the UK had more diplomatic pull overall than Germany. A good way to simulate this would be to assign both sides unassigned DPP chits at the start and Britain has more of them than Germany. I think that would help solve the problem you mention.

Good point about the amount of playtime needed being negligable and similar to the Research Function. I don't think people realize how simple and unobrtusive a system we're talking about.

Very glad you're in favor of expanded diplomacy. smile.gif As stated earlier, it can always be done as a game option for those who want to stick with the original method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immer

Good point. Yes, it would have to involve a strong element of chance to be worthwile. An historical example would be the German appointment of Ribbentrop to replace Neurath as pre-war ambassador to Britain. Things had been moving along well with many Brits interested in Nazi Germany (this is before Munich). Then, at the worst possible moment, Ribbentrop shot a Nazi salute to the King and Queen! An insane diplomatic mistake causing a backward slide which, combined with further Ribbentrop blunders, was never halted or reversed.

It seems safe to assume that in '39 the UK had more diplomatic pull overall than Germany. A good way to simulate this would be to assign both sides unassigned DPP chits at the start and Britain has more of them than Germany. I think that would help solve the problem you mention.

Good point about the amount of playtime needed being negligable and similar to the Research Function. I don't think people realize how simple and unobrtusive a system we're talking about.

Very glad you're in favor of expanded diplomacy. smile.gif As stated earlier, it can always be done as a game option for those who want to stick with the original method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Diplomacy system, if its based on the Tech R&D, would not be difficult to use.

My only problem is that I haven't seen anything in the outline of its use, that is going to give me anything more than the diplomatic situation I have currently.

Currently the "readiness" of a nation already represents which way the nation is leaning after being presurred diplomaticaly by the Axis or Allies.

I was hoping to read something more along the lines of so many additional diplomatic chits being earned when the oppossing alliance commits a diplomatic no-no. Like Allies committing a Dutch Gambit would give the Axis more chits, since the Allies have just broken a treaty. Or if Axis invade Spain or Sweden... that should gain the Allies more chits, since these were Pro-Axis nations that were invaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Diplomacy system, if its based on the Tech R&D, would not be difficult to use.

My only problem is that I haven't seen anything in the outline of its use, that is going to give me anything more than the diplomatic situation I have currently.

Currently the "readiness" of a nation already represents which way the nation is leaning after being presurred diplomaticaly by the Axis or Allies.

I was hoping to read something more along the lines of so many additional diplomatic chits being earned when the oppossing alliance commits a diplomatic no-no. Like Allies committing a Dutch Gambit would give the Axis more chits, since the Allies have just broken a treaty. Or if Axis invade Spain or Sweden... that should gain the Allies more chits, since these were Pro-Axis nations that were invaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka

Okay, so instead of reading it you just wrote it! Now your idea, which I thought was pretty much understood to be part of the overall Diplomacy system, is part of our Diplomacy idea.

We're in the process of creating this thing -- you, Kurt, Immer, myself and anyone else who wants to put ideas into it.

Your idea is directly in line with what we're talking about. It wuld seem to me that the Allies should start off with greater diplomacy, reflected in a greater amount of DPPs. Germany should have fewer DPPs but a greater number of countries leaning her way.

This would be especially true in the Balkans where Anglo/French advances were rebutted outright after their fiasco at Munich and subsequent failure to effectively assist Poland. Neither Yugoslavia nor Greece seem to have been set against Germany but they were wary of Italy. The Italian invasion of Greece, of course, put both countries in the British camp.

An Allied invasion of the Low Countries, Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Ireland, Portugal, Norway or anywhere else should result in a drop of their Diplomatic status in all neutral nations as it would be directly contrary to what they claim to stand for. The drop should be especially dramatic in the United States but should have no effect on the Soviet position unless it happens to be a neighbor, the only relevant nation being Turkey.

This system is a tremendous enhancement of that already incorporated in the game. For one thing, as regards the Allies, they will definitely be heavily supported with Iraqi MPPs through the Fall of France. After which time, perhaps immediately after, they will become part of the Allied camp and there will also be a onetime chance of Syria also joining the Allies. These provisions are intended to reflect Wavell's highly activities in the Middle East conducted with a very small number of troops impossible to represent in this game scale.

Ultimately it's up to Hubert to pick and choose which ideas he wants to use in updated or future versions of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka

Okay, so instead of reading it you just wrote it! Now your idea, which I thought was pretty much understood to be part of the overall Diplomacy system, is part of our Diplomacy idea.

We're in the process of creating this thing -- you, Kurt, Immer, myself and anyone else who wants to put ideas into it.

Your idea is directly in line with what we're talking about. It wuld seem to me that the Allies should start off with greater diplomacy, reflected in a greater amount of DPPs. Germany should have fewer DPPs but a greater number of countries leaning her way.

This would be especially true in the Balkans where Anglo/French advances were rebutted outright after their fiasco at Munich and subsequent failure to effectively assist Poland. Neither Yugoslavia nor Greece seem to have been set against Germany but they were wary of Italy. The Italian invasion of Greece, of course, put both countries in the British camp.

An Allied invasion of the Low Countries, Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Ireland, Portugal, Norway or anywhere else should result in a drop of their Diplomatic status in all neutral nations as it would be directly contrary to what they claim to stand for. The drop should be especially dramatic in the United States but should have no effect on the Soviet position unless it happens to be a neighbor, the only relevant nation being Turkey.

This system is a tremendous enhancement of that already incorporated in the game. For one thing, as regards the Allies, they will definitely be heavily supported with Iraqi MPPs through the Fall of France. After which time, perhaps immediately after, they will become part of the Allied camp and there will also be a onetime chance of Syria also joining the Allies. These provisions are intended to reflect Wavell's highly activities in the Middle East conducted with a very small number of troops impossible to represent in this game scale.

Ultimately it's up to Hubert to pick and choose which ideas he wants to use in updated or future versions of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt

Thanks for the input and thread idea, just to let you know I have found some of the ideas presented here very interesting and have bookmarked this thread for future reference, but as you might guess it is still difficult for me to say one way or the other what will be included or not.

As I've mentioned before the more ideas the better, and this is a good thing since some of these have been really great. :cool:

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt

Thanks for the input and thread idea, just to let you know I have found some of the ideas presented here very interesting and have bookmarked this thread for future reference, but as you might guess it is still difficult for me to say one way or the other what will be included or not.

As I've mentioned before the more ideas the better, and this is a good thing since some of these have been really great. :cool:

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Originally posted by disorder:

"... anything involving some diplomacy with "historical" type neutrals would be fantastic!. great ideas!"

disorder

This is the thread I was referring to, bumped back to the top of page one.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by disorder:

"... anything involving some diplomacy with "historical" type neutrals would be fantastic!. great ideas!"

disorder

This is the thread I was referring to, bumped back to the top of page one.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the concept of diplomatic points to influence relations; however, I would also have the neutrals react to the movement of troops along their borders.

Example: Germany places troops along the Swedish border or Spanish border or Turkish border when they are neutral.

The neutral country sends the player a warning via a pop-up event window, and perhaps decides to provide FOW intelligence to the opposing side.

So neutrals can be influenced by DPs, the conduct of the war, and the concentration of troops along the neutrals borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the concept of diplomatic points to influence relations; however, I would also have the neutrals react to the movement of troops along their borders.

Example: Germany places troops along the Swedish border or Spanish border or Turkish border when they are neutral.

The neutral country sends the player a warning via a pop-up event window, and perhaps decides to provide FOW intelligence to the opposing side.

So neutrals can be influenced by DPs, the conduct of the war, and the concentration of troops along the neutrals borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...