kurt88

Bill,I like your idea mentioned above. I think we all agree that handling diplomacy each turn would become a drag. Diplomacy should be vital in the beginning of the game to determine the starting positions and MPP-flow.As the game progresses slight alterations could be made to determine the events. Maybe also towards the end of the game peace-resolutions can be a possibility according to certain rules. The DP's spend in the first few opening terms would set the course for the game,triggering a certain 'rythem' in the events. I think we're on the right track here. Now we need to begin to focus on the numbers

I had three similar 'oh let's not' invasions like that in one game.They all returned to Britain though.

I had three similar 'oh let's not' invasions like that in one game.They all returned to Britain though.

Night,your story really makes me want to start playing again,right now!

Night,your story really wants me to go play again,right now! [ February 06, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: kurt88 ]

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.

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.

Shaka,what you say is true. But I wouldn't mind SC or SC2 becoming a bit more complex. 2 phases per turn would ideal IMO. Ocourse this brings up a whole other discussion...

Shaka,what you say is true. But I wouldn't mind SC or SC2 becoming a bit more complex. 2 phases per turn would ideal IMO. Ocourse this brings up a whole other discussion...

Bill ,just finished your home-made Fall Weiss scenario.It was a three-day game of fun,especially for a newbie Axis player like myself,much more of a challenge than the original one. In your post you described what Grand Strategy is about (IMO).A good combination of brains (diplomacy,cunningness and a military genius) will lead to victory.That's how it should be (except for the Iraqi ) Rightly you stated that alot of historical events could improve the variation in the game.But their function would also be to make sure the diplomatic decisions of the player wouldn't disrupt the balance of the game. Both the DP's and the events can open the door to a lot of new approaches and strategies,especially in multiplayer. I took a look at JersyJohn's figures and I figure that can give the right basis. One thing you're right:the numbers make all the difference and should be looked in over and over again.Unfortunately I'm not the one who can give you these :confused:

Bill ,just finished your home-made Fall Weiss scenario.It was a three-day game of fun,especially for a newbie Axis player like myself,much more of a challenge than the original one. In your post you described what Grand Strategy is about (IMO).A good combination of brains (diplomacy,cunningness and a military genius) will lead to victory.That's how it should be (except for the Iraqi ) Rightly you stated that alot of historical events could improve the variation in the game.But their function would also be to make sure the diplomatic decisions of the player wouldn't disrupt the balance of the game. Both the DP's and the events can open the door to a lot of new approaches and strategies,especially in multiplayer. I took a look at JersyJohn's figures and I figure that can give the right basis. One thing you're right:the numbers make all the difference and should be looked in over and over again.Unfortunately I'm not the one who can give you these :confused:

Great job JerseyJohn. Please keep moderating (wheeling it in the right direction)this thread! ps:like the title

Great job JerseyJohn. Please keep moderating (wheeling it in the right direction)this thread! ps:like the title

go right ahead man!I'm not to forum-posting wizard!I'll trust you to find a good title for it

Ok here it is:my long and winding idea for a diplomatic system in SC2. It's based on diplomatic points much like MPP's in SC today (I'll call them DP's). Lets take the Axis as an example.Each turn Berlin would receive DP's from Nazi-diplomats and friendly regimes at the start of the game (see JerseyJohn's Neutrals and biased neutrals).These points could then be spend on befriending true neutrals or increasing the level of influence in already Axis-oriented regimes. Lets say Romania starts the game at level 1 of Axis influence.This would mean that a certain number of Romanian MPP's go to Axis.This number increases with the level of influence Axis has in Romania.The Allied player/ai can counteract this be spending his DP's on Romania.And so a diplomatic battle of influencing nations is created.A wise allocation of 'precious DP's is in order. Now,when Romania reaches level 3,a puppet regime can be installed by Axis.This would ensure a flow of half of or 3/4 of Romanian MPP's to Berlin.From this point on Allied DP's spent on Romania would result in the appearance of partisan units near Romanian resource hexes (sabotage if you want). The next step would be annexation (level 5?) and ALL Romanian MPP's go to Berlin.Romania is from then on lost for the Allies. This system should IMHO be complemented with an historical event engine for each nation on the map.These events can alter the levels of influence by Axis or Allies. Ofcourse this is just a rough idea and the most important part,the numbers (how many DP's,how many MPP's per level,wich events) is still to be invented.I'll leave this up to the peaople with the right knowledge. Either way diplomacy should be interwoven with JersyJohn's and Shaka's ideas on economy and MPP's And as JersyJohn stated,it would be nice to have a seperate forum for this where Hubert could easily monitor our progress.

Sorry to butt in like this,but i was wondering how do you guys make your posts that long,i cant seem to go any further than a line or 10!

Maybe a good solution to this 'Vichy-problem' is to make it a problem!(for the players that is.France falls to the Axis,Vichy is installed,how can Axis/Allied make sure it comes under their influence or even control? (remember 'the what if' possibilities of SC were great,they should be in SC2 aswell.)I think the key to the solution of all these issues that are being addressed here (and with reason),is an installement of a decent diplomatic system to which an economic model (like JerseyJohns) and a techtree could be connected. And please keep TYPING,the maker(s) of SC2 should be stimulated by our chatter!

I'm waiting for Hearts of Iron to be released in Belgium (probably early march).Personally I liked Europa Universalis 2 a lot but after spending some time on the HOI forum I began having doubts:"It's Grand Strategy,but the AI sucks.SC is so great,even against the AI" I'm sure some of you play HOI,so what do you think?Are their other grand strategy games concerning WWII that are worth the effort and that are relatively new? I would greatly appreciate some advice.

Very funny that one.

Maybe this 'dividing of mpp' could be connected to a kind off diplomatic system that i proposed in a previous thread. Let's say Swedens mpp income could go to Axis for x percentage depending on how diplomacy is handled towards Sweden. Making it historically correct could then depend on the player's choice.

Is Fury soft already working on sc2? I was just curious cos i remember having read something like that. If so i hope they can make it just as great as sc and hopefully with some nice improvements (but dont let me upgrade my 5 year old machine )

These are just options,if you think you can break the encirclement on your next turn,don't reinforce and don't surrender.It's up to you to spend diplo-points if you think the time is right.

The amount of points the player gets can be based upon the number of allied/axis capitals the player has. (if you think this shouldn't be so or handled differently chip in) Let's say moscow is encircled.The axis-player can now send a message to the russian troops there by spending diplo-points. Would it be correct to then give the Allied-player a choice:-surrender and thus giving moscow to Axis.The Allied player should be allowed to redeploy his moscow army.(Maybe add some experience to compensate.) -Spending x diplo-points to re- inforce the surrounded troops to 15 (?) and try to break out.(This should require a LOT of points.) I don't know if this system is well balanced but i think working with MPP's and diplo-points would add something new to the game.And maybe more diplomatic options would do the tric.

Reading through some posts I noticed that some players want to see the diplomacy options improved.I personally would love to see this happen. Some suggestions and ideas: -Introduction of 'diplomacy points' -Use these points to:-influence neutral countries to join on the player's side. -demand surrender from encircled troops and/or cities. -sue for peace for seperate alliance members (isolate germany) ... I'm sure all of you have some ideas or suggestions so... let's hear 'em

uhhhh, that would be landing and/or beach-head units. [ January 24, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: kurt88 ]