Sombra

Blashy, I think we agree that the current diplomatic system needs a little bit of refinement. There are now some more contesting ideas in this thread. I believe it is up to Hubert now to decide if he wants to change it and how to change it.

@Balshy : 4 Corps, an army, LF, Bomber , Ships how much more you will put on GB to stop a sealion? What kind of forces do you use to defend? What about a late sealion when UDSSR is already gearing up for war? If I dont care about US war entry anyway and conquer minors beforehand, fending of the UDSSR for a little time at your border shouldn´t be to hard. We will see what happens in the near future with more MP games played. I think players are still weary from sealions in SC1 whre it was really a risk. But now in MP games in SC2 the number of Sealions will increase quite a lot, thats my guess at least. [ April 24, 2006, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

@Fartknock3r Well, good luck to you, too Seems you have fun . Somehow I expect we will see much more sealions then in SC1

The german fleet is quite strong in SC2 . Though sending royal navy scouts will be a suicide mission. As you pointed out the homefleet is quite helpless against the amphib transports in the moment. I you defend in trhe beginning only the London area and the axisplayer launches a serious sealion 2 HQs heavy troops and he captures Manchester right away. How long the troops in an around London will be able to survive? @Fastknockr: right now I am a "victim" of a sealion (but I ahd even fewer troops home then you my mistake) Still, even with more troops what can the GB player do? In my case Rusia was preparing aready for war but winter will come soon. Germany is strong enough to fend Rusia off for a few turns especially in winter . Egypt was taken earlier. OK the US will join sooner but with the UK resources... I will see how my game ends.

I disagree here. I think it is already quite farfetched that if GB falls there will be a new UK government in Egypt. From the game perspective if the Axis player takes the "risk" to launch a Sealion then he should have a good chance to finish the UK of once and for all. The improvements I would like to see: "Only a certain chance (50%)that in Egypt will be a exil governmant formed ( The people there wanted to be independant all the time) "Fix the range of amphib. transports => Homefleet would be able to prevent Sealions especiyll if bombers and AF provide intelligence where the invasion fleet is)

:confused: Why do you think that this game needs many patches? The game seems very stable, nearly no people have serious problems to run the game. The only discussion are to tweak the game mechanics in some areas and it is already fun to play SC2.

@ Blashy : Point of this discussion is only to to talk about that there are things to improve in the diplomacy part of the game. I am sure Hubert and you guys will come up with something better along the way. Regarding "my" system: Itis really simple: The mayor nation with the most chits cancels the other out. As hellraiser pointed out with 5 chits from one nation you can effectivly block the diplomatic sucess on a minor nation. The advantages for the gameplay would be: Guessing what your opponent does, certain risk in investing diplomacy chits (in your example Blashy the efforts of Great Britain and Italy are utterly wasted without any effect on the game) Y

% percentage system would improve the situation but in the end it would be only luck and no real strategy behind it.

Well it could be simple: 2 chits for Germany remain. All the other influences cancel each other out.

I guess your router is configured the right way? One think I noticed is that the game does´t like to "Alt - TAB" . Another player had the same problem with me. The solution has been to write down the IP /send it to your friend and restart SC2 afterwards. Then it worked

No Blashy, Germany would have still 4 chits acitve on Spain. 5-1 =4 The Situation would only change if Italy although invests on Spain (for aexample 5 chits) As the system works now: 5 chits Germany -1 Chit GB + 5 Chits Italy = 9 active chits on Spain My suggestion: 5 Chits Germany -1 chit GB + 5 chits Italy -1 chit GB = 8 active chits on Spain. the diplomatic effort of GB reduces the effort of each participating nation)

Well i totally ignored diplo in this game. but look at the price i took. GAME LOST. No MMPs to buy troops. Investing in diplo in Spain is a must from axis --> u cant allow to LOSE Romania and Hungary. The freaking frenchies can invest a single diplo chit in Sweden and u with luck u get NO CONVOYS from Sweden. U cant generally prevent allies to take both Norway cities plus mine and u get no convoys from Norway... </font>

Thanks Exel to explain the idea with a much better example. Note since the manual is pretty vague regarding diplomacy you could make the change to the "better "system even without changing it

Yes, GB is in the Beginning behind Germany for always for 1-2 chits and later on even worse if Italy although puts chits. Worse because GB in the beginning has already fewer chits , they are more expensive and especially Britain needs in teh Beginning build a defense against Sealion. In my example if the allied player it so "stupid" to put chits from 3 nations on one country the Axis player could cancel out with only one chit three chits of the Allies. How you invest your diplomatic chits and not knowing how and what the other is player is doing , thats part of the fun yes? Play a little bit wiht the possibilities in your mind, I think when you get the idea you will see it opens up a "small game" of diplomacy within SC2 where not always the chits in Dipolacy will be spend the same way again and again

@Fireball, you can´t prevent forever that Rusia will declare war at some point. You can take a look at activation scripts with the editor

Blashy a year has 25 turns? Do the math. Its simply a no brainer that Spain will join the Axis. (luck can warp any game) Still I tried to explain that the game the other way would be simply better (IMHO) because you would have to develop strategies and anticipate enemy diplomatic moves. I think this had been the original intent of Hubert design. Realistic? Whats realistic right now in the SC2 modell? US send s 5 ambassadors to Iraq and Iran only two and Iraq will now join the US? I think the idea has been do have a little diplomatic backstabbing in the game without assured benefit. The way the system works right now I can´t see how it can do that. But perhaps you can explain to me why the game is better the way it is right now?

I would like to start with a question I asked before. If Italy , Germany and Gb invest each one chit on Spain. What are now the chances to influence Spain. a. 5% or 3%? (Blashy as Betatester confirmed that a. is the correct answer) B. 0% because GB chits cancels out one from each Italy and Germany? In SC2 Spain is the BIG price for the axis. You get HQ , tank armies and lots of additional MP. I think after a few MP (As I see already in the MP I am playing currently) The AXIS will ALWAYS first try to get Spain investing 5 chits after the fall of Poland. They have very good chances that if the Brits do nothing that even before Summer Spain will join the axis (25% per turn!!!) even with consumable chits turned on in the end the Axis will get Spain for something of 350-400MP . If Great Britain decides to counter they have to invest 375MP (hard for GB especially in the beginning) but after Italy joins the axis put simply again 5 more chits in diplomacy (15% chance per turn, 25 turns a year) And again Spain will soon join the Axis. For me at least this a kind of boring and I predict that the AXIS will always get Spain on board. More interesting would be IMHO opinion if the answer is b. Why it is more interesting? Some virtual game situations: Lets assume that the axis does as before puts 5 chits on Spain has 2 advances in Spain puts again 2 more chits on Spain (Now has 350MP ) and puts even 5 chits for Italy on Spain to speed things up. The Allied player has kept enough money to buy 5 chits in one turn and spends it on Spain. Effectively killing the diplomatic efforts of the Axis (Germany and Italy). Resulting in a huge net loss of MP for the Axis because the Axisplayer made the mistake to put all its efforts only on Spain. Another game the axis player has learned and only puts for example 3 chits on Spain. Still, after 6-8 turns you will see in most cases an advance for the Axis . Again the Allied player puts five chits in Spain but suddenly effectively GB has wasted its efforts because they have now a 10% chance to improve the diplomatic status of a country which is nearly Axis and in investing even more MPs there than the axis and leaving the axis open invest its efforts on other countries unopposed. Because with the “answer b” you have to guess what your opponent does and both sides can make mistakes its much more interesting for me. IMHO the diplomacy option should work in the fashion that a diplomatic chit cancels out the a diplomatic chit from each other nation who spend a chit. Its simple and elegant way to really make diplomacy a small game with guessing what your opponent is doing and should be easy to implement if Hubert wants to do it.

shame though you will nearly always invest 10chits as Axis in Spain thats it... kind of boring... As said yourself Spains resources a huge and to important... Kind of boring

If not its simply an sure investment for the axis to invest 5 chits in Spain + 5c hits in Spain from Italy ... Spain will nearly always join the axis. If GB can cancel out PER nation a diplomatic chit then GB could block totally the efforts of the joined Axis to convince Spain and later on invest with _Us in other countries.. Knowing that the axis would have to diversify its diplomatic strat. or run teh riks to get totally blocked in its efforts. Diversify is fun for me . If not Axis will nearly always invest 5 chits from the axis and from Italy

An answer please? would be nice if the Allies could cancel out the diplomacy efforts of Italy and Axis together

Only in the real world commanders usally don´t order their men to commit suicide to prevent. Now play against a human and then you will see what this is all about. As Blashy said there will be a fix. Thanks Blashy for the info

Regarding diplomacy one question: If Italy , Germany and Gb invest each one chit on Spain. What are now the chances to influence Spain. a. 0% because GB chits cancels out one from Italy and Germany? b. 5% or 3%? [ April 22, 2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

@ DesertDave I am not looking for a 100%historical game but for strategic game which is fun. IMHO free french would open new possibilies for the Allied players and the game would be better for it. Besides thanks a lot for the historical info

more free french would free more MPs for GB to do something else then to guard against a Sealion. - PBEM isn´t the matter just an example problem is if you are playing over the internet. - My purpose is MP private changes to ones liking with the editor are usally rejected (people like to play teh offical game) - Yep, your Norway argumetn is convincing if I dont have to believe that Germany really sends a whole army to the invsaion. From the game point of view its at least for me a litle bit to easy to take Norway..

Sc2 Pro & Contra Right now I have played or playing 8-10 MP games. There are many things I really like in SC2 and some I quite dislike. PRO: - Weather -Diplomacy -Production delay -Big Map -Fight for Egypt and the Med -The possibility for a successful sub war -Timer Negativ: - Hara-kiri, Bonsai and Kamikaze (The plunder System needs adjustment + please more free french) - Amphib. transports with long range - It takes a long time to sent a turn (PBEM moves are 1,4-2MB) - AI is helpless Neutral tendency negative: - Squares vs. hexes - Attackers seem to have to much of an advantage (esp. tanks are deadly) - Production tech is REALLY powerful - low catch up effect - No possibility to entrench troops while nation is not at war (Perhaps troops should start to entrench at 70-80%? - Defenders aka Norway are really weak