Any news on Diplomacy Options?

[Edwin P.]

Is there any news on what the Diplomacy feature will involve?

Can the neutral nations use their peacetime production to purchase diplomacy chits and use them? For example - US wants to counter German influence in Spain, USSR wants to counter Axis influence in Sweden.

[vveedd]

Good questions. I am also very interested about future diplomacy options. Anyone?

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I'm still curious about what HC decided to do with peace offers and ultimatums.

Bill?Hubert?

[afrika31]

isn't there diplomatic chits? i heard on another thread that would be implemented. but i to would like to hear what will be happening with peace offers and ultimatums.

[pzgndr]

Can the neutral nations use their peacetime production to purchase diplomacy chits and use them?

Italy, USSR, and USA should be active neutrals. That means they should be able to build units and customize their forces, relocate units within their borders, conduct research and diplomacy, etc. Pretty much everything except declare war and fight.

what will be happening with peace offers and ultimatums

These could best be handled with event scripts. Like USSR occupying the Finnish border and/or Bessarabia. Some chance on or after a certain historical date, etc. As for some way to manually initiate new ultimatums and have your opponent manually respond to them during a game, this probably won't happen. It would be nice to at least have a popup event feature that presents a player with options, like Do you want to occupy the Finnish border - Yes/No? Then you could weigh the pros and cons and make a choice. Things are still in development, so we'll have to wait and see.

Historically, there were not many WWII territorial disputes that were resolved with ultimatums and peace offers. Good old-fashioned declarations of war and combat were the rule. It was more likely that neutrals could be swayed to activate as Axis or Allied, and diplomacy will handle this. It was also true in the case of Italy and Romania that these active countries surrendered and switched sides BEFORE their capitals were captured. It will be interesting to see if we can somehow make things like this happen with the diplomacy model and/or event scripts, but that's a challenge.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Bill,

it's always good to look on how different games solved questions like this. I recommend to take a look at the board game "Totaler krieg" if you have'nt done so yet. I got a very interesting diplomatic model in the same style as you talk about with pro and cons of border disputes etc.

And talking capitols don't forget Finland. Finland agreed to take up arms against the germans, it would be nice to have an event that says that finnish troops go allied with a surrender but can only move within it's own borders.

[Edwin P.]

It would be nice to at least have a popup event feature that presents a player with options, like Do you want to occupy the Finnish border - Yes/No? Then you could weigh the pros and cons and make a choice.

I like this concept, espcially if the pop-ups are related to the current situation in Europe.

[ July 22, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Bill, I know that it would be a lot easier to implement the ultimatums and peace treaties as scripted events but just imagine all of the posibilities.

especialy in a multi-player game, this would be very nice.

[vveedd]

Italy, USSR, and USA should be active neutrals. That means they should be able to build units and customize their forces, relocate units within their borders, conduct research and diplomacy, etc. Pretty much everything except declare war and fight.

I agree for conduct research and diplomacy but NO for rest. If neutral major powers can buy, customize and relocate their units we will loose element of surprise. For example: Russian player will relocate FOR SURE his forces in defensive formation deep in Russia behind rivers. Stalin maybe would have done that, but not before 1943 year, because he didn’t believe that Hitler will attack USSR. In game, players know that Russia will be attacked for sure.

What I would like to see in SC2 is possibility to influence this neutral major power. For example: Germany invested they diplomatic chits in Russia to postpone Russian entry in to war. Or in USA to do the same thing. If diplomatic result will be successful for Germany, USSR (or US) entry percentage will drop. On Allied side UK (or France) can invest they diplomatic chits to do opposite thing – to speed up US (or USSR) entry to war. If diplomatic result will be successful for UK, USSR (or US) entry percentage will rise.

[ July 29, 2004, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Kuniworth]

I think active majors sounds good but in no way is a game-breaker. The most interesting part so far is the possibility of scripted events. Imagine what a game this could be.

I'm already looking forward to make a corps-size Barbarossa scenario.

[pzgndr]

Russian player will relocate FOR SURE his forces in defensive formation deep in Russia behind rivers.

For sure? Like Germany has a border garrison requirement which affects USSR war readiness, what if USSR also has a border garrison requirement which affects its war readiness? We can do that in SC2.

Consider the consequences if USSR chooses to hide deep and keep its war readiness low. Germany can bide its time and Britain will bear the brunt of Axis aggression. There could also be reverse consequences if USSR takes an aggressive posture and attempts to increase its war readiness by forward deploying everyone. If it declares war too soon, it risks an early German blitz plus USA war readiness would drop due to Allied aggression. What if? Hmmm? :cool:

[Exel]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

And talking capitols don't forget Finland. Finland agreed to take up arms against the germans, it would be nice to have an event that says that finnish troops go allied with a surrender but can only move within it's own borders.

How would you do that without allowing Soviet units to enter Finland? After the armistice Finland fought the Germans out of Lapland, but at no point did they join Allies (as a matter of fact they never had joined Axis either). Soviets couldn't have exploited Finnish territory without another war. I think Finland should become an active neutral after the armistice - joinin the Allies would be a major ahistoricality.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

For sure? Like Germany has a border garrison requirement which affects USSR war readiness, what if USSR also has a border garrison requirement which affects its war readiness? We can do that in SC2.

There are lots of ways how it can be done. This German and USSR garrisons on eastern front you have suggested are good idea but I still don’t think that we can simulate such surprise attack like it was in first days of Barbarossa. Russian player will start to prepare yourself for war with Germany from first game turn and I don’t think that this garrisons rule will be enough.

There is one more interesting game in development – Gary Grigsby’s World At War. It have pretty good solution of that problem. Research and units production are allowed but new units player can use only after first German attack. Also units which are already at the map are frozen until German attack. Not the best solution but pretty good one.

The best solution I ever saw is in Advanced Third Reich game (my favorite game except SC1, of course). In this game Russian units are free to move and attack some minors like Baltics states, Finland, Turkey, Sweden but you have limited number of units. No production of new ones. So you can make big mistake if you are attacking Turkey (for instance) and at that moment Germany declare war on Russia. Also there are lots of diplomatic options that are helping to simulate surprise attack. For instance: certain diplomatic result gives –1 defense modifier for all Russian units in first turn of German attack. Maybe we can have something like this in SC2?

[ev]

Should we allow Russian units to entrench while Russia is still neutral?

The armies of neutral countries don't normally dig extensive trenchlines, destroying the farms of their local population, and putting their soldiers to sleep in mudfilled ratholes.

[pzgndr]

I agree that neutrals should be prevented from entrenching, so as to afford the attacker some element of surprise. There may be some other first-turn surprise effects we could consider.

I don't know how practical the frozen units idea may be. For USSR, the initial units would be out of place once eastern Poland and the Baltic States are occupied. Should the code automatically move these units and refreeze them, or just allow players to redeploy as they see fit? I'm assuming freedom to redeploy units will be the standard, so the question becomes what incentive is there to forward deploy and risk being blitzed. That's why I think the border garrison idea has some merit, plus diplomacy results could also affect war readiness. Maybe not the most elegant solution, but it should force the Russian/Allied player to make some tough decisions with pros and cons either way. And with FOW on and neither side knowing what the other's war readiness is, this could be very interesting.

The goal would be to make the USSR war readiness issue fairly realistic, but debate still rages as to what "realistic" really means here. Could the Russians have gone on the offensive in 1941, and would they? Who knows. From a "game" perspective, adding some pressure to BOTH sides regarding early Russian DOW, with pros and cons, seems to be "fair." Otherwise, what incentive would the Russian player have to forward deploy and take the beating he knows is coming??

This is going to be interesting to resolve. I'm still thinking out loud at this point since things are not finalized. Comments and concerns from the peanut gallery are useful.

[ev]

I do not like the frozen units idea either. Once I played a game in which they implemented the following rule for Russia:

Russia had to certain garrisons near each city and near the border. If the garrison requirement was not met, a random throw of the dice would be used to determine which units were rellocated to meet the garrison requirements.

In the above game, the garrison locations were not hex or tile specific. For example, a garrison requirement could be to require that each tile along the border with the Axis nations is covered by Russian Zones of Control. The Russian player would be free to try different ways of meeting this requirement. But Russia must effectively patrol the border.

[Red Fleet]

Russian Units:

As long as the Soviet Union is neutral they should not be allowed to purchase units. The existing units should be garrisoned in a corridor along the respective border. If Germany declares war the Russian units should be dispersed randomly along the border. That makes it more difficult for the German player to plan the attack.

If the Soviets declare war they should have one round to prepare, place and buy units.

Russian entrenchment

Historically the Russians were not entrenched. According to their military doctrine - "Russia carries the war into the enemies country". And that´s why I think that should stay that way. May be there should be a option to change that with diplomatic chits, but I do not know enough about the diplomatic options.

May be it would be a nice idea to let the Russians build garrisons (entrenched units)in cities.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

I agree that neutrals should be prevented from entrenching, so as to afford the attacker some element of surprise.

There are two issues here: Entrenchment of Minor Neutrals and Entrenchment of Neutral Major Powers

1. I agree that Major power nation units should not be able to entrench while neutral.

2. I would allow Minor Power units - such as those in Sweden and Spain and Norway to begin entrenching as a result of Allied Diplomatic Activity and Axis conquests of specific countries. Buy a chit and the specific neutral nation starts the entrenchment process for a period of say 6 months, after which the neutral nation units return to their normal non-entrenched status.

For example:

IF Axis Conquers Norway then Allies can expend a Diplomatic Chit on Sweden that convinces them to prepare for an Axis Invasion. (In addition: Allow the Allies can expend a 2nd Diplomatic Chit that will allow Swedes to deploy an additional Corps) - Swedish units enter entrenchments for 6 months.

IF Axis Conquers Vichy France then Allies can expend a Diplomatic Chit on Spain that convinces their government to prepare for an Axis invasion - Spanish units enter entrenchment for 6 months.

[ July 29, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Russian Units

Perhaps add a random "Stalin Effect" to the Russian setup phase.

IF you place too many units to the rear "Stalin" may arbitrarily order some of these units to guard the Russian Border with Germany or consider that those units in the rear prevent supplies from reaching the front, thus those units on the front have their readiness reduced.

Just some really quick thoughts, but overall I like the concept of Russian deployment affecting US war readiness and the war readiness of Russia.

[Kuniworth]

This is not gooid solutions guys. Remember that there most likely will be an engineer-unit too which can build fortifications.

I just suggest we just let the russian player move his forces as he wish. If the OOB of 1939 reflects what it did in real life this is not a problem on the contrary this can be a good way to make axis attack earlier instead of just building up tons of units waiting for Russias war entry to raise.

Leave this be.

[Curry]

I hope there is NOT diplomacy in SC. I like SC the way it is and if I want to play Diplomacy I will play a game of Diplomacy. Its a great game to play via email by the way.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Originally posted by Curry:

I hope there is NOT diplomacy in SC. I like SC the way it is and if I want to play Diplomacy I will play a game of Diplomacy. Its a great game to play via email by the way.

NO diplomacy??!!

:eek:

war without diplomacy is like a hangover without beer(just imagine )

If there's no diplomacy in SC2 I'll take my money elsewhere.

[Curry]

Well Roosevelt, I like SC either way. And I will buy it either way. I'm just hoping that you will have to take your money elsewhere.

If you want to talk smack how about playing a game of SC. Not just talking about it. PBEM for the league.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Originally posted by Curry:

Well Roosevelt, I like SC either way. And I will buy it either way. I'm just hoping that you will have to take your money elsewhere.

If you want to talk smack how about playing a game of SC. Not just talking about it. PBEM for the league.

WTF??!!!! :mad:

Did you just accuse me of never having actually played SC before?!?

I don't have to take this **** from you, I play PBEM, not for the league, I admit but against neigbours and friends.

You and most people at the league are probably a lot better than me at PBEM,that I admit.

The question is, does that make your opinion worth more than mine?

Appearantly, you like your games simple: less thinking, more killing.

If that's your opinion I'll respect it if you'll respect mine, but you obviously don't. :mad:

[pzgndr]

I hope there is NOT diplomacy in SC.

Disabling diplomacy will be an option, but the standard political factors would continue to affect war readiness and activations and such. Diplomacy may be an on/off game setting, but even if it isn't you can set max diplomatic chits to 0 in the editor and effectively disable diplomacy that way. Ditto for research, by setting max research chits to 0 and perhaps adjusting various unit parameters to represent country-specific strengths and weaknesses. So a no-diplomacy and/or no-research game would be an option in SC2, and this could generate some very interesting games as well.