Diplo is killing me! USA shouldn't be bought!

[jon_j_rambo]

Don't know about you...but this diplo stuff is out of hand...

I play Axis against a couple different opponents. They have USA at 80% in June 1940, I get no hits. Dude gets 3 hits in a row as UK. Same game, dude gets hits in Iraq.

I play Allies, get nothing with UK, 5 chits in Iraq. Meanwhile, Axis is swinging Spain over. Can I get some luck?

Game is lame, Diplo is too strong. About ready to get house rules on Diplo.

[ September 13, 2006, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Bromley]

There's always going to be something that through its uncertainty unbalances a game like this though. You made the choice to go flat out for Iraq (risk) rather than take the route of blocking Spain (safe, but more expensive). After all, you knew what he was doing and, unless he got two 30%s, had plenty of time to react.

[jon_j_rambo]

what's it matter? Spain or Iraq? If you can't get the hits, doesn't matter what non-American you're trying to buy.

USA being bought? That's a laugher. Nobody buys the USA, we buy you.

[Bromley]

It matters because, if I understand correctly, 1 UK chit cancels out 1 German/Italian chit. Therefore, as under 1.04 the Axis can invest only 8 chits in Spain to your 5, they only get a 9-15% chance (depending on how the game decides which chits are used to cancel out the UK ones).

[jon_j_rambo]

Dude, we're saying the country doesn't matter, except for the MMP cost to purchase. The chance is the same. Think while you read. Read to understand.

[hellraiser]

as of 1.04, friendly diplo is cummulative, not separate rolls: germans 25% + italy 9% (assigned to 1 target, ofc) = friendly diplo pressure of 34%. If UK decides to 'block', it can never 'block' by itself: 34%-25% = still 9% chances for an axis diplo hit.

This is better, in a way, because in the previous versions with chits cancelling eachother out, you could invest 3 italian chits + 2 german ones (totalling 19%) and effectively block 5 uk chits (totalling 25%).

But I fully agree that bribing majors is too powerful right now - there is a thread in the support forum dealing with this issue as well as some other bugs and imbalances.

[TaoJah]

IMHO the whole Diplo thing in the game is wrong, because it depends on cheer luck.

A better system would be something like "if you pay 100MPP, Spain will go 1% to you ever turn" or something.

Now luck decides who wins the game. If you play several games, it evens out of course, but it should even out in one game. The system I described does that.

Same with research, really. I had games where I had Advanced infantry 3 and Advanced Tanks 5 before the end of 1940. There too it should just give you -for instance- 2 points per turn for each 100MPP and give you the tech when you hit 100 points or so.

I hate games that are based on luck.

[Karhu]

Well, not based on luck, but luck will always play a part.

It's far more fun to have the element of uncertainty, not knowing if or when your investments in diplomacy and research will pay off, rather than knowing for certain in advance that so exactly much loot will buy you exactly so much diplomatic influence or scientific research.

Diplomacy and research are never that exact in the real world anyway. Sometimes you do get unpredictable breakthroughs in both.

[Iron Ranger]

This is better, in a way, because in the previous versions with chits cancelling eachother out, you could invest 3 italian chits + 2 german ones (totalling 19%) and effectively block 5 uk chits (totalling 25%).

It didnt work that way, but no matter as that 'style' of play is not gone two patchs ago.

Aside from Tech and Diplo the game is really a simple math option. Combat has very little randomness in it and weather has been reduced in power to the point that no one makes plans around it. Chess would be the perfect non random game, I personally prefer some things outside the players control that are important.

That said, I dont think the current system of chits ect are the best. We do need to improve it perhaps a few suggestions??

[jon_j_rambo]

Luck is for Lucifer. I prefer destiny.

[SeaMonkey]

So you are saying JJR, that Terif kicks everybody's butt cause he's lucky all the time?

Terif is a perfect example of the constant of skill winning out over the variable of luck in the majority of cases.

Go cry on someone elses shoulder.

And when your done do something positive and examine your strategies for flaws.

[Liam]

USA wouldn't have been convinced by what the UK could afford so it's Ahistorical

Only aide them financially was our Motto let the brits and reds fight for us, rather than commit our men, that was the feeling of the US President and any American can you tell you of our isolated spirit?

[jon_j_rambo]

@SeaMonkey --- Think before you type. If you want to belong with the "in crowd", be intelligent. (see Roger Federer & Tiger Woods thread). Yodl already has his personal Allied Cookie Cutter.

Isn't it time we play? Lets make this Mono on Mono. Me vs You.

-Legend

[Blashy]

You're bias is so out of whack you could never see the other side of possibilities.

For one this RARELY happens to the extreme.

USA WILL join eventually.

USA had a strong "lets stay neutral" and if the Germans had invested HEAVILY into propaganda and into diplomatic relations they could have probably delayed the US entry because of public sentiment.

With that said, I still prefer a system where there is NO blocking, both sides can get hits.

[Hubert Cater]

Interesting... has anyone tried active Axis counter diplomacy against this type of UK effort?

[Guest Mike]

What's the problem here?

someone puts a bunch of effort into influencing the 'states, and JJR cries about it? Hey if he's doign so good tehn he's spending up large on MMP's - hit him while he's weak ya whiner!

[SeaMonkey]

OK JJR, 45s at high noon in the public square so all can see, especially your "in crowd".

I think you should be the Nazis...fits your mannerisms.

I'll be awaiting your first move.

[JerseyJohn]

"Rambo and SeaMonkey are going to shoot it out at high noon. Hello? You didn't hear a word I said, did you?"

[Liam]

Hubert, Yes, in a game vs Terif, he managed to keep my Allies out for several turns, I think 2 successful hits. I had put 5 full chits in, I had 3 successful, so I still felt payed off, plus the amount of time I had increased Readiness gave me mega-bonuses... Also vs a Game with him, I managed to keep the USSR out till NEARLY Summer of 1942 with counter chits to the opposite side, however it didn't pay off well. Gave the USSR time to build up armed forces, get Siberians and ultimately kick my butt. I suppose played the game on the all poorly though, but managing to keep USSR Neutral till Summer of '42 could work in your favor if you planned properly with an expansion strategy. Thing is too, you're taking big risks, 150 I believe for Germany to hit USSR, 100 for UK to hit USA... Really an unfair equation considering USSR has strong triggers to attack before '42 with any sort of Axis Action.

I will say the truth is that the USA had many sympathizers for the Nazis, and the U-Boat warfare and Pearl Harbor which all was inevitable was going to up her Readiness for War and bring in the psychopathic minds of the Axis into play one way or the other. Though purchasing the United States?

No Diplomatic chit would've succeeded, Churchill raved on FDR far more than Franco, and FDR never bent to his will. He made an oath to the American Public to Remain Neutral and wouldn't send his boys to war. Even though secretly preparing for what might be the inevitable, truth is when Russia came in FDR was pleased. He found another partner to fight the war for him, I would up Lendlease through Diplomatic pressure and lessen War Readiness to realistically reflect History. The USA would've never entered without a formal declaration, I don't say that, it depended on just how far the Axis took it...

As far as Purchasing the USSR's noninvolvement, I believe Stalin's ambitions were also beyond Diplomatic pressure, there SHOULD Be a healthy limit to what can be purchased on both ends. A Cap! so to speak that makeing balanced and realistic instead of bringing in the USA in 1940 with some luck which we all known would've never happened, it's a historical impossability as with the USSR. Neither nation had any interest at that time

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Interesting... has anyone tried active Axis counter diplomacy against this type of UK effort?

[Terif]

The problem is that influencing USA has a too huge impact on game balance compared to other (diplomatic-) actions since it significantly increases/reduces the allied mpps and ability to do a D-day and luck here plays a major role.

Since every hit is too valuable, it is a no brainer for at least Allies to always invest into USA while Axis usually brings in Spain first - which regularly joins in 1940 also - but until then USA is nearly in too. The effect range for influencing majors should simply be reduced to bring it more towards balance - I would propose to halve it.

P.S.: I now had already 3 games within the last 2 weeks where USA joined between Juli and October 1940, and many more in early 1941...this is neither realistic, nor good for game purposes.

[ September 14, 2006, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[hellraiser]

ditto, this thing allows for a very early D-Day, perhaps the same time with barbarossa, putting axis in a very difficult posture.

With USA still neutral or just joined at the end of 41, UK can, at most, harass Axis in west by snatching a town, or bombing, but no serious threat. Axis player probably knows this and can still focus on Russia for several months.

Now with, USA in in 40 or early 41, the Axis player is well aware of the fact that ANY landing in west, could be the actual D-Day.

With the long run allied mpp advantage(even with Spain Axis, because IT only applies to national resources, which are too few for Germany), things look rather grim for Axis, especially if Axis is forced to battle in west so early (and losing precious units for sure). Russia will eventually grow too strong and beat Axis by itself.

This scenario has a lot of sense (I mean Allies asskicking Axis), but, IMHO, not in 41-early 42.

I think Yoda's ideea should work fine here. Even with halved diplo effects, bribing USA (or maybe even USSR) is still a viable choice for the Allies. Increasing the readiness increases the income, so in the long run some 5-800 mpps invested by the UK should definitely pay off.

[ September 14, 2006, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: hellraiser ]

[Sombra]

I liked the diplo system in 1.02 more. At least there was some kind of strategy involved in investing in diplomacy after the rules were clarified by Hubert.

IMHO it is now only dumping chits and in just another option where "luck" only decides the outcome of the actions with huge influence on the outcome of the game.

Still, I am suprised that Rambo protests as the "diplo" game is now in the hands of god

[hellraiser]

apparently it is in the hands of a non-christian deity

[Hubert Cater]

How about just halving the overall effects of Diplomacy in general but keeping the minor influence bonus the same? This would have the effect of slowing down hits on majors as well as minors such as Spain at the same time.

What do you think?

[Terif]

Hmm, at least from a balance perspective I see no reason to reduce the diplo effects concerning minors - if anything then reduce the influence bonus since this is a pure luck thing, but that´s my personal preference .

If both sides are not forced any more to invest into US diplo at all costs since it gives such a huge benefit and therefore can use their chits for other things, it will be possible and likely to counter enemy diplo in minor countries, so an effect reduction for them is not really necessary - after all there should be a chance to be able to bring them to joining .