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

[Colin I]

I also want to see less predictability in diplomacy and other aspects to the game (minor placement, AI strategy, technology paths) for the same reason Canuck_para mentions.

I particular want to avoid highly specific plans (or the type: "in April 1940 invest X MP in infantry weapons, Y in heavy tanks, take out minors in this order, attacking with an HQ in this tile, tank in this tile etc.).

[Qyusson]

Diplomacy is a good sc2 option, brings a lot of fun to the game. But it would indeed be better to increase the chit cost, lower the chance and increase the maximum number of chits, something like 10 chits for uk, germany and usa; 5 for ussr and italy; 3 for france. something like 3% hit chance and costs varying between 50/75 for chits on minors and 250/300 on majors.

This way, trying to influence majors would become extremely expensive (negating the 'expected' factor of diplo), but the competition for minors more diverse(enhancing the 'what if' factor).

[Edwin P.]

I would keep the number of chits the same, so that a player has to make choices.

As for the cost - I would like to see them vary by country randomly from game to game to eliminate the cookie cutter strategies. Thus in one game influencing the USA might cost 250MPP while in another 125MPP. In some games influencing both the majors might be 250 or even 300MPP!

Example:

Major Diplomacy Cost: 50% - Normal, 20% - +50%, 20% - +100%, 10% - +200%

[ September 17, 2006, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[hellraiser]

update:

Played a tcp game as allies, got Iraq to 50+, got USA in the game in Oct 40, sunk every allied diplo chit into blocking Spain (the axis player couldn't get Spain till that date - 78% or something). The game was a joke. I can't wait for the needed fix for this stuff.

[Iron Ranger]

A SERIOUS amout of thinking needs to go into this feature before its changed again. I personally was not happy with the change from 1.02, a change was needed but I feel we didnt zero in on the exactly right change (see post in tech section). I'm not posting now as I'm off putting meat on the table (damn birds, good eating at least ).

I see three variables we need to consider and what it will effect in the next adjustment.

How much is it:

Historical

Balanced

Fluid (are there conters, more then one path)

Perhaps there are other values we need to look at control.

[Iron Ranger]

wooo lots of thinking going on??

Suggestions:

1) Return the number of chits per major power to 5 each. Its the control freak in me that wants each power to have the same number of options.

2) Adjust the %s for each power. (or cut each of these in 1/2 rounding up if the diplo option is too powerfull)

German 5% (max 25%)

UK 4% (max 20%)

France 1% (max 5%)

Italy 2% (max 10%)

USSR 4% (max 20%)

USA 6% (max 30%)

3) Return to 1.02 where friendly % DO NOT stack. So if Italy and German put 2 chits in spain its two rolls per turn at two different %s. This SHOULD slow down the diplo effects IG. Countering % would still work against both so 2 chits in by UK would give German 2% chance and Italy 0%.

4) Remove the 1% chance of a 'super' hit on major powers. This is just too much to see; say USSR jump up 35% in early 1940.

5) Adjust the MMPs cost per chit (if the above %s are used, if 1/2ed then this might be too much)

minor 100 MMps 1.5 to counter 150 MPPs

major 200 MPPs 1.5 to counter 300 MPPs

Diplo is a very powerfull tool - it should cost alot!

Seams the problem focus's around the USA right now. If the axis player is not willing to drain some MMPs from the UK (sea lion, subs, bomb citys, Iraq counter ect...) then why should they not be surprised when USA enters early? Some of this need to be adressed in another thread.

Extreme ideas:

Compleatly revamp the DOW / Readness system to be more dinamic. To the point where a active Minor might turn neutral or even change sides.

Incress the number of scripts where unit locations = changes in %. USSR needs to garison its border. More troops in Norway = good/bad relations with Finland and Sweden. Ect.....

[Hubert Cater]

Iron Ranger,

2,3) Previously if chits were not countered by an enemy then multiple hits per turn were possible. For example if Germany and Italy both had 1 chit and the UK had nothing then in v1.02 it was possible to have 2 hits, i.e. one for both Germany and Italy.

Now with the cumulative calculation it is only possible to have 1 hit per turn albeit at a higher % chance but only marginally so since Italy is at a lower % relative to Germany. The general idea with the change in v1.03 was to maintain the power of the major players, i.e. the UK and Germany, with supportive pressure applied if needed from the smaller major powers. Granted it is now possible with v1.03-04 to have diplomatic actions achieve a breakthrough, i.e. complete blocking is no longer possible, but only marginally so depending on how the chits have been applied. For example if the UK and Germany both have 5 chits applied against Spain and Italy has 1 chit then there is only a 3% chance for a hit.

Now, I am not saying that the new system is perfect, but I think that a few more adjustments to the effect % range as well as an adjustment to the costs for purchasing chits and we might just get there... well, get there in the sense of still working within the current system and without needing to do a complete overhaul of the code.

4) As far as I know this is not possible as there is only a minor % bonus... are you sure this was not from some other action like DoWs etc.?

Increase the number of scripts where unit locations = changes in %. USSR needs to garison its border. More troops in Norway = good/bad relations with Finland and Sweden. Ect.....

Some good ideas here

Hubert

[hellraiser]

Haven't seen such huge bonus increase when diplo-ing a major. Probably IR reffers to '35%' as the total readiness at a specific date, not just a diplo jump.

[Edwin P.]

Interesting observations on diplomacy and how to refine its effects.

Here are two changes I would consider - both involve the Intel Tech.

1. Each Level of Intel Tech (or Intel Advantage) gives you a 20% (or 10%) to see your opponent's diplomacy popup textbox.

Example: Intel 1 gives you a 20% (or 10%) to receive a report on any diplomatic success of your opponent. Think of it as your head of Intelligence reporting to you instead of you having to remember to ask him what is going on in the world. The more you invest in Intel the greater access your intelligence chief will have to you.

In my view most players are surprised by the USA or USSR entering the war early only because they don't check the diplomacy screen for changes. (I learned this lesson the hard way, twice!)

2. Each level of Intel Advantage cancels out 1% of an enemy's Diplomacy Advantage in a country.

Example: Axis has 23% to influence USA. UK has 20%. Normally Axis has a 3% to Influence Spain. With an Allied Intel Advantage of 2 this is reduced to 1%.

Example: UK has invested 10% to Influence USA and Germany Zero, but Germany has Intel Advantage +2 over the UK. UKs diplomatic effect is 10% less 2% = 8%.

This change would help the Axis and Allies to counter the diplomatic advantage of their opponent worldwide, not just in a targeted country - but only if they had an Intel advantage over the opposing side.

It does not increase a countries chances of successful diplomatic action, it only reduces that of the enemy if they have a Diplomatic advantage in a country.

I would refine this further by having a popup when that shows the effectiveness of this investment when it prevents a change in a country's diplomatic leanings:

[Axis] agents sabotage [Allied] Diplomatic Efforts

[Allied] agents sabotage [Axis] Diplomatic Efforts

The popup does not tell what country was affected, only that your Intel Advantage prevented a diplomatic movement towards the opposing side.

[ September 21, 2006, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Bromley]

It seems that people think that the US is too cheap, but do people feel that the UK diplo on the USSR is too cheap atm?

I've been trying it on in my PBEM games and, with 2 chits, I've had only average success. In general, it feels like I'd probably have been better served investing 150 in Spain rather than 200 in the USSR.