Foreign Minister Unit

[Edwin P.]

In Sc2 I am often surprised by diplomatic developments as I tend not to check the diplomatic screen often.

I would like to have the option to purchase a Foreign Minister who would advise me via popups of any change in a countries readiness each turn.

The Foreign Minister would also hinder the diplomatic efforts of your opponent (reduce their chance for diplomacy success).

[jon_j_rambo]

How about.......NO!

[n0kn0k]

You got my vote Adding the changes to the summary would be nice. However hindering others efforts should be done through countering chits though.

On the other hand one could argue it requires some skill/effort to keep track of the changes now. So i guess it's up to the vision Hubert has for the game

[jon_j_rambo]

I'd add railroads and change operanding.

[Edwin P.]

1. Yes for railroads. That really adds more strategy to the game if operating can only be done along rail lines and a city can only be supplied via rail lines. Seize a rail hub and you prevent your unit from operating units and cut off cities from supply.

2. As for the Foreign minister unit, it would count as one of your HQs - if you don't want to check the diplomacy screen yourself purchase a Foreign Minister HQ (100MPP), but know that it will reduce the number of combat HQs you can put into the field.

[ January 20, 2007, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

@Eddie --- Operanding should be fixed, that's for sure. Moving fighting units across the planet should be charge differently & take an extra turn to do.

[JerseyJohn]

-- If this idea were put into the game, I think there would also need to be a way of setting diplomatic effectiveness for individual countries.

The Axis was particularly bad at diplomacy.

The Third Reich didn't really have diplomacy. One ambassador, von Neurath, was very capable, but the top nazis didn't like him. Ribbentrop, while playing the violin very well (like Heydrich) and having a lot of suave, didn't really have the smarts for real diplomacy.

When Neurath was being replaced, for example, Ribbentrop pulled a masterpiece in pre-war London. He gave the King and Queen of Britain a hearty nazi salute. According to those present, Germany immediately lost any further hope of dealing with them. -- Ironically, such a gesture might have gone over fairly well before Edward's abdication, but not after his younger brother became king.

In Spain, 1940, Hitler sent Wilhelm Canaris to pave the way for Franco's entry into the Axis. Instead, the admiral told his old friend that it would be a dissasterous move and there was no need to join German because most of it's forces had already been moved out of France. When Hitler met with him shortly afterward, the Spanish dictator was so contrary that Hitler said after the meeting he'd rather have root canal done without anasthesia than meet again with the Spanish. It was the only time the two dictators met.

Shortly afterward, Hitler met with Marshal Petain to try and get Vichy into the Axis, now that it was obvious Britain would not be making peace with him. Even the octagenarian Frenchman, with all the cards stacked against him, was able to dance around Hitler's diplomatic advances.

The only countries Germany had any success with were those who, like Finland and Rumania, found themselves more afraid of the USSR than Germany. Hungry was a kindred spirit to the Reich long before the war began, and Bulgaria was played against it's neighbors, so going Axis -- which they did without having to committ themselves to sending troops to the Russian front -- made more sense than risking a similar fate to Yugoslavia's.

Italy's diplomats were similarly awful.

[ChrisND]

Thosewould be some fat diplomats, occupying a whole tile on the map

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John, thanks once more for the most informative history lesson. Excellent summary.

Question: Would you consider the Molotov Pact a German Diplomatic success?

Though it will likely not be added to SC2, how about:

von Neurath - 175MPP

--- Advises Player on Diplomacy Movements

--- No penalties

Ribbentrop - 75MPP

--- Advises Player on Diplomacy Movements

--- Penalty against Influencing 2 Randomly Selected Nations (USA, Russia, Spain, Turkey or Sweden)

Wilhelm Canaris - 125MPP

--- Advises Player on Diplomacy Movements - 100%

--- Penalty Against Influencing 1 Randomly Selected Nation (USA, Russia, Spain, Turkey or Sweden)

I made the actual penalty random so that players would not know what their Foreign Minister's weaknesses are.

[JerseyJohn]

Appreciated Edwin,

You have an interesting perspective on it. As far as I can see, your method would be a good way of doing it. Also, I like the randomness part because it would definitely be hard to say whether a diplomat is doing well, or poorly, till after he's (back then it was all men) been on the job for a while.

I'm not sure how we'd rate Joseph Kennedy in London. To me he was only speaking realistically in 1940, when he advised Roosevelt that Britain would probably lose the war. But his remarks were interpreted as being anywhere from defeatist to pro-fascist, which I don't think he was.

Molotov was a very good diplomat, as I believe is also your opinion. Count Ciano of Italy might also have pretty good, but he was always saddled with his father-in law's (Mussolini) policies, which left little room for maneuver.

I think the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was ludicrous. First, it was to Germany's benefit to have Poland as a buffer to the east. Second, if they were going to split it with the USSR, the arrangement should have been totally secret, and for the Russians to invade first from the east, with Germany screaming and yelling about Soviet Aggression and offering to help Poland defend itself, not actually sending it's troops in till the Soviets were practically at Warsaw. In that way I think Germany would have had its part of Poland and, if there had been a war, it would have been Britain and France lined up against the USSR -- which I think Stalin might actually have gone along with as it would have been a deadend.

Normal Dude,

You also have an interesting perspective -- I'm picturing those fat giant diplomats wallowing around.

[TaoJah]

About diplo : when you turn it off, do the Balkan States always join the Axis then ?

Even when you DOW Vichy and Spain ?

[Colin I]

Jersey John,

I agree that Axis were not good at diplomacy (nor in WWI) but feel game already covers this - in the sense that you can choose a strategy, as the Axis did, where you spend almost no MPP on diplomacy. You can also choose to play the diplomatic game as the Axis more strongly. But you can chose to invade Spain - not historical but possible. In other words SC2 is about options that include the historical route but more besides. I can see no reason why, if German leadership was different, a diplomatic route wasn't possible. An in SC2 surely the player is the leader and if he can make different military decisions than Hitler (e.g. retreat in Russia which many players will do) why different political decisions aren't also OK.

Additionally, Axis will always have problems with diplomacy because there are three major nations against two, so ultimately they can always be frustrated.

Dilomacy system does need some tweaking but I'm not sure this (Edwin's ideas) is the right route.

[JerseyJohn]

Colin I,

True on all counts. As I said, if this option is adapted there would have to be a way of setting the level of efficiency for each individual major country.

-- By suggesting Germany could have been led by anyone other than Hitler and the nazis you've opened an old and ongoing issue at this place. My own thought has always been a rightwing group bent on restoring former greatness, but without the genocidal insanity. Also, by doing so, you've no doubt set the stage for Blashy to come in here howling in his own inimitable way about how -- well, I'll wait and let him go into it again on his own.

Looking forward to it.

-- There are some side items to all of this that I think are very interesting.

For one, Hitler and FDR took office at the same time. Hitler at once saw ideas similar to his own in The New Deal, and praised it. He tried to establish relations with Franklin Roosevelt, honestly wanted to befriend him, but FDR refused to respond, even when Hitler made very favorable remarks about him and his programs to British and French visitors. Within a few years FDR's cold shoulder became outright hostility, even before the Munich Conference. So, regardless of who Germany's foreign representitive to the U. S. would have been, there's little or no chance that relations would have gotten anywhere while Franklin Roosevelt was president.

-- Phillip Roth has an interesting take off on this in his alternate history novel, The Plot Against America. He has FDR losing the 1939 Democratic Party Primary to Axis friendly Charles Lindbergh, who goes on to become president, and Germany has a great influence on the United States. Joachim Ribbentrop is one of the characters. I enjoyed the book, but was disappointed by Roth's obvious rushing of the the last 1/3rd or so.

Another thing I find interesting is that Britain and France drifted apart after WWI and only came back together after Hitler started showing his true designs around 1937. By 1938, after the Anschloss, they were allies again.

-- Prior to the nazi takeover in Germany, it was Austria calling for a joining of the two nations; it was a popular movement there during the 1920s. Nazi diplomacy not only failed to take advantage of that, but even managed, by backing an aggressive Austrian form of nazism, to turn most other Austrians against the unification idea. The impression that it was popular in that country during the late thirties is mainly a myth, solidified by well choreographed crowds of Austrian and German nazis who were filmed cheering the Fuhrer in Linz and Vienna after Germany had forced the issue.

-- Poland, in the mid and late 1930s, tried to organize the Balkan and Baltic nations into a mutual defense league (similar to the feeble Balkan Pact) but their efforts always fell through because the other nations didn't trust them. They felt Poland was too friendly with Germany!

[jon_j_rambo]

Here's my theory. Satan got a nice run in Germany. The nation as a whole turned it's back on God & went Bunta on everybody...killing farmers, old ladies, little kids, and shop owners. Seriously, how deranged & stupid can you get by messin' with Jewish people? Don't you think the Lord is going to get pretty pissed off? So, Gerry built some tanks, yelled alot of crap, and went nutz. They got alot of friends to join, then drove into an icy Russia. Later, Patton & friends gave them a housecall.

Satan must have sent his own "Diplo Minister Angel" to visit the site.

[ January 21, 2007, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[xwormwood]

I would like to see some more benefits from diplo.

Even though a country never joins a side before 100%, every % in your favour should generate a little extra cash for you side.

On the other hand the allies should benefit some cash whenever the axis conquers a formal neutral country.

Many merchant ships, warships, foreign cash etc. were available to allies whenever a country went down (event though the neutrals surrendered, their foreign countrymen were more than willing to do everything to free their homeland and to put some effort into helping the allied sides.

@john

agreed, but satan got his foot into the US as well. Think about how the blacks were treated in these days, event when they fought side on side with their white comrades against the axis.

Just saw a documentation on TV, were MacArthur hanged a couple of coloured soldiers whech were accused of having raped one white woman.

And of course there was no evidence. Knowing this, he still refused to pardon at least those which were not "recognized" by the white witch...

[JerseyJohn]

Oye, Oye, this JJRambo has a good heart, but he is so MASHUGINA!

Yes, Brother Rambo, I pretty much agree, if Satan has minions on earth screwing things up, they were strongest in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Hussein's Iraq couldn't have been far behind, and then there was Paul Pot (or whatever his name was) in Cambodia and the lunatics in Yugoslavia and the African countries that have been slaughtering people with such enthusiasm the past twenty years or so. And, of course, they're always lurking in every country on earth, in every corner inhabited by man.

But rather than chalk them up to Satan, I prefer to say they're just insane human beings. Also, while I'm not anti-Semitic, I don't feel the nazis committed any worse offense by singling out the Jews than they would have done by singling out any other group. And they did, also committing genocide on Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, Poles and any other group that fell under their quack racial or social prejudice.

Anyway, we were talking about the diplomatic abilities, or lack thereof, of these particular minions of Satan and to reflect it in the game.

BTW, though I like Edwin's idea very much, I think Normal Dude, and others I believe, made a good point earlier; it would be better if they diplomats weren't represented as a physical unit. Maybe something like a physical unit that can be placed in non-terrain tile with the location it's been assigned to.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

...

On the other hand the allies should benefit some cash whenever the axis conquers a formal neutral country.

Many merchant ships, warships, foreign cash etc. were available to allies whenever a country went down (event though the neutrals surrendered, their foreign countrymen were more than willing to do everything to free their homeland and to put some effort into helping the allied sides.

...

Greetings Mr X,

Great points. A long time ago I pointed out that, by invading Norway, Germany went a long way toward insuring Britain wouldn't lose the Battle of the Atlantic because the Norwegian merchang fleet was the fourth largest on earth and, naturally, Britain got almost all of it by default!

There should be some way of reflecting that in the game.

-- I might add that, at the time, the resident wags laughed at the idea that Norway played such a vital role. Laughed!! -- sorry, I got carried away. But I do remember they seem to have thought I was joking about that part. I wasn't. :cool:

[Retributar]

Thats something that i knew nothing about JerseyJohn _Thank's for forwarding that information!. Is Lend Lease of WW1 U.S. naval resources also represented in SC2?[Perhap's???].

[arado234]

The only good diplomacy is MIGHT IS RIGHT.

[Edwin P.]

Re: Diplomacy,

I would like to see major nations able to use the ports of friendly nations (i.e. leaning 50% or more towards you) for supply, repair and sanctuary against enemy attack.

[SeaMonkey]

Always great to hear from our Forum Historian, the honorable JJ. As a catalyst of ideas based on history he is unsurpassed, Edwin's a close second.

Now it seems we have the infancy of a pre-hostility era of diplomacy much like Days of Decision module for World in Flames.

Who would like to see perhaps a 5, 4, 3 year pre diplomatic scenario for SC2? One based on maneuvering, builds, research, diplomacy on quarterly turns. The point system for builds could be inacted based on these decisions and the outcome of the "Diplomacy Scenario" could lead to different alliances and hostility start dates.

Of course we wouldn't be historically inclined anymore, but would preserve the venue. The action would start when the initial representatives of the Axis and Allies alignnments DoW each other.

[Retributar]

Im in favour of your idea SeaMonkey!. Having a truly unscripted OR partially scripted, unknown unknown's in a game like this would make it truely exhilerating!.

I still like having the regular WW2 Historical Venue', but having an AHistorical Situation would be refreshing at the least!.

[Edwin P.]

Agreed, SeaMonkey - Great Idea. Fantastic.

I would also consider semi-annual turns to speed thins up - ie. 4 years in 8 turns.

Now, lets hear some practical ways to implement this using quarterly or semi-annual turns or some other turn period.

[Edwin P.]

Example:

Perhaps give each side a series of preware decisions to make.

Germany would have 3 decisions;

01 - Naval Strategy

02 - Axis Diplomatic Strategy (Does Germany ally with Italy, Spain or Turkey)

03 - Industrial Focus (None, Army, Air, or Naval)

01. Naval Strategy - Subs, Surface, Combined or None

If Germany selects a sub strategy then it starts the war with +3 subs in production and no battleships in production.

If Germany selects a surface strategy it starts the war with 2 more battleships in production and 2 less subs.

If Germany selects a combined naval strategy then it pursues the historical forces structure as shown in SC2.

If Germany selects a non naval strategy it starts the war with no ships in the production que and receives an extra 600MPP.

France would also have 3 Strategies to select from:

01. Defense of France

01.01 Extend Maginot Line to the English Channel-lose 1 army and gain 2 corps.

01.02 Historical Defense of France

02. Fall of France

02.1 Vichy France

02.2 Fight from Algiers

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by arado234:

The only good diplomacy is MIGHT IS RIGHT.

Listen boys, he's playing our song!

Retributor,

Glad you found that interesting, these forums are like an ongoing history course, I've been enjoying all the tidbits I've been able to pick up myself since joining. :cool:

Edwin,

That's a really good idea, as usual.

An example would be toward the start of the war, when the Graf Spee put in for repairs at Montevedao (sorry for the probable mispelling) thinking they'd be allowed time for full repairs, but British pressure led to a 24 hour (?) limit. Obviously, if Graf Spee had pulled into a Spanish port, or one belonging to a nation more alligned with Germany, it could have stayed indefinitely without being confiscated.

Just saw your Pre-game choice idea while writing this, and I think it's excellent. Combined with your suggestion of having two turns -- or quarterly turns? -- for the prewar period, I think it comes to an excellent and very enjoyable system. An optional one, I'd hope.

Sea Monkey,

Honored! And likewise, there have been plenty of times when I found myself putting forward ideas you'd already suggested before I became a member.

I like your prewar turns idea very much. It's similar to an option in HiCom that I thought made it a much better game than would otherwise have been the case.

But I also agree with Retributor's view that it ought to be an option as most players will want to get right to the action.