Neutral Powers & Diplomacy: Patch Idea

[Liam]

Dear Hubert and Community,

it's come to my attention after playing about 25-35 games of Strategic Command 2 and watching the better players we have two MAJOR issues that need discussion and fixing:

First let me purpose that Neutrals are predictable! When you DOW you know exactly be it Allied or Axis where to move and how easiest to take it down. This is not history. In history, troops were constantly moved due to Leadership, Politics, or generally where they could afford to. I say take the Predictability out of Attacking Minors, forcing Recon on them before a Power takes them down. Every time you DOW a Minor, you should have to really guess where they might place their troops, especially for nations with large quantities of troops and armed forces!

--This would fix some of the humdrum, Neutral Grabbing, perhaps even placing in a corps or two here or there, making it random, as Majors did not know this information ahead of time. Those that did, had what? Wonderful Intel and Recon, which is uneccessary in SC2 which is Ahistorical and makes the game plain straight sort of Boring and Predictable, whose with me?

Hubert I hope you get catch my drift and folks? Agreed? Not trying to ruin anything just enhance

Secondly:

Diplomacy, it's gamey by now, I'm buying the USA as UK, I'm buying Minors, I'm using a gamey exploit more or less to squeeze the Axis dry. There is no Sub raiding-strategic bombing-espionage, there is thousands of MPPs being thrown into Neutrals and Majors with a predictable result. Historical Politics was not so predictable!!! Franco, FDR, etc.. were a lot tougher cookies than 500 MPPs of spending. 100 MPPs may have worked, an Allied DOW on Vichy Algeria may have.. Noone knows.. Though a slightly different system should be implemented. I'm not sure which, I need some smarter minds to decide upon a less gamey approach to politics, not to do away with it, but DO NOT RELY ON IT LIKE A CRUTCH to win games and to force the opponent spend-counterspend. It's not Aircraft design, it's not a Science Diplomacy. LOL, though you could take that in College

Lastly, Just trying to enhance gameplay, and despite my odd ideas, I welcome other more experienced players to add their two cents and ideas PLEASE Help our game get better

BTW: Espionage, could be an interesting treat with increased Intel Tech, since it's a pretty useless tech. Say a random Destruction of a MPP resource when you reach a certian level, or a few Points in damage, make a few more good reasons to invest aye ? and I could think a few more ideas for Intel too

[Edwin P.]

Liam, I agree with your thoughts on Diplomacy and Intel Tech.

As you say Diplomacy is too predictable. Valuable yes, a great feature, but too predictable from game to game.

How would I handle this?

What about making the cost of Intel Chits vary from game to game. In Game 1 influencing USA might cost 125 MPP, in Game 2 it might cost 175MPP and in Game 3 it might cost 200MPP to influence the USA. Thus in Game 1 it might be to your advantage to influence the USA but not in Game 3.

Example:

USA Diplomacy Chits: 50% 100MPP, 25% 150MPP, 25% 200MPP - reflecting a the varied strength of the neutrality movement in the USA vs the influence of President FDR.

Swedish Diplomacy Chits: 50% 75MPP, 25%100MPP, 25% 150MPP - reflecting the varied strength of different political fractions in this country.

Or perhaps let each major power select a Foreign Minister - Minister A might be good with USA but increase the cost of influencing minors by 100%, while Minister B might be welcome in minor countries but increase your cost of influencing major countries by 100%, and of course the Minister that your enemy selects might affect this cost also. If you want to change a minister it costs you 250MPPs.

Example:

German Minister A, UK Minister B = Cost for Chits to Influence USA +100%, Cost to Influence Russia +0%

German Minister C, UK Minister B = Cost for Chits to Influence USA +0%, Cost to Influence Russia +100%

German Minister B, UK Minister B = Cost for Chits to Influence USA +200% and Russia +200%

This makes it more like a game of Rock, Paper and Scissors. Whom you choose as Foreign Minister and who your opponent selects will affect the costs pursuing a diplomactic strategy.

Who would be the German Foreign Ministers?

Perhaps:

a. Ribbentrop - good with Russia, poor with Minor Nations and USA

b. Canaris - good with Minor Nations, poor with Major Nations

c. .....

Intel Tech - well it just doesn't feel like Intel and you never know if its helping you.

A popup for the Axis saying "[German] agents have sabotaged [british] research" or [German] agents have acquired Allied technology" would go a long way towards making Intel feel like Intel.

I would also like to see Intel Tech allow a player to see how much MPPS are being transported by convoys - says German Intel Advantage 1 over USA = 20% to see American Lend Lease MPPs, Intel Advantage 2 = 40% to see Lend Lease MPPs.

Likewise I would like to see your ability to view enemy popups linked to intel. Example: Intel 1 = 20% that the Axis player sees the popup announcing the appearance of Siberian Troops in Russia. Intel 1= 20% that the Axis player sees the popup announcing that Spain has been influenced towards the Allies (now your agents will advise you of enemy changes and reduce your chance of overlooking any change by not checking the diplomacy screen).

[ September 16, 2006, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Further elaboration on the Diplomacy Idea:

Each Side - Axis and Allied - selects their primary foreign minister. The choice of these affect the costs of influencing nations.

There are nine possible outcomes:

Axis (A) + Allied (A)

--- Cost to Influence Majors +0%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +0%

Axis (A) + Allied (

--- Cost to Influence Majors +100%

Axis (A) + Allied ©

--- Cost to Influence Minors +50%

Axis ( + Allied (A)

--- Cost to Influence Majors +100%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +100%

Axis ( + Allied (

--- Cost to Influence Majors +0%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +0%

Axis ( + Allied ©

--- Cost to Influence Minors +50%

Axis © + Allied (A)

--- Cost to Influence Majors +0%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +0%

Axis © + Allied (

--- Cost to Influence Minors +50%

Axis © + Allied ©

-- Cost to Influence Majors +100%

Of course, if you don't like the result you can always invest political capital in changing your foreign minister - at a cost of 250MPPS! which represents, in American terms, pork barrel politics to secure the support of fellow politicians and interest groups for your change of cabinet officials.

[ September 16, 2006, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

Liam , 1st off, "good work!!!" in bringing this problem into the open, and Edwin P. , i think you have definetly 'Struck GOLD' in how you have suggested as to what can be done to remedy the Glaring Diplomacy problem that Liam has exposed!.

So!,..."let it be said,...and now, let it be done!."

[Edwin P.]

Retributor, many thanks for your comments.

Which diplomacy idea do you like the best?

The simple variable cost or the rock, paper, scissors approach?

[Retributar]

Hello Edwin P. !, i like your 1st Version the most i think, as i do not fully understand the 2nd Version as well!.

Also in Version #1, i like the total lack or minimum control one has over how your Diplomacy will work out!.

This makes it more like a game of Rock, Paper and Scissors. Whom you choose as Foreign Minister and who your opponent selects will affect the costs pursuing a diplomactic strategy .

As well, i like the personal feel one get's when they know that they have been bested by their opponent!. [This would Pee-Me-Off!]

A popup for the Axis saying "[German] agents have sabotaged [british] research" or [German] agents have acquired Allied technology" would go a long way towards making Intel feel like Intel .

Your 1st Version has a 'Personal-Feel' to it, where'as the 2nd Version is too 'Machine-Like', or so that's the impression i get!.

In the 1st Version, i feel like im very 'Personally-Involved', and that it's me that they are taking a piece out of!.

[xwormwood]

Why not introduce event cards (and therefor a eventcard draw phase)?

Every year brings new events into the gamepot of each side. From here you can draw one card if you buy one card.

You can draw good events, bad events, blanks, some cards to play instantly, some cards to treasure until the right moment arise.

If you don't want to buy your card, your opponent gets the chance to buy a card from your pot instead.

If he draws a card with a positive effect for your side, the card is discarded permanently with no effect for your side. If he draws a card with a bad effect for your side, you have to suffer under the effect immediately.

Many boardgames uses these draw-phases, and yes, it is quite a nice addition to every game.

There could even be even a pre-war draw-phase.

This systems offers endless different variations.

Think about a card wich gives you a moral boost, but can't ever be played if you opponent played his version of this card before you did or an event card whis simply nullify the effect of your card.

There could be two or three main different events categories: diplo, research and moral (just as examples).

Think about research and a bad effect card! Many thing which were invented didn't work at the front line (german torpedos where quite useless in the first year of the war), these slow british "infantry"-tanks didn't proved to be such a brilliant idea as well when they faced their faster german counterparts etc. etc. etc.).

A good research event could be on the other hand the discovery that your 88mm Flak can be used in a most excellent way against enemy tanks.

The excisting diplo chits / research chits could stay as well, because you can plan whan you do. But not everything is simple math, so this random draw results would bring in lots of new and incalculable endings for both sides.

Introduce this addition with an on/off switch and everyone should be happy.

[ September 17, 2006, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Baron]

What about just limiting the number of points a side can buy in a turn? Diplomacy is a long term endevour. Even if a country could be "bought" it would take time for that country to come to war footing. Look at how unprepared Italy was, any of the minor/major contries brought in early would suffer the same types of problems. Furthermore Foreign aid would be going to different countries at the same time, not all to one country and then start on another. I like the idea of only having 5 points in play at once but if you limit each country to 1 point a turn/per country nobody is going to be forced to break the bank in counter spending. Thus it would take at least 5 turns to get the maximum influence on any given country. I would also not allow diplomacy the the major powers USA,USSR at all. These countries had their own agendas and nobody in Europe had anything extra to through their way to influence them.Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

[Liam]

Edwin, I get the idea that this adds variables and realism as you say men like Ribbentrop or Canaris would've probably not convinced the USA much

Maybe would've increased our War Readiness by attempting to decrease it you agree?

I like the direction for Minors would make it a but more of a tech rather than a tool used for exploitation?

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Further elaboration on the Diplomacy Idea:

Each Side - Axis and Allied - selects their primary foreign minister. The choice of these affect the costs of influencing nations.

There are nine possible outcomes:

Axis (A) + Allied (A)

--- Cost to Influence Majors +0%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +0%

Axis (A) + Allied (

--- Cost to Influence Majors +100%

Axis (A) + Allied ©

--- Cost to Influence Minors +50%

Axis ( + Allied (A)

--- Cost to Influence Majors +100%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +100%

Axis ( + Allied (

--- Cost to Influence Majors +0%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +0%

Axis ( + Allied ©

--- Cost to Influence Minors +50%

Axis © + Allied (A)

--- Cost to Influence Majors +0%

--- Cost to Influence Minors +0%

Axis © + Allied (

--- Cost to Influence Minors +50%

Axis © + Allied ©

-- Cost to Influence Majors +100%

Of course, if you don't like the result you can always invest political capital in changing your foreign minister - at a cost of 250MPPS! which represents, in American terms, pork barrel politics to secure the support of fellow politicians and interest groups for your change of cabinet officials.