Countries That Switch Sides

[Lars]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Alright, I like the random modifier per Lars, but I think it should be in ratio with the amount of diplomatic chits employed.

If a player wished to reduce the random opportunity of the event, he should have the ability to bring it to a low percentage with a profusion of diplomatic chit investment, still a small % that it will not come to pass. His opponent should be able to effect the random modifier also with his unknown "FoW" chit allocation. Shouldn't be to difficult to code.

Good refinement. If you're willing to spend the extra political capital, you should get a better degree of certainty.

[majama]

Soviet Union should be special sort. Its clear: they in 1939 cooperated with Germany in agression on Poland (back stabbing tactic on 17 september 1939 which was planned by secret part of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact). Soviet agression accelerated fall of Poland and stopped help from England and France to Polish Army.

Next fact is Soviet agression ob Batlic States and economy colaboration with axis in war in France and Battle of Britain time (like sending trains with oil for Vermacht)

In Hitler's goverment was strong section to attract Soviets on Axis side, but Stalin has own plan: waiting for tired germany and conquer all europe with communistic terror. Hitlers decide atack Soviets when plan soviet join axis fall.

So, ask today all people in Russia: when begin World War II? they all like oficial propaganda ansvers: June 1941 (!) Official opinion in Russia today still say that Battle of Britain was not WW2

(!!!) There are still post totalitarian lies.

And remember soviet almost 50 years ocupation East Europe countries after war. Soviets dont destroy or close up German concentration camps, but used it to terrorize and kill people again.

[JerseyJohn]

majama

Good points.

By his lack of response I take it Hubert isn't too taken with this particular game idea so I won't push it too much. It might present too many programming problems. Anyway, it seems at least a few of us thought it had merit and I still do.

Regarding the USSR, sure, Stalin turned on people and nations in the blink of an eye. He seems to have been genuinely shaken up by Hitler's invasion of the USSR in 1941 and it almost appears he actually put some trust in the guy. I've read assorted versions about his own plans to invade Europe after, as you've said, the Western Powers and Germany finished exhausting each other. I don't think he could have done it before 1943, which is the only point where I disagree with game designers, who often set things up as in SC1 where the USSR chomps on the bit much earlier.

Naturally Stalin didn't hesitate to reneg on the non-aggression pact with Japan in 1945 and he'd have done so with Germany as well if he thought the circumstances were favorable.

A couple of times prior to Kursk, and even afterwards, it appeared there was a possibility Germany and the USSR would agree to a peace treaty. And there's always speculation that, if they had, one or the other of them would have pulled a subsequent invasion immediately after recovering a little.

Assuming Hubert is interested at all, which I don't think he is, what are your ideas on making the USSR a special case? I'd like to hear them, sounds interesting.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

1. In my view HC is probably going to hold off on any unplanned improvements until the core of the game - AI and other matters - are completed.

2. As for USSR a special case, yes.

First - USSR player should have option to declare war on Germany when its war readiness reaches a specific level, but this should not be required, so it can delay it by a few turns.

Second - What if, as you alluded to above, German or Soviet could send a peace proposal to the other nation. If accepted; at the start of the other player's turn, all hostilities would end and computer system would establish a new border. Units on the wrong side would be automatically expelled (aka Vichy France and Axis units). This would last for at least 6 turns, and after this period either of these two nations could DOW the other nation.

When would it be used? Say that the Western allies have invaded France. The Soviets might agree to a peace to rebuild their forces in safety and the Germans might offer one so they can transfer forces west to deal with the Allied invasion.

Of course the Western allies would not like this and there could be a few side effects;

A. Soviets accept Peace Offer from Germany

Leads to

B. Popup for USA Player

The Soviets have allied with the Germans, should we seek an alliance with the Japanese against the Nazis and Communists?

And perhaps Spain, Portugal, and Turkey decide to join the allies in an Anti-Communist Alliance.

[ May 19, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Fantastic ideas and I think you've written them all perfectly. I agree on every count!

I also think your right about Hubert holding off on radically new concepts -- like this one and the original France changing sides possibility -- till he's got the core items worked out to his own satisfaction; it makes a lot of sense.

Aside from which SC1 took ten years, so SC2 is still in it's toddler period. " "

[SeaMonkey]

WoW!! Edwin, what a great idea. To allow a Soviet DoW. Think of it, if neither player knew exactly when the window for USSR DoW on Axis would occur, it would effectively dismantle the cookie cutter invasion and destruction of most of the Red Army on the first Axis move.

After a certain set of criteria(triggers) is satisfied a notification, unbeknownst to the Axis player, is relayed to the Soviet player. Maybe a popup "Stalin has released the Red Army for immediate attack on Axis forces". Any subsequent turn the Red Army is unfrozen for normal play and depending upon the intelligence level of the belligerents the Axis may or may not be aware of the condition. In lieu of an attack, the USSR player could develop his combat abilities/deployments further, feeling that the Axis may not be privy to the "unfrozen" condition. Of course the Soviet player would have to keep his border combat deployments stable, which were visible from the game beginning, to pull off the ruse for a few turns. Optionally, the Soviet player could disallow the "unfreezing" hoping that a randomizer would add additional units to his OOB and not risk the early conflict.

[Edwin P.]

SeaMonkey, I like your idea about the intelligence level affecting the likihood of the Germans knowing about the exact status of Soviet Troops. Another reason to invest in a tech that does not improve the combat ability of a unit.

Question: Should there be consequences for the USSR DOW on Germany?

[ May 19, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

I think you need to lose the peace proposal idea. It might just get to be a little too complex. Why allow it for USSR and not the rest of the players? At this rate, we're going to end up playing Diplomacy.

Concerning a USSR DOW on Germany, doesn't the German player has a pretty good idea when it could happen from the war readiness?

[SeaMonkey]

Lars...yes, the readiness % will give the Axis player an indication, but not necessarily accurate(tech intel level). The Axis player will have to use the evidence of a trend and his diplomatic actions to help him interpret his intelligence.

Edwin, no repercussions for DoW on Germany, other than the obvious(majors, %DoW escalation, like USA). Shouldn't the consequences of DoW be similar for all the major belligerents to varying degree?

Adding to my above post. I was thinking that the unveiled USSR border armies should randomly change their deployment conditions as the game progresses. Some would leave at times, other times new combat units would take up positions. Sort of an ebb and flow to keep the Axis off balance as far as USSR intentions, ie FoW, subject to a randomizer of course.