Diplomacy question

[vveedd]

Does potential enemy major power units near neutral minor country borders have effects on diplomacy stand for that minor country?

[ March 09, 2006, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Hubert Cater]

Officially no but this could be easily scripted if so desired

[santabear]

And this is an elegant solution. What would the effects of these units be?

1. Encourage the minor power to fall in line with the threatening power.

2. Encourage the minor power to ally itself with the thereatening power's enemies.

Your choice.

Thanks, Hubert

[vveedd]

Thanks for answer Hubert but why this effect is not in official scenarios? It is very logical and realistic effect. As I remember in SC1 we have similar effect on USSR war readiness with German units on border. No time to do that?

Originally posted by santabear:

And this is an elegant solution. What would the effects of these units be?

1. Encourage the minor power to fall in line with the threatening power.

2. Encourage the minor power to ally itself with the thereatening power's enemies.

Your choice.

Thanks, Hubert

Something like that but I think that in WW2 history second solution was much more often.

[pzgndr]

The German border garrison still affects USSR activation. There are some new negative effects on Sweden and Denmark associated with the Russian fleet moving around in the Baltic.

There are certainly more things that could be done with regard to other minors, and that was the original question. We've been pushing hard just to get out a plain vanilla SC2. More bells and whistles can be added on as we go, yes?

I'll caution about adding too many diplomatic effects. Consider Germany masses troops on the Spanish border. Rather than DOW and provoke USA war entry, just wait a while until Spain activates as an Allied minor and then march in? That might be a little bit gamey right there. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

[Lars]

Or Franco capitulates and joins the Axis. For nuthin. Could go either way.

Of course, would be a bit of a gamble for the Germans timewise. Can't afford to keep all those forces there forever.

[Codename Condor]

Well, in my opinion. Hitler woulda never DOWed Spain. In almost every SC game we could see german tanks roaming happily thru Madrid but this is unreal. The only way Spain woulda entered the war was by diplomacy means. Did Hitler try enough? i dunno, but i think he saw it was going to be a hell (wheres Jersey John when we need him?) but i think the effort needed was very very high. So if in SC2 u can get Spain by wasting plenty of MMPs i think it could somehow be realistic.

Another nice option not contemplated in SC2 was a pact between Spain-Germany to let the germans take only Gibraltar, but i dont think allies woulda liked this a bit...

[santabear]

The point is--if it's "built into" the game, folks will figure it out and you'll have "gamey" things going on.

Better to leave it undefined.

Actually, the ideal might be to have it have a random effect. The country won't stay neutral, but there's no way to predict which way it would go in that game.

Having countries behave historically makes the game too predictable, I think.

Hitler never did, in fact, declare war on Spain. And I agree w/Condor--since he wanted Franco to come in on his side, declaring war (and opening the second front the Allies were sweating over) was not in the cards.

[JerseyJohn]

Franco was on the verge of joining the Axis in the summer of 1940. Hitler wanted to ensure this by sending Admiral Canaris to pave the way for his meeting with the Spanish dictator. Instead of helping, Canaris secretly advised Franco that Germany was already in the process of moving most of it's troops to the eastern frontier with the USSR, so Franco didn't need to worry about being invaded. The result was Franco's decision to remain neutral.

Other than not being able to capture Gibraltar, this might have been a good development for Germany as it insured that it would be able to acquire items through Spain and Portugal that it wouldn't have been able to get (indirectely from the U. S. thru neutral nations) that it wouldn't have been able to get if Spain had been directly involved in the war.

Hitler did draw up plans, a few times and as late as 1944 for a Spanish invasion, but he always decided it would be a poor idea.

In the game, I think (as I felt & stated three years ago with Shaka and others) that there should be an economic advantage for the Axis to not invade countries like Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal.

-- Aside from which, they'd have been giving the Allies a number of overseas bases to operate out of.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

The German border garrison still affects USSR activation. There are some new negative effects on Sweden and Denmark associated with the Russian fleet moving around in the Baltic.

There are certainly more things that could be done with regard to other minors, and that was the original question. We've been pushing hard just to get out a plain vanilla SC2. More bells and whistles can be added on as we go, yes?

Absolutely agree.

Originally posted by pzgndr:

I'll caution about adding too many diplomatic effects. Consider Germany masses troops on the Spanish border. Rather than DOW and provoke USA war entry, just wait a while until Spain activates as an Allied minor and then march in? That might be a little bit gamey right there. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

That’s not what I have in mind. Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce join percentage so that major power may possibly invest much less MPP in diplomatic points for joining but joining one side without additional diplomatic pressure should be random and very rear. In that way players can combine military pressure with diplomatic one. To me this sounds very realistic.

Gamey? As Santabear have said “The point is--if it's "built into" the game, folks will figure it out and you'll have "gamey" things going on. “ What is gamey is hard to say, for instance – When Axis players attacks Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Ireland just for MPP’s after USA joined Allies? Too unbelievable – too gamey?

[jon_j_rambo]

Who would want the Spanish on their side? Good grief.

[bloodstar]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Who would want the Spanish on their side? Good grief.

Yeah, a million more troops and having a protected supply line to Africa (not to mention the ability to project force deeper into the Atlantic) would have been terrible for the Germans.

[bloodstar]

Originally posted by vveedd:

QUOTE]Absolutely agree.

That’s not what I have in mind. Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce join percentage so that major power may possibly invest much less MPP in diplomatic points for joining but joining one side without additional diplomatic pressure should be random and very rear. In that way players can combine military pressure with diplomatic one. To me this sounds very realistic.

Gamey? As Santabear have said “The point is--if it's "built into" the game, folks will figure it out and you'll have "gamey" things going on. “ What is gamey is hard to say, for instance – When Axis players attacks Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Ireland just for MPP’s after USA joined Allies? Too unbelievable – too gamey?

perhaps the single best way to avoid gamey consequences is to make the risks somewhat outweigh the rewards. For example, Invading any country that is leaning your way should have a massively negative effect on any other countries leaning towards your side. I would say that it could be so severe as to cause once allied countries to pull out and go neutral, and other countries to simply stop sending MMPs if they were sending them. If a country is leaning to the other side, then it would have much less consequences, as the aligned powers would feel much less threatened by your actions. It could apply to both sides.

Perhaps the effect can also reflect the neutral countries former stance, for example, say spain is 75% pro axis, and germany invades. Romania, Bulgaria both switch over from being say 75% axis to 10% allied leaning. You invade Romania, but to reflect the idea that the country invaded was a former ally, the script views the negative effects on other countries, like Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, as though you were attacking a strongly pro axis country.

Invading Switzerland should activate every remaining neutral country against you. and for good measure, every country should get active partisans against you for the remainder of the game (toggle the evil bit on).

Ok, the last part is a bit much. but... you get the idea. Actions should have consequences.

[pzgndr]

That’s not what I have in mind. Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce join percentage... To me this sounds very realistic.

I tend to agree. But, the build up of troops near the Polish border in 1939 and near the Russian border in 1941 were well concealed and the Germans achieved surprise. So how exactly should this be translated into diplomatic effects? And in a way that most players will also find it to be "realistic," considering this is all hypothetical and no one can "prove" what the actual diplomatic effects would have been historically? That's the challenge, and you all will have a chance to experiment with things very shortly.

As I said, there are certainly more things that could be done. As the game evolves, I would expect to see something like the CORE community for HOI2 work on detailed mods for greater historical accuracy and realism, as well as tournament level campaigns for "perfect" play balance. Many ideas and suggestions will likely find their way into the official default campaigns in future patches. It will be interesting to watch what happens! :cool:

[vveedd]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

I tend to agree. But, the build up of troops near the Polish border in 1939 and near the Russian border in 1941 were well concealed and the Germans achieved surprise. [/QB]

You are wrong here. Poland and USSR known that Germans gathering troops (maybe they didn’t know exact number) but they didn’t believe that Germany will attack. Even Austria and Czechoslovakia did know about German troops near border before they were annexed. Czechoslovakia started mobilization because of German troops near border.

[pzgndr]

Ah, they didn't "believe" the Germans would attack. So again I'll ask, how exactly should this be translated into diplomatic effects? The challenge remains unresolved.

[Blashy]

They did know, but not how much and what kind. Thus achieving surprise.

Just like the Russians did with the 6th Army at Stalingrad. The Germans knew troop movements were occuring but they misjudge how many and what type, USSR manage to sneak some troops close to the enemy and the Soviets achieved surprise in that sense.

[vveedd]

Ok, you are right, this is hard to translate into diplomatic effects and here is new idea – Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce unit’s readiness and strength. In which way readiness and strength will go should be random. For instance – if Germany has troops near Yugoslav border in one game readiness and unit’s strength could go up and this will represent that government in Yugoslavia believe much more Allied propaganda then Axis and because of that they started mobilization. In some other game readiness and unit’s strength can go down which will represent contra situation.

This idea has no relation with diplomacy and it is less possible because (probably) require code changing but hey – I am in my creative mood.

Actually, similar effect we already have for USSR if I understood correctly.

[Codename Condor]

Thx for the input Jersey, but i dont really believe german generals woulda wanted to cross the spanish border, u know, 39', by that time almost everybody in Spain had a rifle and about 3 years of experience shooting... not bottles precisely.

[Codename Condor]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Who would want the Spanish on their side? Good grief.

hey its worthy for the chicks alone!

[SeaMonkey]

Hey CC, don't forget the fine red wines and the Manchego. :cool:

[JerseyJohn]

Condor,

The point you've brought up is something that Hitler and his generals discussed at length. He had trememdous respect for the tenacity of the Spanish people, was a student of the Napoleonic Wars -- despite inexplicably making a very similar mistake in Russia. Hitler realized that an invasion in Spain would lead to a prolonged guerilla war that he didn't want to be involved in.

Overall the pros and cons of invading Spain were:

Positive:

-- Taking Gibraltar.

Negative:

-- Loss of a potential ally.

-- Loss of neutral trade from outside countries.

-- Protracted partisan warfare.

-- Extended coastline to defend from invasion.

-- Reduction of Spanish mineral resources through sabotage.

-- Spanish overseas possessions becoming Allied bases.

As is plainly evident, the negatives far outweighed the positives.

[Codename Condor]

SeaMonkey, well i dont like red wine but ive heard it tastes really good.

Sir Jersey, i totally agree with u. DOW is out of the question. And, alliance also couldnt have been possible with the spanish 36'-39' war.

[John C]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Condor,

The point you've brought up is something that Hitler and his generals discussed at length. He had trememdous respect for the tenacity of the Spanish people, was a student of the Napoleonic Wars -- despite inexplicably making a very similar mistake in Russia. Hitler realized that an invasion in Spain would lead to a prolonged guerilla war that he didn't want to be involved in.

Overall the pros and cons of invading Spain were:

Positive:

-- Taking Gibraltar.

Negative:

-- Loss of a potential ally.

-- Loss of neutral trade from outside countries.

-- Protracted partisan warfare.

-- Extended coastline to defend from invasion.

-- Reduction of Spanish mineral resources through sabotage.

-- Spanish overseas possessions becoming Allied bases.

As is plainly evident, the negatives far outweighed the positives.

This post got me thinking John. To date, every game in this genre has had a very simple economic model. Each country has some type of resources. If you capture the country, you get them. If you don't, then you get nothing. They really do not model the situation you describe above where conquering a country might lead to at least a temporary decrease in the economy.

In the diplomatic models of many games, countries have an affinity. Wouldn't it be interesting if, as part of the base economic model, neutral minors contribute some of their economic potential to combatants based on that affinity? Then, diplomacy can have another purpose entirely - economic. The allies might never expect to bring Spain to their side, but if they can bring Spain closer to them diplomatically then Spain might cut back some of its trade with Germany and not turn a blind eye to certain smuggling activites and therefore weaken Germany's economy slightly. If Germany can convince Spain to get even closer, then the economic benefit might grow.

This will also be effective in providing a disincentive for majors to invade friendly minors. If you are already getting a reasonable amount of economic support from a nation through healthy trade, the gain from conquest is greatly lowered. On the other hand, conquering a nation that is close to your enemy both reduces the trade benefit they get and gives you control of those resources.

That by itself is interesting in my mind. Now let's add in that every country has a set of resistance values. Once conquered, the resources contributed to the conquered are decreased according to their resistance value - representing sabotage, work slowdowns and all the rest. This models your second point and makes it possible for the conquest of Spain to actually result in a reduction in net economic benefit.

I would have two values for resistance, an initial resistance impact factor (a % of resources that are lost each turn beginning with the first), and a resistance decrease factor (the amount that the impact factor decreases each turn to represent the gradual reduction of the penalty). Garrisoning a nation with troops would reduce both the current impact and the rate at which the base value decreases. That provides a real incentive to station troops to address partisan activity and feels a lot more natural than simply requiring some random number of garrisons just because.

Anyway, the idea is only half baked, but on the surface it seems to me to have some real possibilities.

[Edwin P.]

Wouldn't it be interesting if, as part of the base economic model, neutral minors contribute some of their economic potential to combatants based on that affinity? Then, diplomacy can have another purpose entirely - economic. The allies might never expect to bring Spain to their side, but if they can bring Spain closer to them diplomatically then Spain might cut back some of its trade with Germany and not turn a blind eye to certain smuggling activites and therefore weaken Germany's economy slightly. If Germany can convince Spain to get even closer, then the economic benefit might grow.

Good idea. In fact, SC2 goes part of the way there for countries like Sweden will trade with Germany while they are neutral.

It would be interesting to have, as you suggested, functionality so that if the Neutral country is more than 50% pro-Allied then their trade with the Axis declines and if more than 50% pro Axis their trade with the Axis increases.

More than that, I would like to see other benefits from being more than 50% pro neutral or pro Axis.

Example:

80% Pro Allied - Allied ships can be repaired and supplied in neutral nation's port. Attack on Neutral Port requires DOW

80% Pro Axis - Axis ships can be repaired and supplied in neutral nation's port. Attack on Neutral Port requires a DOW.