Diplomacy question

[pzgndr]

Anyway, the idea is only half baked

Not quite. For Norway and Sweden, there ARE convoy scripts in place for Germany to receive economic benefits as long as those countries remain leaning toward Axis with about 40% activation. Allied diplomacy can reduce that value and cut the convoys. Germany can invade if desired but there is the negative political effect on USA activation for only a marginal MPP increase over the "free" trade. And if you don't garrison your newly acquired resources, partisans can interfere. There are choices to consider!

So it's not quite half-baked, but rather half-implemented. There are more things that could be done regarding Spain and Turkey and other minors. We need some sort of land convoy event for continental interactions, although we could add naval convoys for Spain and Turkey. Finland too, but not currently possible for the Balkan Axis minors. We need to look at this after release. There is more we can do.

[JerseyJohn]

JonC

Good ideas and glad you like the concept involved, I agree with you and think this is an essential aspect of warfare that is always neglected in strategical wargames. COS had some of it factored in, where if a neutral was 50%+ sympathetic to a given side, that side received all of it's production points.

As Edwin points out, countries like Sweden and Switzerland really had no choice, they were geographically prevented from trading with the Allies (after the fall of France, Denmark and Norway, of course) so their trade should definitely be factored into the Axis.

In 03-04 there were very extensive discussions on these cases in the original SC form with many good ideas offered by Shaka, KDG (?) and Edwin, among others. We reached many interesting conclusions and Hubert popped in from time to time to say he liked them. I think the threads were called Pro-Axis/Allied Neutrals and originated by yours-truly.

Regarding the specific points you cite above, I think Sweden , the USSR and Switzerland are also excellent examples. The USSR was very useful to Germany as a neutral. Italy could have served a similar role for Germany, and with the UK's blessing and trade advantages, if it had remained neutral.

The reason I cite those specific countries is because Germany never did get as much out of it's occupied USSR territories (in net worth after considering it's expenditure in lives and resources to take and garrison, etc) as it was getting from the pact it had with the USSR. Once the dams were blown, the mines and railroads sabotaged, the Donets Basin became little more than a name on a map to the Germans. They never did get any oil from the destroyed fields. About all they got was agricultural products and odd plunder, at the expense of creating a huge partisan network that came back to haunt them.

Sweden and Switzerland would also have sabotaged their exploitable facilities and, by the time they'd have been rebuilt it would have been too late to utilise them in war production.

Then there's the matter of those Swiss bankers. Germany needed them and they had to be neutral in order to be of any use.

-- With Spain and Portugal and those imports, Germany badly needed American auto and machine parts, especially ford truck engines, and Lisbon was the main entry point. Most of this trade was not done directly with the United States, but through South American countries. It's one of the reasons the U. S. later pressured Brazil to declare war on the Axis. Same situation with Turkey.

Regarding the main idea of shifting allegiences and it's economic effects, late in the war, around 1944, the Allies pressured Switzerland into gradually reducing it's exports to Germany. By 1945 these were significantly lower than what they had been at the height of the fighting.

[Edwin P.]

One aspect that this and many other games of the Genre ignore is the aspect of territorial exchanges, which dominated European politics during the 18th to 20th centuries.

As stated in earlier posts, I would like to see Germany have the opportunity to offer; for example, Spain territory to influence their diplomatic leanings - Example: French Algeria.

At the same time I would also like to see the option to limit MPP production for a minor country to the building of its own units.

Example: Spain Joins Axis - At most 50% of its MPPs can go to Germany, the remainder can only be used to fund the building/repair of Spanish units (no research, no diplomacy).

Example: In a global war map, 100% of China's MPP production can only be used by China, not by its allied nations - the UK, USA and USSR.

How so, click on the minor nation from the war map and then bring up its production screen. Here you will see the MPPs it has available an the available production choices. You would not see this amount on the main screen (which is limited to the 5 major powers).

Essentially, each minor nation would have a field for the % of its production that can be given to an ally.

For most minor nations the default percentage for MPPs that would be transferred would be 100% (Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland). For some the percentage might be zero (i.e. China and Japan in a Global War scenario), for others it might be 75% (for Spain and Turkey). The remaining MPPs could only be used to build units of that minor nation.

Thus you would need an array storing for each minor nation the % and current MPP balance.

[ March 12, 2006, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Blashy]

I was for the type of MPP setup you say Edwin, but having played the current setup I prefer it as is.

It would bring in a side of micro managing that wonder hinder the flow of gameplay.

Anyways, as an option sure he could put it in, but I really don't see it bringing much more than making turns last longer and not really changing the outcome of the game with or without it. Not in the scale SC2 is devised.

JJ, I know what you mean about not getting your due from Soviet cities or the Axis. For one they only produce at 50%, but the cost is more with a unit needed on each AND that damn soviet winter really hurts, reducing some to only 1mpp. So the effect is implemented in SC2, again in a more larger aspect as SC2 is a grand scale no micro managing wargame.

[Edwin P.]

I agree with you Blashy, but for a global war scenario I would like to be able to add nations such as China and Japan without have their MPPs be available to the Allies or Axis.

The problem that I see in developing a Global War Scenario is that if I add China (or Japan) as an Pro-US allied (Pro-German) minor power then the US (Germany) can spend China's (Japan's) MPPs on US production.

What I would like to do is add a nation, called China and restrict the use of its MPPs to building Chinese units. Of course, the allies could always send more MPPs to China via Lend Lease, but basically China would have to rely on is own MPP production AND Chinese Partisans.

PS: Unlike the European minors, China is a big country, and giving its production from 10 cities to the Allies would dramatically affect play balance.

China:

-Large country covered by mountains and forests that limit opportunities for rapid advances, except in coastal areas.

-Many large cities

-Chinese partisans

[ March 12, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John C]

What I would like to do is add a nation, called China and restrict the use of its MPPs to building Chinese units.

Could you not create the same effect by creating China in a multi-player game and then making it a seperate human player who just happens to be the same person as the US player? That human player then just has 2 "turns" each turn, one for his US forces and another for his China forces.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

Agreed. It comes to a point where the game can be disigned to be extremely realistic in the sense of major details, but in doing so it might become unplayable. Micro-management is a real game-killer.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by John C:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

What I would like to do is add a nation, called China and restrict the use of its MPPs to building Chinese units.

Could you not create the same effect by creating China in a multi-player game and then making it a seperate human player who just happens to be the same person as the US player? </font>

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

[QB]

Odd, I always thought of Germany as a major power...

[Blashy]

Edwin, you could create China and Japan as Major nations.

In a full world map, seeing France become a minor nation would work.

USA, UK, USSR, Germany, China and Italy.

If you want Japan, you could make Italy a minor to Germany, I've seen that in a few games (Axis&Allies for example).

[Edwin P.]

Thanks for the idea, Blashy.

I never considered making Italy a minor power.

[John C]

I think Blashy's options makes sense. Let's ask the bigger question though, is there any reason why the game needs to restrict itself to 5 major players? With it intended as as highly configurable engine, that seems like a pretty fundmental limitation. Why 5? Why not 8 or 10, for example? Is there any magic behind that number (such as has it now been baked into the UI in a host of summary screens that would not be simple to modify)?

[Edwin P.]

There are six major powers including Germany, UK, USA, Italy, France and Russia.

The UI as you said, from the screenshots, supports six major powers.

In my view it would be too much trouble to change the UI to support a greater number of players, and in most cases this is not needed as there are work arounds. If you add too many nations to the UI the interface gets to be too crowded.

That said, I would truely like to see the option for adding major minor nations - nations where the MPP production from that nation would be restricted to use by that nation and the movement of that nations units would be controlled by an AI - not a human player.

[Mr.Dozer]

wow edwin you always have new ideas, keep up the cool work

[Mr.Dozer]

couldnt you set if you had so many troops near spain border you would have war readyness increase in favor of axis, same with Uk battleships near ireland maybe?

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Mr.Dozer:

couldnt you set if you had so many troops near spain border you would have war readyness increase in favor of axis, same with Uk battleships near ireland maybe?

That is all easily done through scripts.

I think finding the right game for say competitive league play in SC2 will be an ongoing process for a good 2 years before everyone finally agrees on a version that is considered as balance as it can get.