Diplomacy

[Colin I]

I think we need to either fix or eliminate the diplomacy system for PTO.

Basically, unlike the West most major participants are at war already. The minors are mostly not worth influencing. There is no complexity, Japan has no allies to back it up diplomatically.

So, its really only about Russia. And here its no contest - Japan cannot stop the Allies influencing Russia which, when it enters early, kills the game.

The simplest option is to eliminate the diplomacy system but I can see you want it for global mods. A more subtle approach might be to integrate with decision events - if Japan invests somehow then China might sue for peace for example.

[Hubert Cater]

One option, if desired, is to disable 'Diplomacy' when you start playing the Operation Z campaign. This is available under the Advanced game options.

Hubert

[Colin I]

Fair enough - I was hoping for a standardized Operation Z for competitive play though.

[Bill101]

Hi Colin

There are other solutions, but it really depends on how frequently this is a problem, because in some games I've seen the allies invest a fortune in the USSR and get virtually nowhere with activating it.

Options available while keeping diplomacy are as follows:

• We can raise the price of allied diplomacy
  
  
• We can reduce the number of chits they can invest
  
  
• We can reduce the % increase a diplomacy hit gives
  
  

I would really like to sample a wider opinion before making any changes to the official scenario, so I would welcome some more feedback from other players too. How many people find this to be a common problem? How significant would the changes need to be?

[Colin I]

Bill,

I think it is a serious effort for UK or China to invest MPP in diplomacy but its trivial for the US - if it forces matching investment from Japan its a major piece of very useful attrition. The thing is the Soviets have such a huge impact - its not just trashing China but having paratroopers, aircraft and ports makes taking Japan far easier.

As you say - lets see what others think.

As I wondered - could we link Diplomacy to decision events - an event only happens if you have X chits invested? If so, diplomatic side could be made more interesting.

Thanks for the response.

cheers

Colin

[Capt Andrew]

When playing Allies, I used to max out diplomacy investments for Russia. I had about a 1 in 20 success rate at getting Russia involved sooner. I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it (to me). I'd much rather have the 600 MPP, which would buy an extra aircraft carrier and fighter unit! Those two units have better than a 1 in 20 chance of changing the game!

[Colin I]

Even with China out, which happens a lot in the games I play?

I think the US gets so many MPP it does not miss them after the first year or so. My objection is partly balance - if Russia intervenes early its a game breaker. Secondly, why have a Diplomacy system if there really is only one country that matters as a target to be influenced? Doers anyone really bother to apply pressure on Nepal? At least in the western games there are multiple valuable targets for Diplomacy and not all the Allies are in at the start - so the Axis can get somewhere if it choses to and has a bit of luck.

[Baron]

I'd have to agree with Colin. In a recent game he had total control of the game but as the USA in 1944 it was easy to dump the money into the diplomacy. I think that since it was so late in the war that the hits I did get were magnified due to Soviet readiness increases anyway. Maybe there is a way to limit the percentage that each hit gets?

[jon_j_rambo]

The Yanks can't lose.

[scottsmm]

Baron, go to edit country data in the editor, and then chose edit diplomacy from here you can edit the ranges of successful diplomacy hits. There is one range which is clearly labeled as minor (8-15% increase in readiness per hit), and another one labeled major country (approx 7-10% increase in readiness per hit). Hope this helps.

[Colin I]

Scotsman - understand about editor but this is a play balance issue so would nice to have in standard scenario.

One point related to how devastating their entry can be is Soviet armour - I do not understand why it gets 2 strikes. You could say it is more experienced but the experience system handles that parameter (duh!). By that point in nthe war at least one of the Japanese armoured formations is often very experienced too. You could say its higher tech but the technology track handles that. So, it would be better to say any armour unit of any country gets 2 strikes or any experienced armour unit does or above certain readyness or whatever. I can see the issue is US armour being a bit abundant and powerful but maybe give them less - this was not the theatre for mass armour.

Seen this before - French armour gets 1 strike? Why? Its true it was used badly (though high quality) but surely if France had stayed in the war longer or built armour after liberation they would have learned how to use it well. And I thought the point of the game was to give players choices that were possible but did not happen.

If you have many parameters that give an indicator of quality of a unit you do not need national quirks. Similarly, why is Japan capped for armour technology? Its true they did not develop it that well or far. Surely that was because it did not have the value in Burma that it did in the west. If Japan can build a battleship like the Yamamoto is could design better tanks. Understandably, its navy and air force had priority but if a player wants to try blitzkrieg in the jungle then let them try - it was possible to build the gear with lots of investment, just not very wise perhaps?

[scottsmm]

1. What are you looking for Japan to be some freakious superpower and take over the whole world?

2. Soviet/German armor has two strikes, and to be honest I agree with it. Stalin deployed quite a few troops/heavy tanks to deal with the Japanese garrison of Manchukuo/Korea, and depending upon how well you know your history you would know that the Japanese positions were overrun very quickly due to Russian tank superiority. Thus Russia is the only primary armor nation (Russia, and Germany), and should be given two strikes, because the Russians simply blew the Japanese away, and this is seen with their heavy tanks having two strikes.

3. To be honest the French didn't really produce any real fighting units once liberated, so to have them producing tanks such as Russia or Germany is just ridiculous. Sure they produced small garrison units to defend Paris and other major cities, but this was only after the Allies had penetrated deep into the third Reich.

4. You answered your own question "Its true they did not develop it that far or well". To be honest I think the creators were over generous with Japanese armor; they gave them three units (which can easily be reinforced/upgraded). Not to mention often times two of these units gain at least 2 or 3 bars of experience, which makes them be able to defeat a less experienced upgraded Sherman division (level 3). Japan's best tank at the end of the war was inferior to the western Allies best tank in the beginning of the war.

I hope this helps to answer your questions.

[Colin I]

Agreed, it is unlikely Japan would ever have developed blitzkrieg/tank tactics to match the Soviets. Agreed there is too much Japanese armour at the start. The Soviets had experience of fighting one of the most effective mechanized armies in the world. This suggests its reasonable to give them a few experience/elite levels. They had great armour so its reasonable to give them a high baseline of technology or investment. So far I think we agree. And these benefits will normally make the Soviet armour much better which is fine.

But suppose a Japanese armoured unit (Level 1, 60% morale, readiness) fights a Soviet armour unit with IDENTICAL statistics. Why does the Soviet unit get 2 strikes and the Japanese get one?

A reasonable answer is superior tactical doctrine in blitzkrieg. OK - but then why cannot Japan learn that if it chooses to commit enough resources and has enough practice?

Similarly, Japan could make amazing battleships - if it stupidly chose not to but make tanks why could they not be as good as the Soviet's? Its a dumb strategic decision but seems possible - why not let Japan see if it can Blitzkrieg China by pouring all its resources into making a Japanese Tiger II.

Similarly with France - I agree with what happened. But we change history in SC2. I've retaken Paris in early 1943 and built a L3 armored unit by late 1944. Along with some similarly tooled up US armour it attacked the remains of the German army. The French get one strike, the US/UK get two. Why? By this point in history (admittedly and unlikely but possible alternative one) there are similar units in both force pools so why do they behave differently? After their hammering in 1940 did the French not learn how to use their armour well 4 years later? The French did have US armour (in the game this gets 2 strikes when used by US troops) - if it wasn't used as well why not, and most importantly could there be a plausible route by which this could happen in the game?

[Bill101]

Why does the Soviet unit get 2 strikes and the Japanese get one?

Hi Colin

The main reason behind my decision to give them 2 strikes was because they represent significantly larger formations than anyone else's armour in the game.

This decision was strengthened by other factors, such as Soviet armoured doctrine and their experience of fighting the Germans, but the bigger size of these units compared to everyone else's in the Pacific was the main reason.

I've blown a number of Soviet armoured units away, it's not impossible to do, and Vladivostock has been known to fly the flag of the Rising Sun in 1945, which is why I'd never considered that giving them two strikes could be a problem.

Earlier in this thread it was asked whether anyone used diplomacy on Nepal. I have, and I have seen others do it too. Also, and more frequently, on Communist China, which is why I wouldn't want to totally abolish diplomacy.

Fortunately in the game engine diplomacy on majors (i.e. the USSR) can be differentiated from diplomacy on minors, so it is possible to make it harder to get the USSR active while leaving minors' diplomacy as it is now. So, for example, we could raise the cost for the allies to carry out diplomacy on the USSR while leaving it the same for use on minors.

[scottsmm]

Colin, take a look at China's terrain, then take a look at Europe's terrain. What you're going to see is Europe is much more open ground (better suited for tanks), then the entire Pacific and in particular China which is extremely mountainous, with many rivers and a few forests. Take a look at what happened to the King Tiger (Tiger II) Panzer in the Ardennes; this would be the equivalent to what Japan could do with armor in China. In this instance I think SC is a little too nice to these behemoths of tanks which require a ton of fuel (I think it's something like 237 jerry cans to fill a Tiger II). Anyway to get back to the Pacific why not just try Japan having two strikes with her tanks, and then comeback talking about the major differences it makes to play balance.

Bill, I wish I knew how to have the rising sun flag fly over Vladivostok in 1945, I suppose I just don't have enough units there, as I typically always go after India, and China, and they shift my focus to the Pacific to deal with the US leaving Manchukuo with only the basic garrisons.

[Baron]

Bill101, a well reasoned explanation for your Soviet armour choice - thank you

I think what we are seeing here is the classic "what if" vs "historical" argument. I believe what Colin is trying to suggest is that the "what if" options seem to be limited. I not sure if this can ever be fixed to everyone's satisfaction.

[scottsmm]

Baron, you hit the nail on the head with that statement. It will likely never be fixed for everyone's complete satisfaction, because it's simply a matter of opinion, and everyone has their own opinion on it.

[SeaMonkey]

Just remember that PTO is nothing but a stepping stone to Global SC. Global SC should ultimately be about the "what ifs" of WW2 as we have Blitzkrieg and Pacific theaters for the historical crowd.

We know how it unfolded, let's see what could have been, in the constraints of reality, which we will debate, and Hubert will patch.

[Colin I]

Baron, Scotsman:

Agreed - its the old debate. I think in SC2 there was quite some scope for alternative strategies. PTO is more limited by the historical setting which is effectively one nation against the rest. I think here my concern/input is partly to do with playability - any game that has multiple viable strategies is more interesting. So far, I cannot see any strategies beyond India and China that work but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm still campaigning for the war to start earlier (before US involved) and some possibility of a diplomatic solution in China to add some different strategic paths.

Bill - Good answer, thanks. Possibly the alternative is to convert some Japanese armour to infantry - there does seem more of it than I expected.

SeaMonkey - yes, then the strategic possibilities really open up. Should really figure out how to download it and give Nupremal's mod a try.

[scottsmm]

SeaMonkey, I can agree with you on PTO being a stepping stone to Global SC, but I hope there are at least a few relatively historical campaigns in Global SC. I'm usually for the "what ifs", and I enjoyed PDE a lot, but at the same time I do like to play something that's fairly historical with just a few twists and turns.

Colin, if you want a different strategy then the usual India and China then listen up. Judging by your opponent (If you think he's a novice or the AI), then send your troops from Manchukuo, Korea, Philippines, and those islands that you take in the first turn, and send them on invasion of Hawaii, from the closest base. From here send a huge Japanese strike force out to attack Canada, and then of course move down to attacking the US. If this works then send your troops back to fight however you want, but definitely take China out to ensure you of a tactical victory. Be sure though that your opponent isn't that good, because you will get your ass kicked and likely lose the war in 1944 if you make this mistake.

[Colin I]

By alternative I mean a strategy that works against a good player. So far I have:

China first: The obvious - least MPP, can be bombed to hell and least competent troops but your navy is limited and Soviets might liberate it.

India first: currently being explored in game with Baron. More effort to transport and fight at end of a supply line plus monsoon. Some pluses though - quite a bit of open terrain, UK is very weak at the start, your carriers can have a big effect and its hard to retake. Pluis some synergy with China on MPP reductions.

Australia first: Cannot get this to work. The targets are more dispersed and its much more vulnerable to counters from the US. Plus its a lot of MPP getting your troops there.

Hawaii and lesser Islands: Not sure - think it just creates a target for the US to attack later and distracts from mainland. Its easy to get isolated there.

USSR: Only Rambo has dared. Anyone know what it takes to get USSR out of the game? Actually might be tempted by this in concert with China before Soviets really tool up.

North America: Will be impressed if this works.

PLUS using IJN to create mayhem as proactively and fast as possible.

[arado234]

Rambo said it the right phrase:The Yanks cant loose.

Trying to make the game more of a play balance would be fun but in order to do that you would have to reduce the Allies ability so much that it really wouldnt be even close to any historical accurracy.Im sure the modders can change it so you could do whatever you want.

Imho this game already is tilted towards the Japs.If you started factoring in the REAL effect of oil and various other resources the game would be over even faster.Japan would have all these weapons of war but no way to use them because they wouldnt have any fuel to move them.Plus the Atomic bomb cant force a surrender(like in reality) and the Allies arenot allowed(for obvious reasons)to research it and build them even earlier.

[scottsmm]

You’re definitely right Arado in that the game is tilted "favorable" to Japan, but of course in the end the US can win the war by herself. This is something that I'm going to try and prove in one of my ongoing games right now. Needless to say I can't reveal any immediate data, except for it's about to heat up, as I wouldn't want to tip off my opponent.

Although if it was totally historical then there really wouldn't be much fun in winning the war as all the Allies should have to do, would be to either take the DEI and Borneo back from the Japanese, or deploy their submarines to cripple Japanese merchant shipping.

Anyway I do believe in making two versions of Operation Z, one historical, and another set-up around Midway, where the Japanese can build an empire/ already have built an empire (unhistorical). I've tried this over the last couple of months with one of the beta versions of Midway Major, and I have to admit that it's quite a good game as either side. Anyway what this mod does is of course allow either side the chance to win the war outright. It incorporates many more units, and is for the most part a large-scale war. Thanks SeaMonkey for this idea, this post wouldn't have been possible without your advice .

[SeaMonkey]

Shoot Scott, advice is easy, remember though its like an opinion, you do know what those are worth, but thanks for the acknowledgement.

If I didn't have 3 PBEM games currently going I'd engage you with your mod, sounds interesting. Maybe later.

[arado234]

Scottsmm that is a GREAT idea in having two versions of OP.Z.