DEI Diplomacy - Too powerful

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

From personal experience, I'm seeing the majority of recent opponents pouring MMPs into diplomacy, for the DEI. Including myself, both as a strategy, and a must if my opponent does. This too powerful on the balance of the game?

Logic: If your own opponent (regardless of side), gets a hit into DEI, there's no choice but to counter.

In one game against a high ranked opponent, I was able to get DEI as Axis. Guessing he didn't care. DEI joined the Japs, oh so nice. Extra units, and more importantly, use the typical x2 SF + Carrier or x3 SF attack for something else, like important (and expensive to take) Singapore. Maybe a Pearl Harbor attack. Allies cannot allow this to happen.

In many games, the Allies, pour money in, thus Japs get notta early on, this really is powerful.

This okay with the general crowd, or am I just stating the obvious. Getting soft in m old age.

-Old EJR

[James Taylor]

John, I've tried this strategy a number of times, sometimes productive sometimes not.

Its like Spain, Sweden, Turkey, its a crap shoot, SC diplomacy, you never know.

So how you feeling..........lucky?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Craps is an intense game. My favorite at the casino. give me 52 across or 78 across. Press 3 times. Then, there's times, I play the Don't Pass and Don't Come box.

[archmache]

I think DEI gambit by Allies, alongside ChadChina really hurts Japan. I once played a game and Japan was kicked out of China by 1943 w/out the help of any outside Allies. That was against Bavre, who is a solid Allied player.

BUT

The counter point is that UK investing at minimum 250 (inital) + 100 (21% hit + 5% hit -> highest probability possible) is a total of 350 MPP. To do so from turn one means selling research, not investing in France, AND, not investing in new research.

IMO this puts OKH in a great position. UK will be unable to defend the Holy Land - if executed correctly, they can have all of Middle East by end of 1940. Russia should fall with a dedicated push and India could be threatened by Panzers. If Germany takes India, UK is wasted.

Probably want the advice of a top player though. I am ranked bottom of PBEM rankings.

[ThunderLizard11]

Had DEI gambit played against me by Elvis and then I used it in my next Axis match. I think an increase in US mobilization (maybe 4-6%?) is needed to offset this as it puts Japs on really strong footing. It also gets rids of MPP effect of oil embargo so MPP spent on diplo recaptured. Too OP ATM.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

@ThunderLizard11 --- Yeah, that was our last game. I'm guessing you didn't even bother with Allied diplomacy with DEI. Gave the Japs a great springboard start. Used the transports to take Singapore on DOW turn. Ended up sending Engineers to DEI to turn into an Island Fortress. Then bought DEI HQ + units.

The reverse can be true. If Allies bribe DEI, those Oil supplies ain't coming for a Year.

Guess, it's a Tic-For-Tac type play. If opponent does, you must match.

Turkey doesn't jump so much.
Sweden, whatever.

Now, Finland can be annoying.

[BillRunacre]

If there is a consensus that this is a problem, i.e. rather than just a new battleground to be fought over, then we do have a number of options:

- increase the cost of diplomacy targeting the DEI
- impose a lower limit on the number of chits that can be invested in the DEI
- block countries from being able to use diplomacy at all to sway the DEI

So I'll be interested to hear more from you all.

[ThunderLizard11]

@ThunderLizard11 --- Yeah, that was our last game. I'm guessing you didn't even bother with Allied diplomacy with DEI. Gave the Japs a great springboard start. Used the transports to take Singapore on DOW turn. Ended up sending Engineers to DEI to turn into an Island Fortress. Then bought DEI HQ + units.

The reverse can be true. If Allies bribe DEI, those Oil supplies ain't coming for a Year.

Guess, it's a Tic-For-Tac type play. If opponent does, you must match.

Turkey doesn't jump so much.
Sweden, whatever.

Now, Finland can be annoying.

I was asleep at this switch that match. Must pay more attention to beginning of turn messages I suppose.

[petedalby]

I've not experienced this myself but I don't think it's a game changer. Any Diplo effort can be countered if you want to spend the MPPs.

[Moonchild]

If there is a consensus that this is a problem, i.e. rather than just a new battleground to be fought over, then we do have a number of options:

- increase the cost of diplomacy targeting the DEI
- impose a lower limit on the number of chits that can be invested in the DEI
- block countries from being able to use diplomacy at all to sway the DEI

From a historical point of view, I think the D.E.I.'s government (as all European colonial elites) were sceptical/hostile towards Japan (as opposed to the local populations) and very unlikely to deal with them diplomatically. If I remember correctly, it was actually DEI that declared war on Japan, rather than vice versa ('though Japan had previously declared it's hostile intentions).

Having this is mind, I feel that options 2 or 3 above would be satisfactory solutions. At the present, Japan can invest 3 chits at DEI. Reducing this to 1 or blocking it seems good to me. A more elaborate approach would be to completely block Japan's diplo towards DEI until the European Netherlands have surrendered, after which diplo becomes possible towards DEI.

[Bavre]

I wasn't even aware that Axis DEI diplomacy was a thing.

The Allied one however I am very fond of:
If you go all in you get a 60% chance and only need a few % to kill the convoy and with it almost 1/3 of the Tennos early game income. On top of that DEI gets a huge scripted diplo swing when the oil embargo starts (that's what normally kills the convoy), which is sometimes enough to bring them in right away.

Imho one of the best and safest ways to hurt Axis economy early on.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

On 2nd thoughts:

Feedback is lukewarm
There's a counter
RIsk/Reward ratio is fair enough
Shi-t happens
Just annoying, can always make individual rule between players.

Lets not go woke on any success we lose on,
-EJR

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Lost another with Allied DEI Diplomacy.
This is always a game over.

2 hits = surrender

[ThunderLizard11]

Maybe US moves 3-7% towards allies if DEI joins axis?

[BillRunacre]

Lost another with Allied DEI Diplomacy.
This is always a game over.

2 hits = surrender

Are you changing your opinion then?

We can always limit the chits players on both sides can invest in the DEI. Or block it altogether (which might be a bit extreme?). But if something becomes a game breaker then it's probably best we fix it.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Sure you know me by now: I'm just complaining because I lost. It happened.

Here's what went down:

1) Me, as Axis, went full tilt Diplo into Turkey.
2) Was having success moving Turkey to the Axis side.
3) Meanwhile, Summer of 1941. Allies get "big pop" to DEI diplomacy.
4) As Axis, is sort of stuck. I wanted to finished converting Turkey. Cannot "sell my Axis Diplo" to block DEI with Japanese soon to join/invade anyways. August 1941 - September 1941 timeline.
5) Axis continues to get Turkey
6) Allies get big pop on DEI, like October 1941. DEI joins Allies.

Tough cookies for me.

If Allies get DEI, Japan in real trouble.
Guess, Japanese should have just DOW on the 1st major hit.

[ThunderLizard11]

Two cases:

DEI joins allies:

US morale negative hit of 3-7%

DEI joins Axis:

US morale postive hit of 3-5%

Should be some counterbalance impact as it's a big impact either way.

[Ktonos]

I think its cool.
Axis usually goes for Spain/Turkey. Japs, usually avoid spending on Diplo. Game is dynamic. If allies go all in for DEI, axis must react or risk consequences. I mean Germany can go for example with 3 chits for Spain and keep the other 2 reserve. Japan can sacrifice a tech chit, and have, lets say, long range or amphibious a bit lower when the time of Pearl comes.

Placing a cap should have to do with political issues - like Spain not wanting to get involved in a war. I don't think that it needs tweaking

[Moonchild]

I personally agree with EJR (meaning I do not like DEI's diplomacy case) because I find it contradictory to the level of strategy/luck that the rest of the game has.

What I'm trying to say is that in this game, the player takes tens and hundreds of little actions that all accumulate to the end result and each action/decision has a small fraction of luck. And suddenly, there is this action (spending tons of money to DEI's diplomacy) which has a disproportionally large effect in gameplay and it is 100% luck. It feels to me it is not aligned with the rest of the decision/action process of the game.

I think @gamedevs that any change which would make DEI more difficult to join sides early on (less chits allowed? no chits allowed before Netherlands surrender? major US diplo hit if DEI joins?) would be a step to the right direction.

[Ktonos]

How is it luck, when you can counter it? I mean, yes, luck is involved, but 100%? What about Spain diplo, or Turkey. Unless you speak of the diplo system in general, and the crits doing 20-30%.

And if this is so crucial, why not invest asap as many chits possible to counter it? Not sure of how many chits each side is allowed to place on DEI before US and USSR enter, (Allies 7, Axis 9?), but surely you can counter it. And if the axis player thinks its too much industry points for this, then it isn't as crucial isn't it? If it is a sacrifice to pay for them, imagine what a sacrifice has the other side done, because they also paid a huge chunk of their income on this.