Politics

[Petiloup]

The new politic module is a nice add on but I don't quite see the impact yet.
I did have a trade agreement with Portugal and as Portugal got a few colonies in Africa it finaly tip side but Spain and Turkey with whom I had a trade agreement as well didn't change from Axis Leaning position.

This even after occupying London, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Gibraltar, Cairo, India,...

I would suggest that each time you conquer a region with Victory points that you get a chance to tip the neutrals to your side. Same when loosing those.

Or maybe give 2 levels at politics. 1 a trade agreement, 2 a pact of some sort which could help to push a country on your side.

[Uncle_Joe]

We looked at that at one point, but it was decided that it could create too much of a cascade effect. Losing one of those regions is usually harsh enough for non-political reasons. Adding other consequences as well could very easily be game-breaking.

[christian brown]

We looked at that at one point, but it was decided that it could create too much of a cascade effect. Losing one of those regions is usually harsh enough for non-political reasons. Adding other consequences as well could very easily be game-breaking.

I have to second that (having been strongly on your [Polonthi] side in the past.)  The reality is that nations that can make a truly game-changing/game balancing difference are typically going to go into the Axis camp and make things WAY TOO EASY for them, such as Turkey.  The other biggie is Spain, which already goes Axis far more often than the 3% chance would lead a person to believe.

[Petiloup]

I'm not quite arguing about making Spain or Turkey go Axis by invading France or Greece for example as indeed having those on the Axis side in 1939-1941 would surely make the game unbalanced in a lot of ways.

Now I'm more thinking that if London and Gibraltar falls to the Axis there would be strong incentive for Spain to join what looks like the winning side. Same for Turkey if Germany occupies the Caucasus and the Middle East. Turkey was and in certain ways is still eager to see her interests projected in that region.

If Spain joins before Britain loose Gibraltar it indeed tip the balance after it just add a few troops. Same for Turkey if Germany already occupies the Caucasus and the Middle East all it does really is make good rail lines available to Cairo and Iraq direct from Germany but Politicaly it makes some sense.

So at the end if there is a chance of joining when London or Moscow falls it can tip the game to AutoVictory for the Axis which the Axis should achieve in that situation or to a more difficult game for the Allies without AV or end date.

Definitely I don't ask for an automatic chance because it would indeed create a path to a repetitive strategy but a mere chance would be good I think which you can compensate by increasing the entry level of the US or diminish the chance of entry if the US is already at war.

Just think frustrating to see at one point Germany dominating the whole of Europe and a fascist power like Spain still Neutral while it's quite easy to tip Portugal on the Axis side by occupying Africa where they have colonies. The actual system end up with Portugal Axis and Spain neutral. At least you can do this versus the AI quite easily.

So I don't ask for a total pro-Axis overhaul of the system but just pushing a fair chance for Spain at least to join Axis if some events happens (fall of London, Moscow, Gibraltar,...). For Turkey you could make it a combined effect like (London + Moscow + Cairo or something like it).

[Uncle_Joe]

Those were the exact things we were contemplating. In fact, the Spain joining if London fell was one of my early suggestions, but it was (correctly) judged to be just too big of a swing.

[Petiloup]

Ok but then what's the point of putting politics in the game if it's just to allow Finland, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria not counting Italy to join the Axis? At the end we mostly do it like in WAW with some twist like Finland while invading Norway.

On top of those I just managed so far to get Portugal as Axis.

So what's the chance to get Spain then from Pro-Axis to Axis? (assuming it goes Pro-Axis when you take Western France).

Is there any remote chance to get Turkey go Axis? as you can have her Axis Leaning with a trade agreement.

I'll be curious to see which country besides those above someone manage to swing Axis and how it happened. [&:]

[Uncle_Joe]

The 'Politics' exist also to give a potential consequence for attacking neutrals. In WaW, there was a popular Axis strat of 'neutral scalping'. Basically Germany stalled the war with Russia and the US and went all out to take over the neutrals (even ostensibly friendly ones), with the goal of getting her required VPs that way. IMO, it was horribly lame and extremely boring to play against as the Allies.
 
Part of what the Political system does is to put a check on attacking friendly neutrals. If you do so, other potentially friendly neutrals can turn against you. Attacking neutrals can also push nations towards your opponent.
 
The Political system also creates variability. Some games the WAllies might have access to plenty of early resources through trade, but others they wont. Germany also doesnt 100% know if/when her minors will join (ie, with the conquest of Yugo or not until the attack on Russia). Rumania is the only guaranteed join.
 
Spain's chance, I believe is 3% (as stated in the events section of the rules). Turkey is less I believe. But that is per turn (and its a little more complicated than that).
 
In the end, the Political system simply mixes things up a little bit in the early game.

[Petiloup]

I was not aware about this Neutral strategy. So the political system is about this issue.

When I saw the add on of this political system I was more hoping for something that would give another dimension to the game which explains the frustration.

Seems to me this was designed to limit the Axis without giving them a benefit really because the Allies don't really care about neutrals. All they need is time so they can enter the war with the US and Russia.

Without giving a fair chance for Spain or Turkey to enter the war if Germany goes for SeaLion I fear we will see Germany going for Barbarossa most of the time and using Germany and Japan in doing so.

I played once against the AI to get the UK invaded and control Gibraltar and Cairo plus invading India and to end up facing Russia with a huge buildup without any real benefits out of it. Next games I did Barbarossa against the AI and it works a lot better.

I can imagine Sealion being even way more difficult against a human player if even possible.

Just playing some PBEM and Barbarossa seem the preferred strategy till nowfor the Axis.

At least in WAW both had their advantages.

Anyway might be a bit early to draw conclusions.

Thanks for the answers.

[Uncle_Joe]

No problems.
 
Note that the new system rewards the Axis with free supply as soon as the nations are 'Pro-Axis'. This basically provides the bulk of the Germany supplies in the 39 and 40, freeing up her own points for tech and units. Also in the events are a potential coup in Iraq for the Germans. Greece can eventually join the Allies, so it makes sense in some games for Germany to take out that threat early as well. Note that Greece also provides a 'second chance' roll of getting some of Germany's minor allies to activate if they fail their roll when Yugo falls.
 
For Sea Lion, is quite possible vs a human player if you manage to draw them out to other areas (like North Africa). Also, once you win a game or two with the Axis AV by having Japan take Australia and New Zealand, the Brit player will be a little less likely to strip that area of defenses to get more troops back home. [:D] (And this will be even easier once the bug with Arty firing on invading TRs is fixed).
 
What it comes down to is that the in the early game, the WAllies really dont have enough troops and support for all the areas that they need it. They can easily hold Britain if that is all they want to do, but in doing so, they will definately be leaving other areas open.
 
Honestly Spain or Turkey turning to the Axis can be a complete disaster for the Allies, so its not something that should happen all too often. Heck, a popular strategy in the beta was to invade Turkey as the Germans and then use that to hit Russia in the vulnerable high resource areas in the Caucasus. As a result, the WR increase for Russia is higher now if Turkey is invaded. If Turkey were to join the Axis, that would no longer be an issue and I think Russia would have a VERY tough time surviving.
 
On the Spanish front, Spain turning Axis is a major headache for the WAllies. It brings more resources, more pop, and more industry. In addition, it obviously brings POSITION. Gibraltar is a lost cause if Spain turns and that means you can write off the rest of the Med in all likelihood.
 
So, IMO, its certainly for the best that Spain and Turkey join only rarely. There are steps the Allies can take to mitigate things a little, but you will definately have an uphill battle if these nation join the Axis.

[Petiloup]

True enough so for me it seems the political side is missing possible reaction. Like it cost 5 sup to try a Trade Agreement so it could cost 10 sup to try to pressure that country to go back to balance again instead of Axis Leaning.

That way it would be a question of opportunity and a bit of luck. That would be about Turkey.

For Spain I still think that if London has already fallen and the Axis take Gibraltar giving a good change for Spain to turn Axis wouldn't be as unbalance compare to some real politik. Is it possible to modif this by ourselves?

[templeton]

I like the system in A WORLD AT WAR by GMT games, where you can invest in a country - with each investement bringing a greater likelyhood of favourable conditions...

Ie, as the Germans, pump enough into Ireland, and you get an IRA partisan counter in Northern Ireland... or into Iraq to get an Iraqi revolt. the downside being, that the game uses a similar system to this in that you can either spend your money on units, research - or diplomacy. Active diplomacy means no supply for a major offensive.


the key question is whether or not this additional layer of decision making would increase the game-play...? I'm not so sure, because already the supply agreements handles this is a nice abstract way - and at the end of the day you need tanks and supply to win the game, not favourable relations... plus the games moves more into alternate history and the fantasy what ifs of a Axis Brazil etc, when I think this game places very realistic constraints on each nation, whilst allowing a great degree of freedom to do as one wants.

Very impressed with this game... I just wish I didn't suck royally at it.


How long does it take to get a 'feel' for what you need to be doing, how much artillery to send in attacks etc... I'd love to read some comprehensive guides to this, like the stuff produced in C3i by GMT games, or the ULTRA series for A World At War... the game is deep and rich enough to warrant one.

[Petiloup]

In a sense you are right that mixing the same ressources to build troops, supply or political changes is a bit strange. I don't think the pact signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop did cost 2 Infantry corps to Germany.

Diplomacy should be handled in a more abstract way giving you "political pts" to use each turn to attempt sign Pact whatever they could be or even alliance. How the cost is handle is something else but those ressources should come abstractly from a country influence that could be equal between UK and Germany at the start of the war going down when neutrals are invaded, going up when victories are achieved, going up by pressing troops at the border then giving you a shot to do something by spending those "political pts". Spending other ressources would be more like giving ressources to a country for pushing him on your side.

Anyway as you said all in all this new system is working ok if the idea was more to avoid a neutral strategy instead of really creating a true political system.