increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Gary Grigsby’s World at War is back with a whole new set of features. World at War: A World Divided still gives complete control over the production, research and military strategy for your side, but in this new updated version you’ll also be able to bring spies into the mix as well as neutral country diplomacy, variable political events and much more. Perhaps the largest item is the ability to play a special Soviet vs. Allies scenario that occurs after the end of World War II.

Moderator: MOD_GGWaW_2

Post Reply
WanderingHead
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
Location: GMT-8

increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by WanderingHead »

A question/comment.

Personally, I get quite bored with the stock political events. Especially in the Balkans. As Germany, I stack up units on the Yugoslav border and wait for a couple of events to occur. There is absolutely no uncertainty what will happen, just when it will happen, and there is nothing I can do to change things one way or another.

I've added a lot of events in Global Glory compared to Total War. And in the last couple of months I've added more. I completely revamped the way the Balkans political events work. I'm trying to capture some of the uncertainty of the political situation as it existed and give the German player (and, slightly, the Russian) something concrete to actually do to change the outcome.

In summary, what I have is this:
  • A) Yugoslavia starts as Pro-Axis. Political volatility is increased to 7.
  • A1) There is still a Yugoslav coup which makes Yugo Pro-Allied. The probability of this is fairly small (10 or 20%) UNTIL Greece is captured. Then it is big: 80%.
  • B) Rumania starts Pro-Axis (not leaning Axis).
  • B1) Rumanian event #1: border war with Russia over Bessarabia, German troops invited in. Rumania becomes full-Axis
  • B2) Rumanian event #2: border war with Russia over Bessarabia, Russia occupies Rumania. All Rumanian infrastructure is double-damaged. Russian WR is penalized by changing the thresholds (this is done such that production is reduced, but DOW is not delayed - I want to balance the game but not make Russian war so far away that Germany must focus on Britain). German production becomes FM=3. Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia all become full-Axis. Greece becomes Pro-Axis and gets some additional land units (an arms deal with Germany, say). Turkey becomes Pro-Axis. Persia takes 1 step towards the Axis. Russia increases her gift to Germany to try to pacify Germany.
The two Rumanian events have probabilities that are functions of the number of units in W Poland (German) and Kiev (Russian), so both players can tweak them a little bit.

The Russian occupation is obviously quite a huge thing. It would be fairly low probability. It is really no more of a "what-if" than Spain joining Germany.

This setup provides 3 major game courses for the Balkans:
(i) Yugoslavia is captured by the Germans, entailing repair of resources and a future need to garrison against Yugoslav partisans. Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria (or most of them) all become German. This is basically the course that matches the current setup.

(ii) Germany manages to capture an Allied friendly Greece BEFORE the Yugoslavia coup, and this causes Yugoslavia to shift to the Axis and become full-Axis. Germany does not need to repair resources, and will not need to garrison against partisans.

(iii) Russia occupies Rumania. A whole new world unlike pre-existing AWD opens up, and I struggle to keep it balanced [:)].

Personally, I really really like this setup. It leaves me uncertain what will happen, and it gives the German something to strive for (capturing Greece first, a real distraction in the Med when the path through Yugoslavia doesn't yet exist) instead of just sitting on the Yugo border and waiting. I also think it does a better job of modeling real political processes and possible outcomes.

My question is this ... what do you all think?

I've been thinking of adding another one, the Soviet occupation of Finland. After all, it was the Soviet plan. War being war, it could have happened. But I don't feel as strongly about this one, because it is harder to see a good way to plug semi-meaningful German or Russian actions into the equation. Also the existing Total War situation for Finland doesn't really impact your operations the way the "line up at the Yugo border and wait" mechanic does in the Balkans ... you can just ignore the Finland border war event, but you cannot ignore Yugo and Rumania.
User avatar
GKar
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:39 pm

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by GKar »

These changes will need some testing, but they sure sound interesting.
ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I've been thinking of adding another one, the Soviet occupation of Finland. After all, it was the Soviet plan. War being war, it could have happened. But I don't feel as strongly about this one, because it is harder to see a good way to plug semi-meaningful German or Russian actions into the equation. Also the existing Total War situation for Finland doesn't really impact your operations the way the "line up at the Yugo border and wait" mechanic does in the Balkans ... you can just ignore the Finland border war event, but you cannot ignore Yugo and Rumania.
A Soviet occupation of Finland could make Sweden (and possibly Norway) more friendly to Germany and/or reduce the US WE somewhat.
Grell
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 8:16 pm
Location: Canada

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by Grell »

Hi WanderingHead,

Your ideas are great, I'd love to see them in game.

Regards,

Grell
Lucky1
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:31 am

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by Lucky1 »

I would be a fan of the changes. I am not sure whether it is still on the forum, but when GGAWD first came out, I expressed my disappointment in political / diplomatic system. (e.g., mass troops on border with Yugo. Wait for coup. Invade. Wait for change in Greek war readiness (or not). Invade.  Of course, this will introduce more variability in the games. But this is the point.....
SGT Rice
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by SGT Rice »

Brian,

Very interesting set of ideas; trying to think through play balance implications.

What do the Russians occupy Rumania with? Any change to Russia's SR limits?
GG A World Divided Playtester
User avatar
BoerWar
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by BoerWar »

These all look interesting.

I would think B1 and B2 should have some (maybe minor) impact on U.S. entry. Maybe a 1-2 point shift toward war for B1 and a 2-3 point shift away for B2.
WanderingHead
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
Location: GMT-8

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by WanderingHead »

Hey guys, sorry for a delayed response. I'm checking the forums a bit infrequently, but still thinking about this stuff everyday (and playing whenever I get turns).
ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
What do the Russians occupy Rumania with? Any change to Russia's SR limits?

I don't know what you mean by "SR" ... ?

What I have now is every Russin unit in Kiev and Odessa move into Rumania, and the infrastructure is damaged. It's not actually configurable, the event triggers and it looks for any adjacent regions that are not frontier regions after control of Rumania passes (E Poland is frontier, so it is excluded) and moves units from them.

The main balancing items are
  • the Balkans nations (including Yugo) become German, and Persia and Turkey shift Axis (providing a bunch of resources)
  • the Russian WR thresholds for production are adjusted, so Russia experiences a production penalty without delaying war (my thought was that if Russian DOW were delayed as well, then this would simply encourage the German to focus on Britain and ignore Russia)
  • the Russian resource gift is increased by 2, making up only 2 out of the 4 resource Germany lost in Rumania
  • German production is immediately increased to 3
  • USA WR is reduced by 2

The reduction in Russian production can be thought to model in part the expense of the military operation and in part maybe increased complacency or new military purges. I need to adjust this in my current version, but I think that a one turn return to FM=1 would be sufficient (that's 13 production points, ~6 infantry units + 5 supply).

The German increase in production clearly models new paranoia about Russia's intentions.

The USA reduction of WR can model increased reluctance to get involved in Europe, especially with the view that neither Germany's Nazis nor Russia's Bolsheviks are paritcularly favorable.
ORIGINAL: BoerWar
These all look interesting.
I would think B1 and B2 should have some (maybe minor) impact on U.S. entry. Maybe a 1-2 point shift toward war for B1 and a 2-3 point shift away for B2.

I got it for the B2. I don't really think B1 requires it. B1 is more like the standard path, and in some case is already slightly unfavorable to the Germans (it might mean that an attack on Yugo failed to flip Rumania).

This event actually occurred for me (axis) in my current game with Rafael (allies). I think that the production penalty against Russia is currently a somewhat too strong, considering the German production boost. I currently have Russia's production penalty lasting 2-3 turns (depends on WR roles and E Poland moves), I think I would reduce it to just 1 turn.
ORIGINAL: Lucky1

would be a fan of the changes. I am not sure whether it is still on the forum, but when GGAWD first came out, I expressed my disappointment in political / diplomatic system. (e.g., mass troops on border with Yugo. Wait for coup. Invade. Wait for change in Greek war readiness (or not). Invade. Of course, this will introduce more variability in the games. But this is the point.....

I totally agree, it feels especially unnatural for Yugoslavia. Removing that unnatural sit-and-impatiently-wait feeling is my main goal.

I'm encouraged by all the interest!
SGT Rice
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by SGT Rice »

Sorry; SR = Strategic Redeployment. I thought of SRs because if the Russian units from Kiev and Odessa get sucked up into Rumania they leave a big vacuum behind them (which the Germans could plan for and exploit; say with a paradrop?).

It concerns me that this looks like a pretty bad move for the Russians. In the plus column they get to:

a) move the Barbarossa start line to the west, shortening their front line.
b) deny Germany the 4 Rumanian resources.
c) eliminate the Rumanian military (FTR, TRS, 7 MIL)
d) force the Germans to repair Rumanian infrastructure (70 supply points)

In the negative column they:

a) push a lot of troops into an exposed position
b) give Germany 4+ resources (from Russia, Turkey and Persia)
c) give Germany the Yugo/Greece militaries (3 INF, 2 MIL, 1 LS)
d) save Germany the rebuild costs for Yugo/Greece infrastructure (45-50 supply points)
e) save Germany the diplomatic costs of attacking Yugo/Greece
f) increase German production
g) lose Russian production
h) delay US production thresholds 1-2 turns.

To balance out the ledger I would offer the following suggestions. IMHO ...

1) If the Soviets had actually attacked Rumania they would not have slowed down military production; there would have been no doubt that the Germans would eventually want the oil fields back. So I would suggest that the cost of the operation be represented by expending 10 supply points rather than delayed production thresholds.

2) Following such an invasion the Russians would have been on a heightened state of alert anticipating a German response; their strategic redeployments (SRs) per turn should increase to 2.

3) Reduce the US WR penalty to 1 (making it symmetrical with the effects of Axis DOWs).

My two cents
GG A World Divided Playtester
Marshall Art
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:19 am

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by Marshall Art »

ORIGINAL: As Germany, I stack up units on the Yugoslav border and wait for a couple of events to occur.

Granted, it becomes repetitive but hey there is always one attack on Russia in this game, and one on the US [;)]

Before going into details regarding your proposals a caution regarding gameplay related tweaks and historical accuracy: As far as I remember there was no real connection between political events in Greece (British invited) and the coup on Yugoslavia? Of course they fell into the same time but I think that both were unrelated cases?
ORIGINAL:
  • A) Yugoslavia starts as Pro-Axis. Political volatility is increased to 7.
  • A1) There is still a Yugoslav coup which makes Yugo Pro-Allied. The probability of this is fairly small (10 or 20%) UNTIL Greece is captured. Then it is big: 80%.

My preferred solution would be to not link the status of Greece with the Yugo coup. Rather increase the probability after Greece went pro-Allied due to the border-war (even if it goes against what I said above). If the Greek never go pro-Allied (e.g. due to Axis getting a trade agreement) Yugos would be less likely to change allegiance.
ORIGINAL:

[*]B) Rumania starts Pro-Axis (not leaning Axis).
[*]B1) Rumanian event #1: border war with Russia over Bessarabia, German troops invited in. Rumania becomes full-Axis
[*]B2) Rumanian event #2: border war with Russia over Bessarabia, Russia occupies Rumania. All Rumanian infrastructure is double-damaged. Russian WR is penalized by changing the thresholds (this is done such that production is reduced, but DOW is not delayed - I want to balance the game but not make Russian war so far away that Germany must focus on Britain). German production becomes FM=3. Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia all become full-Axis. Greece becomes Pro-Axis and gets some additional land units (an arms deal with Germany, say). Turkey becomes Pro-Axis. Persia takes 1 step towards the Axis. Russia increases her gift to Germany to try to pacify Germany.
[/ul]
The two Rumanian events have probabilities that are functions of the number of units in W Poland (German) and Kiev (Russian), so both players can tweak them a little bit.

B and B1 make sense as they drive Romania faster into the Axis camp. This sets of any events with respect to Yugo that might rather go against the Axis.

B2 I am not sure about - it goes very far and I doubt the political chain of events would have been really possible, for the following reasons:
Yugoslavia traditionally had good and close relations to Russia, e.g. Serbia being heavily supported by Russia priot to WWI, and look at todays events - things did not change much. Thus Yugo going into the Axis camp after Russian influence over the Balkans has increased into Romania I question. Bulgaria: same thing, they did not really enter the Axis camp during the war but had to adjust to the Axis predominance and also wanted their share of the Yugo territory once Yugo was left for partition. Thus they would rather befriend Russia instead joining Germany with Russian troops nearby. What reason should Greece have to join the Axis? With aggressive Italian behavior in Albania they also would rather seek protection by an opposing power, such as they did with Britain. Turkey, Persia as you suggested seem to me like pure fictional game-balancing adjustments. Why would Persia care about Russia invading Romania? Actually I just realised I am quite against this suggested change (B2)...
ORIGINAL:

The Russian occupation is obviously quite a huge thing. It would be fairly low probability. It is really no more of a "what-if" than Spain joining Germany.

this calms my doubts somewhat but still the consequences of the Russia-takes Romania event should be rather geared towards Russia appeasing Germany with a hefty resource gift increase instead of pushing almost every nation nearby into the Axis camp. After all, Romania was part of the "Russian sphere of interest" according to the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939. It was rather the increased activities by Germany around the Balkans after 1939 that made the Russians wonder what was going on.
ORIGINAL:

This setup provides 3 major game courses for the Balkans:
(i) Yugoslavia is captured by the Germans, entailing repair of resources and a future need to garrison against Yugoslav partisans. Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria (or most of them) all become German. This is basically the course that matches the current setup.

(ii) Germany manages to capture an Allied friendly Greece BEFORE the Yugoslavia coup, and this causes Yugoslavia to shift to the Axis and become full-Axis. Germany does not need to repair resources, and will not need to garrison against partisans.

(iii) Russia occupies Rumania. A whole new world unlike pre-existing AWD opens up, and I struggle to keep it balanced [:)].

Personally, I really really like this setup. It leaves me uncertain what will happen, and it gives the German something to strive for (capturing Greece first, a real distraction in the Med when the path through Yugoslavia doesn't yet exist) instead of just sitting on the Yugo border and waiting. I also think it does a better job of modeling real political processes and possible outcomes.

The balancing will be the hardest part I imagine as what is the reference to match it against? You really open a total alternate-history can of worms here, which leaves the determination of the desired result very open for discussion.

To balance out the lost Romanian resources and units Germany definitely needs some compensation. But I do not believe the other nations around the Balkans should be switching at the moment Romania becomes Russian. Maybe just increasing the chance they enter the Axis camp could be increased. Lowering the Russian WR or having Russia pay for all Romanian infrastructure could be a viable way. Both can be seen as a way to simulate the effort of assimilating the new territory and thus reducing Russian readyness to oppose Germany.

Hope I did not come across too negative, I like your creative effort, seem harder to be convinced though [:)]
WanderingHead
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
Location: GMT-8

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by WanderingHead »

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
1) If the Soviets had actually attacked Rumania they would not have slowed down military production; there would have been no doubt that the Germans would eventually want the oil fields back. So I would suggest that the cost of the operation be represented by expending 10 supply points rather than delayed production thresholds.

I also want to keep things easy in the engine, at this point meaning I really hope not to make more code changes. I can reduce the production penalty to 1 turn. It is significant at ~13 production points, compared to the 2 production points you suggest. But you can't charge supply if the player doesn't have them, an obvious way to game the system.

13 production points is, say, 15 supplies for the operation and 4 damaged infantry and ... I can't think what the next 6 PPs would be.

Also, if the penalty is reduce to 1 turn it helps the Russian strategic position a lot because the Russian won't be forced to move to E Poland to increase WR but rather could work on Odessa to avoid that paradrop.
ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

2) Following such an invasion the Russians would have been on a heightened state of alert anticipating a German response; their strategic redeployments (SRs) per turn should increase to 2.

My only real reluctance here is coding. But it certainly makes sense from the standpoint of filling in behind the lines.
ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
3) Reduce the US WR penalty to 1 (making it symmetrical with the effects of Axis DOWs).

Very easily do-able.
ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
Before going into details regarding your proposals a caution regarding gameplay related tweaks and historical accuracy: As far as I remember there was no real connection between political events in Greece (British invited) and the coup on Yugoslavia? Of course they fell into the same time but I think that both were unrelated cases?

My reference states that Italy invaded Greece, failed miserably. The Germans wanted free passage through Yugo to Greece. The Yugo government acquiesced, which was extremely unpopular and shortly led to an anti-fascist coup. Which led to the German invasion.

So I think that linking them is very historical. Admittedly, having Germany conquer Greece and subsequently produce a Yugo coup is a little out of sequence, but it seems a reasonable enough model given the tools at hand.
ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
ORIGINAL:
  • A) Yugoslavia starts as Pro-Axis. Political volatility is increased to 7.
  • A1) There is still a Yugoslav coup which makes Yugo Pro-Allied. The probability of this is fairly small (10 or 20%) UNTIL Greece is captured. Then it is big: 80%.
My preferred solution would be to not link the status of Greece with the Yugo coup. Rather increase the probability after Greece went pro-Allied due to the border-war (even if it goes against what I said above). If the Greek never go pro-Allied (e.g. due to Axis getting a trade agreement) Yugos would be less likely to change allegiance.

I'm really trying to give the Germans something proactive to do about the situation. I want the Germans racing against the clock to make it work out favorably and/or quickly, rather than sitting around waiting for an event to occur.
ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
ORIGINAL:
[*]B) Rumania starts Pro-Axis (not leaning Axis).
[*]B1) Rumanian event #1: border war with Russia over Bessarabia, German troops invited in. Rumania becomes full-Axis
[*]B2) Rumanian event #2: border war with Russia over Bessarabia, Russia occupies Rumania.

B and B1 make sense as they drive Romania faster into the Axis camp. This sets of any events with respect to Yugo that might rather go against the Axis.

B2 I am not sure about - it goes very far and I doubt the political chain of events would have been really possible, for the following reasons:
Yugoslavia traditionally had good and close relations to Russia, e.g. Serbia being heavily supported by Russia priot to WWI, and look at todays events - things did not change much. Thus Yugo going into the Axis camp after Russian influence over the Balkans has increased into Romania I question. Bulgaria: same thing, they did not really enter the Axis camp during the war but had to adjust to the Axis predominance and also wanted their share of the Yugo territory once Yugo was left for partition. Thus they would rather befriend Russia instead joining Germany with Russian troops nearby. What reason should Greece have to join the Axis? With aggressive Italian behavior in Albania they also would rather seek protection by an opposing power, such as they did with Britain. Turkey, Persia as you suggested seem to me like pure fictional game-balancing adjustments. Why would Persia care about Russia invading Romania? Actually I just realised I am quite against this suggested change (B2)...

The real thinking for all of that is fear of Russian expansionism, turning towards Berlin for support. It isn't exactly so much pro-axis as anti-Soviet.

The course of events would make it unlikely that Italy/Germany would invade Greece in the game (it becomes diplomatically unfavorable once Greece is Pro-Axis).

My understanding of Bulgaria's role is also that it wanted a piece of Greece, reclaiming Aegian ports.
ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
Hope I did not come across too negative, I like your creative effort, seem harder to be convinced though [:)]

Not at all, I hope to come up with something everyone, or most, can enjoy. And I can't do that without knowing what people like or don't like :).

I'll be thinking more on this. Maybe Yugo should just become pro-Allied instead of shifting to the Axis. I'd have to check what happens if neutral Yugo is invaded while adjacent to Russian Rumania, since invasion of neutrals next to Russia typically provides a huge WR boost. I am not sure if it would do so in this case, since Rumania would be a hostile territory not of Russian nationality.

In the game I've got going now where this Rumania event occurred I already conquered Yugoslavia, so the gift of Yugo didn't really matter.

I do hope to keep it in and make it work, just for the variety. BTW - long long ago Gary and company had something like it in AWD, I can see the vestiges of the code (back when events were hard coded not mod-able). Presumably it was removed early on because it was too unbalancing.
WanderingHead
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
Location: GMT-8

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by WanderingHead »

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
1) If the Soviets had actually attacked Rumania they would not have slowed down military production; there would have been no doubt that the Germans would eventually want the oil fields back. So I would suggest that the cost of the operation be represented by expending 10 supply points rather than delayed production thresholds.

Just for the hell of it, I set up a game, unfroze the USSR, and invaded neutral Rumania from Kiev and Odessa. It was only one realization of a random combat, but the Soviets lost 9 PPs in the exchange (including supply and a destroyed fighter, which costs 3 PP in GG).

I think that losing production for 1 turn is quite appropriate just to model the expenses of the military campaign. I think I'll also put a new militia or two in Odessa, a head start towards defending against the German paradrop.

I think that the situation looks about OK now, I still think it is tough for the Germans. Sure, the Russians have some losses and the Germans get a production boost and some neutral resources. But the Germans have 12PPs to expend repairing Rumania and completely lose the ability to drive to Karkhov in turn 1 Barb. Even setting up a strong presence in Kiev in turn 1 will be hard for the Germans. That delay in Germany's advance will make all the difference.

Now I'm worried about Marshall Art's comments about neutrals. I thought it made sense. The nations near the expansionist SU turn west towards Germany. I believe the governments of Turkey and Iran actually did have some German sympathies. Of course, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Croat segments of Yugoslavia did join the Axis. The neutral shifts don't really seem ahistorical to me (err, clearly ahistorical in that they didn't occur this way, but it doesn' seem all that far fetched that it could have happened this way).
Marshall Art
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:19 am

RE: increased variability in political events - the Balkans

Post by Marshall Art »

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Now I'm worried about Marshall Art's comments about neutrals. I thought it made sense. The nations near the expansionist SU turn west towards Germany. I believe the governments of Turkey and Iran actually did have some German sympathies. Of course, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Croat segments of Yugoslavia did join the Axis. The neutral shifts don't really seem ahistorical to me (err, clearly ahistorical in that they didn't occur this way, but it doesn' seem all that far fetched that it could have happened this way).

Now that I slept a night over this how about the following idea: Whenever a side attacks a Neutral the remaining neutrals are checked if they change their status, e.g. going from Neutral to leaning Axis/Allied. If you gave the Russian invasion of Romania a similar status (is it possible?) there could be a check of each neighboring Neutral in a similar fashion, driving some towards Germany and possibly a few into the Allied (British) camp. Going Allied would for game purposes include succombing to the Russians. To compensate for each Neutral going Allied the US & SU WR could go down.

BTW, is the change due to Axis/Allied attacks done at the same time or subsequently, i.e. check for Axis, if no change check for Allies? This would add even more unpredictability for both sides and keep a certain variability over all games. Otherwise a huge change in the area of Europe/Asia becomes heavily scripted IMO.

EDIT: Also I believe the probability of Russia invading Romania should be greatly reduced after the fall of France. Stalin captured most of his new possetions (Baltic states, Bessarabia) under cover of the French campaign. After the Germany were victorious in France he surely would not have dared to invading Romania, provoking a German response.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided”