Twebers Dictum

[ernieschwitz]

I follow most of the threads in the AAR category, and thought that this might make an interesting topic. Heres the comment that sparked this thread:

I think players without the luxury or isolation will never be able to research. They will almost always lose to a neighboring regime who immediately gears production towards units.

Is this true? If so how to solve it. Tweber comes with some interesting notes on this too:

...A couple of thoughts on how to get around this:

- Give all players a round 1 grant of a few thousand PP. This will allow initial research. You could reset all pp to 0 to force players to 'use it or lose it'
- You might allow players to share R&D through an action card
- You could also set up a mechanism where R&D leaks or is stolen

This is of particular interest to me as the 1933 scenario i am working on, requires (i think) a periode of peace, before it gets really interesting.

What are your thoughts on how to prevent war, until a later time...

[Jeffrey H.]

Make it so costly to start one that doing so too soon will end up causing a loss.

I can imagine lots of ways to do this, but giving and taking away of PP's probably is the most direct.

In the Global Dominaiton mod, Tweber is correct and his success in the game we are playing shows it. However the mod doesn't allow for 'making peace' which might have a different effect. If both sides feel that making peace was a benefit, and they both were rewarded with PP bonuses for making peace, then you might see more time spent on research and less jumping straight into armament production. Also, there is no 'cost' in PP's to declare war. So everybody does it in relatively short order without any deeper consequence.

[srndac]

There is also no provisions in the AT for the alliances between weaker and stronger states. (which is another way of saving your backside from the big bad wolf)

Vic created AT as a war simulation, gentlemen - not as a political one.

cheers!

[RufusTFirefly]

It is a good idea to make new unit getting cheaper the later the technical level is developed. Stealing a technology (by using spies) is not not what I prefer. Giving tech to an ally might be a problem in case the sides are very different. For example Germany and Italy against Britain, France, USA and SU would allow each nation to develop one tech and give it to the others asap. There would be four lines of tech development against the two lines of Germany and Italy. (Taking Japan into account it changes from 4:3, but I wanted to have an example of worse case).

Paying PP to declare war is necessary to avoid early action. To simulate raising tension between nations the costs for DOW might be lowered each turn to a certain extend.


Just a remark to Twebers post of luxury of isolated state:

Of cause in the running game US is able to develop tech levels quickly, as US dont have to spend as much PP in producing units. But that is not a badly made game setting. It is more or less the result of the ongoing of the game.

Germany attacked Russia early in the game. As player of US I send moral support to Russia (could not do more at that time). Being mainly a land based nation, while US has to look for a strong presence on sea, it is no problem for US to support Russia. The main enemy I thought would be Britain, thinking of a fight for complete control of N-America between US and Canada. As France remained quiet and Russia was standing alone against Germany, Britain decided to help. This made Britain an ally of USA and therefore US territory was not in danger of being attacked. This enabled US to develop tech levels without spending too much PP for units to defend its territory.

In case France had taken its chance and declared war on Germany, US might have offered an alliance to France and spend more effort in building a large army to attack the Canadians.

The luxury of isolation is more a result of gameplay here and therefroe I want to point out that changes in settings for tech development might better be done carefully. It might spoil the game.

[Bombur]

Yes, I think Rufus has a good point. A single game is not enough to decide what changes should be done in the tech tree or in the research costs. I think, however, that some changes in other aspects should be done.
-Countries should start with bigger armies, so it should be necessary to balance modernization and recruitment of new units.
-Artillery should be more expensive, in comparison with infantry
-Occupied territories should produce at a smaller rate for foreign occupiers
-Maybe we should place neutral countries, just like in tom weber´s 1900 diplomacy
-The cost of techs should decrease with time (up to 80% in my plans)
-Economic development should be simulated (I´m considering the use of cards)

Anyway, I think the GD scenario is fun as it stands and tom is doing well due to his skills and not due to troubles in the game engine. If he Russia and Germany had spent the same relative amount of points in R&D the results would be the same. And of course, diplomacy is important. If France has accepted my early offer for a mutual defense pact the results could have been different, it would have been possible to contain Germany, maybe...

-On 1933, it should be noticed that most countries start with damaged cities and low readiness levels for air and naval units. I´s unlikely for any player to be able to start an offensive in the first turns.

[tweber]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

Yes, I think Rufus has a good point. A single game is not enough to decide what changes should be done in the tech tree or in the research costs. I think, however, that some changes in other aspects should be done.
-Countries should start with bigger armies, so it should be necessary to balance modernization and recruitment of new units.
-Artillery should be more expensive, in comparison with infantry
-Occupied territories should produce at a smaller rate for foreign occupiers
-Maybe we should place neutral countries, just like in tom weber´s 1900 diplomacy
-The cost of techs should decrease with time (up to 80% in my plans)
-Economic development should be simulated (I´m considering the use of cards)

Anyway, I think the GD scenario is fun as it stands and tom is doing well due to his skills and not due to troubles in the game engine. If he Russia and Germany had spent the same relative amount of points in R&D the results would be the same. And of course, diplomacy is important. If France has accepted my early offer for a mutual defense pact the results could have been different, it would have been possible to contain Germany, maybe...

-On 1933, it should be noticed that most countries start with damaged cities and low readiness levels for air and naval units. I´s unlikely for any player to be able to start an offensive in the first turns.

I like the GD scenario and I would be interested to see how it evolves. For me, getting a good alliance with France was probably as important as my early focus on artillery and now torpedo boat builds.

[Jeffrey H.]

I would like to see a reduced cost for roadbuilding. It's really costly to recruit enough engineers to build roads at an adequate pace.

[Jeffrey H.]

If you put yourself in Frances position, you'll find it difficult to justify fighting with the Germans. If the German player is willing, an Alliance is much better for both parties. Fighting with them offers almost certain destruction and while there is a chance that Russia will be able to put enough pressure on Germany, it's not a guarantee. If the US and GB form an alliance there isn't much else France can do.

From a diplomacy perspective, I didn't really see any benefit to fighting with any country, other than the Ottomans, and I think Japan was essentially in the same predicament. It's really about avoiding being eaten by the bigger fish rather than any desire or ability to conquer anything. Once the US had declared war on France, there was nothing left to do but to declare war on the US ally since France stood to lose it's oulying, off continent holdings and it couldn't strike at the US in any way. At least it has a chance to take some possessions from GB and balance out the losses.

[RufusTFirefly]

Please dont get me wrong. I agree with you that it is a good choice for France to form a coalition with Germany. It was just that I was curious to see how Tweber(as the best player in this group) manages to fight against France and Russia. But keeping all quiet along the river Rhine enables France to look for other challenges. Thats a good strategy.

I dont agree that Turkey should be the main target. Spain might be taken quickly and then France has several harbours in Atlantic and Med Sea to look for playing an important role on the seas. Colonies in S-America and Africa wait to be taken under French protection. And surely Monsieur Sarkozy would not agree with you that France, la Grande Nation, has to fear being eaten up by a bigger fish as being a big fish itself. There is nothing France has to fear - except itself, as we recently noticed when looking at championship in S-Africa [:D]

[tweber]

I played out the first few turns in Europe solitare and I think France and Russia can give Germany a very serious challenge if they immediately go to war and maximize production of artillery.  A good rule of thumb - Neither France, Germany or Russia should not build any pp until they have either (1) Paris / Berlin, (2) Berlin, Moscow
 
I would think GB's role would be so go after the OE and support the weaker of German or France / Russia.  Maintaining toe holds in Scandanavia and Spain are helpful for this.
 
I also think there is no reason for the US not to scoop up Canada quickly.  Canada has a port and the UK can built up a really strong force and capture the US NE where 60% of the US production is based. 
 
These are all theoretical strategies.  In a real game with real people, you do have to respond to the opportunities that exist. 
 
 

[RufusTFirefly]

ORIGINAL: tweber


I also think there is no reason for the US not to scoop up Canada quickly.  Canada has a port and the UK can built up a really strong force and capture the US NE where 60% of the US production is based. 
 

Yes, thats right. Therefore within the first turns US has built fortifications in the north of New England to secure its production centers. Centers at Coast were secured by building some coastal artillery. And you can be sure that there is some infantry garrisonned as well.

Of course I trust the player of Britain that his intentions are peaceful, but beside this I wanted to make sure that he does not think it over [;)]