Nitpicky Korut reviews all Decisions

[KorutZelva]

Don't worry nnason, I don't think I have any sway in the matter.

This is just a thought exercise. If it helps improve a decision or two down the line, I'll call it a win.

[crispy131313]

You would be surprised how often the developers listen or take notice.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

==Italy Decisions==

DE 700 – Italy: Complete the Roma Battleship
Verdict: Modify
Explanation: Considering you're forfeiting a free 400 mpp unit, that's essentially like paying 600mpp for a 350mpp unit. Might as well save up the missing 150 mpp and get yourself both a BB and a Carrier. 100mpp at most.

Yes, this one really isn't worth it currently - whereas Germany can get the Graf Zeppelin for 200 MPP, Italy will lose a BB and still have to pay 150MPP - nonsense! Especially as Italy will need to invest research in both Naval and Air to make the most of it.

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva
DE 701 – Italy: Form an Italian Expeditionary Force?
Verdict: Keep
Explanation: This event + DE 708 gets Italy 2 corps over their corp build limit if both are accepted. I don't know if that's intended but I think Italy corp max should be bumped by 2 so that it doesn't go over.

I'd be fine with that, Italy's Corps limit seems very low

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

==Italy Decisions==

DE 700 – Italy: Complete the Roma Battleship
Verdict: Modify
Explanation: Considering you're forfeiting a free 400 mpp unit, that's essentially like paying 600mpp for a 350mpp unit. Might as well save up the missing 150 mpp and get yourself both a BB and a Carrier. 100mpp at most.

Yes, this one really isn't worth it currently - whereas Germany can get the Graf Zeppelin for 200 MPP, Italy will lose a BB and still have to pay 150MPP - nonsense! Especially as Italy will need to invest research in both Naval and Air to make the most of it.

Even worst it's 200mp. 25mpp for 8 turns.

[KorutZelva]

Wish List part 1:

Vichy offers alliance
Timing: March 1942 when Pierre Laval returns to power. Rationale: IRL, he offered Germany annexing Lorraine in exchange for a full alliance. Cost: No other cost that the reduction in germany income from lost of french territory. Effect: Lorraine becomes german territory proper, Metropolitan France and colonies (minus St-Nazaire) become an Axis Major. France activate with its fleet (minus any Mers el kebir), a couple of corps and Algiers' air.

Germany entice Japan into declaring war to the USSR

Timing: Dec 1940 (as a follow up to the pop-up about taking on the USSR) Rationale: IRL, Hitler wanted Japan to stay clear of the USSR because they figured they didn't need the help and didn't want to share the spoils anyway. The army wanted Japan to jump in the action. At the latter got their wish, they could have tried to entice Japan to join the fray.
Cost: Germany sends uboats with technology transfer and precious material as payment. (a la U-234) (-100mpp for 8 turn?)
Effect: Japan accept and pursue Hokushin-ron which will eventually be defeated in 1944 (announced by pop-up). No supply to USSR via Vladivostok. Loss of National Morale (until they get it back when they beat the Japanese in 1944). No Siberian troop transfer until dec 1944 and the units are all half strength but with an additional experience dot. With the prospect of a war with Japan being unlikely in the short term, UK and USA transfer additional naval assets and group troops from the pacific theater in 1941.

Offer protectorate to Denmark
Just the old event from previous SC instead of the current annexation one.

Concessions to the Ukrainian nationalists
Timing: When Ukraine is in the bag. Rationale: Germany didn't really tap or leverage as much as they could because they acted like assholes and sought to annex the area anyway. What if they did? Cost: 400mp (100 mpp for 4 turns) and a 5% loss of national morale for Germany (from giving up on war aims) Effect: Germany creates an Ukranian minor + bessarabia to Romania. Western Ukraine partisan are a thing of the past, Eastern Ukraine partisan in russian speaking area are halved.

[OxfordGuy3]

KorutZelva - most of those sounds like pretty big game changers, in most case they sound like no-brainers to accept

Regarding Ukraine - yes Germany acted stupidly there (and in the Baltic States), but the Nazis often didn't act in their own best interests, because of their warped ideology. Jewish scientists would also have helped their war effort...

[KorutZelva]

Depends! Losing out on France for Germany is a big deal since France money would be limited in use to under tech French troops. It would situational if Germany needs a quick navy boost but would likely hurt in the long run. Also gives a greater incentive for the UK to go for targets like Syria and Algeria so they don't join if an alliance develops.

Denmark would probably be modified from the base event to cost a bit more upfront so that there's an incentive to straight up conquer if you need the cash influx in the short term (such for a sealion).

Germany might not have the sway to influence Japan attacking the USSR or not but even without a dedicated Japan event, I do wish the outcomes of what happens in the pacific was randomized. For example Japan going North on its own 15% of the time (actually having just that would be better than a dedicated event). Just high enough to force the USSR player not to assume the Siberians will be available for sure. And high enough for Axis player to occasionally grin with glee at this unexpected windfall.

Yep, it would have a big impact. It would make the convoy to the arctic to the USSR more hotly contested (but something the allies can certainly tackle with the additional naval assets). And the additional ground troops the allies get would mirror the Siberian counterpart except divided between the UK and the USA and be put into use for an early torch or D-day. (UK player could get a follow-up decision on where to deploy the pacific assets: egypt or UK) Germany is getting an early reprieve in the east but headaches in the west. With the siberian still showing up late 1944, the stakes are high to finish the USSR before that.

Ukraine one is probably the harder one to not make one sided because I don't know how big of an impact national moral loss have on combat performance. In SC WW1, accepting the cede territories to Italy seriously cripples Austria-Hungary combat ability but how much of an impact is has in this version of the game? How much of a national moral loss would it have to be to balance the decision. I'm thinking something between 5 and 10% but I'm possibly way off.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

Offer protectorate to Denmark
Just the old event from previous SC instead of the current annexation one.

Hi KorutZelva

One big difference between the SC2 annexation of Denmark via DE 601 and the SC3 set-up where Denmark surrenders, is that with the former Danish partisans couldn't be represented because Denmark no longer existed in the game.

Whereas with the surrender of Denmark that is triggered by the Decision, Danish partisans can be represented late in the game as they did historically liberate Copenhagen, so if we were to change it back we would lose this possibility.

Is there perhaps a reason for wanting it to go back to being annexed that has an additional in-game benefit that I'm missing?

Thanks

Bill

[KorutZelva]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for taking the time to peruse my musing. My irrational 'aversion' to the current event only stems that is a straight up conquest that is not different than conquering it manually other than paying a few bucks to trigger it. With the protectorate event you do get something not achievable than just moving troops in, giving the event more purpose than just being 'easy conquest' button. The only drawback of the old event was it was maybe slightly too cheap making it an 'offer you can't refuse' proposition because of the additional mpp of having denmark in Germany proper. It's not a bad thing per say that it prevent partisan as it serves as further distinction between accepting the event or not. It is just about factoring this additional benefit (and the free str 1 danish corp you get) in the new price for accepting.

[KorutZelva]

UK-France attempt seizing Scandinavian mines

As a follow up to intervene in the winter war, the allies could choose between going through Petsamo insuring that they arrive on time or alternatively ask for transfer rights through norway and sweden. This one has a 20% chance of being successful (as norway and sweden both have to agree and are unlikely to do so) but if it works the allies can sneakily 'secure' swedish the ore fields stopping both the Norwegian and Swedish convoy to Germany on top of arriving in Finland in time. Success also pushes norway and sweden closer to the axis (a 50% jump?). Axis then as to consider, do they try to diplomatically get them over their side to be able to push the allies out of the mines or just invade them ASAP if they don't want to fight a diplowar over them. Success in intervening in them has the same effect on USSR mobilization reduction from thwarting their invasion. On the allied side the decision is if you're really interested in saving finland, you totally can but you can still try to get that homerun of blocking iron imports. I'd probably add a small USSR mobilization cost (2-3%) to a failed intervention.

[KorutZelva]

Scorched Earth on Oil fields

When Axis troops are near Kerch or Rostov, USSR gets offered the decision to sabotage Maikop beyond repair. If agreed at the end of the subsequent Allied turn, if Maikop is still in Allied custody, its production drops to 0 for the rest of the war. It denies the Axis the resource but also potentially impedes the USSR income since it would not be able to get them to work again for them if they recapture it.

Subsequent decision for Grozny and Baku oil field would be offered if the Axis gets close.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

Scorched Earth on Oil fields

When Axis troops are near Kerch or Rostov, USSR gets offered the decision to sabotage Maikop beyond repair. If agreed at the end of the subsequent Allied turn, if Maikop is still in Allied custody, its production drops to 0 for the rest of the war. It denies the Axis the resource but also potentially impedes the USSR income since it would not be able to get them to work again for them if they recapture it.

Subsequent decision for Grozny and Baku oil field would be offered if the Axis gets close.

This is good, I know Calm Before the Storm used to have this exact decision for Grozny, I'm not sure if the most recent one does or not but it is interesting none the less.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva
DE 600 – Germany: Should Germany Honor the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Verdict: Modify
Explanation: Essentially a death sentence if you don't. Make it automatic. Maybe keep it as a thing the +2 exp AI does 25% of the time but 0% at other levels.

I have no problem with reducing (or even eliminating) the chance of the AI rejecting it, but it's nice to have as an option for the human player, just in case you want to be crazy and see what will happen if you don't e.g. invading the USSR after Poland

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva
DE 617 – Germany: Deploy the 7th Luftwaffe Division
Verdict: Drop
Explanation: No one is in that in a hurry to get a half strength unit

My human opponent was in one of my PBEM games, assume he wanted the extra MPPs early on to get more of a jump-start on (naval?) research (he went for Sealion...), he was also very aggressive in the use of both paratroop units in the invasion of France

I've also had opponents do both of these. Admittedly, I don't think that anyone would dishonour the Pact twice but it was an historical option....................

[LordOfPants]

In the 'things there aren't events for' category, there really should be some events that if UK has seized ports from Ireland, Ireland can seize them back if the UK is in bad enough shape. It's kind of silly that the Axis can conquer all of the UK including Northern Ireland, but can't do anything about Allied ships docking in Irish ports. Also maybe a possibility of offering NI to the Irish in exchange for joining the war or a relations boost would make sense.

[GiveWarAchance]

I don't think USSR annexing the Baltics should be automatic. That was a very evil deed and a USSR player might want to be play more good and also not bully Finland. And it would add variety to the eastern front starting positions.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: GiveWarAchance

I don't think USSR annexing the Baltics should be automatic. That was a very evil deed and a USSR player might want to be play more good and also not bully Finland. And it would add variety to the eastern front starting positions.

You're right. I've done this list a long time ago, I've turned around on a couple of these decisions since. [:)]

[Birdw]

I almost never accept DE 600 as the Axis. I'll be attacking the Soviets before they get to 100% anyway. To me it is a no brainer not to accept it.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: WarBaron

I almost never accept DE 600 as the Axis. I'll be attacking the Soviets before they get to 100% anyway. To me it is a no brainer not to accept it.

We need to play a game so I can show you the errors of your ways. [:D]

[Birdw]

I'm still waiting. You gave me quite a thrashing our last match!

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: WarBaron

I'm still waiting. You gave me quite a thrashing our last match!

I'm intrigued of the dynamics of the game if the decision is rejected. I think this is madness but I'm curious if you managed to make it viable. My game vs Sugar is winding down, I think I can take another one if you're up for it. [:)]