Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change

[KorutZelva]

Gladly I`m at an age not to care any longer listening to "what the cool kids do".

[8|]

[nnason]

My objection to Uber-diplo is the element of chance. I have gone 8 months with Spain at 85% and me invested at 30% and no joy. OK not having Spain until late 1942 is not good but what about the opposite where Allies get really good "roles" and have USA join say in early 1941 even thought the Axis had invested the same amount of chips/MPPs. Just that the computer made better rolls for the Allies. So equal investments but better rolls makes for a very unbalanced game.

Perhaps the way to resolve is equal investments get same rolls. So when when Axis gets a -15% for the USA then the Allies would get plus 15%. This is assuming same number of diplo chips for each side. If unequal chip investment then some adjustment up or down to reflect the greater diplo pressure.

Sugar makes a good point about Uber investments would make brits very weak. But if got lucky.....

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: nnason

My objection to Uber-diplo is the element of chance. I have gone 8 months with Spain at 85% and me invested at 30% and no joy. OK not having Spain until late 1942 is not good but what about the opposite where Allies get really good "roles" and have USA join say in early 1941 even thought the Axis had invested the same amount of chips/MPPs. Just that the computer made better rolls for the Allies. So equal investments but better rolls makes for a very unbalanced game.

Perhaps the way to resolve is equal investments get same rolls. So when when Axis gets a -15% for the USA then the Allies would get plus 15%. This is assuming same number of diplo chips for each side. If unequal chip investment then some adjustment up or down to reflect the greater diplo pressure.

Sugar makes a good point about Uber investments would make brits very weak. But if got lucky.....

Rolls don't work like that though. If UK invest 5 chits and Germany invest 5 chits in the same country they don't both get rolls to get a diplohit, they just cancel each other and each have 0% of a diplo hit. If Uk has 5 and germany 4, then german has 0% chance of hit but UK has 5% and so on. It's probable that in your Spain situation your opponent has chits invested vs you leaving a small chance of a diplohit.

Uber investment to the USSR while excellent to improve USSR combat readiness (and a potential deathly danger if it triggers while France is still fighting) leaves the UK almost hopelessly weak in the west. Uber investment to the USA, less so because the increased USA income and land lease to the UK props you back up.

[nnason]

KorutZelva,

Are you sure diplo-chits work that way and chits cancel each other out? Where in Manual does it say this?

If so would take most of the chance out. If you were following diplo investments you would have to guess is my Allied opponent investing in USA or Russia? Less chance and more guessing.

Good point about worth of Allied investment.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: nnason

KorutZelva,

Are you sure diplo-chits work that way and chits cancel each other out? Where in Manual does it say this?

If so would take most of the chance out. If you were following diplo investments you would have to guess is my Allied opponent investing in USA or Russia? Less chance and more guessing.

Good point about worth of Allied investment.

Yepp. Its in there under Contested Diplomacy (10.6.). I quite like how the system works to be honest.

[nnason]

Thanks for the quick reply.

[Taxman66]

However, I believe that diplomacy checks are made each and every turn and not just on the turns with the side who has the positive value.
I can attest to this from my game with KorutZelva.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

However, I believe that diplomacy checks are made each and every turn and not just on the turns with the side who has the positive value.
I can attest to this from my game with KorutZelva.

This is what I thought too, but Bill says otherwise. So if you have proof of this than the game is not WAD.

[Harrybanana]

I continue to maintain that the problem with Uber-Diplomacy is that it brings too much of a luck element into the game. By my calculation KZ should have averaged 2.5 US hits in our game and he got 4. Conversely, I have now had 6 turns with a 10% chance and 2 turns with a 15% chance of getting an Axis Diplomacy hit on the US; so an average of 0.9 hits. But no luck so far. So in my opinion KZ's 4 hits and my 0 hits has resulted in a significant swing in our respective chances of winning the game. Assuming the game is balanced and KZ and I are of equal skill (which at this point I very much doubt) I would say my chances of winning have gone from 50% to 5%. Likewise had he only gotten 1 hit (which statistically was just as likely as 4) and I then got a hit of my own, then I would have said that my chances were 95% (again assuming equal skill). Had I known the Rules and correctly guessed that KZ was going for the US rather than Russia I could perhaps have prevented him from getting one of his hits, but even with just 3 hits I would say that my chances of winning would be at best 25%. Again, none of this is to say that KZ would not have beaten me without this strategy. I am not saying that he is beating me only by luck. He is a very skilled opponent and would probably win anyway, but this kind of seals the deal.

In my game where I am using the Uber-diplomacy strategy myself (but on Russia), I so far should have averaged 1.95 hits but have gotten only 1. I probably only have 2 or at best 3 more turns before France falls.

I think by now everyone has figured out why I personally don't like games of chance.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I continue to maintain that the problem with Uber-Diplomacy is that it brings too much of a luck element into the game. By my calculation KZ should have averaged 2.5 US hits in our game and he got 4. Conversely, I have now had 6 turns with a 10% chance and 2 turns with a 15% chance of getting an Axis Diplomacy hit on the US; so an average of 0.9 hits. But no luck so far. So in my opinion KZ's 4 hits and my 0 hits has resulted in a significant swing in our respective chances of winning the game. Assuming the game is balanced and KZ and I are of equal skill (which at this point I very much doubt) I would say my chances of winning have gone from 50% to 5%. Likewise had he only gotten 1 hit (which statistically was just as likely as 4) and I then got a hit of my own, then I would have said that my chances were 95% (again assuming equal skill). Had I known the Rules and correctly guessed that KZ was going for the US rather than Russia I could perhaps have prevented him from getting one of his hits, but even with just 3 hits I would say that my chances of winning would be at best 25%. Again, none of this is to say that KZ would not have beaten me without this strategy. I am not saying that he is beating me only by luck. He is a very skilled opponent and would probably win anyway, but this kind of seals the deal.

In my game where I am using the Uber-diplomacy strategy myself (but on Russia), I so far should have averaged 1.95 hits but have gotten only 1. I probably only have 2 or at best 3 more turns before France falls.

I think by now everyone has figured out why I personally don't like games of chance.

A certain promo comes to mind. Scott Steiner on the uber-diplo strategy [:'(]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

However, I believe that diplomacy checks are made each and every turn and not just on the turns with the side who has the positive value.
I can attest to this from my game with KorutZelva.

This is what I thought too, but Bill says otherwise. So if you have proof of this than the game is not WAD.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing the other side getting a diplomatic success in their opponent's turn.

[Taxman66]

I recall (but could also be wrong) seeing Axis hits to US at the end of my allied turn and of my axis opponent commenting on hits at the end of his turn before I played mine.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I recall (but could also be wrong) seeing Axis hits to US at the end of my allied turn and of my axis opponent commenting on hits at the end of his turn before I played mine.

Your diplomacy rolls are only effective on your turn 100% certain.

[crispy131313]

It is very obvious if the Allies are buying Major Diplomatic Chits, so I suppose it can countered quite easily. The only problem once you go that route (invest and cancel USA) the diplomatic game is done.

[Taxman66]

I would still prefer the softer hits for the base 50 cost in my first post.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: crispy131313


It is very obvious if the Allies are buying Major Diplomatic Chits, so I suppose it can countered quite easily. The only problem once you go that route (invest and cancel USA) the diplomatic game is done.

Once Germany sees that the Allies have made major investments in diplomacy chits, what is the most effective counter? The German Player has a few options:

1) He can wait until the Allies get their first diplomacy hit and then try and match them. The problem is that this will give the Allies one "free" hit and the French and UK combined get more MPPs than Germany for the first several turns, so they can purchase chits at a faster pace. They can also, of course, purchase more chits. So the Allies will get 1 hit and have a 15% chance or better of further hits until France is conquered. Now it is down to luck again.

2) He can try and guess where the Allies have placed their chits (Russia or US) and buy chits for that nation. But again, the Allies can purchase more chits. So you may end up with a situation where Germany has a 25% chance per turn of getting a USSR hit while the Allies have a 40% chance of getting a US hit. Once again down to luck.

3) He can instead spend his MPPs to operationally move West for an early assault on France. This will reduce the number of turns that the Allies have to influence the US or the USSR, but will give them an increased chance for those turns. Of course, at some point the Germans will still have to purchase 5 chits to counter the UK's 5. Once again lots of luck involved.

So the point is that no matter what the Axis do, they can be done in by lady luck.

But of these which is the most effective counter assuming average luck for both sides? Or is there another option I am missing entirely.

[Harrybanana]

Has anyone seen Uber Diplomacy in reverse? In other words the game proceeds as usual with no Allied uber diplomacy. Then after the Axis conquer France the Germans and Italians immediately purchase the maximum chits in the USSR. Even if the UK counters with 1 chit a turn (which at 150 MPPS a pop is a big investment at that point of the game) the Axis will get an average of 1.5 hits within the first 5 turns. Thereafter they will average a hit every Axis 7 turns. So has anyone done the math to determine if, on average, the Axis can keep Russia out of the War until the late spring (April or May) of 42? I would try this in a future game; but I'm pretty sure I would get below average luck.

[Sugar]

1. The possibilty to counter is certain, the weather and possible time savings of operating are not; the costs of operating are again fix. France will fall much sooner anyway.

2. After the joining of Italy the conditions turn, after the fall of France they`re outnumbering brit. chits by 8-5.

3. Statistically it`s unlikey for the Allies to achieve more than 2 hits as long as France still exists, since they won`t be able to invest the whole 1200 MPP in their first turn; no matter what the Germans do, unless they spend all MPPs elsewhere.

4. Hits on Majors are limited to 7-11% afaik.

Therefore this strategy can hardly be decisive, unless the Axis player is not aware of the threat. He still has some options, though.

It`s true this proceeding will hurt the economies of all nations involved, but since diplo action is inevitable anyway, the pain won`t be decisive I guess. One could say it will hurt the Brits even more, they are relatively weak compared to their enemies.

[KorutZelva]

France will fall much sooner anyway.

Not really unless you blitz. The reason is that UK money invested in diplo is usually money that wouldn't be invested in the defense of France anyway (unlike Germany expenditures).

Hits on Majors are limited to 7-11% afaik.

Nope. The only difference is that you can't get that 10% of major increase like you do with minors. My current AAR saw a 14% increase at some point. The average hit would be about 11%.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Has anyone seen Uber Diplomacy in reverse? In other words the game proceeds as usual with no Allied uber diplomacy. Then after the Axis conquer France the Germans and Italians immediately purchase the maximum chits in the USSR. Even if the UK counters with 1 chit a turn (which at 150 MPPS a pop is a big investment at that point of the game) the Axis will get an average of 1.5 hits within the first 5 turns. Thereafter they will average a hit every Axis 7 turns. So has anyone done the math to determine if, on average, the Axis can keep Russia out of the War until the late spring (April or May) of 42? I would try this in a future game; but I'm pretty sure I would get below average luck.

I like the USSR play but I wonder if in response the UK player is not better off going for the USA instead in that situation. It's pretty easy to tank the USSR mobilisation especially if you get the jump on him and he's not climbing up the USSR hole by himself anyway. It's always risky to invest in the USSR for the allies because they don't control the barbarossa timetable.