Surrender morale effects

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

Hubert - I appreciate why you are reluctant to make a change to the game engine just to address what some players feel is a problem with one situation in one of the SC games. I think the problem is bigger than just Luxembourg and Montenegro, at least for the Entente in this game. But would you consider building into the game engine the option to vary the surrender morale settings by country and then leave the default setting as they are now (at least for now). That way players who want to dial up or down those settings for certain countries can do so in their own mods and everyone else can keep playing normally. It would at least give players (like me) who think there is an issue here to test out alternatives and so if they make any difference.

It's certainly possible, and it really will just depend on which way we go with the solution to this problem. Just being honest here, there is always so much to do and we have to prioritize our efforts and if in the end this is what we find to be the only way to solve the issue then yes that kind of option would be introduced into the editor.

[mdsmall]

Hubert - I appreciate your willingness to think about this. It is very easy for a player like me to ask for a change in the game engine, when I have no idea how much work that might take. An alternative which might be easier for you to implement is, as discussed above, limiting the surrender effects for minors to just the parent major and the conquering major. You could introduce a box to that effect in the Editor which could be ticked or unticked, much like you do with the little-noticed "attachable HQ" box under Country Data (something else I learned by reading about the dreaded Montenegro Gambit!).

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

If we have more NO then YES to those questions then we tend to lean towards the bigger picture and consider more significant changes.

If it is more YES than NO then we lean more towards the issue that has raised all the questions and focus more on that and then go from there.

For example, as you've alluded to perhaps the Montenegro strategy should remain as a viable one with some adjustments and if we can raise the risk to ensure it is not the strategy that wins the game for the CP side every time with little to no risk.

Thanks Hubert for responding to my reply. I believe the latter question is the answer as it applies here with the Montenegro Gambit starting on turn 1:

"If it is more YES than NO then we lean more towards the issue that has raised all the questions and focus more on that and then go from there."-Hubert

The game overall is balanced for both sides, even when the artillery was uber powerful haha. Both sides could get that back when!

Its definitely a local problem considering the time frame of the M-Gambit imho. The M-Gambit actually has a long history...but it was employed usually from my experience later..when the CP stabilized one or both of the main fronts, and they were having problems with the Serbian player being recalcitrant lol.

Anyway..thanks for considering and reading all that we write here. Everybody that I know in this community appreciates all the extra time you and Bill put into our questions and observations. o7

[Bavre]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks OldCrowBalthazor, and yes one of the questions we ask ourselves in this situation is how did the game play before a possible exploit was discovered?

Was it fairly balanced? Were the entries of nations otherwise ok? Did it allow for multiple strategies but none were game breaking? And so on...

If we have more NO then YES to those questions then we tend to lean towards the bigger picture and consider more significant changes.

If it is more YES than NO then we lean more towards the issue that has raised all the questions and focus more on that and then go from there.

As mentioned, past experience has led us to think carefully so as to not introduce new issues. Whack-a-mole has happened to us before in the past and that leads to even more player frustration.

We also tend to lean towards a balanced approach unless it is something truly game breaking and no other option remains other than to completely remove it from the game.

For example, as you've alluded to perhaps the Montenegro strategy should remain as a viable one with some adjustments and if we can raise the risk to ensure it is not the strategy that wins the game for the CP side every time with little to no risk.

We had a similar situation in our WWII game where players felt it was game breaking when the Axis operated all their air to North Africa to overwhelm the Allied defenses there. In the end we didn't remove the option, e.g. some argued for hard caps, special rules etc., we just amended how air units received maximum supply where they had to be attached to an HQ in order to do so. It allowed players to continue to send as much air to North Africa as before, it just now required a bigger logistical investment in order to be effective, e.g an extra HQ or two. The strategy was there for players to still pursue but became more balanced as a result.

That being said we haven't made a final decision just yet, so to everyone, please keep the feedback coming [:)]

I think I already posted this in the game balance thread, but the game seemed to have excellent balance for me before I discovered this exploit. All my games before were decided either by difference in player experience or getting lucky after a long match with a lot of back and forth.

Also those surrender effects are by no means an autowin. Even after realizing their potential it took me 4 games vs humans and well over a dozend test runs in hotseat to fully harness their power.

I am currently doing two parallel test games:

One with OldCrow (featured in the war room) were I'm combining the M-gambit with an attempt to cut the Russian rail lines to Poland. This one is still in its opening phase.

In the other vs Mdsmall I am basically doing the same thing but with the houserule, that I am not allowed to attack Cetinje before the Sanjak corps spawns. This game is a bit further along and I have unfortunatelly not made screenshots (mdsmall do you have any?), my eastern attack however looks almost identical to the one I did vs Oldcrow. On the Balkans I simply used the force I normally throw at Montenegro to completely bulldoze Serbia. I dare say the end result is almost as devastating as the M-gambit. In the east I also managed to encircle Poland, but with me lacking the boost in turn 3 the Russians managed to save a significant part of their forces. The mosquitos in the swamp however had the feast of their live [:D]


EDIT:
So here is the non-M-Gambit situation on the Balkans on 26th Sep 14. I attacked Serbia directly with the force I normaly use on Montenegro boosted by the fall of Luxembourg.