Politics and diplomacy

[bmodified]

How is this going to be handled? Axis attacking minors leads to earlier US entry? Will garrison levels invite or deter attacks? Are diplomatic events something you can influence with the expenditure of resources? Will the players and AI be able to make decisions about some policies? I read that certain things are hard wired (No USSR on the Axis side) but can, for instance, a US embargo against Japan be chosen as an option?

How about limited Russo-Japanese war?

Lastly, will there be any "surprise" effects on the turn war is declared, against major and minor powers?

[EdwinP]

I don't think that the game will account for politics, but if it does I would like to be something on the order of - IF Mexico is attacked then Brazil joins the opposite Side, just something to penalize players for historically highly improbable actions. [:D]

[Von Rom]

I think some randomness with some of things you mentioned would add some real flavour to the game.

Even a simple event system using an "IF, THEN" approach would open up all types of possibilities.

Cheers!

[bmodified]

I'd be surprised if the game didn't factor in politics and diplomacy...the very nature of a global conflict game almost demands it, at some level. US entry, at the very least, should depend on the action in the game, and there are other events, like the alignment of minors like Hungary, India, etc, that should be variable, or at the least the dates they declare for one side should be event driven.

A German player who strips the East to attempt Sealion should not know that the Soviets won't pre-emptively strike, due to his weak garrison. A possible Japanese Soviet conflict would add great interest.

[EdwinP]

Randomness, yes

Example - If Axis conquers Egypt or London then % that Turkey annexes Iraq ( which was part of Turkey before WWI), If Axis Conquers France then % that Turkey Annexes Syria ( which was also part of Turkey before WWI). Just these two actions would change the map as annexation of these territories secures Russia's southern flank and strengthens Turkey, making it less likely that it will be attacked.

If Axis attacks Switzerland then %(10% - 1 in 10 games) that Norway and Sweden sign a Defense Treaty and a % that Spain joins the Allies (say 10% - 1 in 10 games, and if they previously attacked Sweden then its 25% - 1 in 4 games) out of fear of being next on the Axis hit list. Thus, the Axis faces a cost to any attack on Switzerland.

If the Japanese or the Americans invade Chile or Peru - then a 50% that the surrounding countries join the opposing side - Allies/Axis. This makes a historically improbable Japanese/American invasion of Chile/Peru less likely to occur in the game, but it still can happen if players want to take the chance.

Such random events could make the game more of a Axis vs Allies game and less a conquer every nation in the World Game.[:D]

I asked this question in another post and the reply said that at the current time there are no such events planned.

[bmodified]

Another political question, now that you mention it...what is going to constitute victory? Certainly for the allies, it means the defeat of Germany, Japan and Italy.

For the Axis, do they have to occupy the USA for the game to end early? I'm going to guess that a game that ends before the Axis is knocked out is based on who owns what resources. Will there be an individual winner?

[Cheesehead]

A good example to support all of the excellent suggestions made on this thread is the politics built into Strategic Command. On a first look, this is a simple game that many have dismissed as too simplistic. While the game has its shortcomings, the random politics built into SC make it very interesting and replayable. For example, I'm currently playing a guy who, as the Axis, invaded Spain, Portugal and took out Gibralter in 1940. While this crippled the Allies in the Med, it caused Germany's potential minor allies in E. Europe (Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria) to "rethink" their positions. When Germany invaded Russia the following year, those three countries were still neutral, changing the whole dynamic of this particular game. In other games, players invading Sweden caused Russia to declare war on Germany. Without these alternative history scenarios, SC would get old fast.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

A good example to support all of the excellent suggestions made on this thread is the politics built into Strategic Command. On a first look, this is a simple game that many have dismissed as too simplistic. While the game has its shortcomings, the random politics built into SC make it very interesting and replayable. For example, I'm currently playing a guy who, as the Axis, invaded Spain, Portugal and took out Gibralter in 1940. While this crippled the Allies in the Med, it caused Germany's potential minor allies in E. Europe (Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria) to "rethink" their positions. When Germany invaded Russia the following year, those three countries were still neutral, changing the whole dynamic of this particular game. In other games, players invading Sweden caused Russia to declare war on Germany. Without these alternative history scenarios, SC would get old fast.

I definitely think that situations like this should be included in the game.

It doesn't have to be overly complex. Just have some built-in % consequences that will penalize players for unhistorical actions:

For example, if the USA invades Mexico, then the USA suffers 50% unrest at home, and 50% of all Latin American countries form a defensive military pact (ie with the Axis). This type of thing would help curb the player and keep it from becoming "Risk".

I also like some of the other suggestions above.

Again, it doesn't have to be complicated. A very simple "IF, THEN" system would work nicely. Civ 2 used this back in 1996.

There should at least be something in the game files that would allow modders to add more of these type of events to add some randomness and fix gameplay issues once there is feedback from players.

Cheers!

[EdwinP]

There should at least be something in the game files that would allow modders to add more of these type of events to add some randomness and fix gameplay issues once there is feedback from players.

Most excellent idea. It will be interesting to hear what the designers have planned.

I wonder what would have happened if the US invaded Brazil during WWII.[:D]

[Joel Billings]

There are no randoms in the "political" part of our game. Certain garrison requirements must be met or else countries gain flexibility to move that they wouldn't otherwise (i.e. as long as Japan keeps a large enough garrison in Manchuria, Russia cannot attack, however we do allow Japan to attack Russia if they want). Certain triggers will bring various countries into the war as full allies, instead of neutrals that are supporting the major player. True neutrals stay neutral until they are attacked, at which point they join the non-attacking side. In the meantime they trade with everyone that can form a transport link to their country. Their our options, but they are much more limited than some of the suggestions posted here. There is still plenty of replayability in the strategies of who, where and when to attack, and the real replayability comes in from the interaction of research on weapons, strategy and tactics. Although we have move politics than A&A (which of course started in 1942 when the politics was done), this is not the most detailed part of the game. You'll have to play it to see if it has the feel you are looking for.

[EdwinP]

Many thanks for the clarification. Can't wait to play it.

[bmodified]

Sounds good. I hope there is a penalty for US/UK attacks on true neutrals...a democracy shouldn't have the latitude to attack neutrals that the totalitarian states had, and it would be a shame to have the US soak up countries in a gamey bid for power that would never have happened historicaly, for instance.

Sounds like about the right mix of choices, from what you are saying...knowing that Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary might sit out Barbarossa, for instance, is a big deal to the Germans, and the Russo/Japanese dynamic has great implications.

[mbatch729]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You'll have to play it to see if it has the feel you are looking for.

OK, just let me know when I can get it!!!!![:D][:D][:D]

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Certain garrison requirements must be met or else countries gain flexibility to move that they wouldn't otherwise (i.e. as long as Japan keeps a large enough garrison in Manchuria, Russia cannot attack, however we do allow Japan to attack Russia if they want).

Just curious to know whether you have considered making the garrisons a variable? I always find it kinda 'twilight zone' that Germany can know exactly how many units to put on the Russina border to prevent a Russian attack. Same with Japan.

Perhaps throw a random factor in there to make each game different and prevent Perfect Plans? You can let the player know what the garrison is, but this game it's four units... next game it's five units... next game it's three units... etc.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Certain garrison requirements must be met or else countries gain flexibility to move that they wouldn't otherwise (i.e. as long as Japan keeps a large enough garrison in Manchuria, Russia cannot attack, however we do allow Japan to attack Russia if they want).

Just curious to know whether you have considered making the garrisons a variable? I always find it kinda 'twilight zone' that Germany can know exactly how many units to put on the Russina border to prevent a Russian attack. Same with Japan.

Perhaps throw a random factor in there to make each game different and prevent Perfect Plans? You can let the player know what the garrison is, but this game it's four units... next game it's five units... next game it's three units... etc.

I understand where you're coming from. However, there's something to be said to knowing what it takes. I realize with the computer it is easy to want to make everything into a random, but sometimes designs are better when they are kept static and predictable. Maybe a it's a matter of taste. In general, we are approaching this game with more a mind to keeping things predictable than to adding a lot of randomness (although there's a lot of randomness in the combat). It's a design philosophy that intentionally permeates many aspects of the design. You can argue that it doesn't seem at first glance as historical, but it might be more fun by focusing the spotlight on other aspects of the game.