Captured Diplomats?

[evwalt]

I disagree on losing a diplomat on a failed attempt. I would think that a diplomat represents a group of men--I doubt the diplomat himself would be involved in an insurrection. With the high cost of diplomats, removing a diplomat would simply make the more powerful countries (who could afford to replace them), even more powerful.

As far as Major Power troops in a nation, what about a seperate determination on if the insurrection is successful? If a country has more troops in it than her own troops, you must make TWO successful "rolls" for the insurrection to be successful (think of 1 being to rally people to do the insurrection, the 2nd for actually managing to throw out the troops)?

Or what about changing insurrections entirely? Have a successful insurrection simply cause casualties within the province (a la guerillia warfare). If you ever cause a ton of casualties (ie. a great "roll" as the diplomat) and empty the capitol province of troops, the country reverts to neutrality.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Anyway, I don't think it's at all a-historical to have diplomats attempting to foment coups in conquered territory.  A diplomat with a box of cash and maybe some smuggled muskets could, in fact, do what "special forces" often could not do.

The frequency we are seeing them occur is more like at least 4-5 times as many as you said you would expect in an entire game and we have only played 5 years thus far. They started off not happening very often and then as players saw how disruptive and easy they were to pull off, they started happening more and more often, culminating in the past year of constant insurrection.

I like the idea of monetary cost for insurrection/coup attempts, although this in itself would not solve the issue.

I also think performing these kinds of missions against Allies or parties with which you have any kind of enforced peace, or perhaps just parties you arent at war with, should either be impossible or break the treaty with a glory penalty for the offending party and give a justified war declaration opportunity to the offended party.

A country should not be able to lose a war, surrender and earn a 18 month safety period during which they can cause insurrections in the victorious country without any fear of reprisal. Likewise a nation should not be able to sign an enforced peace, an alliance, a royal marriage, etc and then start stirring up all kinds of crap in their friends nation and then force the target country to choose between glory lost for canceling the alliance or taking the abuse. We all can recognize that in reality these circumstances would result in an immediate resumption or beginning of hostilities.

Plus, as mentioned, the success rate is too high and should be tweaked in some way. One check per turn, sliding scale based on national morale, etc. Lots of good ideas have been thrown out.

Also, insurrections effect the entire targeted multiprovince minor everytime, regardless of the size of any garrisons or occupying armies/corps. What it should really do is start in one province and spread out from there with further effort, IMO. Heavy enough garrisons or occupying armies should be able to stop an insurrection cold.

As Lenin recounted, we have seen Bavaria rebel from Prussia (which it requested protectorate status with in the first place btw) while occupied by 400,000 front line troops. Thats pretty out there.

[Anthropoid]

Not having been involved in any of this in our PBEM, I cannot comment really on how disruptive it has been, though I hear you; it does sound like it is happening too frequently, and is too easy.
 
One point though: I never noticed it being "broken" in play against the AI. I cannot say I ever used my diplomats to insurrect possessions the AI had that much in SP play, but in any event . . . any fix that is for the sake of PBEM dynamics should not consequently "break" SP play.
 
I don't like the idea of the diplomat itself being "destroyed." I don't think of that sprite as "_A_ diplomat" but as an abstraction of overall diplomatic effort during any given month. They are so costly to build (for the weaker nations) that I don't like the idea of them getting killed off. I also don't want to see their power nerfed too much.
 
But "4 or 5 times per turn" and "grey areas of neutral around the central powers central home provinces" does sound excessive.

[Mus]

Not knowing what the chances of success in an insurrection is to begin with its kinda hard to say if the chance itself is too high, or if its just a matter of people stacking their diplomats thats leading to so many.

I still think the effect itself, instant independence for an entire multi-province minor regardless of garrison size or armies/corps present, is bizarre and overpowered.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Mus
I still think the effect itself, instant independence for an entire multi-province minor regardless of garrison size or armies/corps present, is bizarre and overpowered.

Agree on that. As a side note: I don't play on the high difficulty levels like we have in our PBEM. I find the AI challenging enough for my tastes (fairly casual) on Difficult setting. I can't help but wonder if that figures into it.

Anyway, I've got one SP game as Russia on Difficult settings, started at 1793, 10,000 Glory to win. It is summer 1801 and I still do not control all of Poland. I have one army with three corps and one with two corps, mostly regulars but some seasoned, some veteran some elite. About one arty per corps. I have myself well past having zero waste, but not far past. I'm making about 400 gold per turn (what with fleecing the French, Spanish, Turkish and British AI on some sweet wool deals), and I am _still_ a LONG way from winning. I don't even know if it will be possible.

I set a couple diplomats to insurrenct Austrian owned provinces last turn and nadda peep.

In short, if diplomats were to be made more underpowered it would make a game like I have going as Russia even MORE of a challenge. I can agree based on what you guys are reporting that there does seem to be some sort of imbalance in the system, at least for PBEM. But I just would hate to see diplomats get nerfed and that make playing the less powerful nations more or less a no-win scenario.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

In short, if diplomats were to be made more underpowered it would make a game like I have going as Russia even MORE of a challenge. I can agree based on what you guys are reporting that there does seem to be some sort of imbalance in the system, at least for PBEM. But I just would hate to see diplomats get nerfed and that make playing the less powerful nations more or less a no-win scenario.

I dont see how the two are related really. Unless you were pursuing an insurrection centered strategy (if that was even possible it would be a big clue that insurrections are in fact OP for one thing) how would it turn any scenario into a no win?

Regardless, it might be only a slight imbalance exacerbated (theres the word of the day for you) by diplomat stacking, and that would mean allowing only one check per entity per turn would bring things back into balance regardless of whether you are talking single player or multiplayer.

PS Generally it is the more powerful nations that can afford more numerous diplomats as they cost 100 textiles each, so again I dont understand your point about poorer countries and no win scenarios.

[Anthropoid]

Obviously you guys have seen some serious imbalances, so I'm not trying to say there is no problem. Just saying: for me, as a largely SP player, diplomats seemed to be working okay. I just wanted to remind Eric and Gil to think about whether any changes they would make would address the problems you guys have observed in PBEM but then create problems in SP.

[lenin]

Is there some way that insurrections could be integrated into the diplomatic system? That at least would cut down the number of atempts per turn.

[ericbabe]

Here's what I'm thinking of doing.  Let me know what you think.

* Monetary cost ($30 per attempt?)
* Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power.
* Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power
* A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest.  If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection.
* Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection.

We might also consider a rule allowing ungarrisoned units a chance at reducing unrest in a province (as we have in FOF.)

[evwalt]

My thoughts:

1)Monetary cost NONE (BALANCE ISSUE--A SMALL POWER WOULD NEVER HAVE A CHANCE TO DO IF IT COST MONEY. PLUS, I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARY WITH THE BELOW)

2)Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power. BIG YES

3)Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power NOT SURE, COULD SEE EITHER WAY BUT I AM NOT SURE WAR SHOULD HAVE AN EFFECT

4)A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest. If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection. YES!!! THIS WOULD REALLY SLOW DOWN INSURRECTIONS ESPECIALLY SINCE UNREST WOULD DROP BY 1 EACH MONTH. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF UNREST "ROLL" TO DETERMINE NUMBER OF TURNS A SUCCESSFUL INSURRECTION CAUSED (LIKE WHEN A COUNTRY IS CONQUERED).

5) Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection. NO BUT SEE BELOW (IE. HAVE TROOPS HAVE A CHANCE TO REDUCE UNREST LIKE FOF)

We might also consider a rule allowing ungarrisoned units a chance at reducing unrest in a province (as we have in FOF.) YES. ALSO, IF PLAYING WITH #4 HAVE THE DETERMINATION OF A SUCCESSFUL INSURRECTION BE AFTER THE ROLL FOR TROOPS TO REDUCE UNREST.

[and2]

Great ideas and My 2 cents would be:
 
* Monetary cost ($30 per attempt?) Cost is too high, allthough a monetary cost of say $5 could in combination with other measure be the right balance  
* Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power. Sounds good
* Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power. Mmm that really depends on how support for insurrections was done in this period. Overt or covert? In other words did a state of war beween the "target" country and the "diplomat" country increase the chance of a succesfull insurrection?
* A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest.  If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection. Yeah would be great!
* Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection. Yes, and I understand its about the final (Minor becoming neutral) insurrection in contrast to unrest in a province.

We might also consider a rule allowing ungarrisoned units a chance at reducing unrest in a province (as we have in FOF.)  Nice suggestion aswell

Risking to complicate matters too much, maybe the target countries national morale, empire status, and province developments such as Guns, Art and Courts could also influence the chance for a unrest / insurrection mission
 
Sincerely
 
Chindits

[lenin]

I'm broadly in agreement with the proposals.
Perhaps causing an insurrection against a major power with whom you are not at war might give them grounds for a Casus Belli?
Think the proposed Garrison levels are about right. They should not be so large as to be impractical to meet, and not too small to be irrelevant.
I think the monetary cost should be high enough to force less wealthy powers to consider whether they wish to fight their wars by covert means, or whether their funds are better employed boosting their armies. Don't think a cost of $5 would be missed by anyone. I think something in the range of $20-50 should be about right.

[ShaiHulud]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Here's what I'm thinking of doing.  Let me know what you think.

* Monetary cost ($30 per attempt?)

(Sounds good!)

* Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power.

(Definitely makes sense)

* Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power

(Not so good. A minor that willingly becomes a protectorate would require a lot of convincing to change horses. Unless its protector is losing, eg NM dropping precipitately from losses in battle and territory, surrender, there seems to be no justification for an easy insurrection)

* A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest.  If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection.

(works, even for one-province minors)

* Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection.

We might also consider a rule allowing ungarrisoned units a chance at reducing unrest in a province (as we have in FOF.)

[evwalt]

If the other measures were implemented, what is the rationale behind a cost per attempt?

If you put in a price per attempt, no one outside of the large, powerful countries (Britain, France, Russia, maybe Austria), would even be ABLE to make an attempt. Plus, what are your diplomats really doing at this point? Seems like to me they are talking to people, maybe spreading a few bribes around but nothing like $20-$50.

If a cost HAD to be implemented (and again I think it does NOT), what about a price for per SUCCESS instead of per attempt? At least then I could see the rationale (ie. shipping in weapons, bribing generals, etc.).

[IronWarrior]

Eric, thanks for looking into this. [&o]

(1) Monetary cost ($30 per attempt?) Instead of creating a monetary cost, how about as lenin suggested, a penalty for failed attempts- like a small Glory penalty? I like the idea that a failed attempt should have consequence.

(2) Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power. Absolutely agree. (Actually, after reading Anthropoid's post below, I like that idea better)

[Revised: I think I would take out the part about "allies" to allow some backhanded politics, but instead make this apply to conditions of enforced peace to prevent gamey tactics. Making it a glory-penalty-free casus belli as has been mentioned would have to effectively end the period of enforced peace and might cause other issues, but I'm not totally against the idea- might work. Doesn't really do anything to prevent insurrections though, so it doesn't really address the problem.]

(3) Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power Agree with what others said on this (I'm sort of on the fence on this one)- Instead, I wonder if there's a way to take in account the minor country's attitude toward the nation attempting the insurrection (prior to becoming a protectorate). And also if there's a way to manipulate that attitude to increase chances. Or is this information lost once a protectorate is formed?

(4) A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest. If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection. Sounds like a good change

(5) Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection. I like this one also

[Anthropoid]

I will be honest, not having SEEN problems from Diplomats, I am a bit skittish of the whole thing. In response to the request for a house rule in the PBEM, I said sure whatever, but then I see Matto disagrees (I'm guessing he has been one of the major 'perpetrators' of insurrections?). It sounds to me like some guys who are playing certain powers in a PBEM are getting hammered by these insurrections. But why? Is it because the rules/game-mechanics really are unbalanced, or is it because someone (the insurrectionist) has been putting a particular focus on building lots of diplomats and stacking them up?

We _REALLY_ need to know _ALL_ the details here before we go tampering with the game!

If Matto has 5 Diplomats in a province, and has been sending FIVE insurrection orders per stack per turn, then that puts the whole "problem" into a different light. In that hypothetical scenario, unless you want to somehow artificially limit how much a player can focus on building diplomats, say for example fixed limits on numbers of 'mobilized' diplomats? . . . I know how popular "fixed" limits are with some of you guys [;)] . . .

I realize that there is still a PBEM or two ongoing in which some of these issues are playing out, and I also realize that Matto is not particularly comfortable in English and is also having problems with his computer, but I think before we get all riled up and make changes to the game, I would feel more comfortable knowing exactly what are the conditions under which these excesive numbers of insurrections have occurred.

In one of the two PBEMs I had the Turkish player send a single diplomat into Russia (Taurida province) and was lowering my national morale. He sent his best diplomat, forget his ratings . . . I sent both of my diplomats down there, and despite the fact that neither one had nearly as strong of ratings, within a turn I managed to kick the bad apple OUT. This is reflected in Mattos' response to the proposed house rule in the PBEM thread: "disagree, there is already a means to kick out enemy diplomats" or something to that effect. He sent the same diplomat back on the ill-tidings mission again, and again I kicked him out within one or two turns. Now obviously "Propganda" is not the same as "Insurrection." But the fact is: if you do not like what a diplomat is doing in your territory, you ALWAYS have the option to use your own diplomat to kick the bad guy OUT. With this in mind, I think extra rules to weaken particular diplomat unit actions run the risk in general of compounding problems.

Now getting specifically to the changes Eric has proposed, MY COMMENTS IN ALL CAPS

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Here's what I'm thinking of doing. Let me know what you think.

* Monetary cost ($30 per attempt?)

THIS SEEMS -REALLY- EXCESSIVE! I KNOW AS RUSSIA, I'M LUCKY IF I HAVE AN EXCESS 10 OR 15 CASH LEFT OVER AFTER PAYING FOR UNITS AND BUILDINGS LET ALONE ENOUGH at $30 per pop TO PAY FOR A SINGLE INSURRECTION ATTEMPT. GIVEN THE OTHER CHANGES PROPOSED BELOW, I THINK THAT REQUIRING MONEY IS EXCESSIVE. I WOULD _NOT_ BE IN SUPPORT OF REQUIRING EACH ATTEMPT REQUIRE CASH, IT WOULD EFFECITVELY TAKE INSURRECTIONS OUT OF THE GAME AS OPTIONS FOR THE LESS WEALTHY NATIONS.

ADDIT: IN READING SOME OF THE OTHER GUYS RESPONSES . . . I SUPPOSE $5 IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT TO 'CHARGE' FOR EACH ATTEMPT. WHAT WOULD BE NEAT IS IF LETS SAY $5 WAS THE BASE AMOUNT, AND THE CHANCE THAT THE ATTEMPT MIGHT SUCCEEED (MIGHT) BE BOOSTED BY SPENDING ADDITIONAL CASH ON THE ATTEMPT . . .

* Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power.

SEEMS OVERALL REASONABLE, THOUGH FRANKLY STILL ABIT PROHIBITIVE AND ARTIFICIAL. DO NOT REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF IT BEING _IMPOSSIBLE_ SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE IN AN ALLIANCE OR HAVE A PEACE-AGREEMENT . . . THAT JUST TAKES ALL THE DOUBLE-DEALING, BACKSTABBING, UNDERHANDED FUN OUT OF IT! [:'(]

WOULD LIKE IT BETTER IF, 'USING INSURRECTION' AGAINST AN ALLY OR PEACE-PARTNER WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE INSTEAD OF SIMPLY BEING IMPOSSIBLE. MAYBE A GLORY HIT? AND/OR A RELATIONS HIT?

HERE IS AN IDEA: SUCCESSFUL INSURRECTION AGAINST ALLY/PEACE-PARTNER = RELATIONS HIT WITH THE ALLY/PEACE-PARTNER (PLUS WHATEVER NEG RELATIONS CONSEQUENCES TO THE MINOR POWER), WHATEVER MAGNITUDE REL HIT ERIC AND YOU GUYS THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT AGAINST ALLY/PEACE-PARTNER = RELATIONS HIT(S) (THE ALLY/PEACE-PARTNER "MAJOR" AS WELL AS THE MINOR) AS WELL AS A LOSS OF GLORY (0 TO 10% LOSS?) AND A LOSS OF NATIONAL MORALE (-0 TO -20% LOSS?).

THOSE ARE SOME PRETTY HARSH PENALTIES I'M PROPOSING, SO USING INSURRECTIONS WANTONLY WOULD NOT WITH THESE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES BE AN 'EASY' AND EXCESSIVELY FREQUENT STRATEGY, _UNLESS_ THE PERPETRATOR HAS SUCH POWERFUL GLORY/NATIONAL MORALE, ETC., AND SOME STRONG DIPLOMATS AND CAN AFFORD THE RISK OF THE NEG CONSEQUENCES. 10% MIGHT BE A BIT HIGH AS FAR AS THE MAX NEG EFFECT?

ADDIT: Lenin's IDEA TO MAKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT BE A GLORY-PENALTY-FREE CASSUS BELLI ALSO SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.

ONE ADDITIONAL POINT: IT WOULD BE REALLY NEAT IF AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT HAD SOME CHANCE TO WORSEN THE DIPLOMATS RATINGS.

* Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power

HALFING IT SEEMS LIKE NERFING THE INSURRECTION ACTION ALTOGETHER, BUT THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANCE IS AT PRESENT, AND HOW MANY DIPLOMATS ARE BEING STACKED TO ACHIEVE THE HIGH RATE OF INSURRECTIONS THAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

ADDIT: SEEMS TO ME IF YOU IMPOSE (A) COST OF $5; (B) NEG EFFECTS AGAINST ALLIES AND PEACE-PARTNERS; (C) NEED TO BUILD UP UNREST IN CUMULATIVELY MORE AND MORE PROVINCES AS THE POINT BELOW, AND (D) TOTAL PROTECTION FOR 30k OR 40k GARRISON STRENGTH, THEN THIS HALFING SEEMS EXCESSIVE, AND TAKES THE UNDERHANDED 'BLACK HAT' ELEMENT OF THE GAME OUT.

* A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest. If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection.

WHAT EXACTLY IS 'INSURRECTION?' DOES THE MINOR POWER POP GEURILLA UNITS? DOES THE MAJOR POWER LOSE CONTROL AND RESOURCE ACQUISITION OF THE PROVINCES? I GUESS NEVER REALLY HAVING SEEN IT PLAY OUT IN GAME, I'M AT A BIT OF A LOSS AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AN EXCESSIVE NERFING OR NOT. BUT AGAIN, REQUIRING EVERY PROVINCE OF A MINOR TO BE SHIFTED INTO UNREST_FIRST_ BEFORE UNREST CAN OCCUR SEEMS EXCESSIVE. IF YOU STOP AND CONSIDER THAT UNREST MIGHT NOT LAST FOR 4 TURNS, IT MIGHT EVEN BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE INSURRECTIONS OF MINOR POWERS LIKE POLAND WHICH HAS, WHAT? 10 OR 12 PROVINCES?

THE GENERAL IDEA THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP HAMMERING ON A MULTI-PROVINCE MINOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN A ROW, AND CAUSING UNREST IN MORE THAN ONE PROVINCE, ONE AFTER ANOTHER DOES NOT SEEM TOO EXCESSIVE IN GENERAL, JUST THE IDEA THAT IS HAS TO BE "ALL" THE PROVINCES IN THE MINOR POWER. WOULD IT NOT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF 'SLIDING SCALE?" TO PUT IT SIMPLY: THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF PROVINCES THAT ARE IN UNREST, THE GREATER THE CHANCE THAT A SUCCESSFUL SUBSEQUENT ATTEMPT WILL CAUSE A FULL-SCALE INSURRECTION AND NOT SIMPLY UNREST IN AN ADDITIONAL PROVINCE?

(I) HAVING LESS THAN 25% OF A MINOR'S PROVINCES IN UNRESET = STANDARD UNMODIFIED CHANCE TO CAUSE UNREST IN THE
SINGLE PROVINCE, AND RATHER SMALL (~5%) CHANCE TO CAUSE FULL-SCALE INSURRECTION IN THE WHOLE MINOR POWER
(II) 25% TO 50% = BONUS OF SOME AMOUNT (30%) TO CHANCE TO CAUSE UNREST IN A TARGET PROVINCE AND ALSO INCREASE IN CHANCE TO CAUSE INSURRECTION (~40%?-ISH)
(III) 50 TO 75% = BIGGER BONUSES
(IV) 75 TO 85% = BIGGER BONUSES, ETC.

THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS COULD BE REPRESENTED AS CONTINUOUSLY VARYING BASED ON AN ALGORITHM, BUT THE ABOVE CUTOFFS CONVEY THE POINT I'M MAKING.

* Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection.

THAT SEEMS TOTALLY REASONABLE. EVEN 30,000 SEEMS LIKE ENOUGH TO PREVENT INSURRECTION. SAY 10k = REDUCES CHANCE TO SUCCEED; 20k REDUCES IT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE; 30K REDUCES IT TO ONLY A SMALL CHANCE TO SUCCEED (3%?); 40k = ZERO PERCENT CHANCE FOR IT TO SUCCEED.

We might also consider a rule allowing ungarrisoned units a chance at reducing unrest in a province (as we have in FOF.)

ALSO SEEMS REASONABLE.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Here's what I'm thinking of doing.  Let me know what you think.

* Monetary cost ($30 per attempt?)
* Cannot use insurrection against allies or if you have peace turns with the target major power.
* Half the chance of insurrection when not at war with target major power
* A successful insurrection roll causes unrest in one province of the minor power that is not already at rest.  If all provinces are in unrest, then the successful insurrection roll causes an insurrection.
* Strength of 40,000 ungarrisoned troops in minor power prevents the final insurrection.

We might also consider a rule allowing ungarrisoned units a chance at reducing unrest in a province (as we have in FOF.)

Sounds awesome. I particularly like the aspect of multiprovince minors taking multiple missions in more than one location in order for it to become independent.

On the "peace turns" part I would make sure you cant do it against a power with which there is an enforced peace treaty clause as well (these dont seem to work the same as the more hardwired surrender induced enforced peace turns).

On the monetary cost issue, maybe it should be a smaller cost ($10?) and all diplomatic actions should have similar but appropriate costs associated with them (at the end of the turn, like leaving a supply depot up, not at selecting the mission). The exact amounts could vary from mission to mission, but to spy you have to pay informants ($2?), to propagandize you have to print and disseminate pamphlets ($2?), to charm/goodwill you have to host parties and bribe officials ($5?), etc. Perhaps the cost of making a diplomat could be reduced a bit to reflect the new mission specific costs of doing diplomatic business as well. The high costs of the diplomat only make sense if its explained by the "hidden" costs of the missions they performed, much like Fleet containers serve to abstract some of the naval supply costs.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I will be honest, not having SEEN problems from Diplomats, I am a bit skittish of the whole thing.

I will be honest and suggest you pay attention to some of the things happening in the PBEM games you are in. In Another PBEM, which you play Russia in, we had around 10 insurrections in 12 turns. Bavaria has revolted 3 times in the past 18 months, once while occupied by 400,000 Prussian troops.

We just saw Flanders revolt right out from under a British and Prussian occupying force. Flanders had 200,000 British troops and 100,000 Prussian troops occupying it when it revolted.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

This is reflected in Mattos' response to the proposed house rule in the PBEM thread: "disagree, there is already a means to kick out enemy diplomats" or something to that effect.

Matto being one of the first to jump on whats clearly an overpowered and easily exploited game mechanic that opinion doesnt carry lots of weight with me. There is always somebody who doesnt think theres something wrong with some game tactic or technique that the vast majority of players can see is overpowered/lame/whatever.

No offense to him, the game works how it works, so I dont blame him for doing it (in fact as I already stated I plan on fielding the maximum allowed diplomats in PBEM 109 now that we arent going to be adopting a house rule against it), but that doesnt mean the system isnt off and in bad need of some tweaking.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I will be honest, not having SEEN problems from Diplomats, I am a bit skittish of the whole thing.

I will be honest and suggest you pay attention to some of the things happening in the PBEM games you are in. In Another PBEM, which you play Russia in, we had around 10 insurrections in 12 turns. Bavaria has revolted 3 times in the past 18 months, once while occupied by 400,000 Prussian troops.

No need to get prickly and pedantic Mus. [&:] I'm only saying I have not observed it, and until these discussions did not realize it was a problem. And as far as 'suggesting I pay attention' !?! You do recall that I -inherited- the nation I'm playing some 20 or 25 turns into the game dontcha?

Chill dude; its a GAME. As far as I'm aware, not every event in the game is going to be visible to every player, and certainly no one has told _me_ about these insurrections! I'm still learning the game, and don't have the time every day to spend hours poring over every page of reports. Is every single insurrection in places distant from Russia necessarily going to show up in my reports?

I can see nothing instrinsically wrong with 10 insurrections in 12 turns. If four diplomats are responsible for all 10 of those insurrections in the span of 12 turns, then that is a very different situation than if it is six or eight diplomats that are in action and causing that sort of rate of insurrection. How many diplomats are we talking about? How many turns, with how many diplomats per stack are we talking about them sitting there with Insurrection orders did it take? Were there any "defensive" diplomats set to kick them out? Was this achieved with the existing diplomats allocated to each nation at game start, or were additional more highly rated diplomats built?

Without knowing answers to these questions, I cannot honestly say that 10 insurrections in 12 turns sounds inherently "wrong" from a gut instinct level. Yes the game mechanics should reflect reality, but it should also be possible to do ahistorical things, like conquering all of Europe! [:D] And/or maybe building large numbers of highly-rated diplomats, and stacking them to cause Uber-Insurrection havoc.

Agree that insurrection with 400K occupying troops seems totally unrealistic. I agree that a garrison of 30 or 40k should nip it in the bud, and occupying non-garrisoned forces should also have some kind of effect.

I'm not trying to argue that you guys are making it up that there is a problem.

I just don't think it is a good idea to nerf the Insurrection function from multiple angles all at once. A more calm engineers perspective is to make small changes, one-change at a time, and see if a satisfactory dynamic can be achieved with a smaller set of smaller changes.

The tone of some of ya'lls post on this makes it sound like you feel it is just inherently unrealistic for insurrections to be inflicted by minor or defeated powers on major or victorious powers. Not being an expert in the period, I'm not sure that that is the case. Eric shpieled off a rather impressive list of historical examples of black hat type efforts by various nations, and from my limited knowledge of foreign relations at the time, it seems like there should be a definite place for such things in the game. I'm just concerned that, if we go overboard to weaken diplomats it will swing the imbalance in the other direction.

We just saw Flanders revolt right out from under a British and Prussian occupying force. Flanders had 200,000 British troops and 100,000 Prussian troops occupying it when it revolted.

The defense against insurrections by garrisons and occupying forces would eliminate these unrealistic and gamey events without _any_ additional nerfing, i.e., cost, restrictions based on allegiance, or reduction of probability of success.

If most of the "excess" can be corrected with one small change (garrisons of sufficient size eliminate it, and occupying but non-garrisoned forces also have a negative effect at maybe half strength compared to garrisoned forces) then fine. That seems totally reasonable. But is it really necessary to impose all the other nerfing too?

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

This is reflected in Mattos' response to the proposed house rule in the PBEM thread: "disagree, there is already a means to kick out enemy diplomats" or something to that effect.

Matto being one of the first to jump on whats clearly an overpowered and easily exploited game mechanic that opinion doesnt carry lots of weight with me. There is always somebody who doesnt think theres something wrong with some game tactic or technique that the vast majority of players can see is overpowered/lame/whatever.

No offense to him, the game works how it works, so I dont blame him for doing it (in fact as I already stated I plan on fielding the maximum allowed diplomats in PBEM 109 now that we arent going to be adopting a house rule against it), but that doesnt mean the system isnt off and in bad need of some tweaking.
[/quote]

Well it is a shame when guys get gamey. I had the impression we were all beyond that. Though you can't blame any of us for trying to win! [:D] And it is after all a new game, and has not been extensively tested in multi-player PBEMs.

But again, just being honest, it is NOT clear to me that it is overpowered and easily exploited. Without knowing the details of numbers of diplomats, roughly their ratings, how long they were sitting there with Insurrect orders, how many Expel defenders were sent to kick them out, etc., I do not feel I can conclude whether it is or is not imbalanced. I really think we need everyone who has been involved in this to weigh-in, and it is a shame that Matto is both indisposed and not esp. talkative in English. Anybody translate Czech?

The key thing is to remain calm, and friendly, and remember it is just a GAME. I acknowledge, easy for me to say since I have not been on the receiving end of the Uber-Diplomats [:D]

Anyway, I expressed my specific responses to Eric's proposed changes in that rambling post up above so no need to belabor it. I'm confident Eric will figure out a good reasonable fix.

[ericbabe]

Thanks for the feedback on this.

Maybe $5 for the attempt is a little more reasonable.

It would be hard to cause an insurrection in Poland with this.  Maybe change the criteria to requiring half the provinces be in unrest.

Also, the way I imagine it is that first the diplomat causes unrest in the province in which he's located.  Then, if that province is in unrest, the next successful attempt causes unrest in another province.  So no need to micromanage by moving your diplomats (and no need to reprogram the AI's use of insurrection.)

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid


No need to get prickly and pedantic Mus. [&:] I'm only saying I have not observed it, and until these discussions did not realize it was a problem. And as far as 'suggesting I pay attention' !?! You do recall that I -inherited- the nation I'm playing some 20 or 25 turns into the game dontcha?

I was just pointing out the reality of the situation. You have been Russia for several game years in Another PBEM now. You were definetely around for the time frame referenced in these insurrection threads. These events can be seen by any player paying attention to whats going on in the game I guess was my point.

If its pedantic to point out that simple fact I guess I am guilty.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid


I can see nothing instrinsically wrong with 10 insurrections in 12 turns.

Even when the game designer says earlier in the thread that they envisioned 3-4 insurrections in the course of a game?

Some people never will get it, I know that. But clearly when the designer is saying they envisioned some number of incidents and the actual rate is many times that there is an issue.

Glad WCS is looking into a reasonable solution to the problem, thats all I really care about.