Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Sugar

But you`re not playing this sort of game to get average chances, KZ. It`s a high risk gamble, the success might be huge, and if you don't succeed you`re screwed.

Allthough I`m not against it (would also be very difficult to entice Franco), I understand many players don't expect such opportunities in a strategy game. At least it doesn't tell anything about your abilities, if you win you just proved Fortuna was on your side (allthough this is not meant to dishonor your abilities at all), or your opponent was caught barefooted.

Well playing high risk luck based game might be a sound strategic option when you know you re behind in overall abilities. Managing the amount of luck and risk is also a skill.

Now what is the 30% jackpot [X(]

Well playing high risk luck based game might be a sound strategic option when you know you re behind in overall abilities. Managing the amount of luck and risk is also a skill.

That's right, and no one to blame for. But it's also certain that a few bad or lucky rolls could be decisive and overcome all tact. or strat. skills, and obviously many don`t like or expect that in a strategy game. At least it`s not that hard to calculate the risk.

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

If only there was scenario already available like this [8|]

Hey, I'm one of your biggest fans! [X(] I chose FW precisely for said reasons.

The 30% is referring to the maximum amount a diplomacy chit can swing (a minor).
Normally a chit's maximum amount is 15%, but there is a small percentage (computer with manual is in shop so I'm not sure what it is) chance that a normal chit %effect gets doubled.
If you've played enough you might have seen a minor effected by diplomacy for a value of 16% -30%, this is why.

That doubling chance does not apply to diplomacy chits that fire against major powers. I was just reminding Sugar of that.

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Maybe I'm incorrect. After France falls if the Germans & Italians invest all they can in USSR diplo can the Brits equal (negate) that investment and prevent the USSR from swinging towards the Axis and to zero?

It's mathematically possible but unlikely. Provided the allies picked the events to keep USSR readiness high. The average diplo hit for a major would be 11% (IIRC). At 15% chance to trigger the hit, it would take 6,66 turns on average to fire. To wipe off all USSR readiness post-france you'd need about 4 diplo hit. To wipe everything it would take almost 2 years (provided USSR readiness doesn't go up in the interval, which it will).

To get it to 0% in any reliable fashion, the Axis would have to score hits when France is still around. I suspect the Axis did in your game and these hits were entirely avoidable while you had the diplochit advantage (and then) parity.

Thank you KZ I appreciate that

Hopefully [8|] we can all agree that at no time should USSR military spending be at 0, there should be a floor. I'd propose letting mobilization go below 10% but military spending would at a minimum be the equivalent of 10% mobilization.


I'm not a big major diplo player so if any of the following is incorrect please let me know.


How do the Brits counter the following?


The Germans capture France 6/40 (Belgium & Netherlands also) plundering 1900MPP and Italy is in the war. On the next turn (no major diplo to date) the Germans spend 875 on and Italy 350 on USSR diplo (7 chits 35% chance). Unless the Brits have saved MPP it will take them 3 turns to offset the Germans and the Axis. So the Axis has a 35% chance of swaying the USSR turn 1, 25% turn 2 and 10% each additional turn until USSR enters. The current game mechanisms currently force the Brits to spend 875 which they can hardly afford on USSR diplo before the fall of France if they want to minimize this strategy. This of course could have some chance of a Brit first hit.

The Germans start the '39 scenario with 1650 accomplished research chits and 875 pts in the queue, the Brits 825 accomplished & 1250 in the queue. Given the Brits start the game at a 450 point total research deficit (which I believe its imperative to make up) and an huge troop deficit they can hardly afford to spend 875 to counter the diplo. If they do its going to be very tough going on Sea Lion or Egypt.


One of my current games is in 3/40 and the game to date MPPs are Germans (Poland only) 1928, Brits 1639 and France 903. In my opinion the spirit of the game isn't that the Brits spend 1/2 their MPPS on Diplo by 3/40, it completely marginalizes the rest of the game. In my experience the French barely have enough to reinforce the troops they have so they can prolong the inevitable until June or July '40, I usually spend 100-200 on diplo.


If I've made any errors or strategies let me know and I'll update.

Have you been reading the AAR of the game IrishGuards and I are playing? Other than the timing of the chit expenditures, this is exactly what is going on.

I admit to having the added burden of making several bad mistakes in choices on what to do with the UK and her very limited MPP and troops in this scenario.

I haven't sorry to be repetitive.


Looks like if done on one turn hard to defend.

This is an extreme example, PB, and it won't occur in most games. Every player with a bit xp knows diplo is coming into play at some point, and since it's reasonable to take the chance to achieve a first hit, everyone should try to use it. No matter which side is first, the opponent has to react; otherwise he has to hold back his chits and MPPs, watching Spain going Allied, for a prize GB can afford and has to anyway.

It's not the game of diplo and counterdiplo that's annoying, but the huge chances.

ORIGINAL: Sugar

This is an extreme example, PB, and it won't occur in most games. Every player with a bit xp knows diplo is coming into play at some point, and since it's reasonable to take the chance to achieve a first hit, everyone should try to use it. No matter which side is first, the opponent has to react; otherwise he has to hold back his chits and MPPs, watching Spain going Allied, for a prize GB can afford and has to anyway.

It's not the game of diplo and counterdiplo that's annoying, but the huge chances.

Seems very plausible to me. If the Axis invested all at the point that France fell the Brits would have to spend 250-300ish MPP for all the next three turn (unless they saved). Brits have no indication its coming. Germany gets all the MPP's from plunder correct, why not spend them all at once, catch the Brits with no recourse. They could actually invest in Spain initially then sell and buy USSR 5 chits (which would really throw the Brits off), 1900 plunder goes a long way.

Anyway I think diplo should be on a total amount say 250-350 total. Its not that it can't be countered I just feel its not the way the game was intended to be played.

I guess you'll argue its intended however one wants to play within the rules.

Who's the best defense you've played SC3 against by the way?

Wow, what a long thread.

My suggestions: don't play competitive, but for fun. Problem solved. You know what I mean.

On the other hand, I would like to advise not to change the diplo game, but to invest the time into the next project.
If this might be by any chance a WW2 game (global or european theater), it would be best to fix the biggest problem: instead of 2 sides there were at least 3. The USSR should have its own war goals. Getting the USSR into war by 1940 should damage the western allies war goals. Etc.

Btw.: there is nothing wrong with 30% chances. Diplomatic actions can end in drastic changes. It is not very likely, but possible.

Yeah, who saw the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact coming?

This is a very useful thread thank you. [&o]

It's interesting how much some of you are prepared to invest in diplomacy as with previous releases (using pretty much the same cost/benefits) it seemed rare that players would invest in diplomacy. Hence I didn't make any significant changes for this game. In fact we even raised the cost recently, but it still hasn't stopped you all! [:)]

I have a few ideas that I've been pondering for a while and this thread has confirmed that they will be worth testing out, most likely for our next game.

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Yeah, who saw the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact coming?

As already indicated tho, there both sides had something substantive to trade. [You could quibble as to whether it was in Stalin's long-term interests or not, but at the time this remained true strictly speaking.]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

This is a very useful thread thank you. [&o]

It's interesting how much some of you are prepared to invest in diplomacy as with previous releases (using pretty much the same cost/benefits) it seemed rare that players would invest in diplomacy. Hence I didn't make any significant changes for this game. In fact we even raised the cost recently, but it still hasn't stopped you all! [:)]

I have a few ideas that I've been pondering for a while and this thread has confirmed that they will be worth testing out, most likely for our next game.

Bill,

The key is that if one player starts down the major power diplo path, the other has to follow. There is no other option/counter.

This is due to the mobilization % relation to USSR (or USA) income.

That relationship is also why DE choices are now skewing towards maximizing favorable mobilization effects.

I,m still trying to figure out the benefit to the major power (in this case Russia) that has diplomacy played against it.

I mean the Soviet Union in 1939-41 would only be interested in 2 things, territory or economic modernization.

so if CW or the Axis start spending 175 MPP towards them, i get what they gain, closer or father away from Russian war status, but what does Russia gain?

i.e. does CW or Germany grant Russia access to other regions not already specified under the Axis-Soviet pact, are the 175 MPP maybe transfered to research chits for Russia?
either play would be dangerous to undertake in getting the Soviet Union to be swayed.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

This is a very useful thread thank you. [&o]

It's interesting how much some of you are prepared to invest in diplomacy as with previous releases (using pretty much the same cost/benefits) it seemed rare that players would invest in diplomacy. Hence I didn't make any significant changes for this game. In fact we even raised the cost recently, but it still hasn't stopped you all! [:)]

I have a few ideas that I've been pondering for a while and this thread has confirmed that they will be worth testing out, most likely for our next game.

Bill,

The key is that if one player starts down the major power diplo path, the other has to follow. There is no other option/counter.

This is due to the mobilization % relation to USSR (or USA) income.

That relationship is also why DE choices are now skewing towards maximizing favorable mobilization effects.

True Taxman. Also given that the Germans have collected twice the MPP's of the Brits after the fall of France it isn't something that the Brits can afford (in the example I gave) and protect GB & NA.

I don't play vs. humans and I always play a mod, so I haven't commented in this thread, but I have had a similar thought on the idea that investing in Russia gets Russia nothing. My thought, while playing a mod vs. the computer, was that it seemed silly to spend MPP's on Diplomacy toward any country when most of the Diplomacy in WWII was concerned with concessions [the bribing of officials being en exception]. I put some thought into changing things up [Italian delayed entry if given Malta, USSR delayed entry if imports from Germany are increased], but realized that in order to switch the entire game to Concessions instead of MPP's would require quite some time and thought. Maybe not worth the effort.

I wonder what the offset is to heavy diplo on Russia by the Axis. I haven't seen anybody comment on it, but doesn't this very much reduce the Axis ability to have the decent sized force which is needed when eventually Russia is on the war? As I said I don't play the stock game, but I have a difficult time as the Axis getting the historical OOB into Russia due to lack of MPP's and I couldn't see spending even 875 MPP's as the Germans on Russia.

No offense Spz but its hard to relate the AI experience vs the PBEM. The AI many times makes much more sense.

In the game I mentioned above my opponent has now spent a total of 2275 on Major Diplo ( I have invested 3 chits Brits, 1 chit France) and USSR mobilization is 25% in June '41. I like my current position so haven't added to my diplo investing instead in research & troops. Just shouldn't be possible in my opinion. I agree the Axis should have a research & troop advantage early but they shouldn't be able to leverage their MPP advantage in Diplo in such a extreme manner.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

No offense Spz but its hard to relate the AI experience vs the PBEM. The AI many times makes much more sense.

In the game I mentioned above my opponent has now spent a total of 2275 on Major Diplo ( I have invested 3 chits Brits, 1 chit France) and USSR mobilization is 25% in June '41. I like my current position so haven't added to my diplo investing instead in research & troops. Just shouldn't be possible in my opinion. I agree the Axis should have a research & troop advantage early but they shouldn't be able to leverage their MPP advantage in Diplo in such a extreme manner.

That's the very definition of a non-problem. It's counterable, balanced (Axis is weak elsewhere). And as a bonus you didn't have to disrupt your playstyle all that much (sorry 3 UK chits ain't fit the bill). Just find people that want to houserule it rather than trying to impose your favoured script to everyone else.

No offense Spz but its hard to relate the AI experience vs the PBEM.

None taken at all, and that is why I stated that I hadn't commented previously [due to the differences in AI vs H2H play]. But I was curious as to the Axis spending so much on Major Diplo and how this would leave the Axis with less forces. In my games, the plunder from France doesn't provide the Axis enough MPP's to bring their OOB up to historical [for Barbarossa], so I would think that an Axis player spending so much on Diplo wouldn't really help him in the long run. I think KZ just alluded to that.