Captured Diplomats?

[montesaurus]

I've noticed that when I use this function the Diplomat can be expelled from the country he is working in. Has anybody ever seen a diplomat get captured?

[Joram]

As a matter of fact, no. I've seen a captured general from time to time but never a diplomat.

[IronWarrior]

Nope, out of the many many times I've expelled diplomats, I've never captured one. I think there should be a chance to capture a diplomat if you are at war with that nation, to be returned after a surrender or resolution of the war.

Might be something to add to the "wishlist".

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

[snip] I think there should be a chance to capture a diplomat if you are at war with that nation, to be returned after a surrender or resolution of the war.

Might be something to add to the "wishlist". [/snip]

That would make it very risky to ever send diplomats against Britain. maybe just remove "Capture" from the order description, since it seems that "Expel" is all that happens. I've never seen one captured either.

Alterately, if they are "Captured", maybe they are held for a random # turns (1-4?) then expelled as normal. That migt be a wish list item

[IronWarrior]

I'd settle for that even. Capture/expel just seems a waste of time... like a bouncer kicking a drunk out of the bar, but the drunk comes back the next night. [:D]

If someone is attempting a coup or insurrection, I just wait for them to finish and then coup or insurrect back. [:'(]

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

How about a country having to pay a ransom to get a diplomat back ?

[Mus]

Is there much precedent for "capturing" diplomats unless they were engaged in specific "black hat" activities?

[IronWarrior]

Good question Mus, but was there much precedence of diplomats causing insurrections and coups every other month?

Not an area I'm familiar with, I'm thinking more along gameplay terms. Also like hellfirejet's idea and would add Removed Generals to that idea. Not really much of a Napoleonic game if he is removed for the rest of the game the first time France surrenders.

[Russian Guard]

Yes removing Napoleon is a rather Draconian thing to do. In a perfect CoG world there'd be an Event that can occur if he's removed, that brings him back, and deals with the loyalty of other Generals, troops, perhaps some unrest and such.

But that would probably be a lot of work for something that doesn't happen often enough in games to make the juice worth the squeeze.

[IronWarrior]

I suppose it's nothing a house rule counldn't fix (no using Remove Generals clause). Though I still think it would add to the game, perhaps combining the two ideas and make it to where you have to pay the nation you surrendered to in Glory Points, but only after a certain number of turns so the leader doesn't just pop back in on the next turn.

I like features that make a player make decsions.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

Good question Mus, but was there much precedence of diplomats causing insurrections and coups every other month?

Yeah the idea of diplomats raising more hell than a Green Beret team is a bit hard to swallow.

Would be nice if that system was a little more fleshed out.

After a successful insurrection mission a message saying to the target government "we are receiving reports of insurrectionists gathering in X" and then a number of guerillas would pop up there in the next few months and if you didnt have a force dispatched to the province it could taken over by the rebels.

[Russian Guard]

Early on in CoG:EE play-testing there was talk of making it harder to cause an insurrection, instead making it more likely to cause Unrest for a number of turns (like, 1-3 turns).

Not sure why that ended up not being implemented, I can't remember. Probably just didn't make the cut in terms of priorities. I'll bring it up again.

[IronWarrior]

Thanks Russian Guard, that sounds like a welcome change if it can be implemented. Bumping this topic as it's caused some pain in pbems recently. [;)]

[Mus]

Yes, could we please discuss possible solutions to this issue and then implement something (a concensus solution) as soon as possible?

Players from "Another PBEM" can back me up on this, we have experienced probably up to 10 insurrections (Bavaria 3 times, Holland 2 times, plus other smaller ones) in the past game year.

In fact my idea of a solution to this problem is that a chance to cause unrest for a number of turns (1-3 as mentioned) should be the result when the target country has positive National Morale, and that actual insurrection (as in rebellion and becoming an independent minor power again) should only become possible as a small chance when the NM drops below a certain negative threshold, the exact amount of which (-100? -250?) I guess is debatable. I guess the chance could get bigger the lower the NM of the target country got?

Maybe some further restrictions on the kinds of negative diplomatic missions are permissible during an enforced peace or alliance as well? You start knifing your friends in the back and the treaty should be off without a loss of Glory for the betrayed party, IMO.

[Russian Guard]

I posted this issue in the dev forum this afternoon. Obviously I can't guarantee anything might change, or if so, when - I know that in the past there were players who felt that the odds of successfully Insurrecting was about right as-is.

What I can assure you is that it will be looked at, anyway.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

I know that in the past there were players who felt that the odds of successfully Insurrecting was about right as-is.

Not to be a Barney Frank about the issue, but can you provide us with their names and addresses?

[:D]

But seriously, how many players would need to state it wasnt about right as is to get it changed to something more reasonable?

I could start a petition if necessary.

Another serious point is that perhaps insurrections are "balanced" for the purposes of the single player game, but when in a multiplayer environment where multiple nations might send their dipomats to the same area on insurrection missions it certainly isnt.

Maybe a special rule allowing only one check per "entity" (Denmark, Holland, Bavaria, etc.), regardless of the number of diplomats present on insurrection missions would fix it? IDK.

The underlying numbers might be balanced, but the fact that you can "stack" diplomats on the same mission in the same country throws it off. Combine that with the fact that you lose land forces from protectorates that revolt (or are conquered... any chance of changing that? You cant have the KGL in COG:EE as an example) and it seems quite OP.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

I know that in the past there were players who felt that the odds of successfully Insurrecting was about right as-is.

Not to be a Barney Frank about the issue, but can you provide us with their names and addresses?

[:D]

But seriously, how many players would need to state it wasnt about right as is to get it changed to something more reasonable?

I could start a petition if necessary.

Another serious point is that perhaps insurrections are "balanced" for the purposes of the single player game, but when in a multiplayer environment where multiple nations might send their dipomats to the same area on insurrection missions it certainly isnt.

Maybe a special rule allowing only one check per "entity" (Denmark, Holland, Bavaria, etc.), regardless of the number of diplomats present on insurrection missions would fix it? IDK.

The underlying numbers might be balanced, but the fact that you can "stack" diplomats on the same mission in the same country throws it off. Combine that with the fact that you lose land forces from protectorates that revolt (or are conquered... any chance of changing that? You cant have the KGL in COG:EE as an example) and it seems quite OP.

Actually I mentioned that point specifically - maybe only 1 attempt to insurrect per turn, per Minor.

[ericbabe]

I like the idea of only one insurrection per turn per minor -- it's just a little tricky to figure out which diplomat to allow to have that chance.  I suppose we could search all the diplomats in the region and only allow the one with the best stats to have a roll.

Remember there is a penalty of -50 attitude with every minor power in the game for a failed insurrection attempt.  We've been talking about adding a glory penalty on top of this, and possibly of giving the attempt itself a monetary cost, or perhaps a chance of one.

I think there's enough precedent in the period to justify diplomatically-motivated insurrections, though they shouldn't be as common as some people are describing on this thread -- I'd originally had in mind maybe 3 or 4 successful insurrections per game. 

For instance, the insurrection attempt in Amsterdam in 1794 was motivated by French revolutionaries and organized with French assistance.

Stein and Gneisenau planned Prussian insurrection attempts against the French with British assistance in 1808, and engaged in "most careful and secret diplomatic preparations" with Austria, and they received secret funds from the British Foreign Secretary toward this.  George Canning also tried to engage Russia to provide secret support for the Prussian insurrection.  Stein was impressed with the Spanish resistance against French occupation and was attempting to replicate Spanish guerrilla-style insurgency against French occupied Prussia.

The British gave assistance to the insurgents in the Vendee for years.

Hofer's Tyrolian insurrection started with secret talks between Hofer and Archduke Johann in January of 1809.

I believe that Schill, who lead the 1809 insurrection attempt in Westphalia, had been in secret communication with Austria as well.

I'd also classify Murat's defection following an agreement with Austria in 1813 as a COG:EE-style insurrection.  Murat also tried to regain power by holding an insurrection in Calabria.

William Hill, the British minister in Cagliari, worked with Alessandro Turri to promote insurrection in Sardinia.

The British and the Austrians had many clandestine plans for fomenting insurrection in Italy.  The British funded many insurrection attempts in Italy, Dalmatia, and Tyrolia that came to no effect.  They had so many failed attempts that the British began to give up home of funding a successful insurrection in Italy.  Lord Bentinck, a British general, was dispatched as a diplomat to Sicily with the secret mission of attempting to foment an insurrection there.  Bentinck traveled all around the Mediterranean, officially as a British diplomat, but all the while secretly engaged in attempting to foment anti-French insurrection.  In 1810 Bentinck provided Francis d'Este with £100,000 (which I believe is about .5% of the entire British GDP for that year) to support an insurrection in Illyria and Corfu.

The 1813 Dutch insurrection was supported by 25,000 muskets smuggled from England and propaganda printed in Prussia.

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.

[evwalt]

What about also also adjusting the % chance of success based on the NM of the owner of the target or some comparsion of the diplomat's NM vs the target owners NM? (ie. hard for a success if diplomat's NM is low or target's NM is high)

Or reduce the % chance based upon the number of troops in the nation?

You could also have a diplomat automatically expelled from a country if unsuccessful (returned to the nations capitol?). That would at least slow the rate of attempts because they would have to move back before trying again.

I also like the idea of it being a casus belli if the countries (diplomat & target) are in an enforced peace with each other. If allied, have the country who made the attempt automatically break the alliance with the normal penalties.

[lenin]

The problem is that the insurrections are far, far, far too easy, almost impossible to prevent and devoid of consequences for the person doing the insurrection if they fail.

I suggest:

1)Make them expensive in terms of money (and Glory / NM if they fail). Nobody is bothered by the loss of influence. Big deal, if the result of your insurrections is your neighbours get lots of protectorates, just send in your diplomats to return them to neutral status in a turn or two. They can't defend everywhere, just move your diplos to where they are not.
2)Make them far less easy to succeed. Far from 3-4 a game, if all the players set their diplos on insurrection, you'd probably have 3-4 a turn.
3)Have a reliable, practical way of at least being able to try to defend against them. Capture / Expel just doesn't cut the mustard, and 10k Bavarian militia somehow kicked a 350-400,000 strong army out of Bavaria.
4)Fix whatever is happening with the protectorate build algorithm. Then there will be a chance that if recaptured, the liberated minor might at some stage choose to rebuild its' forces.
5)Make the cost of failure painful. The fate of the failed revolutionary is usually prime position up against the nearest wall. There should be a significant chance that a failed insurrection / coup will remove the failed diplomat from the game.

The above would make coup / insurrection attempts less common, whilst still making them possible, if a lot more difficult.

As it is, I believe at least the pbem dynamic is broken. The logic of every game is that most of the central powers will be reduced to their core homeland provinces, with large grey "neutral" zones inbetween. Surely not what was intended?

Has anyone tried an insurrection on Hungary?