Diplomacy Balance

[AshFall]

Heya all.

My good friend Will and I are playing our very first game of SC2:WWI, having played a lot of the old game.

In the old game the Balance of Diplo was that the CP were at a disadvantage until the Ottomans joined, then at an advantage until Italy joined where the Entente regained it.

In this new game it seems the CP is always at a severe diplomatic disadvantage. Is this intended and good?

It seems to me that the only thing that does is turn the diplomatic side of things from an actual cat and mouse game into an inevitable "You're going to lose the Netherlands" clock.

Thoughts?

[AshFall]

To give some numbers for anyone not having those immediately at the back of their minds, it looks like this:

France, Britain, Russia (5 each for 15 chits)
Serbia 1 chit
Italy 3 Chits

Germany 5, Austria 4, Ottomans 3

So for the entire start of the war until the ottomans join the Entente enjoys a 7 chit advantage (35% chance per turn anywhere they like even with max investments on both sides).

Then brifly "just" a 4 chit advantage if the Ottomans invest right away.

And then back to a 7 chit advantage as soon as Italy joins.

Given those numbers it seems trivial for the Entente to push neutral powers away from Germany, crippling their income or summoning minors to their side.

[Bavre]

Yes, Entente has the advantage in diplomacy. Since this is kind of historical, my guess would be that it's deliberate. Da Hunz are meant to conquer!
PS: Another weak point of CP (diplo wise) is Norway. Starts at 0%, flips easily and causes NM damage to Germany if it does. And if CP decide to invest there GB can always just kill the convoy with the Royal Navy. So loose-loose situation for CP.

[The Land]

Yes, but spending all those chits will be an expensive business, meaning less tech or fewer Corps.

And yes, it's fairly historical. The Entente were better able to bribe or browbeat neutrals - Norway, Greece, Romania. Norway for instance quickly agreed to sell all its trade goods to Britain rather than Germany, when Britain threatened to refuse to sell coal to Norway.

[redrum68]

I don't particularly like the hard caps and think it should have no cap but have progressive costs so each diplo chit per nation increases in cost.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: redrum68

I don't particularly like the hard caps and think it should have no cap but have progressive costs so each diplo chit per nation increases in cost.

Though I like things how it stands (Entente advantage, though expensive), the above is an interesting idea.

[redrum68]

Yeah, I do think Entente should have a small advantage but the advantage could be slightly lower diplo chit costs for some nations so that its a bit cheaper for them initially but there are no hard caps so CPs could still choose to contest if they want to spend the MPPs.

[AshFall]

ORIGINAL: redrum68

Yeah, I do think Entente should have a small advantage but the advantage could be slightly lower diplo chit costs for some nations so that its a bit cheaper for them initially but there are no hard caps so CPs could still choose to contest if they want to spend the MPPs.

I like this option better if anything.

Also, I guess I just enjoyed the shifting nature of the first game diplomatically more?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I remember Germany was politically strong at the outset of the war, the war in some part occuring due to their increasing foreign influence and colonial ambitions.

It diminished mainly as a consequence of the successful blockade of Germany and the long term standstill on the western front.

Perhaps an alternative way to do this would be to give Germany more chits to start out, 9 or 10? (Matching the initial entente 13-14 to their 16 and allowing parity for a while once the Ottomans join, advantage if Serbia falls before Italians join).

Then by script progressively lower german chit-cap as the war in the west stalls and the blockade drags on.

It would create several interesting incentives for both sides, mainly the Germans would have a good reason to really try to challenge the British high seas fleet and lift the blockade, as well as continue to make gains on the western front instead of just ignoring it and going full russia from 16-17 on.

Alternatively: Was Russia truly on par with Britain and France on the world stage diplomatically? Was Italy really as strong as the Ottomans? The French and Brits equal to Germany?

An adjustment of the amount of chits each nation gets might be in order.