Diplomatic System: Issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Diplomatic System: Issues

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Diplomatic System: Issues

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/23/2008 11:15:20 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Alright, there is a part of this game that needs a little alteration:

1 Entente Buys Entrance of a nation
2 CP buys counter Entrance or vis versa

Also the cost is 1 Point either way, there needs to be other factors and perhaps even where the war is raging in Europe as a trigger,
historically Italy entered when it saw opportunity, not because it was payed off like the Mafia

USA entered because of Fear, that was because the CP probably was close to a Settlement that was too good, plus unrestricted U-boat warfare. Not only but the USA is very pro UK, had it gone ET's way USA would've never joined, that is a fact no need

SO we need to rethink the political system and the reason I say is because a lot of games are decided or too grealy influenced by it

Anyone agree?

Plus I do not think I should be exhausting 1 industrial point, raw material, etc... on purchasing a nation, it's just not possible. Diplomatic Influence should be a built in level, so that each turn each nation has so much influence it can exhaust. Historically the UK would've been more likely to have lined American pockets. the CP couldn't have it was Isolated by Blockade, so sending them money would've not likely bought the USA entrance or neutrality

Similarly with many nations, and unless that nation joined due to resource, cash or promises then it shouldn't come as it does

Just saying this to better balance a system that is workable, but flawed... IMHO

Anyone agree? And I might ruin a perfect system because Historical emphasis can throw off balance in a game enviroment, what do you all think just adding my 2 cents tho I'm a newb :)

TY GG by the way Frank

Post #: 1

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/23/2008 11:36:43 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Ac tually Italy was completely played off "like the Mafia", as was Romania - both received extravagent promises from the Entente (Italy for large territories in the Adriatic and Tyrol, Romania for Transylvania - Romania joining after hte Brusilv offensive was mainly coincidence IMO- had they been looking for an advantageous time to join there were much better opportunities in 1915)

the US is a little more problematic, but essentially they joined because they were heavily tied into the TE financially and there was no way they could afford for the TE to lose - it would have bankrupted the US economy due to loan defaults (US$2 billion to France and England, vs US$27million to Germany). the Zimmerman telegram and Lusitania made it easier to persuade the public that joining was the right decision, but were not the real reasons.

I have no idea why you say "had it gone ET's way USA would've never joined"

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 2

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/23/2008 11:40:19 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

I will have to say both Yes and No to this one.

In essence the game is very simplistic in structure with air & naval warfare, tech research and diplomacy on a very basic level. If some tampering is to be done one can argue about whether diplomacy would be the right place to begin with

I for one would rather love a bit more detailed usage of air power - that is both Fighters, Observers, Gotha bombers and Zeppelins. And of course flying aces which should add/loose morale similarly as losing capital ships when they are lost.

But I got away from the topic.

However arbitrary the current diplomacy system is it is important to note that it works within the game frame. If a change was to be made I would prefer a Fatal Alliances/World in Flames solution. That is a apart from the current automatic one turn progress towards war actions within the game should be the factors which slow/accelerate entry.

So in the case of America apart from SUB warfare declarations of war and surrender should also have a randomized impact upon entry.

But I think there is no way to copy the foolish German attempt to get Mexico to declare war on America

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 3

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/23/2008 11:56:48 PM

BossGnome

Posts: 658
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

Here is my 2 cents. I would much favour an "alert points" system like was used in SSG's decisive battles series. Of course, the scale is not the same AT ALL, but I believe such a system could work wonders in a game such as Guns of August, much like Hjaco put it.

I do, however, like the concept of diplomatic points, possibly tied in with such a diplomatic system. However, I think those points should be free and limited in number (say 1 per turn), and not have a random effect. That way, games always stay balanced in terms of countries joining, without any superior diplomacy taking place. Should the CP wish to spend their 1 pt per turn to delay america entering the war, fine. However, the TE then has the option of having italy enter earlier, greece earlier, bulgaria later, or even to use their one point to counter the CP influence over the US, leading back to historical entry!

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 4

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/24/2008 1:51:07 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Well, Gotha Bombers and Flying Aces would be neat, though already the range on these Fighters and their ability to recon 500 miles away is a bit steep. There is no way a Fighter Escort was going to get balloons that far into the Interior of Europe... They might get lucky but rearbased Fighters would've eaten anything of the sort... personally Hjaco I'd love to see it but heheheheh, that is ultra-goodies

SMK:

The financial Aspect you're speaking of is that the US intended to collect that 2 billion. Likely it never happened, the French were pretty broke unless of course you mean the portion they raped off Ocuppied pieces of Germany

Of course they payed the highest price in Manpower and the highest Price in their own infrastructure as did Belgium of Western Nations... I too would've wanted revenge...

As for the US joining, that's a bit narrow in your reasoning. Interesting hypothesis, but not all 110% accurate. The President of the USA at the time was a good man, he was notoriously better than the Imperialistic weakling in Germany. Who didn't know how to "call it off!"

I think US sentiment was HUGELY moved by the Lusitania, HUGELY moved by the fact that we are in a large part concerned about the longterm. The USA idealistic divided Europe into a lot of Pre-War states that warred and didn't survive because I think there was some well genuine meaning in their reasons to join even if other factors were present. None in Europe believed nor wanted it... Though again your points point to my points:

If portions of Europe fall, it will eminantly mean the Doom of the Entente and that would be saving the USA arse by moving by that point. Surrendering Russia, Paris, etc... If the USA doesn't join when Paris falls you can kiss the game goodbye if the Russians aren't knocking on Berlin or Vienna's Door with a strong position...

SO what I'm attempting to point out is that the ET and CP are on a spending war now, but it doesn't mean anything historical or realistic. As Hjaco suggested a more Random feature would be more accurate with "some nation influence" perhaps with Prestige Points rather than economic ones, basically if you can afford to trade in the seazones you repay back to the Nation to earn it's entry sooner or on time with the warring diplomatic system

it may work, but it's after a few games linear, luck plays a role and whether or not you buy those Diplos andd spend em then you got your nation not any real consequences or situational diplomacy

USA may never have joined without unrestricted U-boat warfare. I firmly believe it, now for the Minors they may fall a bit more to "bribery" and "doubledealing lying politics" like the promises pointed out by Gnome

Italy-Bulgaria-Romania

(in reply to BossGnome)

Post #: 5

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/24/2008 12:12:55 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

Well, Gotha Bombers and Flying Aces would be neat, though already the range on these Fighters and their ability to recon 500 miles away is a bit steep. There is no way a Fighter Escort was going to get balloons that far into the Interior of Europe... They might get lucky but rearbased Fighters would've eaten anything of the sort... personally Hjaco I'd love to see it but heheheheh, that is ultra-goodies

That depends very much on the solution. My idea was to mirror the naval system that is you can buy different air units and assign them different missions which may result in combat etc. Instead of using sea areas they should be designated to fronts as now. So there should not be extra counters on the map

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 6

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/24/2008 12:32:46 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

As I have pointed out in another thread Britain was compelled to join WW1 in order to protect their Empire and economic independence.

I believe the same factors complies to America at that time. I don't really think they bothered that much about the outcome of yet another European war as long as it didn't threaten their own interests and economy.

Yes the Americans have always been more idealistic and naive compared to world politics than the old European cynical power mongers though I think that has changed with the current US-administration

So that's definitely a factor as was the stupid and incompetent Zimmermann telegram, the sinking of Lusitania but that was factors that mainly pissed of public opinion.

But don't forget the often overlooked offensive American wars again Mexico, Spain, amongst others as well as interference in Central America/Japan/China etc. I mean what defensive reasoning lay behind the IMO colonial occupation of the Philippines ? That was a clearly economic based move to enforce/secure/improve trade in the far east. Similar reasoning lay behind American actions against Central & South America.

My point is that what it all boils down to is that in the end the daily reality politics weighs more than emotional factors - at least at that time.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 7

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/24/2008 1:07:45 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

The Aerial Mission idea is a good one, deserves merit. There is little action in the air now, I think in 10 games I've seen 2 airplanes shot down.. Plus it would be just plan fun.

-

Yes, the USA has her fingers in all that aggression, she wanted to get bigger, she even went after Canada in 1812 but the British made her pay there, so it's not always been a walkover. It's hard to see her a neutral permanently, though writing a letter telling a friends neighbor to sabotage everything was downright foolish indeed. Mexico couldn't dream of winning anything...not at that point... Remember, the USA was born and bred of the blood of the Empire, I think WW1 just grew into a scale that involved her. Maybe started a bit more local, of course we called it the Great War then but now...

Could've been just a minor Balkan War II or III? How many have they had...

Politics is a dirty business, in this era I think even still. People forget all the ideas, and all the letters that have crossed many Rulers Desks, so far I am winning 1 of my games due to Politics, Bulgaria is Neutral in 1916 still going and Romania is a on board

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 8

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 1/24/2008 11:48:37 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

SO what I'm attempting to point out is that the ET and CP are on a spending war now, but it doesn't mean anything historical or realistic.

IMO it is. I've got a few works on the economic aspects of the war that were published in the 1920's, and as I've written here before (see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1669581) the objective of the blockade was to deprive Germany of the means to carry on the war - but the main mechanism to do this was to devalue the currency - to make their currency as worthless as possible so they couldn't afford to purchase anything useful for the war even if they could get access to it.

We tend to see the blockade and the isolation of Russia from trade in terms of the inability to transfer resources...but the main effect of both was really the devaluation of the currency once overseas gold reserves were used up - the gold was used to pay for imports because exports were severely curtailed.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 9

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 4/17/2008 3:39:26 PM

lordhoff

Posts: 288
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

I'm really going out on a limb here because I haven't gotten around to playing the game yet but ---

It seems to me that a change of the diplomatic rules at this point is a bit much to ask - that is basically a new version of the game. Having said that and, again, based only on what I have read here, I do think that it would be a worthy addition. Ever since its release way back when, I've liked the diplomatic rules in Advanced Third Reich where each country is alloted a number of diplomatic points based on historic activity which can be increased/decreased by game events. In addition, winning over a country was incremental where a positive result made an even better result possible later with that country. The diplomatic rules were a strategy within a strategy as there were far more possibilities then points available plus one often needed to bargain with allies to get a coherent diplomatic front going. Buying Italy or Rumania into the war would be contained within the table for each country. It really made the game since it added greatly to replayability.

$0.02 from a negative newbie

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 10

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 4/18/2008 3:05:10 AM

JCP

Posts: 6
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline

I actually think the Diplomatic system is rather good. I like the fact that diplomacy is tied to the economy, as I think this captures one of the unique aspects of the war. Granted that it at a level of abstraction, but that is true of the entire economic system.

Remember that none of the powers in WWI were command economies. All the governments had to work out how actually to pay for their war expenditure. They borrowed money, in vast sums, either from their own populations or from neutrals like the US. As I say, at a level of abstraction, the fact that political favour is "bought" with economic investment seems nicely to capture the shannanigans that went on to tie the US into the TE, or to get supplies to Germany through Sweden and Holland. A lot of people in those countries made a lot of money from the combatants.

In fact, I'd quite like to see it possible for Italy to join the CP if given enough economic inducement. That would be historically accurate. But you'd need to be able to spend more than 1 point per turn.

(in reply to lordhoff)

Post #: 11

RE: Diplomatic System: Issues - 4/18/2008 7:41:44 PM

talldwarf

Posts: 15
Joined: 1/23/2008
Status: offline

Each of promises to potential allies involved costs. The costs were not necessarily in currency, but they were real nonetheless. You need some way to quantify in game terms the trade-offs of promises made. How do you express in game terms the post-war territorial promises? The current system is a nice proxy for these costs. In any cases, the points spent may not be bribes to Italy, but bribes to AH to allow these post-war promises to be made.

(in reply to JCP)

Post #: 12