Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Suggested changes to diplomacy

 
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 >> Suggested changes to diplomacy Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 8:12:05 AM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		It would seem that Entente aggression against minors have not been sufficiently anticipated and incorporated in the diplomacy engine?

An Entente declaration of war on Belgium and Netherlands are without political consequences. This should have serious political repercussions on at least America? I think it is reasonable to be possible to do this as the Entente because CP would otherwise use this knowledge in his strategy.

Similarly with an Entente declaration of war on OE in turn war?

Thoughts and opinions please
Post #: 1
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 3:36:32 PM   
arichbourg


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline 		I don't think the Entente should be allowed at all to declare on Belgium or the Netherlands (or Luxembourg). Last time I designed a variant for a WWI game, that's what my research came up with.

No dow (ever) on the Ottomans also sounds reasonable imho, albeit less so.

< Message edited by arichbourg -- 10/29/2008 3:37:38 PM >

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 2
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 6:38:18 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline 		I thought in the case of an Entente invasion of the Benelux countries there were high probabilities of other neutrals being swayed away from joining the Entente. I will check that.

(in reply to arichbourg)
Post #: 3
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 6:53:26 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		The only neutral power that really matters are America. The Entente can always wait until Italy has entered before violating Benelux neutrality.

My suggestion (if there are no current penalty) is to add a random delay of 4 to 6 turns to American entry. In this way the Entente player will have to consider immediate military and strategic benfit to fight without America until the very last part of the war.

I think that there in any case should be a possibility that America will enter although late so that both wides will have to consider that.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 4
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 8:02:39 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline 		The British government was the guarantor of Belgian neutrality. Perhaps the ET would expend diplomatic efforts to convince Belgium and the other low countries to join the ET but actually declaring war on them is more in the realm of fantasy.

Perhaps, instead of having an either or situation in the case of Italy, Romania, Greece and the low countries being either exclusively pro-ET or CP, it would be better to give them a bias either way but allow both the CP and ET to influence them to become pro CP or ET. This would create an element of uncertainty as to which way Italy and Romania will go and would give the CP some chance to lessen its diplomatic disadvantage.

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 5
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 8:22:00 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		As the CP declaring war on Italy is in the realm of fantasy - as if they didn't have enough enemies

But as you put it to me. Such a change would mean a major change in the current diplomatic game mechanics possibly out of the scope in a patch.

At least my suggestion should be alterable within the existing game system?

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 6
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 9:59:46 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

As the CP declaring war on Italy is in the realm of fantasy - as if they didn't have enough enemies

But as you put it to me. Such a change would mean a major change in the current diplomatic game mechanics possibly out of the scope in a patch.

At least my suggestion should be alterable within the existing game system?

I am not suggesting the CP declaring war on Italy anymore than the ET declaring war on Belgium. Instead there should be the option for both the ET and CP to influence all neutrals to join their side.

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 7
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 10:13:45 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		Right. But how will you settle influencing Holland & Belgium? As it is now I think they are to enter sometime in the early 1920's

This would effectively put them as neutrals for the purpose of this game unless some alteration was made?

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 8
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/29/2008 10:57:57 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Right. But how will you settle influencing Holland & Belgium? As it is now I think they are to enter sometime in the early 1920's

This would effectively put them as neutrals for the purpose of this game unless some alteration was made?

I would imagine that would simply be a matter of changing the value of a variable in the code that calculates it. It would probably be very hard to convince them to join the TE and especially the CP. That is why Germany was forced to invade them in order to execute the Schlieffen plan. However, their bias should be leaning towards the TE. They would prefer to stay neutral, next preference would be to join the TE and least likely join the CP.

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 9
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/30/2008 10:40:07 AM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline 		Thing is Belgian neutrality means diddly, in reality, to anyone in the game in reality. It wasn't a major issue to Americans (U-boats and Zimmermann were much bigger), Italy chose sides as a crime of opportunity and the Bulgarians and Romanians were not standing on the high moral grounds.

The funny thing is that the only country for whom the violation of Belgian neutrality was a big deal is the one country for whom it actually doesn't matter in the game, Britain since they are already in the war and will arrive on the continent inevitably since the Ottoman's are coming in rather I want them in or not - and dear god I do not want them.

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 10
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/31/2008 3:35:18 AM   
lordhoff


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

since the Ottoman's are coming in rather I want them in or not - and dear god I do not want them.


I rather like the Ottomans - they send me all types of neat stuff that I turn into weapons and even diplomatic activity

I agree, though for the most part; GB is the empire that was self-appointed protector of Belgium since they created Belgium to be a buffer - there was a real chance that GB would have delayed getting into the war had Belgium (not sure anyone besides Belgium actually cared about Lux) not been invaded by the GE. But I think the initial point is still valid - there should be some repercussion for France invading Belgium since it is allowed (fantasy or not). Wilson was just looking for an excuse to get the USA into the war which means that had others not yet come up, he would have used that to stir up the public so it may have mattered to the USA too. As far as France actually invading, the British reaction could have been harsh as it was a buffer FROM France mainly so they would have thought long and hard on doing it. It is documented, though, that France was seriously considering doing exactly that in 1940 but someone beat them to it.

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 11
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/31/2008 1:08:22 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lordhoff

I rather like the Ottomans - they send me all types of neat stuff that I turn into weapons and even diplomatic activity

But I think the initial point is still valid - there should be some repercussion for France invading Belgium since it is allowed (fantasy or not).


The OE doesn't send me enough stuff to turn into neat stuff to balance out the UK being able to arrive on the continent. I'd rather play: no OE + no Belgian invasion than face Haig's little SoB's in France. :)

There should be some repercussion for a TE invasion of neutrals, I agree. The whole Belgian diplomacy effect seems off anyway so I guess that is why it has never bothered me.

(in reply to lordhoff)
Post #: 12
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 10/31/2008 2:51:33 PM   
hjaco

 

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

ORIGINAL: ILCK

I'd rather play: no OE + no Belgian invasion than face Haig's little SoB's in France. :)



Thats an old discussion on this board Although Belgium was the clear physical and direct cause for British participation a neutral Belgium would not necessarily mean British neutrality in the long run (or short run).

But arguably the fielding of such a large army as were committed by Britain would in that case be doubtful.

British naval and economic might coupled with "protection" of the Suez canal by offensive operations against OE would IMO be the preferred British choice.

But that would demand a whole new game mechanic to develop and not likely to be made in this game

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 13
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 11/1/2008 2:17:42 AM   
lordhoff


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

The OE doesn't send me enough stuff to turn into neat stuff to balance out the UK being able to arrive on the continent. I'd rather play: no OE + no Belgian invasion than face Haig's little SoB's in France. :)


I didn't realize there was a tie in (probably because the OE is so quick to declare). It would be nice to keep the sick man neutral (they could still trade) if that kept GB from enetring France but, why in heck would that be programed in? GB was in the war to disallow any one power from dominating the continent.

Same for Italy in WW II games - best if kept neutral .

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 14
RE: Suggested changes to diplomacy - 11/1/2008 1:15:39 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lordhoff

I didn't realize there was a tie in (probably because the OE is so quick to declare). It would be nice to keep the sick man neutral (they could still trade) if that kept GB from enetring France but, why in heck would that be programed in? GB was in the war to disallow any one power from dominating the continent.

Same for Italy in WW II games - best if kept neutral .



Yeah, the UK can't mount amphibious ops until either:
1. Belgian neutrality is violated
2. OE enters the war on the CP side.

(in reply to lordhoff)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Suggested changes to diplomacy Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750