Making Decisions Great Again

[KorutZelva]

If a decision is designed in the way it essentially make you go one way 100% of the time, it should be reworked.

The Afrika corps units for example, are a bargain at that price. Even if they are half-strenght, it's a lot of hardware and already transported off to destination for your convenience. If for example, you'd get a free Rommel HQ in poland for saying no you'd make the decision interesting again. For the AI that seems to be short on HQ for Barbarossa, they necessarily be to worst off either way if you had them say no 50% of the time.

[sPzAbt653]

I like your idea, what do you think if we say NO to the decision it triggers another decision to pay for the units but have them all deploy in Poland ? This way we would have the choice of Afrika, or Poland or neither.

[TheBattlefield]

Yep. Good idea. Will take such a decision event into my mod...

[OxfordGuy3]

Some of the decision could definitely do with an alternative that offers other benefits or else less downsides than accepting one

[xwormwood]

My personal view is that the whole decisions are ready to be brought to a new, improved level.
Some random decisions (like the way you play card driven games), some decisions which force you to choose between to bad events, and no more scripted free units, or decisions, which don't make you at least think hard about the direction you should go / answer.

In case of Afrika Korps it could be like this:

Send help?
Yes: costs, time: pay for the Afrika Korps. All other land units currently in production will get one or two more game turns production time.
No: NM loss for Italy and Germany, no free or cheap units (just like Yes doesn't provide free or cheap units, all yes does is to squeeze the necessary units out of the factories pretty fast, at a price on the following units currently in production)

Send help manually, or via auto event?
Manually: cheapest, but most dangerous way,
Auto Event: expensive, but most secure way.


Btw.: here a suggestion:
Change Malta effect: as long as Malta is above strength 6, all sea hexes in the Med are kind of hostile to Axis naval vessels (% Chance that units get damaged while moving at sea). Keep the supply drop chance, though.

All in all the game could use some decisions which force the player to choose between two evil events (do you want to freeze or burn?), and decisions, which offer poisened "goodies" (get it now, but suffer elsewhere, or later, or elsewhere later). Imagine that Volkssturm does not only cost money, but has an impact on industry, logistics and / or production. What if you get asked to start a strategic warfare against the UK or Germany (purchase x medium bombers now, or suffer xyz). What if the producition of the so called Atlantic Wall would be make it necessary that no other fortification (engineer) could be built for x turns? What if you would have either research a bomber level or rocket level next before you are allowed to research fighter tech or long range (by order of High Command). Maybe you need to withdraw one tank unit toward France or loose MPPs for some turns? Maybe you need to sacrifice a 6+ General, and have to choose which one has to be sacked?
All above are just examples, none of them have been thought through.

[Ironclad]

I'd prefer not to overcomplicate things. There is an advantage in keeping things simple and yes, even having some decision events where the answer may be obvious but nevertheless adds to the flavour of the game. That doesn't preclude having some genuine ones in the mix where yes and no have real consequences. Any significant change is going to involve some considerable play testing as its likely that other factors will have to be adjusted to take account of the proposed alteration (eg extra funds for Germany if the Africa Korps costs more or if transport costs are invoked and time issue considerations if units have to be physically moved from the Reich to Africa).

Frankly I welcome the Norwegian and Afrika Korps events since they make life so much easier. In CEAW GS invading Norway became a real bugbear of mine as I always seemed to end up with an opponent who a managed to outplay me there! [&:] And transporting the Africa Korps and designating/preparing units for despatch was always a minor irritant in the great scheme of things. Yes I know the Axis had to deal with this in real life but the great advantage of a game with emphasis on playability rather than a full simulation is that we can cut inconvenient corners at times. [:)]

[TheBattlefield]

Do you want to burn or freeze? Nice thought!

Problematic: Realistic balancing of events. For events with a noticeable negative impact on a side balancing is urgently required for MP games!

In the singleplayer area, a presumably necessary attenuation of negative effects would be problematic by connecting to difficulty levels. Globally valid events can currently not be exclusively assigned to different levels. This means a less drastic "Malta effect" in the level "Beginner" would be triggered (in my understanding of the engine) in the level "Advanced" in addition to the "drastic" event.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I like your idea, what do you think if we say NO to the decision it triggers another decision to pay for the units but have them all deploy in Poland ? This way we would have the choice of Afrika, or Poland or neither.

Technically you can buy a bunch of them with the 600 mpp you are saving.

I'm fine with not getting as much for my money as going for the affrika corp decision, but getting more units in a more strategically important location. That's how to balance this event.

[Seminole]

I'd prefer not to overcomplicate things. There is an advantage in keeping things simple and yes, even having some decision events where the answer may be obvious but nevertheless adds to the flavour of the game.

I think it is a clever way to insert things like the invasion of Norway that are historical, but frankly hard to model in the larger game context.
I also like the 'choose your own adventure' tweaks for replayability.
I haven't played enough to know how well they are balanced, but a lot of them seem like no brainers.

[crispy131313]

Decision events are clearly playing 2 roles in SC3.

The first is to add historical context to the game, creating a clear and chronological order of events (some of which would be very difficult to achieve i.e. Norway) and add some of the background behind why these events unfolded along the way. I think this is necessary, and as mentioned really adds flavor to the game.

The second is to actually give the player a choice. A good example would be the option to deploy German U-boats in the Mediterranean or keep them in the Baltic.

However, where the default game is lacking is more clear cut decisions where you actually pause to ponder your strategy and how a particular decision could effect said strategy, or supportive events which can lead to new strategies.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I like your idea, what do you think if we say NO to the decision it triggers another decision to pay for the units but have them all deploy in Poland ? This way we would have the choice of Afrika, or Poland or neither.

Technically you can buy a bunch of them with the 600 mpp you are saving.
I'm fine with not getting as much for my money as going for the affrika corp decision, but getting more units in a more strategically important location. That's how to balance this event.

Currently, the AI accepts Rommel to Africa 100% of the time [referring to post #1].
My thought was to leave the original DE as is, but if the human says NO, then a 2nd DE will trigger for the same as the original but with the units arriving in Poland instead of Africa. If the human says NO to this, then nothing happens and the player can still buy those units at full price and do what they want with them. But I think you are suggesting something different, so what would your outline be ?

[crispy131313]

I would suggest the "No" option would see Rommel and an Army deployed in Poland at no cost. This is of less value then all the components of the combined Afrika Korps, but still worthy of consideration and implies that these forces are actually combat ready and not out of thin air.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I like your idea, what do you think if we say NO to the decision it triggers another decision to pay for the units but have them all deploy in Poland ? This way we would have the choice of Afrika, or Poland or neither.

Technically you can buy a bunch of them with the 600 mpp you are saving.
I'm fine with not getting as much for my money as going for the affrika corp decision, but getting more units in a more strategically important location. That's how to balance this event.

Currently, the AI accepts Rommel to Africa 100% of the time [referring to post #1].
My thought was to leave the original DE as is, but if the human says NO, then a 2nd DE will trigger for the same as the original but with the units arriving in Poland instead of Africa. If the human says NO to this, then nothing happens and the player can still buy those units at full price and do what they want with them. But I think you are suggesting something different, so what would your outline be ?

Just one decision. Free HQ in Poland if no. With AI set to picks no half the time (or 25% whatevs).

Another example is Norway, is a bit too good of a decision to say no. One could balance the event by using the fact that Germany lost quite a bit of naval asset during said invasion and gift one or two ships to Germany if they picked no. I'd give them a free fully upgraded cruiser.

[sPzAbt653]

Just one decision. Free HQ in Poland if no. With AI set to picks no half the time (or 25% whatevs).

Another example is Norway, is a bit too good of a decision to say no. One could balance the event by using the fact that Germany lost quite a bit of naval asset during said invasion and gift one or two ships to Germany if they picked no. I'd give them a free fully upgraded cruiser.

These sound real good, thank you. I will put them in the 653H Mod. Except I don't think I will put the AI Acceptance at less then 100% because that might give the Allies a free pass in Africa as opposed to one free Axis HQ, which doesn't seem like a fair trade [:)]

[KorutZelva]

Depends the way you see it. An easier time in Afrika but a harder time in Russia. A free HQ and 600 mpp freed means 1000mp worth of units more for Barbarossa. Making it 10%, 15% or 25% let's say means you don't know for sure if you are going to require the additional hardware or not in afrika.

With Malta not as crippling as the previous games and the Italians somewhat sturdier this time around you still have to work for Lybia.

[crispy131313]

Regarding the Norway decision the Allies should have the opportunity to invade Norway if Germany does not. I also like the idea to award a naval asset to Germany if there is no invasion. Historically how many ships were lost in the campaign?

This is a good brain storming thread, keep the ideas coming.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

Regarding the Norway decision the Allies should have the opportunity to invade Norway if Germany does not. I also like the idea to award a naval asset to Germany if there is no invasion. Historically how many ships were lost in the campaign?

This is a good brain storming thread, keep the ideas coming.

Material losses:
1 heavy cruiser
2 light cruisers
10 destroyers
6 U-boats
2 torpedo boats
15 light naval units
21 transports/merchant ships
90–240 aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Campaign

I understand the need to do it for Germany regarding norway because it happened in real life and it would be difficult to replicate it according to the historical time table using the mechanics of the current iteration of the game (to note previous versions of SC had the AI do it itself). I wouldn't make it a decision for the allies since they can make it happen with their own units, via the normal route. For the same reason, I would eliminate the decision regarding Denmark invasion because I mean c'mon, you don't need help for that!

I prefered the old version of the decision in the previous game where they propose a peaceful 'protectorate' to denmark which cost money (and miss out on plunder) but has long-term benefit over annexation (supply at 8 rather then 5 so more money per turn from Copenhagen). This made it a more interesting decision.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

Regarding the Norway decision the Allies should have the opportunity to invade Norway if Germany does not. I also like the idea to award a naval asset to Germany if there is no invasion.

This is a good brain storming thread, keep the ideas coming.

That would be a great DE for both alliances.

Germany (directly after the Fall of Poland):
invade Norway, or else the UK & France might do it. Decide now, as preparations will need time!
Yes: trigger next German DE
No: trigger next Allied DE

German DE:
Invade by hand (yes) or by script (no)

yes
cheaper than no, and no Allied Narvik script invasion
no
much more expensive than yes, and the Allies get a DE if they want to get a scripted Narvik invasion

Allied DE:
The Germans are late. Invade Norway and prevent the Axis from getting the Scandinavian ore?
Yes, Invasion!:
Send early 1940 an HQ, an Army and 2 corps 2 hexes around Oslo, and Norway will join the Allies (send them by hand)
No, as in no need for invasions, there might be another option:
Press Norway for xxx MPPs toward the Allies (and gain xx% diplo movement into the allied direction)

if german yes / scripted invasion:

the allies could get the same DE they already have (sending two units toward Narvik)