Yugoslavia

[MagicMissile]

Hello,

I looked in the Beta patch notes and it seems like Yugoslavia will never join the Axis now even when you conquer Greece.

Will Yugoslavia always join the Allies then in 41? I think if you take Greece and Yugoslavia wont join the Axis nor should there be a coup and Yugoslavia join the Allies in 41.

An option could be that there would be a random chance for Yugoslavia to join the Axis if Greece is conquered before March 41 and even if Greece is conquered the coup in Yugoslavia will occur if they dont join the axis. Maybe both the joining of the axis and the coup event both should be randomised? Some randomness in the game might not be a bad thing. What do people think?

/MM

[Flaviusx]

How big of a chance are you thinking here? This could be interesting.

[AlvaroSousa]

They side with them. They don't openly join them. Where Yugo comes into play is if you use diplomacy.

You can thank Flaviusx for killing the original prospect with his super effective take out Greece strategy

[ncc1701e]

50% - 50% [:D]

[MagicMissile]

I am not a game designer [:)]. I really don´t know but if I think a little bit maybe something like this:

Axis conquers Greece before March 41 chance of Yugoslavia joining the Axis somewhere in the 30-50 percent bracket.

Axis conquers Greece but Yugoslavia do not join the the Axis. Chance of a coup in the spring of 41 somewhere in the 20-40% range.

Axis do not conquer Greece before March 41 or conquer Greece after March 41: Chance of Yugolsavia joining the Allies is in the 80-100% range.

Obviously one want the decision of invading Greece to be a difficult one. It is also a VP hex and if the numbers are too generous it will be like it is today it is not an option you just do it.

Havent spent a long time on these numbers so they might be completely bonkers but something along these lines.

/MM

[MagicMissile]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

They side with them. They don't openly join them. Where Yugo comes into play is if you use diplomacy.

You can thank Flaviusx for killing the original prospect with his super effective take out Greece strategy

I havent seen a game when Yugoslavia is not Axis so I am not sure what happens if you dont take Greece. So Yugoslavia do not join the Allies in March 41?

[Flaviusx]

I kind of like it. Would mix things up a bit. So long as the chance is low enough that you don't automatically do Greece without even thinking about it and there is a real element of risk.

[baloo7777]

Anyone know how much production Germany would get from conquering both Yugoslavia and Greece? Would it be enough to take out Yugoslavia if it isn't going to become an Axis minor?

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

Hello,

I looked in the Beta patch notes and it seems like Yugoslavia will never join the Axis now even when you conquer Greece.

Will Yugoslavia always join the Allies then in 41? I think if you take Greece and Yugoslavia wont join the Axis nor should there be a coup and Yugoslavia join the Allies in 41.

An option could be that there would be a random chance for Yugoslavia to join the Axis if Greece is conquered before March 41 and even if Greece is conquered the coup in Yugoslavia will occur if they dont join the axis. Maybe both the joining of the axis and the coup event both should be randomised? Some randomness in the game might not be a bad thing. What do people think?

/MM

My own opinion is that whether or not Yugoslavia joins the Axis or not is a huge game changer. In other words, if the game is balanced if Yugoslavia does not join the Axis, than if the Axis successfully make this "die roll" all of a sudden its chance of winning improves to 75% (or something like that). On the other hand if the game is only balanced if the Axis do get Yugoslavia, than if the Axis does not make this "die roll" than its chance of winning drops to 25%. I am never a fan of any game where a single 'die roll" has such a significant effect on who wins the game.

As I understand it most people feel the current version of the game is roughly balanced. Is that right? It is further my understanding that in the next version Alvaro will be making two major changes. One is to weaken the Allies by preventing France from moving all its colonial units home. The other is to remove the event that causes Yugoslavia to join the Axis if Greece is conquered before March 41. So the issue for me is do these changes equal one another so that the game will remain balanced? Personally, I think not being able to get Yugoslavia will weaken the Axis more. So it may be necessary to give the Axis some other advantage or the Allies some other handicap in order to maintain balance. Perhaps ending the game on its historical date of the last May 45 turn?

[sveint]

Is the pendulum swinging too far pro-Allies?

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I kind of like it. Would mix things up a bit. So long as the chance is low enough that you don't automatically do Greece without even thinking about it and there is a real element of risk.

There is no risk unless you won't invade Yug if doesn't come peacefully.The correct cost of invading Greece by paraspam is zero at the moment.To quote myself:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

"If there is a gimme way with paras then I have to nix it completely. BTW it's 1500 production.

As for the Greeks they are set up historically.

So let's Cost analysis this.

1 + 3 new air transports = 360
1 + 3 new paras = 720

I know landing by sea is tough when the UK is active there.

After some thought and looking at some math I believe you guys are correct. I will be removing the Yugoslavia event. I can't find a way to reasonable defend vs the paradrop version of this without making it an absolute decision. I can't even give them an air sup because they only had 78 aircraft in which probably only 2/3rds were operational. The cost benefit is too great spending 1080 to get 1500 yugo armies and not having to garrison Yugoslavia".

MY RESPONSE:

Even Homer can nod, Alvaro

Your analysis of the cost of invasion wrongly assumes that the new units have no value after invading Greece. The real 'cost' is effectively nil as per the analysis below .

None of the attacking units are lost. The paras and the transports can be used again, and half the PP para cost and all the manpower are returned on disbandment of the units. So the maximum possible cost is only 600 points lost - 2 new transports (they can't be disbanded but have some continuing value so I haven't put the 3rd as a 'lost' cost) and half the cost of 3 paras. For those Germans who buy a 2nd para anyway (?the majority), the real cost of getting Yugoslavia's 1500 points is only 360 points. The Yugo economy will soon repay those 360 points by making even more units/upgrades, and even the 600 points in time".

Therefore under the 50% chance proposal, invading Greece has a 50% chance of gaining 1500+ PPs for the axis for free, and a 50% chance of not, costing a maximum of 360 PPs. If you lost the gamble but kept the paras for Barbarossa then the 360 points won't have been wasted so the strategy remains pretty much cost-free and with a 50% chance of a massive boost to the Axis.

As a variant, invading Greece the sveint way (if I can call it that) with invasions with 2 inf xxx but only 2 paras would cost 90PP on landing craft but save 360 PP on the extra paras + transport a/c as an alternative.

So who still thinks that only a 50% Yugo joins axis conversion chance is a real deterrent to invading Greece 1st? The only situation that might be a deterrent is that it was 50% go axis and 50% join allies. Even then, it's not much of a deterrent because it will be so easy to KO an allied (or neutral) Yug. very rapidly from 3 sides: especially as there will be more time as a weakened France will now fall earlier.

The only a deterrent without doing something to bolster Greece in an artificial way would be Yug takes no notice of events in Greece or automatically goes allied.The latter doesn't make much/any sense though. NB - I only added in this idea after Flavius' post and I don't want to make anyone thinking that it has his endorsement.

[pzgndr]

Yugoslavia did in fact sign the Tripartite Pact on March 25, 1941. So it very well could have become an active Axis minor like Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. But then there was the coup on March 27 withdrawing from Axis, prompting the subsequent Axis invasion on April 6. If the Yugoslavian debates were not so bitter and there was no coup or the coup was quickly suppressed and Yugoslavia remained in Axis, then Yugoslavia very likely would have been an active Axis minor. So events should allow for this plausible possibility. Bottom line is Yugoslavia should very well be a 50/50 toss up and Axis needs to prepare for a possible invasion if needed. Scripted events can handle all of this, with slight handicaps going toward the AI for both sides. Make it interesting.

Ditto for Norway. Britain had plans for landing in Norway in late March 1940, delayed to early April. Hitler ordered a German invasion on April 1 to be executed on April 9, pre-empting the British plans. Then there was the Quisling factor proclaiming a socialist government on April 9 in conjunction with the Axis invasion but that petered out. And of course there was resistance and the Allied recapture of Narvik, but they withdrew on June 7 with the battle in France raging. So again, it was a toss up situation that could have gone either way in spring 1940. Scripted events should handle all of this.

[Flaviusx]

Fair enough, Sillyflower.

But I still like the idea of some future iteration of this game fleshing out the diplomatic side. Right now this is a dimension of the game that basically doesn't exist. Nobody uses the existing diplo system.

Doing something about this would introduce a bit of variety and excitement into the game.

[sillyflower]

No disagreement from me Flavius in principle as long as it remains optional, tho' IIRC I thought Alvaro only introduced diplo as a result of player requests. I think I stopped using diplo in SC2 very early on

@pzgndr, the game already allows all sorts to happen in Norway.

[AlvaroSousa]

So removing it is approved and leaving Yugo not joining then is the consensus.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Ditto for Norway.

No way in hell. Might as well make a game where the Nazis invade the moon.

[baloo7777]

If you can make it so that Yugoslavia joins the Axis or Allies in a fair percentage I would be happy, but I think it should be optional (on/off) at the start of the game.
If you leave it as it is, the Axis will invade Greece to get Yugoslavia almost always in PvP games.

[kennonlightfoot]

You do have to be careful about making it a probability even. You don't want something that significantly effects the balance of power to hinge on a single die roll.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

So removing it is approved and leaving Yugo not joining then is the consensus.

I think so because that is the fair thing looking at the cost:benefit ratio which seems to be how you look at, and rightly so.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: sveint

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Ditto for Norway.

No way in hell. Might as well make a game where the Nazis invade the moon.

I think they did in the book by Newt Gingrich and someone else but all my books are in boxes until October when my library should be done. May only have been orbiting rockets with nukes tho'.

NB this is not a request to Alvaro[:D]