Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 1:29:46 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
There wouldn`t be a doubling up, Germany would sink the same amount of MPPs as Britain, + 3 chits for Spain. That`s not to avoid a DoW on Belgium, but an early US joining. The lacking DoW is a benefit, weak Frenchmen and Brits are others. Especially the Brits are playing an important role early in the war, the risk is to lose Egypt and with it the war. Germany has enough units to defeat them anyway, every missing brit. unit or tech will hurt. If an allied opponent wants to risk it and gamble, he`s very welcome. In my so far 52 PbEMs I faced every kind of allied strategy, and I was able to manage them all.

quote:

HarryB can testify that the '39 Blitz works just fine.


How many turns earlier happens the Fall of France this way, and is it worth the effort, that`s the question. It`s not related to the uberdiplo.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 31
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 1:33:42 AM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
I can see where it would frustrating if your opponent moves USSR mobilization on a 5% or 10% chance and wrecks your Barbarossa plans, but that's pretty rare. Most of the time the Allies have to invest the max to get a decent chance of moving the USA/USSR and spending 1100 French and British MPPs comes with a tremendous opportunity cost. I'm in a game now where my opponent (who is very good) did that. Sure, Russia DoWed in May 1941, but in the meantime, I have taken all of France, gotten Spain on my side, taken Gibraltar, and will probably take Egypt by the end of 1941. I also have several more turns of good weather to advance in Russia before winter hits. I may still lose, but I still think I'm in a better position than I would have been if he had invested those MPPs in Allied units

I like having the maximum possibility of pursuing asymmetric strategies; it's what keeps the game fresh for me. So I hope the Major Powers diplo parameters remain unchanged.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 32
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 1:45:22 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

How many turns earlier happens the Fall of France this way, and is it worth the effort, that`s the question. It`s not related to the uberdiplo.


You can get it about end of March (HarryB, Leadweight might be able to confirm). If we use my current AAR as the measuring stick, that would be 6 turn earlier than 'normal'.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 12/29/2017 2:16:50 AM >

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 33
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 2:46:33 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
Fine. It was a rhetorical question, and she was "Is it worth the effort?". Every strategy has her pros and cons, it`s in every players hand to decide; but imho there`s no better allied strategy than to make the Brits in NA as strong as possible, and vice versa for the Axis. Does uberdiplo help here? I doubt it.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 34
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 4:03:09 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

I like having the maximum possibility of pursuing asymmetric strategies; it's what keeps the game fresh for me.



It does indeed. In the ye olden time when I was but a strapping young lad during the days of SC yore, people didn't stray much (successfully) from the 'cookie cutter' strategy (DOW Spain was part of the cookie cutter if you can believe that!). It was just the way the game was then in these simpler times. I feel like the average level of play was higher then but more focused on ruthlessly efficient application of said cookie cutter. You could see the odd ball strategy here and there but mostly in lower level of play (or in an attempt to break the game like having Italy insta-surrender from DOW and amphibiously taking Rome).

One might get their kicks of playing over and over what they consider the best play. For me, I just want to explore the wide variety of viable strategies. It's just so much fun to discover and to tinker with them.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 35
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 11:51:05 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1096
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: online
I sympathize, but don't really want to what see games that are effectively 'over' by mid/late 1940 on what amounts to little more than a half dozen dice rolls.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 36
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 12:05:58 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I sympathize, but don't really want to what see games that are effectively 'over' by mid/late 1940 on what amounts to little more than a half dozen dice rolls.


That should only happens so disastrously if you don't counter them correctly. I can see 'Uber-Diplo' getting some rotation time the same way 'All of France' and 'Sealion' are getting used right now. Not the norm but not completely uncommon.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 12/29/2017 12:08:33 PM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 37
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 3:54:42 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
quote:

I sympathize, but don't really want to what see games that are effectively 'over' by mid/late 1940 on what amounts to little more than a half dozen dice rolls.


Gambling is the opposite of planning. But it`s the opportunity for a poor man (like the Brits are in this game) to increase their chances. They'll have to be lucky, otherwise they'll notice the Axis to have more time to use their own diplo chits against them.

quote:

One might get their kicks of playing over and over what they consider the best play.


We're discussing the pros and cons of that strategy, and if it's necessary to change some of the mechanics. This strategy has its advantages, but they're highly depending on luck. It also has its disadvantages, which are guaranteed. I like to have the opportunity, we`re still playing a game, but if I'm asked if it pays off, I would answer: usually not.

I see another issue: getting Spain into the Axis is too easy. Maybe sometimes diplo isn`t working in time, but the Axis still has the opportunity to invite Franco via DE after conquering Algeria. The required 30% leaning are easily achieved, and the only way for the Allies to counter is to occupy Casablanca; usually they won`t be able to achieve more than a delay at this stage of the war.

The costs for the DE are ridicoulosly low, compared to the strategical and military advantages.




(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 38
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 7:28:45 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

We're discussing the pros and cons of that strategy, and if it's necessary to change some of the mechanics.



We are, we are... but that comment was in response to leadweight profession of love for the game and its many possibilities. But I digress...

Won't dispute that the uber-diplo need to meet the expected average number of hits to be worth it (which some heathens call luck ) but in fairness... so is your proposed counter if you think about it. You're banking on hits will be timely to be available for a transfer to the USA. And each subsequent chits should also take more time to be available again because the odds drops down by 5%.

Trying to pivot to Spain after that seems superfluous. You already invested deeper in diplo, more so than just a pure defensive play because you have to replenish your diplohit unlike when they are just reducing the other guy %. Waiting for the chits to free up again would delay getting Spaniard so much you might as well go the Algerian route. As the added benefit to protect you on the off chance USA joins, as they would be able to shut you off from Spain diplomatically with their 7% chits.

To use your terminology, that's facing 'gambling' with 'gambling'. A viable gamble but not quite a martingale.

'39 Blitz, buddy. That's what the cool kids do.

Getting Spain into the axis is easy but at the same time, the power balance of the game it's kind of expected for the Axis to get it to have a shot a winning. I wonder what's the % of Axis victory out there with Spain still neutral. Must be quite low. I'd let germany get the total spanish mpp in trade after france fall. That way the diplo push would only be used for those that want access to the spanish unit and a path to Gibraltar but wouldn't increase the income received. That way it would no longer be a life or death necessity to have franco join, I think.

My personal peeve would probably having London as an objective instead of Manchester. London is too vulnerable to a blitz bombing and paradrop which means that all high level of play (say Sugar vs Taifun) like you said the litmus test is whether Cairo falls or not.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 12/29/2017 9:57:10 PM >

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 39
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 10:52:06 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
Diplo action allways forces the opponent to counter, therefore it`s just a question of time you`ll have to invest. Being the first to invest is better in every case. That`s not a gamble, it`s inevitable. As Axis player I wouldn`t invest in SU or US diplo, but if I`m forced to do, well, that's fine, even if it leads to a forced rush all the way to Casablanca. My counter would prevent the SU from joining too soon, providing the needed timeframe, if my few diplo investments into Spain don`t fire.

I don`t know about the balancing without the opportunity to get Spain into the Axis, I always did, and I was able to win in early autumn of 42 mostly. That`s a little early imho, if not to say unbalanced, and so far most of my opponents agreed.

The strategical meaning of Cairo is a matter of fact in the european theatre, I highly appreciate this is reflected in a strategy game.

quote:

'39 Blitz, buddy. That's what the cool kids do.
Gladly I`m at an age not to care any longer listening to "what the cool kids do". I guess winning is cool, and I bet most of the players would agree, even more, if it happens in a well balanced game.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 40
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 11:33:10 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

Gladly I`m at an age not to care any longer listening to "what the cool kids do".



(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 41
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/29/2017 11:51:43 PM   
nnason


Posts: 275
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline
My objection to Uber-diplo is the element of chance. I have gone 8 months with Spain at 85% and me invested at 30% and no joy. OK not having Spain until late 1942 is not good but what about the opposite where Allies get really good "roles" and have USA join say in early 1941 even thought the Axis had invested the same amount of chips/MPPs. Just that the computer made better rolls for the Allies. So equal investments but better rolls makes for a very unbalanced game.

Perhaps the way to resolve is equal investments get same rolls. So when when Axis gets a -15% for the USA then the Allies would get plus 15%. This is assuming same number of diplo chips for each side. If unequal chip investment then some adjustment up or down to reflect the greater diplo pressure.

Sugar makes a good point about Uber investments would make brits very weak. But if got lucky.....

< Message edited by nnason -- 12/29/2017 11:54:04 PM >


_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 42
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/30/2017 10:08:02 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason

My objection to Uber-diplo is the element of chance. I have gone 8 months with Spain at 85% and me invested at 30% and no joy. OK not having Spain until late 1942 is not good but what about the opposite where Allies get really good "roles" and have USA join say in early 1941 even thought the Axis had invested the same amount of chips/MPPs. Just that the computer made better rolls for the Allies. So equal investments but better rolls makes for a very unbalanced game.

Perhaps the way to resolve is equal investments get same rolls. So when when Axis gets a -15% for the USA then the Allies would get plus 15%. This is assuming same number of diplo chips for each side. If unequal chip investment then some adjustment up or down to reflect the greater diplo pressure.

Sugar makes a good point about Uber investments would make brits very weak. But if got lucky.....


Rolls don't work like that though. If UK invest 5 chits and Germany invest 5 chits in the same country they don't both get rolls to get a diplohit, they just cancel each other and each have 0% of a diplo hit. If Uk has 5 and germany 4, then german has 0% chance of hit but UK has 5% and so on. It's probable that in your Spain situation your opponent has chits invested vs you leaving a small chance of a diplohit.

Uber investment to the USSR while excellent to improve USSR combat readiness (and a potential deathly danger if it triggers while France is still fighting) leaves the UK almost hopelessly weak in the west. Uber investment to the USA, less so because the increased USA income and land lease to the UK props you back up.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 12/31/2017 12:18:56 PM >

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 43
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/31/2017 11:15:17 AM   
nnason


Posts: 275
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline
KorutZelva,

Are you sure diplo-chits work that way and chits cancel each other out? Where in Manual does it say this?

If so would take most of the chance out. If you were following diplo investments you would have to guess is my Allied opponent investing in USA or Russia? Less chance and more guessing.

Good point about worth of Allied investment.


_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 44
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/31/2017 11:32:39 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason

KorutZelva,

Are you sure diplo-chits work that way and chits cancel each other out? Where in Manual does it say this?

If so would take most of the chance out. If you were following diplo investments you would have to guess is my Allied opponent investing in USA or Russia? Less chance and more guessing.

Good point about worth of Allied investment.



Yepp. Its in there under Contested Diplomacy (10.6.). I quite like how the system works to be honest.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 12/31/2017 12:16:49 PM >

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 45
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/31/2017 1:23:17 PM   
nnason


Posts: 275
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline
Thanks for the quick reply.

_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 46
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/31/2017 2:24:34 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1096
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: online
However, I believe that diplomacy checks are made each and every turn and not just on the turns with the side who has the positive value.
I can attest to this from my game with KorutZelva.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 47
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/31/2017 10:52:06 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1753
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

However, I believe that diplomacy checks are made each and every turn and not just on the turns with the side who has the positive value.
I can attest to this from my game with KorutZelva.



This is what I thought too, but Bill says otherwise. So if you have proof of this than the game is not WAD.


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 48
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 12/31/2017 11:21:02 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1753
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
I continue to maintain that the problem with Uber-Diplomacy is that it brings too much of a luck element into the game. By my calculation KZ should have averaged 2.5 US hits in our game and he got 4. Conversely, I have now had 6 turns with a 10% chance and 2 turns with a 15% chance of getting an Axis Diplomacy hit on the US; so an average of 0.9 hits. But no luck so far. So in my opinion KZ's 4 hits and my 0 hits has resulted in a significant swing in our respective chances of winning the game. Assuming the game is balanced and KZ and I are of equal skill (which at this point I very much doubt) I would say my chances of winning have gone from 50% to 5%. Likewise had he only gotten 1 hit (which statistically was just as likely as 4) and I then got a hit of my own, then I would have said that my chances were 95% (again assuming equal skill). Had I known the Rules and correctly guessed that KZ was going for the US rather than Russia I could perhaps have prevented him from getting one of his hits, but even with just 3 hits I would say that my chances of winning would be at best 25%. Again, none of this is to say that KZ would not have beaten me without this strategy. I am not saying that he is beating me only by luck. He is a very skilled opponent and would probably win anyway, but this kind of seals the deal.

In my game where I am using the Uber-diplomacy strategy myself (but on Russia), I so far should have averaged 1.95 hits but have gotten only 1. I probably only have 2 or at best 3 more turns before France falls.

I think by now everyone has figured out why I personally don't like games of chance.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 12/31/2017 11:22:30 PM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 49
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/1/2018 12:31:43 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I continue to maintain that the problem with Uber-Diplomacy is that it brings too much of a luck element into the game. By my calculation KZ should have averaged 2.5 US hits in our game and he got 4. Conversely, I have now had 6 turns with a 10% chance and 2 turns with a 15% chance of getting an Axis Diplomacy hit on the US; so an average of 0.9 hits. But no luck so far. So in my opinion KZ's 4 hits and my 0 hits has resulted in a significant swing in our respective chances of winning the game. Assuming the game is balanced and KZ and I are of equal skill (which at this point I very much doubt) I would say my chances of winning have gone from 50% to 5%. Likewise had he only gotten 1 hit (which statistically was just as likely as 4) and I then got a hit of my own, then I would have said that my chances were 95% (again assuming equal skill). Had I known the Rules and correctly guessed that KZ was going for the US rather than Russia I could perhaps have prevented him from getting one of his hits, but even with just 3 hits I would say that my chances of winning would be at best 25%. Again, none of this is to say that KZ would not have beaten me without this strategy. I am not saying that he is beating me only by luck. He is a very skilled opponent and would probably win anyway, but this kind of seals the deal.

In my game where I am using the Uber-diplomacy strategy myself (but on Russia), I so far should have averaged 1.95 hits but have gotten only 1. I probably only have 2 or at best 3 more turns before France falls.

I think by now everyone has figured out why I personally don't like games of chance.


A certain promo comes to mind. Scott Steiner on the uber-diplo strategy




< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 1/1/2018 12:32:27 AM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 50
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/2/2018 7:00:59 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 2297
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

However, I believe that diplomacy checks are made each and every turn and not just on the turns with the side who has the positive value.
I can attest to this from my game with KorutZelva.



This is what I thought too, but Bill says otherwise. So if you have proof of this than the game is not WAD.



Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing the other side getting a diplomatic success in their opponent's turn.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 51
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/2/2018 7:45:39 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1096
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: online
I recall (but could also be wrong) seeing Axis hits to US at the end of my allied turn and of my axis opponent commenting on hits at the end of his turn before I played mine.

< Message edited by Taxman66 -- 1/2/2018 7:46:34 PM >


_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 52
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/2/2018 7:54:26 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 1137
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I recall (but could also be wrong) seeing Axis hits to US at the end of my allied turn and of my axis opponent commenting on hits at the end of his turn before I played mine.


Your diplomacy rolls are only effective on your turn 100% certain.

_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 53
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/2/2018 8:31:29 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 1137
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline



It is very obvious if the Allies are buying Major Diplomatic Chits, so I suppose it can countered quite easily. The only problem once you go that route (invest and cancel USA) the diplomatic game is done.


Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 54
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/2/2018 10:46:18 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1096
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: online
I would still prefer the softer hits for the base 50 cost in my first post.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 55
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/2/2018 11:45:51 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1753
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crispy131313


It is very obvious if the Allies are buying Major Diplomatic Chits, so I suppose it can countered quite easily. The only problem once you go that route (invest and cancel USA) the diplomatic game is done.



Once Germany sees that the Allies have made major investments in diplomacy chits, what is the most effective counter? The German Player has a few options:

1) He can wait until the Allies get their first diplomacy hit and then try and match them. The problem is that this will give the Allies one "free" hit and the French and UK combined get more MPPs than Germany for the first several turns, so they can purchase chits at a faster pace. They can also, of course, purchase more chits. So the Allies will get 1 hit and have a 15% chance or better of further hits until France is conquered. Now it is down to luck again.

2) He can try and guess where the Allies have placed their chits (Russia or US) and buy chits for that nation. But again, the Allies can purchase more chits. So you may end up with a situation where Germany has a 25% chance per turn of getting a USSR hit while the Allies have a 40% chance of getting a US hit. Once again down to luck.

3) He can instead spend his MPPs to operationally move West for an early assault on France. This will reduce the number of turns that the Allies have to influence the US or the USSR, but will give them an increased chance for those turns. Of course, at some point the Germans will still have to purchase 5 chits to counter the UK's 5. Once again lots of luck involved.

So the point is that no matter what the Axis do, they can be done in by lady luck.

But of these which is the most effective counter assuming average luck for both sides? Or is there another option I am missing entirely.






< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 1/3/2018 12:16:35 AM >

(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 56
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/3/2018 12:15:44 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1753
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
Has anyone seen Uber Diplomacy in reverse? In other words the game proceeds as usual with no Allied uber diplomacy. Then after the Axis conquer France the Germans and Italians immediately purchase the maximum chits in the USSR. Even if the UK counters with 1 chit a turn (which at 150 MPPS a pop is a big investment at that point of the game) the Axis will get an average of 1.5 hits within the first 5 turns. Thereafter they will average a hit every Axis 7 turns. So has anyone done the math to determine if, on average, the Axis can keep Russia out of the War until the late spring (April or May) of 42? I would try this in a future game; but I'm pretty sure I would get below average luck.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 57
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/3/2018 12:25:26 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
1. The possibilty to counter is certain, the weather and possible time savings of operating are not; the costs of operating are again fix. France will fall much sooner anyway.

2. After the joining of Italy the conditions turn, after the fall of France they`re outnumbering brit. chits by 8-5.

3. Statistically it`s unlikey for the Allies to achieve more than 2 hits as long as France still exists, since they won`t be able to invest the whole 1200 MPP in their first turn; no matter what the Germans do, unless they spend all MPPs elsewhere.

4. Hits on Majors are limited to 7-11% afaik.

Therefore this strategy can hardly be decisive, unless the Axis player is not aware of the threat. He still has some options, though.

It`s true this proceeding will hurt the economies of all nations involved, but since diplo action is inevitable anyway, the pain won`t be decisive I guess. One could say it will hurt the Brits even more, they are relatively weak compared to their enemies.


(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 58
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/3/2018 5:50:56 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

France will fall much sooner anyway.


Not really unless you blitz. The reason is that UK money invested in diplo is usually money that wouldn't be invested in the defense of France anyway (unlike Germany expenditures).

quote:

Hits on Majors are limited to 7-11% afaik.


Nope. The only difference is that you can't get that 10% of major increase like you do with minors. My current AAR saw a 14% increase at some point. The average hit would be about 11%.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 59
RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change - 1/3/2018 6:40:40 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Has anyone seen Uber Diplomacy in reverse? In other words the game proceeds as usual with no Allied uber diplomacy. Then after the Axis conquer France the Germans and Italians immediately purchase the maximum chits in the USSR. Even if the UK counters with 1 chit a turn (which at 150 MPPS a pop is a big investment at that point of the game) the Axis will get an average of 1.5 hits within the first 5 turns. Thereafter they will average a hit every Axis 7 turns. So has anyone done the math to determine if, on average, the Axis can keep Russia out of the War until the late spring (April or May) of 42? I would try this in a future game; but I'm pretty sure I would get below average luck.


I like the USSR play but I wonder if in response the UK player is not better off going for the USA instead in that situation. It's pretty easy to tank the USSR mobilisation especially if you get the jump on him and he's not climbing up the USSR hole by himself anyway. It's always risky to invest in the USSR for the allies because they don't control the barbarossa timetable.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Suggestion for US & USSR Diplomacy Change Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.168