Praise and Proposal

[zechi]

First of all I want to compliment the entire GS-Mod Team for their hard work. You have made a good game into a very good game and provided me with many enjoyable hours playing the GS-Mod. Many thanks for all what you have done.

Sceondly, I have a proposal which could from my point of view enhance the game even more. The biggest drawback of the game (with or without GS-Mod) is from my experience that many games develop very similar. I know that there many possible strategies and approaches to the game, but nevetheless the timeline of the game follows a relative strict order of events. The game simulates very good the course of the real war, but I have always felt that the diplomatic activities of the major powers and possible outcomes of these activities are not simulated at all or even simulated badly, becaused the development of diplomatic events is strictly preset. It is only possible to declare war on neutral countries, but not possible to sway them into you alliance.

I don't know if it is possible to add a very simple diplomatic system to the game, so perhaps my proposal is useless, but I think it would greatly enhance the game and especially the replayibility of the game.

My proposal would be to allow the major powers to buy neutral countries into their alliance. The PPs for buying the country into the alliance represents the diplomatic effort for getting the country in question into you alliance. Of course the price to buy the individual neutral countries in, would be dependent on the importance (military forces, production etc.) of the respective neutral country. Furthermore, the price for getting a country into your alliance could also be dependent on the development of the game/war. This could be roughly represented through the number of capitals an alliance currently holds, so that it would be cheaper for Germany to buy a neutral country in after the defeat of France for example.

I want to illustrate my proposal according with the example of Spain. As most of you will know, Hitler tried to persuade the spanish dictator Franco to join the Axis after the defeat of France in Fall 1940. However, Franco made demands that Hitler was not willing to concede. Nevertheless, would Hitler have agreed to Francos demands, Spain would have most surely joined the Axis. This would be even more probable would Germany had tried and sucessfully invaded Great Britain in Operation Sealion, a feat which is difficult in GS-Mod, but not impossible.

Translated into the GS-Mod this could for example mean the following. At the outbreak of the War the price the Axis would have to pay to sway Spain into their alliance would be 300 PP (this is just a proposal, if this price justified would have to be tested). Spain would join as a minor power with all troops and full production, but 300 PP would be a heavy price, which the Axis will normally not be able to afford (which would be quite realistic at the outbreak of the real war).

However, the price would fall if Germany is succesful in the War. For each major capital conquered Germany the price drops for 50 PP. For example after the Fall of France the price for "buying" Spain in would fall to 250 PP. Should Germany succesfully conquer London, the price would fall to 200 PP. It would further drop to 150 PP if the Axis get Moscow etc. This would mean that the German player would have carefully calculate if it is worth to pay the (high) price for getting another ally. For example if Germany buys in Spain after the fall of France, the high price of 250 PP would have a significant effect on the preparations for Operation Barbarossa.

Of course the price in PPs for the neutral countries should be different dependent on the production, army and strategic value the countries posses. Portugal for example would cost at the beginning of the War only 100 PP for either side and the price drops for each capital conquered by 20 PP (as mentioned above these numbers are not set in stone and would have to be tested).

Of course some countries cannot not be bought into one of the alliances. I would suggest for example that a country like Switzerland with a strict neutral policy should not be bought into either alliance. Of course countries which are Pro-Axis like Hungary or Pro-Allied like Egypt cannot be bought in by the opposing alliance. However, the system could allow to buy these countries early into the alliance they will join at a fixed date: For example hungary could be bought into the Axis in 1939 or early 1940 if Germany is willing to pay a fixed price for it. The benefit would be to better prepare for Barbarossa and to get some Oil-Production a little bit earlier.

In addition the diplomatic system could allow to delay certain events, such as the declaration of war by the US and/or USSR. For example should the Axis do not want to go for a Barbarossa in 1941, they could delay the declaration of war by the USSR after the fixed date of entry in October 1941 by paying each round a fixed number of PPs to the USSR. I find it quite unrealistic that the USSR would always declare War in October 1941 if Germany did not attack. I know that there are some theories that the USSR would have attacked Nazi Germany on the first good opportunity, but I do no think that Fall 1941 this would have been the case. However, I'm not sure if this is idea would not endanger the game balance tu much.

To sum it up, I think the game could be furhter enhanced by a simple diplomatic system like this, which could alter the fixed events given by the timeline of the war and would make new strategies and approaches possible.

[Clark]

Interesting thoughts. I like the idea of adding a diplomacy function to the game, but instead of PPs, you have so many diplomacy points per turn to play, which could grow as your faction became more successful in the game. All neutral countries that currently remain neutral in GS throughout the war if no war is declared (Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden, just to name a few) would be assigned a score on a scale from aligned to totally opposed, and you could spend your points each turn trying to sway those neutrals. If you get a country to be "aligned" with you, it still would take a random result to get them to enter the war on your side.

So for example if the Axis wanted Spain, they would spend their diplomatic points each turn targeting Spain, which should be easy to get them aligned with the Axis because Spain was already "leaning" that way. But the Allies would be also spending most of their diplomatic points every turn responding to the Axis overtures to Spain, trying to make sure that there was no chance of the Axis adding Spain at any time during the war. Or instead of trying to block the Axis diplomatic offensive in Spain, the Allies could spend their diplomatic points in Sweden trying to get Sweden in on their side at a crucial point later in the war, or they could spend points in Turkey trying to head off an eventual Axis overture to the Turks. But even if Spain were "aligned" with the Axis, it would only then be eligible for a random result which would push them into the war on the Axis side. They could still be pushed and pulled out of and back into "aligned" status by the Allies and Axis continuing to spend diplomatic points wooing them.

That's my idea on diplomacy - no idea how hard it would be to code that into the game.

[zechi]

This would also be an interesting idea. However, I fear this would be even harder to code into the game than my idea. Nevertheless, it would nice to hear from the designers of the GS Mod if there is a chance for a simplistic diplomacy system in the future. I think such a system would give the game many new approaches.

[rkr1958]

This would also be an interesting idea. However, I fear this would be even harder to code into the game than my idea. Nevertheless, it would nice to hear from the designers of the GS Mod if there is a chance for a simplistic diplomacy system in the future. I think such a system would give the game many new approaches.

I'm afraid adding any sort of diplomacy system is not in the cards. Even though a simple one might be easy to code the amount of play testing and tweaking necessary to get the game balanced as well as we have it now, not to mention maintaining historical believability, requires a tremendous amount of play-testing and effort.

[Clark]

This would also be an interesting idea. However, I fear this would be even harder to code into the game than my idea. Nevertheless, it would nice to hear from the designers of the GS Mod if there is a chance for a simplistic diplomacy system in the future. I think such a system would give the game many new approaches.

I'm afraid adding any sort of diplomacy system is not in the cards. Even though a simple one might be easy to code the amount of play testing and tweaking necessary to get the game balanced as well as we have it now, not to mention maintaining historical believability, requires a tremendous amount of play-testing and effort.

That's very understandable!!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The point is that we have to stop evolving GS at one point. If we continue to develop forever then we would actually prevent the development of CEAW2. I don't know if it's in the pipeline or not, only Slitherine can answer that. I'm sure there would be a market for CEAW2, e. g. with paratroopers, marines, diplomacy and other nice stuff. So it's a good thing leaving out new stuff for a future CEAW game.

That means suggesting improvements to GS is good because ideas might be picked up and implemented in a future game.

The version we have now seems to be balanced and pretty much bug free. Adding a lot of new content means we have to start all over with balancing and playtesting.