Diplomacy

[stockwellpete]

"Diplomacy is handled somewhat abstractly. What affects your relationship with other neutrals are events within the game such as the first to use a gas technology, unrestricted submarine warfare, how well your armies are performing by capturing important objectives, and declaring war on other countries. Here we can see our relationship with the USA - which is neutral at this point in the game.

I must admit a twinge of disappointment with Diplomacy, there is no provision for the player to 'spend' diplomacy points to try and influence countries in a more direct way. Saying that, there is more than enough to do in the rest of the game - so it's only a twinge."

This is from this review here (3rd review down) . . .

viewtopic.php?f=102&t=39365

I think that it is a fair comment to say the diplomacy is very weak at the moment. Perhaps it is something that can be developed in time? For example, it is reasonable to suggest that the intervention of Italy and the USA in the war may well have been affected by diplomatic intervention. Both countries seemed to be bitterly divided about joining the war. Maybe some political concessions would have altered their decisions? For example, what if Germany had conceded Trento to Italy. And what if Germany had apologised/paid reparations to the USA for the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and stopped their submarine attacks? Woodrow Wilson had been re-elected as President on an anti-war platform in 1916.

What do people think about this?

[bebro]

I do not own the game yet, but read here with interest

So I don't know anything about the actual game mechanics, but to the suggestion regarding an apology towards a US - should this maybe cost Germany some nat. moral?

[stockwellpete]

I do not own the game yet, but read here with interest

So I don't know anything about the actual game mechanics, but to the suggestion regarding an apology towards a US - should this maybe cost Germany some nat. moral?

Yes, something like that could be included too.

I have found this brief excerpt about Italy in 1914 (2nd paragraph) which is very interesting about Trentino and gives us a plausible "what if" that might be included in a more developed diplomacy component to the game . . .

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 1425777051

Of course, the Central powers did not offer Trentino (actually held by Austria-Hungary) and eventually they signed the secret London Pact in 1915 and came into the war on the Entente side. If they had been offered Trentino they may have stayed neutral, or may have restricted hostilities to just fighting against Turkey again. They had acquired the Dodecanese islands just off the Turkish mainland in a short war against Turkey shortly before 1914.

There almost certainly must be a number of similar diplomatic "what-ifs" that might be considered for this game.

[adherbal]

We do want to extend the diplomactic system, but in a way that doesn't force the player to put too much time in it if they don't want to. More something to experiment with when trying more original strategies to win the game.

Whether this will happen in a patch, expansion or sequel is too early to tell though.

[nobikaigan]

We do want to extend the diplomactic system, but in a way that doesn't force the player to put too much time in it if they don't want to.

Good plan... There are a lot of things like that, where a lot of people would not enjoy a more detailed, time consuming mechanic to handle something such as diplomacy... If possible it should be developed as an option. Like a difficulty setting for 'full diplomatic system' that the player can choose to have on or off at games start. I also think things like fog of war, research focus etc. should be done like that. Kind of lets the player decide how in depth they want the UI to be...

[stockwellpete]

Good plan... There are a lot of things like that, where a lot of people would not enjoy a more detailed, time consuming mechanic to handle something such as diplomacy... If possible it should be developed as an option. Like a difficulty setting for 'full diplomatic system' that the player can choose to have on or off at games start. I also think things like fog of war, research focus etc. should be done like that. Kind of lets the player decide how in depth they want the UI to be...

Yes, that would be the best way to go. A pre-game menu to choose these sort of options and then everyone is happy.

[stockwellpete]

Whether this will happen in a patch, expansion or sequel is too early to tell though.

Well, that has got my attention! I was going to ask the question about how the development team viewed the game. Whether it was more or less complete (give a patch or two) or whether there were other elements that might be added to the game in due course. Diplomacy is an obvious one - but I can think of others that might deepen the gameplay such as espionage and the war outside the map area we have now (e.g. Tsingtao, Battle of Coronel, German East Africa etc). This last group are what might be termed "secondary elements" while diplomacy is certainly a primary element and I would regard it as a priority in terms of developing the game really.

[adherbal]

We plan to continue improving the Commander game design. Some of the features we want for the next game in the series may already be brought to CTGW in patch or expansion. It takes some extra time to get the balancing right, but at the same time provides a means to test the feature properly in an otherwise finished game environment. Extended diplomacy might be one of those features.

No promises yet about what will be added and when though, at some point we'll have to focus our attention on the next project and consider CTGW as "case closed".

[Zitadelle]

We do want to extend the diplomactic system, but in a way that doesn't force the player to put too much time in it if they don't want to.

Good plan... There are a lot of things like that, where a lot of people would not enjoy a more detailed, time consuming mechanic to handle something such as diplomacy... If possible it should be developed as an option. Like a difficulty setting for 'full diplomatic system' that the player can choose to have on or off at games start. I also think things like fog of war, research focus etc. should be done like that. Kind of lets the player decide how in depth they want the UI to be...

This is a great idea!!! +1

[stockwellpete]

I mentioned Italy earlier in the thread - now let's have a look at Bulgaria.

Bulgaria wanted to regain territories in Macedonia lost to Greece and Serbia in the Second Balkan War (1913) and saw Germany as the more likely power to assist them. The Entente attack at Gallipoli (1914-5) was partly intended to discourage the Bulgarians from joining the Central Powers but this military campaign was a failure. On the other hand, after the major victory by the Germans against the Russians at Gorlice-Tarnow (May 1915) negotiations began with Bulgaria.In desperation the Entente tried to get Bulgaria on its side by belatedly offering the territories in Macedonia but Bulgaria eventually sided with Germany in the war, as we know.

So here is another very plausible historical "what-if" that could be re-created in a diplomatic component for the game. It was the German military success that persuaded Bulgaria to join the alliance - so what if that success had not happened? Might Bulgaria have joined the Entente instead?

[Myrddraal]

Bulgaria also had a mutual defence pact with the Ottoman Empire even before the war started iirc. They were pretty inclined towards the CP I think, especially because of the vulnerability of Serbia to a Bulgarian attack. Perhaps the Entente might have delayed their entry to the war through negotiations, and perhaps even prevented it completely if the Entente was clearly winning the war, but I'm not sure they could ever have been persuaded to actually join the Entente and fight the Austro-Hungarians.

[stockwellpete]

Bulgaria also had a mutual defence pact with the Ottoman Empire even before the war started iirc. They were pretty inclined towards the CP I think, especially because of the vulnerability of Serbia to a Bulgarian attack. Perhaps the Entente might have delayed their entry to the war through negotiations, and perhaps even prevented it completely if the Entente was clearly winning the war, but I'm not sure they could ever have been persuaded to actually join the Entente and fight the Austro-Hungarians.

Ok, that is interesting. In terms of the game, Bulgaria remaining neutral or delaying their entry would give it an interesting twist every now and again. With all these what-if's they need to occur maybe 1 in 8 times or 1 in 10 times, depending on how many of them are programmed into the game. So if you come up with 10 plausible what-ifs then you would probably only want none, one or, very occasionally, two of them to happen in any single game, I would think.

Two other plausible what-ifs that I can think of right now are the USA's entry into the war in 1917 might not have happened, or could have been delayed. Wilson was elected on a pro-neutrality platform in 1916. Not only the Lusitania (1915) and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 helped to push the USA towards intervention, but also the Zimmerman telegram promising large chunks of south east USA to Mexico if she joined the war on the Central Powers' side was very important. There was also a serious bombing incident carried out by German agents. The other what-if is supposing Germany did not facilitate lenin's passage through Europe to Russia? The February Revolution would still have happened, but not the October Revolution. Without the presence of Lenin, the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks may well have re-grouped together and supported Kerensky (believing that Russia had to go through a capitalist stage before socialism was possible).

[Umeu]

the usa entry is already a what-if in the game, if you do not sink convoys they do not join.

sadly not sinking convoys is not the best choice for the central powers, but i also think the usa joins too fast if the central powers do. the game seems favored early on for the central powers with the ability to blitz but this changes around rather soon (around late 1915) and from then on it heavily favors the allies for a number of reasons (unbalanced naval warfare, 5 allied nations can produce artillery while only 2 axis nations can, quality of troops falls sooner for the central powers, etc) this is not really apparant vs ai, it is alot more clear in multiplayer though.

this is why i would not like to see a bulgarian what if (it already is kinda in the game, if you knock out one of the central power nations before bulgaria has joined, they will not join). the joining of bulgaria is really key, because if you have not knocked out serbia (which will be hard vs any good player online) they will be your only chance of quickly knocking out serbia and reinforce the italian front. if bulgaria does not join there is simply no way the joining of italy will not mean end of game for central powers every time it happens.

[stockwellpete]

the usa entry is already a what-if in the game, if you do not sink convoys they do not join.

Yes, it is - but it is a bit clumsy at the moment. And submarine warfare was only one of the factors in driving America to war.

this is why i would not like to see a bulgarian what if (it already is kinda in the game, if you knock out one of the central power nations before bulgaria has joined, they will not join). the joining of bulgaria is really key, because if you have not knocked out serbia (which will be hard vs any good player online) they will be your only chance of quickly knocking out serbia and reinforce the italian front. if bulgaria does not join there is simply no way the joining of italy will not mean end of game for central powers every time it happens.

Well, that is why I agree with the chap who says that these elements should be optional at the start of a game (if the developers think they are any good, that is). In real life, the Great War was in the balance right into the middle of 1918 so to follow an orthodox narrative will give you a very well-balanced campaign game (with a few tweaks here and there). But for replayability's sake then I think things like varying the length of the winters; varying the various convoy routes and the frequencies of convoys; and including some diplomatic what-ifs (for those players who want to try them out) can only help to keep the game fresh. I am only talking about tinkering at the edges of the game here - I think the developers have really nailed the dynamic of the continental land war between 1914 and 1918.