poll - more random political events?

[avoran]

See also viewtopic.php?f=18&t=36918 for discussion

Note we're talking about an OPTION you can choose (or not) on the starting screen.

[Cybvep]

... but what are we voting for, exactly?

[avoran]

It's too early to say yes/no to specific details, but I picture something like this, for example:

- entry dates of certain countries (Axis minor allies, US, USSR if not DOW'ed) might be randomized +/- 5 or more turns, not just +/- 1
- similarly randomize date of Iraqi revolt - better yet, it might not happen at all but there could be a chance of anti-colonial revolts in other African/ME territories instead (pro-Allied if in Libya, pro-Axis if in Egypt, Iraq, etc., would occur in Vichy territory only if the country was already activated, aligned with whoever is at war with Vichy), anti-Soviet partisans in the Baltic States, western Ukraine, Caucasus etc., anti-German partisans in Czechoslovakia?
- Italian surrender could occur after loss of 4 cities - or only 6, 7, 8 (alternatively this could be programmed as a % probably of surrender after the loss of each city starting from 4, say, 50% each time, perhaps make losses a factor?)
- small probability of Spain, Turkey, Vichy France activating for the Axis earlier or more easily than they would under current (or amended) rules, possibly even chance of Axis activation for other countries (Greece? Iran? Ireland?)
- Soviet DOW in case of Axis troops in Iran (and other similar trigger events) would occur as a % chance, not a guaranteed result
- pre-entry US support (lend lease, etc.) could also be more randomized

Probably we can think of lots more

I want to emphasize again that this would be an OPTION, not something you'd have to play with if you prefer the more predictable version.

[Cybvep]

If it's an toggleable option, I think that the idea has merit. Customisation is very good IMO.

It's definitely not sth I would impose on the players.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

A big downside of having variable join dates is that players can reroll to e. g. postpone the date USA joins the Allies. So such dates have to be calculated before turn 1 and stored in the save game. But then the values won't be variable regarding events in the game.

Being unlucky with critical joins can alter the game balance quite a lot. E. g. if USA joins 5 turns earlier than expected then the Axis will struggle. The Allies will struggle if they join 5 turns later than expected. Germany needs that Romania joins in the fall of 1940. If it's delayed for e. g. 5 turns then they receive oil later and might run out of oil too soon.

[Cybvep]

Not everything has to be random. Most important things like the USA activation or the SU activation in 1942 could still work the same way they do ATM, i.e. -/+ 1 turn within a specified date. I agree that it can change balance significantly - that's why it should be a toggeable option. I think that it could greatly increase replayability.

[avoran]

This might be fiddly to program, but one possibility is the shift the odds if the game is played with an 'advantage' to one side or the other

[avoran]

A big downside of having variable join dates is that players can reroll to e. g. postpone the date USA joins the Allies. So such dates have to be calculated before turn 1 and stored in the save game. But then the values won't be variable regarding events in the game.

For certain things (like the US & USSR DOW dates) I don't see this as a problem. It could also be done for Italian surrender (the number of cities required for surrender could be determined on turn 1 but not made known to the players).

Other random events are probably less decisive, so the risk of a somewhat dishonest player replaying the turn to get a result they like better is no higher than it already is when it comes to critical battles. But some of them (e.g. activation dates for Axis minors, Arab revolts, etc.) could probably be determined on turn 1 anyway. Things like Turkey, Spain and Vichy may be trickier - it will depend on exactly what formulas are used.

[avoran]

I would love to see some probability of Finland joining the Axis BEFORE Barbarossa, to give them time for preparations.

[GogTheMild]

I'm very new, but it sounds like a great idea. Some unpredictability for Spain, Turkey, Vichy, Iraq(?) would be good and historically justified. As noted above it would improve re-playability.

Some thoughts:

A random chance of Spain offering to join the Axis, but only in exchange for a monthly payment of PP and oil. (As Franco historically demanded.) The Axis can then decide whether to take it or leave it.

Historically Yugoslavia actually joined the Tripartite Pact. But this was then foiled by a coup d'etat. Rather than have the game run on rails, why not have all four of Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria default to joining the Axis but with a small chance (25%?) that they don't? (Which raises the question of what happens if they don't and Germany chooses not to invade? A random chance that they join the allies, or perhaps the Axis, at some future stage? Possibly sparked by specific event? (Fall of Moscow, surrender of Italy, etc.) Or could they be bribed - see Spain above - possibly by either side?)

Separately I find the Italian surrender conditions the single most irritating feature of GS. I would be strongly in favour of some element of randomness. Possibly combining the Italian manpower status and cities captured. Introducing a manpower element would be both historically accurate and give an element of control to the Axis: really burn through the Italians and they may just spontaneously surrender. Be more careful and they might fight on to the fall of Rome. (Of course, being gentle with the Italians makes the fall of Rome more likely. )

[avoran]

So far the yes camp is winning... I kind of thought it would

Of course, if this work is ever done it will be done by (probably the same) volunteers who did the previous mods. So it's really up to them.

[ncali]

I'm open to a very small bit of additional randomness - primarily with entry dates, but agree that balance is very important. All in all, I wouldn't want to see too much change. For example, adjusting the entry date for the Soviets in 1942 could be a big deal given the weather issues on the Eastern Front.

[avoran]

It would probably be best to have the random politics toggles broken down a bit by their importance to game balance, e.g.:
- more random entry dates/activation for US, USSR, Axis minors?
- more randomness in other political events (Iraqi etc. revolt, lend lease, Italian surrender, new partisan areas)?

Incidentally here's another idea of something that could be randomized to some extent: morale loss on DOW or the fall of Belgium, possibly with an increasing scale in response to how many countries have already been conquered

[Samhain]

I can think of about 5 reasons for Ireland coming nowhere near to joining the axis. If we were to have these random entries then what I suggest would be they start off with 0% chance of joining either side then at the end of every turn from turn 3 to turn 51 inclusive the chance of the countries joining the axis goes up by 1%. Then from turn 52 to the last turn inclusive the countries' chances of joining the axis goes down by 1% and their chance of joining the allies goes up by 1%. Then if one of the random entry countries joins either side then it decreases the chances of all of the other countries joining either side depending on how many random entry countries there are.
Example:
There are 5 random entry countries and turn 7 has ended. On turn 8 the countries have a 5% chance of joining the axis when the axis turn begins. The first country is checked and it joins the axis. Now 1/5 (20%) of the countries have taken a side. The chance of the other countries joining now gets reduced by 20% so now the rest have a 4% chance of joining and the next country is checked.
There are flaws to this of course but I disagree with having random entry countries in the first place as the payoff for those countries for joining seem to be less than the risks especially early on, minor powers after all can't make their own units and have far less manpower.

[avoran]

I can think of about 5 reasons for Ireland coming nowhere near to joining the axis.

IRL I'm sure you're right - the chances of the Irish doing that were virtually nil (though maybe slightly higher if the Germans had succeeded in occupying Britain). But the British were concerned about the possibility, so why not add a bit of spice to the game?

I like the idea of having the probability of one country joining affecting the probability of others negatively (opposite to reality, of course, but good for game balance). And in and of itself that doesn't prevent the results from being calculated on turn 1 - we just need the right formula.

[avoran]

A big downside of having variable join dates is that players can reroll to e. g. postpone the date USA joins the Allies. So such dates have to be calculated before turn 1 and stored in the save game. But then the values won't be variable regarding events in the game.

Not so. A random seed could be generated on turn 1. But it would then be plugged into a formula that takes account of game events.

[avoran]

So 2.2 is now in the works - somehow I didn't think it would be that soon.

Maybe the ideas in this thread (and the related viewtopic.php?f=18&t=36918) should also be up for consideration?

[avoran]

There's a 2-to-1 majority in favour of this: why aren't we seeing any response from the people doing the mod? If you just don't want to do it, please at least say so!

[joerock22]

There's a 2-to-1 majority in favour of this: why aren't we seeing any response from the people doing the mod? If you just don't want to do it, please at least say so!

I've never been one of the people who actually does the modding, but I think I know why the modders are apparently not working on this right now. It's a BIG project, mostly because you are talking about so many different variables. People would have to choose how much randomness they want for every little change (Italian surrender, Spanish entry, etc.). And everyone will have a different opinion about how much randomness they want. That means holding a ton of polls, and having a ton of discussion.

The fastest way for this to happen as an option is probably for other people besides the GS modders to take the lead.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Diplomacy is better implemented in CEAW 2 if it's ever made. The CTGW game engine by Lordz seems more suited for such an expansion. We need a new CEAW to have some selling points.

Besides, it's quite a bit of work to make the interfaces needed to handle diplomacy. We need more buttons in the command window etc. So that means redoing the existing interface to get room for more buttons etc.

It's not a part of GS v2.2. The development for GS v2.2 is almost over. GS v2.2 is mainly chrome changes plus the changes to the sub warfare.