USSR begins game with M/R Pact gains?

[ancient]

According to the screenshot that shows the game setup in 1939, the Soviets seem to begin the game in control of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, etc. Is this really an appropriate abstraction? Games less detailed than this seem to have no problem modeling the gains of the USSR as a result of their agreement with Germany. Why can't Commander deal with this?

[firepowerjohan]

According to the screenshot that shows the game setup in 1939, the Soviets seem to begin the game in control of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, etc. Is this really an appropriate abstraction? Games less detailed than this seem to have no problem modeling the gains of the USSR as a result of their agreement with Germany. Why can't Commander deal with this?

Countries at peace cannot move any units, so it would be difficult to design a front line for USSR around Brest-Litovsk if it does not start with it in 1939.

[borsook79]

According to the screenshot that shows the game setup in 1939, the Soviets seem to begin the game in control of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, etc. Is this really an appropriate abstraction? Games less detailed than this seem to have no problem modeling the gains of the USSR as a result of their agreement with Germany. Why can't Commander deal with this?

Countries at peace cannot move any units, so it would be difficult to design a front line for USSR around Brest-Litovsk if it does not start with it in 1939.

So countries at peace cannot prepare for war by moving units? Why?? Also R-M being a special case it would require some special treatment (i.e. a script that does the necessary movement), giving this land to SU from the very start may hurt player's immersion...

[firepowerjohan]

According to the screenshot that shows the game setup in 1939, the Soviets seem to begin the game in control of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, etc. Is this really an appropriate abstraction? Games less detailed than this seem to have no problem modeling the gains of the USSR as a result of their agreement with Germany. Why can't Commander deal with this?

Countries at peace cannot move any units, so it would be difficult to design a front line for USSR around Brest-Litovsk if it does not start with it in 1939.

So countries at peace cannot prepare for war by moving units? Why?? Also R-M being a special case it would require some special treatment (i.e. a script that does the necessary movement), giving this land to SU from the very start may hurt player's immersion...

We are trying to replicate the weak situation near Poland for USSR and that it takes a time for them to reorganise their defence. We do that with having units at peace not be able to move, by having the railroad limit system in combination with some USSR forces placed further back and by having deployments only near cities (which means USSR can only deploy at Brest-Litovsk but will be weak along the rest of the border).

[borsook79]

Countries at peace cannot move any units, so it would be difficult to design a front line for USSR around Brest-Litovsk if it does not start with it in 1939.

So countries at peace cannot prepare for war by moving units? Why?? Also R-M being a special case it would require some special treatment (i.e. a script that does the necessary movement), giving this land to SU from the very start may hurt player's immersion...

We are trying to replicate the weak situation near Poland for USSR and that it takes a time for them to reorganise their defence. We do that with having units at peace not be able to move, by having the railroad limit system in combination with some USSR forces placed further back and by having deployments only near cities (which means USSR can only deploy at Brest-Litovsk but will be weak along the rest of the border).

But at the same time, even using the example of Poland pre-war movements towards the border were something normal. In fact in case of Poland many troops stationed on the eastern border were moved towards the western one before the 1st of September. Polish army did have some organization problems, but not ones that would prevent troop movements. Perhaps lowering movement range of countries not at war would be justified but not preventing it completely...

[lancerunolfsson]

Hmm, all I can do is make a series of guesses about what is going on here from the posts so far

Guess 1] The reason that units cannot be moved by countries at peace is because at some point it was found easier to do that than to make a separate behavior routine for troop moment for countries at war and or at peace. I can think of all kinds of reasons that this might be so.

Guess 2] There was some problem with redefining the borders in game as apposed to at scenario start.


Guess 3] Problem with disappearing units when hex ownership is redefined in game (problem with Eastern Poland and Vichy in SC1)


I sure I'm probably wrong about some or all of this;^) but the bottom line is that starting with the wrong border is probably a lot easier from the programming stand point.

Now I am sure that the game supports saved games and different scenarios and unit production. Would it not be possible?

1] To actually have the Soviet union declare war on the correct date or when certain conditions are met? So you might wind up with a different border from historical. When Poland is defeated in the 1939 scenario but this is more attractive than what the game has now.

2] When Poland is defeated the scenario resets with the treaty border and Soviets deployed along that border. Stray German units being removed and added to the German production cue as available for deployment.

I think that this problem even exists at this point is really odd. I have really been looking forward to this game coming out but I would much rather wait another 4 months than have it ship like this. I think that this will not be well accepted by a lot of gamers and will generate enough bad word of mouth on the various forums that it could have a negative impact on sales. I actually think you would be better off not shipping a 1939 scenario than shipping one that a lot of people will consider to be terribly wrong and flawed. Or better to issue 1939 as a patch (Or Free Expansion;^) in a couple of months with this serious problem fixed.

I really want this game to do well so that there are follow ups and continued development of the engine. You just can't get the borders wrong in a historical game. Its like making Minnesota part of Canada.

[firepowerjohan]

As can be seen from screenshots, there are National borders and ownership borders. Poland and all other countries in game have correct national borders so we have not compromised that. The ownership border though is what we have setup for each scenario and in the 1939 USSR start with eastern Poland, Baltic States and the Bessarabia.

A hex you click on would read

Brest-Litovsk
Owner : USSR
Nationality : (Polish)
...
...

and you will see on map that this in fact is occupied land, not original borders. We do not have a diplomatic system that allows USSR to invade Baltic States and other small countries while being at peace, so that is why this seemed more fair. It wont affect the gameplay at all though, it is just a popup saying or similar. We do have alot of popups for manpower penalties, oil shortage, tailor made messages for some countries when they join the war and more so I do not think it is fair saying the game has to be buried just because there is a popup missing for "USSR occupy eastern Poland"

[borsook79]

As can be seen from screenshots, there are National borders and ownership borders. Poland and all other countries in game have correct national borders so we have not compromised that. The ownership border though is what we have setup for each scenario and in the 1939 USSR start with eastern Poland, Baltic States and the Bessarabia.

A hex you click on would read

Brest-Litovsk
Owner : USSR
Nationality : (Polish)
...
...

and you will see on map that this in fact is occupied land, not original borders. We do not have a diplomatic system that allows USSR to invade Baltic States and other small countries while being at peace, so that is why this seemed more fair. It wont affect the gameplay at all though, it is just a popup saying or similar. We do have alot of popups for manpower penalties, oil shortage, tailor made messages for some countries when they join the war and more so I do not think it is fair saying the game has to be buried just because there is a popup missing for "USSR occupy eastern Poland"

Ok, this does look so bad, i.e. as long as the player can see it is the occupy land not original SU/Poland border it's acceptable.

[lancerunolfsson]

so I do not think it is fair saying the game has to be buried

Well not Burried;^) But unless the 1939 sceanrio starts after Polish surrender. This reduces the area in play for the Polish campaign. So it isn't just a missing pop up up its part of a country missing, even if each hex is tagged as Polish as apposed to Soviet, if it's still under Soviet control it's Soviet, no matter what it is called. I can sort rationalize that the Germans can only advance to the treaty partition line, though it is dissapointing. Any way I will still buy the game this ain't a deal breaker. But unless I completely missunderstand what you are saying this is somthing that will bother some people enough to take the game off their A list. My first reaction whenever I see somthing that is wrong, is to then wonder what else is wrong? Any way I hope you sell so many copies that you decide to do somthing with at least a basic diplomatic modle like SC1. It really adds a lot to the game. I just sort of assumed it would be there given the strategic scope of the game.

[IainMcNeil]

It is a compromise - one of the major reasons for it was to ensure the USSR had units along the border, which would not happen if the players wa in control as theyknow what will happen when the Germans attack There may have been other solutions but this one seemed to work. We'll look at other options for the future though if this is somethign people feel strongly about.

[firepowerjohan]

Both SC1 and CEaW have the same detail level when it comes to diplomacy, so I do not see how one can claim one has a basic diplomatic system and that the other has not

Both have DoW functions, both have entry dates for Major countres and both have Major countries being pro Axis or pro Allied where you cannot DoW a country on the same side as you. CEaW also use this for minor countries, diving them into neutral, pro-axis and pro-allies, which effectively prevent Axis from DoW Romania for instance, or prevent Allies from DoW Iraq. Both games allow multiple Capitals and define surrender of a country when you have lost all your Capital cities.

SC1 has DoW penalties so that if you DoW one country then you might upset other countries making them join earlier/later. CEaW handles this by means of making conquest tougher so Axis for instance cannot take Spain and Scandinavia and still expect to walk all over Egypt at the same time. Also, the manpower model in CEaW means a invasion could be a Pyrrhue victory if you lost alot of manpower doing it (will hamper you later in game).

SC1 does not allow Major countries to build, deploy, research or move when at peace. CEaW allow them to build, deploy, research but NOT to move (since it would mean USSR will always be 100% prepared when Barbarossa begins).

[borsook79]

It is a compromise - one of the major reasons for it was to ensure the USSR had units along the border, which would not happen if the players wa in control as theyknow what will happen when the Germans attack There may have been other solutions but this one seemed to work. We'll look at other options for the future though if this is somethign people feel strongly about.

Maybe having a "frozen" (can't move in or out) zone instead of blocking all units would be better?

Also do I get this right and there is no diplomacy option in the game?

[IainMcNeil]

This is effectively what we do - but because the 1939 border should be further East than it is without Poland, we have to start the units frozen in the captured part of Poland. Otherwise we'd have to force the USSR to move untis up to the new border when Poland surrendered. We will be looking at a more robust solution for the future. We just didn't feel this was a game braker so did not want to pour too many man hours in to this, taking resources away from other parts of the game.

[borsook79]

This is effectively what we do - but because the 1939 border should be further East than it is without Poland, we have to start the units frozen in the captured part of Poland. Otherwise we'd have to force the USSR to move untis up to the new border when Poland surrendered. We will be looking at a more robust solution for the future. We just didn't feel this was a game braker so did not want to pour too many man hours in to this, taking resources away from other parts of the game.

Definitely it is not a game breaker, just something that is visible from the very start, and considering that even games like GGWAW:AWD have "proper R-M" some may find it strange.

BTW If there are no diplomacy option I assume there are no random events like no coup in Yugoslavia or Nationalistic Spain joining the Axis... How is the case of Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria/Finland etc solved? By date or when player does something?

[firepowerjohan]

This is effectively what we do - but because the 1939 border should be further East than it is without Poland, we have to start the units frozen in the captured part of Poland. Otherwise we'd have to force the USSR to move untis up to the new border when Poland surrendered. We will be looking at a more robust solution for the future. We just didn't feel this was a game braker so did not want to pour too many man hours in to this, taking resources away from other parts of the game.

Definitely it is not a game breaker, just something that is visible from the very start, and considering that even games like GGWAW:AWD have "proper R-M" some may find it strange.

BTW If there are no diplomacy option I assume there are no random events like no coup in Yugoslavia or Nationalistic Spain joining the Axis... How is the case of Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria/Finland etc solved? By date or when player does something?

Ok, now I think I understand what you meant. No, we do NOT have any triggers "IF you DoW this country THEN there is a x% chance some other country will DoW/join you" kind of. Countries (that are pro-axis or pro-allies) join their side by a certain date yes, but sometimes it is in fact smarter to invade them earlier than that. If you await fall 1941 to invade USSR then you will have less time to move forward before the winter and mud comes in hampering your movement

[borsook79]

This is effectively what we do - but because the 1939 border should be further East than it is without Poland, we have to start the units frozen in the captured part of Poland. Otherwise we'd have to force the USSR to move untis up to the new border when Poland surrendered. We will be looking at a more robust solution for the future. We just didn't feel this was a game braker so did not want to pour too many man hours in to this, taking resources away from other parts of the game.

Definitely it is not a game breaker, just something that is visible from the very start, and considering that even games like GGWAW:AWD have "proper R-M" some may find it strange.

BTW If there are no diplomacy option I assume there are no random events like no coup in Yugoslavia or Nationalistic Spain joining the Axis... How is the case of Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria/Finland etc solved? By date or when player does something?

Ok, now I think I understand what you meant. No, we do NOT have any triggers "IF you DoW this country THEN there is a x% chance some other country will DoW/join you" kind of. Countries (that are pro-axis or pro-allies) join their side by a certain date yes, but sometimes it is in fact smarter to invade them earlier than that. If you await fall 1941 to invade USSR then you will have less time to move forward before the winter and mud comes in hampering your movement

Hmm on one hand this approach might seem more historical compared to any random/partially random ones, but on the other in few cases it will result in "only one right choice" situation. E.g. If the Yugoslavian coup is not random and Yugo will join the allies every time on the very same date, German player cannot be surprised by it, like it happen in RL, moreover he will attack Yugo at the first opportunity since if there is no chance of it staying neutral why wait? This limits available strategies a bit, SC2 approach seems a bit better - joining being random and possible to be influenced by players, so a peaceful approach to some theatres is a valid strategic choice. BTW I'm not trying to pick on the game, just stating an opinion, I intend to buy it as soon as it comes out anyway

[IainMcNeil]

We wanted to keep the diplomatic system simple to avoid introducing issues that could be game breakers. There are a lot of potential exploits with any sort of political system like this and we would rather not have people forced to use house rules to avoid the exploits. It is an area we'll be looking at upgrading for the future, but it needs a lot of careful thought and even more testing!

[borsook79]

We wanted to keep the diplomatic system simple to avoid introducing issues that could be game breakers. There are a lot of potential exploits with any sort of political system like this and we would rather not have people forced to use house rules to avoid the exploits. It is an area we'll be looking at upgrading for the future, but it needs a lot of careful thought and even more testing!

Still I'd say that the system in which every diplomatic event happens every time on the very same day will be the cause of many more exploits than any possible alternative. BTW since comparisons have been made - this game is creating havoc in SC2 community

[lancerunolfsson]

Both SC1 and CEaW have the same detail level when it comes to diplomacy, so I do not see how one can claim one has a basic diplomatic system and that the other has not

Sorry Johan
This is where I got that

We do not have a diplomatic system that allows USSR to invade Baltic States and other small countries while being at peace,

I took that to mean that there was no diplomatic system when you are simply stating a limitation of the didplomatic system. Any way i am sure the game will be great fun and it looks very nice. So the main thing for people like me to do is buy it and not worry about anything untill we haved played:^)[/quote]

[ancient]

Countries at peace cannot move any units, so it would be difficult to design a front line for USSR around Brest-Litovsk if it does not start with it in 1939.

Neutral countries couldn't move in SC1 either, but this issue wasn't a problem there. Is there any reasons why an automatic relocation to the new borders at the appropriate times couldn't be done? I'm also concerned about how Vichy will be handled.