What the with diplomacy??

[Syagrius]

I am aware that I can do just one action per turn with ambassadors, however I am playing France (an UK) and I can't get a single audience or mission, just can send them on station and that's it. I am using diplomats with 3 or 2 ability. Don't know what's going wrong, as I am playing before Russia..

[calvinus]

As I wrote several times, this is why you are surely playing in 4-players mode: your Russian ally has alredy scheduled a diplomatic mission!

[Syagrius]

Thanks Calvinus, that's what I suspected sorry I didnt see any posts on this! As it is right now that means no diplomacy playing 4 players? I like 4 players because as a beginner its easier to manage (less countries)

Will it be modified in the future, it would be nice if it was in alternance no or at least follow the order of play or the countries?

[calvinus]

Thanks Calvinus, that's what I suspected sorry I didnt see any posts on this! Will it be modified in the future, it would be nice if it was in alternance no or at least follow the order of play or the countries?

What I can do, hoping this does not make the game unbalanced, is to allow one diplomatic action per player, not per alliance...
But, on the other hand, many people reported an already too fast war escalation, rather compared to the boardgame version! So you can understand why I'm struggled between the two parties!

The other solutions: order of play and alternance, are very complex to be developed...

[Syagrius]

What I can do, hoping this does not make the game unbalanced, is to allow one diplomatic action per player, not per alliance...
But, on the other hand, many people reported an already too fast war escalation, rather compared to the boardgame version! So you can understand why I'm struggled between the two parties!

The other solutions: order of play and alternance, are very complex to be developed...

Maybe by diminishing the effects of diplo action you will find an happy medium, but hey, your the boss

[calvinus]

Maybe it's off-topic, but what about playing in 2-players mode?

[Franciscus]

I never played the boardgame, but was it not possible to play a 4 player game in the board ?
If yes, how were the diplomatic actions managed ??

[Clovis]

I never played the boardgame, but was it not possible to play a 4 player game in the board ?
If yes, how were the diplomatic actions managed ??

by natural diplomaty between players . Now to teach an AI to be diplomat...

[calvinus]

In the boardgame, 4 players mean 1 per each side/front: France+UK+Italy & Russia+Serbia VS Germany+Austria West Front & Germany+Austria East Front.

This is not possible with the PC game, because each player must manage at least one nation, not a front, for technical reasons.

So the 4-players mode in WW1 is what you know: France+UK+Italy & Russia+Serbia VS Germany & Austria (+Turkey?)...

The problem is that the 4-players mode has been suited for the Multiplayer gaming... where you can "coordinate" yourself with a human being, not an AI ally. So, for example, if you France want to send a diplomat in mission torwards Rumania, you can use the private chat with your Russian ally and tell him "hei, let's send our best ambassadors in Rumania, I'm planning a mission there"... well, this cannot be done with the AI, of course.
Consider this is the most stupid situation! Let's think to all military aspects... Planning a coordinated offensive on both fronts, technological researchs, military doctrines, etc. etc.

[Syagrius]

Yes I understand, in 4 players mode I dont expect to coordinate much with AI allies with attacks etc..However maybe the AI allies should be quite inactive in diplomacy actions then, because as it is now, there is no diplomacy to play with in 4 players mode.

[Tamas]

At one hand I understand non-boardgamers trying to stick to the one country only approach.
On the other hand, I must say I growing somewhat annoyed with it. :P

You are really losing out on the game if you dont play the 2 players variant in single player. Apart from diplomacy (and I would not like to see one action per player, per alliance is the boardgame rule, and it is for a good reason), what about coordinated Great Offensives? Sure, the real allies had problems with that, but not nearly as much as you have to. there is no way to make it possible to coordinate a great offensive with your AI ally (unless you are allowed to plan for it, in which case you could might as well play two players).
That means no offensives like Gorlice or Caporetto.

[Franciscus]

OK, Tamas, I understand your point. What I am starting to feel is that it will probably be impossible to play just as one nation. If that is so, it should be assumed by AGEOD and no further efforts should be spent in it. Also, the starting game menu should be corrected, to make not available to a single player the possibility to choose the 4 player grand campaign.

And this sentence of the press (?) release should also be corrected:

“WW1” vous permettra de jouer la totalité du conflit à la tête d'une des sept principales puissances belligérantes (la Grande-Bretagne, la Russie, la France, l'Italie, le deuxième empire germanique, l'Autriche-Hongrie et l'empire ottoman).

Maybe next time...

[Syagrius]

Well said However I dont regret at all buying the game, I assumed, considering advertisement, that the just one nation option was available. The 4 players mode would be more than acceptable if diplo was working better.

When I start with a new game I like to start more modest and keep the big thing for later when I am more used to it.

[Tamas]

I was thinking about suggesting the removal of the 4 players GC from single player, just like for example WEGO system is disabled for multiplayer, but that may be too harsh.
It should help to concentrate patching efforts, on the other hand.

[Nial]

Well, I play 2 player when I'm playing CP, and 4 player when I'm playing the Entente. I realy have no interest in playing Russia. That is a personal preference. The game has a 4 player mode. So saying one shouldn't play it. Or that if you do you should get used to the bugs associated with it is really not an exceptable answer in my opinion.

How hard would it be to completely disable diplo missions for the AI ally in the 4 player game?

Nial

[calvinus]

It's not hard. Just to stop this discussion, I will do it, you will have this in the next patch.
If the discussion is to take such a tone, I have no problem is responding with the same attitude.

Thanks,
Calvinus.

[calvinus]

OK, Tamas, I understand your point. What I am starting to feel is that it will probably be impossible to play just as one nation. If that is so, it should be assumed by AGEOD and no further efforts should be spent in it. Also, the starting game menu should be corrected, to make not available to a single player the possibility to choose the 4 player grand campaign.

And this sentence of the press (?) release should also be corrected:

“WW1” vous permettra de jouer la totalité du conflit à la tête d'une des sept principales puissances belligérantes (la Grande-Bretagne, la Russie, la France, l'Italie, le deuxième empire germanique, l'Autriche-Hongrie et l'empire ottoman).

Maybe next time...

Well, looking how hard is the life of a game programmer, I have in front of me the English box, where it's written:

"Take control of major WW1 nations and lead..."

and

"8 playable major nations, each with different tropps"

Well, if we like discussing of the sex of angels, I can see only that there is an "unhappy" translation on the French box. That's all to my humble opinion.

Anyway, I repeat: I will disable AI dip. missions if the ally is a human player, stop.

[Rafiki]

Well, if we like discussing of the sex of angels

Ooooo, yes please!

(All angels are women, right?)

((Oh, wait. Did I post that or just think it.....))

[calvinus]

Yes, sure! I always thought angels are women!

[calvinus]

Change done: 4-players mode, AI allied to human player, no more diplomatic missions.

[Syagrius]

Good thanks calvinus, and also don't take it personally when people sounds a little rude, much of us think you give awsome support

[calvinus]

No problem for me. I just intended to cut off an argument that was risking to escalate in a never-ending discussion. My time is short and I must spend my forces on the game, for you all!

[Franciscus]

Calvinus, I feel you somehow got a little pissed with my last post. it was not my intention. I confess a bit of disapointment with the problems with playing as a single nation. Know that I am no boardgamer and had no previous knowledge about LGG the boardgame. I thought the design would include from the beginning a single nation fully playable mode. I expected it, and in the weeks before the game's launch I even started a thread about "which would be your starting nation ?" that was converted to a poll. Dozens of players responded, and also I think they presumed that this could be possible.
Finally, AGEOD being french, I tend to presume that the english phrases are the translation...

That said, I would make a suggestion: Would it be possible in a single nation mode to give the player first place in choosing diplomatic actions but make it possible for the player to decide if the allied AI would get to make any, after the human player, if he so chooses ?. This could be an option that would give some suspense: "What will the Russians do ?"

Best regards

[calvinus]

The game has been developed (by me) in English, then tranlated into French, tons of texts, so something has come out with errors, for sure.

Your suggestion is welcome, but the problem is the complexity of coordination between the AI behaviors and choices and the human player's ones... so than the coding of such matters forces me to put in effect short and simple changes, such as the one I developed: no AI dip. missions if the ally is human...

[Syagrius]

In my game (4 players) playing A-H I am beginning to wonder if the germans are doing anything right in diplomacy, its September 1915 and the Ottomans are not at war and on our side yet! Is it something usual?

[Nial]

In my game (4 players) playing A-H I am beginning to wonder if the germans are doing anything right in diplomacy, its September 1915 and the Ottomans are not at war and on our side yet! Is it something usual?

It sounds a bit unusual. I have had them come in before the Brits ( like the second game turn). But I have also seen them held off till early 1915. I would think it might have something to do with how much the Entente is focusing diplo actions on them. Also diplo actions don't always succeed.

Just my best guesses.

Nial

[calvinus]

Not worring. It may happens, die rolls on diplomacy table...

[tagwyn]

Luca: What about getting the game to play all other players but the one's you play? I.e., a one (1) player campaign game? I can't get another player to commit to playing such a complex and lenghty game? t

[Syagrius]

Its april 1916 in my 4 player game as A-H and the Ottomans and Italians are not at war! Something is wrong no?

[Tamas]

Its april 1916 in my 4 player game as A-H and the Ottomans and Italians are not at war! Something is wrong no?

Well it is highly unusual, but it is possible.