AGEOD Forums

Am I wrong or there is no decisions to send diplomats for the Eastern Entente?

Historically russian diplomats did some work with western allies, Romania, Bulgaria and Japan, also Sweden.

EE can't send diplomats, yeah. If you want to control Entente diplomacy, you will have to play both Entente factions. This is a bit of a problem in SP if you don't want to leave diplomacy in the hands of the AI, but only want to play the Eastern Entente.

Owl wrote:EE can't send diplomats, yeah. If you want to control Entente diplomacy, you will have to play both Entente factions. This is a bit of a problem in SP if you don't want to leave diplomacy in the hands of the AI, but only want to play the Eastern Entente.

Is it possibly for one player to control both WE and EE?

Doctor Haider wrote:Is it possibly for one player to control both WE and EE?

Yes, you have to plot your turn with one faction, then press save, load the save game, select the other Entente faction, plot your turn and then resolve it, then repeat the procedure.

Owl wrote:EE can't send diplomats, yeah. If you want to control Entente diplomacy, you will have to play both Entente factions. This is a bit of a problem in SP if you don't want to leave diplomacy in the hands of the AI, but only want to play the Eastern Entente.

Yep, I understood, from the game's perspective, Entente in whole gains the significant advantage over CP, if diplomats are allowed for both WE and EE.

Owl wrote:Yes, you have to plot your turn with one faction, then press save, load the save game, select the other Entente faction, plot your turn and then resolve it, then repeat the procedure.

Too much pain I think the separation of the Entente should reflect the relatevely poor coordination between the east and west allies, especially on the early phase of the war. Controlling both WE and EE give a player too much advantage against the CP AI.

But from other side, the attempts to coordinate offensives actually had place. Also in the game, we cannot see what our western or eastern allies see and don't share their intel data about the enemy.

Human player must be allowed to control all Entente diplomacy in case of SP, whatever it plays EE ou WE

I don't think so. The EE is the ideal faction to learn the game. Only one front (well, later maybe more) and limited naval and diplomatic action. Great for new players who simply want to get the ropes. It is also interesting to see the AI butt heads in the diplo front and let the alternate history take its course without being able to influence it.

Revan wrote:Human player must be allowed to control all Entente diplomacy in case of SP, whatever it plays EE ou WE

Ideally, yes. Because I doubt that WE AI handles diplomacy as well as human player would.

Kensai : But IRL, Russia didn't let the diplomacy goes without interfering. Russian diplomats were on stage in Roumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Sweden and Persia.

That's the thing, in reality the Russians weren't... subservient. At all.

It'd probably mess up the balance some, but we should really see if we can change the EE so that it doesn't send any support directly to the West, but it gets its own diplomats and whatnot.

ohms_law wrote:That's the thing, in reality the Russians weren't... subservient. At all.

It'd probably mess up the balance some, but we should really see if we can change the EE so that it doesn't send any support directly to the West, but it gets its own diplomats and whatnot.

We're not really into the "russians being subservient at all", the thing is that the ability of the E.E to convince others to join them was very limited (to say the least), and the ability to influence some (in the case Romania), is in there in the game in the form of events. I don't think they should have diplomats in the game, I can't really see how the russians could influence the USA or Italy to join the war, just to use some examples...

Angry russia bear no love talking

Revan wrote:Kensai : But IRL, Russia didn't let the diplomacy goes without interfering. Russian diplomats were on stage in Roumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Sweden and Persia.

Yes, they influenced. But I don't think it was the kind of influence the Western Entente abstraction wants to do. Remember, as Russian Empire you can still have diplomatic influence (but to a smaller extend) through a couple of Politics decisions. Romania can be influenced to join your side sooner with a certain decision, when it becomes available.

I think it will be quite difficult to implement Eastern Entente independent diplomacy as the only nations the game is designed to have as EE are Russia, Serbia, and Romania. All the rest join the Western Entente which is historically more accurate. At this time (early 20th century!) the Great Game between the Russian Empire and Great Britain had been concluded and the latter had somehow prevailed in the hegemony. There was no chance Persia or Afghanistan, for example, would come out of the sphere of influence of the United Kingdom, especially after the wars of the 19th century (some of them in Pride of Nations).

That said, I personally feel that having Entente diplomatic influence done only by the West is an understandable limitation and good abstraction. After all, why would someone want to do the diplomatic game of WE in single player when it should be considered a "different" faction with little if any cooperation? It's part of the difficulty. And no, so far I have seen the diplomatic AI do some really nice choices. It is working alright, no worries.

First, it wasn't necessary to do this for game balance - they could have given the WE and EE one diplomat each and the CP two or used any one of a number of other methods to balance the sides. Not that hard really.

Second, they could have given the human EE player the ability to control EE diplomacy and still left WE diplomacy to the AI. Again, not that hard really.

Third, the question of whether Russia might have had more diplomatic influence over the USA or Italy is the wrong question. The better question, from both an historical and gameplay perspective, is what diplomacy Russia (as opposed to France and Great Britain) might want to conduct to advance its own objectives and how much influence would Russia have over those decisions. As but one example, Russia probably would benefit far more from Romania joining the EE or Bulgaria remaining neutral than whether or not the USA joined the war. The Russian player should have the option to make the choice to emphasize what best advances his interests.

Fourth, Russian influence wasn't, and shouldn't be, a static quality. I assume it is permissible for the human player to try to do better on the battlefield than the Russians did historically - that it won't somehow break the game if the EE actually does well? If so, then there's no reason why Russian diplomatic influence shouldn't mirror what's happening on the battlefield.

Fifth, from a gameplay perspective, there certainly is merit in giving the guy who bought the game the ability to play it. As it stands now, the human can play the WE and kinda play the EE. That's not exactly how the game was described. It's pretty hard to rationalize this as the best possible design from the perspective of player choice.

Kinda play the EE? The EE can be tons of fun, without the diplomatic "restrains" the other two players face. It is a different play that many can appreciate. The historical abstraction of Russia is a fight against time. The player needs to make progress as fast as he can, otherwise he might face the catastrophic consequences of the Bolshevik revolution.

Some people don't enjoy diplomacy and want to focus to warfare, the aspect AGEOD games shine. This side is perfect for them, even better than WE (which is medium difficult) and CP (which can be actually hard). But as I said, diplomacy is in albeit limited. Russia was kind of isolated back then anyway, it could only hope on Romania.

Btw, even Romania actually made the deal to join the Entente after becoming convinced by the West, not Russia. Russia simply did its part into keeping its promise.

Kensai wrote:Kinda play the EE? The EE can be tons of fun, without the diplomatic "restrains" the other two players face. It is a different play that many can appreciate. The historical abstraction of Russia is a fight against time. The player needs to make progress as fast as he can, otherwise he might face the catastrophic consequences of the Bolshevik revolution.

Some people don't enjoy diplomacy and want to focus to warfare, the aspect AGEOD games shine. This side is perfect for them, even better than WE (which is medium difficult) and CP (which can be actually hard). But as I said, diplomacy is in albeit limited. Russia was kind of isolated back then anyway, it could only hope on Romania.

Btw, even Romania actually made the deal to join the Entente after becoming convinced by the West, not Russia. Russia simply did its part into keeping its promise.

Kensai

I admire the work that you've done on PON and it's great to see your enthusiasm for EAW, but I think in this instance you're working overtime to miss the point.

Is the EE tons of fun to play? Yes. Even more fun if you could play all parts of the game - including diplomacy. All the things you describe about the fun of playing the EE would be even more fun if you could also play the more strategic side of the game.

Might some players prefer to focus on warfare? Sure. But by that reasoning, you should offer the option to let those players disable diplomacy altogether. And for every player who doesn't like diplomacy, there will be at least one who does.

EE as a great "learning" game? Not sure I see that. Learn the game by playing the hardest faction? One could certainly argue there are better ways to learn the game.

Was Romania, as an historical matter, convinced to join the Entente by the West? Maybe. The reality is far more nuanced than you suggest. But, as you have noted above, it can be great fun for the player to change the historical outcome for the EE on the battlefield. Why not allow the player to do the same in the field of diplomacy - to let Russian influence reflect the results on the battlefield? Why lock the player into an historical straitjacket in one aspect of the game?

The point you're missing is that (1) this is a game, (2) different people like playing different aspects of the game and (3) if you design a game to intentionally remove player choice - to tell the player "you don't get to play this part of the game you bought" - then you better have a very compelling reason. And subjective things like "some people might prefer it this way" or vague historical dogmas or "it can still be fun" rationalizations don't really cut it.

It is not the hardest, it is the easiest. But it has to hurry because its game will end soon. You need to understand: just because the game has three different factions, that does not mean these three factions are created and played equal. This is for the sake of historical accuracy. If we take your reasoning further you might be asking in the future: why not be able to reach the Western entrenchment level as well? Wouldn't that be possible?

The game tries to abstract certain historical realities of the Great War. Russia making an unhistorically aggressive (and successful) diplomacy was not one of them. Consider it a design limitation. Exactly because this is a game, you/we shouldn't take these aspects too seriously. I bet it won't be too difficult to mod the game so that EE gets some diplomacy regional decisions as well, I could help you do that if that is what you really want.

Kensai wrote:You need to understand:

I'll try, to the limits of my feeble intellectual capacity, to understand and extol the greatness of every EAW design decision. If I start to stray from the hymnal again, be sure to correct me.

Looking forward to the patch.

I have not played far enough, so I am just going to ask this here - are there any countries that join the EE instead of the WE if they unlock? Like Bulgaria, Romania, Greece? I can't imagine them joining the WE?

The only nation that joins the EE after the game starts is Romania. All the others will join the WE. Most can join the CP with luck and effort.

Bulgaria, IMO, should join EE if dragged in Entente side. Much more logical.

Well, it's not entirely clear. It takes a lot of what ifs. Bulgaria is like Turkey. It's quite improbable it won't join the Central Powers. If, by some crazy chance, a human rival (no luck so far with the AI) does not consider to influence Bulgaria and it falls to the Entente hands, I believe its situation would be like in Greece.

I can only imagine the British persuading the Bulgarians joining the (West) Entente, as both the French and Russians were quite unhappy with their lot after the dissolution of the Balkan League a few years earlier.

Another question about diplomacy: there are some countries you can not declare war on. Seems to be China, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Brazil.

Do those countries have no army? Or can you just not declare war on them but still get them to 100 %? I guess it would not happen too often. I am just wondering because if they can not join the war anyway it seems rather useless to influence them.

Nvm

Let me state a few HISTORICAL Facts first-
The Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks were part of Ottoman Empire for a long time, they got independence in the 19th century due to Russian and British efforts (British played the game both sides as always and reaped the benefits).
All 3 having no dynasts alive, decided to go for 'imported' German Kings, Europe always imported the German Princes when facing a Dynasty crises, after all they had dozens of dynasties to spare!.
Naturally, these Kings were supportive of Imperial Germany and the Kaiser who was related to all of them; that is why Greeks took so much time to enter the WE even after SALONIKA and Greeks never liked Russia.

As for Romania, King Karl/Carol wanted to join CP but his ministers were Francophile so an uneasy neutrality took place. His successor joined WE, as he was Francophile. Of course all hated Russia as they wanted- Bessarbia.

Bulgaria had lost 2nd Balkan War and hated Romania and Serbia and was seeking revenge. Bulgar Czar was also the Kaiser's relative and was supported by Germany. Bulgaria did not like Russia even though they were age-old allies against the Ottomans.

hence; Russia has rightfully no diplomacy powers so that game is historical.

Kensai wrote:
EE are Russia, Serbia, and Romania. All the rest join the Western Entente which is historically more accurate.

By the way, is it possible to lure Bulgaria in Entente?

Kensai wrote: face the catastrophic consequences of the Bolshevik revolution.

I hope either February Revolution or October Revolutuon of 1917 aren't hardcorded in the game scripts and depend on National Morale level? It would be very strange to get a revolution if you progress much better than historically.

Doctor Haider wrote:By the way, is it possible to lure Bulgaria in Entente?

Theoretically yes. The same goes for the Ottoman Empire and Italy. However the AI is quite deterministic at the moment (something I wish we could change, ie make the AI choose with some lesser probability certain events, especially when not playing the historical war plans, if that possible) and you will almost never have enough influence to drag them to your camp first. In a multiplayer it is possible. There again, few players will let their historical allies slip away.

Doctor Haider wrote:I hope either February Revolution or October Revolutuon of 1917 aren't hardcorded in the game scripts and depend on National Morale level? It would be very strange to get a revolution if you progress much better than historically.

The revolution is not hardcoded in the sense there is no definite date. However decisions by the Germans as well as a low NM and Rebel alignment issues (after getting defeated many times) could lead to the exiting of the Russian Empire from the war.

Shri wrote:
As for Romania, King Karl/Carol wanted to join CP but his ministers were Francophile so an uneasy neutrality took place. His successor joined WE, as he was Francophile. Of course all hated Russia as they wanted- Bessarbia.

That's not such easy. The almost half of the modern Romania then was owned by Austro-Hungary. Any pro-CP sentiments of the monarch strongly opposed the national interests of Romania. Transilvania was much more important at that moment than Bessarabia.