Abusing the Cede Order

[brogan]

I think all OMG orders are gamey and should not be used.  Its not fair that your 18 T-34's attack my infantry that I left in the province while they were painting fences.  Let's get rid of all OMA and OMN orders too and just play via diplomacy.  Oh wait its a game with rules!  Anything inside the rules is fair I say.

[Reece]

Think Predator hit that big alien skull while being bounced around in a tank going cross country and is suffering memory failure. CR in game 102 had most of its forces fighting in the Balkans against Romania and Bulgaria (Positions that played long after Baltic bit the dust) as well as had a army in Poland when Predator dropped. Persia Turkey and SR had dropped fortunately for me but still had 80 divisions along my Southern border. I certainly wasn't going to leave those divisions available to attack if someone picked up the positions however this was done with small forces that isolated the armies vice attacking them. When Persia, Turkey and SR were active and were working with the Balkans and I was facing a five to 1 fight with multiple bomber groups attacking my positions I received no help from Baltic who was engaged in Poland. NR and FInland each provided troops to help defend however. CR Survived and found some new TA's after the the others dropped.

I also agree that you can't abuse orders. Every country has the same ability to submit orders and for every type of order their is a counter that could also be used. We all have things we would like tweaked in Victory to improve the game however the biggest problem in game dynamics is dropped positions. Replacing a active country with a computer controlled position has a far greater effect than any so called abuse of orders. Fortunately with such a small player base we have fewer drops but they still occur and each time drastically change the game. The only solution I could ever think of was if Russ charged a sign up fee of say 100-200$ which would be forfeited if a player dropped and while that would discourage dropping it probably wouldn't eliminate it completely. 

[Marklen X]

I completely concur with your conclusion about dropped positions. Players who drop with a viable position, because they don't think they can win, are the bane of Victory!

[The Fremen]

4 hours ago, Marklen X said:

I completely concur with your conclusion about dropped positions. Players who drop with a viable position, because they don't think they can win, are the bane of Victory!

In that very same game. We  destroyed a whole Iraqi SS army and his JU88’s as well as a whole group of escorts and that led to his drop and all  of his allies which we didn’t even touch yet. 🙁 fast forward to 103 and nearly the same group of players all dropped when me and my allies seized the western side of the Dardanelles. That left nations like TJ and UAE with zero players to fight almost from the beginning of the game. Double 🙁🙁

[Rednas]

Yes that ist true...but till now I did not drop the game...even not after playing the game for 50 turns against pc controlled nations. 

Dropping the game is always bad for the TA's, if there are any, but forcing a player to continue to play and pay for something he does not want to...that is not good for the player, TA's and the game. Players who drop too quick and too often, could have a difficult start in new games. 

Greetings Rednas

[Hamish]

I think ceding a province to trap an army in the city is a perfectly fine tactic, as Sweden has experienced in game 105. I do not feel it is abusing the rules. The rules are what they are, everybody knows this is a possibility, and the resolution is to declare war on all your enemies' total allies if you're afraid this might have happened.

The declaration of war can get a bit problematic when your enemy is in what I would call an extended TA group, as morale will take a bigger, maybe disproportionate hit if you have to declare war on 5 or maybe even more countries, just to be sure you can conquer a province. I think there are three possible solutions for this:

1. Limit TA groups to 5. If you agree to a TA with a country, you agree to a TA with all it's total allies as well.
2. Limit the CL order so that you can only cede occupied territory to anyone but the original owner if you own both the province and the city.
3. Reduce the morale cost for declaring war.

The first two require code changes to the game I suppose, so neither is going to happen anytime soon I'm afraid. Maybe reducing the morale cost of the DW order is feasible.

[gecko]

Or should the TA agreements show up in the RWE report, like DW and peace agreements?

[The Fremen]

The declaration of war can get a bit problematic when your enemy is in what I would call an extended TA group, as morale will take a bigger, maybe disproportionate hit if you have to declare war on 5 or maybe even more countries, just to be sure you can conquer a province. I think there are three possible solutions for this:
 

 

This is what the issue really is. With players being able to join in groups these days the probability is high that there will be these extended TA groups. losing 200 or more morale early on is a hit most players wont be able to take and could easily lead to a force peace. I agree that it is a viable tactic however so perhaps some sort of fix/compromise could be implemented.

[Marklen X]

On 3/15/2021 at 7:39 PM, gecko said:

Or should the TA agreements show up in the RWE report, like DW and peace agreements?

I like this idea

[Hamish]

On 3/16/2021 at 3:39 AM, gecko said:

Or should the TA agreements show up in the RWE report, like DW and peace agreements?

This is only a substitute for a few SIM TC orders, it doesn't fix the real problem. Even if you know your enemies TA structure, the morale hit you get from having to declare war on every one of them is the same. 6 DWs still costs 300 morale.

[dageraad]

Reduce the DW cost to morale for a DW to a country that is TA'd to a country that you are already at war with. 

Add +20% to breaking an alliance, TA  or NAP if that country is TA'd with a country that you are already at war with 

[Hamish]

On 3/19/2021 at 7:41 PM, dageraad said:

Reduce the DW cost to morale for a DW to a country that is TA'd to a country that you are already at war with. 

Add +20% to breaking an alliance, TA  or NAP if that country is TA'd with a country that you are already at war with 

That sounds like a possible solution.

[brogan]

On 11/25/2020 at 11:31 PM, The Fremen said:

I know many of you remember the dreaded Terror attack option of the OMN CB order. After relentless abuse this was removed as was the morale loss from such attacks. 
 

enter another way to indirectly drop the morale of a nation using the CL order. Using interconnected Groups of TA’s a territory can be ceded like a hot potato forcing the target nation to declare war on all tentacles of the alliance. A clear abuse of the CL order and something that should be addressed. Maybe remove the morale loss for Declaring war? Or maybe increase the morale loss of the cede order significantly when the territory ceded is NOT ceded to the original owner? 

But the nations ceding the area back and forth take a morale hit too, and its pretty substantial.  

[The Fremen]

8 hours ago, brogan said:

But the nations ceding the area back and forth take a morale hit too, and its pretty substantial.  

This is true but the CB order can be performed many times against the same city per turn. I believe the max morale loss was 3 but if 5 nation each did 5 CB’ s the morale loss was even more substantial…… quite a bit more😉. And then there was the SB that could be done as well. The loss in morale pales in comparison 😉😉

[brogan]

On 7/12/2021 at 5:17 AM, The Fremen said:

This is true but the CB order can be performed many times against the same city per turn. I believe the max morale loss was 3 but if 5 nation each did 5 CB’ s the morale loss was even more substantial…… quite a bit more😉. And then there was the SB that could be done as well. The loss in morale pales in comparison 😉😉

There is no CB order to attack morale anymore and hasn't been for many years, I would not bring this up as its invalid now.