Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Session 8 - Monday, 9th August Options · View
Nieldo
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:18:02 AM
 2nd Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 117
Location: Manchester, UK
I would propose some changes in the pacific theatre and naval aspect for the next hoi3 Monday game, whenever it may be.

1) Boost the Infra in Indonesia/Australia to at least level 2, or to pre-SemperFi levels, the new infra rule works well for Finland and Africa. But I think it ruins the combat in Indonesia, you are forced to port hop, no real combat takes place. And as for Australia not being able to move units at least along its coast? 0.o

2) I think most of the major naval nations found how effective CAGs launched from land bases were, I raged hard in the last session because of it Sick, and I managed to cause mega damage to the US fleets attacking Mili with them. I think its clearly overpowered. Possibly create a new rule against operating CAGs from land bases?

3) Naval fleet retreat ping pong. An enemy naval fleet retreats from combat, it does not have any influence on where its fleet goes to, and it is not fast enough to outrun any pursuing fleets. So maybe a new rule on engaging retreating fleets, you can only engage a retreating fleet once, before you have to let the player at least have some input on where his fleet runs to. You can still chase them, but just not ping pong the fleet around until it is entirely destroyed, because that's just not fun for anyone. I was on the end of this, as was UK when their fleet retreated to port and the US I'm sure suffered this.

I dunno, what do you guys think?
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:21:17 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I took a look on wiki, it seems that convoys/escorts don't need manpower.

Fiendix - I understand your point. I think that in this case (mostly Japan) did bleed UK dry in India.
I would not nerf policies so much maybe, but:


Local Partisan Support: 1%
Local Manpower Modifier: -25% #to -40
Local Leadership Modifier: -40% #to -50
Local Industrial Capacity: -100%

Military Government (sum of negative = -210%)

Local Partisan Support: 2%
Local Manpower Modifier: -50% #to -60?
Local Leadership Modifier: -60% #to -70
Local Industrial Capacity: -75% #to -80

Full Occupation (sum of negative = -210%)

Local Partisan Support: 5%
Local Manpower Modifier: -75% # to -80%
Local Leadership Modifier: -80% # to -90%
Local Industrial Capacity: -50% # to -40%

Total Exploitation (sum of negative = -225%, always been quite awful already, just for when one really really needs IC and doesn't neet to transport supply, if anything, should be made better [drop partisan support to bit lower, 8?], but I'll leave that up to debate...)

Local Partisan Support: 10% Yes, 8%
Local Manpower Modifier: -100%
Local Leadership Modifier: -100%
Local Industrial Capacity: -25%
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:23:06 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Daniel wrote:
Germany didn't have 50 leadership prior Barbarossa. IIRC we had 40 or slightly more. It was Western Russia that granted us more and some time limited events giving 10% boost each (after winning important battle with Soviets/capturing important city).

So it's not as off as you think.


True - 36 usa and 42ish ger is not too off if germany has to cover officers losses.. A lot is based here on russias "not in depth "defence.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:29:24 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:


Local Partisan Support: 1%
Local Manpower Modifier: -25% #to -40
Local Leadership Modifier: -40% #to -50
Local Industrial Capacity: -100%

Military Government (sum of negative = -210%)

Local Partisan Support: 2%
Local Manpower Modifier: -50% #to -60?
Local Leadership Modifier: -60% #to -70
Local Industrial Capacity: -75% #to -80

Full Occupation (sum of negative = -210%)

Local Partisan Support: 5%
Local Manpower Modifier: -75% # to -80%
Local Leadership Modifier: -80% # to -90%
Local Industrial Capacity: -50% # to -40%

Total Exploitation (sum of negative = -225%, always been quite awful already, just for when one really really needs IC and doesn't neet to transport supply, if anything, should be made better [drop partisan support to bit lower, 8?], but I'll leave that up to debate...)

Local Partisan Support: 10% Yes, 8%
Local Manpower Modifier: -100%
Local Leadership Modifier: -100%
Local Industrial Capacity: -25%


i just dont like paradox big steps - think a mod of 10 diff is huge. Makes stuff easier to balance when huge boosts are not handed out all the time. Otherwise we face a huge issue of germany going uber stats with half of russia.


Local Partisan Support: 1%
Local Manpower Modifier: -25% #to -60
Local Leadership Modifier: -40% #to -60
Local Industrial Capacity: -90%

Military Government

Local Partisan Support: 2%
Local Manpower Modifier: -50% #to -70?
Local Leadership Modifier: -60% #to -70
Local Industrial Capacity: -75% #to -80

Full Occupation

Local Partisan Support: 5%
Local Manpower Modifier: -75% # to -80%
Local Leadership Modifier: -80% # to -80%
Local Industrial Capacity: -50% # to -70%

Total Exploitation

Local Partisan Support: 10%
Local Manpower Modifier: -90%
Local Leadership Modifier: -90%
Local Industrial Capacity: -60%

there is a huge difference between a -25% and a -90 one. Just rocking the boat too much imo. Paradox loves to do that and then wonder why its zero balance.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:48:30 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Nieldo wrote:
I would propose some changes in the pacific theatre and naval aspect for the next hoi3 Monday game, whenever it may be.

1) Boost the Infra in Indonesia/Australia to at least level 2, or to pre-SemperFi levels, the new infra rule works well for Finland and Africa. But I think it ruins the combat in Indonesia, you are forced to port hop, no real combat takes place. And as for Australia not being able to move units at least along its coast? 0.o

2) I think most of the major naval nations found how effective CAGs launched from land bases were, I raged hard in the last session because of it Sick, and I managed to cause mega damage to the US fleets attacking Mili with them. I think its clearly overpowered. Possibly create a new rule against operating CAGs from land bases?

3) Naval fleet retreat ping pong. An enemy naval fleet retreats from combat, it does not have any influence on where its fleet goes to, and it is not fast enough to outrun any pursuing fleets. So maybe a new rule on engaging retreating fleets, you can only engage a retreating fleet once, before you have to let the player at least have some input on where his fleet runs to. You can still chase them, but just not ping pong the fleet around until it is entirely destroyed, because that's just not fun for anyone. I was on the end of this, as was UK when their fleet retreated to port and the US I'm sure suffered this.

I dunno, what do you guys think?


1) yea sure

2) yea cags can b v powerfull v enemy fleets - naval bombers suck big time. I dont like rules - id prefer a game mechanic nerf if possible.

3) whilst irritiating - im also against such rules - note that many times the retreating fleet is not spotted and can escape - like some italian bbs made a lucky break out of the ports.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:34:18 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
First - let's not do big jumps in change of occupation policies. It might prove counterproductive.

Bonuses on leadership Germany got from those events were temporary. And personally I don't think it's that off when Germany owns half Europe with big part of Russia that's not just a coal mine. But I'm in favor of reducing those bonuses to let's say 5% or maybe even 2-3%.

I'm too for no rules if possible. We might need some, but generally we should impose 'rules' by game mechanics, not any ruleset beyond Monday classic one.

I think some agreements have to be made on topics where we are not able to change game mechanics though. One of such things is naval retreat ping-pong. On such occasion I'd suggest both players reach agreement when chasing fleet disengages. My initial proposal would be after first encounter, which happened after fleet's retreat. Player who wants to retreat should let know his opponent where he intents to retreat to. If game choses different direction, then chasing should be suspended until fleet retreat 'the right way'. Because what's the problem here? That retreating fleet goes back and forth in retreat causing it to be in infinite loop of destruction. While this destruction itself isn't bad on its own, it's just the way it's achieved. So I'd deem perfectly ok if retreating fleet gets destroyed by chasing fleet(s) if it retreats to where player wants it to retreat to. Then it's his bad tactical decision. But when his fleet is acting up, it just adds to the frustration with already stretched naval combat mechanics and may even lead to permanent damage in terms of total abandonment of hoi3 (which is ok in principle), but also us as a group (which is not Big Grin). Opponent's comments on such occasions like 'yeehee, eat this' or 'someone got fleet sunk' are just top of it all. My point is to keep the game fun for all participants, knowing its weaknesses and acting accordingly to mitigate them, if not otherwise then at least at human-human level. I believe result will be better game for everyone. (sorry for blobby text)
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:15:11 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I was just checking PI forums just to find out that 2.03 was officially released about week ago (or almost two). And that it's not worth the hassle, that it brakes more then it fixes.

I'm not optimistic and I don't think they'll either make it better with 2.04 or release it in less then two months. Having said that, I think we should dump 2.03 down the drain altogether and not wait till 2.04 at all. Just take whatever good we can from 2.03 and incorporate it to our mod.
Nieldo
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:21:54 PM
 2nd Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 117
Location: Manchester, UK
It really is disappointing. Every time I boot the computer up I'm checking the paradox forums, hoping for some magic patch or an announcement of a big new feature rich expansion which will make this game playable in single player and improve everything. Lets face it, most of the SemperFi features were fluff and interface improvements, good but not really worth it on their own.

Paradox are leaving me hoping.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:30:49 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
They continue to do it wrong on HoI3 battlefield, shamefully. Still, I want to play HoI3 MP thus solutions have to be found. I'm having lot of fun with you guys so far and it can't be ruined by Paradox's poor planning and execution.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:30:50 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
King said they will get 2.04 within a couple of weeks. The programmer in charge is on holiday so he will need some time to fix the issues. Dont think 2.04 will be different in many files - I think the exe will change most as it fucked up 2.03.

Id be great if they could add something to correct the ping pong - though as I said at times its justified - a fleet trying to escape from port should only be allowed to go back to port if it loses. From this game exp - italy didnt ping pong into 2 exact sea zones - i bashed them around 3 or 4. Of course I had a fleet in all the sea zones which made it hard for them to do much. Also the jap cv fleet seemed to escape the ping pong so I cant say its too bad.

If the betas could ask for a correction in the org regain for retreating troops that would be great. I understand if the progress to the new province is under 50% then the supplies should be pulled from the province its moveing from - but after that even if the province is overrun the supplies should be pulled from the target province. In a retreat situation the out of supply and lack of org regain is v bad for the defender.

We could also nerf speeds a bit to slow down the game.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:34:27 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Fiendix wrote:
King said they will get 2.04 within a couple of weeks. The programmer in charge is on holiday so he will need some time to fix the issues. Dont think 2.04 will be different in many files - I think the exe will change most as it fucked up 2.03.

Couple of weeks is month or more. What will be the result? Half-breed quickfix? I really don't have the confidence in them and certainly wouldn't want to rely on such prospects.
Forgiven
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:40:19 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Oh, since I forgot the resources modifiers from those totally.. someone should edit them in (stupid wiki doesn't have them so out of date, sigh...)

....

AND especially, fix the 'non core' (ie, annexed) resource modifier to be something sensible, I believe it's -90% as is (?)

Wish I had the game installed...

...then again, as I'll be playing something allied next run, I suppose I should say don't cut down those occupation things or life will be too easy Evil Grin

(And shows what I know, I thought you could choose where you retreat to?)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:41:01 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Daniel wrote:
Couple of weeks is month or more. What will be the result? Half-breed quickfix? I really don't have the confidence in them and certainly wouldn't want to rely on such prospects.


uhm well all they need to do is delete the vicky port in the exe for hoi3 and the bubbles and other glitches should not happen.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:56:52 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Quote:
uhm well all they need to do is delete the vicky port in the exe for hoi3 and the bubbles and other glitches should not happen.


Then test it till 1945, then test it with different nations, then test hands-off that no new bugs are introduced.

I am fine on skipping 2.03 if we take fuel/supply consumption changes.
I did compile all changes in one post long ago.
It seems we will not reach agreement on Occupation Policy, at least quickly. I am for less harsh rules overall there.

Ping-pong should be on human level unfortunately. They had navigation and radios, after being battered when running away they would not return to receive more battering.

Events are for one month, so fine as they are. It would involve changing too many files and lines anyway.
Let's KISS it as much as possible.

Infra - sure, but boost it via event at start of game.
Else mapfile needs to be changed, and that is much hassle afair.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:03:18 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:
Then test it till 1945, then test it with different nations, then test hands-off that no new bugs are introduced.

.


lol yea - as if they ever do that Evil Grin

Traks wrote:

Ping-pong should be on human level unfortunately. They had navigation and radios, after being battered when running away they would not return to receive more battering.


its not a matter of radios - its a matter of spotting the enemy fleet and manageing to catch up with those badly damaged. I think any human to human rules will just cause grief that the other side doesnt share your view Big Grin.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:18:09 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Fleet combat is bad in that it is too fast already.
Anyway, imagine fleet is running north. It is fine if they run into secondary fleet. But combat flet that pursues you and kills remaining ships...

In RL it was hard to determine enemy losses and usually simple victory was enough, not pursuing enemy into unknown.
Well, to catch this fleet once more is maximum that I would agree. It stills means a lot of extra ships lost.
And chances of escaping are really small.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:26:27 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
i played uk twice and usa once - cant really complain with the ping pong. I got some fleets out. I cant see 2 humans agreeing in the heat of the battle on this.
Nieldo
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:41:27 PM
 2nd Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 117
Location: Manchester, UK
Fiendix wrote:
i played uk twice and usa once - cant really complain with the ping pong. I got some fleets out. I cant see 2 humans agreeing in the heat of the battle on this.


Which is why I think we need a rule applied. As the USA spotted this game, my carrier fleets moved together, and my battleship fleet was never away from an airfield or my carrier fleets, because I feared the ping-pong retreat so much after losing some ships to the USA.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:52:34 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Daniel wrote:
First - let's not do big jumps in change of occupation policies. It might prove counterproductive.


Oh i agree - its hard to find balance. But you have to think of the way the game evolves - allowing big boosts from some of these policies can put germany in a huge advantage thats hard to catch if allies have less leadership and ic.

Ideally we/I would like to see as close as possible to historical game. If Russia cant hang on longer thant 6 months then we have a problem. It should be able to be banged for 1-2 years. In the meantime Germany shouldnt be easily swamped by usa or uk. If we all want to have fun then this game must be bloody and even for a long time. I am not on ally or axis side. Ideally it would be great if the game was decided in 43/44+.

HOI3 faces a lot of the issues like HOI2. Despite more provinces - the supply (or lack of good supply mechanisms) allows germany to drive up to moscow in 1.5 months. Really a good change in MEM was slowing everything down. Combat helped a lot (ie HOI3 style) as battles lasted longer. We slowed down tanks from the original 10 IIRC to 6.8 so by 47%. Inf went down from 5 to 4,1 so by 22%. We really had much much longer games then in vanilla.


Daniel wrote:

Bonuses on leadership Germany got from those events were temporary. And personally I don't think it's that off when Germany owns half Europe with big part of Russia that's not just a coal mine. But I'm in favor of reducing those bonuses to let's say 5% or maybe even 2-3%.


I agree - but at a point if we allow Germany to gain critical mass too early then allies have no chance to catch up. Landings in HOI3 are much harder - you cant just pile up. Germany even with terrain up to moscow cannot have such mass that allies cant catch up - and we cant EXPECT germany not to reach near moscow. It comes down to numbers - more ic, more leadership more mp gain - you cant compete with that.



Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:54:29 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Nieldo wrote:
Which is why I think we need a rule applied. As the USA spotted this game, my carrier fleets moved together, and my battleship fleet was never away from an airfield or my carrier fleets, because I feared the ping-pong retreat so much after losing some ships to the USA.


As I said I played sea nations a lot and I dont have a big beef with the issue. You CAN escape as your cvs near india did, as the italians bbs did, as did some of the usa bbs in philipines, as did the rest of my cv fleet near singapore, as did your cv fleet vs the french etc etc.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:00:27 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I also do not have much stress with that, but then again I don't like playing too naval countries like UK.

I see IC and Leadership as decisive in this regard for now.
Manpower is more or less fine, it would be trouble later, but leadership and IC decided outcome even before battle itself.
Maybe give +100manpower more to USA for fall of Turkey?
UK manpower seems fine, I think Indian defense drained them.
Having 10% less IC for Germany would lead to 10% smaller army and one month more of survival.

As I can't still see winning of 100% vs 300% modifier battles. Still shocked of that.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:03:04 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
One simple thing we can do is to extend combat delay. This way it won't be that easy to run over defender. But if defender does not do proper defense, then there is no hope. And this was mostly the case in this game I believe.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:04:03 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:
I also do not have much stress with that, but then again I don't like playing too naval countries like UK.

I see IC and Leadership as decisive in this regard fow now.
Manpower is more or less fine, but leadership and IC decided outcome even before battle itself.
Having 10% less IC for Germany would lead to 10% smaller army and more balanced battles.


then again limiting laws that allow the build exploit whilst keeping ally ic low (with high bel ratings) also skews up the game.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:05:05 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Can we make officer rate impact on delay smaller or is it in exe file?
As making officer rate to impact more in logarithmic way than linear would solve most problems.

Fiendix - can we give flat +10IC and +1 leadership for SU for next game and see if it is better?
Simple and slight boost.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:09:27 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:
Can we make officer rate impact on delay smaller or is it in exe file?
As making officer rate to impact more in logarithmic way than linear would solve most problems.



paradox is all linear in all modifiers. So many games and they cant seem to grasp that. Officer bonus on org and delay would be great. I still think though that tech levels should be more important. Hard to do atm with all nations haveing lvl Vs when most heavy combat is being done (40-41).

Traks wrote:

Fiendix - can we give flat +10IC and +1 leadership for SU for next game and see if it is better?
Simple and slight boost.


id rather first "fix" mechanic stuff rather than base values if you know what i mean (ie effect of officers on delay values and org rather than leadership or ic boosts.)? Its easier to balance later on.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.