Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Session 8 - Monday, 9th August Options · View
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:11:49 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Yes, I remember this debate.
I did suggest putting diplomatic cost of such action to 50 or even 100.
That would mean much less licensed builds, only when they are really necesary.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:12:08 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
We can't affect impact of officer ratio on org. We can impose combat delay, let's say 24 hours longer. Not hard to implement and could do the job. But with caution, it might not be the way to go. Just an idea.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:18:12 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Hmmmm. I will have to think about possible implementation and if it solves anything.

As for wrong deployment - we can take some evening and load save month before Barbarossa, you as SU and I as Germany and then fight it out. So you will have enough time to change troops disposition and create defense in depth.
Forgiven
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:19:39 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Fiendix wrote:
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.


Or if you want to go the 'simple' way, don't play the official release of 2.03b, but fetch the old 2.03BETA (duh, why did they not name it 2.1, this post would have been so much simpler) as it was in the last test phase (where it had no vicky thing to screw up the combat bubbles for example). I'm sure it had some flaws too, I don't remember what, but since I was sure there'd be 2.04 shortly after I was supriced that was the version published...
...still, see how long it takes to argue out all the changes we want to make and who's playing what and then see if there's 2.04 (beta or not) available at that point..

And, yea, I may have gone bit overboard with those occupation suggestions of mine, I just went for something drastic without really thinking (and since I missed this last game, in fact, the only SF game, I probably shouldn't be here trying to fix the balances and leave it to you rest instead.)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Forgiven
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:26:01 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
IC has never been limiting factor for size of my armies yet, it's always been manpower (With the possible exception of Japan after occupying china...) and I've played those countries with biggest mp reserves (all axis) so I don't see how increasing IC cost would limit UK/US in their army build up, soviets maybe slightly, but then they need to keep high conscription policies lot of the time to catch up with the officer ratio anyways, so the reserve building thing should mostly hinder axis, at least I think so, which, alone, might be enough of a fix to fix the whole balance thingy.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:26:02 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
i havent modded hoi since 2 years ago I stopped playing with MEM - id need to look into the files to get maybe some other ideas.

I think Traks proposal about changeing troop dispostion would be a good idea- though with so many units it would be a big pain to do so - maybe we can limit ourselves to 1 specific front (north, central or south) so it would be faster. Indeed the modifiers on german side are huge. All i can say from what i saw was that no second line hurt. Big stacks are a bad idea imo - maybe we can have a go next monday with that.

Does anybody spefically know how brigade bonuses effect the rest of the stack? Ie does the eng brigade in the tank div actually give the whole stack a bonus to movement in some terrains?
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:33:17 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Traks wrote:
As for wrong deployment - we can take some evening and load save month before Barbarossa, you as SU and I as Germany and then fight it out. So you will have enough time to change troops disposition and create defense in depth.

You can try it for yourself. Even against AI. Just DoW Germany.

I'm up to play SU against former SU players as Germany. In our next game. Even if we went right now without any further modding.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:42:09 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Eh, AI is very reluctant to attack overall. It does not consider quality. So if they have 1x ARM of 1950 and I have one 1918 Militia AI most likely will not attack.
I think we should open extra topic of Game XVI and start choosing countries there.
In this topic we can continue discussing changes and agreeing on them.

I think one change we all agree on - importing 2.03 consumption values.

Maybe Lothos LUA scripts for minors and missing majors?
That improves gaming experience a lot.
Everything else is still under discussion.
teamgene
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:38:47 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Well I say lets leave things alone for one more game.

After XIII - the opinion was the the Axis were too weak. Italy was tweaked with more IC. That extra boost actually makes quite a bit of difference on builds. I believe Forgiven would agree to that as well. After XIII, USA appeared very strong and both UK and USA were firmerly established in western europe. Hytzon what was your MP situation as UK?

Games XIV and XV saw axis victories. XIV, Germany had a tough time at start against France. Was balanced by Italian successes in the Med and North Africa and Japan in Asia. Naval wise, Germany as well as all Axis put on a good show, but could not really take away USA and UK naval power. Game ended with UK and USA still able to exert Naval power where they wished.

XV - Germany was unable to trigger Treaty at Munich at start, (which is something else we should debate as this has a way of ending the game before it really starts) creating a somewhat weaker Germany, this is however marginal. Italy built a lot of units fast and paid the price for it as their leadership fell to the 60's at one point. This game Italy got away with it. It no doubt caused Shuey some anxious moments though. Game XV though showed a very strong Germany and with two people to run it, was a very well oiled machine at that.

Italy was not as strong as everyone suggests. Yes we built a lot of units, but it came at a price. However, since we gave up land for time(North Africa and Corsica), this did not really hurt that much. I do not recommend people taking Italy so low in leadership, however, it is what got us the troops and tech, hehehe.

Games XIV and XV had basically the same players playing the same side except for Hytzon and Schuey switching.

My concern is that if we continue to tweak things based on limited experience we will just end up making Monday games a yoyo affair with us constantly adjusting too much here and too much there.

That said, I think that UK should get a manpower boost, but lets wait one more game otherwise, if we all switch sides the former axis players will only reap the benefits of the allied changes. I suggest no change, other than latest patch etc...





teamgene
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:57:15 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
I would also like to propose an offer of me and Fiendix or me and Hytzon as SU player. I am not a great player, but I have an idea that fits well with each of these styles of play. I believe we could defeat germany.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:58:21 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

XV - Germany was unable to trigger Treaty at Munich at start, (which is something else we should debate as this has a way of ending the game before it really starts) creating a somewhat weaker Germany, this is however marginal. Italy built a lot of units fast and paid the price for it as their leadership fell to the 60's at one point. This game Italy got away with it. It no doubt caused Shuey some anxious moments though. Game XV though showed a very strong Germany and with two people to run it, was a very well oiled machine at that.



unable? I thought the tactic of not giving uk and boost was very good and was done on purpose. I had barely any ic to do builds. If it went historically I had much larger land forces + sea and air - though true not all were 100% strength as I lacked like 100 mp for that.
Hytzon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 5:01:21 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
teamgene wrote:
Well I say lets leave things alone for one more game.
...Hytzon what was your MP situation as UK?

XV - Germany was unable to trigger Treaty at Munich at start, (which is something else we should debate as this has a way of ending the game before it really starts) creating a somewhat weaker Germany, this is however marginal. Italy built a lot of units fast and paid the price for it as their leadership fell to the 60's at one point. This game Italy got away with it. It no doubt caused Shuey some anxious moments though. Game XV though showed a very strong Germany and with two people to run it, was a very well oiled machine at that.

As UK my manpower was rather limited in XIII, but as I didn't lose India it was never really a major problem. After we started the western offensives, my manpower started to rise as I gained French territories.

As to the Münich event, it's the other way around. Basically there is very little incentive for Germany to do the events as it will boost the Allies more than Germany and the last two games saw Germany delay that event chain till just before the war.

If we look at the total IC, it is a bit problematic that Axis have more than Allies at the start of Barbarossa as they Allies are already far behind in unit count. This difference will only increase as Axis capture Russian territories, but it might be offset by the huge supply demand that comes with waging an all out war... In fact I think it might, as USA only needed around 25 supplies per day in 1941 while Germany needs above 100 afaik. Hmm...

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 5:25:24 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Maybe Allies should expand their IC base early in the game if they seek to challenge Axis superiority in this field given Axis capture territories as we saw in this game. Don't forget we ended in 1941, when Western Allies are supposed to slowly become real opponent for (Euro)Axis. And another offset which comes to play is need to maintain occupied/annexed territories, which means less effective IC for everything, not talking about resource needs and lack of resources Axis have (except for Japan). While Allies don't have to worry about partisans. So, I think think it's as one-sided as some try to suggest.

And I agree with Gene. Maybe we should stop making revolution after each game and try to get more input and perspectives before we enact anything groundbreaking.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:04:13 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Daniel wrote:
Maybe Allies should expand their IC base early in the game if they seek to challenge Axis superiority in this field given Axis capture territories as we saw in this game.


Its impossible to expand with the limited Ic you start with. Otherwise risk a small army that you cant defend from the gangbang at all. Remember its 1.5 years till war - thats 1 round of ic builds.

Daniel wrote:

Don't forget we ended in 1941, when Western Allies are supposed to slowly become real opponent for (Euro)Axis. And another offset which comes to play is need to maintain occupied/annexed territories, which means less effective IC for everything, not talking about resource needs and lack of resources Axis have (except for Japan). While Allies don't have to worry about partisans. So, I think think it's as one-sided as some try to suggest.


Thats precisely my point - BUT with more IC for axis, more mp left, cheaper initial builds, cheaper current builds due to practicals, how are ally supposed to catch up? True they need more supplies to maintain their army - but with 4 tank brigades costing so much IC its not a matter of catching up within 1-2 years - rather 4-5. There just is no russia by then.
Really partisans are just irritating at most.

Maybe put higher costs for supplies or increase demand. This was a problem in HOI2 - you could basically build up a humungous army and still build more. With 300 ic on supplies how much can germany/russia/usa afford? Crazy numbers.

Daniel wrote:

And I agree with Gene. Maybe we should stop making revolution after each game and try to get more input and perspectives before we enact anything groundbreaking.


Although in general I agree in not makeing revolutions all the time some things are obvious like when I saw the 19th of may save and told O it will be short. We dont need to replay from that save to see it can be much different with that setup.
Let me put it this way - 2 games ago Germany still did the Sudenland event. Now its clear its better to wait. Strategy evolves and so does a game. However once this is number crunched the buildup possibilities are finate based on IC and MP. We all know its basically a number game - if Germany + italy which have 2-3 x the ammount of troops of uk for 1 year then uk doesnt stand a chance. Its as basic as 2 units will always beat 1. 2 units will draw with 1 in consequentive battles (2 x 1 v 1) if they have 50% of the attacker org. (statistically ofc). Question is how to make sure Uk doesnt roll over. What happens when we add japan to that - is usa enough to allow uk to stay afloat?
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:20:45 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I am fine with not making revolutions, sure.
On to adjusting mod for agreed changes then, and choosing countries.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:30:12 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:
I am fine with not making revolutions, sure.
On to adjusting mod for agreed changes then, and choosing countries.


I suggest starting a new thread and people posting 3 pref countries.
As to changes i really think we need some done. Traks if you have time let me know when we can have a 1 v 1 with the old save of russia v germany (if you are up to it). Btw do u use skype? Maybe we can chat up ideas at times.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:56:24 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I sent you message.
We can't make changes if majority does not agree with them.
So I am fine with only 2.03 changes for one more game.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:50:46 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
First of all I suggest we switch sides. Now you see it strongly from Allied perspective. Let those who played mostly Axis feel it better too and you get the chance to try Axis. This should be the beginning.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:55:27 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
sure we can leave stuff as is - maybe some changes done in 2.03 will be better - at least subs should be easier on uk and japan with the massive stat changes - i spent over 40 ic on convoys for quite some time.

Orthank and I would like japan if possible.
Forgiven
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:46:55 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
I'm fine with no changes excluding the volunteer army thingy, I'd love to see, at the minimum, volunteer army made 'equal' to one year draft, preferably all reserve penalties kicked up one notch and volunteer army changed to 50% as well (to equal 2 year draft on reserves penalty)...


Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:52:25 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
frankly speaking i dont know how that would effect britain who would really have limited build possibilities due to low ic and higher unit costs. But i guess we can try something along those lines..
Kyril
Posted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:09:39 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 5/11/2010
Posts: 103
Location: NL
I aggree with the other posters saying we shouldn't make to many adjustments after each game. In the hands of other players and with the experience gained over the games, strategies will be adjusted and lessons learned to enable different results. I recall after the launch of HOI2 many people thought the Axis position was impossible due to raw numbers of IC/Resources/Tech Teams/etc., but it ended up with the Axis actually winning most of the games (to bad HG's old xsorbit forum seems to be gone now).

Only thing I would consider tweaking at this point is the balance between GER-SU a bit in terms of Leadership issues. SU Manpower and IC (which isnt all that great compared to GER regarding previous HOI games) aren't that great when lacking LS to provide with somewhat decent Tech and Officer %. While part of it can be circumvented by License Building, it just doesnt really feel right to be dependent on that as well as for me killing some flavour of the game for me. I think the SU build of last game was pretty efficient and resulted in having roughly 1.5 : 1 advantage in numbers. Which is quite useless if your troops are outclassed by a lot more then that ratio and makes defense in depth more a eufemism of retreating the hell away from the front.
In order to prevent a to strong and bold Russia initially, perhaps add a 'Transfer Leadership to the East' event as well as the good ol' transfer of the industry events (removing some IC from West Russia to more IC in Siberia, only then with Leadership).

Then again, I would like to see how things go with the same version with different players at the hand. The results for Russia were roughly equal in both games I been in, but looking at the Allies, the result was a lot different with roughly the same game this time (when I joined the previous game, Allies lost N-Africa, India and a large part of the Middle East by '41, this time was totally different). Just shows what experience / different strategies can lead to.

With experience and some minor tweaks along the way we should be able to get a much better game over time, just like the 1 and 2 needed time, patches and houserules to become better balanced. The pain as with it seems all Paradox games is that it takes time (up to patch 7 or something for HOI1 Sad ).
Orthank
Posted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:36:12 AM
 1st Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 1/22/2009
Posts: 184
Location: Wilanów
Kyril wrote:
I aggree with the other posters saying we shouldn't make to many adjustments after each game.


That's my point too.

What do we do in meantime, perhaps a quick 1939 scenario?
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:50:31 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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


Then again, I would like to see how things go with the same version with different players at the hand. The results for Russia were roughly equal in both games I been in, but looking at the Allies, the result was a lot different with roughly the same game this time (when I joined the previous game, Allies lost N-Africa, India and a large part of the Middle East by '41, this time was totally different). Just shows what experience / different strategies can lead to.




just you know and sheuy doesnt get all the blame Wink that game was with a pre SF build. A lot of things were changed between 1.4 HOI3 and SF.
Traks
Posted: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:30:28 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
True. 1.4 was very different from SemperFi, so it can't be directy compared.

Orthank - sign up for new game in another thread titled Monday game XVI Smile
http://forums.ederon.net/default.aspx?g=posts&t=2047
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.