Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

HoI4 - How about a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War? Options · View
Alex_brunius
Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:27:34 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Marine wrote:
I guess we will wait for the next patch first before we start. It will have hot join according to Podcat in the newest Dev Diary. They will also adress some AI problems.
So I think we should start when it's out.


Depends how long the wait is. I don't think they said but Stellaris next patch for example won't be until sometime in October...

And a new fresh thread once we are happy with rules sounds nice where all information can be more accessible. This thread has served it's purpose as a check who is active and want to play.
Marine
Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 5:04:04 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
We should hopefully know more about ETA for the patch on friday.
so we can wait until we know more and then decide.
I will put up a new thread in the weekend that comes or earlier
I also think that we are 9 people so far that can play I hope Smile
Alex_brunius
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:34:36 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
We are likley going to need some houserules on fleet sizes allowed too unless stacking penalty is implemented in the upcomming patch. Right now there is no stacking penalty except for CVs, which means putting your entire navy in a single fleet is basically the way to win.


How about a max of 4 x BB/BC/SHBB, 10 x CA/CL and 20 x DD/SS per fleet and patrolling the same area per side? ( Carriers not limited since the game puts very severe penalty on bringing more then 4 of them or bringing more planes then fit on their decks )

Marine
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:03:11 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Does numbers looks fine i think.
What do you mean with per side?
Do you mean like Uk and USA can´t have one fleet each of that size in the same area or?
I think that will be difficult to handle maybe.
I´m wonder about why they only made stacking penalty for CV´s.
Maybe we also need some kind of lower limit or higher limit on airplanes?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:32:49 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Marine wrote:
Does numbers looks fine i think.
What do you mean with per side?
Do you mean like Uk and USA can´t have one fleet each of that size in the same area or?
I think that will be difficult to handle maybe.


Yeah, otherwise I think it would be unfair with the rule that Japan must keep their fleet in the Pacific if the Allies can stack several fleets in the same area for example.
Or USA + UK ganging up on either Italy or Germany when the Med is locked.


But your right that it would be difficult to handle though, I forgot that you can't see even your allies ships in HoI4 when they are on a mission. So let's skip that part of it.

Marine wrote:

I´m wonder about why they only made stacking penalty for CV´s.
Maybe we also need some kind of lower limit or higher limit on airplanes?


Airplanes on Carriers are fine I think ( rewards spending tech and variant XP to fit more per CV ).

Airplanes per zone is supposed to be limited by range + how many / how large airbases you have, so maybe we should try that out first?

If there is something I feel we might need a limit for it's how many planes you can use on port strikes, alot of people on the forums complain that the AI annihilates their fleets in port, so that could potentially be OP.


Overall we should probably try to limit the rules to a minimum unless it's absolutely needed to get a feeling for it first.


Marine
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:31:31 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Yes we skip the rule about sides, but size rule remains.

The rule about staying in proper waters if just a suggestion that i found on the forum.

I agree that airplanes have limits as you say.

How many planes should we allow on port strike the and are we only talking about naval bombers or?

Maybe we should have a chat online with the people involved before we start so that the rules and mods suggestions are set.

Then we can decide countries to play.

Tomorrow maybe we know some more about ETA on the patch and so.

If we start before and the patch comes in the middle of the session ,then maybe people wants to start over.

We also have to decide on what communications system to use Teamspeak or Mumble ,so that we can have that running.

@Praetori

When we have decided on what system to use can you then setup the server so that we can start to use it?
Alex_brunius
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:24:11 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Yeah. If we want fleet size rules to be something simpler and easier to remember we could have it be say 40 ships total instead. ( Just throwing around ideas here ).
Marine
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:42:49 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
We need to have a chat with the group to discuss things before start. 40 ships can be a good number.
Anders
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 12:52:48 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Limiting anything besides landforts can severely crimps people's playstyle.
Fleets should be allowed to be deployed wherever they can be.


"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Praetori
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:56:51 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Anders wrote:
Limiting anything besides landforts can severely crimps people's playstyle.
Fleets should be allowed to be deployed wherever they can be.

Everyone has different playstyles but it's almost impossible to get a decent game without house-rules in certain aspects. Some of them will interfere with how we as players normally play but there's usually a good middle-ground in terms of adaptation.
I'd rather adapt my playstyle as a personal challenge than I'd see the game break down in a flurry of exploits.

The problem is that putting all ships in the same fleet basically means the US and UK are unbeatable in a naval engagement once the war is in full swing. Also sending the Italian and German navies en-masse to the Pacific or vice-versa is potentially game-breaking, especially the IJN in the Med and North-Sea early war.

It was actually less of a problem in HOI3 due to rebasing and supplies but with the current mechanics in HOI4 it's entirely possible to supply the entire Axis or Allied fleet out of a few harbors on the far side of the globe (and there's virtually nothing an opponent can do about is since supply-convoys currently can't be sunk).

Port-strikes is another thing that I agree either needs house-rules or an internal mod since it's super easy to exploit (and basically shafts Italian and German players if played to its fullest potential) and almost impossible to defend against if played properly.


Another thing that haven't been brought up (as far as I've seen) is template-switching. You can basically exploit the hell out of it by sending minimal-cheap brigade-size divisions by sea or by air and then switch templates upon arrival turning them into heavy-tank-monster-divisions in no-time.
Marine
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 8:34:43 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Quote:
Another thing that haven't been brought up (as far as I've seen) is template-switching. You can basically exploit the hell out of it by sending minimal-cheap brigade-size divisions by sea or by air and then switch templates upon arrival turning them into heavy-tank-monster-divisions in no-time.


This is not good, we have to have rules against this.

Good of you to take that up Smile
Anders
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:17:35 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Praetori wrote:

The problem is that putting all ships in the same fleet basically means the US and UK are unbeatable in a naval engagement once the war is in full swing. Also sending the Italian and German navies en-masse to the Pacific or vice-versa is potentially game-breaking, especially the IJN in the Med and North-Sea early war.

God forbid it shoud simulate the historical realities.
Of course, that means the fleets massed in area A are not protecting area B, which is how people get invaded and/or loses most of their convoys.

Quote:
Port-strikes is another thing that I agree either needs house-rules or an internal mod since it's super easy to exploit (and basically shafts Italian and German players if played to its fullest potential) and almost impossible to defend against if played properly.

Both the US and Italy had massive flee losses IRL due to port strikes.
Quote:

Another thing that haven't been brought up (as far as I've seen) is template-switching. You can basically exploit the hell out of it by sending minimal-cheap brigade-size divisions by sea or by air and then switch templates upon arrival turning them into heavy-tank-monster-divisions in no-time.

That one's fairly legit. Most rulesets have a rule against template-switching paras. I just consider it part of the sandard "no gamey shit" rule.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Marine
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:39:32 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I have updated the Rules section.
It is mostly stuff that has been written here.
Not ETA yesterday, but it sounds like we will get some more answer on that next friday.
Hopefully we can have a start in late august or early septemberSmile
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:15:34 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Praetori wrote:
Another thing that haven't been brought up (as far as I've seen) is template-switching. You can basically exploit the hell out of it by sending minimal-cheap brigade-size divisions by sea or by air and then switch templates upon arrival turning them into heavy-tank-monster-divisions in no-time.


That has some built in limits though. The biggest one being that the divisions deployed this way lose all XP and are green because they have to reinforce with fresh recruits (-25% combat ) while an enemy with even regular training fight at +25%.

The other built in limit is that to reinforce you must have a valid supply connection home, so if you deploy paras cut off behind enemy lines they won't be able to reinforce with a single tank or piece of equipment. ( And a sea-route with low efficiency from heavy raiding is not a valid supply connection for reinforcement purposes either ).

Anders wrote:
Both the US and Italy had massive flee losses IRL due to port strikes.


In both cases against Ports without defenses. A second strike two weeks later would not have been able to clean out the rest of the ships...

The issue is that in reality such massive portstrikes worked once, after this there would be such a concentration of AA, radars and alert fighters present to make it near impossible. I have seen reports from the forum that not even 1500 fighters on air superiority + intercept missions will intercept incoming port strikes properly so there seems to be no defense against it!

Anders wrote:

God forbid it shoud simulate the historical realities.
Of course, that means the fleets massed in area A are not protecting area B, which is how people get invaded and/or loses most of their convoys.


The issue is that not all nations join the war at the same time. As an example if the Axis have knocked out France and opened the Med Japan could rebase their entire fleet to Europe and and sail together with the Italian and German fleets when Japan declare war on the allies.

The Royal Navy will be wiped out within a week and then they can sail home to Japan again ( together with the German and Italian fleets ). USA won't be able to do anything really, and now have to face the massive Axis megafleet alone.

The amount of damage you can do in a few weeks when you annihilate someones fleet is about 1000-times bigger then the damage they can do to you with invasions ( which takes weeks to plan ) or convoy raiding...





Marine
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:46:29 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Good to hear that there is limits to this template exploit Smile
Anders
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 3:00:26 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Alex_brunius wrote:
USA won't be able to do anything really,

You have either been playing with noob USAs, or have no idea of how powerful the US Navy is even at gamestart. It's pretty much stronger than any other navy, and any half-skilled player should be able to pump out a least one and a half carrier per year, along with screens and convoys.
The standard US build is to build naval yards until the malus for everything else drops. In a normal game, without a hyper-aggressive Axis, that's until about mid-1937 or later. That's a lot of naval yards.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 6:07:39 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Anders wrote:
You have either been playing with noob USAs, or have no idea of how powerful the US Navy is even at gamestart. It's pretty much stronger than any other navy, and any half-skilled player should be able to pump out a least one and a half carrier per year, along with screens and convoys.
The standard US build is to build naval yards until the malus for everything else drops. In a normal game, without a hyper-aggressive Axis, that's until about mid-1937 or later. That's a lot of naval yards.


So because USA can build a powerful fleet the Axis must be allow to get a free kill of the Royal Navy and be allowed to team up against it?

Also it's hilarious to read about you talking about "historical realities" and the IJN operating in Europe coordinating with both the German and Italian navy ( or vice versa ) in the same sentence.

Anders
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 9:21:51 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Alex_brunius wrote:
So because USA can build a powerful fleet the Axis must be allow to get a free kill of the Royal Navy and be allowed to team up against it?
No, I'm saying that because the Allies have naval superiority, there's no need to restrict where the Axis can send their navy. If I were inclined to be generous in my interpretatino of your posts, I'd assume you were talking in the context of rulesets which artificially limit US involvement far past the time of Japanese war entry, but I haven't noticed any reference to that in your posts.

Quote:
Also it's hilarious to read about you talking about "historical realities" and the IJN operating in Europe coordinating with both the German and Italian navy ( or vice versa ) in the same sentence.
Same sentence? I think you have the wrong idea about what "sentence" means when it comes to grammar.



"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Alex_brunius
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 2:37:57 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Anders wrote:
No, I'm saying that because the Allies have naval superiority, there's no need to restrict where the Axis can send their navy.


My HoI3 MP experience tells me that if Japan declares war with their entire Navy based in Europe and the Italian navy has broken out of the Med that means the Royal Navy needs to fight every Capital ship in all 3 axis navies combined + all their 3 air-forces at the same time when they do Seelöwe.

That can only end one way, and USA will neither have time to send their Pacific Navy to Europe in time to help, nor be able to exploit the lack of Axis navy in the Pacific in any meaningful way.

It means the end of the Royal Navy for sure, most likely the end of the RAF too, and a high chance that Seelöwe will succeed.

The Axis should at least be required to control bases in Gibraltar, Suez, Celyon and Singapore to be allowed to rebase between Europe and Pacific IMHO ( which makes the above scenario impossible ).

Anders wrote:
Same sentence?

The meaning was not literal sentence, more context. You replied to a post that suggested Axis should not be allowed to combine their fleet with "God forbid it shoud simulate the historical realities."

I found that pretty funny.
Anders
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 5:22:20 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Alex_brunius wrote:
USA will neither have time to send their Pacific Navy to Europe in time to help

What kind of noob USA doesn't prepare for that eventuality as soon as the Axis gives each other military access?

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Marine
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:08:40 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
We really need to have house rules on where we are allowed to have fleets or the navy war will not be so fun and historical.

If we have no rules it will be a short naval war and bloody.

In short German navy does not belong in the Pacific or Indian Ocean unless it maybe is for convoy raiding as they had auxiliary/commerce cruisers IRL.

Also the Japanese navy stays in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

Of course we can set up boundaries on how far we can go with their fleets.

We need rules for other things to, but we have to keep them as minimal as can be.

We had rules in our HOI3 MP and it worked well,so why not in HOI4?
Marine
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:14:50 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Quote:
What kind of noob USA doesn't prepare for that eventuality as soon as the Axis gives each other military access?


Everybody is a noob in the beginning on any country ,so why does that player have to be crushed and maybe never wanting to play anymore HOI4 MP ,just because he or she is a noob on the game or just that country.

Mistakes are allowed ,so that you can come back and fight another day and just have fun ,but of course there is prestige in winning as well, nobody wants to looseBig Grin Smile
Praetori
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:58:43 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Anders wrote:
You have either been playing with noob USAs, or have no idea of how powerful the US Navy is even at gamestart. It's pretty much stronger than any other navy, and any half-skilled player should be able to pump out a least one and a half carrier per year, along with screens and convoys.
The standard US build is to build naval yards until the malus for everything else drops. In a normal game, without a hyper-aggressive Axis, that's until about mid-1937 or later. That's a lot of naval yards.


It all depends on how "historical" war entry you're looking for. In reality the major participants of WW2 respected the naval treaties of the time for long enough (or to such an extent) that it had a major impact on their available war-time fleet.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Had the US KNOWN it would've ended up at war with Japan and the Axis and KNOWN that the carrier would be the beat-all-naval-weapon they would've done as you said, pumped out carriers and planes long before war was apparent. The US was immensely powerful and the capacity of the US in-game is unparalleled and thus there are some game-breakers built into its capacity not thoroughly balanced by PDS.
The same can be said of certain Axis combinations too. The Axis combined can, with certain setups, completely rule the oceans (because of 100% transparency between allies and the extreme ease of basing and supplying large fleets across the globe) IF they are allowed to combine early and then shaft the Royal Navy. The US is then dragged into the war and more often than not (in my experience) there's a short but bloody naval war where the US is left wanting (the axis with multiple fleets getting multiple rolls for detection etc).
Early US war entry can be bad for the game and late US war entry can also be bad for the game. The same can be said of Axis optimizing to team up on the USSR or purely sacrificial play by for example Japan (thereby the house-rules).

House-rules are not meant to limit play styles but to lay the groundwork for a mutual good experience by preventing min-maxing and exploits. Everyone has different opinions on how much of the mechanics you can "bend" before it becomes gamey or exploits and we need to come to some form of mutual agreement on what is what.

Myself I don't fancy a optimized Regia Marina pouring out of the Med to join forces with the IJN and KM as a pre-planned axis full naval focus strategy since it will lead to a "fair" playing British player losing his/her one strong hand due to a virtual exploitation of the game mechanics (the ability to coordinate, field and supply entire navies across the globe with 1-2seconds of preparation). While it "could" be fun for a prepared US player it's virtually game-over for the British (and there's basically nothing at all that the latter can do about it).
Marine
Posted: Friday, August 19, 2016 10:46:17 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I will take a closer look at the rules we used in our HOI3 campaigns and minimize them as far as I think we can.

I will also look at other groups rules that is used for HOI4 as I understand it and try to implement them as I see fit.

I will then open up a new thread where we only discuss House Rules for our upcoming HOI4 MP CampaignsSmile

Most rules are common sense and when we come to something that needs a rule when we play we just pause and ask before so that some people don´t get upset.

I know that there is some focuses that can do strange stuff that we are not used to from HOI 3.

So when I have put up that new House Rule thread ,then be free to come with your inputs Smile

Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:40:15 PM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
From todays dev diary it seems that the developers aim to release a beta patch an a few weeks:

Quote:
The plan for the patch is to be able to release it (as a open beta first) in 2-3 weeks


This means the proper release will likely happen in little over a month from now.


Do you want to wait or start earlier? I want to play asap ( doesn't have to be super serious ) Smile
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.