Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

4th HOI4 MP Campaign Options · View
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 2:57:12 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
I would not like to ban the Soviet player from the chat room, that seem prudent given that the Allies and the Comintern are closely tied and it would not be fun... I'm not that despicable... Wink

But we need to be reminded that the Allies and Comintern only were so close by the success of the Axis in the early war, historically the Allies were not very fond of Stalin and his politics and considered him a great danger. What I was suggesting would perhaps be that there would be a way of deciding if the Allies or the Comintern are the winner. The Allies should be careful helping the Comintern too much.

It seem prudent for there to be three factions and each can win on its own merits.

I suppose most games end before there is a clear winner so how do you decide who is the "winner" if the war goes badly for the Axis, or is just the Axis the looser?

My overall thought was that there might be a more "balanced" force between the Allies and Comintern if the Allies don't want to help "too much" or they help them selves to loose. But they can not avoid helping either or they risk loosing anyway. Could the Allies even risk declaring war on the Comintern in some situation?

It might just be semantics and completely unjustified thoughts. Any way... it was just food for thought.
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:42:38 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
I would not like to ban the Soviet player from the chat room, that seem prudent given that the Allies and the Comintern are closely tied and it would not be fun... I'm not that despicable... Wink

But we need to be reminded that the Allies and Comintern only were so close by the success of the Axis in the early war, historically the Allies were not very fond of Stalin and his politics and considered him a great danger. What I was suggesting would perhaps be that there would be a way of deciding if the Allies or the Comintern are the winner. The Allies should be careful helping the Comintern too much.

It seem prudent for there to be three factions and each can win on its own merits.

I suppose most games end before there is a clear winner so how do you decide who is the "winner" if the war goes badly for the Axis, or is just the Axis the looser?

My overall thought was that there might be a more "balanced" force between the Allies and Comintern if the Allies don't want to help "too much" or they help them selves to loose. But they can not avoid helping either or they risk loosing anyway. Could the Allies even risk declaring war on the Comintern in some situation?

It might just be semantics and completely unjustified thoughts. Any way... it was just food for thought.


I've been thinking about this myself... It's one thing sitting there socializing in the chat, but a completely other thing when Allies and Comintern start to coordinate operations and strategies. Historically the Allies and Comintern didn't like each other that much, it was more like 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.

They might have talked in broad strokes on a political level on what they wanted to accomplish in regards of their common enemy(Axis), but I don't think they talked with each other on a Operational/tactical level, coordinating their efforts on the Battlefield, on the contrary I would think that Stalin being paranoid as he was wouldn't share much information with the Allies.

As it is now when we play, the Comintern is pretty much treated as a member of the Allies. Perhaps when we get more players we could get 1 or 2 people to play a country that would be considered a member of the Comintern influence and get their own TS channel.

But for now it feels more fair to let the Comintern player to hang in the Allied channel. But I think it needs to be discussed more...
Praetori
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 1:23:05 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Chimaera72 wrote:
I've been thinking about this myself... It's one thing sitting there socializing in the chat, but a completely other thing when Allies and Comintern start to coordinate operations and strategies. Historically the Allies and Comintern didn't like each other that much, it was more like 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.

They might have talked in broad strokes on a political level on what they wanted to accomplish in regards of their common enemy(Axis), but I don't think they talked with each other on a Operational/tactical level, coordinating their efforts on the Battlefield, on the contrary I would think that Stalin being paranoid as he was wouldn't share much information with the Allies.

As it is now when we play, the Comintern is pretty much treated as a member of the Allies. Perhaps when we get more players we could get 1 or 2 people to play a country that would be considered a member of the Comintern influence and get their own TS channel.

But for now it feels more fair to let the Comintern player to hang in the Allied channel. But I think it needs to be discussed more...


To be fair there were plenty of liaison officers on both sides working in various staffs from 42 and onward (and even before that between the British and the Soviets but that's given the historical development) but much of it is by various reasons still shrouded in secrecy or at least not extensively researched. The coordination was by virtue of geography mostly limited to the convoy system, backhaul/logistics, airports etc and there wasn't any real operational level coordination other than the invasion of Iran (which was a coordinated strategic surprise attack by UK and the USSR).
Once the war moved into Germany proper the landgrab and general political maneuvering got into high-gear it resulted in general distrust between the factions and thus the "cooperation" became more one-sided in terms of operational intelligence and meaningful coordination. It was basically limited to critical need-to-know stuff and demarcation-lines in the end (one could say the cold-war begun before the hot one had ended).

The extent of the cooperation between the factions has proven hard to decipher historically because of all the general intelligence shenanigans going on during the war (much still classified to this day) and the, still lingering cloaks of revisionist policies during the cold war.
That there was at least some coordination and cooperation going on isn't in doubt though with the lend-lease coordination with all that brings (predicted needs, spares, training etc) and the ferry-service of both aircraft and crews (with training of both air and ground crews on allied-produced equipment being performed on-site in the USSR by westerners). There was also intelligence sharing but that stuff was historically a BIGl can of worms but something that I believe can be solved in the meta-game between the players themselves.

We haven't really seen any major coordinated moves in previous games (like joint invasions etc) but the game-engine also has built in blockers as the USSR and the Allies are usually not engaged in the same war (from a game mechanic point of view) and thus stuff like air-combat and superiority is handled separately. Naval combat though seems to intermix automatically.

But yes, it is food for thought and something that we should possibly consider rules around if it develops into a problem.
Anders
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 2:36:21 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
Let me put it this way: Historically, there was even less cooperation between the Germans and Japanese than between the Western Allies and the Soviets. So do you fancy having Japan sit in his own little TS-channel?

"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
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:00:09 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Anders wrote:
Let me put it this way: Historically, there was even less cooperation between the Germans and Japanese than between the Western Allies and the Soviets. So do you fancy having Japan sit in his own little TS-channel?


A quite slanted comparison as this has more to do with political ideology, the communist where pretty much being shunned(to describe it lightly) in GB for their political views, it's quite amazing they even got a lend lease to work at all, it´s the 'common enemy' again that helps in this regard.

Germany, Italy, Japan shared their xenophobic views and Fascist ideology and I guess that if they wanted could have cooperated more, I guess it was their own megalomania and hubris that put brakes on cooperating, I guess the distance itself also made it hard to cooperate on a Operational/tactical level.

And in the games we have been playing so far there has not really been any cooperation with the Japanese other than checking status with each other from time to time, Germany/Italy has been fully occupied on their end and the Japanese has been fully occupied on their end. So as far as operational/tactical coordination there hasn't really been any.

The last game we had the closest thing to cooperating on a 'operational level' was when Japan asked if they should attack the Russians through Iran/Afghanistan, up until that time we where waging war for ourselves pretty much as it was historically.
Marine
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:54:22 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
About some Historical events and Focuses.

Here I have something about that.
Anschluss
Remilitarization of the Rhineland 
Simply see to it that WW2 starts sometime around 1939.

Also remember this rules concerning germany:
Germany may not declare war upon a minor nation except those triggered by NF until they are at war with a major.( after Danzig or War that is)
Danzig may be selected earliest in January 1939.

No wars before july 1938 to avoid messing up world tension, unless historical(Japan-China and Spanish Civil War of course)
(This one is up to the Axis I think if they want to rise the WT before WW2 starts.)
No ahistorical Non Axis DoWs before 1940.
(This rule is for both Russia and the Allies.)
No ahistorical Axis DoWs before Danzig.
(This one needs some clarification: Germany is allowed to DoW after following Focuses in the tree, but only against minors until Danzig or War)
Declaring war on Turkey/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan is not allowed before Germany and SOV are at war against each other.
(this rule is for everybody.)

A Lot of the other focuses should be up to those players playing those countries that have Focuses ,that depends on a potential enemy.
But that's just my opinion.

You could say that up until Danzig or WAR we follow the historical path, but after that you are more free to do things with your country and faction, but no strange alliances should be allowed.

About Forts I think that i have to make that rule much more clear ,but i think that you are not allowed to build more than level 5 ,but that a Focus can make it higher if handled in the right order, but we can talk about next time we play.

Finally and this is the most important Rule of them all(Talk with each other before you do anything radical ,that could mess up thingsSergeant badly for people...
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 1:38:38 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Lack of cooperation between the Japanese and German/Italian side are quite natural when you look at the strategical area they were fighting in. They were both separated completely by enemies and had no real benefit of close cooperation in a strategic sense.

What I suggested was mainly that perhaps Comintern and the Allies should have separate goals so there are the rivalry between the faction you had in history, they can still cooperate as much as they want but they "win" separately... it is more of a player prestige thing which "might" reflect history in a way.

I don't think it is fair to cut the Comintern player of the chat when alone, that is not fun...

In regards to the German/Japan alliance I think that alliance would have gone out the window as soon as they had any major conflicting interests anyway. Wink
Marine
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 3:54:16 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I would like to wish you a Happy New yearBeer Singing
Praetori
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 11:37:57 PM
 Captain
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 340
Marine wrote:
I would like to wish you a Happy New yearBeer Singing


Happy New Year!!
Alex_brunius
Posted: Sunday, January 01, 2017 3:53:11 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
Happy new Years

Jorgen_CAB wrote:
What I suggested was mainly that perhaps Comintern and the Allies should have separate goals so there are the rivalry between the faction you had in history, they can still cooperate as much as they want but they "win" separately... it is more of a player prestige thing which "might" reflect history in a way.


I think it's mostly a combination of our historical alliances rules in combination with hindsight as well as how most games go.

We know that the Soviet will be on the allied side until the Axis are defeated, and we know that most (if not all?) our games will end when the Axis are defeated. Thus there is little point to have it set up any other way except maybe for RP. If you feel such a need in case of Axis defeat you can just take a look after the game on which of the wars (vs Soviet or vs Allies) that caused the most casualties to the Axis, and which side captured the most key territory, and decide for yourself if Soviet or Allies should be the winner.


I am also pretty sure that the Soviet was an official member of the Allies during the real WW2. ( Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II )
Anders
Posted: Sunday, January 01, 2017 1:36:21 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
Jorgen_SCAB wrote:


What I suggested was mainly that perhaps Comintern and the Allies should have separate goals

Who says I don't? Big Grin
Russia Germany Peace

"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
Geofactor
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2017 6:51:31 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/12/2007
Posts: 721
Location: North Coast USA
I would also like to play as Brit Raj if its still open. I have an internment to attend this wed which may conflict with the starting time but should be good from then on. All using TS 3 now i hope? And what is the address if someone could? Thx, Geo

""The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.".....Thomas Jefferson"
anonymous....we are legion...we dont forgive....we dont forget....expect us...
bpoitier
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2017 7:35:22 PM
 Sergeant

Joined: 10/20/2012
Posts: 73
Location: sweden
I wouldnt mind if u decided to play honduras tbh, they can need a human touch Big Grin I am japan player btw.
Anders
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2017 8:12:55 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
Geofactor wrote:
I would also like to play as Brit Raj if its still open. I have an internment to attend this wed which may conflict with the starting time but should be good from then on. All using TS 3 now i hope? And what is the address if someone could? Thx, Geo

The Legend is back!
I think Raj is taken, but I think either Australia, Romania, or Canada is available.

"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, January 02, 2017 8:55:42 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Anders wrote:
The Legend is back!
I think Raj is taken, but I think either Australia, Romania, or Canada is available.


Quote:
I would also like to play as Brit Raj if its still open.


To be true ,Australia and Canada is already taken, but not British Raj and Romania.

We have one more player incoming ,but not this week and I think he has to take a Axis country and maybe you to have to do that also ,but i'm not sure yet about it.

Quote:
I wouldn't mind if u decided to play honduras tbh, they can need a human touch Big Grin I am japan player btw.


Chicken already? ,Honduras is not so cool, why not Brazil,they are bigger and still not near you coward Angel Grin

We have to take a look and see what countries are good for play.

The date in the game is now November 1939, so Raj ,can be in the war soon.
bpoitier
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2017 8:56:44 PM
 Sergeant

Joined: 10/20/2012
Posts: 73
Location: sweden
I dont think raj is taken actually
bpoitier
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2017 8:58:34 PM
 Sergeant

Joined: 10/20/2012
Posts: 73
Location: sweden
nah, I am not chicken, I just want raj to give me their industries, and I dont wanna loose manpower as I l ll need it against the bush-russians.
Marine
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2017 10:26:12 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
bpoitier wrote:
nah, I am not chicken, I just want raj to give me their industries, and I dont wanna loose manpower as I l ll need it against the bush-russians.


Haha ,well we will meet soon enough on the high seas Big Grin
Marine
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 6:40:09 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
We will start to use this Forum on Steam:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/HOISG#

So please joinSmile
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Thursday, January 05, 2017 8:56:25 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Pretty Anti-Climatic finish yesterday... I assume most thought it was.

My voice was shut so I could not really partake in the conversation afterward but it was interesting.

From my point of view there were a bit to much cheese and exploits being abused and I take it you did not do that in this group before, I think it might be time to tighten up the rules a bit with more players involved?

Regarding the invasion of UK that was unfortunate but still a bit cheesy, me personally would never have done that as the German (even if I could) as that is nothing that should have been possible but that us just me.

Some ideas and suggestions for rules about divisions... These points are only a starting point of discussion, nothing else.. not even very well thought through ideas either so don't shoot me... Wink

1. You are not allowed to switch template types just upgrade them from previous templates. So no switching infantry into marines or a Panzer division. Historically some units was changed in a major way but this usually took quite a while to do and included lots of retraining and should basically be like disbanding and recreating a unit and retrain it anyway. Should be fairly realistic.

2. It is abusive to naval invade with super large divisions since the game completely disregard unit weight and go purely on division numbers, there should be a rule that only division of a certain size can be part of naval invasion and no more than a few tank brigades per divisions. The rest will have to be transported in after the beach landing.

3. Personally I think the number of divisions you can naval land with are too much so they could be modded to be slightly less, no ideas what is actually a good number though.

4. There need to be rules about when you may disband units and retrain them... you should not just disband all your units and build new one in one go... that seem a bit abusive and gamey. I think that you should need to be in a war before you may disband any unit you start the game with. You may upgrade their templates without changing the core type units but not disband them. Should make things a bit more historical.

I'm not against large units I don't even think they are that good... but it makes my gut just cringe when I see them since they are super unrealistic. I think there should be a rule to keep divisions closer to historically accurate while still giving options to diversify them as people want.

Problem with artillery is that the game do not represent Corps and Army units which is where a major part of artillery was concentrated so attaching extra artillery to divisions is fine with me as long as this is not really represented. Not sure if artillery is overpowered or not, some people say that it is but artillery was overpowered in reality as well and the one who could afford allot of artillery would have a clear advantage. Artillery should cost a bit more supplies though, that is the main problem I think. Artillery should be much more supply heavy than infantry contrary to what it currently is, tanks as well but that is just my opinion.

About overall balance: In my opinion the Axis should actually expect to loose the war and if they hold out longer than the Axis did in history that is a WIN for that side. I don't understand the obsession about there being an equal viable chance of success by the Axis or the Allies, perhaps someone could explain that mentality to me?

Well that is my overall thoughts... and I still enjoyed last session even though I could mostly listen in on the conversations... yet again... Wink
Anders
Posted: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:12:40 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
Jorgen_CAB wrote:


2. It is abusive to naval invade with super large divisions

The standard rule, when there is one, is to not allow exploitation of the naval invasion-mechanics, such as using subs and screens to tie up a much larger enemy navy; If you want to naval invade, you have to defeat the navy, not cheese your way to victory..

It's also common to ban 'space marine'-type units, such as units with more than 1 Artillery/SpArt/R-Art per 10 combat width (wether AT counts as artillery varies, but it's one of the only ways to hold your own against the typical German Heavy Tank-divisions that roll through the French and Soviet defenses) and special forces-units (Marines, Mountaneers and PAratroopers)with tanks attached. Mixing infantry and special forces is also quite often banned.

"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
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:38:36 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Anders wrote:
The standard rule, when there is one, is to not allow exploitation of the naval invasion-mechanics, such as using subs and screens to tie up a much larger enemy navy; If you want to naval invade, you have to defeat the navy, not cheese your way to victory..

It's also common to ban 'space marine'-type units, such as units with more than 1 Artillery/SpArt/R-Art per 10 combat width (wether AT counts as artillery varies, but it's one of the only ways to hold your own against the typical German Heavy Tank-divisions that roll through the French and Soviet defenses) and special forces-units (Marines, Mountaneers and PAratroopers)with tanks attached. Mixing infantry and special forces is also quite often banned.


I think that you should only allow naval invasion with units that are rather light on anything but infantry so say max two-three other none infantry line units in such divisions. So you can have some tanks but not full tank divisions and you also can have some artillery. Having some tanks with naval landing divisions are quite historical. Or why not similar as what you said... max one NONE infantry for each 10 width if a divisions are to take part in a naval landing.

Problem with the game in its current state are how easy it is to supply units while you don't have any really naval superiority. There are hardly any good example of any army in WW2 that did well if not supplied from a safe harbor for any extended period (more than a week or so), especially offensive operations.

Alex_brunius
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 12:57:40 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 355
Anders wrote:
It's also common to ban 'space marine'-type units, such as units with more than 1 Artillery/SpArt/R-Art per 10 combat width (wether AT counts as artillery varies, but it's one of the only ways to hold your own against the typical German Heavy Tank-divisions that roll through the French and Soviet defenses)


How did you arrive at the conclusion that one type of division template that if allowed would be equally valid for both sides to build and exploit would favor one side more then their enemies?
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 1:51:57 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
@Jorgen_CAB

Pretty Anti-Climatic finish yesterday... I assume most thought it was.
Yes it was Sad

My voice was shut so I could not really partake in the conversation afterward but it was interesting.
Why was if shut? I missed that.

From my point of view there were a bit to much cheese and exploits being abused and I take it you did not do that in this group before, I think it might be time to tighten up the rules a bit with more players involved?
I agree with that and have now made some changes in the Rules and put in a lot about exploits.
Also we did not have so many exploit problems before ,but if we took care of them as we shall do now.


Regarding the invasion of UK that was unfortunate but still a bit cheesy, me personally would never have done that as the German (even if I could) as that is nothing that should have been possible but that us just me.
Yeah it was a little special since they did not get so much of a warning about a landing.

Some ideas and suggestions for rules about divisions... These points are only a starting point of discussion, nothing else.. not even very well thought through ideas either so don't shoot me... Wink

1. You are not allowed to switch template types just upgrade them from previous templates. So no switching infantry into marines or a Panzer division. Historically some units was changed in a major way but this usually took quite a while to do and included lots of retraining and should basically be like disbanding and recreating a unit and retrain it anyway. Should be fairly realistic.
Hm I agree about this concerning some cases ,but not in others, have to think about this.


2. It is abusive to naval invade with super large divisions since the game completely disregard unit weight and go purely on division numbers, there should be a rule that only division of a certain size can be part of naval invasion and no more than a few tank brigades per divisions. The rest will have to be transported in after the beach landing.
I agree about this and will make a post about this later on.

3. Personally I think the number of divisions you can naval land with are too much so they could be modded to be slightly less, no ideas what is actually a good number though.
Yes if you take a look at does landings that were made in the war(WW2) these sizes in HOI 4 is way too big, but I don't have a clue on sizes right now.

4. There need to be rules about when you may disband units and retrain them... you should not just disband all your units and build new one in one go... that seem a bit abusive and gamey. I think that you should need to be in a war before you may disband any unit you start the game with. You may upgrade their templates without changing the core type units but not disband them. Should make things a bit more historical.
Yes this is a little gamey. I also agree with your suggestions on making it more historical.

I'm not against large units I don't even think they are that good... but it makes my gut just cringe when I see them since they are super unrealistic. I think there should be a rule to keep divisions closer to historically accurate while still giving options to diversify them as people want.
I tend to make semi historical forces myself.
Maybe we should make some suggestions regarding some standard templates that should be followed as a guide to what should be allowed for different templates and units.


Problem with artillery is that the game do not represent Corps and Army units which is where a major part of artillery was concentrated so attaching extra artillery to divisions is fine with me as long as this is not really represented. Not sure if artillery is overpowered or not, some people say that it is but artillery was overpowered in reality as well and the one who could afford allot of artillery would have a clear advantage. Artillery should cost a bit more supplies though, that is the main problem I think. Artillery should be much more supply heavy than infantry contrary to what it currently is, tanks as well but that is just my opinion.
Yes some units can make a big difference on stats.

About overall balance: In my opinion the Axis should actually expect to loose the war and if they hold out longer than the Axis did in history that is a WIN for that side. I don't understand the obsession about there being an equal viable chance of success by the Axis or the Allies, perhaps someone could explain that mentality to me?
That's a little how it has been in the group and we have played until one side say that they can't continue as it is right now and then we talk about what people want to do.

Well that is my overall thoughts... and I still enjoyed last session even though I could mostly listen in on the conversations... yet again... Wink
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Friday, January 06, 2017 2:39:29 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Marine wrote:
@Jorgen_CAB

My voice was shut so I could not really partake in the conversation afterward but it was interesting.
Why was if shut? I missed that.


I have had a severe cold the last few days and my voice could hardly stand up to normal conversation so raising the voice and talk clearly on headphones was difficult.
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.