Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

5th HOI4 MP Campaign Options · View
Anders
Posted: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:57:21 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_CAB wrote:

The game need to be balance in a way that Division templates are never going to be major factor, a minor one yes... but not a major one.

But the game is designed to favour a certain division design, that's how the frontage-system works.
It's also why almost every ruleset has the 1 artillery-per-10-width rule, because the game is easily exploitable due to poor playtesting.

"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: Friday, January 20, 2017 7:59:16 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Anders wrote:
But the game is designed to favour a certain division design, that's how the frontage-system works.
It's also why almost every ruleset has the 1 artillery-per-10-width rule, because the game is easily exploitable due to poor playtesting.


There are other exploits as well such as how ORG functions and make more and smaller units more powerful in general due to how ORG works. That is what I meant with having some basic understanding of not completely abusing that rule so everyone can enjoy the game and build more historically accurate division designs which some people seem to think is more fun.

That is what I got from this game in regard to division design. The Japan player build realistic divisions designs which should be a viable way to play the game without loosing just becasue of it. In my opinion it was the Chinese small divisions design that made him so much stronger not the lack of artillery in the Japan design. Japan could have had a bit more smaller brigade sized units or more dispersed tanks in their divisions as well but there should be a balance somewhere so people can just build NORMAL divisions if that is what people want to do.

Not everyone are interested in a META game and just want to play a fun game and not one of of ROCK, PAPER, SCISSOR. The reason games end quick is ROCK, PAPER, SCISSOR mechanic that gets used which means they either work really good or not at all.

If I'm wrong in my assumption of what people like then please excuse my presumptive argumentation. Smile

Beethoven
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:17:34 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
There are other exploits as well such as how ORG functions and make more and smaller units more powerful in general due to how ORG works. That is what I meant with having some basic understanding of not completely abusing that rule so everyone can enjoy the game and build more historically accurate division designs which some people seem to think is more fun.

That is what I got from this game in regard to division design. The Japan player build realistic divisions designs which should be a viable way to play the game without loosing just becasue of it. In my opinion it was the Chinese small divisions design that made him so much stronger not the lack of artillery in the Japan design. Japan could have had a bit more smaller brigade sized units or more dispersed tanks in their divisions as well but there should be a balance somewhere so people can just build NORMAL divisions if that is what people want to do.

Not everyone are interested in a META game and just want to play a fun game and not one of of ROCK, PAPER, SCISSOR. The reason games end quick is ROCK, PAPER, SCISSOR mechanic that gets used which means they either work really good or not at all.

If I'm wrong in my assumption of what people like then please excuse my presumptive argumentation. Smile



The small infantry is the template China starts the game with... It is just 8 width pure infantry, that's it. If you start a single player game as China, you will see that is what most of their units start as.

Smaller width units are not more powerful "in general" - they have a very serious drawback, which is that they take can take much higher casualties. For gameplay purposes, if you are just trying to have what will work best with the game mechanics, you would in general want different sorts of units for different situations.

The basic tradeoff with division size is higher width takes less casualties but has less org, while smaller width divisions take higher casualties, but have more org. So low width is best for winning individual battles, while high width is best over the long run for preserving equipment and winning a longer war of attrition.

I agree though, this does not really make much sense - why would a larger division take less casualties, but be less organized?

One solution could perhaps be a rule that you have to have all your divisions be 20 (or 22) width.

But this would be a bit of a problem, for example for China, which starts with a lot of low width divisions. You could hardly blame them for breaking a hypothetical "20 width only" rule, given that is what they start with. The game is just set up to have varying widths, and template design is a part of the game which is hard to simply eliminate in a coherent way.

Similarly, USA, Japan, Soviets, etc start with a mix of higher width and lower width units, and have different templates for those.
Beethoven
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:34:17 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
When you are playing a single player game and both Japan and China are AI, often China does quite well (and even can kick Japan entirely out of China). This reflects the fact that the units Japan starts with are not much better than the ones China starts with.

Japan's only real advantages over China are from tech (and a bit better industry). Japan's advantages are planes, tanks, artillery, and shore bombardment from its navy. So for a human Japan to be significantly favored to win over a human China, the human Japan player has to know that those are their advantages, and they have to use those advantages. Otherwise Japan will have a hard time.

As far as I know, Japan didn't use any of those. They seemed to have their navy on a mission, rather than sitting by the coast (as far as we could tell, since the Japanese ships seemed to be moving around), which if so, would mean they did not get the bombardment bonuses. And as far as we could tell, Japan did not put any tanks or line artillery into their divisions - they were basically just pure INF/MAR with only support ART and maybe engineers.

So this is why Japan did not manage to push China back (and was starting to get pushed back itself, instead) in the first month, before any lend lease arrived. Then with the lend lease, the things that would otherwise be Japan's advantages (planes, tanks, and artillery) began to become China's advantages.


In Europe, I was not expecting UK/France to actually be able to really attack into Germany like we did. We were initially hoping just to more or less hold the line, but try to defend/delay in the forest of Belgium, etc. The fact that we were able to more than that seems to be because of CAS.

The German buildup was not ideal, and Axis had world tension problems, but what really seems to have done it was the CAS. CAS seems to be unexpectedly overpowered/broken in the current patch, so that either needs to be fixed with a mod, or else banned in the next game. It is strange, because I don't think it was so strong even in 1.3.0 or 1.3.1.

It seemed to me like the UK certainly had better tanks (and maybe even more tanks) than Germany did, which should not normally happen, but did, because of confusion about the research rule. And in addition, UK had 6000 or so planes, and decent infantry (with France having larger amounts of similar infantry), so...

I hope everyone agrees now that the rules should be adjusted a bit for the early game, so that Germany is likely to defeat France, and then the game progresses from there in a better way. I have previously made suggestions for doing that.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:41:38 AM
 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
Indeed, the general opinion among MPlayers seems to be that CAS is the weapon of choice, as it "just shreds tanks," as one player remarked the other day.

"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
Beethoven
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:54:02 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
In my opinion it was the Chinese small divisions design that made him so much stronger not the lack of artillery in the Japan design.


It really wasn't.

What happened (speaking about the time before SOV lend lease arrived) is the Chinese small divisions were able to beat the Japanese divisions because both the Japanese divisions and the Chinese divisions had very little soft attack. So because the divisions took so little damage, it became a matter of who ran out of ORG first. Since China had more divisions and they were low width, Japan ran out of ORG first. But that would not have mattered if Japan produced ART and tanks and put them in their divisions.

By contrast, I played a different game today as Japan against a good human China player. I had some trouble initially, because my template was not quite right and a bug interfered with my naval landings, but as soon as I had enough army XP to add line ART and light tanks to my template, I started pushing China from the north, and didn't stop pushing until they capitulated.

The Soviets also lend-leased 100,000 infantry equipment and a lot of Soviet planes, while Japan was not allowed to receive any lend-lease under the rules.

It was not an easy fight, but I could win it even while building civilian factories through the whole war. It would of course have been much more difficult after lend-lease arrived if the Soviets had lend-leased tanks and artillery and AT as well - but the point is, I could push easily in the time before any lend-lease arrived, which Japan could not do in this game due to not building ART/tanks/planes.

My good attacking divisions were all actually 44-width, so since they had high soft attack and had the light tanks attached, that was what made the difference - merely the fact that the Chinese divisions were all low width (similarly, all were 8 width) did not help them, because they actually took damage from the ART and tanks. I had some other smaller divisions (12 width) that just held the line in other places.

So low-width divisions only are better if the higher width divisions are not strong enough to do serious damage to the low-width divisions.
Beethoven
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:57:43 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Anders wrote:
Indeed, the general opinion among MPlayers seems to be that CAS is the weapon of choice, as it "just shreds tanks," as one player remarked the other day.


Yes, but it was not so strong in previous patches. Previously, it seemed like it would be disrupted and shot down if you had fighters. But now they seem to hardly ever be disrupted, and there is something wrong with the combat passes or something, so that hardly any of the CAS fights in air-to-air combat when you try to intercept it.

But since they tried to fix the air wing size bug, this seems to have still messed up other things in the air mechanics.

The British CAS I had built was also all 1936 model CAS, which is much weaker than later models (1940/1944 CAS).
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:53:18 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Beethoven wrote:
When you are playing a single player game and both Japan and China are AI, often China does quite well (and even can kick Japan entirely out of China). This reflects the fact that the units Japan starts with are not much better than the ones China starts with.

Japan's only real advantages over China are from tech (and a bit better industry). Japan's advantages are planes, tanks, artillery, and shore bombardment from its navy. So for a human Japan to be significantly favored to win over a human China, the human Japan player has to know that those are their advantages, and they have to use those advantages. Otherwise Japan will have a hard time.

As far as I know, Japan didn't use any of those. They seemed to have their navy on a mission, rather than sitting by the coast (as far as we could tell, since the Japanese ships seemed to be moving around), which if so, would mean they did not get the bombardment bonuses. And as far as we could tell, Japan did not put any tanks or line artillery into their divisions - they were basically just pure INF/MAR with only support ART and maybe engineers.

So this is why Japan did not manage to push China back (and was starting to get pushed back itself, instead) in the first month, before any lend lease arrived. Then with the lend lease, the things that would otherwise be Japan's advantages (planes, tanks, and artillery) began to become China's advantages.


In Europe, I was not expecting UK/France to actually be able to really attack into Germany like we did. We were initially hoping just to more or less hold the line, but try to defend/delay in the forest of Belgium, etc. The fact that we were able to more than that seems to be because of CAS.

The German buildup was not ideal, and Axis had world tension problems, but what really seems to have done it was the CAS. CAS seems to be unexpectedly overpowered/broken in the current patch, so that either needs to be fixed with a mod, or else banned in the next game. It is strange, because I don't think it was so strong even in 1.3.0 or 1.3.1.

It seemed to me like the UK certainly had better tanks (and maybe even more tanks) than Germany did, which should not normally happen, but did, because of confusion about the research rule. And in addition, UK had 6000 or so planes, and decent infantry (with France having larger amounts of similar infantry), so...

I hope everyone agrees now that the rules should be adjusted a bit for the early game, so that Germany is likely to defeat France, and then the game progresses from there in a better way. I have previously made suggestions for doing that.


Yes I always had this opinion myself, I never minded having a OP Germany even if I'm on the receiving end, although I've never considered Germany OP from the beginning as we have actually had quite balanced fights in the game, it just gives that extra spice to the game that makes it exiting (a little bit like the Rebels fighting of the Empire in Star Wars, if you like that comparison, even if it doesn't really compare to a WW2 Crazy ).

Then on the other hand I guess Germany can be considered OP if you use every trick in the book that is known about the game mechanics for the time being, vs a player who doesn't care much more than the basics in regards of game mechanics. Gaming the game mechanics and doing everything else so optimized that even a computer would weep from joy seeing how efficient the human player has done everything from the start would give most major nations a feeling of OP I guess.

But if you are a major nation in the game and know how everything should be optimized then perhaps using small tricks like having 10 width units for the purpose of maximizing ORG should not be used, that is in the context where you know that your 10 width will likely hold out longer against a 20 width making them retreat. But using 10 width for some 'divisions' for the purpose of saving manpower for bigger divisions heading to the major front-lines could be considered fair play perhaps.

The only time I've used 10 width 'Divisions'(if you can call that a division) is for my garrison units fortifying coastlines/victory points/ports or suppressing resistance in the provinces.

And I can actually see some reason in how you would like to run with smaller units in Africa because of the poor supply situation, and save manpower for the more important front lines. Playing as Italy before I can very well see myself dedicating 10 width units to Africa, while using 20-40 width on other fronts. The same if I knew that I would fight in jungles, then smaller units would be more efficient in regards of supply and such.

Had Germany really been OP from the beginning then we would have seen fronts being steam-rolled from the war starts to the end, and I have not really seen that in our games, unless the opposing team has forgotten to take their troops out of training Devil , in which case we can reload the game from a earlier save (if it was a genuine mistake and not a miscalculation on when the attacks could start, it's not fun winning over someone who has forgotten to press a damn cog wheel in a selection menu One Tooth Grin )

Germany should be a bit OP in the beginning (and probably can even with rules as long as a player plays his cards right) and there should be a feeling of impeding doom.


For those not versed in gaming linguistics, OP = Overpowered ,usually used in a context where something(nation/vehicle/weapon etc.) in a game is so much better so that it shifts the power-balance completely or a significant amount in favour for one side.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 1:35:09 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
Germany IS actually OP in the early game, because Germany usually has no problem whatsoever in defeating France in 36/37, if France refuses the Rhineland. Germany can even blitz the Maginot-line successfully at that time. Which is quite ahistorical.

"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: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:24:20 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/12/2007
Posts: 721
Location: North Coast USA
As has been done in all past HOI games...the best player usually takes Germany and so on down the line. Letting total noobs play UK and then the Japs has ruined 2 games thus far. I hearby state that all major players need to be vetted from now on! I will play any major if needed to avoid this type of game again.

""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...
BaddoSpirito
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:41:08 PM
Recruit

Joined: 1/11/2017
Posts: 3
I think this group has to decide whether they want to play competitive strategy games or casual role-playing games. I am a competitive strategy gamer so I am not interested in the latter. It would be beneficial to be clear about which kind of game you are running when you are recruiting new players.
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:51:26 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Yes you could say that we RPG until 1939, and then after that it´s up to any nation to pretty much do as the choose...
P3D
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:01:33 PM
 Sergeant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/20/2009
Posts: 78
Location: Reno
I will not play in the next game, I don't want to ruin it for the majority who are playing with a more casual approach than I do.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 6:03:05 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
I always play to win. But I like everyone to have a sporting chance, within limits, of course.

"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: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:00:14 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Geofactor wrote:
As has been done in all past HOI games...the best player usually takes Germany and so on down the line. Letting total noobs play UK and then the Japs has ruined 2 games thus far. I hereby state that all major players need to be vetted from now on! I will play any major if needed to avoid this type of game again.


Calling somebody for a Noob in this group is not so nice...

In this group we don´t think so, we ask around who wants to play want and then we go from there.
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:03:36 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
BaddoSpirito wrote:
I think this group has to decide whether they want to play competitive strategy games or casual role-playing games. I am a competitive strategy gamer so I am not interested in the latter. It would be beneficial to be clear about which kind of game you are running when you are recruiting new players.


Well this group is more into casual role-playing than competitive playing, so maybe this not for you then.
We like to get the feel for being Commanders in WW2 Smile

Thanks for the tip about recruiting the right people, we should be more clear next time.
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:04:22 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
P3D wrote:
I will not play in the next game, I don't want to ruin it for the majority who are playing with a more casual approach than I do.


Thanks you for being honest Smile
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:07:03 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Anders wrote:
I always play to win. But I like everyone to have a sporting chance, within limits, of course.


I never played with the intent to Win ,but for a having a great time playing.
If i win ,well great and if i lose, so what then I have maybe learnt how to not play next time.

The important thing for me is to have fun during playBig Grin
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:25:25 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
To get some things clear!

When we are in war against Humans we play at Speed 1 and even against the AI if needed ,so please don't nag about it
We don't use exploits of any kind ,if found we tell them and then don't use them.
We like to play from 1936 ,so that we can build up our forces the way that we want and then when war breaks out, we start to fight and maybe even find different ways to achieve what we want.

The two last Sessions ended after just 2 weeks and that is no fun at all in my mind.

I like to see and experience the what if's that could have happened in WW2, but only after Poland has fallen.

I like to have a real Pacific war and I like to fight hard in the desert.

When I play a country I play it as I want to play it and not how others want me to play it.

How i build templates has not been so important for me ,but now I start to think more of them.
I try to build a little like IRL.
So all this talk about Templates and Width is like latin for me(I don't take som much notice of it ,because we have not had any problems with them before).

People should also read the Rules more and if unclear ask before you try something that can be against the rules.

I know I sound harsh ,but I am that a little Mad

The fun spirit in the group is broken and i'm even thinking of taking a Timeout!
Geofactor
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:07:01 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/12/2007
Posts: 721
Location: North Coast USA
Marine wrote:
Calling somebody for a Noob in this group is not so nice...

In this group we don´t think so, we ask around who wants to play want and then we go from there.

Then the admins are noobs...at picking players. Not trying to insult anyone as i am a noob as well, but i hope we do better at a balanced game next time.

""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...
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:05:56 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Geofactor wrote:
Then the admins are noobs...at picking players. Not trying to insult anyone as i am a noob as well, but i hope we do better at a balanced game next time.


For your Information: I ´m one of the Admins Smile
No insult taken( just a little)

I´m not considering myself a Noob at planing ,since i've been doing this for over 5 years now and we almost everytime have had a good time and nice game Smile

I balanced game is not so easy to get ,but you can maybe come close.

We never put people in countries that we want them in ,but where they would like to be and then we go from thereSmile
Alex_brunius
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:12:51 AM
 Hauptmann

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 356
Geofactor wrote:
As has been done in all past HOI games...the best player usually takes Germany and so on down the line. Letting total noobs play UK and then the Japs has ruined 2 games thus far. I hearby state that all major players need to be vetted from now on! I will play any major if needed to avoid this type of game again.


What ruined the first game with UK was not a "total noob" playing UK, but the simple fact that our group previously have used alot of unwritten rules and made use of "common historical sense" in how we play.

One example of this is that none of us core Swedish members would get the idea that it's OK or fair play to invade the UK without sinking most of the Royal Navy present in Europe first, and probably defeating the RAF first too. (Historical common sense).

What ruined that game is that these rules were not written down, but unspoken/unwritten agreement between the core members of the group after having played together and chatted together for such a long time, which naturally is not possible to know for the more competitive oriented MP players that joined. Another big contribution to that game ending quickly is a big weaknesses in game mechanics allowing supply and reinforcements for the invading army to be traced perfectly fine despite a blockade of thousands of planes and 300 ships. This would not be even remotely possible historically, where the invading German divisions would not have the staying power to win the attrition battles around London that followed.




Personally I would prefer to go back to our previous playstyle with Swedish speaking members, call it casual if you want to, since I doubt it's possible or a fun experience to have game after game ruined by missing rules that need to be clarified for competitive players that seek every opportunity to min-max, exploit the game mechanics and bend the historical intentions of the rules, even if these players don't actually do break the rules technically.

Perhaps if there is interest from one of the competitive players here to take the lead as a 2:nd admin there would be enough players to form two separate groups? Our original Scandinavian/Swedish speaking player group, and an English speaking group better suited for competitive play at a bit faster speeds? I think that would make the games more enjoyable for all, allow twice as many to play majors while still allowing us to share experiences, balancing mods and thoughts on the game, exploits or suggestions to bring forward to Paradox.

Geofactor wrote:
Then the admins are noobs...at picking players.

With 10 "new" players of (for us) totally unknown skill joining for the last 2 games, perhaps you wouldn't do so well in knowing beforehand who is a good player and who is not either, if you put yourself in our shoes... Rolleyes We do have a fairly good sense of which core group players are stronger and tend to win already ofcourse, but due to less players (around 6-8) we previously have valued reliability in attendance (if people know they will be away or not) higher then skill when determining who gets to play the 4-5 important majors.

Much of our core group have played HoI in multiplayer together for over 5 years on this forum alone, and we played before that as well organizing through mail, so we have experience with the games and game mechanics, even if none of us will be able to compete in faster speeds or against min-maxing other competitive groups, since that simply never was the way we have played the game.

Another big difference is that during this time we often talked of what is historically plausible and not, within the context of each game and situation being played that week, and this way we have developed a kind of mutual understanding over time of what actions are reasonable and not reasonable. This is what I mean when I write "Historical common sense". The groups members have differed a little bit over time, but we have previously not recruited more then maybe 1 new player at a time for several months, both due to lack of interest and due to lack of finding people that speak Swedish and share our mindset.

Marine wrote:

How i build templates has not been so important for me ,but now I start to think more of them.
I try to build a little like IRL.
So all this talk about Templates and Width is like latin for me(I don't take som much notice of it ,because we have not had any problems with them before).


This is a bit of a "transition pain" in changing from HoI2 and HoI3, where templates did not matter that greatly (there is only so much you could do with 2-4 slots), to HoI4 where templates large and small can have a way way bigger impact if you use them in the right way.

HoI4 battalions are also quite differently balanced compared to HoI2 and HoI3 brigades where the basic infantry was more competitive all-round, rather then a purely defensive part of the template as it is in HoI4.

A good allround template in HoI4 needs to have both plenty firepower (line artillery/SPGs) added and if you want to attack effectively breakthrough (tanks) added, not just a single "support" artillery like in HoI2/HoI3 templates.

Another important difference in HoI4 is to keep close tabs on production so you can fulfill the equipment needs for your templates, and don't have too much unused (wasted) equipment, or fall behind in other areas (shortage which reduce your division stats greatly).
Beethoven
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:01:43 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Marine wrote:
To get some things clear!

When we are in war against Humans we play at Speed 1 and even against the AI if needed ,so please don't nag about it
We don't use exploits of any kind ,if found we tell them and then don't use them.
We like to play from 1936 ,so that we can build up our forces the way that we want and then when war breaks out, we start to fight and maybe even find different ways to achieve what we want.

The two last Sessions ended after just 2 weeks and that is no fun at all in my mind.

I like to see and experience the what if's that could have happened in WW2, but only after Poland has fallen.

I like to have a real Pacific war and I like to fight hard in the desert.

When I play a country I play it as I want to play it and not how others want me to play it.

How i build templates has not been so important for me ,but now I start to think more of them.
I try to build a little like IRL.
So all this talk about Templates and Width is like latin for me(I don't take som much notice of it ,because we have not had any problems with them before).

People should also read the Rules more and if unclear ask before you try something that can be against the rules.

I know I sound harsh ,but I am that a little Mad

The fun spirit in the group is broken and i'm even thinking of taking a Timeout!


I like the spirit of the game you are trying to play, and am happy with allowing things like speed 1 when someone needs it. Yes, it can be slow at times, but I like the idea that whether you are winning or losing should *not* depend on how much attention you are able to pay to a front. In other games, I have had large parts of my fronts be surrounded and destroyed only for the reason that I was fighting on different sides of the world, and that is no fun for anyone, I don't think. I would think that most of the time speed 1 is probably not really need for the Japan-China war (I would say speed 2 would be about right most of the time for Japan-China if there are human players on both), but if someone feels like they really need it, ultimately I am ok with that. I would much rather have that than be forced to play through the Japan-China war at speed 3 or 4, like happens in other games. That is one of the things I really like about this group - you are the only one I have found that is willing to play at speed 1, which I think makes for a more serious and less arcade-like game. So I would hope to keep playing with the group, and hope there is not a timeout, because it would be fun to keep playing.

One suggestion to make speed 1 a bit less boring for those who are not directly involved - mod the game so that joining a faction does not cause any WT. Then, for example, we should allow countries to temporarily join (and then leave) the Chinese National Front faction and the Axis, to observe the Japan-China war. Similarly, the USA should be allowed to join the Allies before joining the war - then it is more fun for them so they can see what is going on. Or an alternative that (and might be better, since if you are in a faction there are various things you can do, like use faction-members' ports and airfields) might be to allow everyone to send 1 volunteer that is not allowed to fight, just so that then people could see what is going on and observe the war. It can be modded so that volunteers do not cause World Tension.

Another suggestion - have a co-GM, so that there is one GM playing on the Allies and one on the Axis. This way, if you are not sure if you are allowed to do something, you can ask a GM in your own faction. Since if you ask the GM, and the GM is playing an enemy country, then you will lose any element of surprise of what you are doing, it would help if you can ask someone who is your ally. And also try to continue to make clear what exactly is and is not considered an exploit, because it is often quite unclear.

As regards templates, there are different advantages and disadvantages inherent in all the different land doctrines. It is a pretty basic part built into the game that different doctrines favor different types of templates. For example, if you have superior firepower, you benefit more from putting more ART in your templates (and support companies with the integrated support variation in that). If you have mobile warfare, you benefit from having tanks and high ORG infantry. If you have mass assault, you benefit from having lots of infantry (and possibly taking advantage of the supply reductions). Similarly, the different air doctrines benefit different types of planes and missions, and the different naval doctrines are good for different types of ships and different ways of playing with the navy (e.g. hit and run, convoy raiding or convoy escort, or decisive battles).

But if you want to do things like limit combat width of units to certain amounts (e.g. you have to work towards making all your divisions be 20 or 22 width), or whatever else, I think that would be OK. It just limits tactical flexibility a bit, but that is not necessarily such a terrible thing. The main thing is it helps if whatever rules there are are clear - so that then they can be followed by everyone easily.
Marine
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:51:08 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I would like to say thanks to Beethoven and Alex for the info regarding Templates, if will have a thought or two about them.
Marine
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:12:26 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

Quote:
What ruined the first game with UK was not a "total noob" playing UK, but the simple fact that our group previously have used alot of unwritten rules and made use of "common historical sense" in how we play.

One example of this is that none of us core Swedish members would get the idea that it's OK or fair play to invade the UK without sinking most of the Royal Navy present in Europe first, and probably defeating the RAF first too. (Historical common sense).

What ruined that game is that these rules were not written down, but unspoken/unwritten agreement between the core members of the group after having played together and chatted together for such a long time, which naturally is not possible to know for the more competitive oriented MP players that joined. Another big contribution to that game ending quickly is a big weaknesses in game mechanics allowing supply and reinforcements for the invading army to be traced perfectly fine despite a blockade of thousands of planes and 300 ships. This would not be even remotely possible historically, where the invading German divisions would not have the staying power to win the attrition battles around London that followed.




Personally I would prefer to go back to our previous playstyle with Swedish speaking members, call it casual if you want to, since I doubt it's possible or a fun experience to have game after game ruined by missing rules that need to be clarified for competitive players that seek every opportunity to min-max, exploit the game mechanics and bend the historical intentions of the rules, even if these players don't actually do break the rules technically.

Perhaps if there is interest from one of the competitive players here to take the lead as a 2:nd admin there would be enough players to form two separate groups? Our original Scandinavian/Swedish speaking player group, and an English speaking group better suited for competitive play at a bit faster speeds? I think that would make the games more enjoyable for all, allow twice as many to play majors while still allowing us to share experiences, balancing mods and thoughts on the game, exploits or suggestions to bring forward to Paradox.


I really like the phrase Historical common sense and the part of unwritten rules that we have used before, I will put more of those that i can remember in writing.
I also want to go back to how it was before with the core group with some changes maybe for some of the new persons that are willing to accept how we play it.

I also like the idea of maybe have two groups in the group ,one competitive group and one as we had before and preferably Swedish or Scandinavian speaking.
If someone wants to start up a second group?

Quote:
With 10 "new" players of (for us) totally unknown skill joining for the last 2 games, perhaps you wouldn't do so well in knowing beforehand who is a good player and who is not either, if you put yourself in our shoes... Rolleyes We do have a fairly good sense of which core group players are stronger and tend to win already ofcourse, but due to less players (around 6-8) we previously have valued reliability in attendance (if people know they will be away or not) higher then skill when determining who gets to play the 4-5 important majors.

Much of our core group have played HoI in multiplayer together for over 5 years on this forum alone, and we played before that as well organizing through mail, so we have experience with the games and game mechanics, even if none of us will be able to compete in faster speeds or against min-maxing other competitive groups, since that simply never was the way we have played the game.

Another big difference is that during this time we often talked of what is historically plausible and not, within the context of each game and situation being played that week, and this way we have developed a kind of mutual understanding over time of what actions are reasonable and not reasonable. This is what I mean when I write "Historical common sense". The groups members have differed a little bit over time, but we have previously not recruited more then maybe 1 new player at a time for several months, both due to lack of interest and due to lack of finding people that speak Swedish and share our mindset.


Maybe we grow to past and the Rules and how we play can't handle it.
So we should slow down a little I think in getting more new members.
I liked how we could talk about things in the game and come up with solutions that were okay for everyone.
About playing what, I don't like playing Germans and Soviets ,because i have not so much expertise on them ,I like to be a underdog and fight backSmile
Regarding templates ,as i can remember it ,we have not had any problems with that before ,because people held it in common sensed limits and did not make super Templates.
So I don't like to have limits on Templates really, but no Super ones should be allowed in a common historical sense kind.
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.