Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

5th HOI4 MP Campaign Options · View
Marine
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:20:06 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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


I like what you write about our spirit in the group and as you say no one like to play it slow on Speed 1 ,but if need it is okay so that it does not ruin things for someone.
About joining a fraction ,just to see what's going on is not a dumb idea ,but not so important I think for myself. i will get reports from the others that are on the same side.
If you got no spies how are you then supposed to see what's going on if you are not in the war yourself Smile
This about Width can be a good thing ,but then soon everyone will have the same kind of units and that's not so fun ,but no Super Marines as someone said before Smile

To have on GM on each side is a good suggestion I think Thumbs Up
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 12:43:10 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Beethoven wrote:
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.


I know full well what China start with and I see no issue with using their templates at all. I also think that the player on the Japan side did not have enough small units himself either which you really need. As Japan you should really put more light tank into smaller brigade sized units, no problem putting them with regular infantry to save on the rubber. Since the Chinese are not going to have that much AT weapons in the early game you can really roll over them with such brigades. Regular infantry divisions with one support artillery and one line artillery should be enough for regular divisions at that stage, Japan will be hard pressed for building enough artillery and should obviously stay with the basic artillery for a long while.

Templates such as...

1xL.Tank, 3x Inf, 1xArt (Rec, Eng, Art) for 11 Width are really powerful against the Chinese.

Regular large divisions could be...

8xInf, 1xArt (Rec, Eng, Art, Hospital) or the classic 7xInf, 2xArt (Rec, Eng, Art, Hospital) depending on the amount of artillery you manage to produce in contrast with infantry equipment. I would probably use both templates and balance them depending on the amount of artillery I have. You can also swap one artillery or infantry for a L.Tank.

You also need purely defensive smaller brigades when operating in China so you can have a more dynamic back and forth battle, such as...

5-6xInf and (Eng, Art) or just put Art as line artillery for a bit more punch when you are not able to fill all the width in battle as you rarely will in China once you push through their initial positions.

I'm in no way against a certain type of template width in general and know full well the downside of smaller brigade sized units and how much equipment they can loose where bigger divisions don't. You do need to have a good balance of different units.

What I don't like personally is when you stray too far of in the stratosphere with history and crate pure Heavy tank divisions or just run around with small divisions becasue for the most part it will be an ALL or NOTHING strategy. Either you succeed and the opposing player can't deal with it or it fail hard and you just collapse. Heavy tanks in WW2 were never produced or used in great concentrations for a reason, so that is why I don't like such templates, not that you can't deal with them in game. If you manage AIR superiority and have heavy tank divisions the enemy can't pierce there are not much they can do to stop you short of having specific AT brigades built for the purpose of stopping them or their own heavy tank divisions. Or just divisions where you have like 70% tanks one or two infantry so you skyrocket the breakthrough and the only thing that stop them again is the air force so you entirely rely on that.
If there is more of an understanding of historical play you don't get these rock, paper scissor strategies that either work wonders or not at all... in reality no country would DARE put all their eggs in one basket... it simply don't work like that. A player in a game on the other hand are so far removed from any real responsibilities that can do whatever they please since there are no repercussions for his actions other than just loosing a game.

If everyone instead where to RP a bit more and think as the leaders of that time had to think... I think the game would be a bit more satisfying for people in the original group and the new ones like me and you as well. Smile

I hope you get what I'm trying to say here... I don't blame all the mistakes on cheesy play... but you must agree that there is a fundamental difference between being a noob or a bad player versus the kind of game you want to play.
Beethoven
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 7:48:25 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
The problem with templates and "all or nothing" is that you only have enough XP to have a fairly small number of templates. In the last game as UK, I could only get enough army XP to make one type of infantry unit, despite training my troops and taking the army doctrine/XP advisor. In the ideal case, I would like to have different widths/compositions of units for different purposes and in different areas, but that is not really possible, at least for countries that don't get much XP before the war. IMO, this is a big problem with the game's system in which you need XP to make your templates (it probably would be better if templates did not cost XP, IMO, or else if they did not cost as much XP).

Similarly for e.g. heavy tank divisions - the game limits what you can research in an unrealistic way. In reality, countries of course had mixes of heavy tanks, medium tanks, and light tanks. But in the game, there is usually only enough research to research time and research slots to research one (or maybe 2) of those. Similarly, you can only usually afford to research 1 or 2 types of planes or 1 or 2 types of ships. It can depend somewhat on the country, but the game enforces some degree of unrealistic specialization, unfortunately (unless maybe it were modded).

Quote:
I hope you get what I'm trying to say here... I don't blame all the mistakes on cheesy play... but you must agree that there is a fundamental difference between being a noob or a bad player versus the kind of game you want to play.


Yeah.
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:18:57 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Beethoven wrote:
The problem with templates and "all or nothing" is that you only have enough XP to have a fairly small number of templates. In the last game as UK, I could only get enough army XP to make one type of infantry unit, despite training my troops and taking the army doctrine/XP advisor. In the ideal case, I would like to have different widths/compositions of units for different purposes and in different areas, but that is not really possible, at least for countries that don't get much XP before the war. IMO, this is a big problem with the game's system in which you need XP to make your templates (it probably would be better if templates did not cost XP, IMO, or else if they did not cost as much XP).

Similarly for e.g. heavy tank divisions - the game limits what you can research in an unrealistic way. In reality, countries of course had mixes of heavy tanks, medium tanks, and light tanks. But in the game, there is usually only enough research to research time and research slots to research one (or maybe 2) of those. Similarly, you can only usually afford to research 1 or 2 types of planes or 1 or 2 types of ships. It can depend somewhat on the country, but the game enforces some degree of unrealistic specialization, unfortunately (unless maybe it were modded).



Yeah.


Yes... I certainly agree with that which is why we have tried to limit such play by limiting the way you can research ahead of time to sort of force more broader tech research. I think these rules could be tweaked by having some limits on how UK for example can assist the french with airplanes with the reason that politically UK need to keep the majority of its air-force on the British isle. This would to some degree force the French player to build and research planes to some degree.

One of the biggest problem is actually the build up period from 1936-1939 or 40. It gives way too much leeway in terms of cooperation of both industry and research where none existed in real life like that, it is very unrealistic. So there need to be some basic understanding of these issues among the players.

In regards to templates I actually think that the Allies should have rather bad templates in the beginning and start develop them during the war. That is why there should be a few more rules on template building and switching so the threshold between a good and a bad template are not such a huge leap. At least I think there is room for improvement.

Take the all Heavy Tank division (or divisions with 80% tanks) as one really good example... this template can be insanely good until you find out your opponent predicted this and put all their effort into AT brigades and CAS and make sure they have air superiority. I would never feel any real satisfaction "winning" just because I managed to Rock your Scissor, that is in many ways luck or a hunch just panning out. This is also when games end in 1939-40.

I don't think there actually should be any need for direct rules at all in regards to templates. If everyone just agree that we build historically "plausible" forces all is well. This does not mean you need to build historically "accurate" divisions or brigades as that country built them. Just that they represent something which you would expect could have been used in WW2. This would reduce the bad versus good templates to reasonable levels and you would not feel so extremely weak as the Allies in 1939.

At least there could be a sound discussion about those issues so everyone can enjoy a long and INTERESTING game where the journey is the goal and not the end.

Also... in my opinion there should be LESS hard written rules and most rules should be discussed during the game based on what happens. As an example there could be some rather sever rules on Lend Lease to China.... but if the war against China worsen too much these rules might change and that is things you would discuss during the game and agree upon. Likewise with Lend Lease between the Allies and Russia or Lend Lease from US to the Allies before they enter the war. I think most rules need to be dynamic and I suppose you can agree on what is reasonable based on what happens in the game.
Marine
Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:55:49 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

Quote:
I don't think there actually should be any need for direct rules at all in regards to templates. If everyone just agree that we build historically "plausible" forces all is well. This does not mean you need to build historically "accurate" divisions or brigades as that country built them. Just that they represent something which you would expect could have been used in WW2. This would reduce the bad versus good templates to reasonable levels and you would not feel so extremely weak as the Allies in 1939.

This how I also feel Smile

Quote:
At least there could be a sound discussion about those issues so everyone can enjoy a long and INTERESTING game where the journey is the goal and not the end.


Thumbs Up

Quote:
Also... in my opinion there should be LESS hard written rules and most rules should be discussed during the game based on what happens. As an example there could be some rather sever rules on Lend Lease to China.... but if the war against China worsen too much these rules might change and that is things you would discuss during the game and agree upon. Likewise with Lend Lease between the Allies and Russia or Lend Lease from US to the Allies before they enter the war. I think most rules need to be dynamic and I suppose you can agree on what is reasonable based on what happens in the game.


I would also like to have lesser hard written Rules ,but some have become necessary unfortunate.
Lend Lease Rules are going to change some to what we hand before in the group,but some new as well.
I´m working on itSmile
Marine
Posted: Monday, January 23, 2017 8:29:24 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Hi there everyoneSmile

I have decided that there will not be any game this coming Wednesday.

The reason is the following:

How fast the two last sessions has ended.
The new playstyle ,that I don´t like at all.
The gamey and cheesy things that have emerged, i have never wrote down so many Exploits before than I have nowCry
The fun felling have disappeared and the feeling of being a commander in WW2 also.
I have always played the game for joy and not for winning ,because where is then the surprise if you do winBig Grin

So this will be a short time out from my side...

I will be back soon thoughWink

Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:33:38 AM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Marine wrote:
Hi there everyoneSmile

I have decided that there will not be any game this coming Wednesday.

The reason is the following:

How fast the two last sessions has ended.
The new playstyle ,that I don´t like at all.
The gamey and cheesy things that have emerged, i have never wrote down so many Exploits before than I have nowCry
The fun felling have disappeared and the feeling of being a commander in WW2 also.
I have always played the game for joy and not for winning ,because where is then the surprise if you do winBig Grin

So this will be a short time out from my side...

I will be back soon thoughWink



That is a pity, on the flip side I will be able to attend my training classes on Wednesdays again. Wink

I would like to try it again if the game can turn out in the way you have played them in the past. I would certainly enjoy a long and eventful war.
Anders
Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:36:30 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
Let's try playing it in the '39-scenario instead. Not as much possibility for cheesiness there.

"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
bpoitier
Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:29:01 PM
 Sergeant

Joined: 10/20/2012
Posts: 73
Location: sweden
I ll take a time out from this coming round.
Marine
Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 6:02:45 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Anders wrote:
Let's try playing it in the '39-scenario instead. Not as much possibility for cheesiness there.


Sorry ,but i´m not interested at all to play from 1939.
Marine
Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:07:43 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
I everyone,

I have been in contact with the members of the old group (From the HOI3 time) and after that we have decided the following:

We start a new game with only the old group this time.

During that time ,we will talk about how we want things to be in the future and maybe who we would like to play with in the future and how.
We did not know that so many people would turn up so fast for us.

So have patience with us, it has been so much new things for us lately...

So stay tuned folksSmile
Chimaera72
Posted: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:10:44 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Yes and in the meantime I would suggest that those that prefer a more competitive and aggressive game could actually start to organize a second group with people playing on Wednesdays, if there are as many as I think there is, it's a good start to build on, and everyone will be happy.

So one group that plays more casual and RPG(for a lack of a better word) from 1936 until the start of the 1939 scenario, with rules and common sense in play.

And one group that likes the challenge of a competitive game from day 1 and onwards (with some basic rules in play I guess?).

This forum is still a great place to use for getting organized in contrast to the Paradox forums, which in my opinion is a bit of a mess and hard to follow(mainly because the threads tend to get kicked down in the list pretty fast).
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.