Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Scandinavian MP Mod (HoI4) Options · View
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:27:29 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Beethoven wrote:
Rule suggestions for the next game, in case the next session ends up how I think it will (i.e. with both Japan and Germany both getting nowhere) -

1) No lend lease to China and Japan for the Sino-Japanese war. - this alone was not why China has been doing well, China was holding well even before any lend-lease arrived, but it can make it too much for Japan. And since Molotov-Ribbentrop is required, Germany cannot punish the Soviets by attacking them if they lend-lease too much equipment to China.
2) France may not build forts.
3) Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria may join the war at any time after Danzig or War.


If you don't want to do #3 for historical reasons, then a balanced game requires either:

a) at minimum, some fairly stringent restrictions on how much UK can help France (since the axis minors and Italy cannot help Germany). For example, UK can only send 200 combat-width worth of ground troops to France, including at most 20-width worth of tank divisions. Also, UK can have a maximum of only 1000 planes in the skies over France. In practice, the latter wouldn't even be too much of a restriction, since planes shot down over France would reinforce with other planes. But this would at least symbolize that the BEF the UK sent to France was not that big/powerful, and also that the UK did not want to risk losing the entire RAF in France (because it needed to preserve planes to protect the UK).

or

b) no restriction on ahead of time research (in which case rule #2 on French forts would not be needed).

IMO it is good to have the restrictions on ahead-of-time research - it makes for a more interesting game in which different countries can do a greater variety of things, rather than just a tech-rushing competition where you have 1944 fighters already in 1939, and modern tanks in 1941. But IMO balance requires one of these various options.


I would agree that if we play historical setting then most of history need to play out as it did until France fall, after that it should be more or less free for all with some minor restrictions.

Regarding China I think the Soviets should be able to supply up to 1000 (or a suitable sum per month) aircraft but that is it and need to withdraw them if Japan and Soviet sign a None Aggression pact. China will give them back (whatever is left, if possible to do so). I don't mind Japan bogging down in China that is after all historically accurate... Wink


I also still would want to reiterate my wish that we should not switch between template types. Perhaps put that down in the rules if we can agree on that.

As an example, you could switch an Infantry divisions into Motorized and Mechanized but not into Marines, Mountaineers, Paratroopers or Armoured divisions.

I also think just for the sake of cheese we should not disband any of the starting units either to work around this, not until you are at war are you allowed to disband formations. This will hinder cheesy exploitative ways to change templates of starting troops, things like that did not really happen in real life (save some few rare occasions).
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:12:52 AM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
I would even say that not only the fall of France needs to happen historically, Spain and China needs to fall as they did historically as well. I think this is necessary if we want a fun game that lasts past 1940-41.

I've said this before, I don't play HOI4 multiplayer with the goal of winning the total war as my first priority.

My first goal in a HOI4 multiplayer is to have fun and try different stuff that might or might not work in the context of the operational war, that is why I don't bother with proven statistical numbers and tables that some people seem to have memorized and use in the same way every game, over and over. I try to do small changes and try to experiment with different tactics and templates every game. What I remember from previous games are not, 'which side won', but rather the different tactical maneuvers and maskirovkas trying to outplay your opponent on the fronts.

Anyone can 'dive the forums' or google up the best templates to build, and the best course of action for any given country trying to maximize and optimize a country's chances of winning the war(production/research/national focus etc.), that doesn't take so much skill, and because of that the question of 'who won the war' is quite uninteresting for me.

For me, this means the following:
Spain will be an area for both sides to gain experience for their troops(for those countries that historically sent troops there) but in the end it should fall to Nationalist Spain, which later joins the Axis.
With a human player playing China, that means that sooner or later he will have to fake losses on the front if the Japanese player is starting to completely loose his ground and risks loosing China and the Korean peninsula.

After France and China has fallen historically it should pretty much be a free for all as stated above, but with basic rules still in play.
Demosthenes
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:23:18 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
Oh China fell historically? If the rule is that China must fall, then Japan shouldn't be allowed to invade the USSR.
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:32:45 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Demosthenes wrote:
Oh China fell historically? If the rule is that China must fall, then Japan shouldn't be allowed to invade the USSR.


Technically no, as China did never surrender, and Japan 'only' had conquered about half the country. But as I understand it the goals for Japan in China didn't include the interior of China, so basically they achieved the goals they had for China, but never got an official surrender from China. And then later on lost China because they where unable to support a protracted war with their limited resources.

Demosthenes wrote:
If the rule is that China must fall, then Japan shouldn't be allowed to invade the USSR.


Then the suggestion of 'anything goes after the fall of France' is out the window then...

I'm starting to believe that France and China should not be played by a human player in our games, that way we can focus on having a long game that might survive past 1940-41. Unless the goal for the game is to reach a WW3(Cold War) scenario in which the Allies fights the Russians.
Demosthenes
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:30:41 PM
 Private 1st Class

Joined: 1/5/2017
Posts: 23
I'm 100% in favour of China and France being AI. Thing is I don't think Soviets can survive with an uber-Japan at their backdoor.
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:44:39 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Demosthenes wrote:
I'm 100% in favour of China and France being AI. Thing is I don't think Soviets can survive with an uber-Japan at their backdoor.


Yes a strong Japan joining the Russian war can make it very hard for the Russian player, on the other hand depending on how the Allies(US,UK, Brit.Raj, Australia) play their cards it might force Japan not joining the Russian war.

It could end up as a decision for the Japanese player where he basically has to choose to join the Russian war and lose the Pacific war, or win the Pacific war and abstain from joining the Russian war, doing both has proven difficult for the Japanese player in our previous games, but of course it´s not impossible to do if you balance everything right .
Jorgen_CAB
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 2:43:38 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 12/28/2016
Posts: 33
Japan never reached their end goals in China. Sure they only wanted some territory but they had to keep their entire army there fighting the Chinese. The war never ended and Japan's goals were never secure.

WHY exactly do you feel Japan NEED to beat China?

The game is not about which side wins the war (at least it shouldn't in my opinion)... if balanced correctly the Allies should win the war in 95% of the cases. It is more about doing better then your side did historically that counts. Balance is not about a 50/50 win for either side. If it is then I don't understand the reason why we are even trying to make it historically plausible with the rules restriction.

In my opinion Japan should NOT beat China and stall most of the time, that is a better balance. China should not be able to beat Japan with any ease though, I would rather see Japan beat China. I also think that if Japan suggest the none aggression pact then the Soviets must agree to it and seize all aid of China.

Are Axis suppose to have an equal chance to win the war, that is my question... I sometimes get the feeling that is what people want when they state something is unbalanced or overpowered?
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 3:11:23 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
Chimaera72 wrote:
France and China should not be played by a human player

A decent Japan-player can beat a good china-player. Same thing with Germany-France.
Also, if France is AI, Germany would have no problems taking France and Poland simultaneously. The AI is that bad.
That Japan is getting wrecked in China in our current game is because the player is bad at playing Japan. No offense intended. There are lots of countries I'm not proficient at playing, Japan being one of them. Apparently, according to the China-player, the Japanese division-composition if suboptimal. Also, he should be using marines to attempt naval landings with, not regular infantry.

Regarding Spain: If the object is to play "historical", then the player should have to stay "popular front" in the election event, and only choose ideological sides when the civil war erupts. My reasoning is that historically, the Fascists were the aggressors, and if the aggressors in the SCW win, WT goes up quite a few points. If the defenders win, WT does not go up quite as much. By going Fascist in the election, the Spain-player ensures that the Republicans will be the aggressors, and when the Fascists win, WT only rise by a few percentage points.
When coupled with the fact that Italy always delays capitulating Ethiopia until WT approaches the "magic" 5%, this can keep the Allies on toasters until 1938, and in quite a few cases make the game end before 1940, thanks to Japan going Southern Expansion and rofl-stomping through the East Indies and India, if he finishes off China in the usual six-twelve months.

"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, January 13, 2017 5:26:06 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Jorgen_CAB wrote:
Japan never reached their end goals in China. Sure they only wanted some territory but they had to keep their entire army there fighting the Chinese. The war never ended and Japan's goals were never secure.

WHY exactly do you feel Japan NEED to beat China?

The game is not about which side wins the war (at least it shouldn't in my opinion)... if balanced correctly the Allies should win the war in 95% of the cases. It is more about doing better then your side did historically that counts. Balance is not about a 50/50 win for either side. If it is then I don't understand the reason why we are even trying to make it historically plausible with the rules restriction.

In my opinion Japan should NOT beat China and stall most of the time, that is a better balance. China should not be able to beat Japan with any ease though, I would rather see Japan beat China. I also think that if Japan suggest the none aggression pact then the Soviets must agree to it and seize all aid of China.

Are Axis suppose to have an equal chance to win the war, that is my question... I sometimes get the feeling that is what people want when they state something is unbalanced or overpowered?


The Axis are the underdogs as they historically lost the war(but pretty much steam-rolled anything they looked at in the early years of the war), giving the Axis a hard time achieving their historical accomplishments will lead to a shorter game where the allies will close the bag on the Axis even before the US and/or Russia enters the war.

It is a very different thing Playing a multiplayer game in HOI with 6-8 ppl where the Allies are unable to populate all of their countries with human players (it usually means US,UK,Canada(or Australia) and BritRaj vs Germany,Italy, Romania(and/or Spain). It is completely other beast when playing 12-15 ppl where the Allies are actually able to populate every important country that can make a difference in the war, while the Axis still doesn't really have more than Germany, Italy, Romania(and/or Spain) to rely upon. This fact alone gives the Allied side a huge advantage.

I've never looked at the Axis as overpowered versus the Allied side, not even in our smaller games(6-8 ppl), ok sure they might do pretty much as they want early in the game, but as the game gets longer into the years it is not always so clear-cut any more.

If we want those short games without even exploring the 'what ifs' after 1940-41 then yeah fine, but then I'm out, that is not the kind of game I get my fond memories from.

My best and most funny moments from playing multiplayer HOI is still from HOI3 where every game lasted for 5-6 months and we got many years into the war until one or the other side capitulated.
Chimaera72
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:38:07 PM
 2nd Lieutenant

Joined: 5/14/2013
Posts: 135
Location: Stockholm
Anders wrote:
When coupled with the fact that Italy always delays capitulating Ethiopia until WT approaches the "magic" 5%, this can keep the Allies on toasters until 1938, and in quite a few cases make the game end before 1940, thanks to Japan going Southern Expansion and rofl-stomping through the East Indies and India, if he finishes off China in the usual six-twelve months.


Protracting a war for the sole purpose of gaining more exp is gamey and is not allowed in our games, so that puts an end to that kind of cheesy gameplay.

Imagine a real war where the generals ordered their troops to drag along and protract the war because they need to throw more men into the meat grinder so that they get some war experience, that would be quite sick Crazy .
baronbowden
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:11:50 PM
 General of the Army

Joined: 1/27/2013
Posts: 4,104
Location: Canada
Really its the tension that kills it from America & Co switching war laws.

A solution might be restricting law changes for the USA/france/england until a specific date instead of tension related. That way an early Spanish Civil war going south isnt a real death sentence; but still hurts.



Anders wrote:

Also, if France is AI,


Yea no human france would be the worst decision ever.

Anders wrote:
"magic" 5%, s.


LOL I was in a game near launch where Italy took nothing from Ethopia after winning to keep it below 5%; because the rule was no dragging the war out. Was a good lol moment.

Famous Quotes

KhanXLT: day to day, lucky things happen to me
KhanXLT: you know, little things
Newman: lol that husky girl behind the counter at the grocery store gave you her number didnt she!!!!

El_Zilcho321: Euro balance = ban BB
bpoitier
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:42:50 PM
 Sergeant

Joined: 10/20/2012
Posts: 73
Location: sweden
Ow, I see some critisism against my playing of japan, well, to my defence it is the first time I encounter a human player, but claiming that I am getting wrecked is a bit of an over statement, we dont know that yet, do we?
and on the other hand I would like to see anyone else doing it better, or even play japan, as far as I know, no-one even asked to play japan.
And also I am not a so called decent player, alot of us arent, but we are quite happy with the game, and to play together, and it isnt a matter of winning, it is a matter of having fun together as Chimera mentioned earlier.
The china campaign is tough now with a human player, I cant deny that, it ll set japan back a few years in production, but that is also the point when having a human player as china I guess, I havent seen a chinese human player yet
until now, and I havent seen another human player either to encounter that to learn from him/her, but it is unfair to critisize me until this china campaing is over, as u already have ruled me as a looser, I say, it is not.

the one of u that thinks he or she is able to defeat china quicker than me, or even just defeat it, ask to play japan to the next round, if we have a human player on china then too, I would gladly see it and learn from that.

and until next round, china remains strong and the campaign unconcluded
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 7:02:53 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

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

Quote:
I would agree that if we play historical setting then most of history need to play out as it did until France fall, after that it should be more or less free for all with some minor restrictions.


THis is how I also feel .

I guess I have to put some of the old Rules back.
Quote:

I also still would want to reiterate my wish that we should not switch between template types. Perhaps put that down in the rules if we can agree on that.

As an example, you could switch an Infantry divisions into Motorized and Mechanized but not into Marines, Mountaineers, Paratroopers or Armoured divisions.

I also think just for the sake of cheese we should not disband any of the starting units either to work around this, not until you are at war are you allowed to disband formations. This will hinder cheesy exploitative ways to change templates of starting troops, things like that did not really happen in real life (save some few rare occasions).


I wrote this in the suggestions, but did not get so much support on it sadly.

There should in my opinion be a Rule on in which order you can upgrade a unit.
This disbanding stuff is nonsense and i will put up a Rule about this for next session.

Quote:
The game is not about which side wins the war (at least it shouldn't in my opinion)... if balanced correctly the Allies should win the war in 95% of the cases. It is more about doing better then your side did historically that counts. Balance is not about a 50/50 win for either side. If it is then I don't understand the reason why we are even trying to make it historically plausible with the rules restriction.

In my opinion Japan should NOT beat China and stall most of the time, that is a better balance. China should not be able to beat Japan with any ease though, I would rather see Japan beat China. I also think that if Japan suggest the none aggression pact then the Soviets must agree to it and seize all aid of China.


Maybe China does not need to surrender ,but It should not be any big fighting force anymore ,they should be almost beaten ,but can still be left in the game, maybe as a puppet in the end who knows.

Our former Campaigns has never really been about winning and about who is winning ,but to have Fun and enjoy a game with a WW2 feeling Smile


Marine
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 7:45:45 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
@Chimaera72

Quote:
I would even say that not only the fall of France needs to happen historically, Spain and China needs to fall as they did historically as well. I think this is necessary if we want a fun game that lasts past 1940-41.


I agree on France ,that is has to fall like IRL, but as you say in Spain Franco has to win. China also has to be beaten to some point where it is not in the way for Japan anymore.

Quote:
I've said this before, I don't play HOI4 multiplayer with the goal of winning the total war as my first priority.

My first goal in a HOI4 multiplayer is to have fun and try different stuff that might or might not work in the context of the operational war, that is why I don't bother with proven statistical numbers and tables that some people seem to have memorized and use in the same way every game, over and over. I try to do small changes and try to experiment with different tactics and templates every game. What I remember from previous games are not, 'which side won', but rather the different tactical maneuvers and maskirovkas trying to outplay your opponent on the fronts.


I agree with you on all of this, I loose most of the timeBig Grin , but I still have FunSmile

Quote:
Anyone can 'dive the forums' or google up the best templates to build, and the best course of action for any given country trying to maximize and optimize a country's chances of winning the war(production/research/national focus etc.), that doesn't take so much skill, and because of that the question of 'who won the war' is quite uninteresting for me.


I build forces as Feel and not how the stats are...

Quote:
For me, this means the following:
Spain will be an area for both sides to gain experience for their troops(for those countries that historically sent troops there) but in the end it should fall to Nationalist Spain, which later joins the Axis.
With a human player playing China, that means that sooner or later he will have to fake losses on the front if the Japanese player is starting to completely loose his ground and risks loosing China and the Korean peninsula.

After France and China has fallen historically it should pretty much be a free for all as stated above, but with basic rules still in play.


I will in new Rules on Spain for next time, that will prevent this problems. China also has to be no problems for Japan. After France and China the game is on as you say.

Quote:
I'm starting to believe that France and China should not be played by a human player in our games, that way we can focus on having a long game that might survive past 1940-41. Unless the goal for the game is to reach a WW3(Cold War) scenario in which the Allies fights the Russians.


I agree on that France should be AI and that China also should be that, but maybe Humans for both with some rules about them. I will get back on about this.

I want a long war...

Quote:
Yes a strong Japan joining the Russian war can make it very hard for the Russian player, on the other hand depending on how the Allies(US,UK, Brit.Raj, Australia) play their cards it might force Japan not joining the Russian war.

It could end up as a decision for the Japanese player where he basically has to choose to join the Russian war and lose the Pacific war, or win the Pacific war and abstain from joining the Russian war, doing both has proven difficult for the Japanese player in our previous games, but of course it´s not impossible to do if you balance everything right .


As you say the Allies has to work together and make life hard for Japan. also if Japan are going to attack Russia ,well then maybe we should have some kind of triggers for that(will get back on this).

When i played Japan last time I know that if I attacked Russia that i would be in trouble and that's what I got and I then had all of India and some islands ,but Russia was very strong then.
The Axis are the underdogs as they historically lost the war(but pretty much steam-rolled anything they looked at in the early years of the war), giving the Axis a hard time achieving their historical accomplishments will lead to a shorter game where the allies will close the bag on the Axis even before the US and/or Russia enters the war.

Quote:
It is a very different thing Playing a multiplayer game in HOI with 6-8 ppl where the Allies are unable to populate all of their countries with human players (it usually means US,UK,Canada(or Australia) and BritRaj vs Germany,Italy, Romania(and/or Spain). It is completely other beast when playing 12-15 ppl where the Allies are actually able to populate every important country that can make a difference in the war, while the Axis still doesn't really have more than Germany, Italy, Romania(and/or Spain) to rely upon. This fact alone gives the Allied side a huge advantage.

I've never looked at the Axis as overpowered versus the Allied side, not even in our smaller games(6-8 ppl), ok sure they might do pretty much as they want early in the game, but as the game gets longer into the years it is not always so clear-cut any more.

If we want those short games without even exploring the 'what ifs' after 1940-41 then yeah fine, but then I'm out, that is not the kind of game I get my fond memories from.

My best and most funny moments from playing multiplayer HOI is still from HOI3 where every game lasted for 5-6 months and we got many years into the war until one or the other side capitulated.


We need a balance between the factions in some way as we are a lot more players now, maybe even to many, but time will tell.

Yeah i remember those long Campaigns in HOI3 and loved them.

I don´t want short wars ,but long ones Sergeant

Quote:
Protracting a war for the sole purpose of gaining more exp is gamey and is not allowed in our games, so that puts an end to that kind of cheesy gameplay.

Imagine a real war where the generals ordered their troops to drag along and protract the war because they need to throw more men into the meat grinder so that they get some war experience, that would be quite sick Crazy .


None of this gamey behavior belongs in our group!

bpoitier
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 7:50:40 PM
 Sergeant

Joined: 10/20/2012
Posts: 73
Location: sweden
Correct me if I am wrong:
but in the last 2 games it has been the first times ever we have discussed the WT and the effects of it and to declare war according to it.
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 8:05:34 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
@the rest of the posts

Quote:
Oh China fell historically? If the rule is that China must fall, then Japan shouldn't be allowed to invade the USSR.


No they did not really feel historically ,but they could not really fight back the japanese forces. They don´t have to fall ,but be beaten yes. You should always be able to attack russia ,but maybe with some restriction , that I will get back to.

Quote:
I'm 100% in favour of China and France being AI. Thing is I don't think Soviets can survive with an uber-Japan at their backdoor.


If Japan is pressed hard by the Allies ,then they should have a hard time attacking Russia from the East I think.

Quote:
That Japan is getting wrecked in China in our current game is because the player is bad at playing Japan. No offense intended. There are lots of countries I'm not proficient at playing, Japan being one of them. Apparently, according to the China-player, the Japanese division-composition if suboptimal. Also, he should be using marines to attempt naval landings with, not regular infantry.


Maybe he is using Marines, but have to use them in other places and this about division composition is nonsense i think, but time will tell if i´m wrong.

He was also the only one that wanted to play Japan and that was before we had a Human as China and still he did not back out.
Most people were occupied about France and Germany and some obstacles called forts, that still have to have men in them to be of any use.

Quote:
Regarding Spain: If the object is to play "historical", then the player should have to stay "popular front" in the election event, and only choose ideological sides when the civil war erupts. My reasoning is that historically, the Fascists were the aggressors, and if the aggressors in the SCW win, WT goes up quite a few points. If the defenders win, WT does not go up quite as much. By going Fascist in the election, the Spain-player ensures that the Republicans will be the aggressors, and when the Fascists win, WT only rise by a few percentage points.
When coupled with the fact that Italy always delays capitulating Ethiopia until WT approaches the "magic" 5%, this can keep the Allies on toasters until 1938, and in quite a few cases make the game end before 1940, thanks to Japan going Southern Expansion and rofl-stomping through the East Indies and India, if he finishes off China in the usual six-twelve months.


Spain would not have been any problems at all if only the Nationalists have won as they mostly too, but this time I fucked up , but some russian tanks could have something to do with it alsoWink

About Ethiopia: I was more thinking about making some EXP when having a longer war in that battle. WT tensions have never really been my concern, but If Italy wants to help in Spain they better kill them all fast!

Quote:
Really its the tension that kills it from America & Co switching war laws.

A solution might be restricting law changes for the USA/france/england until a specific date instead of tension related. That way an early Spanish Civil war going south isn't a real death sentence; but still hurts.


Well Spain shall then not be allowed to go south as you say ,so problem solved. Restrictions Is not good I think.

Quote:
Yea no human france would be the worst decision ever.


We have had France in most of our HOI3 games ans in some HOI4 and there has been no problems really at all, since they are supposed to fall.

Quote:
Ow, I see some criticism against my playing of japan, well, to my defence it is the first time I encounter a human player, but claiming that I am getting wrecked is a bit of an over statement, we don't know that yet, do we?
and on the other hand I would like to see anyone else doing it better, or even play japan, as far as I know, no-one even asked to play japan.
And also I am not a so called decent player, a lot of us aren't, but we are quite happy with the game, and to play together, and it isn't a matter of winning, it is a matter of having fun together as Chimera mentioned earlier.
The china campaign is tough now with a human player, I cant deny that, it ll set japan back a few years in production, but that is also the point when having a human player as china I guess, I haven't seen a chinese human player yet
until now, and I haven't seen another human player either to encounter that to learn from him/her, but it is unfair to criticize me until this china campaign is over, as u already have ruled me as a looser, I say, it is not.

the one of u that thinks he or she is able to defeat china quicker than me, or even just defeat it, ask to play japan to the next round, if we have a human player on china then too, I would gladly see it and learn from that.

and until next round, china remains strong and the campaign unconcluded


Well as they say ,it ain't over until the Fat Lady starts to sing Angel Grin

Marine
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 8:12:12 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
bpoitier wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong:
but in the last 2 games it has been the first times ever we have discussed the WT and the effects of it and to declare war according to it.


You are absolutely correct about that WT has never been any problem whatsoever...in our former games expect these last ones.
Anders
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:14:20 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

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

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
So how about my suggestion about making the SCW a bit more historical? It'd balance out the Axis' advantage of having the Spanish ally they never had IRL, by raising WT if the fascists win, and keeping it low if the Republicans win.

"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 13, 2017 9:18:37 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Anders wrote:
A decent Japan-player can beat a good china-player. Same thing with Germany-France.
Also, if France is AI, Germany would have no problems taking France and Poland simultaneously. The AI is that bad.


Yeah, human France (and human China) are not the problem. If you have reasonable balanced rules, both Germany and Japan should be able to beat France and China without overly much difficulty. This is the case in other games that have a human France/China.

If you do *not* have humans playing those countries, then since the AI is a complete walkover, human Germany/Japan then ought not to have to put any real effort into beating them at all. In that case, Germany/Japan can go for late game builds to wreck the Soviets and the US, which unbalances the game once you get to 1941/42/etc.

Plus, the point of multiplayer is not to beat up on the AI.
Beethoven
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:23:43 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Anders wrote:
So how about my suggestion about making the SCW a bit more historical? It'd balance out the Axis' advantage of having the Spanish ally they never had IRL, by raising WT if the fascists win, and keeping it low if the Republicans win.


An easy thing that can help is to only allow infantry to be sent as volunteers to the Spanish civil war. Some games have a rule of no tank volunteers to SCW. Then you would not have things happening so easily such as Soviet tanks too quickly encircling much of the Nationalist Spain infantry.

Also, since people have been saying that they want a historical game and the allies should win most of the time, I want to highlight what Anders said about Spain not being in the axis IRL. Historically Spain never joined the war or the axis, Spain remained neutral. Having a human Spain join the axis makes the Axis ahistorically strong, especially since Spain can do things like go total mobilization in the Spanish Civil War.
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:27:47 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Beethoven wrote:
Yeah, human France (and human China) are not the problem. If you have reasonable balanced rules, both Germany and Japan should be able to beat France and China without overly much difficulty. This is the case in other games that have a human France/China.

If you do *not* have humans playing those countries, then since the AI is a complete walkover, human Germany/Japan then ought not to have to put any real effort into beating them at all. In that case, Germany/Japan can go for late game builds to wreck the Soviets and the US, which unbalances the game once you get to 1941/42/etc.

Plus, the point of multiplayer is not to beat up on the AI.


Well this is our first Campaign with humans on both those countries, so i say let's just continue to play and see what happens.
I agree on that it needs some rules and after this maybe we can see which.

About walkover if those countries are AI: If you use these Rules about Research that ig got a understanding that both sides where using to some degree:

I have some proposals:
1. You are only allowed to research up to 1 year in advance.
2. 1.5 years in advance if you have 50% bonus.
3. 2 years in advance if you have a 100% ahead bonus.

Then there will not be any problems with lade war builds that are overpowered.

Yes multiplayer is against humans and not AI ,but still sometimes you have to let the AI play some countries so that humans can enjoy the game and have fun do in itSmile

Anders
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:41:35 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

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

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
With AI France, you don't need to research ahead at all. I suck at Germany, but even I should be able to manage.

As an addition tl what what Beethoven said about total mobilization, I feel it appropriate to add that most game rules forbid Spain from going total mob in the SCW, and also prevents USA from changing mobilization laws during the Venezuelan intervention.

"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 13, 2017 9:54:48 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Anders wrote:
So how about my suggestion about making the SCW a bit more historical? It'd balance out the Axis' advantage of having the Spanish ally they never had IRL, by raising WT if the fascists win, and keeping it low if the Republicans win.


I just tested that and it could be a good idea to hold WT low if it´s now a important thing to have low ,reason why I say this is that we have had no problems earlier with WT becoming high with Spain's civil war.
Beethoven
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:56:27 PM
 Corporal

Joined: 1/6/2017
Posts: 45
Marine wrote:
Well this is our first Campaign with humans on both those countries, so i say let's just continue to play and see what happens.
I agree on that it needs some rules and after this maybe we can see which.

About walkover if those countries are AI: If you use these Rules about Research that ig got a understanding that both sides where using to some degree:

I have some proposals:
1. You are only allowed to research up to 1 year in advance.
2. 1.5 years in advance if you have 50% bonus.
3. 2 years in advance if you have a 100% ahead bonus.

Then there will not be any problems with lade war builds that are overpowered.

Yes multiplayer is against humans and not AI ,but still sometimes you have to let the AI play some countries so that humans can enjoy the game and have fun do in itSmile



The point of a late war build is not so much the research/technology issues, but rather that if Germany faces an AI France and Japan faces an AI China, then neither really needs to build many (if any) military factories, and can simply build up their civilian industry (or refineries) for an extended time, and still have an easy time against their AI opponents. Then they will have super-strong economies later in the game and can be too strong then.
Marine
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:53:16 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/14/2011
Posts: 672
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Beethoven wrote:
The point of a late war build is not so much the research/technology issues, but rather that if Germany faces an AI France and Japan faces an AI China, then neither really needs to build many (if any) military factories, and can simply build up their civilian industry (or refineries) for an extended time, and still have an easy time against their AI opponents. Then they will have super-strong economies later in the game and can be too strong then.


You would still need mil Factories to build things to battle the British and US forces in Asia and the Pacific ,so you would still need to build them in my opinion.
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.