• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
:rolleyes: Generally during negotiations, you offer concessions. Simply saying my plan is stupid over and over again wasnt very helpful.

I did have some success with Arkham however, in which we agreed that some good points were to:

Build a Battlecruiser
Build a Fleet Carrier
Build 2 CAGs
Build 10 Marine Divisions
Influence the USA to keep them out of the Allies
Research Light Cruisers as they will be useful for both sub factions

If the other IJN guys want to give some input on this, it would be great.
 
I thought i would bring this here.
I think it is kind of difficult to for the IJN to reach an agreement on production since "different production" is the difference between the mini factions. Unlike the army which won't have troubles with the production.


...


So I would like to suggest to make it possible for the IJN to submit different production plans. I hope you can consider this.

....Hence I asked if we could just propose plans within our mini factions, because that is a lot easier.

Sorry, but I'm inclined to disagree here. The reason is quite simple, your not compromising.

If I can be so bold as to say; this multiplayer ARR is not about 'playing the game', it is about diplomacy and roll playing as much as it is about coming up with sensible plans. Now just think for a moment, since when did anybody get their way just by demanding it eh?

Even further, if your'd been smart (no disrespect here) you could have realised that you could have won the 'game' element between the factions, simply by making a case for balance navy military build up, build a load of ships, then do your worst to prevent the army from gaining any kind of victory on the mainland.

That would have been a sound strategy...that is, if the Army factions were your enemy.

But they are not are they? It's all the other AI nations in the game. If you treat the other factions within Japan as enemies then of course they are going to raise the defence "stop spamming me", be uncooperative and believe that you are trying to get one up on them with every suggestion you make. Thus you get nowhere. You see what I'm saying?

Which is where I get back to saying your not compromising. Each of you are trying to make a flat out case not to build each others units, in doing so there is no quid pro quo in that respect, and neither of you wish to except the others plans.

What you need to do is compromise with one another, when you see a plan, look to what you would like to tweak in it, repost that, see what the others think, they can then tweak it, re-post it and sooner or later both of you will get to a point where your at least happy with most of the elements. Of course on some matters you will disagree, but if you yield now, often they might be inclined to yield to you in the future.

What me and Surt did, and to a lesser extend Vet and CommCody, we did was just that. Check out how we arrived to consensus as an example.


Part of the frustration you may feel Admirals, is what the real military leaders must have felt at the time, and it's all part of the experience, don't 'blame the game' because not everything runs smoothly, but look to yourself to raise the game.

With that in mind guys/gals, can you please reach some kind of consensus, also don't think just because Army/Navy submissions are seperate there should be no dialogue, assume that you are playing the land war too. Think what you would want should you be playing as the other faction, and then you might want to offer those thoughts as 'back proposals' as a form of leverage to get what your faction might want off Army proposals.



Cybvep, it might be prudent that the Naval factions may be given small VP bonuses for any ships that they do sink in decisive combat, that means there there would not only be a priority in building vessels, but also seeking decisive combat and prestige through victories on the high seas.

Might I suggest 0.05 VP per 'non-capital' sank, not including convoys, and 0.1 VP per capital sank. Although I may need to review the VP scoring to see if that is balanced.


This all makes me think, what would be the little political idiom next to all our names on the politics tabs, any idea of mine?
 
Cybvep, it might be prudent that the Naval factions may be given small VP bonuses for any ships that they do sink in decisive combat, that means there there would not only be a priority in building vessels, but also seeking decisive combat and prestige through victories on the high seas.

Might I suggest 0.05 VP per 'non-capital' sank, not including convoys, and 0.1 VP per capital sank. Although I may need to review the VP scoring to see if that is balanced.
Well, the idea may not be that bad, but it wouldn't affect build priorities during peace-time. I don't believe this is the problem.
 
:rolleyes: Generally during negotiations, you offer concessions. Simply saying my plan is stupid over and over again wasnt very helpful.
Your plan didn't offer room for concessions, hence I tried to appeal to your reason but found none, instead being offended. Trying to play bully won't get the navy anywhere, because anybody can play that game. I could as well be as stubborn as you were initially and simply not agree to anything you come up with.
 
doombunny and I have been negotiating back and forth lately, I assume he'll post the final plan we agreed upon soon-ish.
 
Ill post one tommorow. Its a bit late here now.
 
I shall be watching this one! Always liked interactive AARs. Good luck to all those participating :cool:
 
Hmm I've been wondering, which kind of AI control would we get? Set single target, set unlimited number of targets, axis of advance?
 
Hmm I've been wondering, which kind of AI control would we get? Set single target, set unlimited number of targets, axis of advance?
Whatever you want except the corps level AI (too much of a hassle). You can also create custom theatres for AI control purposes. The AI works best when the theatre isn't too large. When the time comes, I will ask you about your war strategies.

Garrisons don't have to be AI-controlled.
 
Whatever you want except the corps level AI (too much of a hassle). You can also create custom theatres for AI control purposes. The AI works best when the theatre isn't too large. When the time comes, I will ask you about your war strategies.

Haven't had much experience with mini theatres, would it then be the Army or theatre AI that we use?

Garrisons don't have to be AI-controlled.

I was hoping you would say that :)
 
Haven't had much experience with mini theatres, would it then be the Army or theatre AI that we use?
Depends what you want to achieve. Smaller theatres work like standard ones when the Theatre AI is activated, i.e. they use their "theatre logic" (units will protect ports, IC provinces etc.), but operate mostly in their area of operations. However, when you detach other HQs from a given theatre but still leave the units within the theatre's AO, then the AI-controlled units will behave normally (no theatre logic), but will tend to stick to the AO of the theatre. Combined with the axis of advance, this is a great tool for concentrating the AI focus on a given objective.
 
Ah yes, I had forgotten the lame-brainness of the AI in some situations was caused by its theatre secret objectives, well that might invalidate some points of my latest post in the game thread, oh well.
 
Ah yes, I had forgotten the lame-brainness of the AI in some situations was caused by its theatre secret objectives, well that might invalidate some points of my latest post in the game thread, oh well.
This can be avoided by detaching Army Group HQs from the Theatre but still leaving the HQ inside the Theatre's AO.
 
What about leaders, do we go for the most gamy of promoting the most skilled to the highest positions and demoting everyone else or for the more historic that leaders have to prove themselves for some time at a certain level before being promoted, and no demotions?
 
What about leaders, do we go for the most gamy of promoting the most skilled to the highest positions and demoting everyone else or for the more historic that leaders have to prove themselves for some time at a certain level before being promoted, and no demotions?
Do as you want. This is not very important and creating specific rules for leaders would be mean micromanagement than it's worth it. I think that the game should already be challenging enough, given the difficulty adjustments I made and the political infighting. It's not your typical game as Japan, when you can only build carriers and infantry...
 
Last edited:
*Technical note

Please, use some images for OOBs. Otherwise, it will be very hard to read them. You can find the map of Japan and its surroundings in the first post and if you need other ones, contact me by PMs. You can also make your own screenshots if you want. Also, you don't have to make battle plans just yet.

*

Could you expand on what you wanted on the maps or images, without having the exact units in the right places I'm challenged to think of what you would have.

I'm gonna have to think about that for a couple of days.