It looks like Romania went on a rampage. I'm wondering how the JAP-USA war will be like. How does the Pacific War play out in MP?
It looks like Romania went on a rampage. I'm wondering how the JAP-USA war will be like. How does the Pacific War play out in MP?
I'm wondering how the JAP-USA war will be like. How does the Pacific War play out in MP?
It looks like Romania went on a rampage. I'm wondering how the JAP-USA war will be like. How does the Pacific War play out in MP?
Yeah, but the question is what Japan tries to achieve in MP games? I've seen many JAP-GER gangups on the Soviets and in CtpEasy's games Japan usually conquers India easily, because the UK doesn't defend it. Do you use house rules to prevent things like that from happening too often or what?
Japan should not be able to win by attrition or win a 1vs1 fight against the USA and the war was won in Europe IRL, so I have no problem with that. The problem is that the game doesn't represent the RL "pin" and threat mechanics very well, which leads to gamey tactics and strange results. That's why it's not uncommon to see the Soviets abandoning the Far East entirely or the UK leaving India with token defences (IRL India had a massive army and it was a voluntary force, lol). That is also why there are no SOV-JAP skirmishes and both sides can ignore Manchuria. I remember that in HOI2 it was possible to bring EVERYTHING to France by stripping down the defences in all other places (all-or-nothing strategy) - another case of gamey tactics, which breaks the game.Personally, I try to secure the Pacific to deny the US sub bases to raid Japanese shipping. Invading India as Japan is a nice side show, but I presonally feel it has limited impact in an MP game, unless its just to deny bases to the US and to Britain. Ultimately, these far reaching gains of Japan (South Africa, India, the Middle East) will not be holdable once the US enters the war, and doing so just wastes Japanese resources. Japan will not have the fleet, regardless of how hard it macros, to bring enough strength to bear to challenge the US in the Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, and the Indian Ocean. If Japan shows too much strength in one area, the US will know it has a local advantage in the other and engage in battles of attrition that Japan can not win.
Yeah, but the question is what Japan tries to achieve in MP games? I've seen many JAP-GER gangups on the Soviets and in CtpEasy's games Japan usually conquers India easily, because the UK doesn't defend it. Do you use house rules to prevent things like that from happening too often or what?
(...) That's why it's not uncommon to see the Soviets abandoning the Far East entirely or the UK leaving India with token defences (...) Maybe VCs should be altered so that there is some reason to fight till the end? IMO if Japan manages to hold out until the end in 1945 or Germany pursues Fortress Europa strategy effectively, it should still count as something.
You could also have a scoring system, and have players play a sort of "league" game where everyone tries to either gain points or prevent other people from gaining them.I was talking about VCs, not VPs. Most MP games end prematurely because the players of one side realise that they have no chance to "win". However, many classic wargames balance this out by introducing specific VCs, so, for example, if the Axis starts getting pushed back in Russia, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Axis will "lose" the game.
One of bad thing about ending games prematurely is that one side, usually the defender, has to put incredible effort into pulling off a successful defensive operation on a wide scale (this is micro-hell AND the HOI3's combat system favours the attacker by its very nature) and just when it becomes apparent that they can do this, that the enemy can be stopped and counter-attacks can be started, the game ends.
Also, many games proved that the late war period can be just an interesting as the early and mid-war period. Many players enjoy playing games which include the Battle of the Bulge or the Operation Overlord, for example. Not to mention the fact that many high-tech stuff which we love appeared in greater numbers during the late-war. In HOI3, you don't even have the opportunity to test your late-war division designs or use nukes, because the game rarely goes beyond 1941/1942.
I was talking about VCs, not VPs.
(...) my point is that the player is not motivated to defend areas which would most likely be defended IRL, (...) There are many situations like that in HOI3, unfortunately. Too much 1/0 gameplay.
Map design is one thing, but political/propaganda fallout is another. Some areas were not worth much economically, but the government could still not afford losing them without at least putting up a fight. If Italy withdrew all forces from Libya in 1940 without firing a single bullet, I doubt that Mussolini would remain popular for long. Not that he would do that at all, because had imperial ambitions in the Med, but still...