• 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.
excellent stuff again ... you really are the master of the HOI3 MP AAR ... great game play and really clear updates. To me it seems as if not taking the M-R pact and being able to escalate the advantages with the Japanese was probably the key element, but hats off to you all - not least for playing till there really was no remaining doubt as to the outcome --- enjoy your drink.

Copy + paste here Loki's comment

Thanks a lot. Cred like that means a lot. Yes, it would not have been possible without Japan (which I think is a clear sign of a weakness in the game), but as mentioned before, we will try and adjust that ‘till next game.


Wonderful AAR. As I have not played HOI, I have not been able to meaningfully comment but I have followed this carefully all the time.

This was great, well played. Thanks for the entertainment, cant wait till the next.

Excellent game; very dramatic at the end by the brits but too little too late.

Great MP AAR, really enjoyed it.

Exiting, tremendous AAR ; thanks !Just can't wait for the next one....

Congrats on your victory!

Great AAR! Can't wait for the next one.

Fantastic AAR! And very well played.

Another saga has been concluded. I've enjoyed this AAR very much and it was interesting to follow. Thanks for the good times and I am looking forward to the next one.

Simply thanks for a great AAR i've been following impatiently.;)

Thank you all, guys! It warms my heart :). I probably would have stopped writing a long time ago without being cheered on in such inspiring way. And obviously… I wont be able to stop now… ;)


Very interesting AAR. You are incorrect about event that dragged Italy to war with allies. The game mechanics works this way: if you are a faction member and are at war with allies, dow on comintern WILL bring all axis members that are at war with allies, only members that are at peace won't auto join war.

Maybe we misunderstand each other here. Axis was at war with the Commies but only Germany was at war with Allies. Then Japan DoWs Allies with “Declare limited war” – which to our surprise led to an event were UK could declare war on Italy (and this was not due to the threat/neutrality relation). Anyhow… we just didn’t know this would happen. Maybe it’s somewhat logic.


I don't get the rule in some mp games thatChina player should be AI controled for balance reasons, for balance reasons it should be ALWAYS controled by player.

I agree with you there. The reason we don’t do that is mainly due to lack of players as we preferable want to have players on France and Poland to prepare them – and we don’t want more players on allies/commies as they quite soon don’t have many playable countries (‘till US and CAN comes along). Also, we played this game from Sept-38 to May -39 on faster speed, forcing Jap player to run the major part of his armies on AI-control (not that it seemed to delay the Chinese fall very much).


What happened to those mech units he researched early on, and I'm sure he must have had many more division in the UK by 1941 at his disposal.

Did you miss when I deployed them in the East? They were active on the southern East front until the end. I deployed plenty of those “Heavy Mechanized” divisions the last months – but then the outcome of the game was already quite certain.


I've read all of these AAR's and they are excellent. Love to see players facing off instead of the AI. I do have some thoughts;
Perhaps you should allow the American (as a player) and the Brit to send expeditionary forces to USSR, representing the vast amount of lend lease equipment and resources sent to them by the allies. At present you do not seem to have a mechanic for this.
Is it possible for the Us to send expeditionary forces without being at war? it's been a while... if they can, that should be allowed -to the soviet- if possible.
Also, it might be a good idea to let the soviets build reserve units during a certain time period, perhaps once the war has started for half a year to a year or something, to represent the vast amount of troops the soviets raised at the outset of the russian war. These units would not be usable for combat immediately of course as they would need reinforcements, but they could be deployed further back and then create a "second wave" during 1942, giving the russians some more staying power.
Your bitter peace conditions might need a looking at, there were no guarantees that the soviets would surrender after the fall of leningrad/Moscow/stalingrad, especially not unless the vast aeas of Baku were taken or the rebuilt factories in the urals.
The game could also use some tighter supply rules I think, that would have to be hard coded. There does not seem to be enough supply and weather problems in the game right now, especially not in Asia. Something for paradox to rectify perhaps.

Hey Ash. Lot of thought there. Interesting. We have been quite careful with allowing EFs between player countries for the simple reason that it’s easier to do gamey, unlogic things. We also have tried to limit what US can do before they entry the war – a little bit for the same reason. In our first game (before Wildfires) where I, as Germany, had a powerful Kriegsmarine and kicked RNs butt – I suddenly faced two packed stacks of US ships under British flag (as US was not in the war). That felt extremely gamey so that’s why we early on limited US pre war-entry.

About “reserves”. I hate them ;). It’s mainly because I think they are too good in HoI. In reality, calling reserves from civil life and shape battle-ready divisions takes longer time. Also, they would not have the same quality as “full time” soldiers. This is not reflected in HoI. Also, I am uncertain if Soviet needs beefing up. Had it not been for Japan (as previously mentioned) they’d had a lot better chance.

About Bitter Peace. During “Wildfires”, Soviet was broken but it still took months to reach all VPs. But maybe you are right. We simply havn’t played enough MP-games where Soviet have perished to be sure we have reached the right balance. We will probably continue to use it until proven wrong by ourselves :).

Yes, especially during amphibious landings and battle without friendly ports – the troops last a little bit too long, I think. Together with the fact that amphibious landings and retreats are far too easy, this kind of warfare is much more efficient in HoI than in reality, I think. As I have argued in other MP-AARs, there should be something like and org-penalty on landings and an additional cost to forced retreats to waiting transports. An extra cost modifier would then be related to the softness of the units. A “harder” (heavier) unit would suffer worse penalties than “plain” infantry. And yes, Weather should have more impact.


Excellant job with this AAR. It had me riveted all the way through. I eagerly await the next one :) Is there any word on when you might begin it?

This was a really fun AAR; I will certainly follow whichever one you start next. I wonder how you folks will do when/if FtM is incorporated!

Ah, finally. The conclusion has come! Good job, Cpt! A well-played game, indeed. Cpt, you should play the Soviet Union or Italy for a change of pace. Also, someone should definitely play Nationalist China in the next game, in order to give the Japs as much trouble as possible.

Great AAR as always, and equally great play by you ;) Great game and I'm looking forward to your next one! (Would be interesting how you fare as the USSR in the next game maybe? ;))

I hope we get another awesomely fabulous MP AAR by you guys. Personally I'd like to see an cpteasy play USa, maybe that way they end up actually fighting in the war, or something that he didn't play in earlier AARs, maybe soviet?

Thanks a lot guys. Can’t be said ‘nuff times – your praise means everything.
Well – of course there will be more AARs and of course the next one has already begun (but not posted). I like your suggestions for new AARs. However, since I have had the luxury of choosing what country to play in all the last sessions, other players primary wished were priorities for the next game – and I got to pick what was left. Personally, I wanted to play France and later move to the US – but that combo was picked by another player. Also, we had to consider the fact that we have some unbalance in experience (and addiction) among the players so we need to distribute as evenly as possible – thus inhibiting amount of variation.

In the end, I got to be United Kingdom…. again (like in “Jolly Carnage”). Still, UK is never boring and we have adjusted House Rules quite a lot since Jolly Carnage, so I am quite eager to lead the Brits once again – and I can already assure you, as we have reached into the beginning of 1940, this will be a completely different game from Jolly Carnage ;)

So… more action coming from CptEasy in the autumn. Cheers for now.
 
Did you miss when I deployed them in the East? They were active on the southern East front until the end. I deployed plenty of those “Heavy Mechanized” divisions the last months – but then the outcome of the game was already quite certain.

Oh no, I watch your AARs like a hawk so doubt I miss much ;) I'm talking about the UK here, I could have sworn early on you noted that the UK had rush-researched mechanised units. That, combined with the swathe of Light Armour techs of his near the end of the game, I was rather hoping I would see them in action, and expected further landings maybe in the low countries. Oh well it doesn't matter I suppose :)

Thanks a lot guys. Can’t be said ‘nuff times – your praise means everything.
Well – of course there will be more AARs and of course the next one has already begun (but not posted). I like your suggestions for new AARs. However, since I have had the luxury of choosing what country to play in all the last sessions, other players primary wished were priorities for the next game – and I got to pick what was left. Personally, I wanted to play France and later move to the US – but that combo was picked by another player. Also, we had to consider the fact that we have some unbalance in experience (and addiction) among the players so we need to distribute as evenly as possible – thus inhibiting amount of variation.

In the end, I got to be United Kingdom…. again (like in “Jolly Carnage”). Still, UK is never boring and we have adjusted House Rules quite a lot since Jolly Carnage, so I am quite eager to lead the Brits once again – and I can already assure you, as we have reached into the beginning of 1940, this will be a completely different game from Jolly Carnage ;)

So… more action coming from CptEasy in the autumn. Cheers for now.

Great, thanks again for this great entertainment :)
 
UK MP AAR is bound to be interesting. I don't like playing them in SP, because I feel that I have little chance of actually losing the game (I doubt that the AI will perform a successful Sea Lion against a decently prepared human player), but in MP playing as the UK should be fun :)
 
Some of the problems are addressed in FTM.
Still, without proper entry of USA allies were doomed from start.
Leaving it for AI mercy made things just twice worse, as AI does not have efficient builds.
 
I have noticed that in all 3 MP games by CptEasy, Axis has won. Maybe a house rule of Japanese or all of the Axis majors declaring war on USA by 7 December 1941 (the latest or maybe later, i don't know) would be very interesting. UK would have a reason to play more defensive and wait for USA to join and help. Off course there may be other complications such as a very early DOW by the Japanese on an unprepared USA. How about a house rule that Japan (and again maybe the rest of the Axis majors) should DOW USA in 1941, not earlier, not later? On the other hand this rule (or a simillar one) maybe limiting the players too much.

Or maybe the problem of Axis winning all 3 games is that USSR is too easy to beat. Not because of it's player's skill, but because of a flaw in the game???

So... Why has Axis won all of these 3 games? Because of UK/USSR/France being too weak? The only thing i am sure is that someone must play Nationalist China, as Cybvep said. :)

Also a big THANKS to CptEasy for these excellent and ultra entertaining AARs. :)
 
Last edited:
There are many reasons why Axis so often win in multiplayer.
Mostly because of China resources provided to Japan, it is big disbalance.
Europe is more or less balanced.
And partially because of org regain rules... attacked is at clear advantage, overall.

Soviets can provide proper defense, but you MUST have two people to handle those hundreds of divisions.
Japan vs SU is non-issue, as infra in East is bad and SU can easily mount static defense.

In FTM now Axis are at severe disadvantage by resources, and very tough partisan penalties (mostly affected is Japan).
 
In FTM now Axis are at severe disadvantage by resources, and very tough partisan penalties (mostly affected is Japan).
Is FTM balanced and stable enough for a MP game?

And partially because of org regain rules... attacked is at clear advantage, overall.
The attacker? I thought that it became more balanced in one of the SF patches, because of changed org regain rules.
 
Is FTM balanced and stable enough for a MP game?


The attacker? I thought that it became more balanced in one of the SF patches, because of changed org regain rules.

Errrr. From my point of view singleplayer is more crashy at high speed.
MP is being tested by Monday group - this time I am out due to being in other country, so not at my PC.

It became more balanced, but toughness rules were not fixed. Besides, retreating units still move slower than attackers as they quickly run out of supply.

Still, I'd say that now in FTM balance is other way, heavily on allied side. But, Monday game test will provide better answer.
 
I mean in SF they did not fix toughness/defensiveness.
They fixed it only in FTM, where toughness/defensiveness works as intended.

Ship stats were mostly changed, now at least fleets have a chance not to die within 4 hours, making naval combat more predictable and fun.
 
Finally caught up with this AAR and CptEasy is (correctly) bugging me for a formal comment. I was the UK player in this game. And an interesting game it was. Just like some of the Axis players we though Allies at an advantage when Germany initially attacked Russia before going at France. What a good call of Easy to register this and turn around before it was too late. As said by others, after the fall of France Allies odds was already very low.

The retreat form Asia was not an easy call and it was discussed in the Allied/Comitern strategy forum. But from the naval encounters I had with Japan I knew it could cost me significant parts of the Royal Navy and without it intact and able to dominate the European theater, the price could be paid in that arena... And I really coulnd't have that. Although I left very few defenders in Asia, Zid (the Japanese player) could not know what I had in stock and would still have to advance slowly. Also, giving up Asia would reduce the strain on my convoys.

Of course the Greek incident (with them refusing to surrender) was the major setback that extingushed all hope of victory (at least for me). But we keept the spirit high and wanted to treat our opponents to that feeling of complete victory. So we keept it going for another couple of months. I've also critized my opponents in previous games for giving up too soon and didn't want that thrown back at me. ;-)

Noted by some there was a period of inactivity from Britain after beeing pushed back from Italy. The major reason was to calculate US canches to see conflict before making the final commitment. When I realised it was almost a year away I couldn't wait any longer. Mind you, I wan't inactive in the time between as I was intensely fighting submarines and attempting port strikes in Italy. About the subs. I did invenst a lot in ASW and destroyers (both tech and building them). Although I understand that CptEasy did invest in subs as well, I feel outcome of the submarine-war didn't reflect my efforts. Although I invested a lot in new convoys I was never low on resources.

But... yes, there was a period when I should have put more pressure on the German player. I actually attempted a fake-attack (retreating my forces instantly) in northern France a couple of months prior to the full attack to measure his response time. I turned out he retook the province almost a full month after I had taken it... So I had a feeling surprise was of importance. The main target of the final operation was to surround and eliminate some German troops without loosing any myself. Actually most of my forces WAS commited in this attack. I think I had 4-5 divisions defending Britain and some in strategic ponts in the Med. The plan was to pull out before the German counter attack. I just wanted that final victory in Bordeaux as well... and you know how that turned out. The mechanised units that I reasearched early was still just getting deployed. Remember that this game was actually quite short.


Anyway, I had a great time playing this game and I want to say to my allies as well as the opposition, WELL PLAYED! I've learned a lot and next time you'll see me bring my A-game. Also I think we yet again learned som important points in how to balance this for multiplayer. Finally a world of credit to CptEasy who with great effort and skill published these AAR's for everyone to see and follow the action and for me to relive victories and losses.

See you in the field!
 
Came back,and terrific end to a superb aar.

Just want to make 2 suggestions for balance in ur next game.

Player on usa once france at war with germany.
Usa joins if japan at war with any european power.
Molotov ribbentrop pact should be signed.

This will mean.
No japanese pressure on britain or russia.
But also that germany can't be singled out with 2 front war by soviets and allies.No france and russia together on ger.

So either italy and germany vs russia and england.[Assuming france lost]Which is pretty balanced.
 
Player on usa once france at war with germany.
Agreed. This should create an additional consequence for early German warmongering. If they attack in, let's say, 1938, then they will have to worry about the US player earlier than normal.

Usa joins if japan at war with any european power.
Sounds reasonable.

Molotov ribbentrop pact should be signed.

This will mean.
No japanese pressure on britain or russia.
But also that germany can't be singled out with 2 front war by soviets and allies.No france and russia together on ger.
I disagree. It was Germany's choice NOT to sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The initiative is always on the Germans. For balance, the Soviet player should always accept the invitation, but that's it. Otherwise, the game becomes too predictable.
 
An excellent game, once again. I hope you had as much fun playing it as I had just reading about it. :)

It's a shame that the Asian theatre is so difficult to balance - and I really hope to see the US enter the war the next time. ;) In the end, there's probably no way around allowing the Allies some form of control over the US to allow an earlier entry - when Japan attacks the Allies, the US should definitely respond, otherwise the game is too lopsided. Also, if it all possible, China shouls probably be strenghtened somehow.
 
Conquest of China should be a lot more threatening to the USA in HOI3. The public opinion and many politicians were more sympathetic to the Chinese than to the Europeans, as they thought that Europe was none of their business. Until 1940s (esp. before conquest of France), Japan was also a more pressing threat than Germany, as it was rampaging with a big fleet and imperialistic ambitions in the US playground, i.e. the Pacific Ocean. Should it succeed in China (I'm not even talking about direct annexation, but about a more plausible scenario with several puppet states and Vichy-like countries), it would become a potential superpower with access to massive workforce and manpower, a stage set for further expansion and a stronger international position. That should DEFINITELY speed-up US rearmament.
 
That's the problem in this game, acutally. You just can't figure in all the imperialistic ambitions of all nations, be it Japan, Germany, USA, Britain etc pp. One action by any nation creates reactions in a number of other countries as well. This ripple effect then can boil up to war.