-
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.
I don't want to stick with a specific timescale, because it destroys flexibility. If nothing important happens, then I won't create chapters just to show you the map 
Remember that you are supposed to write long-term plans, so if everything goes smoothly, then I will simply proceed with the plan.
If sth completely unexpected happens, then I will write EMERGENCY chapters outside of the regular schedule dealing just with a single issue.
There will always be just ONE person responsible for the IJA as a whole. It's entirely his/her decision who gets what and who controls what. If their subordinates give messy orders, then they need to sort them out. The High Command answers before me.
The IJN has two CiC with equal power, so they have to create a common plan which they both agree to. Obviously, only one of them will post it. Again, they can have as many subordinates as they want.
EDIT: We already have several potential participants:
Gensui Yamamoto - IJA
arkham1010 - IJN?
Baltasar - IJA
DoomBunny - IJN
Comm Cody - IJA
5 players would be fine, but I will give the others a chance and we will sort out the rest of rules etc.
Remember that you are supposed to write long-term plans, so if everything goes smoothly, then I will simply proceed with the plan.If sth completely unexpected happens, then I will write EMERGENCY chapters outside of the regular schedule dealing just with a single issue.
Not necessarily. Theatres can be created for AI purposes if it's needed, e.g. Northern China HQ might be one and Manchuria HQ might be another one. In-game theatres don't always have to correspond with chain of command for AAR purposes.
There will always be just ONE person responsible for the IJA as a whole. It's entirely his/her decision who gets what and who controls what. If their subordinates give messy orders, then they need to sort them out. The High Command answers before me.
There will always be one CiC for the IJA. He/She can have as many So Gun commanders as they want.
The IJN has two CiC with equal power, so they have to create a common plan which they both agree to. Obviously, only one of them will post it. Again, they can have as many subordinates as they want.
No need to. If necessary, one person can control the whole IJA. If needed, 6 people can control various Armies or AGs. It all depends on the number of players.
Sure.
EDIT: We already have several potential participants:
Gensui Yamamoto - IJA
arkham1010 - IJN?
Baltasar - IJA
DoomBunny - IJN
Comm Cody - IJA
5 players would be fine, but I will give the others a chance and we will sort out the rest of rules etc.
Last edited:
Well you da boss Cybvep. Just throwing thoughts out there...
My fellow generals(?), given that we may be working together in the future it may be worthwhile us getting to know one another better, so that we have some idea of where each of our strengths are, and how we might want to tackle such a game.
Personally I am a long term player of HoI, although I have only quite recently joined these forums and looked at the mods on offer. I have played through 3 full campaigns with the HPP mod; Japan, Italy and Turkey (I was planning to start a new one as Hungary soon) and a large number with the main game.
I tend to favour minor nations rather than play as faction leaders, because I like to be 'experimental' with my attitude to the game. Rather than try and 'game the system' or look for the 'perfect tactics' I like to put together an idea or concept and work with that, with my own house rules and objectives I like to set myself.
I do like my diplomacy and intelligence since it can really influence change, and like Sun Tzu says; "in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." so setting alliances, influencing nations and trying to gain some leverage in the region is a favourite strategy of mine.
I am better as a land commander, understanding how to use massed INF divisions and garrisons to good effect, as well as troop rotation to insure your offensive doesn't grind to a halt. I am less good at breakthrough and mobile warfare, since I tend to get encircled and out on a limb more than the AI. However considering this game would not put in direct command this would be mostly a moot point.
Having said that I would also call myself a competent naval commander, and with past Japanese games have played both carrier heavy navies, escort 'green water' navies and battleship navies, as well as in my HPP Japanese game experimented with island based air power for pacific control to limited success.
My thoughts for such a game as this at this time might be to seek a quick elimination of Peoples Republic, and the Kuomintang while seeking to solidify our borders with friendly relationships with Xibei, Guangxi and Yunnan given their poor VP worth and there would be much effort in eventually subduing them. Particularly with Guangxi's large militia force.
Thus allowing us to plough far more resources at securing the VP rich Philippines, Western Indonesia and the subjugation of Australia and New Zealand...possibly later heading across the pacific.
This would place Army spending low priority compared to Air and Naval building in the early years, insuring that a large fleet was ready to fight a decisive naval war when the time comes. However switching to armed forces expansion in the gap between the fall of Eastern China, to gear up for a primarily island hopping and jungle campaign through Burma, Indonesia, Philippines and Australia. By this point we should have the 'mechanised assets' to claim parts of India, and subdue the Australian continent (that once subjugated might be better off as a puppet).
So my fellow potential participants, what do bring to the table?
My fellow generals(?), given that we may be working together in the future it may be worthwhile us getting to know one another better, so that we have some idea of where each of our strengths are, and how we might want to tackle such a game.
Personally I am a long term player of HoI, although I have only quite recently joined these forums and looked at the mods on offer. I have played through 3 full campaigns with the HPP mod; Japan, Italy and Turkey (I was planning to start a new one as Hungary soon) and a large number with the main game.
I tend to favour minor nations rather than play as faction leaders, because I like to be 'experimental' with my attitude to the game. Rather than try and 'game the system' or look for the 'perfect tactics' I like to put together an idea or concept and work with that, with my own house rules and objectives I like to set myself.
I do like my diplomacy and intelligence since it can really influence change, and like Sun Tzu says; "in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." so setting alliances, influencing nations and trying to gain some leverage in the region is a favourite strategy of mine.
I am better as a land commander, understanding how to use massed INF divisions and garrisons to good effect, as well as troop rotation to insure your offensive doesn't grind to a halt. I am less good at breakthrough and mobile warfare, since I tend to get encircled and out on a limb more than the AI. However considering this game would not put in direct command this would be mostly a moot point.
Having said that I would also call myself a competent naval commander, and with past Japanese games have played both carrier heavy navies, escort 'green water' navies and battleship navies, as well as in my HPP Japanese game experimented with island based air power for pacific control to limited success.
My thoughts for such a game as this at this time might be to seek a quick elimination of Peoples Republic, and the Kuomintang while seeking to solidify our borders with friendly relationships with Xibei, Guangxi and Yunnan given their poor VP worth and there would be much effort in eventually subduing them. Particularly with Guangxi's large militia force.
Thus allowing us to plough far more resources at securing the VP rich Philippines, Western Indonesia and the subjugation of Australia and New Zealand...possibly later heading across the pacific.
This would place Army spending low priority compared to Air and Naval building in the early years, insuring that a large fleet was ready to fight a decisive naval war when the time comes. However switching to armed forces expansion in the gap between the fall of Eastern China, to gear up for a primarily island hopping and jungle campaign through Burma, Indonesia, Philippines and Australia. By this point we should have the 'mechanised assets' to claim parts of India, and subdue the Australian continent (that once subjugated might be better off as a puppet).
So my fellow potential participants, what do bring to the table?
Please, if you have more, then share them with us
. I would like to finalise the rules as soon as possible so that the real gameplay can begin.Introducing yourself is a great idea! It's good to know that you have some experience with the HPP mod.
When we finalise recruitment, we will have to decide who will play as High Command and various subordinates. Since Gensui Yamamoto was the first volunteer, I think it would be fair if he did it, but the IJA players will have to sort this out among themselves.
I think that the final squad should be composed of 6 or 7 players, so we have at most two vacant places (unless someone resigns). More would be too crowdy.
When everything is set up, I will post an introductory chapter, describing the Japanese starting position and asking the players to formulate their first plans.
Fascinating! Don't know that I can participate, since I upgraded to FtM and can't go back to SF for HPP :-( , but will follow anyway. But I will raise a question: what about the (non-CAG) air force? Who controls them, and through which budget? Or are they a centralized asset, like home-island defense or infrastructure, which each faction can request the use of?
You can. Here is the procedure:
1. Uninstall FTM
2. Install HOI3, SF, the latest SF patch and the latest version of the HPP mod
3. Copy the whole HOI3 folder
4. Install FTM and the latest FTM patch
5. Juggle between SF HPP and FTM by renaming the HOI3 folder
Anyway, you won't need to play the game, as I will do it. After all, I will execute the plans and write the chapters.
Pretty much. Airforce will be distributed according to needs, BUT if the IJA or the IJN build their own aircraft, then they will have the right to use them at all times. However, the other faction can request aircraft if it needs it and if the potential lender refuses, then he or she must give a good reason for doing so.
I'm talking about the two major factions, of course. The IJN mini-factions will have to agree HOW to use the available aircraft and I suppose that sometimes they will have different ideas about it, as SAGs will be controlled by the old guards, while CTFs will be controlled by the carrier-proponents. In case of the IJA, the High Command have total authority regarding the use of aircraft and it is the job of the IJA's subordinates to convince the HQ that they are the people who need them the most
Plenty of potential both for coordination and conflicts!
Last edited:
Indeed Cybvep does the actual playing of the game, we are just their to dictate, bicker and plan about how he should play it. You don't require the game at all in that respect, only an internet connection to the forums, and a competent knowledge of the game.
I concur with that method of assigning aircraft assets, It's pretty much as I would assume the best way to do it.
I would gladly take on the responsibility, unless anybody else would be dying to take on the roll...?
Another couples questions, how much will VPs be worth in the Americas? And event and national decisions, do they/will they fire automatically, or will we be given a chance to decide for ourselves? There's only a handful of those, but still they can allow different paths to be followed at different times.
I concur with that method of assigning aircraft assets, It's pretty much as I would assume the best way to do it.
Cybvep said:
I would gladly take on the responsibility, unless anybody else would be dying to take on the roll...?
Another couples questions, how much will VPs be worth in the Americas? And event and national decisions, do they/will they fire automatically, or will we be given a chance to decide for ourselves? There's only a handful of those, but still they can allow different paths to be followed at different times.
They will be worthless. I don't want to promote gamey and unrealistic invasions. That's why neither faction gains anything from the Americas, excluding the Hawaii etc. Naturally, if the invasion is planned, then I will execute it, but it won't add anything to the VPs. My intention is to achieve sth that the Japanese hoped to achieve, i.e. dominate Asia and the Pacific Ocean and present the international community with a done deal. If it cannot be done, then at least survive with as many VPs as possible until Jan 1946
I hope that it will not be an easy game
Both factions will have to agree upon the option we will take.
If it looks like the US are about to roll over and die, will you add some free carriers to the save game, to bolster their Pacific fleets?
Also, can we name the ships we have built?
Also, can we name the ships we have built?
The game hasn't even been started yet... And the AI countries will get bonuses when Japan is at war with them.
I have never tried to rename the ships, but if it's possible, then sure.
BTW I have a question to both potential players and potential AAR followers. Would you prefer the AAR chapters to be more gameplay-oriented or maybe you would like to see a bit of role-playing (I could always be the Emperor)? Do you want to read detailed reports of battles, military build-up etc. or maybe you would prefer shorter posts with concrete information only?
Last edited:
You can rename ships, just as you can brigades and planes. Simply click them to bring up the big info popup about them, click their name at the top and start typing.
Details and Roleplay would be my favourite.
Details and Roleplay would be my favourite.
I'd say you need detail to inform your in-game decision makers but a nice commentary/role play as the Emperor would help to guide their advice so they knew what would meet Imperial favour?
Ok. You can rename them, then.
Yes, I will make sure of that.
Now this is interesting...
How about the staff meetings convention? The Emperor was known for his interest in political and military matters IRL.
Why not subfaction the IJA as well, to include the Strike North/Strike South branches as well? Strike South is naturally more entwined and dependent and cooperative with the IJA, while Strike North hates their guts.
Since you seem to be filled with IJN people, I volunteer as a Strike South person if you implement them
Since you seem to be filled with IJN people, I volunteer as a Strike South person if you implement them
Very interesting ideas. I could create rules that would motivate the Strike North mini-faction to attack the USSR and Mongolia, while the Strike South mini-faction would be more interested in Indochina, Burma and India.
What do the other potential players think?
There may be the risk that there could be too many people are involved in the game. I do see a point in having several people in both branches, but subdividing them into more factions doesn't seem to be wise at this stage. It would probably be more usefull to keep things as they are and instead have the people in the branches discuss among themselves (eg via PM).
Sounds interesting.
I'm itching to participate!
1st action should be align to Axis to save Germany the diplo's it might waste Japan.
I'm itching to participate!
1st action should be align to Axis to save Germany the diplo's it might waste Japan.
Point taken, although I would prefer if these matters were discussed in this thread. It will be more fun that way.
Which faction would you prefer?
That would make the count 7 participants, 8 if we include VeteranLurker who didn't think he could participate because he'd upgraded to FtM when this isn't a MP game.
By rights both Manchurian and Pacific operations should be in action, since the Japanese did battle with the soviets at Khalkhin(sp?) Gol in 1939 and lost their 6th army there. However all out war didn't quite breakout at the time.
Actually just thinking about that, I was going to mention to the HPP people a while back why isn't there an event for that? Since it was a major action, although there was if I recall rightly some pop up message about Russo-Japanese skirmishing, still no actual event that could have brough the SU into the war far eailer on and changed history.
On the Russian side the annexation of Manchuria (and possibly Korea), for the Japanese Oil and Coal on the southern side of the Stanovoy mountains;
If they [the Japanese] had succeeded here, then their oil problems would have been mostly ammliated, and it is quite possible Pearl Harbour and the rest of the Pacific war wouldn't have happened. Or at least been put off by some 5-8 years while Japan worked its way through China and consolodated there. But anyhow I digress...
I think a seperation of theaters in that sense could be a good idea. That would give the navy three players, the IJA 4 with two theaters, however that would not allow for an overall 'commander' however a command staff I think is just as appropriate. But it's up to how we want to diviy up forces;
IJN
arkham1010
Baltasar
DoomBunny
IJN-N
Surt
Comm Cody
IJN-S
Herbert West
VeteranLurker(?)
Me...?
I don't know if that's how people would like to be sorted out or not? Please inform.
By rights both Manchurian and Pacific operations should be in action, since the Japanese did battle with the soviets at Khalkhin(sp?) Gol in 1939 and lost their 6th army there. However all out war didn't quite breakout at the time.
Actually just thinking about that, I was going to mention to the HPP people a while back why isn't there an event for that? Since it was a major action, although there was if I recall rightly some pop up message about Russo-Japanese skirmishing, still no actual event that could have brough the SU into the war far eailer on and changed history.
On the Russian side the annexation of Manchuria (and possibly Korea), for the Japanese Oil and Coal on the southern side of the Stanovoy mountains;
If they [the Japanese] had succeeded here, then their oil problems would have been mostly ammliated, and it is quite possible Pearl Harbour and the rest of the Pacific war wouldn't have happened. Or at least been put off by some 5-8 years while Japan worked its way through China and consolodated there. But anyhow I digress...
I think a seperation of theaters in that sense could be a good idea. That would give the navy three players, the IJA 4 with two theaters, however that would not allow for an overall 'commander' however a command staff I think is just as appropriate. But it's up to how we want to diviy up forces;
IJN
arkham1010
Baltasar
DoomBunny
IJN-N
Surt
Comm Cody
IJN-S
Herbert West
VeteranLurker(?)
Me...?
I don't know if that's how people would like to be sorted out or not? Please inform.
This is already implemented. There are border skirmishes with the SU which can escalate. I'm pretty sure that we will at least have to fight some battles with the SU sooner or later.
Obviously, you meant the IJA-N and IJA-S?
8 players would be more than sufficient. In such case, there could be no subordinates and all players within a faction would have equal power (but different goals). Unless, of course, we elect a leader for the whole IJA and both the IJA-N and the IJA-S would be his subordinates.