If I understand correctly what fronts are, then I believe I always use them. My standard strategy is to find each province of the country I am attacking that borders any province of mine, then invade each of them with an army of about 20,000 troops. That way they cannot launch a counter-invasion of my territory without getting past my armies that are conducting sieges.
-
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 will think that would not work very well in MP againts a human player, I might be wrong of course. If you distribute your force in this form, you are inviting your enemy to mass their forces in one big army, and take your smaller armies one by one, causing great damage to them and even utter destruction. As long as they are in their own territory (you are sieging), they suffer not penalties. Add one leader to each side, and things become even more dim. (i.e one 60,000 army will kill three 20,000 armies in separate combats).
You have to remember that due to things like connection issues and time, a lot of people DON'T play MP. I don't, mainly because the few times I have that kind of uninterrupted time tend to be very late at night (in California) and there isn't anyone else on line to play against. And during the day, I have to share a 56k connection.
In later tech levels, you suffer much less attrition but stil there is no such thing as front. I for one will never make any front since there is no point. If the enemy enters my territory, so be it. It's only siege, not instant capture. But in HoI, fronts are required since it's instant capture if the territory is unguarded. There is no castle system in HoI.
What works against the AI in EUII would leave you slaughtered in MP. Having played both, I will state that EUII is a far more ruthless game then HoI is. Partly because it has so much more depth and longevity and strategy.
There are several schools of viable thought regarding how wars should be fought. I tend to fall under the 'Hammer' school. While using small raiding armies to scout and pillage the opponent's provinces (which DO give you monthly income and census taxes, I once nearly doubled my income for six months from pillage alone), I will locate my opponent's armies, and always try to hit him with 2-1 odds. Even if I take horrendous attrition in the process.
Another tactic is to wield a big army together from a couple adjacent provinces, throw it at a fortified city on the border, assault it, and withdraw. Wait for them to try and counterattack, then hit them. If they refuse to, keep stabbing at them.
There are several schools of viable thought regarding how wars should be fought. I tend to fall under the 'Hammer' school. While using small raiding armies to scout and pillage the opponent's provinces (which DO give you monthly income and census taxes, I once nearly doubled my income for six months from pillage alone), I will locate my opponent's armies, and always try to hit him with 2-1 odds. Even if I take horrendous attrition in the process.
Another tactic is to wield a big army together from a couple adjacent provinces, throw it at a fortified city on the border, assault it, and withdraw. Wait for them to try and counterattack, then hit them. If they refuse to, keep stabbing at them.
Actually, Damo you would be the right guy to put together some basic schools and advice..
Isaac! How on earth can rifles be a prerequisite. For a simple soul it appears evident that was is needed for this concentration of soldiers to exist is
a) soldiers
b) food (and perhaps shelter)
nothing more.
Presently contemplating to join the MP community this is one of the two most important issues that occupies my mind. The question is: How differently should I fight my wars in MP than in SP? Is indeed the AI in SP fighting similarly to what is recommendable in MP! I am of course thinking of these few (perhaps only one) huge sieging armies instead of several small sieges. Or is sieges rare in MP, mostly quick in and assault and then quick out again?
So Damo, if you would take some time and write some advice I believe there are many of us who would be very grateful.
But perhaps we are stealing this thread by now...
Everything happens, Daniel, maybe I can work something out after interviewing several biggies of Mp.
I would definitely like to see that too.
Well, I reckon you should damn well hurry up before everyone goes off to play Victoria instead Daniel.
I think Isaac's point was the opposite, that with rifles and particularly with machine guns, you can spread out in a line without being immediately smashed by the enemy in hand to hand combat.
The closest experience to what MP is when playing singleplayer would be to either start up the Napoleon or the 1700 scenario (when you start at war with everyone) and put the speed on 'normal'. Often, it will be slower in MP, but still, since you're just playing AI. Now, go about fighting the war with NO PAUSING and no speeding up. When the war ends, start over. I learned to multi-task by playing the Napoleon scenario that way as France, repeatedly. Then I played the Napoleon scenario with other people. First, it was just me as France vs a couple others, then it was me as France vs all the continentals, then it was me as France vs everyone, with England and the Ottoman Empire and Russia thrown in. The last time I played a serious Napoleon game about six months ago, it was against 8-10 people and I ended up trouncing all of them, despite the odds. But it took alot of work. Thats why in MGC3 (about 2 years ago?) I laughed at only having to fight 4 or 5 people as France, when they first ganged up on me in that 20 year war.
In any case, it worked for me, and it worked for Slargos, and I gave the same advice to Prince Eugene a long long time ago. I'll see about writing something up in the MP forum sometime.
EDIT: Daniel...Haven't you been contemplating joining the community since MGC3??? Come and play with us, damnit!
EDIT2: For practice with the earlier techs, start the 1419 scenario as FRANCE and do not accept ANY peaces. Keep the war going as long as possible.
Originally posted by Owen
I would definitely like to see that too.
Well, I reckon you should damn well hurry up before everyone goes off to play Victoria instead Daniel.
I think EUII will continue unabated. If anything, it might attract more players from those who pick up Victoria as their first Paradox game...They are very different games.
Thanks a lot Damo for this advice. I will do it.
I'll get a new comp and broadband within a couple of weeks. Then I am ready... well perhaps I might be bold enough to wage war against KurtBrian at least
I'll get a new comp and broadband within a couple of weeks. Then I am ready... well perhaps I might be bold enough to wage war against KurtBrian at least
Originally posted by Daniel A
Thanks a lot Damo for this advice. I will do it.
I'll get a new comp and broadband within a couple of weeks. Then I am ready... well perhaps I might be bold enough to wage war against KurtBrian at least
ohhhh
aren't we a brave little general....
Originally posted by Daniel A
Thanks a lot Damo for this advice. I will do it.
I'll get a new comp and broadband within a couple of weeks. Then I am ready... well perhaps I might be bold enough to wage war against KurtBrian at least
Yeah, you as Sweden and KB as Denmark would be fun to watch.
I still think EU2 will be played even though Victoria comes out. Most probably I'll play both: I'll continue my EU2 MP games, but I'll start new SP ones in Victoria. Besides I've still got to finish a WC in EU2 before I quit SP there totally.