Game/Mind Balance

[JerkyJerry]

Gentlemen:

How do you reconcile playing the game and not gaming it, while at the same time knowing/forgetting/ignoring history?

I don’t know WWII history like the back of my hand like many of you do (I am however learning more) therefore; how would I know if I’m gaming the game/system?


And secondly in live games how would I know if I’m gaming the system/game? How would I know what gaming the game/system is or would be considered for each and every country when to me HOI is first and foremost a game? So I play it like a game. To win!


When I play as Germany I don’t build planes any longer. I just can’t click the mouse the billion/million times it takes to have to micromanage the entire air force any longer. IMO the results don’t equal the effort. I know it is not WWII historically correct but doods come on; a working air force is a copious amount of mouse clicks. So I build armor. Lots of armor. As a matter of fact there is not one division I build that does not have armor in it. Usually in more than one slot. I know 4 has an improved air force control mechanism and am really looking forward to using that.


What will be socially acceptable in live games?

What is considered to be ‘gaming’ the game?

Are there different definitions of gaming according to a player’s WWII knowledge?

Are there different definitions of the term ‘gaming’, in live and solo games?


I can just see it now. I’m in a live game with a group of 8 or 10 or 12 others and after about 3 or 4 years of game play someone notices I’m building this or attacking that or doing this/that which is WRONG! Then the game and all our sessions goes to waste as I was doing something that was so obviously wrong to everyone else but me. I just don’t want to be that guy!

 

[electriccat]

I think that especially in historic single player games, knowing how WWII went historically is going to be and advantage. And to a point that is going to be how to learn to play. But then even in single player letting the AI just go a little bug nuts on how it decides to do it's focus tree is going to switch things up.

When talking a multiplayer game you only have to look as far as like the EU IV dev multiplayer to see how in a true multiplayer there get's to be a better balance. You can't overstack as much in a specific way because one player might know your tendencies or another might have some better knowledge or situational advantage.

Knowing that Market Garden failed doesn't mean the idea wasn't worthwhile. But know why it did might help make sure it doesn't again.

The biggest part i'm going to be interested in as far as historic parts go is to see if the timeline really holds. In a lot of games I've noticed that due to the way a player focuses means that you aren't going to end up on the same timelines. D-Day might end up being in '42 because the US player doesn't as much have to overcome the political and free market aspects that the real world did.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Thanks electriccat
I did not know if there was some sort of 'unwritten' rules in this genre of multiplayer game.
This is the only GS title I have played so I wanted to get a better understanding of how it may work.
Thanks

 

[BBBD316]

@JerkyJerry I think in multiplayer there are set rules, generally you need to keep the game historical up to 1939. However you are allowed to try to increase your alliance, build whatever you want etc.

You could check out the Carnage AARs in the HOI3 AAR subforum, these guys go hard in multiplayer be knowing that everyone knows what is going to happen and trying to counteract this. So France and the UK getting involved in Germany as soon as war is declared, etc.

I would suggest finding a core group you can play with and then mixing and matching the nations between you, you will develop your own house rules. As long as you don't break those rules anything goes.