HOI3 made for multiplayer

[unmerged(49695)]

It's pretty much useless though (a) as soon as war starts or if (b) things start going ahistorically.

There's not much of a point in executing a prerecorded game all the way up to 01.01.1939 if during MP the Czech A.I. (or human payer) refuses the annexation of the Sudetenland and WW2 commences ahead of schedule ...

that never happens in multiplayer, since we usually save before it just in case AI refuses, so we can reload. It is also not in german favor to start the war so soon, because they can get raped by england + england controlling french army, so no german player would choose to fight to anex czechs when they get it for free.

 

[unmerged(29126)]

that never happens in multiplayer, since we usually save before it just in case AI refuses, so we can reload. It is also not in german favor to start the war so soon, because they can get raped by england + england controlling french army, so no german player would choose to fight to anex czechs when they get it for free.

By all means, if it can easily be implemented then it should be done, but if it takes even one programmer considerable effort that could be better spent on something else, say, a better naval combat system, better A.I., fewer bugs then this proposition is not exactly on my list of priorities.

Add to that that the unpredictability of A.I. allies, for me personally at least, contributes to HOI2's appeal ... for me it's more of a crisis-management game (can you tell that I'm one of those lonely, desperate SP'ers with disposible income and little free-time)

 

[unmerged(56137)]

However there is a huge difference on making a script and instructing the AI to act upon broad guidelines.... and having the AI do exactly what you do.

There is ? As far as I know the entire AI actions are all pre-programmed on scripts that the hoi2 engine uses. These "broad guidelines" will also be scripts as well. The examples of improvements you've suggested like moving SU army to leningrad, allowing a player to declare war ahistorically & possibly encircle the entire soviet army if not take the entire nation before the SU can react. So the actual benefits of a static script in either SP or MP are not that great, they might help improve things alittle if you play a certain way but once you change that they become irrelevant if not counterproductive, much like how the ger AI doesn't garrison atlantic beaches when its focusing on SU.

Is it possible to write such a detailed script? I think not.

Even if is was possible a script is useless as an assistant.

Exactly my point, rigid static scripts are virtually useless in assistance since they can't adapt to a changing enviroment. And unless you have some way of recording the player's actions which wouldn't depend on scripts (please explain if you do) I don't see how its possibly an improvement.

I would be in favor of Pdox laying out a specifically named MP campaign staring sometime in '38. Then focusing all of their MP playtesting and balancing effort into this one scenario.

Having the game go exactly historical is not always something to be desired, I enjoy 36 games for the freedom they offer and even moreso the abyss scenario. The abyss scenario is not bad at all for MP and I think I've enjoyed the 2 games I've played in it alot, though it could also use alot of balancing much like the ww2 scenarios as well. Certainly balancing is an important part of the MP equation but so far I'd prefer stability over balancing, as rulesets can temporarily provide a fix for that.

that never happens in multiplayer, since we usually save before it just in case AI refuses, so we can reload. It is also not in german favor to start the war so soon, because they can get raped by england + england controlling french army, so no german player would choose to fight to anex czechs when they get it for free.

I played an MP game once, probably my first or 2nd where we played through the early war and it actually resulted in an axis victory , I think I was italy iirc and it was a pretty interesting & different game from the usual.

 

[Von Paulous]

Ahistorical games?

I have to agree that if a couple of teams chooses to play ahistorically.... a replay would be useless.

However most teams demand that events outcome is historical.... and more importanly there are common pre agreed rules about when a nation may enter the war.

Therefore I see no way for a replay to harm a MP game.

Keep in mind that in an actuall MP game.... the replay runs in parallel to human action.

In the unlikely event that one player breaks the rules.... the human may intervine and set the replay out of action for the rest of the sesion.

But apart as a tool for multiplayer.... having the AI to act upon your commands.... allows you to built up a decent Britain/SU and face them as Germany.

Or the other way around.

Or better yeat set all the countries as you like and then have them fight each other and watch them as swizterland.See by yourself how smartly the AI uses the forces you delivered it.

The programmers should be able to use the information of such AIvsAI game gives them to write smarter AI codes.

The replayability of the game in single player skyrockets.

I see no reason to play single player since the computer has no chance against me.

 

[unmerged(59184)]

I could link you to many random games that are organised irregularly as time permits if you don't believe me.

Oh I believe you, and I belive you when you say there are a lot of people enjoying MP greatly, and that more would join given better netcode/interface. But it still won't ever be a majority.

Well rather than basicly calling me a lair I'd appreciate if you'd point out what you have an issue with so that I can either back it up or correct it if I've made a mistake. I believe that would be a more constructive method of arguing rather than saying I make things up.

No, not calling you a liar. Rather I think you do what most people do, when enthusiastically pursuing something with a similarly inclined group: You falsely start to believe most people think like you, when in reality it's only those you surround yourself with that do.

You're absolutely correct, hoi2 focuses on a rich singleplayer mode while providing an MP as an added feature, as such the singleplayer audience far outweighs that of the multiplayer. If hoi2 was designed with more MP oriented approach in mind it is pretty logical to expect an increased attention from players towards MP.

Certainly. But that's not enough for HoI to go against the general, and quite overbearing trend, that of SP majority in virtually all SP capable games.

I don't know if you've played it but there is a game called freelancer, had a rather rich & memorable singleplayer too but where it truly excelled was MP as well as an active modding community. Ofcourse that game was of an entirely different nature & genre but the example stands that its possible to have both a good singleplayer & MP with sizable communities for both, people still play it today though it was released in 2003.

In addition to Freelancer, IL2 (2001), GPL (1998!), GTL (2005), GTR2 (2006), and many more fit the same bill, in this respect. I enjoy all of those almost exlusively online. And yet, during their day, i.e. as long as they generated any significant income for the publishers, they all had a large offline majority afaik.

The OP may have mistated his original request to improve MP by suggesting too much of an emphasis on MP but he has corrected that statement several times before, my posting here wasn't to cover for him but to emphasize the real need for greater MP emphasis and detail some of the serious issues with MP some people aren't aware even exists due to their singleplayer-based experience.

Very well, I shall accept his backtracking and not continue this debate any longer. I can certainly agree that stable MP and reduced file corruption should get a higher priority.

I only really posted this to address the "liar" misunderstanding.

 

[Delta107]

I saw at the beginning of the thread the example about how the player has conquered half a Europe with Germany. Yet it is the player's problem whether he considers ethical to abuse the AI in any way. And, I think that while there must be a multiplayer option for the game, SP must no be forgotten. And, I think that most of the veteran players, who are interested in history, warfare, other activities have very little time (although they find it for HOI ) and must be provided with a polished and creative AI for their SP game.

I don't understand why there are aggressive forum visitors who began to propose "revolutionary" MP concepts.

I think WOW and its cousin warcraft don't need to be mentioned.

I give my support to those who like the concept of HOI, not just as a multiplayer game.

And there's plenty of us!

 

[vertinox]

The #1 improvement to HoI3 multiplayer should be a hot join solution. Eu3 MP biggest flaw is players dropping. If you could just pause the game and let them rejoin with the current save file while everyone waits then that would be revolutionary.

That or the ability for ingame player to chat with people in the lobby.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

Delete this post.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

I saw at the beggining of the thread the example about how the player has conquered half an Europe with Germany. Yet it is the player's problem wether he considers ethical to abbuse the AI in any way.

If you're referring to the very first example that was actually an MP game I believe, and germany was defeated eventually.

I don't understand why there are aggresive forum visitors who began to propose "revolutionary" MP concepts.

Because HoI 2 MP has alot of unrealized MP potential as well. But I think most of us well settle for major stability boost and perhaps alittle more balance.

 

[unmerged(49695)]

yes was a mp game, in which M&M was in too=P and in which a big effort was put by mainly 4 allied players to save the allies from defeat by opening a heavly guarded france front, and eventually had to invade trough finland to save northen soviet army gorup. It was meant as an example of how much superior in experience mp games can be compared to SP, since there is no way an AI could have provided such experience.

 

[Delta107]

Do not sub estimate the SP user over MP.

 

[6354201]

I have played Hoi2 extensively single player and multiplayer. My experience with the multiplayer component of Hoi2 has been mixed. When playing with my brother at his house over his LAN, we have no lag and the game generally progresses smoothly (key word, generally)

Out attempts at playing online with a friend of ours did not go well. The lag was simply unbearable as none of us had a crazy fast computers or internet connections. This meant that we had to have the game speed set at above normal at most. Needless to say, one player who began the game as the USA began to get somewhat bored since we started in 1936.

So while playing over the internet did not go very well, I mentioned earlier that playing over my brothers' LAN did. However, one problem that we were never able to solve is the loss of techs discovered. Invariably, every game we would play would involve the person not hosting not receiving a technology they just researched. This basically broke several of our games when this happened to key techs (Infantry model techs, Land doctrines). Even opening the save file and adding the tech to the list of discovered techs did not entirely solve the problem with the more important doctrine/inf. techs.

I don't think enough people are able to find time to play Hoi for a long period of time to justify heavy focus on MP balancing and development.

Having said that, what Paradox should do is create battle scenarios with MP in mind. I know a friend who plays EUIII right now and my brother who would both jump at the opportunity to play a "short" 1 to 2 hour battle scenario on a small scale to save time. This coupled with a solution to excessive lag and bugs when playing MP would make HoiIII multiplayer significantly more playable.

Are you listening Johan???

 

[unmerged(49695)]

most games dont go above the speed of above normal in peace times, nor above slow/very slow in wartime, so its kinda normal for it to be like that, unless u have fiber inet to host at extremly high speeds.

patience is a must to play this game online

 

[6354201]

most games dont go above the speed of above normal in peace times, nor above slow/very slow in wartime, so its kinda normal for it to be like that, unless u have fiber inet to host at extremly high speeds.

patience is a must to play this game online

My brother and I usually play at very fast, occasionally extremely fast during peace time over his network. Otherwise there just isn't enough time to finish a game unless you don't have a job or don't go to school... or you forego all other social interaction for a day on the weekend or something.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

a game doesn't have to end in a day . But the peace years are usually not so important anyways and most people speed past them as fast as possible. As for the tech loss, it seems to be helpful to wait a day or 2 after completing a tech before researching the next one, its not guaranteed to help but it seems to reduce the occurance of tech loss due to lag.

 

[unmerged(59184)]

But the peace years are usually not so important

The piece years are everything. Building, planning and dreaming, that's what's fun. The actual execution, meh, a bit like work. Payoff being you get to see if your plans were any good.

I'm not completely serious here, but what I said is not without truth, just exaggerated.

 

[6354201]

I did not mean that the game had to end in a day...

My brother and I rarely have time to set aside to play Hoi2, thus if we play we have to make the most of the time we have. With this in mind, we would never finish a game unless we progressed through the idle periods of the game as quickly as possible. Otherwise we would need too many 'sessions' to finish a game, which could take months given our schedules.

 

[ETF]

The game should be playable both in SP and MP. However, veteran strategy-gamers quickly learn how the AI acts - making SP boring. MP brings in human factors that current techical level can never simulate.

I believe that for a small cost Paradox should be able to improve gameplay for MP by a lot.

Agreed.........I have wargmaed for 30 years and never seen an AI challenge even an semi experienced intermediate player.
I agree though create a basic AI for newbies and tutorials but put a larger amount of resources into increasing the already awesmoe MP experience. I think with the increase in bandwidth and internet savy of Paradox's customers in the last 5 years has been immense. Not really sure how you can have fun playing SP after about 20 hours on any strategy game on the market today. If you want lasting enjoyment of your product you have to play MP IMHO.

 

[ETF]

The #1 improvement to HoI3 multiplayer should be a hot join solution. Eu3 MP biggest flaw is players dropping. If you could just pause the game and let them rejoin with the current save file while everyone waits then that would be revolutionary.

That or the ability for ingame player to chat with people in the lobby.

Ohhhh I like this a alot!