Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Grand Multiplayer ramble thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Long ago in a galaxy far away, someone asked the question; 'Does the AI cheat?' The short answer is 'Yes'. The next step is how to get rid of it. My compromise I propose would be to play a game MP with at least 5 major powers as human controlled, activating both oceans. If I'm playing with less people, the AI is affecting my game. If the AI is affecting my game, why not just play the always-available, never-in-a-hurry AI in SP mode?

Has anyone ever achieved a 5-major-power MP game like that? I've been trying now for what seems like years with no success. Paradox could easily remedy this by doing for it's games what other companies do with theirs and offer a site with a searchable players' catalogue so the community; that right now has no formal entity, can find players based on availability, skill, and preference.

I can wait for the same people who thought EU5 would act as a substitute for DHII to create this community, or can continue(as I have for years now) to try to create one. I have no special mods. I want to play 1933 or 1936; it can be TRP, All in One, Edge of Darkness, or World in Flames.
 
Last edited:
I figured I'd move the debate here:

Nick3210 said:
But what's the point to continue playing when the USSR defeated?
Do you seriously believe that the Allies are able to win the game, after the Soviet Union fell?
Click to expand...
What's the point in continuing a 3-0 fotball game?

Cohen said:
In HOI2 (Competent) USA + UK could -easily- spank Axis because of rigged sliders (namely, Axis needed TC and thus had to go Central Planning. Allies are free market. It translated in Allies upgrading everything quickly to late war models while Axis was stuck to '41 models. Old HOI had 39-41-43 tiers). But at the same time, competent Soviet player does not lose either.
Click to expand...
I think there's a lot of fun to be had in a losing game. I know several military strategy games where one scenario is set up that WILL end in the defeat of you the player (a hold-the-Alamo-scenario), and your job is to make the enemy pay dearly for every inch.

Cohen said:
While I may be interested in MP games, I am still tinkering in single player first and then have to see if I can actually commit to a schedule for online gaming.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm in the same boat. our Discord group for other MP players is going strong. But right now I'm mostly playing with my realtime single-player game.
 
MacGowan said:
What's the point in continuing a 3-0 fotball game?
Click to expand...
Very incorrect example :D
What's the point in continuing a 0-10 football game after when 5 your players with goalkeeper are removed from your team and added to the enemy team?
What's the point to play football game 16-players team vs 6-players team ? :D
 
Last edited:
In general if the Axis has no early successes it's game over for them - at least in HOI2 at the latest patch without mods.

Games that went up to '43 or '44 (rarity) had Russia reeling - and China was -always- puppetted by Japan. Because Japan could not stand a chance without a puppet China.
That ontop of the need of an amount of house rules for, as someone said, WARgaming and not gaming the game. (Because otherwise you were getting Axis chocked by resource in '36, Soviets taking all of Scandinavia, and it was GG by '41 as Axis economics collapsed).

I don't know yet how things are in DH and relative mods - that's something I am exploring in SP.
 
Back in the boardgame days, some of the best players I've played against believed in the option of 'tipping the king' in order to spare themselves a losing campaign. This outcome doesn't bother me if it's by agreement. The results of the game are logged as such and the victors should get credit for the win; and we start a new game.

Especially in a MP game like DH with game options that attempt to simulate capitulation, I prefer the agreement that all players continue until some path toward ending their predicament using the in-game options can be accomplished.
 
Truth. It's better to accept the capitulation, end the game and begin to troll loosers, than to look at the clowning when the losing side artificially lose their armies and warships to finish the lost game.
 
I'm giving up on the multiplayer as I imagine many before me have. Trying to get a commitment to meet at a set time is just above the capabilities of any of the players I've met in my 8 or so years on gameranger. I will either play SP(which won't be that often) or I will play multiplayer on some other games that have organization for the multiplayer experience as World of Warships or IL2 with Hyperlobby. No wait. Just play.

It's very sad. While the AI is woefully inadequate and reduced to cheating to compensate,Paradox Interactive makes perhaps one of the most brilliant multiplayer games I've ever seen; and then they made no effort to organize the multiplayer experience. Then they struggle to sell the game for $10 when if it had MP support could go for many times that price. The only boardgame equivalent that doesn't come close sells for over $200. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way.
 
Last edited:
Posting this little status report from our 6 player WWI game that we started yesterday.

1st session took about 4-5 hours. We had some delays setting up. and some crashes in gameranger. Everyone was patient and helped eachother out. Voice chat went smoothly with 1 for general talk, and 2 private chats for the factions.

uV1ARVX.jpg

Central Powers pushed hard into Russia and convinced the AI Italy to join them. Egypt is also under attack. Entente is still putting up a good fight. Played about 3 months on slow speed.

Good times!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back