What Would a Multiplayer Game Look Like?

[kylejames99]

As I am extremely interested in playing multiplayer in HOI IV, I would like to do some speculating on what countries would/could make an exciting multiplayer experience. These are my likely very wrong thoughts on the matter.

1 Player: By definition not multiplayer (Bhutan FTW)
2 Players: Probably USA vs USSR
3 Players: Probably USA, Yermoney, and USSR
4 Players : USA, Yapan, Yermoney, and USSR
5 Players: USA, UK, Yapan, Yermoney, and USSR
6 Players : USA, UK, Italy, Yapan, Yermoney, and USSR
7 Players : USA, UK, France, Italy, Yapan, Yermoney, and USSR
8 Players : All the same with either Brazil/China/Turkey thrown in
9 Playesr : All the same with two of either Brazil/China/Turkey
10 Players: USA, UK, France, Italy, Yapan, Yermoney, Brazil, China, Turkey and USSR

I'm sure there are more logical ways to this, but on a pure balance and every nation being represented, I feel this is the best set up. If more nations were to be added it would likely be Sweden, Hungary, Yugoslavia, or Iran

 

[PanosB3]

Ehm just assign each major with 1 player then assign the rest on a few regional powers and you're good to go... no need for this procedure or whatever.

 

[Dalnar]

What happened to the old "i pick this and you pick that and let' have some fun" ? My idea of MP session is not a half day debate about some arbitrary rules...but maybe it's just me...

 

[Novatheorem]

As I am extremely interested in playing multiplayer in HOI IV, I would like to do some speculating on what countries would/could make an exciting multiplayer experience. [...] I'm sure there are more logical ways to this, but on a pure balance and every nation being represented, I feel this is the best set up. If more nations were to be added it would likely be Sweden, Hungary, Yugoslavia, or Iran

Depends on what you mean by exciting. There are some majors that are going to be more fun to play than others depending on the amount of time you care to sink into the experience. Also depends on your experience with the game, as a seasoned HoI vet taking USA or GB v 3 or 4 friends who are newer to the game and willing to play the Axis is always fun.

My general experience based on HoI 3 (also considering play times, some games take longer to be enjoyable, but these are the ones I've had the most fun with in the shortest amount of time):

• 1 v 1 - Germany v USSR
• FFA: All Euro Minors (Hungary, Turkey, Spain, Finland, Yugoslavia and Greece was our playthrough)
• 2 v 2 - GB & FRA v GER & ITA
• 3 v 1 - GER, HUN, JPN v GB (needs an experienced player for GB, or can be split for 3 v 2 play)
• 4 v 1 - FIN, SWE, EST, DNK (although I suspect NOR could work better) v GER

Ehm just assign each major with 1 player than a few regional powers and you're good to go... no need for this procedure or whatever.

The problem with that is that there are huge chunks of game time where the majors aren't interacting. Japan being off in a corner and playing by itself is similar to playing single-player in HoI 3 and just isn't fun until much later in the game (if your session ever makes it that far due to OOS and other issues).

I tend to suggest sticking to centralized nations or some that are either belligerents or the same sphere of influence at least, which predicates just picking any major. That being said, you also have to consider relative power vs player skill. I'll be interested in seeing how the community guidelines around house rules evolve once HoI 4 is released.

 

[Number 7]

Backstabbing, backstabbing as far as the eye can see.

also i expect the first paradox developer multiplayer stream to have the rise of France-Italy. Long live daniel!

 

[Mac Lazer]

Off topic: I kinda hate when people put Ys in the place of Gs or Js when saying Japan or Germany.

On topic: I think a UK and France game would be fun, so the players can try and defeat Germany together.

 

[Novatheorem]

On topic: I think a UK and France game would be fun, so the players can try and defeat Germany together.

It's good if the France player is really good. I've seen a French recovery or two that really blew my mind. Watching the German advance get pinned between a strong force and the Maginot line was pretty interesting, but I'm not sure how the balance will work in HoI 4, and holding such large sections means that the GB player's attention is often pulled away from aiding France.

 

[JerkyJerry]

It's good if the France player is really good. I've seen a French recovery or two that really blew my mind. Watching the German advance get pinned between a strong force and the Maginot line was pretty interesting,

I'm guessing that this was a human against the puter?
I just don't see how a human controlled France defeats or even survives against a human controlled Germany. Humans of equal abilities that is. I've always been under the impression in this game (maybe not real life) France being called a major is well a stretch. IMHO

 

[JerkyJerry]

I think the OP will have to wait until the game comes out to come up with a world balance that makes sense. The other part of this of course is player experience. An extremely good player with a weaker country could defeat a strong country with a weak player. I plan on hosting a lot of MP so I've been going over the same things in my head for a while now.

 

[Dalnar]

I'm guessing that this was a human against the puter?
I just don't see how a human controlled France defeats or even survives against a human controlled Germany. Humans of equal abilities that is. I've always been under the impression in this game (maybe not real life) France being called a major is well a stretch. IMHO

Well, maybe. But who says both the France and Germany player will play "historically". France player may try something ahistorical and surprise his opponent. It would be rather sad if one of the major countries is always doomed to lose, no matter what the player will try.

Maybe France player can go for Little Entente focuses instead UK alliance (that does not help him much in 1939 anyway) and build his own faction and limit the early expansion of Germany player.

 

[electriccat]

Yeah, honestly I am more curious to see what you can do as some of the 1-2 punches and like a major/minor co-op.

 

[helgur]

What happened to the old "i pick this and you pick that and let' have some fun" ? My idea of MP session is not a half day debate about some arbitrary rules...but maybe it's just me...

Having played EUIV a lot in multiplayer over 10-15 sessions in the same game with a lot of players I can say that going outside the scope of not discussing the rules beforehand (or during even) is extremely difficult. People with a lot of knowledge in the game have a huge advantage over other players and there will always be some mechanic, minor or major you can "game" to exploit in order to get a huge and unfair advantage.

That or just be prepared for an extremely salty multiplayer experience.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Well, maybe. But who says both the France and Germany player will play "historically". France player may try something ahistorical and surprise his opponent. It would be rather sad if one of the major countries is always doomed to lose, no matter what the player will try.

Maybe France player can go for Little Entente focuses instead UK alliance (that does not help him much in 1939 anyway) and build his own faction and limit the early expansion of Germany player.

I think you bring up some valid points. However I'm just not sure there are many Germany players that would pass up all that France has to offer (war machine regards). I can understand France hoping for a different path but a German player not removing France? Yeah, that is death. A German player is going to give France, the Allies and all of France's allies a free foothold on the continent as well as the Maginot line? That German player not so smart me thinks.

 

[Dalnar]

I think you bring up some valid points. However I'm just not sure there are many Germany players that would pass up all that France has to offer (war machine regards). I can understand France hoping for a different path but a German player not removing France? Yeah, that is death. A German player is going to give France, the Allies and all of France's allies a free foothold on the continent as well as the Maginot line? That German player not so smart me thinks.

But that's just it. The Germany player would also have to think different and not go through the standard route. Unless germany provokes war, there is no way to declare war on it with democracies. Maybe the Germany player will wait for Soviet - Allied confict and make his move then.

Imagine players controlling Czechoslovakia and France against you (or even France alone with focuses). WT Raises and France guarantess Czechoslovakia and makes Little Entente focuses. Would you as Germany attack CZ or France and fight on two fronts with whole balkans against you? That's completely different setup for world war that can be easily done in MP.

I think the greatest problem of MP games will be that some players expect semi-historical games and will be very unhappy when something "ahistorical" happens.

Having played EUIV a lot in multiplayer over 10-15 sessions in the same game with a lot of players I can say that going outside the scope of not discussing the rules beforehand (or during even) is extremely difficult. People with a lot of knowledge in the game have a huge advantage over other players and there will always be some mechanic, minor or major you can "game" to exploit in order to get a huge and unfair advantage.

That or just be prepared for an extremely salty multiplayer experience.

It kinda depends on what you are expecting from the game. I don't mind being outplayed in game terms, it makes me want to improve and learn the mechanics better. What I personally dislike is hundreds of arbitrary "thou shall not...." rules that create repeatitive and predictable scenarios.

 

[helgur]

It kinda depends on what you are expecting from the game. I don't mind being outplayed in game terms, it makes me want to improve and learn the mechanics better. What I personally dislike is hundreds of arbitrary "thou shall not...." rules that create repeatitive and predictable scenarios.

It's not being outplayed. It's some players exploiting the bonuses some countries give to silly levels. For instance. Back in the early EUIV days before patching, if you played a nation geared towards colonizing, you could rack up insane amount of gold by farming NPC tribal nations. And you could do this regularly. And players which didn't play a colonial nation would then face hordes of mercenaries which didn't lead to manpower attrition and was impossible to beat in the long term. Playing without rules beforehand as a nation which could colonize early would be an automatic "I-Win" button.

You see the problem now?

 

[JerkyJerry]

Would you as Germany attack CZ or France and fight on two fronts with whole balkans against you?

Short Answer: Yes

And I'll tell you why IMHO. I am by no means the end all be all that's fer sure. However, how I see it is like this. In 1936 France's strength = defense. Germany's strength = offense. If I'm playing as France I'm looking for help. I'm looking for Germany to look the other way. I'm looking for a miracle really. I know I can't go toe to toe with Germany. I got the goods; infrastructure, manpower, factories etc. I know Germany not only wants but more importantly NEEDS my goodies! I have to play to my strengths and hope and go defense.
If I'm playing Germany on the other hand there is no other country (other than Russia) that is on my doorstep that provides me with such riches! I just don't think there is a leader worth a damn if he lets France survive for so many reasons. It is a can't lose situation for Germany. Although I do sometimes let Luxembourg survive so I can see that little dot of blue in that massive sea of grey!

 

[Dalnar]

It's not being outplayed. It's some players exploiting the bonuses some countries give to silly levels. For instance. Back in the early EUIV days before patching, if you played a nation geared towards colonizing, you could rack up insane amount of gold by farming NPC tribal nations. And you could do this regularly. And players which didn't play a colonial nation would then face hordes of mercenaries which didn't lead to manpower attrition and was impossible to beat in the long term. Playing without rules beforehand as a nation which could colonize early would be an automatic "I-Win" button.

You see the problem now?

It know what you mean (never played EUIV). On the other hand, I also know the other extreme (from other games). With the other extreme I mean adding rules for almost anything that some players have trouble with labeling it as "OP". So yeah some "rough" rules may always be handy, but not a list of 100 "thou shall not" that severy limit the options.

P.S. I really hope that there are no such exploits in HOI IV, I really look forward to the MP aspect of the game ))

 

[PanosB3]

The problem with that is that there are huge chunks of game time where the majors aren't interacting. Japan being off in a corner and playing by itself is similar to playing single-player in HoI 3 and just isn't fun until much later in the game (if your session ever makes it that far due to OOS and other issues).

I tend to suggest sticking to centralized nations or some that are either belligerents or the same sphere of influence at least, which predicates just picking any major. That being said, you also have to consider relative power vs player skill. I'll be interested in seeing how the community guidelines around house rules evolve once HoI 4 is released.

Yeah but there are 7 majors and 32 player limit? Some will pick China or Australia etc and will not allow Japan to just expand with uncontrollably.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Yeah but there are 7 majors and 32 player limit? Some will pick China or Australia etc and will not allow Japan to just expand with uncontrollably.

If Japan is played properly they should still defeat China and much more easily Australia. I've read posts that state China is difficult for Japan to defeat while others claim the exact opposite. Australia is just plain big. That is the most difficult thing I find when dealing with Australia. I'm not sure a human is going to turn either one of those third and fourth rate military's into anything that can challenge a Japan piloted by a human. I think the Japanese player would have to make multiple mistakes or one huge one to not defeat China. No?

 

[Number 7]

If Japan is played properly they should still defeat China and much more easily Australia. I've read posts that state China is difficult for Japan to defeat while others claim the exact opposite. Australia is just plain big. That is the most difficult thing I find when dealing with Australia. I'm not sure a human is going to turn either one of those third and fourth rate military's into anything that can challenge a Japan piloted by a human. I think the Japanese player would have to make multiple mistakes or one huge one to not defeat China. No?

Depends on wprld tension and if there is a lend lease route. If China can hold put long enough for support from britain and the US arsenal of democracy japan would be looking at a much much harder battle against modern equipment

Getting a route seems hard though