I don't play paradox games multiplayer much because I generally pause quite frequently and won't want to inflict this on others.
Why dont as many people play multiplayer?
- Thread starter Stug_Life
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
For my part it is the pacing. I just love my pause button. I've tried HOI4 and Stellaris MP and I find them both to be less enjoyable than SP. Generally when it comes to this type of game I wouldn't play with random people.
Probably, because not everyone can devote an uninterrupted amount of time to the game. To play multiplayer, you need to be focused and not distracted, not to let other players
I've found that initially not being able to pause feels constrictive, but after you get used to it running at for example speed 2 constantly instead of running speed 3-4 with pauses works just fine. In the end you progress at the same speed overall in both situations and HoI4 got excellent tools to give you 10-30 days leeway to take important decisions like NFs or Techs without any loss if your not paused.
Try play your single-player game 1-2 speed levels lower then your used to instead and not use the pause as much and you'll see it works mostly just fine.
A constant speed 2 with start-of-war planning and major peace conference breaks that double as bio breaks works well. People who micro everything may favor speed 1 when combat gets very extensive and intensive. One reason I hope for AI application of Battle Plans that better fits the needs of different types of players.
As a design point, the biggest virtue of keeping the game running is that the commander's time is in actual practice the most important asset to manage on a continuous basis, and a broad span of control can and should be challenging. The dilemmas presented should echo those experienced in the field. In combat they do, while on the grand strategic side the game lessens the distraction of time pressure is ameliorated in certain areas by allowing key decisions (e.g., on research and focus) to be put off for a limited time without penalty.
As a design point, the biggest virtue of keeping the game running is that the commander's time is in actual practice the most important asset to manage on a continuous basis, and a broad span of control can and should be challenging. The dilemmas presented should echo those experienced in the field. In combat they do, while on the grand strategic side the game lessens the distraction of time pressure is ameliorated in certain areas by allowing key decisions (e.g., on research and focus) to be put off for a limited time without penalty.
I was just thinking about this last night, would there be many or any groups that would micro the whole game.
It depends, most of the forum games tend to be on speed two and as long as you have enough players you can micro everything on that speed but you need quite a few to micro barbarossa on speed 2
Yes in part.
One example of the major objections of players to the AI behavior is that the BP AI when managing troops on a Front Line will move them around to better adjust to the opposing force and circumstances. Players will of course quickly notice that those troops they intended to dig in and hold position have been moved elsewhere, or units switched, or some other aberration introduced into the player's perfect and precise deployment plan. As you can imagine, this gets worse when the AI moves troops under battle plans in ways that are not what was in the player's mind.
This can be mitigated by having the overall plan broken into small segments that can be more precisely controlled by a small BP, but for some purposes it is needlessly repetitive and easy to mis-click/mis-key and mess it up.
So using BPs to accrue bonuses and for special ops where there is no choice (naval invasion, paradrop) is common. For actual fighting, the "microns" as I will call them give specific orders to all units they intend to take action, a very consuming activity on an active and especially on a chaotic front (another exception: a fallback line and an AI BP to selected units can be a quick way to develop a continuous line in a chaotic situation). The AI tends to push all along a front - sound, slow, and conservative.
Microns seek to improve the tactical situations of their units and create and exploit operational advantages, particularly cutting off enemy supplies and creating pockets that can be destroyed. The AI will try to create pockets and prevents being pocketed, but not equal to a player. The slower the game speed, the more opportunity for micro. If the player's genius can be applied to all units across the board, why not do so if there is time?
Even if trying to run things with BP exclusively, there are many situations where some micro is appropriate. I am a fan of the general concept of BPs, and with the addition of the Spearhead plan believe there will be more changes making it more useful for everyone with future additional fixes and improvements (Here's also hoping for sticky groupings of divisions on a BP segment that we won't call corps). But if the player is going to be more than a chateau general, some situations cry out for micro.
Obviously naval and air units offer less scope for micromanagement, and indeed require active management of missions by the player. Ironically from my point of view, I think many players would welcome a navy and air AI manager that can be given theatre-based directions and priorities, but that is not in the game. Better to improve the AI.
Speed 2 in war, speed 3-4 when all at peace offers enough time for microns.
sgp
I find that, especially on the defensive, if one does not delete most battle plans as soon as the fighting starts there will be consequences, often dire ones.
On the offensive it is somewhat easier to leave the BP in place and simply not activate it. Launch your attacks manually.
I am looking forward to a unit controller that functions better than the current one. This should greatly improve the level of satisfaction in SP and the ease of play in MP.
I usually play the game pretty casually. While I do start with a clear set of goals and ambitions for my game, I mostly only draw battleplans and direct the game politically, while leaving the battleplanner AI to do it's thing along the rough guidance of my grand plan as I zoom out and watch the alternate history scenario play itself out in the sometimes wacky sometimes epic twists the Road to '56 mod brings when Historical Focuses are turned off.
(One time, the war started in 1938 when a fascist regime took control of Belgium around the time of the Munich Conferance, pitting the Brits into a war against Germany for Belgium and Czechoslovakia. I was fascist Finland. It was pretty fun.)
Looking at all this, I think you can deduce exactly why I'll never play HoI4 in multiplayer.
(One time, the war started in 1938 when a fascist regime took control of Belgium around the time of the Munich Conferance, pitting the Brits into a war against Germany for Belgium and Czechoslovakia. I was fascist Finland. It was pretty fun.)
Looking at all this, I think you can deduce exactly why I'll never play HoI4 in multiplayer.
For me, air war was big disappointment number 1.
Second big disappointment was naval combat. We actually invaded UK very successfully, providing cover with only German and Swedish naval powers.
After that group kinda fell apart.
Oh yes, and battleplans would become mess in blitzkrieg, when advancing rapidly.
I saw content in first content pack and was not impressed, so I have skipped it so far.
Does not seem that second content pack will be so awesome either, so probably I will pick packs on new year sale on cheap.
Second big disappointment was naval combat. We actually invaded UK very successfully, providing cover with only German and Swedish naval powers.
After that group kinda fell apart.
Oh yes, and battleplans would become mess in blitzkrieg, when advancing rapidly.
I saw content in first content pack and was not impressed, so I have skipped it so far.
Does not seem that second content pack will be so awesome either, so probably I will pick packs on new year sale on cheap.
1. It's hard to find a good group of people to play with, who have a good set of house rules, and who follow those house rules.
2. Pacing is also an issue for me, as it's incredibly annoying for me to spend the prewar period at speed three, and then not be able to pause whenever I want during wartime.
3. It's easy to min-max and exploit the way stats work, particularly with super-heavy AFVs and other units. I like playing fairly plausibly in terms of division composition, so these min-maxed behemoth divisions are quite annoying as they force me to counter with min-maxing of my own, which I'm not familiar with since I don't do it in SP.
4. You have to pay a lot more attention to do well in MP, as in I take out a notepad and write down production goals and map out how I want to get there. In SP I can pause and take my time so there's less pressure.
5. You have to devote quite a bit of time per game, and honestly the game doesn't hold my interest for that long. It's fun up to a point, but eventually the AI or other players do something stupid or gamey and that kills the game for me.
2. Pacing is also an issue for me, as it's incredibly annoying for me to spend the prewar period at speed three, and then not be able to pause whenever I want during wartime.
3. It's easy to min-max and exploit the way stats work, particularly with super-heavy AFVs and other units. I like playing fairly plausibly in terms of division composition, so these min-maxed behemoth divisions are quite annoying as they force me to counter with min-maxing of my own, which I'm not familiar with since I don't do it in SP.
4. You have to pay a lot more attention to do well in MP, as in I take out a notepad and write down production goals and map out how I want to get there. In SP I can pause and take my time so there's less pressure.
5. You have to devote quite a bit of time per game, and honestly the game doesn't hold my interest for that long. It's fun up to a point, but eventually the AI or other players do something stupid or gamey and that kills the game for me.
I tried multiplayer, even enjoyed it a little, but then started to see bigger games and more cancerous strats. Seeing a US player abusing 'do not engage' to get naval superiority without naval combat then watching US troop transports sit unmolested off the coast of Japan and the entire IJN hopeless in the same province was the last straw. The games just too broken to be played in an anonymous multiplayer setting. This exploit is also well known to be utilized by Germany players against Britian.
They should definitely fix the naval mechanics after they fix air. The MP groups I play in use both mods AND rules for the navy part.
If you can micro, you micro. It depends on how busy you are. You can micro everything if you have 3 players on Germany on speed 2 for example which is the ideal situation.
I lag like hell in single-player. I doubt anyone would want me in their multi-player match 
I like to host once a week and I find 2 things to be the most annoying. 1. Randoms that ignore a house rule. 2. People that flame other players for trying something new that is not breaking the rules.
Yeah. that's why I like my group. We can try unusual things and people dont get pissy.
Speaking of which....
We are going to see a few new things from the German this game. On the bright side, if they fail, the game may not last as long.
Speaking of which....
We are going to see a few new things from the German this game. On the bright side, if they fail, the game may not last as long.
You have already confused the Allies with German and Italy's actions. At this point, if PARA hits London before Warsaw falls, I won't be surprised.
- Status