I admit that Americans watching passively as Japan becomes a superpower in Asia is not a very plausible prospect.
-
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.
Depends on what you want. Either you want to play a game where everybody has his chance or you are merely trying to reenact history. The second option is quite pointless, isn't it?
This AAR is great, makes me want to play HOI3 more... can't wait till exams are over haha 
What's the Soviet Union doing just now? Do you have a house rule that says the USSR can't declare war on the Axis or something?
What's the Soviet Union doing just now? Do you have a house rule that says the USSR can't declare war on the Axis or something?
Actually, I very much remember reading somewhere that the Japanese belief of 'attack on UK would inevitably bring US into war' was mistaken...
Alas I can't find that quote nor remember if it was from something Roosevelt had said about 'when US could join the war', but the Isolationist opinion was high among the people, if perhaps not the leadership at the time.
And yes, good to read an MP aar, I enjoy these, especially as it shows how different ways other groups have ended up reasoning things, we have gotten more and more aggressive in our 'prewar conquests' the more we play.
If the Axis moved diplomatically on Mexico and militarily on Canada, they could launch an invasion of an unprepared USA--- this history's version of a Barbarossa.
Yeah, the USA was very isolationistic back then. However, the support for China was quite strong even among the isolationists. It was mostly because of fears of powerful Japan. Moreover, Japan was more or less forced to act because of oil embargo.
It should be noted that Japan is much stronger in this game than IRL and that China already fell, while India and Australia are endangered. Moreover, the Axis is winning and balance of forces in the world is shaky. Enough reasons for intervention, I think.
Now that would be epic... However, in such case the SU would almost certainly DOW Germany and the Axis would be fighting on many fronts.
Yes, I have wondered why they can’t make China harder to beat as that would have given some more historical sense and balance to the game – as Japan would have something tugging at their attention all the time, giving UK a little slack. In one of the HoI III patches Japan had severe supply problems in China which made it quite challenging. I liked that. But then they eased up on the supply problems in the next patch again. Bohoo. And NO, there’s no use in just repeating history – but in real war you just want to win. In a game you want something of a balance to keep it challenging. No use playing if you know you will be beat up, or the other way around. Especially in MP, you gotta keep a close eye on the balance at all times.
Interesting. But then you get a early US-entry I gather? Do you happen to have a list of House Rules than U guys have found balanced and playable? And don’t you do any MP AARs? I would have loved to ready others than my own.
I am doubtful that a patrolling fleet outside, let’s say SA, would stop a Japanese fleet from reaching Europe. Even if they succeeded in intercepting them and won, the “beaten” fleet could still rebase up to Spain and recover.
Yes, Japan’s trade is another issue I guess. We have some ideas for forthcoming MP-campaignes that to some extent address this. It does not, however, address the historical oil-embargo. It is an interesting point.
Basically, if you can stall a Sea Lion until the Summer (successful or unsuccessful) then the Axis will not be able to feasibly invade the soviet union until Spring 1942...By which time the bear should have turned into a grizzly
Good job so far CptEasy, and great reading once again
Thanks for the praise ADEE. I agree that it’s good to succeed in stalling Barbarossa as long as possible. The problem though, which bothers me in this game is; who’s gonna influence USA when UK is gone (after a successful Seelöwe)?
Hey DCP. As discussed earlier in this AAR, I believe a USSR entry is bound to fail as it is likely to delay a US entry by years – and I don’t think UK/USSR have much chance on their own. Frankly, with a USSR entry, I believe they will get killed before US can enter.
I have two old mp aar's in my sig (at least some pictures have probably died), but haven't done any since SF came out, considering making one out of the newest, but it'd be Italy again I'm not sure I'll bother..
I think someone else may have done one from the summer game which I wasn't part of though, last game I think no one took up writing...
And yes, well, we do tend to get rather early US entry, but regardless of that last few have been axis victories even so, we're trying to balance it up now again...
No house rules as such beyond 'don't abuse the game' but, well, we try to modify the game instead of creating rules.
For complete change list http://forums.ederon.net/default.aspx?g=posts&t=2198 , but biggest change for this game was increasing cost of leadership to officers to double the original (we were getting bored of everyone having 200% officers, and everyone having 165% (we raised the 140% a bit) didn't feel much better idea, so to make research more appealing...)
Ah, I've checked out your Monday Multiplayer Mod before. I totally support the idea to mod the game rather than constraining players and options using house rules. I would love for our MP team to try that out. I'd like to see the modification you've given to the units as well (marked as description in progress).
Hmm, of yea, should poke Ederon about getting that part done, I'm not even sure what's in there...
But I think we added officer cost for ships and planes + infantry officer req down to 90 and armor up to 110 or so?
Don't think units were changed for other stats than the officer count...
But I think we added officer cost for ships and planes + infantry officer req down to 90 and armor up to 110 or so?
Don't think units were changed for other stats than the officer count...
As long as MP-balance is ashieved, I don't really care how it's done. As I'm quite retarded when it comes to programing, it's easier for me to think in the terms of "house rules" rather than programing, but if we can reach similar results with modding, then I agree that's better.
I believe we have something vague about not overusing paratroopers as houserule aswell, that's bit hard to mod 'reasonably' increasing cost to something awfully high of course would probably help but...
New practical for Special Forces, low practical gain ratio for them and very high officer cost could help. Moreover, there are several modifiers dealing with PARAs in defines.lua, including their supply pool and ORG loss (in %) after para-dropping.
I think we have 15 brigades limit in Tuesday game.
In Monday game we simply try to keep it to reasonable amounts, as too many paras can reduce enjoyment of game.
And I kinda stopped updating AAR because there were not too many comments. Oh well, maybe I will try to write German AAR of ongoing game.
But I fear it will end pretty quick.
In Monday game we simply try to keep it to reasonable amounts, as too many paras can reduce enjoyment of game.
And I kinda stopped updating AAR because there were not too many comments. Oh well, maybe I will try to write German AAR of ongoing game.
But I fear it will end pretty quick.
Really great AAR and an amazing job by CptEasy to fight off the combined Axis forces while keeping cool enough to take screens!
I'm curious though how pre-war trading turns out in MP? When I play Italy I trade with US, UK, France and SU before the war to stockpile raw materials. But in MP most of those trading partners is hostile human players thus limiting or even blocking the pre-war stockpiling. This makes me wonder if Axis closing Gibraltar and focusing on North Africa actually is aimed at the oil in the middle east (and later Baku). Could that be a signal the axis is short (expect to be short) on oil or would trading with AI countries and converting suffice?
Edit: from your Part XXIV regarding player control of US, "Axis accepted this on premises that diplomacy, politics and intelligence was on AI. The player could, however, move troops and take care of production and research." That would include trade but when US enters the war the axis as you all know face a crude reality: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21397&d=1264016462
I'm curious though how pre-war trading turns out in MP? When I play Italy I trade with US, UK, France and SU before the war to stockpile raw materials. But in MP most of those trading partners is hostile human players thus limiting or even blocking the pre-war stockpiling. This makes me wonder if Axis closing Gibraltar and focusing on North Africa actually is aimed at the oil in the middle east (and later Baku). Could that be a signal the axis is short (expect to be short) on oil or would trading with AI countries and converting suffice?
Edit: from your Part XXIV regarding player control of US, "Axis accepted this on premises that diplomacy, politics and intelligence was on AI. The player could, however, move troops and take care of production and research." That would include trade but when US enters the war the axis as you all know face a crude reality: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21397&d=1264016462
Last edited:
Heh heh. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I think you have seen mine. My strength is tactical offensives and multitasking – and my weakness is realizing I’m over-powered and retreating in time… :wacko:
Yes, that’s actually a little problem. Good thing, though, is that since US don’t have a player until -41, Axis can freely trade with them. But this is a topic that will go through our own “House Rule Discussion Forum” before we start another game – but we wont do anything about it during this game.
No update today as we have a game-night and we will once again bring war to the world. Will post update tomorrow, though.
In most MP games there is houserule or gentleman's agreement on trading till war.
Why? Because most players want to see game into Barbarossa and at least 1941, instead of Axis flopping in 1938 due to lack of resources.
In one MP game where Allies were not willing to trade I simply had to go to uberaggressive mode as Italy, conquering all Balkans in 1938 just to keep economy afloat.
Every conquest yielded enough resources to survive till next. That was enjoyable game, but because Allies were not DOWing me
Offer sounds tempting Captain probably I will, week or two later when game has progressed further as right now even France stands (not for much longer).
Why? Because most players want to see game into Barbarossa and at least 1941, instead of Axis flopping in 1938 due to lack of resources.
In one MP game where Allies were not willing to trade I simply had to go to uberaggressive mode as Italy, conquering all Balkans in 1938 just to keep economy afloat.
Every conquest yielded enough resources to survive till next. That was enjoyable game, but because Allies were not DOWing me
Offer sounds tempting Captain
probably I will, week or two later when game has progressed further as right now even France stands (not for much longer).