HOI4 Dev Diary - Acclimatization and Special Forces

[BaddoSpirito]

This special forces cap is ridiculous and breaks USA in multiplayer. How are you supposed to dday with this cap? Noone good will ever waste 95% of their army just to have some marines to dday. This means USA will have to use only super cheese plays like lend leasing everything they produce to Soviets or going deep battle to spam infantry with 10% equipment to get enough special forces cap. This cap also makes WW1 style river camping more viable on the Soviet front and the only way to break that would be with GBP left or significant air superiority backed with CAS, possibly both, making the airforce and GBP more OP than they already are. Might as well just build air with 90% of your industry at this point.

 

[fabius]

Never gonna get a perfect special forces match to history guys.

British Marines were more like duel role commandos. US more high spirit de corps specialised infantry.
Russian naval more so, but patchy.

Fallschirmjäger- ha that many divisions, inter-service rivalry, they were never going to do another drop after Crete. Although some did distinguish themselves in Italy and Normandy in the light infantry role.

 

[Ironside121]

Yes, but you can't build an unlimited amount of those divisions.

So 6INF, 2 ART and 1 MTN.. still can only build 5% of total divisions that are these?

 

[Sourlol]

Please remember people there is a significant difference between a video game to real life... Yes the amount of special forces was around 10% for USA but without marines in this game you literally cannot naval invade into a 40 width division without them. They provide major landing bonuses and Infantry and tanks take major penalties. Same thing goes for attacking into Mountains, Infantry will never break in this game because 40% attack means a 10 width could defend against a 40 width division in a mountain tile. Unless Infantry or tanks see a significant bonus to naval invading (or removes the debuffs) then d-daying will virtually be impossible.

What is with MP folks and their inability or non-desire to adapt to new realities?

All Ive heard from that crowd the entirety of development is how Bad this was going to be for the current balance of MP--because apparently we have already arrived at the ideal balance in this iteration of the game...--its never anyone coming up with new strategies based on dev diaries...its always people whinging and moaning about how MP is about to be destroyed...

Not changed; not a new meta..but destroyed.

In this particular case, If USA, UK and Commonwealth organize themselves, there is no reason they can't jointly produce the SF needs for the war effort. The allies could also shift to a meta for multiple landings. If the typical game is invasions in N. France, S. France, Italy, Balkans, Norway all at once or within 2 months of eachother...how can a war weary Germany keep up for very long?

With changes to strat bombing players can opt to kill 20% or so more forts.... so youll want to spam those to soften up your beachheads.

With Air supply, paratroopers may make sense during large invasions to delay reinforcements or to cut off defenders from supply.

The gloom and doom because the broken "competitive" MP meta is going to shift is incredulous to me.

 

[Ethereld]

I based my analysis on the lowest common denominator, the battalion, as does the DD. Compare battalions, not divisions and you will see that 5% is inadequate whether you are discussing game realities or real warfare.

In HOI4 in any mod that prevents division spam it is normal to see something close to 150-200 divisions by the end of the war. Let's say that from those divisions 130 have 9 battalions in average, then you would have something like 1.170 battalions. 5% would be something like 58 Special forces battalions, a number that would suffice for something like 7 divisions. All of you are right that this number is very low, but that would be the number of a nation that do not invest at all in technology.

Let's say that the tech that gives you more SF increase your cap by another 5%, then you would have 14 divisions, a number more close to the average of SF that the great forces of the war had. Maybe the second level of the tree gives you another 5%, then we could have 21 special forces divisions instead of 7-8. With that number I could have something like 14 marine divisions and 7 paratroopers divisions. As the USA I have done D-Days with 12 marine divisions supported by normal infantry divisions, tanks and close air support in multiplayer with my brother and a few friends, so it's not impossible to D-Day with this numbers as long as the Soviet Player is competent.

Last of all, let's all remember that the numbers in this DD are likely not final.

 

[-JBurke-]

These are the type of additions I like to see.

 

[pete_ts]

Please tell us the cap is modable ..

 

[JerkyJerry]

This mechanic will actually overlay with day/night cycle; when you're in Siberia in winter (very short days) without acclimatization against enemies with night vision tech, it's going to be grim

Love the humor!
I'm not against it per se it is just a, eh to me. I know in 1936, long before I strike that if I'm going to do battle in one of the very few places on earth that this could affect my troops. I either
A. need to send them early so they can get acclimated to their new surroundings
or
B. Just send more of them than I did before the update to account for the "X" % in attrition I'm now going to have to deal with
In reality it is no biggie.

I'm not saying I don't like it. It is just that when you put it into gameplay, it is hardly a decision at all is it? All we are really talking about is a few percentage points that are going to affect just a handful of countries in just a couple of locations at best, are we not?
I'm happy for those that are happy. I just curbed my enthusiasm that's all.

Edit: Thinking about it further I'm not so sure how I feel about temperature playing a role and not weather.

 

[Broletariat90]

What is with MP folks and their inability or non-desire to adapt to new realities?

All Ive heard from that crowd the entirety of development is how Bad this was going to be for the current balance of MP--because apparently we have already arrived at the ideal balance in this iteration of the game...--its never anyone coming up with new strategies based on dev diaries...its always people whinging and moaning about how MP is about to be destroyed...

Not changed; not a new meta..but destroyed.

In this particular case, If USA, UK and Commonwealth organize themselves, there is no reason they can't jointly produce the SF needs for the war effort. The allies could also shift to a meta for multiple landings. If the typical game is invasions in N. France, S. France, Italy, Balkans, Norway all at once or within 2 months of eachother...how can a war weary Germany keep up for very long?

With changes to strat bombing players can opt to kill 20% or so more forts.... so youll want to spam those to soften up your beachheads.

With Air supply, paratroopers may make sense during large invasions to delay reinforcements or to cut off defenders from supply.

The gloom and doom because the broken "competitive" MP meta is going to shift is incredulous to me.

I have to agree on this, Multiplayer has always been an after thought on Hearts of Iron. It's primary a single player game. Development of the game shouldn't have to revolve around multiplayer as if it is the the main attraction.

 

[mjb2k]

What is with MP folks and their inability or non-desire to adapt to new realities?

All Ive heard from that crowd the entirety of development is how Bad this was going to be for the current balance of MP--because apparently we have already arrived at the ideal balance in this iteration of the game...--its never anyone coming up with new strategies based on dev diaries...its always people whinging and moaning about how MP is about to be destroyed...

Not changed; not a new meta..but destroyed.

In this particular case, If USA, UK and Commonwealth organize themselves, there is no reason they can't jointly produce the SF needs for the war effort. The allies could also shift to a meta for multiple landings. If the typical game is invasions in N. France, S. France, Italy, Balkans, Norway all at once or within 2 months of eachother...how can a war weary Germany keep up for very long?

With changes to strat bombing players can opt to kill 20% or so more forts.... so youll want to spam those to soften up your beachheads.

With Air supply, paratroopers may make sense during large invasions to delay reinforcements or to cut off defenders from supply.

The gloom and doom because the broken "competitive" MP meta is going to shift is incredulous to me.

You act as if it's so simple. You clearly don't play MP much. First off the game is already massively in favor of the axis, the whole war boils down to air power and the allies never win that war because they don't have the aluminum to match the axis. Second off without marines good frinking luck invading any part of France defended by 2 40 width infantry. Some one here said Germany would be guarding with just 10 widths, Idk what kind of games they play or what kind of thing they were smoking but that is never the case in all the games I've ever been in. It's already extremely difficult for the allies to D-day and since the game boils down to air power, realistically the allies can potentially tie/contest the axis air force in France meaning then it comes down to small differences between divisions to win. If you naval invade with tanks I believe they have a 200% negative combat modifier, yeah that's not happening. Infantry meanwhile also has a similar modifier and even if you land, how are you going to push with infantry without the breakthrough bonuses? Also you imply that strats are allowed in MP in most games... They're not allowed in most games so you're not going to be able to bomb forts effectively. That reminds me that for the new German focus tree they added a focus to put coastal forts across the Atlantic border and put a 20% construction towards coastal forts, literally impossible to naval invade without marines + air superiority + cas + shore bombardment + tactical bombing strat bombing. Have you ever seen what it looks like to naval invade with 40 width marines against a lvl 5 coastal fort with 2 40 width infantry on the that tile? It's nearly impossible and will require multiple invasions at the same time to break which is very difficult to micro considering you can only have like 10 marines and you need to hit in other spots not just one to stand a chance in a d-day. If you do paratroopers you're literally wasting whatever's left of your battalion count for useless divisions that don't stand a chance without a successful d-day (which won't happen without marines). Also that implies you have air superiority over France (70%) and for that to happen, the axis must have moved their air force out of the region entirely which is not normally the case. Why don't you try and play in a try-hard semi-historical competitive MP game before you judge based on your limited experience in whatever server that doesn't ban strats... People complain about there being a lot of rules in MP... It's because the game is so heavily unbalanced and there are so many exploits the SP community doesn't know because they have no reason to do them...

Also no one that I know thinks we have reached an ideal balance of the game AT ALL, and wherever you got that from is nonsense...

You mention how the comm wealth + UK + USA can organize to fight in a d-day, Italy, Africa, Norway and the Balkans. In an ideal world this all happens, but in actuality this is extremely difficult. Naval invading the Balkans from Africa means naval invading mountain tiles (without marines you will take a massive penalty to take a tile). Also this assumes the Allies take/hold Africa which is not as easy as you think... Because the allies usually lose the air war, the Suez Canal and Egypt fall to the axis a lot and usually has to be retaken, usually without air superiority from the south. On top of this there are other axis minors that can fill Germany's role in the region, like Bulgaria, Italy and Spain to quell d-days. Without marines d-day becomes very, very difficult. On top of that they buffed Germany a lot in the next update so Germany will be far more powerful (as if it wasn't powerful enough) and without a Soviet buff then it can be reasonably expected for the German player to be able to cope with all those fronts.


But whatever, these calls to balance the game go to deft ears all the time. Whenever we open a thread it gets closed because someone from the SP community goes on a sissy fit how MP doesn't matter and F that and F you and what not. Thread gets closed and vanishes... No MP will not be destroyed, but paradox doesn't put an ounce of thought for the MP community, ever and updates like these show for it.

 

[D Inqu]

@D Inqu and @podcat I read that but it is as clear as mud. Does it mean the percentage goes up but what is the drag?

Sound quite clear to me. Speed and terrain bonuses decrease, the larger your pool size.

The US should have the ability to dedicate 20% to what the game calls special forces. Perhaps marines can only be had if you have a navy of say 10 capital ships. I think that is historical. Romania with marines, 40 divisions of them, is laughable.

If 20% of your army is "special forces", then they are not really "special", and their quality will not be that much higher than regular infantry. It's a simple percentage considederation. You select cream of the crop - you get fitter special forces who perform a little better in difficult terrain. You mass reform infantry into marines/paratroopers (or Soviet Guards for that matter), the terrain bonuses will not be quite as awesome.

 

[CrazyZombie]

thats what I get for looking up a wikipedia article on special forces and doing no additional research I guess. Fair point

Spetznaz exists since 1931. Before (and during) WW2 it was named Osnaz. Still, that were more saboteur units, while marines and mountaineers were more like regulars, just tied to exact theaters of war.

 

[CrazyZombie]

@podcat BTW, I hope that PDX will guess to google, how did Soviet uniform for hot climates looked, rather than just recolor winter trenchcoats into sandy color. Anyway, I won't be surprised with such outcome at all.

But as I'm kind enough to share my knowledge, I'll post here some stuff about this topic.

Senior sergeant of the Red Army, 1939, Khalkin-Gol.

Senior lieutenant of the Red Army Vasiliev and Tsirik (soldier) of the Mongolian Army M.Dorzh. Khalkhin-Gol, August 1939.

Tankmen of the 11th Soviet tank brigade with the BT-5 tank at Khalkhin-Gol.

That panama hat was introduced in Red Army in 1930-s as part of uniform for Southern regions, for example, Turkestan. During battles of Hasan and Khalkin-Gol it got unofficial nickname "hasanka" or "khalkingolka". It wasn't very well known, as soon those border conflicts were literally forgotten behind the scale of WW2.
So, that hat became famous about 4 decades later, during war in Afghanistan. Yes, it was just the same hat, as it wasn't removed since introduction in 1930-s and units on Southern borders continued using it all that time.

P.S. @podcat @Archangel85 As you anyway are going to vary look of soldier models due to their adaptation to the climate, maybe there is sense to make trenchcoats specific winter uniform (maybe with famous "ushanka") for those who adapted to cold, while regular Soviet soldier will just be the one in summer uniform (just as normal soldiers of other states) and with standard 36 or 40 helmet? As for hot climate adaptation - same summer uniform (well, maybe lighter shade of green, to show discoloration because of sun) with already mentioned above panama hat.

 

[Ironside121]

You act as if it's so simple. You clearly don't play MP much. First off the game is already massively in favor of the axis, the whole war boils down to air power and the allies never win that war because they don't have the aluminum to match the axis. Second off without marines good frinking luck invading any part of France defended by 2 40 width infantry. Some one here said Germany would be guarding with just 10 widths, Idk what kind of games they play or what kind of thing they were smoking but that is never the case in all the games I've ever been in. It's already extremely difficult for the allies to D-day and since the game boils down to air power, realistically the allies can potentially tie/contest the axis air force in France meaning then it comes down to small differences between divisions to win. If you naval invade with tanks I believe they have a 200% negative combat modifier, yeah that's not happening. Infantry meanwhile also has a similar modifier and even if you land, how are you going to push with infantry without the breakthrough bonuses? Also you imply that strats are allowed in MP in most games... They're not allowed in most games so you're not going to be able to bomb forts effectively. That reminds me that for the new German focus tree they added a focus to put coastal forts across the Atlantic border and put a 20% construction towards coastal forts, literally impossible to naval invade without marines + air superiority + cas + shore bombardment + tactical bombing strat bombing. Have you ever seen what it looks like to naval invade with 40 width marines against a lvl 5 coastal fort with 2 40 width infantry on the that tile? It's nearly impossible and will require multiple invasions at the same time to break which is very difficult to micro considering you can only have like 10 marines and you need to hit in other spots not just one to stand a chance in a d-day. If you do paratroopers you're literally wasting whatever's left of your battalion count for useless divisions that don't stand a chance without a successful d-day (which won't happen without marines). Also that implies you have air superiority over France (70%) and for that to happen, the axis must have moved their air force out of the region entirely which is not normally the case. Why don't you try and play in a try-hard semi-historical competitive MP game before you judge based on your limited experience in whatever server that doesn't ban strats... People complain about there being a lot of rules in MP... It's because the game is so heavily unbalanced and there are so many exploits the SP community doesn't know because they have no reason to do them...

Also no one that I know thinks we have reached an ideal balance of the game AT ALL, and wherever you got that from is nonsense...

You mention how the comm wealth + UK + USA can organize to fight in a d-day, Italy, Africa, Norway and the Balkans. In an ideal world this all happens, but in actuality this is extremely difficult. Naval invading the Balkans from Africa means naval invading mountain tiles (without marines you will take a massive penalty to take a tile). Also this assumes the Allies take/hold Africa which is not as easy as you think... Because the allies usually lose the air war, the Suez Canal and Egypt fall to the axis a lot and usually has to be retaken, usually without air superiority from the south. On top of this there are other axis minors that can fill Germany's role in the region, like Bulgaria, Italy and Spain to quell d-days. Without marines d-day becomes very, very difficult. On top of that they buffed Germany a lot in the next update so Germany will be far more powerful (as if it wasn't powerful enough) and without a Soviet buff then it can be reasonably expected for the German player to be able to cope with all those fronts.


But whatever, these calls to balance the game go to deft ears all the time. Whenever we open a thread it gets closed because someone from the SP community goes on a sissy fit how MP doesn't matter and F that and F you and what not. Thread gets closed and vanishes... No MP will not be destroyed, but paradox doesn't put an ounce of thought for the MP community, ever and updates like these show for it.

I heavily agree with this- but if D-Day becomes impossible- then another naval invasion front will have to be opened. Germany and Italy simply don't have the manpower to cover every coastal province and fight the Sovs(unless Allies are incompetent and don't feed them the resources they need). Especially since the borders could be around Scandinavia and maybe even Turkey. The Axis overextend a lot in most games I've watched. The games that have D-Day rules in 1944 would have to change to adapt to this if D-Day became impossible.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

But whatever, these calls to balance the game go to deft ears all the time. Whenever we open a thread it gets closed because someone from the SP community goes on a sissy fit how MP doesn't matter and F that and F you and what not. Thread gets closed and vanishes... No MP will not be destroyed, but paradox doesn't put an ounce of thought for the MP community, ever and updates like these show for it.

I empathize with your concerns. I also have concerns with what I consider obvious mistakes in a historical multiplayer game. But I don't think its fair to say Paradox doesn't "put an ounce of thought for the MP community". Rather, I think they have conflicting demands and they are trying to weave a path that keeps everyone somewhat happy. Hence, that is why we have a camel, not a horse.

Can't the "balanced" MP community get together and create a mod that reduces, if not replaces, these "page upon page" of rules necessary to run a balanced MP game? Specifically, regarding the proposed Special Force limit simply change it to a higher percentage?

For the "historical" MP gamers, having some sort of mod is the only way I see us getting the results we want from the game. Though it doesn't appear we are anywhere as organized as the balanced MP community, from the thread discussions I have seen.

 

[bERt0r]

I don't really get all the special forces talk about marines, mountaineers and paratroopers. When I hear special forces I think of Commandos, Green Berets, SAS, Speznaz, etc. These guys are not really represented in terms of divisions. If you look at the current Austrian army, yes the special forces are called "Gebirgsjäger" as in mountain hunter but that doesnt mean they are the only one's equipped to fight in mountains. In fact almost all Austrian divisions are "Jäger" divisions since it makes sense to have a lot of mountaineers in a country with many mountains. Germany on the other hand has very little mountains and therefore mountaineers pale in number compared to the infantry. I really don't see how you can come up with some arbitrary number that decides how many mountaineers/marines/paratroopers you can have.
If you want to counter spam of mountaineers or marines, wouldn't it be better to fix their stats? On plains and forests at least, normal infantry should have better stats than mountaineers and marines. You could also nerf artillery in mountains and amphibious assaults. The whole point of mountaineers, marines or paratroopers is that they are light divisions that are able to cope with the terrain better. It should make no sense pairing them with heavy artillery but it does in game because artillery is just that good. Someone said it before, if you add line artillery to a mountain/marine division you should lose all your terrain boni.

 

[outis]

This special forces cap is ridiculous and breaks USA in multiplayer. How are you supposed to dday with this cap? Noone good will ever waste 95% of their army just to have some marines to dday. This means USA will have to use only super cheese plays like lend leasing everything they produce to Soviets or going deep battle to spam infantry with 10% equipment to get enough special forces cap. This cap also makes WW1 style river camping more viable on the Soviet front and the only way to break that would be with GBP left or significant air superiority backed with CAS, possibly both, making the airforce and GBP more OP than they already are. Might as well just build air with 90% of your industry at this point.

I agree. The only thing you really need to control spamming is to increase its cost -- such as additional training time. So if you have the foresight to build these units ahead of time, then so be it.

 

[CrazyZombie]

I don't really get all the special forces talk about marines, mountaineers and paratroopers. When I hear special forces I think of Commandos, Green Berets, SAS, Speznaz, etc. These guys are not really represented in terms of divisions. If you look at the current Austrian army, yes the special forces are called "Gebirgsjäger" as in mountain hunter but that doesnt mean they are the only one's equipped to fight in mountains. In fact almost all Austrian divisions are "Jäger" divisions since it makes sense to have a lot of mountaineers in a country with many mountains. Germany on the other hand has very little mountains and therefore mountaineers pale in number compared to the infantry. I really don't see how you can come up with some arbitrary number that decides how many mountaineers/marines/paratroopers you can have.
If you want to counter spam of mountaineers or marines, wouldn't it be better to fix their stats? On plains and forests at least, normal infantry should have better stats than mountaineers and marines. You could also nerf artillery in mountains and amphibious assaults. The whole point of mountaineers, marines or paratroopers is that they are light divisions that are able to cope with the terrain better. It should make no sense pairing them with heavy artillery but it does in game because artillery is just that good. Someone said it before, if you add line artillery to a mountain/marine division you should lose all your terrain boni.

I'd say that artillery should be differed to light and heavy. Heave is the same line artillery, it is now - 105/122mm and so above. Light is regimental and mountain guns with 75/76mm caliber. Weaker in stats but more mobile, so can be given to cavalry without losing it's speed.

 

[billcorr]

I'm a bit sad to see that the British and Commonwealth forces are missing their famous shorts from the desert.

Commonwealth troops need their khaki shorts in the desert.

Ah, yes.

Wearing shorts during war time. A time-honored tradition as documented by the historian, Douglas Adams:

"... the commander of the Vl'hurgs, resplendent in his red jewelled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvuntt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green sweet-smelling steam."

 

[Sourlol]

You act as if it's so simple. You clearly don't play MP much. First off the game is already massively in favor of the axis, the whole war boils down to air power and the allies never win that war because they don't have the aluminum to match the axis. Second off without marines good frinking luck invading any part of France defended by 2 40 width infantry. Some one here said Germany would be guarding with just 10 widths, Idk what kind of games they play or what kind of thing they were smoking but that is never the case in all the games I've ever been in. It's already extremely difficult for the allies to D-day and since the game boils down to air power, realistically the allies can potentially tie/contest the axis air force in France meaning then it comes down to small differences between divisions to win. If you naval invade with tanks I believe they have a 200% negative combat modifier, yeah that's not happening. Infantry meanwhile also has a similar modifier and even if you land, how are you going to push with infantry without the breakthrough bonuses? Also you imply that strats are allowed in MP in most games... They're not allowed in most games so you're not going to be able to bomb forts effectively. That reminds me that for the new German focus tree they added a focus to put coastal forts across the Atlantic border and put a 20% construction towards coastal forts, literally impossible to naval invade without marines + air superiority + cas + shore bombardment + tactical bombing strat bombing. Have you ever seen what it looks like to naval invade with 40 width marines against a lvl 5 coastal fort with 2 40 width infantry on the that tile? It's nearly impossible and will require multiple invasions at the same time to break which is very difficult to micro considering you can only have like 10 marines and you need to hit in other spots not just one to stand a chance in a d-day. If you do paratroopers you're literally wasting whatever's left of your battalion count for useless divisions that don't stand a chance without a successful d-day (which won't happen without marines). Also that implies you have air superiority over France (70%) and for that to happen, the axis must have moved their air force out of the region entirely which is not normally the case. Why don't you try and play in a try-hard semi-historical competitive MP game before you judge based on your limited experience in whatever server that doesn't ban strats... People complain about there being a lot of rules in MP... It's because the game is so heavily unbalanced and there are so many exploits the SP community doesn't know because they have no reason to do them...

Also no one that I know thinks we have reached an ideal balance of the game AT ALL, and wherever you got that from is nonsense...

You mention how the comm wealth + UK + USA can organize to fight in a d-day, Italy, Africa, Norway and the Balkans. In an ideal world this all happens, but in actuality this is extremely difficult. Naval invading the Balkans from Africa means naval invading mountain tiles (without marines you will take a massive penalty to take a tile). Also this assumes the Allies take/hold Africa which is not as easy as you think... Because the allies usually lose the air war, the Suez Canal and Egypt fall to the axis a lot and usually has to be retaken, usually without air superiority from the south. On top of this there are other axis minors that can fill Germany's role in the region, like Bulgaria, Italy and Spain to quell d-days. Without marines d-day becomes very, very difficult. On top of that they buffed Germany a lot in the next update so Germany will be far more powerful (as if it wasn't powerful enough) and without a Soviet buff then it can be reasonably expected for the German player to be able to cope with all those fronts.


But whatever, these calls to balance the game go to deft ears all the time. Whenever we open a thread it gets closed because someone from the SP community goes on a sissy fit how MP doesn't matter and F that and F you and what not. Thread gets closed and vanishes... No MP will not be destroyed, but paradox doesn't put an ounce of thought for the MP community, ever and updates like these show for it.

So....MP favors Axis...entire game comes down to Airpower...Strats are banned...

So you don't play MP either, you apparently play house rules 'Axis Wins' simulator.

How are you getting the Army XP needed to fund Infantry Divisions, Armored Division, Cav MP divisions, Mot divisions as Germany prior to WW2 if you are not
A) Abusing SCW to farm XP; or,
B) Deleting all of your divisions and exploit training your way up?

If it's either of these, again you dont play HOI4 you play cheese the exploit simulator.

Then I read further and you flat out admit you play with exploits.

Taking back the world from Hitler is supposed to be hard. The game isnt about Nazis taking over the world. Its about taking back the world from the Nazis.

Im not saying SP is better. It isnt, with the right people, everything is better with people. I'm saying the folks in the "competitive" MP scene who stick to rules like banning strats, 1 art per 10w, deleting armys for XP (this one really fucking pisses me off, cause you retards dont understand that building templates over time is its own balance in of itself), and have goals of 44w divisions with 1942 tanks in 1938 play a version of the game that isnt a) competitive b) balanced c) fun d) representative of the actual conflict they are playing a "historical rules" game of.