Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

3 alliances not 2

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.
Diefledermas

Diefledermas

Major
4 Badges
Dec 17, 2002
548
0
Visit site
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
3 Alliance Game

One thing I think will really add to the MP experience is for players to look at the game as a 3 (not 2) sided war. Specifically the USSR. Churchill despised Hitler so he "ignored" Stalin's gross offenses because of the percieved greater threat of Germany. If the Russians had become the initial aggressors (especially against democratic nations or countries percieved as strategically important) then the Allies would have probably been looking at the Reds as the world threat. And the Communists sure didn't think the capitalists were their friends.
 
Definetely.

But every USSR/Allies player knows that his chances are much better if he cooperates with the other... Making it pretty hard for the Axis.
I cant think of anything that could be done to encourage the USSR player to be more hostile towards the Allies, exept playing against someone you don't like..
 
Yes..Die.....

This is a 3 player Game...alot of people forget that. I've heard lots of gripes about how the Axis never wins in MP..well thats because on the onset..the Allies are already allied with the Soviets.

So the game really ends up as a UK/France/USA/NatChi/SU versus German/Italy/Japan..... 5 vs 3...if yer cant win with that odds......play more MP......

yes...the Germans have superior tech...yes the Japanese have superior tech...The Italians? hell they make great pasta...

But considering the combined IC of the countries..the AXIS is resoundingly outclassed..Furthermore...Manpower is an acute problem with the Axis, not to mention the oil and rubber problems.....

What we really should be looking at the game is the Axis as the 'real' immediate threat and the Commies as the Ultimate Threat.

However, im beginning to see players playing the soviets really well and as a faction all on their own. Cold war starts as early as '38-'39...with the poor germans squeezed in the middle.


Lastly....for the survival of the Axis...Japan..dont ever ... ever...ask for Guam from the Yanks.......
 
Lastly....for the survival of the Axis...Japan..dont ever ... ever...ask for Guam from the Yanks.......
Click to expand...

Japan also should never ever ask for Ocha from the commie pigs.

Lowers commie consumer demand by 100.

From my impressions it is more of a commie/allies "let's see who's gonna mop up axis faster" competition.

Also I personally think it should be impossible for the allies to dow Germany while they are at war with comintern, and US shouldnt lower consumer demands until at 100WE and/or beeing at war.


The Italians? hell they make great pasta...
Click to expand...

Just like in reality....
 
One way that might be useful is to think of the Allies as the defenders of democracy (or protectors of their colonial holdings depending on your level of cynism). The US would never ever ally with the Axis or the Communists and desire "stability" (i.e. Communism and Fascism are equally threathening to American interests)

further, Germany didn't really have any aspirations in the West, he was more concerned with hegemony in the East and the Balkans. The Western Front was more a reactionary fight after the Allies declared war. And while Hitler may have tried and maintain a peace with England and the States, he never would have given the French an inch after Versailles.
 
Well, one thing that can help is no tech sharing between Commies and Allies allowed (at least till war starts)...

Also Allies should have 1 tech per 2 month while Axis should have 1 per month.

I also suggest the US not being allowed to tech share until war entry.
 
Originally posted by Diefledermas
3 Alliance Game

One thing I think will really add to the MP experience is for players to look at the game as a 3 (not 2) sided war. Specifically the USSR. Churchill despised Hitler so he "ignored" Stalin's gross offenses because of the percieved greater threat of Germany. If the Russians had become the initial aggressors (especially against democratic nations or countries percieved as strategically important) then the Allies would have probably been looking at the Reds as the world threat. And the Communists sure didn't think the capitalists were their friends.
Click to expand...

You're right but the fact is that the more funny game is with a good barbarossa.

As SU i tried several times different policies in MP, even allying with Gemrnay to take down allies first. But all resulted as FAR more boring than the "historical approach". This is the problem.

ALso, with new rules and high dissent, SU really hasn't a good option other than reinforcing and waiting for axis. Playing aggressive is quite hard (and also not as fun as repelling the nazi invading russia).

We need Paradox creating another game, with the mechanics of HoI but the "freedom" of EU2. Sort of civilization 3 with HoI engine. But it's another game. HoI, with all events and different rules for any country, is designed to not give total freedom.
 
Jup. But then it's usually an Allies victory.
Besides the tech sharing options you could also have 4 Axis players vs 3 Allies + SU instead of the 4 Allies + SU vs 3 Axis. Romania/Finland could for example be human played.
 
Hmm, no - unfortunately the US tends to be pretty ineffectively when comp played.

My suggestion is UK FRA US -> when France is lost rehost and the player chooses a commonwealth nation or NChina. Other possibility would be to have the French player play US later in the game and start with UK FRA NChin/Canada/AUS/SA/Nz...
 
As SU i tried several times different policies in MP, even allying with Gemrnay to take down allies first. But all resulted as FAR more boring than the "historical approach". This is the problem.
Click to expand...

Did I say ally with the Axis (as Russia)? No. Poland was more of an insurane policy for Hitler. As for "boring". Well, I guess it depends on what kind of game you're playing and who you're playing it with. And being an "aggressive" Soviet player doesn't neccsarily mean invading countries.

Well, i personally always treated it as 3 alliance game
Click to expand...

Yeah Maur, but I didn't mean US and UK were at war with eachother :D

Besides the tech sharing options you could also have 4 Axis players vs 3 Allies + SU instead of the 4 Allies + SU vs 3 Axis.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into tech share here (there are other threads about it) BUT I would suggest figuring out individual or alliance tech restrictions over telling people which countries they have to play.
 
I know this has been discussed before but possibly one way to look at it is to play until one Alliance remains. This way with the "cold war" looming in the future it will balance out the WWII aspects of cooperation/competition
 
Originally posted by Diefledermas
I know this has been discussed before but possibly one way to look at it is to play until one Alliance remains.
Click to expand...

I just remembered why this doesn't work. USSR does not get any CG relief when at war with the Allies. So if Germany is already defeated, USSR's WE will be extremely low (probably negative) and so will have almost no IC's. Meanwhile, all of the Allies will have low CG due to being at war. It could be possible to get around this by editing the WE of the Soviet Union in the save file.
 
So if Germany is already defeated, USSR's WE will be extremely low (probably negative) and so will have almost no IC's. Meanwhile, all of the Allies will have low CG due to being at war.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming the Soviets have sat out the war between the Allies and the Axis? Or that the Russian CG will snap back up. Also, wouldn't the Allied CG launch back up too if the Axis is defeated?

p.s. I find all this assumption the Axis are going first is... okay fine, the Axis is probably going first
 
Originally posted by Diefledermas
Are you assuming the Soviets have sat out the war between the Allies and the Axis? Or that the Russian CG will snap back up.
Click to expand...

No, even if USSR was involved in the war. Once Germany starts losing provinces, the Soviet WE goes down dramatically.

Originally posted by Diefledermas
Also, wouldn't the Allied CG launch back up too if the Axis is defeated?
Click to expand...

Allies WE would go down, but it wouldn't matter if they were at war with USSR, because Allied CG demand goes down when they are at war. USSR's CG demand does not go down when they are at war. CG depends solely on WE, unless USSR is at war with Germany, and only if Germandy declared the war.
 
Only solution seems to be an edit if the Axis are knocked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back