Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Aus CORE Group Rules Discussion

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.
Joel
What do you think about the forts issues?

Let Joel play Germany let Munster play the Russians :)

Also update rules regarding when japan can attack China and Cags only on carriers
 
Last edited:
In light of how good cags are now, i propose cags only. Otherwise carriers could become to strong.

Secondly i want mentioned in the rules: No repairing ships nor disbanding them when they are blockaded in port. This is a rule we have had for as long as i can remeber and i want it reflected in this forum. As some people are continuly claiming to forget rules (muster is the prime offender).

Also not knowing about rules is not a good enough answer, if you are to lazy to read the forums where we post it bad luck. This has annoyed me with this TP thing munster has done, as it took away from the good challenge i was having of holding down there in the MED. As as punishment munster should be forces to deploy those TPs back to the port in tobruk.
 
I have no issue with that mike. But bear in mind he has no choice about deploying repaired ships back to their original point, so your comments are largely already reflected by the game mechanics anyway. The one time this can be used in a dodgy fashion IIRC is when that original province is captured, and then the units can be deployed back to the home nation.

I've updated rules however to reflect this seeing that we did previously agree to this, and I have also updated the CAGS issue. My one remaining concern is that I can see plenty of scenarios where repairing ships in port whilst the enemy controlls the adjacent sea-zone would not be gamey.

I assume JH will also want to add his idea for allowing the US to share resources and supplies once at 100 war entry. I've also tentatively added this in, but will remove it based on the group consensus*

*Note: Group consensus of course means whatever Mike and I decide ;)

I also think it might be worthwhile adding in an additional rule/suggestion:

Where a neutral player has ships/air units 'spying' on active theatres (eg US or SU players watching battles in France for curiousity) then these players must recall those units if any active nation requests them to do so, unless there is a plausible reason for them to be there.
 
Last edited:
I do not agree with your thing about neutral ships having to flee if the players affected start crying about it.

If it has been stipulated by some treaty that the neutral nation under question is not to give information - and is agreed to by all parties - then that player would have to shut up.

Otherwise, the neutral nation can do as he pleases, and those affected can either declare war or live with it.
 
May I come with a suggestion.

Even though im not a player on this team I'd like to point to the naval tree where IMO the development of verhicle landing vessels should permit the use on 1 and only 1 non-leg unit per landing.

just my two cent.

Ghost_dk
 
Well with these ships from neutrals issues. Ive seen many times USSR or USA ships patroling around in nearly all our games looking at whats happening. In regards to neutrals passing on Info to either the Allies or Axis i dont see it as a big issue. This occured all the tim in WWII, Sweden, Norway when it was nuetral, Portugal and many other passed along info to the side they felt sympathetic for, including ship movements, troops movements etc. I think it should be left open for the respective sides to sort out amongst them selves.

Eg. Maybe the US would dispatch ships to guard its convoys and at the same time pass along info of German U-boats. (this is inrelation to a more agressive germany and the consquences thatm ight be borught about by that, and some of the US responses)

Same with the USSR, maybe they feel the increased agression in the balklands would lead to them to do some extra benifits for the opposing side. These are only examples, there are many more.

Hehe these 6 players games are getting more complicated as we discover more and more about this game and strategies, which i think i fun and good. In short i think this should be included in treaties and if its not then its up to the two parties to come to a settlement.

None of this im not unpausing until you move your ship, how childish. We play on and thosep layers resolve there issue. Note i did not pause game when i had an issue with munster, which was of more importance the one Soviet ship, watching the action.
 
I dont think the ship issue was a big deal, it was more the reaction to the request. We should be able to resolve these things easier in future I hope.

I actually DO have a problem with players passing on info about troop deployments when neutral though, which is exactly what Husayn confirmed he was doing. If players are bored, and want to have a look how things are going, I can understand this, and it was because I thought (mistakenly) that this is what Husayn was doing in Spain, that I didn't kick up a fuss as well.

I don't think you'd be so happy with this mike if neutral Japanese or Italian naval units scouted the UK for me to show where the best place for me to invade is. Anyway, I'm very dissapointed this has been going on in this game, and before we start our next session will be proposing a change to this. Regardless of your comments about neutral nations passing on info, I see this as a simple way for players to use an exploit to get around the fog of war issues. In my opinion, if you want to scout an area - use your own ships.

Still, overall, despite several minor rules issues, I am happy with the progress of the game & how everyone has played.
 
The only info Omni ever mentioned that i saw was troops in Greece, even though i can see all movements in greece anyway, same as spain. Not sure if omni knows that. Not that i paid much attention to what omni says with the amount if chatter he does, when im trying to fight a war, with air battles every few seconds.

Im generaly happy with the game as well, been fun all these air and sea battles. Hope it continues, although me and munster continue to have a heated debates on icq regarding last nights matter.
 
I like the suggestion by ghost in regards to landing a non infantry unit in an invasion when the appropiate tech has been attained( vehicle landing vessels). Limit it to one such unit(ie armour/ mechanised etc)

oponions?
 
I believe I was entitled to reject the un-justified and un-fair request made by the axis player. If saying no to you is counted as an unwelcome request, then whoever that person may be has some serious superiority issues.
 
It will be interesting to see how this game pans out but I think the USA should have more options than just sending resource or supplies. I mean the Axis is benfeiting from conquest of spain,sweden and an ally in Turkey and suffer no penalty for it. This puts extra strain on the UK and russia at no detriment to the Axis. Also when all nations are at war what is the problem with tech sharing?
just dont want to get bogged down in trench warfare between 2 low teched countries. But things like this can be discussed for future games.
 
I agree with some of your points major, but I think it's important to consider the differences between this game and last game, as well as the similiarities.

1) Italy. No dispute there is a difference here with the tech sharing. This is (IMO) the biggest difference between the two games resulting from changes to group rules

2) Resources. This game saw the same trades on the market from the same nations as last game. The difference is that as the German player, I cooled down my economy early on with AA builds, etc, and subsequently never ran my economy into the ground. Also, my conquests have been largely resource focused (eg, Sweden) and so it is due to gameplay, rather than rules, that Germany is in a better position. The only change to resource rules we saw was that last game, Japan supplied Italy with resources. In this game, that has not happened. Overall, the Axis has had a harder time on paper, to get resources in this game.

3) Strategic Position. Last game saw similar attacks on similar nations by the Axis, however I think the key difference at the moment focus's on 2 nations: Sweden and Turkey. Last game, the Soviet Union ended up Allied with both. This game, one has been annexed by the Axis, and the other Allied to it. Again, this does not reflect any rule changes, but merely the strategies pursued. Last game, as the SU, Munster (Germany) and I had no agreement regarding Turkey or Sweden, likewise, Husayn clearly indicated these 2 nations were reasonable targets.

My point is this - with 2 rule changes from last game, 1 increasing Italian tech efficiency notably, and the other reducing Italian resource intake from Japan, we see a completely different game - as we should. Personally I think I have gotten away with actions as Germany (namely Turkey) solely because of the NAP with the Soviets. Even with this though, I expect a very tough fight with Husayn, which I personally think I will be a 50/50 contest. He has better land tech, a larger army, and I assume better resource stockpiles. I have better air units, a potential southern thrust direct at his oil fields, and a good level of experience at playing (and knowing the weaknesses of) the Soviets. All in all, a good result that I hope will see many good battles. :)
 
Agree with you on the resource issue. The poor state of German resources last game prevented munster from giving coal to the Italians which is the main reason I was not getting enough. Also The germans also got the full conquest for Yugo even know th poor Italians did all the grunt work. This game will be different and the Russians will still be strong though.
 
claudefrog said:
Last time I heard, non infantry get a severe penalty when invading from sea ??? Or is Core stupid enough to have them just as good as infantry and marines lol :rofl: . '
Click to expand...

No you are correct, but if you check out the various landing vessel techs you will see that they even thing out to make them usefull in landing again.
 
Also this game Joel i put 300 Rubber a day on the world market from day one. This enabled most nations to recive enough rubber so as to not affect the game to much like last time.
 
Further issue we need to include in rules. All CORE specific techs (eg Human Player industry techs, and existing air training regime techs) that start in the build queue must remain in place.

Noting the Jap rules, I think perhaps it's time Siam tasted Japanese steel :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back