Creating the Ultimate Multiplayer Scenario...

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

The way I see it, the '36 and '39 scenarios were designed more for the single-person experience, and if the AI were any good would succeed admirably. However, each one has its problems in MP games. The '36 scenario has parameters designed for a war that is to begin in three and a half years, and I have never played a game where Germany waited that long to DoW anyone. For that matter, I have never played a game that has gotten to that date, ending either with CTDs, the fall of an alliance, or someone quitting. And how many times in a ’36 game have you heard, “They have taken almost all of Europe and I only have 13 WE!!”, or “You mean I can’t DoW until the elections in 9 months (and an hour or so of gametime)??”. The ’39 game has things pretty much played out, so therefore limits the strategic possibilities. Countries are already at war, and the basic alliances are agreed upon.

What I envision is a scenario with the following parameters:

1. All majors can enter into warfare ASAP, and are ready for it
2. Any major has a chance of winning
3. Can be easily downloaded at vnet (no db files need to be changed)
4. More free-flowing diplomacy (Italy can decide to team up with France against Germany, etc.)
5. Minors can be more easily entered into alliances
6. Unfair advantages (exploits) are avoided

Ideas to get the juices flowing:

- Start at ’37 instead of ’36?
- Give allies high WE to start
- UK/France not yet in alliance
- More DI at the start
- Larger armies for some/all countries
- Make Japanese fascist from the start

Give me any ideas you have on parameters or implementations.

I’ve been reading these forums long enough to know that someone is going to reply and say, “I like the scenarios fine the way they are, I don’t want to play an unhistorical game!” Well, that’s great, you can keep playing them, but I want to hear from people who want to make a better MP experience!

P.S. I posted this in the MP section because I wanted to get the input of people that play a lot of MP.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Agree with a few comments

I play MP, and I agree with everything under your "Juices Flowing" with these additions.


1. Any nation should be able to declare war on anyone they choose at any time.

2. Increased dissent for DOW for all countries, especially
Democratic countries.

3. Increased consumer goods needs for all countries.

4. A smaller navy for US at the start (assuming the 36 scenario)

5. Italian troops at very low ORG.

These are something I think would be good. Your right in MP on the 36 scenario, if you play Germany you can dominate Europe by mid 37. It makes for a laim game, particularly when one country goes nuts early. It makes it not fun, and then whats the point? If you play one of the majors I feel it best to make it somewhat historical at least until 38 so everyone has a chance.....

My Mp expirence is to the contrary though and unfortunately you get people who really dont care if others have fun or not, the key is to identify those people, finish out your game and then gravitate towards the people whom you feel will give you a good competitive long term game.

Odin

odin_of_valhalla@hotmail.com

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Re: Agree with a few comments

Originally posted by Odin1970
If you play one of the majors I feel it best to make it somewhat historical at least until 38 so everyone has a chance.....

I originally felt the same way, however in MP playing up until '38 from a '36 scenario takes way too long to have no action, due to the speed the game has to run to prevent too much lag. I want to give more nations a chance right off the bat.

Does anyone else think that Germany is underpowered and Italy is too powerful in a '36 game?

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Agreed

I agree Italy is over powered and Germany under.

As to the historic game, okay you have a point, its just real laim when one person makes the grab. Which as either Italy Russia, Germany or Japan you can do with ease.

I have learned a lot in this area, and in future MP games I will work with other plays to make some kind of house rule for it.

Its just weak when in mid 37, the world is already portioned out, IMHO.

Odin

 

[Minodrin]

Yes, now that you mention it, it can be hard when the Axis and Comintern start grabbing nations.

How about a "Secure Independence" in the diplo, to automatically get a war to any nation that attacks that nation (for the cost of a few DP and dissident).
Allied reserves events, especially the national guard to prevent the Axis from invading the US in Jan 36 (A very good strategy to win btw).
A WE value for all nations, or atleast the comintern too.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Agreed

I have simulated games where by 10/1/36 I had invaded the US. Just focused my entire production on it.

Some people call them exploits, frankly its part of the game and as the player you have to be responsible particularly in a MP environment. IF your just playing to say you won, cool you can take a major and win fast by gobbling up countries, if your playing to have fun and have everyone in your MP have some fun then a little historic accuracy is best.

I was in a MP once and Japan was in Moscow by june of 38. Russia was AI but still, come on.....


Odin

 

[Minodrin]

Yep. One of the probelms is that the game needs 6 or 7 players. The USSR to fight Germany, UK to fight Italy and the USA to fight Japan (And France to make it even harder).
Then if the Allied players are competent the Axis are free to fight howver they want. Invade the US. Even if the Kriegsmare somehow manages to find a province where it can be undisturbed long enough to gét an army ashore, the Allied fleet will kill any supply convoys from Germany, neutralize the Kriegsmarine, land expeditionary forces (Unless the US player built some militia or is content to invade with 2 panzer divisions, in which case they might be able to gather enough forces to stall the axis). And so on.
The game can be fair. Why should the Axis just sit around in Europe as the Allied outproduce them 3 : 1?

 

[unmerged(10026)]

I agree biggs but you have to spell out the type of game at the start. as you well know it can get pretty boring as the allies just waiting for something to happen after 3 hours. Also the problem we ran into last night with Red Army makes for a lame game. if you dont know the prospective player, ask him a few questions just to see if he'll spaz out in may of '36 and cry and want to quit.

My advice is not to limit the the actions to much of fellow players because nobody obviously limited hitlers asperations in the '30's. But on the other hand ensure the players understand the reason we play the game.

One more thing, I start Flight School on the 22 Jan, until then I have'nt a thing to do so if you need me to play. Ragincajun375@aol.com

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Good Points MARCEAUX

You definately have to gauge other people and you have to decide what you want and what are the parameters are for your fun.

HOI has a poor AI, and anyone playing a major in the 36 scenario in MP can simply run the gauntlet by 37. Its lame, and what it does is it alienates other players.

Your point of not limiting other players is a good one, I cant blame anyone for taking advantage of a weak AI. If you just hook over ICQ or Vnet and jump into a game then all bets are off. I have done this manytimes and didnt look at it to seriously I just used them as learning expirences.

However if you get a group together and embark on a somewhat organized (some house rules, email diplomacy etc) scenario then its my expirence that things can become lame fast. Everyone has a different style, if you play Germany your somewhat responsible for the start of the war, and you can count on from 1/1/36 that you will be the focal point of all other players. Thats cool and its a challenge, but after going through the motions I have found that there just has to be somekind of understanding to historical accuracy, or your in for a boring game.

Key is for me is to take every expierence and learn from it. ITs only a game and some people take it way to seriously. I was in a MP game once (got into VNET with 2 other guys, believe it or not).

We all took axis nations just to see how fast we could win, the italian player lost a battle in bulgaria (not the war), and started to really whine and complain, before we knew it he was F this and F that and he just quit.

Definately determine what you enjoy most about MP, formulate a structure for that plan and then find people that want to play within it. Without a little initial organization and house rules your just asking for BS.

Odin

P.S. Play on Bolts of war scenario for a more challenging game, at least the AI moans when it takes it up the ass....