When the game's fully polished of course....
Comments?
Suggestions?
Ideas for format?
Paradox wanna host?
Comments?
Suggestions?
Ideas for format?
Paradox wanna host?
-
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.
Although with the current Axis disadvantage (A realistic disadvantage), who could say which players are better?
There would have to be balancing rules that everyone agreed upon from the get go. i.e. US must stay out of war uuntil 1941/1942, or Argentina/Brazil would be played by an Axis player to make it 4v4. There are ways to still balance it.
Tournament is a great idea.
The 3 v 5 dilemna can be solved like this.
the alliance leaders - UK, USSR, Germany are the set opponents. Only one can win (or "there can be only one" if you go for the quote thing).
so it 1 v. 1 v. 1
allowing for "reincarnation" of vanquished players as an alliance member nation (i.e. Italy falls but an Axis Hungary lives on) might be a viable option too.
The 3 v 5 dilemna can be solved like this.
the alliance leaders - UK, USSR, Germany are the set opponents. Only one can win (or "there can be only one" if you go for the quote thing).
so it 1 v. 1 v. 1
allowing for "reincarnation" of vanquished players as an alliance member nation (i.e. Italy falls but an Axis Hungary lives on) might be a viable option too.
well, we could also make the clans/players to switch sides,
Like if 2 clans/groups fight, they play 2 games switching from allies to Axis. and eventually using the some limits (who has more points at '47 or, if both won as allies, who captured berlin first)
Like if 2 clans/groups fight, they play 2 games switching from allies to Axis. and eventually using the some limits (who has more points at '47 or, if both won as allies, who captured berlin first)
You would lose a little historical accuracy, but how does this sound?
8 players
Allies - UK, France, USA
Axis - Germany, Italy
Commintern - USSR
Neutrals - Japan, China
the neutrals aren't really neutral but I think the following will solve the Asian factor. Japan must annex/puppet China to win. China wins if, when the game ends, it still exists. Once either nation joins an alliance its destiny is also tied to that alliance's victory/defeat.
If an alliance member is eliminated (ex. France) that player can take over another alliance country (ex. Canada) but not a neutral country. This could also happen if China or Japan joins an alliance (ex. a vanquished Comintern China takes over Mongolia)
Victory conditions: one alliance left OR if the Axis are defeated first and the Allies/Commintern choose to end the game then the following victory conditions:
If the USSR has controls of the majority of German VP provinces, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Turkey and majority Japanese/Chinese VP provinces (depending on if one is an Axis partner) the Soviets win. If the Allies have majority control of above provinces they win. If neither side can agree who has the majority its victory thru war.
the victorious alliance advances to the next level (round robin tournement or whatever).
Last edited:
I'd like to add that I think it would have to be played in team format. I say this because obviously everyone could not show up every night, so you could have someone from your team take over for you, or rotate players for certain nights.
One team contols Allies, 1 Axis 1 Commintern and 1 neutrals. You could rotate each team so they play each category once, and the one's withj the most points at the end are given a trophy or a special spot in a locked string.
Obviously the neutral team could not be Japan/China. Perhaps it would work more effectively as Japan/Spain.
That would place a natural disposition of 4 v 4 - but it doesn't have to be that way, oh no...that's where the great intrigue comes into play.
If you had 4-person teams I think this would work fairly well. They could decide amongst themselves if perhaps they were going to have a SU specialist play that entire round, or rotate amongst themselves when they were Comintern...etc.
One team contols Allies, 1 Axis 1 Commintern and 1 neutrals. You could rotate each team so they play each category once, and the one's withj the most points at the end are given a trophy or a special spot in a locked string.
Obviously the neutral team could not be Japan/China. Perhaps it would work more effectively as Japan/Spain.
That would place a natural disposition of 4 v 4 - but it doesn't have to be that way, oh no...that's where the great intrigue comes into play.
If you had 4-person teams I think this would work fairly well. They could decide amongst themselves if perhaps they were going to have a SU specialist play that entire round, or rotate amongst themselves when they were Comintern...etc.
Last edited:
Just spurring on more thought... ...think of the great strategy-building sessions that would go into this behind the scenes....
...think of the great strategy-building sessions that would go into this behind the scenes....
Just thinking about the neutral team - I realized they should not be playing for each other nor have any pre-disposition towards any of the legit alliances.
Therefore, they would have to be played by seperate teams.
That would make 5 teams in total, and now China comes back into play.
Allies (3 players with one backup)
Axis (2 players with 2 backups)
Comintern (1 player with 3 rotational)
Japan (1 player with 3 rotational)
China (1 player with 3 rotational)
Therefore, they would have to be played by seperate teams.
That would make 5 teams in total, and now China comes back into play.
Allies (3 players with one backup)
Axis (2 players with 2 backups)
Comintern (1 player with 3 rotational)
Japan (1 player with 3 rotational)
China (1 player with 3 rotational)
3 blocks is funny and would add lot of politics in any game.
However, to be fair, all blocks should switsh side so it would mean 3 games for each group match. ALso, the clan who plays SU has only one player so maybe not very funny.
However, to be fair, all blocks should switsh side so it would mean 3 games for each group match. ALso, the clan who plays SU has only one player so maybe not very funny.
I suppose you could have Yugoslavia be a Commintern player.
UK,USA, France, China - Allies
Germany, Italy, Japan - Axis
USSR, Yugoslavia - Commintern
I still like the idea of a little flexibility in Asia but this would give you a more balanced fight. Of course you know have 9 countries so it would require dropping one of the "Big 8" and that could cause game unbalancing.
UK,USA, France, China - Allies
Germany, Italy, Japan - Axis
USSR, Yugoslavia - Commintern
I still like the idea of a little flexibility in Asia but this would give you a more balanced fight. Of course you know have 9 countries so it would require dropping one of the "Big 8" and that could cause game unbalancing.
Are you still suggesting a single player format Die?
I think Yugoslavia would get rolled over fairly quickly, then the backup would be ...Tanu Tuvu.
How about when player-controlled nations are vanquished the conquerer has the ability to install a puppet, then one of their team-mates takes over there?
I know all these ideas are ahistorical, but you kind of have to be in multi-player.
I think Yugoslavia would get rolled over fairly quickly, then the backup would be ...Tanu Tuvu.
How about when player-controlled nations are vanquished the conquerer has the ability to install a puppet, then one of their team-mates takes over there?
I know all these ideas are ahistorical, but you kind of have to be in multi-player.
Last edited:
Um... I never was? Did I say that somewhere? I thought a tournament was by defination multi-player. If you mean am I suggesting one (alliance) victor, yes I am.
And hey, if you don't want to take Tannu Tuva, there's always Mongolia or Communist China... (joke)
Seriously though, the more I think about it, you'd just have to go with USSR as the Commintern. Even though on the surface it may seem like a disadvantage for that "side", since the USSR gets to play both sides off the other and is a powerful country, it may work out.
Yes, I'm ttalking about a team format vs a single player format - in multi-player.
Also, considering how huge the Soviets are, how about editig the game files to make a multi-player setup where the SU is split betwen two controlling players?
Also, considering how huge the Soviets are, how about editig the game files to make a multi-player setup where the SU is split betwen two controlling players?
Ok, then I think we are both advocating team victory
I don't think it's possible, and if anything, USA or UK would be better suited for multiplayer control
Great idea. However, trying to play 8 player cross-atlantic games might not work. Even if all can agree about the time, the issue of lag remains.