Paradoxical Pickup

[unmerged(14249)]

I just played yet another pickup game in Valkyrie Net, hosted by Geofactor. He was Italy, Tojo was Germany and a couple of guys I don't know were France and SU. Geofactor picked the 36 scenario as usual so I knew this wouldn't last long but joined in to see how it would fall apart this time.

I'm the UK and so I start the usual research and, for a change, set my production and trades to bring in lots of money. I then start influencing all the important countries in the world and some of the not so important ones, like Mexico. There's been some talk of the game being "historical" but Italy DOWs Albania right away, rather than leaving it to the 39 event, so I figure they don't really mean 100% history - just a rough approximation.

I get various countries well-disposed to the allied cause and round about May 36, persuade Belgium to join the Allies. Germany then starts whining about how this isn't historical and can I kick Belgium out of the Allies. I'm not buying this - Belgium was formally allied with France until October, 1936 in history and so it's quite historical for them to be in the allies at this time. In any case, it's not as if allied Belgium is a big threat to Germany.

So, on we go. Then the SU DoWs Poland which is rather unhistorical so Germany whines some more and drops out. France meanwhile says that his wife has come home so he's got to go. He doesn't break his connection though, so France is left in a leaderless state.

I then amuse myself by getting Republican Spain to join the Allies too and join the Spanish Civil War on their side. Soviet Union and Italy then do some weird diplomatic actions and then they drop out too. I win by default.

So far, so typical. What continues to mystify me is why some players only consider playing the 36 scenario when it always ends in failure like this. The 39 scenario is so much better for multiplayer play and, even if you get some dropouts after a while, at least you get some interesting campaigning and a better sense of history. It's especially paradoxical that the players who want the game to resemble history don't see this - why are they picking the 36 scenario if they're not planning to change anything from history? Surely that's just a waste of 3 or more hours, getting from 36 to 39. And some don't stop there. They seem to want that Germany will attack Poland, then France then Soviet Union exactly like history. What's the point of this re-enactment mindset - I really don't get it.

I suppose that players practise the game by playing SP and they get used to playing the 36 scenario in which only they change things but all the other countries follow the historical script. What they don't really appreciate that in MP, the other players will be changing things too and the overall effect will soon make the game deviate from history.

So, if you only have a few hours to play and you want to play a game resembling WW2, then please don't pick the 36 scenario. Pick the 39 scenario in which everything is set up ready to go, with Germany starting its attack on Poland. If you want to fight then take one of the warring nations. If you prefer to research and plan for a while, then take one of the neutral nations like Italy, SU or US. There's something for everyone in the 39 scenario and the balance between the alliances is better overall.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(31954)]

If you're going to judge the 36 scenario on the basis of pickup games with Vnet bottom feeders, of course you're going to have that opinion. Play the 36 scenario with a regular group that has established ground rules, and it is a far different experience.

Your prejudice for the 39 scenario is well-known. I see you chose a method of trying the 36 scenario that would confirm your prejudice.

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to persuade people to give up something they like. Personally, I hate the 39 scenario, but I don't feel the need to continually preach the superiority of my personal choice at every opportunity. If people prefer 39, wonderful for them. If people prefer 36, I'm happy to play with them.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Play the 36 scenario with a regular group that has established ground rules, and it is a far different experience.

It's your oft-stated opinion that the game doesn't work at all and that anyone who reports a good experience (like my Saturday group thread) must be a shill for Paradox. Make your mind up.

As for playing on ValkyrieNet, there's quite a crowd there every evening and they are as entitled to a good experience as anyone. They're more likely to get this playing 39 than 36 and I'm going to keep pointing this out until the penny drops. And, in fact, the game comes with four campaign scenarios, not just one, and they all have their merits:

36: good for exploring what-ifs and alternate histories.

39: good mix of action and peace without too much strain on the system

41: the big showdown between Germany and the SU with Japan and USA warming up for their clash in the Pacific

44: backs to the wall for the Axis. A good scenario for co-op play with all players playing the Axis - 2 Japs and 2 Germans, say.

Andrew

 

[Camrik]

V-net

I've always been interested in trying a 1939 game, but most people prefer 1936. I have no idea why you hate that scenario Herr, nor do I know why someone would hate 1936.

In any case, I saw some of your posts at Herr's site Andrew, and I definitly feel that there is a need for a place where HOI2 players can meet and schedule game. The PA filled that role until recently but it seems to be dying although I thought Bakker and Baxter were trying to get it going again.

Herr's site could now fulfill that role, but I have to admit that sometimes the posts there are somewhat disturbing - the players are very dedicated, probably too much imho and their anger and frustration at HOI2 often result in immature posting. Nonetheless, most players there are reliable and that is no small thing.

The other option is to use Paradox mp forum, but frankly, that option is not a very good one for a number of reasons:

1) So many players that you dont know; this often results in playing with someone that is late for game, has a bad computer/connection, uses every bug/exploit in game, has no ethic whatsoever, etc.

2) The forum itself is extremely slow and often too busy. This is a serious drawback when you want to properly organize a game.

I do believe that it is a good idea to try to draw all HOI2 players to the same place. The more the merrier, not counting the fact that it will be easier to organize games with enough players if more players are around. Wheter it is here or at Herr's site, I could not care less.

All I want is to play a good game with reliable and mature players. It is out of the question for me to just drop to vnet and play there with anybody there: I am almost sure it will turn out as a disappointing experience and, on the other hand, I dont believe HOI2 36 or 39 GC can be played in one session. Much better is to plan and schedule a regular meeting time for several weeks.

I think that players visiting the Paradox mp Forum should be strongly encouraged to do so. How to do this is up to you, of course, but if you want to start a group playing once a week a 39 GC, I'd be willing to join provided we can convene a day and time and find other players willing to join.

Regards


Ghis

 

[unmerged(4747)]

I'm a member of a regular MP group that has played HOI for a couple years. We finally came to the realization that the 36 scenario wasn't for us. We started playing the 39 scenario and everyone in the group has sang its praises. Playing the 39 scenario solves so many of the issues that crop up when playing the 36 GC. It gets everyone in to the action pretty quickly and reduces the need for a host of house rules.

I understand the draw/fascination for the 36 GC but I'm with Warden, the 39 scenario is IMO the best choice for MP play.

 

[Orthank]

I do like both of these scenarios,

1936 needs lots of house rules limitations, but it is exactly the problem of MP game that is working just barely, lack of balance and some cheats/tricks that can be used for getting earlier into war. From the players point of view it gives them the "feeling" that they prepared countries for war on their own.

1939 is unfortunately even less balance, mostly beacause of UK/SU/US industrial potential that is vastly bigger then the German one. UK having 330 ic available ic in 1941 is a disastrous for game balance. For june 41 i had prepared 12 tanks 48 infantry 12 motorized 3 marines(only UK no CW) ready for Diepe, i am not counting in it large number of regular infantry spread in Africa and India. Only Manpower was limiting my futher statistics expantion.

Anyway dedication group is need for both of these scenarios.

 

[boromir]

I agree with Orthank. I like playing both scenarios. The 1936 scenario is fun for what ifs but needs more house rules to be kept semi-historic and does give players a chance to customize their armies. 1939 scenario gives you action immediately but you are more or less on a set path.

But both are screwed up in terms of game balance. The game stability is crap - last LAN game with 3.2Ghz 1 GB RAM host we had CTDs ever hour. I never had any problems even close to this with any other non-Paradox MP game.

 

[unmerged(31954)]

The main reason I don't like 39 is that I don't like starting out at war. And as Germany, your starting setup is completely screwed up and it takes 20 minutes to get it straight. I've long wanted a 38 scenario, which would make a good compromise between the two, or even a 39 scenario that starts on January 1, 1939. I might even enjoy one that starts on August 1. But every time I try a 39 scenario, I detest the starting situation. Therefore, I don't play it, and I look for groups of ethical players to play 36 scenarios. I enjoy those intensely.

"To each his own," I believe the saying goes.

 

[unmerged(5892)]

2 issues about this post.

1) 36 or 39, whatever you like as others have said. You like the 39 exclusively. - ok, thats your preference.

2) V-net games. I can honestly say that the majority of pick up games I've ever played have ended early for similar reasons as the ones you listed. Your issue with the 36 scenario as detailed here, is in fact an issue with V-net games per se.

Having played countless 36 games, I can vouch that it works well, gives a far more personal feel to the game, and opens up far more opportunities in the game. Still, it does required patience, something sorely lacking from many players in V-net.

 

[Maximilian I]

It's your oft-stated opinion that the game doesn't work at all and that anyone who reports a good experience (like my Saturday group thread) must be a shill for Paradox. Make your mind up.

As for playing on ValkyrieNet, there's quite a crowd there every evening and they are as entitled to a good experience as anyone. They're more likely to get this playing 39 than 36 and I'm going to keep pointing this out until the penny drops. And, in fact, the game comes with four campaign scenarios, not just one, and they all have their merits:

36: good for exploring what-ifs and alternate histories.

39: good mix of action and peace without too much strain on the system

41: the big showdown between Germany and the SU with Japan and USA warming up for their clash in the Pacific

44: backs to the wall for the Axis. A good scenario for co-op play with all players playing the Axis - 2 Japs and 2 Germans, say.

Andrew

100% agreed (36 is not for me in mp!)

 

[unmerged(4747)]

I might even enjoy one that starts on August 1.

Herr, funny you mentioned that because that is one of the things I changed in our slightly modded 1939 scenario. It begins on 1 August 39, so everyone has a month to breath before the shooting starts. I've also done a few other tweaks for balance but nothing big.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

You like the 39 exclusively.

No, I've played a lot of 36 games - probably more than 39. And in HoI 1, I played a fair bit of 41 too. It's other people that seem exclusively focussed on 36. This obsession seems overdone as repeated experience shows that the 36 scenario is the least suitable for MP play. I get some fun out of it, as I did last night, but it's tiresome to keep repeating the opening moves - the initial techs, the Spanish Civil War and so on - but never reaching the meat of WW2.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(31954)]

No, I've played a lot of 36 games - probably more than 39. And in HoI 1, I played a fair bit of 41 too. It's other people that seem exclusively focussed on 36. This obsession seems overdone as repeated experience shows that the 36 scenario is the least suitable for MP play. I get some fun out of it, as I did last night, but it's tiresome to keep repeating the opening moves - the initial techs, the Spanish Civil War and so on - but never reaching the meat of WW2.

Andrew

You know, it is quite possible that not everybody shares the same experiences as you. Perhaps some people do reach the meat of WW2 in 36 scenarios, and perhaps those people enjoy it very much. That might account for the number of people who stubbornly cling to their desire to play the 36 scenario. Just because you have not experienced something does not mean nobody else has. And just because you do not share an appreciation for something does not mean that it is an "obsession" when somebody else does. I might make comment on your "obsession" with the 39 scenario were I of the mind to belittle your choice of scenarios.

Similarly, just because your group has had HOI 2 run just fine does not mean that everybody else shares the same experience with it. That might account for the large number of posts on this forum about how poorly HOI 2 runs in MP. Perhaps it is not simply that we are all stupid or insane, or possessed of inferior equipment. I'm glad the game runs fine for you. I wish it did for me. Everybody I play with has broadband. I have a 1.8 gig P4 and 512 megs of RAM. It's not a cutting edge system, but it certainly is not a bad system. Everybody I play with has something comparable or better. And we still have massive problems. We are not alone.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Everybody I play with has broadband.

It seems that having ordinary broadband is not enough. The host needs to have an up speed of about 1 Mbps for a smooth ride. My own up speed is 288 kbps and so I don't usually volunteer to host. If I did, I wouldn't want to run the game faster than slow speed.

There's a connection between this issue and the choice of scenario. The folk who play the 36 campaign with a stack of house rules designed to stop anyone from doing anything expect that most players will only be doing tech and builds (diplomacy is typically a forbidden activity, even though the 36-39 period was all about international diplomacy). They then crank up the clock speed to try to get through the tedium of doing nothing as quickly as possibly. The clock speed is typically increased faster and faster until something breaks - lag, a sync bug or the like. The victims of this haste then complain that the game doesn't work.

The session I played on Saturday had a host with a good up speed (Cyril Hoogeboom). As it was the 39 scenario and we had lots to do, the session was mostly at slow speed. And it worked reasonably well - just some trouble getting connected - Mr S kept losing the connection at the first attempt for some unknown reason.

Andrew

 

[Kyril]

They then crank up the clock speed to try to get through the tedium of doing nothing as quickly as possibly. The clock speed is typically increased faster and faster until something breaks - lag, a sync bug or the like. The victims of this haste then complain that the game doesn't work.

Well, in my experience, we never exceed Above Normal speeds in the 36 campaign groups, and still have lag issues and crashes. Wether you agree the game is played the way you describe or not, is not a reason not to feel frustration by the many crashes/bugs/lag issues. If the game states 'supports internet play' then I expect it to support internet play within reason.

As for type of games: I like 36 games with and 39 or 41 games without too many rules for regular games, and the occasional 36 slugfest or latter day scenario for pick up games, where anything goes (crazy diplomacy, unhistoric alliances, etc.).
When playing with people I dont know, I tend to prefer the later scenarios or the slugfest.

 

[Wishing_Well]

It seems that having ordinary broadband is not enough. The host needs to have an up speed of about 1 Mbps for a smooth ride.
Andrew

That surely is a shame. By now most of the video games industry has assessed the desire of its customers for mutliplayer capabilities; and you are suggesting that indeed it exists it this game, but only for a lucky dozen.

As for myself I'm sick and tired of playing strategy games in solo (even on very hard, because the ai is just a bigger cheater) so this product is a dissapointment.

Unfortunately, I don't think any patch can improve on this aspect of the game.

I do not read into Paradox's developpers minds, nor do I intend to put words into their mouths...but there won't be any next of their game on my shelves until I have been brought evidence that they have kept the usual player in focus.

To be more on topic I have to admit that as a frenchman I have a problem with the '39 campaign. Indeed, France being so underpowered stands no chance at all compared to its RL capabilities, and my nationalist feelings can't stand it.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

That surely is a shame. By now most of the video games industry has assessed the desire of its customers for multiplayer capabilities; and you are suggesting that indeed it exists it this game, but only for a lucky dozen.

We've been here before haven't we? I recall that something was done to HoI 1 to reduce its bandwidth demands and suppose that there have been similar issues with games like Victoria, which contain lots to keep track of.

It seems obvious that you can't fit a quart into a pint pot. HoI II is more detailed in some respects than HoI 1. In particular it has a lot more provinces and there's more air/naval activity. It also supports a lot more players and it's not unusual to see 10 or more players trying to play in V-Net. So, if you want to support this extra load, you need more bandwidth - obvious, isn't it? Myself, I'm going to see if my ISP can uprate me so that I can host better and suggest others do likewise. Maybe Paradox will be able to optimise this aspect of the game as they did for HoI 1, but don't hold your breath as they are already now working on their next game - Diplomacy.

So, my attitude is that the Lord helps those that help themselves. Understand the problem and then try to work around it by either:

* sticking to moderate game speeds

* using a fast host

* playing on a LAN

* uprating your connection.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(14249)]

I just found these notes on the Starfire website so I supposed that they were written by Mithel:

Game speeds:

Normal - 1 second per hour aka 12 minutes per month aka 2.4 hours per year
Below Normal - 2 seconds per hour aka 24 minutes per month aka 4.8 hours per year
Slow - 4 seconds per hour aka 48 minutes per month aka 9.6 hours per year

My group has run further testing. Our conclusion is that to play multiplayer "slow" is the fastest reliable speed once combat breaks out. Hence we figure that a reasonable game of playing from 1936 to 1939 at "normal" and then playing on "slow" from 1939 to 1943 results in a game lasting roughly 48 hours (aka 12 sessions at 4 hours per session).

So, going from Jan 36 to Sep 39 at normal speed will take about 9 hours. Please bear this in mind next time you fancy a quick pick-up game on V-Net.

Andrew

 

[Vissarion]

I just found these notes on the Starfire website so I supposed that they were written by Mithel:So, going from Jan 36 to Sep 39 at normal speed will take about 9 hours. Please bear this in mind next time you fancy a quick pick-up game on V-Net.

Andrew

A good point, but i think many of the typical pick-up people don't visit this forum.

As for the scenarios, 36 has the most potential ultimately, but the greatest thing about mp for me is to battle against other humans, so I like the '39 best. The chances are bigger for screw-ups in 36, and there's the risk of wasting many hours being at peace to see the game ruined. Helps with a stable group of course, but for me the cons of '36 by far outweighs the pros of '39.

 

[unmerged(5892)]

The point that seems to be being ignored here, is that this is all about choice of opponents, not choice of scenario.

So, you've had some bad experiences with 36. That is indicitive of your experience only, not the entire HOI/HOI2 gaming community.

It's somewhat silly to continually raise issues that relate to who you are playing with, rather than the scenario itself, and say one is caused by the other.

If anyone fires up a 39 or 36 scenario and plays with V-net unknowns, then regardless of the scenario, we all are aware it is not likely to last the distance. I'd say that my own groups experience of playing largely 36 scenarios, over what must have been 50 or more games, gives me some justification to say that in my experience, 36 works well.

Just up and say "I don't like 36 personally" rather than trying to assume that you know best for everyone else. Personally, I'll play them all, with a preference for 36, but will not try and tell any 39, 41 etc fans that they are foolish.