The 39er's, part II

[unmerged(8114)]

As always, both views have its pros and cons.

But I think I somewhere wrote that house-rules can only be instated during the game if everyone agrees, so something to discuss for the next game.

But I think we can agree that Japan/Italy dowing SU and then joining Axis is not allowed?

@Aldo: That doesn't change anything for the ultimatum. Awaiting Japans answer.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

ULTIMATUM!​

As a garantor of stability and peace the Sovjet Union issues the following ultimatum:
The Sovjet Union demands that Japan hands back Xianyang to our comrades in Communist China. This has to be done by June '41. Further on the Sovjet Union demands an end to the exploitation of the Chineses population. Therefore any further attacks on National China will lead to a state of war between the Sovjet Union and Japan.

If Japan fulfills the condition of this ultimatum the Sowjet Union could consider negotiations about a non-aggression pact. Part of these negotations will also be a partly withdrawal of Japanese forces from China to pre-war borders.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
Andrej Vyshinski
Vladiwostok, Divisional Command Post, April 20 1941​

Japan is currently conducting negotiations with all the Chinese leaders. Japan is confident that this war can end with a settlement bringing order to China. Order in China is an important objective for Japan and the Empire will do all in its power to accomplish that.

 

[unmerged(8114)]

That brings in the next bug - if I DOW Japan I am not declaring war on Manchuko. Seems that this would have to be edited in the game, otherwise the Japanese could always retreat to Manchuko and make silly faces at me.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

That brings in the next bug - if I DOW Japan I am not declaring war on Manchuko. Seems that this would have to be edited in the game, otherwise the Japanese could always retreat to Manchuko and make silly faces at me.

I will do that no matter.

Making silly faces that is.

 

[unmerged(8114)]

This is not intented to restart the discussion for this game, but for the next one:

I have been thinking about the "killer-stacks" a bit, but I cannot see the problem.

So let's say Germany sends 12 Stuka to bombard my troops. I send 12 fighters to intercept those Stukas. Germany can now either:
- wait a few hours until he can withdraw the Stukas, and taking some losses
- send in his own fighter. Those fighters would have a serious penalty in the air-fight, because of the already present stukas.

So if I manage to have a stack of (say 12) fighters within range of all my frontline provinces there shouldn't be too much problem?

That's the theory. I don't know how it will look in practise, because I am unsure of the performce of Stukas against interceptors. But if 12 Stukas + 12 Interceptors lose against 12 (equally teched) interceptors, I think we don't need any stacking rules.

Question for the "reality-fans": To have ~1200 air-units covering half of the eastern front shouldn't be too unrealistic, should it? Please take into account that this game works on an abstract level - so even if in game you see two large stacks clashing this should probably represent all air-action over a large part of the front. However, I agree that this abstraction is rather badly implemented.

 

[unmerged(12328)]

Just my 2 cents, i play a lotta MP games and using tons of aircraft is a necessary German strat, if they dont they lose.



The only real bug aircraft have is that you can basically continue to tac bomb at near same effectiveness at 5 org as at max org, which means u can reinforce aircraft and wait at most 2 days and they bomb just as effecitvely as at full org. This adds the upside of retreating quickly to prevent wholesale losses when interceptors hit them.


A quick fix would be to say that in order to launch a stack the majority of the aircraft must have at least 10 org ( launch for offensive operations )


- Seleucus

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Completely wrong. In the game we had 50 german airunits based around El Alamein ...yes 5 000 aircraft in that patch of desert. By using these stacks, the British defences at Alexandria, well over 20 divisions at full dig in including 3 panzer, 5 mot and 5 inf with AT were *slaughtered* even before the 12 panzer stack under Manstein arrived. To say the effects are negligible would be *very* wrong. Simple fact is that airpower used like that kills any resemblance of historicity and it kills any attempt at gameplay.

If you mean that someone used stack of 50 airunits, then it couldn't do anything to single militia division, because all those units would be fighting at 1% effiecency and amount to half a plane.

I wonder why do you plan introducing totally unmanageable houserules when they aren't needed in first place.

 

[unmerged(3352)]

If you mean that someone used stack of 50 airunits, then it couldn't do anything to single militia division, because all those units would be fighting at 1% effiecency and amount to half a plane.

The 50 airunits were grouped in stacks of 10-12.

 

[boromir]

Currently, I don't see a problem with aircraft "killer stacks". Both sides use a lot of air power in our MP games. Its a good strategy. In many ways you are forced to do so anyway, due to manpower shortages. Its actually pretty good for gameplay, adding an extra dimension to the game. Making planes weaker would just make them useless and remove a lot from the game.

Simply put, some countries must invest a lot in air power to survive. This is true particularly for the UK and Germany. Without air, the UK cannot survive, because it cannot protect its fleet and its armies and prevent an invasion. Its a bad mistake if you give the other side total air superiority, which I think is pretty historical.

That said, there are a few issues with air combat that could use a little fixing. The major one is the relocation of aircraft. Its silly that Germany can move aircraft to attack the UK one week and North Africa 2 days later. This leads to your 50 aircraft in El Alamein problem. I guess the simplest fix for this would be one already mentioned - allow offensive operations only at a certain org level, and perhaps make org regain slower.

Its also a pity that the big plane retreat bug has still not been fixed in 1.06.

 

[unmerged(3352)]

I have been thinking about the "killer-stacks" a bit, but I cannot see the problem.

So let's say Germany sends 12 Stuka to bombard my troops. I send 12 fighters to intercept those Stukas. Germany can now either:
- wait a few hours until he can withdraw the Stukas, and taking some losses
- send in his own fighter. Those fighters would have a serious penalty in the air-fight, because of the already present stukas.

So if I manage to have a stack of (say 12) fighters within range of all my frontline provinces there shouldn't be too much problem?

Suppose you have more than one frontline province, suppose you have two frontline provinces that arent even remotely close to eachother. For your tactic to work, you will need 24 fighters then. If you have three such provinces you will need 36 fighters.

Your opponent, no doubt also plans for this situation, so he has got two 12-fighter-stacks ready to intercept province A. He sends in 12 dive bombers, and when your 12 fighters arrive to intercept, they are in turn intercepted by first one stack of 12 fighters, and then if the need arises, 12 more.

Maybe you choose to reinforce the area with your reserve stack of 12 fighters...who knows. Maybe he decides to reinforce the area with his reserve stack of 12 fighters...who knows.

What we DO know is that in this scenario, HoI has been reduced to a battle of fighter killerstacks. And we DO know that the loser of that battle is doomed because the winner will then unleash his 12-divebomber-stacks and obliterate any attempt at defence.

Are we having fun yet?


I have said many many times that the issue here is NOT "how do you stop the 12-fighter-stacks" I know full well how you stop them. The issue is do we want the game to turn into aircraft-building-tycoon? The issue is do we want completely ridiculous and ahistorical tactics?

 

[boromir]

btw, perhaps you guys should consider playing Starfire-mod MP games sometime. Specifically designed with MP in mind, unlike vanilla HOI and other mods. Supplies and reinforcements cost a lot there. This makes plane losses pretty costly, same for tank losses etc. The mod also makes some attempts at making tanks less cost-effective - from our MP experience in vanilla HOI, tank stacks are the ultimate weapon, and infantry mostly a waste of manpower to build, unfortunately. Also a lot of stuff rebalanced, tech rushing less likely, minor country armies somewhat useful as allies etc.

 

[unmerged(8114)]

I have said many many times that the issue here is NOT "how do you stop the 12-fighter-stacks" I know full well how you stop them.

But it comes down to "how do you stop the 12-fighter-stack" - at a lower cost than the opposing player has to pay.

I am currently working on a strategy to stop German aircraft with a significant lower investment than Germany has to do for building the aircraft. Not giving any details yet of course. I don't even know if the strategy will work. I am still doing some testing, we will see. But if that strategy works, the problem of killer-stacks will go away all by itself.
That is my prefered solution to any problem - you see a strategy you don't like - you come up with a counter that is cheaper - problem solved.

Only if after intensive playing (at least 3 games with various people) it turns out there is no such counterstrategie, I think one should start thinking about a new houserule.

The issue is do we want the game to turn into aircraft-building-tycoon? The issue is do we want completely ridiculous and ahistorical tactics?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: I can understand that not everyone plays HoI in the battle-of-minds-and-strategies way as I do. A lot people are in for the historic background / simulation game. But I think I made it quite clear that the idea of this gamegroup is more chess-like than history-like. If someone wants to replay historic battles this is the wrong gamegroup.
So in summary - limiting someones options should only be allowed if he found the uncounterable uber-strategie that is only counterable with itself. Or if it gives an unfair advantage (e.g. neutral convoys to occupied terrrtory).

 

[unmerged(3352)]

But I think I made it quite clear that the idea of this gamegroup is more chess-like than history-like.

Eh, no, actually you have never said anything even remotely close to that. I know this because a phrase like that would definitively have caught my attention. So if that has been your intention you have not made that quite clear...quite the opposite infact.

Leaving that aside,

limiting someones options should only be allowed if he found the uncounterable uber-strategie that is only counterable with itself.

That is a correct description of what the aircraft exploit is. The only way to counter air killerstacks is to build your own air killerstacks.

 

[unmerged(3352)]

One thing on the German MP issue.

Why do you think Germany has relatively low MP? Do you think that was added to encourage players to build ridiculous numbers of airunits? or was it put there to put the German player in the same situation as Germany historically found itself in?

I remember a Swedish AAR from way back in 1.02 or 1.03 where the Swedish player conquered the entire world by building air-killerstacks. "Because of the low MP" the player was "forced" to build airunits instead of landunits. Then he used his airunits to kill everything, and he had one landunit walking around in all those empty provinces scooping them up.

That sounds just like chess...doesnt it.

 

[unmerged(8114)]

That is a correct description of what the aircraft exploit is. The only way to counter air killerstacks is to build your own air killerstacks.

Wait for Barbarossa and then we shall see ... . I am quite optimistic that I developed a good counter strategy.

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Wait for Barbarossa and then we shall see ... . I am quite optimistic that I developed a good counter strategy.

And would this clever counter work for naval units aswell?

 

[unmerged(8114)]

Eh, no, actually you have never said anything even remotely close to that. I know this because a phrase like that would definitively have caught my attention. So if that has been your intention you have not made that quite clear...quite the opposite infact.

Leaving that aside,

I thought my dislike of any house rules made my intentions clear. In the original post I stated:

In the first game there will be no houserules, and later on only added if this is considered necessary by every regular player of the group.

It seems I couldn't really communicate my point. So I am sorry if you, in your opinion, now ended up wasting your time with a game group playing HoI a style you don't like.

I am actually quite happy with the current game-group.

 

[juv95hrn]

"Wait for Barbarossa and then we shall see ... . I am quite optimistic that I developed a good counter strategy."

Unlike Italy that has no counter strategy at all to future American B-25 hordes threathening our glorious empire. But I'm a happy dictator anyway!

Or as Il Duce proclaimed in a recent "famous last word" radio speech, apparantly picked up by the signal interception department from the BBC:

"We shall fight in the beach provinces, we shall fight in the city provinces, with or without urban terrain, and we shall fight in the mountain/hill provinces and we shall NEVER surrender!"

All in Italian obvioulsy but here translated by yours truly...

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Well there sure is alot of roleplaying here for a "chess like"-game.

I should probably get into character too then...

*puts on prom dress-queen outfit and starts roaming around the board smacking down peasants*

 

[unmerged(8114)]

Well there sure is alot of roleplaying here for a "chess like"-game.

I should probably get into character too then...

*puts on prom dress-queen outfit and starts roaming around the board smacking down peasants*

You won't get me with your rather unfair polemic post into a quickly-turning-ugly discussion about what I meant by chess-like play style.
Try enjoying the game. If you can't - it would really be a pity if you decide to leave the game-group, but I am sure people would understand.