Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Man yours, and others' guns! ...Sundays 8PM-11PM EST
Post Reply
Alex_brunius
General
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:50 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94287Post Alex_brunius
Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:47 am

greyhoundgames wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:32 pm
At that point, the UK had no army (they had been disbanded for xp...) and re-training started Jan 37."
I don't want to shame anyone or appear as a backseat driver here but IMHO If you do exploits like disbanding most of the army or all but a single division early on, then you deserve to be attacked early and lose the war.

Disbanding the army in a war game about preparing for war to gain some small benefit should be a very bad option and I am happy if it doesn't pay off.


I will probably add more the restrictions in the mod in the next version as well to make it take much longer to gain back your army size if you choose to disband most of it. In my groups we have general rules against exploits and both the groups ( since we play more rigid historical rules ) consider disbanding everything but a single large division as a clear exploit of game mechanics in ways not intended by the developers.

User avatar
harbringerxv8
Field Marshall
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94288Post harbringerxv8
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:21 am

I'm pretty sure the only reason it's not against the rules here is because of its obvious ineffectiveness. I knew that it had been discussed, but due my misinterpretation of the strat (I thought you would simply refrain from building *more* troops, rather than disband your entire army), I was genuinely shocked once I heard that it had been used, and the extent of the disbanding.

I almost don't want to ban it because it is such a horrifically bad idea, but given the fact that it's clearly an exploit (however counterproductive) it should be restricted in order to encourage historical play.
-Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte

User avatar
aphrochine
Field Marshall
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:38 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ US

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94290Post aphrochine
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:54 am

I played Fleet Battles when I was 14. It scared me through much of high school.
Image


"A good plan, violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -Patton
"...a bad plan, is always a bad plan." -aphro

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94292Post Bill
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:04 am

harbringerxv8 wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:21 am
it should be restricted in order to encourage historical play.
An alternate perspective is:

"Allow players to make decisions...if those decisions open up a chink in their armor, the enemy has permission to shove a misericorde into it."
misericorde.jpg
misericorde.jpg (118.64 KiB) Viewed 453 times

mikeydz
Field Marshall
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:25 am

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94293Post mikeydz
Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:30 pm

Alex_brunius wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:47 am
greyhoundgames wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:32 pm
At that point, the UK had no army (they had been disbanded for xp...) and re-training started Jan 37."
I don't want to shame anyone or appear as a backseat driver here but IMHO If you do exploits like disbanding most of the army or all but a single division early on, then you deserve to be attacked early and lose the war.

Disbanding the army in a war game about preparing for war to gain some small benefit should be a very bad option and I am happy if it doesn't pay off.
Just for clarification, the UK didn't lose because it disbanded her army, it lost because the early war plan the Axis designed is very difficult to defend against unless the UK specifically plans for it starting Jan 1, 1936. And supposedly that plan was designed and implemented before the Axis knew the UK disbanded it's army, so 1 Unit training was moot for the purpose of the outcome of the game.

Though I actually think it should be banned. It does give a small advantage, and if we are going to prevent an early war, that means it's much easier to implement with less risk than normal. The only reason I utilized it is when I first read about it, I didn't see any any posts calling it an exploit, and in fact it seemed to be implied it was kind of part of a standard thing to do. I figured I was actually behind the times as far as how I set my early game planning (which isn't surprising... :D )

I will probably add more the restrictions in the mod in the next version as well to make it take much longer to gain back your army size if you choose to disband most of it. In my groups we have general rules against exploits and both the groups ( since we play more rigid historical rules ) consider disbanding everything but a single large division as a clear exploit of game mechanics in ways not intended by the developers.
Obviously I have not tested the ramifications, but one way to address that would be if it's possible to change the early deployment percentage from 20% to something like 50%. The key rebuilding "quickly" (It still takes months to rebuild the UK army to a normal size under current mechanics) is to be able to deploy early and start another batch.

But honestly, if the only reason you are making changes are to address this exploit, I would say don't. There are legitimate times when you might need to rapidly try and rebuild an army that has noting to do with using 1 unit training. This should be restricted under a groups general house rules.
Image

Alex_brunius
General
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:50 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94296Post Alex_brunius
Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:16 am

mikeydz wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:30 pm
Just for clarification, the UK didn't lose because it disbanded her army, it lost because the early war plan the Axis designed is very difficult to defend against unless the UK specifically plans for it starting Jan 1, 1936. And supposedly that plan was designed and implemented before the Axis knew the UK disbanded it's army, so 1 Unit training was moot for the purpose of the outcome of the game.

Though I actually think it should be banned. It does give a small advantage, and if we are going to prevent an early war, that means it's much easier to implement with less risk than normal. The only reason I utilized it is when I first read about it, I didn't see any any posts calling it an exploit, and in fact it seemed to be implied it was kind of part of a standard thing to do. I figured I was actually behind the times as far as how I set my early game planning (which isn't surprising... :D )
Yeah, alot of the common multiplayer "meta" is very strange in how it works and not at all set for historical playing. Things like how south africa is supposed to build heavy tanks to defend El Alamein, or how Canada and Hungary are supposed to take control of the entire faction Airforces... I had alot of arguments on the forums about disbanding the army being an exploit or not believe me. :grin: Normally the nations that gains the most from disbanding and training single division to farm XP in "meta" games as such are Soviet and USA when the rules ensure that they cannot be attacked early and give them a magic shield so to speak.

Even if the disbanding was not the main cause of the successful Seelöwe I can see how it could have contributed unless you were able to get all your infantry equipment into fully regularly trained divisions back before the invasion happened.

mikeydz wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:30 pm
Obviously I have not tested the ramifications, but one way to address that would be if it's possible to change the early deployment percentage from 20% to something like 50%. The key rebuilding "quickly" (It still takes months to rebuild the UK army to a normal size under current mechanics) is to be able to deploy early and start another batch.

But honestly, if the only reason you are making changes are to address this exploit, I would say don't. There are legitimate times when you might need to rapidly try and rebuild an army that has noting to do with using 1 unit training. This should be restricted under a groups general house rules.
Nah this event isn't the only reason, just the catalyst that moved it a bit higher on my todo list :)

I think HoI4 is way too kind in how fast you can go from no army to a massive Army since you can always deploy a minimum of 100k men or X% of your army whichever is larger ( don't recall what X is at the moment, but it's too large ), as well as how you can deploy them after just 18 days.

Rough plan:
- Change 20% minimum deploy to 40% and give Mass Assault a larger discount ( current -10% discount maybe -20% or 25% )
- Change minimum cap of how many units can be in training to from 100k -> 25k
- Lower how much % of your army you can have in training ( so that if you disband everything you need a few rounds of 25k first ).

Should be 3 defines fixes IIRC so pretty quick to fix.

User avatar
aphrochine
Field Marshall
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:38 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ US

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94300Post aphrochine
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:45 am

I will reiterate a few points.

I skeptical of the claim that greyhound's late '37 Sealion is undefendable.

UK should be planning Defense from Jan 1 1936...in all places...in all ways. That's literally it's primary purpose in HOI4. UK is not the industrial powerhouse of the allies, and should not be played as such.

Any UK player should play the entire game scared sh!tless of a Sealion at any time. Remember the last game, when we thought Grey was going to push across the channel in like 1944?? Yes, that stress me out and I wasnt even playing UK. Sealion something that should be on a UK player's mind at all times. Like Poland should be thinking about Danzig...all the time. SOV should be thinking about Barbarossa all the time. China, sino-japanese war all the time. etc etc etc. At some point the GER army is about 6 provinces away from your capital and will stay there through much of the war.


My message to any future UK players....

Fear and prepare for...at all times...a Sealion. If successful, it ends your game immediately.
Image


"A good plan, violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -Patton
"...a bad plan, is always a bad plan." -aphro

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94303Post ummd
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:22 am

aphrochine wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:45 am
I will reiterate a few points.

I skeptical of the claim that greyhound's late '37 Sealion is undefendable.

UK should be planning Defense from Jan 1 1936...in all places...in all ways. That's literally it's primary purpose in HOI4. UK is not the industrial powerhouse of the allies, and should not be played as such.

Any UK player should play the entire game scared sh!tless of a Sealion at any time. Remember the last game, when we thought Grey was going to push across the channel in like 1944?? Yes, that stress me out and I wasnt even playing UK. Sealion something that should be on a UK player's mind at all times. Like Poland should be thinking about Danzig...all the time. SOV should be thinking about Barbarossa all the time. China, sino-japanese war all the time. etc etc etc. At some point the GER army is about 6 provinces away from your capital and will stay there through much of the war.


My message to any future UK players....

Fear and prepare for...at all times...a Sealion. If successful, it ends your game immediately.
I hear you, I agree in principle and was skeptical as well. However I would suggest loading the Sep 37 save and looking at the naval and air situation, Italy in particular.

I would like to test whether Gibraltar is defensible on this save. Perhaps tonight or tomorrow. I will be in Blacksburg, VA on Sunday so might not be able to connect (Altaris, do they have internet in the South? )

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94304Post greyhoundgames
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:37 am

Im not sure if our save is the best thing to measure stuff with since there is not a strong UK air or ground force?

mikeydz
Field Marshall
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:25 am

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94306Post mikeydz
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:59 am

greyhoundgames wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:37 am
Im not sure if our save is the best thing to measure stuff with since there is not a strong UK air or ground force?
The land forces is mainly irrelevant since even without doing 1 unit training, a good portion of those divisions which were disbanded would have been moved off to cover other fronts and not been on the home islands anyway.

And for the Air Force, there’s nothing that I could have done to build an Air Force to challenge what the Axis can bring to bear in early ‘37 in a all out assault.

I don’t think Aphro realizes that the Axis went 100 percent all in with the plan to crush the UK. The only chance against what the Axis pulled off is to completely turtle in the Home Islands and abandoning everything else.
Image

User avatar
harbringerxv8
Field Marshall
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94307Post harbringerxv8
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:06 am

I think it's important to remember that the ability to construct airforces in MtG is much easier than before, due to the lack of oil needed in the production phase. This limits the number of factories you lose in trade. So I think we need to readjust our thinking as to what constitutes an "acceptable" defensive airforce. The number os going to be higher than what we're used to.
-Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94308Post Bill
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:20 am

ummd wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:22 am
aphrochine wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:45 am
...

Any UK player should play the entire game scared sh!tless of a Sealion at any time. ...

My message to any future UK players....

Fear and prepare for...at all times...a Sealion. If successful, it ends your game immediately.
I hear you, I agree in principle and was skeptical as well. However I would suggest loading the Sep 37 save and looking at the naval and air situation, Italy in particular.

I would like to test whether Gibraltar is defensible on this save. Perhaps tonight or tomorrow. I will be in Blacksburg, VA on Sunday so might not be able to connect (Altaris, do they have internet in the South? )
@UMMD, if you ("You. Second Person. Plural. UMMD + Aphrochine) are meeting up to review the end of game save, may I join you? (75% chance I'll be available tonight and tomorrow).

(would others be allowed to join, too?)

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94309Post ummd
Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:17 am

harbringerxv8 wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:06 am
I think it's important to remember that the ability to construct airforces in MtG is much easier than before, due to the lack of oil needed in the production phase. This limits the number of factories you lose in trade. So I think we need to readjust our thinking as to what constitutes an "acceptable" defensive airforce. The number os going to be higher than what we're used to.
It will be higher, but for both sides. The UK is still time and MIC limited. UK doesn't start with 36 fighter tech so has to build up tooling bonus. GER can pump out 36 FTR at full tooling from Jan 1.

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94310Post ummd
Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:18 am

Bill wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:20 am
ummd wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:22 am
aphrochine wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:45 am
...

Any UK player should play the entire game scared sh!tless of a Sealion at any time. ...

My message to any future UK players....

Fear and prepare for...at all times...a Sealion. If successful, it ends your game immediately.
I hear you, I agree in principle and was skeptical as well. However I would suggest loading the Sep 37 save and looking at the naval and air situation, Italy in particular.

I would like to test whether Gibraltar is defensible on this save. Perhaps tonight or tomorrow. I will be in Blacksburg, VA on Sunday so might not be able to connect (Altaris, do they have internet in the South? )
@UMMD, if you ("You. Second Person. Plural. UMMD + Aphrochine) are meeting up to review the end of game save, may I join you? (75% chance I'll be available tonight and tomorrow).

(would others be allowed to join, too?)
Sure, we will need 3 people (UK,ITA,FRA).

User avatar
harbringerxv8
Field Marshall
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94311Post harbringerxv8
Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:42 am

ummd wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:17 am
harbringerxv8 wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:06 am
I think it's important to remember that the ability to construct airforces in MtG is much easier than before, due to the lack of oil needed in the production phase. This limits the number of factories you lose in trade. So I think we need to readjust our thinking as to what constitutes an "acceptable" defensive airforce. The number os going to be higher than what we're used to.
It will be higher, but for both sides. The UK is still time and MIC limited. UK doesn't start with 36 fighter tech so has to build up tooling bonus. GER can pump out 36 FTR at full tooling from Jan 1.
Exactly. The UK needs to compensate for this, even if war starts in 38/39. The number of fighters required is, imo, simply higher than it was pre MtG. This will probably require air production from the commonwealth, which is something we haven't had in the last two games.
-Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests