|
From my experience you will pretty much lose as USSR from Barbarossa if you don't prepare carefully.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
I really hope EU4 has good multiplayer support. It is fun to play these games with The small campaign-type scenarios were also fun to play multiplayer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Does anyone else have a Japan that just ruins everyone's poo poo in HoI3? Japan typically defeats nationalist China before WW2 even starts, and when it does start, will quickly set about conquering southeast Asia and Australia. In my current game Japan has conquered the entire Pacific and India with the exception of the Philippines before 1942. They recently brought the United States into the war and are now conquering the Philippines and minor US islands with no signs of slowing down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
Honestly if this turns out to be for EU4 as Sengoku was for Crusaders, then EU4 is going to be pretty good. Like a previous poster said, a whole lot of different units to build. There wasn't much difference between some of them either, like the Guards and Grenadiers were identical except for like one stat. It was also difficult to try and recruit large numbers of units, I couldn't find a way to recruit other than clicking on each city and making a queue. To make armies I would just put all of my units into one province and then sub-divide down to like 15k equally stacked units. Then I would siege the cities in a sort of leapfrog way, using multiple stacks to hit cities with a large fort and using a few armies to attack enemy armies cutting off supplies or reinforce defending armies. All in all it was pretty okay but without a lot of depth. Managing your country is nonexistant, you simply have to keep enough income to build new ships. Diplomacy is a little lacking too, the entire game seems to be showing off the new combat, which I liked. You can smash your troops together and do pretty well, but if you take the time to put certain types of units together you unlock different tactics your generals can choose from that will improve different stats. Naval combat was severely lacking when compared to the army, 4 types of ships, 1 type of transport, and no reason to build anything other than first rate ships of the line. Guards should have been a promotion type thing for infantry/cavalry with enough experience, same thing for grenadiers, maybe not directly recruited. Change your unit type in exchange for experience.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:I seem to recall a mod that randomized trade goods in the Americas on the premise that the player has a massive advantage of knowing where the gold etc. are in advance. It's a good idea: people can mock the English for thinking that there was gold in Virginia but they had no way of knowing in advance. Who knows, the gold might be in Virginia this time around! This may have been a mod, but it is also in the latest patch. When colonizing new territory it is randomized from a set of possible trade goods. Once when playing as Russia I had like 6 Gold mines out in Siberia, another I had none.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:EU4's battle AI is still incredibly frustrating. Allied troops will still happily let all of your soldiers get slaughtered as they sit around sieging useless provinces right next to major battles even though your forces combined could repel the enemy. And then once your forces get defeated of course theirs gets slaughtered in turn. Maybe one day this issue will be fixed in Paradox's games and the AI will actually co-operate with the player in warfare, but it's not in this iteration, which is a really big disappointment. I kind of like the battle AI, I had an army that would stay behind and deal with rebels as the ottomans when I went to war and I found that everytime I went to war my allies would basically all blob up and attach themselves to the army that stayed behind to attack the rebels, so I would just send that one to the front instead. Maybe the AI will only attach units if it won't go over supply in an area?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
I played a lot of HoI2 with my friends and really the only thing that was bad about it was the huge desync issues and they seem to have done a good job with multiplayer CK2 and EU4. Also, how you could destroy a nation by encircling it's capital to cut off supplies to its entire army, that a little broken. So I'm really excited for some 32-man HoI4, the two dev diaries so far have been pretty interesting but my biggest question is why can't I buy/play it yet?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
If I learn LUA and make the change myself can I have his job?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Are brigades worth it in Darkest Hour? It was kind of cool in HoI2 to sort of customize your units until you realized it was all useless except for a few of them that were marginally better.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Spreading out your IC in all your high infrastructure provinces always seemed like the best thing to do in HOI2 and 3. I think having your factories spread out would be a massive strain on your transport capacity or whatever it's called now. A. IRL one factory doesn't just make everything, some make parts and these parts need to be shipped to the assembly lines. This causes delays, the only way to avoid delays would be to have a sufficiently large train/truck infrastructure to cover the distance. B. The finished war materiel needs to get to the front, and its heavy. Building 10 railways to different provinces with one factory each is much more expensive than 1 railway to 10 different factories in a location. It should be a bad idea unless you are supremely worried about strategic bombing or have sufficient infrastructure to support your factories being all over the place, at which point your infrastructure becomes the target of bombing. It should be ideal for production purposes to clump your factories in places of high infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
I think maybe you should be able to encourage nations into coalitions if your relations with them is high enough and their relations with the target is low enough or a rival, that way you could build a coalition of the willing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Has there been a discussion about multiplayer? I was playing EU4 with a friend as the same country and I thought it would be a fun thing to have in HoI4. It allows new players to see whats going on and only focus on one thing such as the eastern front or something. It can become a clusterfuck if you try it with more than 2 people however. I thought it might be interesting to split up functions like one person plays the head of state and he can choose production/diplo/tech etc. and distribute troops to one or more generals, it would emphasize teamwork and coordination. At the very least I hope we don't go backwards with multiplayer features a la TW:Rome 2. I was really impressed by the jump in stability from EU3 -> CK2 -> EU4 and hope the trend continues. PhantomZero fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
It was fine if you wanted to spend an hour every time you started a new game to set it up. That and removing all the leaders from the existing structure so you could move them where you wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:I posted it in the EU4 thread, but I don't think it fits. Your link just goes to a map, but based on the context of your message its a mod based on the internet? Religion could represent web hosts. Every site has to have a web host and people's opinions vary wildly based on which ones to choose. Or maybe a better idea is it could represent the Internet Service Providers themselves for similar reasons. That might make it more fun, religion of Comcast, AT&T, Cox, etc. You could even have heretical ISPs pop up and represent some smaller players (Wide Open West) and have a big reformation in 202#-204# when Google finally becomes an ISP. Sites with the most ISP Lobbyists get to control the direction the company takes? Or can kick other sites off the network. (Excommunication) Similarly, Operating Systems the web servers run on can instill a certain level of "fervor" out of people, but you end up with only the big 3. Unix however would be funny due to all the different heresy's. The leading operating system suffers from large amounts of "hacks" due to the popularity of the systems. PhantomZero fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jan 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Yeah it was a pretty big flaw that you could just encircle the capital and cut all other units out of supply, as if there were no other supply depots, or that the supply wouldnt simply go someplace else. I hope HOI4 still has supply bases and such, but it has to be uncovered by your spies and you cant simply cheese it so easily like you could in HOI2.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Drone posted:Was Armageddon ever as fun in multiplayer as it looked? Those were back in the days when Paradox's netcode was basically unplayable (I only ever got one HoI2 game to work in multiplayer over Hamachi and it died after like 20 minutes). Kind of, it didn't have too many desyncing issue because there weren't any events, but it wasn't really balanced well and playing against one person who was really good would ruin everyones poo poo by teching aircraft carriers to hell and back. But fun, like a more detailed mid-game risk where everyone has kind of blobbed up.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I don't think it would be too hard to make Vicky fun with the new design philosophy, they just need to make it a little more clear what the hell is going on and how you can push your country around to see the effects, also imperialism/colonialism. The biggest thing from the new philosophy is stable multiplayer, which would be great for vicky2
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
RPS Article posted:In both of the games we played, the Americans were on the scene before the Axis powers had even begun their conquest of Europe, responding like a well-trained gundog to the first shots fired. That’s partly because a human player will almost always WANT to be involved in European affairs, pushing everything toward intervention even before the war starts. Wasn't this kind of true to history though? FDR wanted to get America involved but there was too much resistance from the American public to get involved in "European" affairs. It took foreign troops landing on US soil for people to want to go to war. That difficulty should be reflective of the US players experience. But that might make it boring if the USA player has nothing to do but sit there waiting for political points to accrue or whatever. Maybe the US player should have to deal with a lot more internal issues like the Great Depression that was going on at the time? I don't know how you would represent that in a game like HoI4 though. The player has to build a certain number of infrastructure all over the US, otherwise the new deal fails and costs the US player manpower or something? When the US enters the war it shouldn't be with an army they have been building tanks, airplanes, etc. for since 1936. They should have to build it mostly after entering the war. This kind of railroads and prevents the USA player from doing anything kind of alt-history though. Maybe another solution to the Great Depression happens when the player has Alf Landon win in 1936 instead of roosevelt by running on a campaign of war with mexico to kickstart the economy? Or maybe being railroaded a little bit is just a consequence of playing a Major Nation? If you want to go crazy play a minor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
The civ games have long included a toggle-able clock in their games. I think you can even set alarms.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:Loving the ability to shift your government type around. Sounds way easier and more interesting than it was in HOI3 and probably HOI2? It sounds easier since in HOI3 you couldnt really do it at all and in HOI2 is was mostly driven by events and slider changes every so often right? It should still be pretty difficult to go from one extreme to the other. It should be pretty difficult to get the USA to go Facist or Communist without seriously hindering it in some way so that way you cant just get the USSR/Germany and USA to team up for global domination. I think I am most looking forward to big games with other players. I like the ability to pick and choose different characters for different roles on your cabinet, similar to EU4's advisers. Seems like it might give you a lot of choice depending on play style, hopefully there won't be too many obviously better or must-have ones. Civ 5 is masterful when it comes to picking one from a multitude of tiny bonuses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 03:50
|
|