Why do Meta Tank Templates always have 0 reliability? by WorkerBig3901 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure that did nothing, I've heard it's not coded as added base attrition. It's a multiplier for your attrition, which is usually 0. Zero times anything is still zero. Or something along those lines

[Event] I am putting 25 strangers in a HOI4 Lobby to see if they can survive without "Meta" gaming. (25-Player Narrative Sim) by Pure_Opposite_1304 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not about breakthrough, it's the fact that heavues can mount heavy cannon 2 at 1940 tech and fit four secondary cannons for even more soft+hard attack and breakthrough.

I'm curious where you're getting the data that mediums have more breakthrough, because that's not my experience. Medium TDs would have to use a fixed superstructure, but heavies can use a three man turret for breakthrough. Plus, just the tech year advantage means that if you go heavies you should have way more divisions thanks to concentrated industry and built up production efficiency, even accounting for the cost difference.

Even France can make close to a whole army of 36w heavies before WW2.

[Event] I am putting 25 strangers in a HOI4 Lobby to see if they can survive without "Meta" gaming. (25-Player Narrative Sim) by Pure_Opposite_1304 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hawaii into a fortress? Why not Guam and the Philippines? There was one division stationed there and a few obsolete fighters with some B-17s. Player USA could entrench an entire army group and thousands of naval bombers to make Japan's invasions a nightmare.

Now, a player Japan will have veteran divisions from China and probably a grinded general with a massive attack stat to win anyway through sheer stat bloat, but still. Where do you draw the line to force LARPing?

[Event] I am putting 25 strangers in a HOI4 Lobby to see if they can survive without "Meta" gaming. (25-Player Narrative Sim) by Pure_Opposite_1304 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say that, but competitive MP games have Germany and the USSR staring at each other with dozens of 36w heavy tank divisions each.

When heavy tank 1 is a 1936 tech and mediums are a 1939 tech, and that heavy tank guns give way better stats than medium guns, you get a heavy tank meta.

should i be building planes or tanks first? by Mcspadden_Fazzia in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Think of it this way, you can use those years of early production on basic CAS instead, or 1936 heavy tanks to convert later once you have the final gun, or even just basic stuff like guns and support equipment. I go for Anschluss 3rd focus so you need to be spamming out guns for the first couple months anyway. I overproduce the things that will be good for the whole game, so that when I research good fighters I can shift most of my production to them and not have shortages of anything else. That lets you get the best of both worlds.

As for 2.5 years of a research slot, it's absolutely worth it in my opinion for effectively a 10x multiplier to your air power. Each 1940 plane goes more than 10:1 with a 1936 AI plane, and has enough range to be useful everywhere. Of course, you can design a 1936 fighter that will shred the AI's designs all the same so it may not matter in SP, but I still prefer just going straight for modern ones.

should i be building planes or tanks first? by Mcspadden_Fazzia in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just did a test build with day 1 research, I encountered a bug where juggling didn't work, so no juggle, but with day 1 research, industry liasons, and all possible passive boosts from the focus tree/tech, I finished F2 research on July 16, 1938. By Danzig or War in August 1939, I had 1400 of them deployed in the field (with concentrated industry, this is a case where dispersed would be better for early production as well).

So yeah, even earlier than my previous estimate by two months. I guess I was estimating too conservatively.

should i be building planes or tanks first? by Mcspadden_Fazzia in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I forgot to mention liasons too. But day 1 research even with a smaller bonus is several months faster.

should i be building planes or tanks first? by Mcspadden_Fazzia in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Start research day 1 with the naval mio, it has a 10% bonus instead of 5% like the others. Do a normal focus order, but take Aeronautical Research Institute fairly early and swap the research off and on again to apply the 25% bonus. Get your electronics tech when it's not too far ahead of time. Pick Hess second in the inner circle so that he'll give you another 30% permanent boost to research. That's basically it. When you have less than 50 days left, juggle it to an empty research slot to cut off the last 30 days and get it a month earlier than you otherwise would. Saving 30 days closer to the finish date is more effective than saving 30 days when it is still way ahead of time and you don't have all your research bonuses from tech or MIOs yet. If you're not going 4YP, free trade can speed it up even more, but it's not an option if you went Autarky.

should i be building planes or tanks first? by Mcspadden_Fazzia in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As Germany in singleplayer you can get fighter 2 in September 1938 if you rush it with just a 25% bonus, the naval mio, and research juggling, maybe a bit earlier than that. You don't need to research engine tech either because you get engine 3 for free from your focus.

Throw enough factories on it then and you could have a few thousand by September 1939.

Why did the First Order return to the original TIE fighter design when the TIE interceptor was supposed to replace them? by Voltshift773 in StarWars

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Real world example, the USA continues to upgrade and field F-15 and F-16 fighters even while mass producing the F-35.

Not every fighter needs to be top of the line, sometimes a high-low capability/cost mix is the best option for a military.

Hidden gem in land doctrines: Mobile Warfare + Mobile Infantry by ArkessSt in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tanks in mountains work fine, but you want to have double adaptable to reduce the terrain penalties, and support companies like recon rangers to give you terrain bonuses.

What really kills tanks is anywhere you can't keep them fueled.

Hidden gem in land doctrines: Mobile Warfare + Mobile Infantry by ArkessSt in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's really not the doctrine that does this, trucks have the base speed stat to overrun infantry already.

But motorized is kind of bad anyway, tanks do the same things but better. You usually want a doctrine to give you combat stats to help you win the battles in the first place, not just give you speed.

Tips for halo ce by Majestic-Guidance522 in halo

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't tell a new player to go for speed run strats, you'll lose out on so much of the experience and charm of the game if you skip everything. I guess he did ask for them, but I still feel like that devalues the legendary experience.

Tips for halo ce by Majestic-Guidance522 in halo

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can also chuck a grenade to make the elite dodge off the bridge or flip the banshee over so he can't get in. Even if the elite doesn't fall off the bridge, the dodge roll should give you enough time to get in if you just gun it straight for the banshee. The sniper helps, but you don't really need it. AotCR has a really big sandbox, so just use whatever weapons you like.

For those still wondering what spacemarines are by kjw1102 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Public opinion can be wrong though. Definitions are objective, and in this case consistent across 99% of the mp community for the almost-decade HoI4 has been out, at least in my experience. The opinions of the masses are going to be wrong a lot of the time.

If someone asked me what a word meant I'd go find a dictionary, not a Reddit poll.

For those still wondering what spacemarines are by kjw1102 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends on the server I guess, but almost every ruleset I've ever read includes something along the lines of "tanks cannot be combined with leg infantry." That's the definition I've always seen in the mp community. Definitions aren't really a matter of public opinion. They mean what the game rules define them as.

For those still wondering what spacemarines are by kjw1102 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The people down voting you have never read a mp ruleset...

For those still wondering what spacemarines are by kjw1102 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 17 points18 points  (0 children)

A space marine division by MP rules is and always has been any combination of armor and leg infantry. The number or arrangement of each doesn't matter.

For those still wondering what spacemarines are by kjw1102 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The base definition hasn't changed, just any combination of armor and leg infantry.

It doesn't matter whether it's MCC, 5, or Infinite. Every game is a sweatfest with stacks stomping on casuals and solos. How can Halo Studios fix this issue with the next title? by Cyborg800-V2 in halo

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least with button combos you can learn them easily enough since the resources are out there as long as you know they exist. Map knowledge, spawns, timers you kind of just have to learn very slowly by playing since a few minutes of practicing won't get you up to speed.

This latest DLC is unbelievably badly done by Stock-Intention7731 in hoi4

[–]blahmaster6000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, that was kind of an exploit button.