• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Custom Gameplay Rules

Hi everyone! Most of the team is now back after summer so it’s time to spin up the ‘ol diary machine again. Today we are going to be talking about something we have been thinking about adding for a really long time: Custom Gameplay Rules.

First off, let me explain why we are doing this - HOI4 is a game people play in a lot of different ways. Single player, multiplayer, achievement runs, casual relaxing and various other. There is also a big split between people who play “historically” vs people who don’t (it’s around 50/50). A lot of stuff that adds fun and a sense of power in singleplayer are not very balanced for organized competitive multiplayer so organizing these games can be challenging, often including long rulesets and policing by the server host. I personally think a big reason competitive multiplayer isn’t as common (about 6% of MP games are competitive) is because it’s so much harder to set them up when they require reading rulesets, which become fragile when the game itself isn’t enforcing them.
When it comes to single player, players often ask for ways to tailor how they play. For example; some will use console commands to switch nations to set them on certain paths to match their long term plans for the scenario they want to play out etc, but it’s not exactly beginner-friendly, and isn’t possible to do in multiplayer either. So looking at all of these things we decided that we needed to support different rulesets and let players affect how the ai did things in more detail.

So, enter Custom Game Rules. This is a new setting you can do before you start your game, and includes the old buff sliders for majors as well:
main.jpg


It’s possible to store and load presets if you have a couple of prefered profiles you run (say single player and multiplayer?). We have tried to make rules as moddable as possible although when they directly impact hard-coded gameplay mechanics we need to make sure we have worked them in first. We’ll go over the modding aspects towards the end!

So what kind of stuff can you do? We haven’t fully finalized it all, but let’s go through what we got. I am sure people will have tons of suggestions in the comments too ;)

All diplomatic actions have the possibility for rules. So we can restrict or ease up how things work. This is particularly good when you want to tie focus trees into it. The new British tree has a lot of interaction with releasable nations, so this also lets us manage that from scripts and avoid exploits and weird situations (such as the player going down the ‘empire’ path, and yet releasing every colony they own).

release.jpg


rule.jpg


Covert actions are also included here, so you can for example restrict coups and such only to AI nations (a common rule in our own MP sessions).
covert.jpg


There are also other bits and pieces like being able to limit fort levels constructable, limiting paratroopers and such we are playing around with. Other things rules we see people use a lot are for example limiting war declares before certain dates etc. I expect we will be presenting a full listing of options later when we stream stuff closer to release.

You can also affect how you want the AI to act. Mostly this means it will be preferring certain choices and switching to alternate plans. If you want to tailor-make your game experience this is a great way of ensuring certain (a)historical outcomes being attempted by the AI no matter your settings.
ai_ger.jpg


For most there are options for ideology while some like Manchukuo are more relevant to its situation:
man.jpg


Some settings, like this particular one, are dependent on DLC, so without Waking the Tiger (which comes with that focus tree) the option simply won't be there. Otherwise the whole custom rules system is part of the free update and is for sure something we will be building on in the future.

Rules will generally turn off achievements, but its possible to set it by rule so if we introduce something we feel is ok in both it will still work.

Modding
So, when we started with this we realized we couldn't support every tiny rule some MP groups were using and instead we’ve tried to make it as easy as possible to mod things in. It’s my hope that some cool ruleset mods will be developed specifically for competitive multiplayer and the like in the modding workshop. Very popular options may even see inclusion in the base game in the future, who knows :) I expect some of the big mods will want to include custom rules as well for their players.

Rule definitions look like this:
mod1.jpg


They can then be checked from triggers from say the tech tree, focus tree, events etc and in other places we have added support for triggers. Example:
mod2.jpg


Diplo actions are a little special. They each get two possible triggers. This way you can turn on or off the standard game checks (like checks against world tension from game code) with the _TRIGGER_OVERRIDES_GAME. For your own rule checks you use the _ENABLE_TRIGGER for the specific action and the scope will contain the target nation as well so you can do nation specific rules.
This is what the triggers for Guarantees look like:
Screenshot_1.jpg


That’s it! Tune in next week to find out more about what we are up to with Man the Guns and the 1.6 ‘Ironclad’ update.
 
If they were not ready to show the main feature of their DLC in a timely fashion they should not have unveiled in so early.

As far as I'm aware, there are no rules which say "DDs need to cover topics in a particular order". I suspect (but am, as ever, happy to be proved wrong :)) most fans are happy getting some news now, rather than being forced to wait until an arbitrary feature is ready before being told about anything. It's definitely my preference.
 
As far as I'm aware, there are no rules which say "DDs need to cover topics in a particular order". I suspect (but am, as ever, happy to be proved wrong :)) most fans are happy getting some news now, rather than being forced to wait until an arbitrary feature is ready before being told about anything. It's definitely my preference.
Just cause no one is going to arrest you doesn't make it a good idea. The news about every new feature released since MtG was announced could have been introduced without announcing the new DLC as Paradox has done in the past. It is frustrating that so far after the initial announcement we know nothing about the way MtG is going to try and improve the aspect of the game it primarily aims at improving, especially since that aspect, naval combat, is at present in a rather sorry state.
 
Just cause no one is going to arrest you doesn't make it a good idea. The news about every new feature released since MtG was announced could have been introduced without announcing the new DLC as Paradox has done in the past. It is frustrating that so far after the initial announcement we know nothing about the way MtG is going to try and improve the aspect of the game it primarily aims at improving, especially since that aspect, naval combat, is at present in a rather sorry state.

I mean, they showed off fuel but regardless there really wasn't any harm with them announcing the new DLC. If they hadn't people would have had to just keep guessing for a few months and then there will be those on the forums complaining that they are anxious to see where the game is going. At least with the DLC announced we know a little bit more of what to expect
 
Just cause no one is going to arrest you doesn't make it a good idea.

People say that about my dress sense all the time ;)

The news about every new feature released since MtG was announced could have been introduced without announcing the new DLC as Paradox has done in the past. It is frustrating that so far after the initial announcement we know nothing about the way MtG is going to try and improve the aspect of the game it primarily aims at improving, especially since that aspect, naval combat, is at present in a rather sorry state.

We'd already had a few hints there'd probably be a naval focus - and whether they'd announced the DLC or not, we wouldn't know any more about things (and some people could have been more frustrated, as it would only be rumoured, rather than confirmed, that the devs would be looking at naval things). Ie, at least we know that there's a fair chance the devs will look to improve naval elements of the game now, something we wouldn't know if we hadn't been told what we'd been told.

That said, there's no question it was a very early announcement, and one would be a very brave person betting against it being a "we want to announce something for all of our games at PDXCon" kind of thing. I don't think you'll have to worry about this next DLC, unless they're holding PDXCon in the middle of winter (or MtG takes another 10 months to finish!)
 
QUESTION: With the difficulty sliders/customization sliders, will research time be segregated from other buffs/nerfs?

I like playing on veteran mode, but I must cheat to keep up on the research with other factions. I don't mind the other hits, but it's crazy to think that by 1945 I'm a year or more behind in technology. I otherwise prefer to play majors on veteran now for the challenge, but can't do it with multiplayer because I can't cheat to even out technology.
 
1. Color & texture code the settings fields for QOL easy overview of game settings and customizations rather than just having the text - easier to scan for particular colors and patterns. (see Tufte on information presentation design).

2. Toggling to overlay/compare different setting playsets and vanilla options with the loaded game and vanilla would also be ridiculously useful.

3.
another rule that would be really nice is to lock ppl to go down certain paths. Most mp games u must go down loyal to Britain and must go paths that will keep you with ur correct faction, many games must be restarted or rolled back because some troll choice to go down burn the royal portraits
The richer in texture the focus trees and strategic options of countries become, the more risk of an abortive game due to some country or other (SP as well as MP) nudging history off track when trying to pursue a particular scenario.

4. Would very much like the ability of the player, or host, to adjust the strengthen levels of countries while the game is in process, possibly in relation to a save point so any changes are registered and sorted at loading before hitting resume. Useful in SP and MP for non-modders.

5. Latitude in the current procrustean thresholds for sending volunteers so there are more options, especially for minors and those with human players. Something to do in the years of unbearable peace.

6. Being able to set a range of permissible combat width for division types would be nice. Division spam is an issue, the more so with lots of implausibly small divisions. On the other hand, Special forces units were often much smaller than line divisions, as were security and garrison divisions (and the historical Italian 4-regiment line divisions). On the gripping hand, has anyone considered having large garrison/security divisions exert in effect a zone of control coverage in adjoining provinces so that such an emplaced unit can do the work of several small divisions over that zone of coverage in engaging and opposing enemy within its zone around the province that is the core of resistance? Less clutter, and looks more like a defensive zone.

6. Minimum wing sizes for large air forces, with appropriate scaling for smaller air forces since the mid 20thC wars showed even a little airpower is well worth have so long as the enemy lacks air suprermacy.

7.
@podcat, while you're on saving presets, has there been any discussion as to saving presets of mods on the launcher? For example, I usually have two MP games going, and they both use different mods. Having to remember which ones are active and which ones need to be switched can be a hassle. Small QoL change :)
Saved mod settings for external mods and in-game settings - yes please!


8. How about tracking shadow achievements for the player- accomplished but not under Iron Man? I am curious what they are. Shadow achievements might encourage more Iron Man play, depending on how many times a player's game has been torched burned by patches, glitches or crashes. From my perspective right now, achievements are like a DLC I paid for but can't use.

9. Strategically, Paradox seems to be cleverly shifting back to finicky players more of the responsibility for directly creating and defining their their own game experiences. So long as the setting mixes are easy to understand and compare, this is a win-win for PDX and players.
 
Custom rules ? Sounds good, but as far as they disable achievements - it's not what I want from new update.

By the way, when will you show us 1.6/MtG achievements ? Considering all new content that was shown, I bet they will be even more challenging than present ones.
 
Custom rules ? Sounds good, but as far as they disable achievements - it's not what I want from new update.

By the way, when will you show us 1.6/MtG achievements ? Considering all new content that was shown, I bet they will be even more challenging than present ones.

achievements are for single player, not multi player
 
I have another question:
When will the Manchukuo obedience path and the capitulation of China finally be fixed?
It is extremely annoying to play Manchukuo atm so long AI japan just decideds to go full Ape and release all the minescule and worthless warlords whilest you have done the focus that gives you all the cores on China.
Additionally there is no real way of breaking free as Manchukuo and becoming an equal in that path secondly when is the demand subjugation focus fixed, i find it hillarious when Manchukuo demands that i become their puppet when i own all of China the whole SEA region and have capitulated the Raj.