"Generic" house rules for MP

[Joshua Happytree]

Sorry for probably asking a newbie question yet... I prefer to stick to SP just because my fun in HoI4 is in a no-rush game pace and a hell of micromanagement. Yet I'd love to play "as-if" my opponents would be human players in MP. That certainly makes it suboptimal SP play yet why not do it So my questions are:

1. Is there a way to wander around and catch a glimpse of "standard" MP house rules?
2. May be you can drop here a line or two on what they are? In my SP play I normally use these:
   • No war goal justification (i.e. no non-focus based CB) or no war declaration either till German-Polish war (24-Aug-39) or 1-Jan-40.
   • No paradrops
   • No tech stealing (though I'm tinkering with it now just to understand how it works yet collabs are OK
   • No port access from non-faction members
   • No leaving the faction once I join one
   • No calling of newly conquered puppets into the war and no use of their manpower; either take the states and carry the brunt of occupation or keep them as a buffer and not call into the war
   • No strat and logistics bombing
   • No equipment leasing to use research bonus from non-faction members
   • Naval invasions only if I can keep at least reasonably contested supply sea lanes to avoid abusing 15 secs of Naval Supremacy

Anything else you'd suggest?

 

[IlPopa]

here have some rules

fuwg

red baron

hmm

 

[Joshua Happytree]

here have some rules

Thank you so much!!!

 

[Zeprion]

Sorry for probably asking a newbie question yet... I prefer to stick to SP just because my fun in HoI4 is in a no-rush game pace and a hell of micromanagement. Yet I'd love to play "as-if" my opponents would be human players in MP. That certainly makes it suboptimal SP play yet why not do it So my questions are:

1. Is there a way to wander around and catch a glimpse of "standard" MP house rules?
2. May be you can drop here a line or two on what they are? In my SP play I normally use these:
   • No war goal justification (i.e. no non-focus based CB) or no war declaration either till German-Polish war (24-Aug-39) or 1-Jan-40.
   • No paradrops
   • No tech stealing (though I'm tinkering with it now just to understand how it works yet collabs are OK
   • No port access from non-faction members
   • No leaving the faction once I join one
   • No calling of newly conquered puppets into the war and no use of their manpower; either take the states and carry the brunt of occupation or keep them as a buffer and not call into the war
   • No strat and logistics bombing
   • No equipment leasing to use research bonus from non-faction members
   • Naval invasions only if I can keep at least reasonably contested supply sea lanes to avoid abusing 15 secs of Naval Supremacy

Anything else you'd suggest?

Factions (you can set the focus tree paths):

Allies:
- UK
- France
- USA
- Canada, South Africa, Raj, Australia, New Zeeland
- Mexico, Brazil, Argentina (bit ahistorical; kind of optional)
(11 nations)

Axis:
- Germany
- Italy
- Japan
- Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland
- Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden (bit ahistorical; kind of optional)
(11 nations)

Comintern
- USSR
- Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia (bit ahistorical; kind of optional)
(5 nations)

United Chinese Front
- Nationalist China
- Communist China (kind of optional)
- Warlords (even more optional)
(7 nations)

Co-Prosperity Spehere:
- Japan
- Manchukuo (kind of optional)
- Siam (even more optional)
(3 nations)

These are usually the players in a regular Hearts of Iron 4 multiplayer game. Usually, there's only 1 China player and 1 Japan player while everyone just focuses on Europe. But occasionally you'll see a real asian battle server.

More often than not, you get between 20-28 players with all the non-optional Allies, Axis, Comintern being filled. Then Japan & China being filled. And then people start to fill the optional Allies (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina), Axis (Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden) or Comintern (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia). Spain is a special case because it's ahistorical but stronger than Romania so there's a chance Spain will get picked without all 4 Axis minor being picked, some people like it, some people insist on no Spain or Spain joins the war late.

If you're really desperate:
Denmark, Norway - Axis
Ireland, Colombia - Allies

Absolute no no in multiplayer:
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece. (picking one of these nations will likely get you kicked from the server unless it's a roleplay server)

 

[Longshanks51]

Absolute no no in multiplayer:
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece. (picking one of these nations will likely get you kicked from the server unless it's a roleplay server)

I don't play multiplayer (and probably never will), but why no Yugoslavia or Greece?
I get why Poland and Czechoslovakia would be banned. (Accepting Danzig, refusing Sudetenland).

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I don't play multiplayer (and probably never will), but why no Yugoslavia or Greece?
I get why Poland and Czechoslovakia would be banned. (Accepting Danzig, refusing Sudetenland).

Balance, typically without their integration into the Axis war economy the Axis will be too weak to win 50% of the time or so. A player on them makes it possible to retreat with some units (denying the Axis stockpiles) and fight for longer/better, as well as run counterintel, memeing collab government missions. Honestly, other than for the tech rushes they have access too Yugo and Greece specifically wouldn't really break the game, but even then it's silly to have players on nations that exist to die when instead they could be on more important countries, so the game can start sooner and there's less lag.
Some mods do make them playable but they exist to be played as governments-in-exile.

 

[Zeprion]

Hearts of Iron 4 multiplayer can be summed up like this:
- Axis tries to crack the USSR stronghold.
- Allies tries to crack the Axis European stronghold.
- USSR just tries to survive.

So in short:
Axis -> Play offensive & defensive.
Allies -> Play offensive.
USSR -> Play defensive.

90% of the time I play as Axis nations exactly because of this. I love having your 'homeland' threatened while your goal is also to destroy the enemy.

Now, imagine how much of this European stronghold would be a stronghold if Yugoslav and Greek players would be allowed to exist?

I suppose you could make the case "why no fascist Yugoslavia/Greece" but you already got much better nations: Spain, Romania, Bulgaria. While fascist Yugoslavia and Greece is just eating up potential German & Italian factories and resources. Better play Finland because Germany wouldn't invade Finland if Finland was a non-player.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

here have some rules

fuwg

red baron

hmm

i don't play MP games but im curious about some rules...

why this specific alert for Iran? what naive ppl do with iran that can messe with the game? LOL

what is these things? focus tree? agency operations?

 

[IlPopa]

i don't play MP games but im curious about some rules...

why this specific alert for Iran? what naive ppl do with iran that can messe with the game? LOL

View attachment 968808

what is these things? focus tree? agency operations?

View attachment 968811

first one i don't know but you can be sure that somewhere a game was ruined lol

second one is a non-vanilla mod addition

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I suppose you could make the case "why no fascist Yugoslavia/Greece" but you already got much better nations: Spain, Romania, Bulgaria. While fascist Yugoslavia and Greece is just eating up potential German & Italian factories and resources. Better play Finland because Germany wouldn't invade Finland if Finland was a non-player.

i don't think they get cores/really high compliance on these as quickly? in principle, players on these nations could just research and produce equipment for axis all game and ship it to germany. it wouldn't be a very fun way to play, but it would almost certainly be stronger than capturing them in war. i can see why a lobby would prefer to just put the player on a more impactful country though.

i don't like the laundry list of mp rules. a generic "no exploits" line which usually amounts to "i as host reserve right to ad-hoc rule something you did as exploitative and penalize or ban you" is an almost immediate no for me. unless mines still cause massive lag (i thought that was fixed?) i notice mp games still banning them routinely...not clear why other than lag. banning "space marines" always rubbed me the wrong way. i get why some lobbies do it, but it still strikes me as arbitrary.

however, it's fine if i don't like the rules...i then just don't play other than in small circle of friends. other people like them, so they play with those rules. i do think it would be useful to highlight why rules exist if we are going to talk about "generally applicable rules to mp" though, because some of these appear very much like "players ban a particular threat rather than adapt to it, despite the latter being possible".

 

[blahmaster6k]

here have some rules

fuwg

red baron

hmm

Sounds like someone who made the red baron ruleset got salty because of surface raiders in a game. Can't really see a reason why they'd be banned when they were heavily used historically and they're not really overpowered in-game either. And banning always-engage on subs presumably just so the UK can get away with using cheap destroyers without depth charges as convoy escorts and chase subs away anyway.

Most of the other two rule sets make sense to me, but that red baron set reads like it was made by someone who really, really, wants to play every game exactly the same and not have to adapt their strategy.

 

[bitmode]

And banning always-engage on subs presumably just so the UK can get away with using cheap destroyers without depth charges as convoy escorts and chase subs away anyway.

But it is the sort of rule OP would want to copy to single player. Always-engage subs wipe the ocean floor with AI fleets.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Some questions:

1. Am I correct Expeditionary Forces come with the doctrine boni from the lending country so if the receiving nation has another doctrine then Expeditionary Forces get boni from both doctrines?
2. What is "Puppet reseeding" and what's the upside of it?
3. What is ghost ships in naval battles? Never used them yet my understanding "Plant false intelligence" intelligence operation works for land warfare only.
4. Does Teleporting Navy means console command "tp"?
5. I guess "Silent Naval Invasion" means the target nation player gets no warning yet how come it happens?
6. Does "Issuing Naval Treaty Warning" means taking the "Cancel Naval Treaty" decision instead of waiting will it expires all by itself?
7. Does "Double Last Stand / Forced Attack" means stacking field-marshal and general abilities?

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Sounds like someone who made the red baron ruleset got salty because of surface raiders in a game. Can't really see a reason why they'd be banned when they were heavily used historically and they're not really overpowered in-game either. And banning always-engage on subs presumably just so the UK can get away with using cheap destroyers without depth charges as convoy escorts and chase subs away anyway.

Most of the other two rule sets make sense to me, but that red baron set reads like it was made by someone who really, really, wants to play every game exactly the same and not have to adapt their strategy.

The reason surface raiders are banned is that with the current state of naval bombers and deathstacking, UK can easily surface raid central med with impunity and prevent any kind of africa campaign. This tends to result in boring games for both sides.

In addition, Germany usually has a coop and UK doesn't. This means that the German coop can flicker raiding around the UK and exploit the fact they have an extra player.

This is normally the Air Controller's job to fix, but naval bombers now can't deal with surface ships on their own, only subs. It would be very difficult to get lobby going if UK had to have a naval coop every game!

Some rules may seem restrictive but the intention is always to maximise gameplay for the theatres that matter the most and where many players can contribute (Barb, Africa, Asia, and DDay), while minimising wait time

Rules are also there to abstract away mechanics that are broken or poorly implemented. So for instance, in a completely vanilla game, Italy could minelay in central med to prevent surface raiding there. But Minelaying is disabled in most Multiplayer mods for performance and cheese-related reasons. So preventing surface raiding is an abstraction of that non-functional mechanic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i was under the impression that mine laying lag was fixed, but it seems it wasn't? otherwise, you can sweep mines and that aspect of naval warfare would be very important given the speed debuff mines cause...it becomes very hard to run in naval combat, and a lot easier to hit targets.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

It was, at least as far as we know. The issue stemmed from LaR I think, fixed around 2021 iirc. It's just a massive inertia in rule updates. If there's more lag from mines from other issues we haven't heard about it

 

[marcelo r. r.]

1. Does Teleporting Navy means console command "tp"?
2. I guess "Silent Naval Invasion" means the target nation player gets no warning yet how come it happens?

Teleporting i believe, ins't more possible(many items in that list seems related to already fixed stuff from naval warfare) :

teleportnig it was like u have a fleet docked in UK, then u assign it to one of these "instant missions" like convoy raiding, from channel and all adjacent sea zones until for example Cape of Good Hope(South Africa), after that, then u deassign all seazones except in the Cape, then all the fleets will "be there"..,,, in current verions at least, u can't do this with convoy raiding anymore.

i don't know Silent Naval Invasion, but AI sometimes do it, i didn't know if is some exploit, or WAD related to intel stuff. In some far end game, China was doing crazy silent naval invasions far as south africa, i don't know how to reproduce this, for all these reasons i didnt opened a bug report.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Teleporting i believe, ins't more possible(many items in that list seems related to already fixed stuff from naval warfare) :

teleportnig it was like u have a fleet docked in UK, then u assign it to one of these "instant missions" like convoy raiding, from channel and all adjacent sea zones until for example Cape of Good Hope(South Africa), after that, then u deassign all seazones except in the Cape, then all the fleets will "be there"..,,, in current verions at least, u can't do this with convoy raiding anymore.

i don't know Silent Naval Invasion, but AI sometimes do it, i didn't know if is some exploit, or WAD related to intel stuff. In some far end game, China was doing crazy silent naval invasions far as south africa, i don't know how to reproduce this, for all these reasons i didnt opened a bug report.

you can still replicate the orders like you could previously to "teleport", however the ships don't actually teleport. they stay where they were initially and just move to the distant zone now.

 

[Voigt]

To give another ruleset as an example, this was out ruleset for IHMP, but pre-NSB.

IHMP MP Group House Rules

Multiplayer House Rules

ihmp-mod.github.io

 

[blahmaster6k]

The reason surface raiders are banned is that with the current state of naval bombers and deathstacking, UK can easily surface raid central med with impunity and prevent any kind of africa campaign. This tends to result in boring games for both sides.

In addition, Germany usually has a coop and UK doesn't. This means that the German coop can flicker raiding around the UK and exploit the fact they have an extra player.

This is normally the Air Controller's job to fix, but naval bombers now can't deal with surface ships on their own, only subs. It would be very difficult to get lobby going if UK had to have a naval coop every game!

Some rules may seem restrictive but the intention is always to maximise gameplay for the theatres that matter the most and where many players can contribute (Barb, Africa, Asia, and DDay), while minimising wait time

Rules are also there to abstract away mechanics that are broken or poorly implemented. So for instance, in a completely vanilla game, Italy could minelay in central med to prevent surface raiding there. But Minelaying is disabled in most Multiplayer mods for performance and cheese-related reasons. So preventing surface raiding is an abstraction of that non-functional mechanic.

What would you say is wrong with naval bombers? I still don't really know what was changed in this regard. Do they do too little damage, do they get shot down too easily? What calculations changed to make this the case? Air formulas? Naval AA?