Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

DEG HoI Game 4

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(14035)

unmerged(14035)

Coffee is for closers only
Jan 24, 2003
1.257
0
Visit site
The Dedicated European Game of Hearts of Iron, Game 4 is planned as follows:

Version: 1.05b with latest panzer.txt file

Scenario: 1936

Settings: Normal difficulty, Normal AI aggressiveness

Players: 8 (5 vs 3)

Nations played:
USSR: Tomar
UK: Juv (=host)
USA: Tuuttu
Canada: Glenn
Australia: Aldo
Germany: MadViking
Italy: Stein
Japan: Jan

House rules:

General:
A1) No nukes
A2) No paras
A3) No supplies or resources can be sent to any nation unless BOTH are at war with the same nation (exception: a neutral USA may send supplies/resources to USSR if Germany DOWs USSR, Commonwealth nations may send supplies/resources to each other in peacetime)
A4) General exploits are not allowed (includes upgrading infrastructure in a province you are about to loose, sending your entire Navy as exp force to Venezuela to save supplies etc)
A5) No stacking limitations

Tech share:
B1) No tech share to human players. Exception: human controlled commonwealth players may send silver tech to other commonwealth nations (but NOT to USA or Soviets)
B2) No gold tech may not be given to any nations EVER

Diplomatic actions:
C1) It is not allowed to attack through a neutral country (this includes launching air attacks from neutral provinces and making amphibious landings from neutral ships)
C2) You are only allowed to DOW a country if you take direct part in the land invasion of that country (Italy may not DOW Denmark on behalf of Germany, you are not allowed to DOW a small central American country just to get the -CG etc)
C3) You may freely coup or DOW any country (yes, you may even DOW a country you just couped)
C4) Semi-historical alliances and goverments: Japan must become Paternal Autocrat, USA is not allowed to go Stalinist, USSR may not join Allies or Axis
C5) Couping a nation for the sole purpose of being able to DOW without raising Allies WE is not allowed

Hosting and game speed:
D1) The host decides the game speed, within the following limits:
D2) Peace time (=before Germany is at war with Allies): speed is set at 'below normal' to 'above normal', if a player demands a lower speed, the speed is set at 'below normal' for at least 5 minutes, then the host may increase again
D3) War time: speed is set at 'slow' or 'below normal', if a player demands a lower speed, the speed is set at 'slow' or 'slower' for at least 5 minutes, then the host may increase again
D4) It is prefered to have a somewhat lower speed than to make repeated pauses in the game



If you are not satisfied with the above settings, nations and house rules, please post on this page. Also, all AAR-related posts go to the AAR-thread.

First game is scheduled for Thursday 24 July at 18:00 CET
 
Last edited:
Game speed house rule...

I want a house rule concerning game speed. So far game speed has beeen set between 'above normal' in the peaceful periods 1936-1939. Once major war has started speed has gone from slow, when someone has begged to lower speed, or normal when someone has said 'faster' or 'stop pausing'.

I don't like to play HOI under time pressure. I also don't want to have to constantly write, ask and do queries before I change time setting as host. I also want to avoid unfortunate incidents where players feel the game is going too fast or too slow and that this affects game play in any way. Hosting is not something I do because I enjoy it since it actually puts you under extra strain to satisfy everyone regarding game speed and I often find myself playing faster than I'm willing or able to just to satisfy other players. The only reason I do it is because i see the locig in using a good connection. Luckily HOI is fairly stable and requires little time or effort to rehost in comparision to big EU2 campaigns.

Therefore I suggest that the host is allowed to choose speed setting under certain limitations.

In peace time, ie. before major war, time should be 'below normal' to 'above normal' unless a player demands the speed to be lowered. In this case speed shall be set to 'below normal' for a period of at least 5 minutes. Thereafter the speed might be increased again.

After major war starts time should be set to 'slow' or 'below normal' unless a player requests it to go even slower. If that happens the game should be run at 'slow' or slower for at least 5 minutes.

This means its up to the players themselves to ask to have the game speed lowered. The host must comply with this under a certain time but can thereafter increase the game speed if he feels it goes too slow. Also remember. If someone feels the game is going too fast and need time to check their forces dispositions, reserach, trade etc theres always the pause button. Since interface demands lots of time to deploy troops, strat move, well actually do most things, the game can and should be allowed to be paused to prevent 'accidents' from happening.

Hope all agree to this?
 
Originally posted by Riso
Why's there a Canada if there could be a much more annoying Natchi?
Click to expand...

I guess because in a way a natchi would make it "too" difficult for Japan that is somewhat handicapped anyways. Also the human player taking natchi would have little real prospect of finishing the campaign as his original country, baing at large risk to be annexed somewhere in 1938. Of course you could change to Australia/Canada after China has been annexed but I feel that a CW player that helps the UK player to keep an eye on things, take mil control over a few CW states etc really helps the already overburdened UK player with some tasks. It really doesn't amke the alleid side stronger either since all the states are in the alliance from start anyways. OF course the human player will do a better job administrating than a potential AI but thats rather marginal. My 2 cents...
 
Coup-DoW exploit

I have done some test with the coup-Dow exploit. As far as I can tell this is the following effects of fx ITaly DoWing different mediterranean states before major war.

Paternal autocrat:
Dissent +4%
US WE +0%
UK/France WE +1% each

Democratic state:
Dissent +2%
US WE +0%
UK/France WE +2% each

Whats missing from this equation is how, and if, US and USSR CG requirements are effected from this. And how does an annexation of a state effect WE/CG reqs?

Whats amazing about this is that the US couldnt care less if Italy gobbles up 6-7 middle size European nations in less than a year whereas the allies WE will rise a whopping 6-14%. Yeah right!
Like this would ever have been allowed. Remember that Italy had demanded some small island possessions after WWI but the allies thought nothing about preventing this and Italy had to comply. Now the allies have no chance to react if Italy goes on an annexing spree like that!? I think its WAD but its not a good solution.

The coup-Dow exploit seems to mostly lower the dissent hit for DoWing and avoid an early french DoW. As long as an axis DoW on another fascist state doesnt lower US WE or allied CG req I don't care if the trick is used.
 
Lets kick some norwegian ass

Yepp teams look fine!!


1) Speed rules are to my satisfaction, as long we all agree that speed during war cant rise from slow too normal.

2) Yes free tec share in commonwealth, BUT I still think that golden tecs should be restricted.

3) Have no problem with coups, they should be allowed, Italy needs them bad.
 
The coup-Dow exploit seems to mostly lower the dissent hit for DoWing and avoid an early french DoW
Click to expand...

Concerning an Italian DOW on a democracy: sure, this gives a very small initial increase to UK/French WE, but if you just wait a few days you will see what I am talking about. One or more of the Allies will reach 100% WE almost immediately (in 1.05a or earlier, it was France). Also, take a second look at those dissent figures. The coup-DOW method INCREASES (actually it doubles) the dissent hit for Italy. The only point in doing this is to avoid the Allies auto-DOW when Italy DOWs a democracy. And remember, the coup doesn't succeed in 100% of cases (more like 50% or less), and it costs 30 DP to do this, so Italy can at the most coup once every 20 months. I fail to see how this even comes close to being called an exploit, seing as it is an option in the diplomacy screen.

Also, most central European countries start out as fascist nations. Only Romania and Switzerland are democracies.

Whats amazing about this is that the US couldnt care less if Italy gobbles up 6-7 middle size European nations
Click to expand...

What exactly is so amazing about this? In WWII, Germany gobbled up quite a few nations (Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece). This did not make USA enter the war. USA did not enter the war vs Germany until the Germans themselves DOWed USA.

Concerning the Commonwealth tech share: if the CW is allowed to share gold tech, this would seriously unbalance the game IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I edited the top post, including some more house rules (both the game speed aspect, commonwealth tech share, as well as the rules from DEG HoI game 3 with minor modifications). Please comment on the updated ones. I personally want as few house rules as possible, but since there are players who for some strange reason try to use every loop-hole they can find, I think it's better to agree on some basics.
 
hmm

Looks fine..

Host should be able to adjust to the max speeds for peace and war at will I think....just make sure not over above normal during peace, cause it will lag us...and not above below normal during war as it will.. both lag us and cause trouble with timing for players..


We have a candidate for a 4th axis player aswell, I suggested he can choose from what axis countries available...

while Natchin is possible to use ,it does create a scenario where a war will be started in 37 and last until end of game, as such we will be stuck at below normal from 37...is this something we want?

Janster
 
Regarding choice of 4th Allies player: playing Nat China is a bad idea, as has already been stated above. With the modified tech share rules for Commonwealth players, a CW minor would be more enjoyable to play.

Regarding en eventual 4th Axis player: from my previous experience, a 4th human-controlled Axis nation does not add much to the Axis war effort (this could of course be improved if tech share was allowed to this country in the same fashion as CW minors). Having an 8th player also makes it harder to schedule game sessions.
 
1) I think coup-dow is an exploit in the sense that it is not intended to be used that way and it is very unhistorical and unrealistic. Maybe it also affects US WE too less but that isn't the main issue.

2) Saying that US didn't care about Germany annexing nations and therefor they wouldn't care if Itay did the same is not sensible. US didn't intervene because they was pretty sure UK and SU could hold. If Italy were to strong and broke UK's sea dominance and threathend SU in the south US would surely think differently.

But I guess I must face the fact that most people prefer to play a game where Italy is a supermajor power of some reason.

Right now I am playing the '41 scenario (SP) struggling with insignificant Italy against UK and having a blast. My inf is having 45 in org!

This game is simply better the later scenario you play, as it can't handle that human players tend to use the defects of the game to turn into something sometimes rather silly.

I would personally prefer to play China but the downside is that we would have to play at a slower speed for a longer time (simple solution: play 39 scenario). Canada or Aussie would be ok I guess.

Edit: Shouldn't CW nations be allowed to send resources and supplies to each other in peace time?

The coup-dow thingie is not a major issue as such for me. It's just that I would like the game to be played in a special spirit. Just banning coup-dowing won't change much. Therefor I prefer to make the majority speak.
 
Last edited:
I edited the house-rules (at top), adding resource/supply shipments among CW nations during peace, and banning the "coup-DOW exploit". it's better to not allow this, as it seems to be a major issue to some players.

Also, there is the option to include a 4th Axis player (Stein, playing as Romania). If this were the case, i think it fair that the other Axis nations should be able to give Romania silver tech (as this would have be done with an AI-controlled Romania), otherwise Romania would be more of a burden than an asset to the Axis.
 
New house rules look fine.

The coup-DoW is no biggie at all for me. I just wanted to make sure i understood the implications of it. Thank you for clarofying that WE raises substantially after a while if democracies are DoWed. As long as I understand all effects of it properly it can allowed for all I care. It's the allies job to maintain democracies democratic then through diplomatic actions before a DoW.

Rumania receiving silver techs wouldn't effect game balance a lot. Having an 8th player and having to cancel would be bad though.

Historically and gamebalance wise its no biggie for the CW/UK to share all tech. (from the camapign after this one of course)
 
Rumania - Axis ?

Who says so ?

A human Rumania generally makes the game completely strange in my experience... I am fully against it.... (rumania becomes off limits, goes on annexation spree in balkans etc.... no thank you).

We either keep it to 3 axis, of if a 4th axis player is required then he takes some innocuous country like Bolivia and he is given troops/mil control to help the german or japanese manage their wars ....

Suddenly assuming that Rumania or Finland or any other country has to be axis in 36 ruins the game full stop.

UK should be allowed to share any tech with non-human CW countries.. .SA, ANZAC and Canada were elite troops which never happens with tech share limits as these countries cant do enough research by themselves.... Think of it as Commonwealth being one country

Why do we still have "no paras" as a house rule ?
 
Why do we still have "no paras" as a house rule ?
Click to expand...

The cost of each para division in 1.05 (including transports) is equivalent to the cost of 2 tank divisions. This, and my previous experience with paras in MP, leads to the simple conclusion that they are mainly used for exploits. Paras dont add anything to the game experience, they simply introduce more exploits.

Regarding a 4th Axis player: having the current 4 vs 3 setup (with the current tech share among CW) is not very well balanced IMHO, having a 4th Axis would even it out. I would rather play a 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4 game.
 
I never use paras but with the current patch that limits their capability for movement I think "exploits" needs to be defined before they are banned. Capturing unguarded territory in the rear was their historrical mission and sometimes succedeed. We might limit each paratrooper to one drop per 3 months to be disallow any strange behaviour but forbidding them Im against unless someone gives me a better reason.

I agree with the thought of UK/CW as one country.

I agree with Rumania being a bit useless.

I agree that 3 vs. 3 or 4 vs. is more fair than 4 vs 3.

EDIT:
Seems Japanese and UK elections must be manually edited in MP 1.05b. I suggest a quick editing and rehost somwhere in summer 1937 for this if elections hasn't come up yet by then.
 
Last edited:
historical

The fine things about 36 is of course we get the chance to build our armies and prepare for the long war...
Altough the eating habit of certain countries is a tad annoying but still something I don't seriously mind..

I think the game punishes / reward huge apetites of countries so I usually don't mind...

As for the Romania becoming axis ..well they were axis so I see no problem there.. diplomats will have to look elsewhere...

I of course agree, no messing around with South-America.

We'd keep the Romanians on a leach, but there are certain countries that usually gets eaten early all the time....but its up to each to determine what strategy one wishes to use.

Last game Italy ate a lot, but this eating cost us about 60-70 axis divisions + manpower... while gaining not much IC for Italy really, just a few resources... there is a balance here and when there are positive and negative effects of things, then we have a game.

Also US WE seems to be more complicated and does in the end punish those who mess around too much.

Janster
 
A rumanian player is:

-exciting---
-prevents power mongering axis to eat all Balkans-
-we get a bigger session-
-we have more substitutes if one of the big ones cant make it to the show-
-it does NOT affect any of the gameplay in a bad way...its just....more itnerresting...-

Im all for rumania finland natchin etc as human players

ALSO:

Paratroopers: I have used them as germany a couple of times, with luck and with no luck, i wonder what exploits you mean.
They have only limited usage and are expensive. I used them alot on the southern sector on the eastern front as Germany..actually won a fight with paradrop once....ONCE out of 10 times.
Dont ban em
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back