Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

If The AI Was As Smart As WW2 Leaders

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.
Show only dev responses
Slan said:
Actually, taking away that hindsight advantage could be done in two ways:
i) Removing every single bit of historical scripting, so you won't know what to expect. Would that still be WWII? Of course not.
ii) Making the AI make all the minimax optimal decisions. Would that still be WWII? Of course not. Germany would probably be attacked by the Soviets at the moment they start going into France, which would have twice the strength as historical.
Click to expand...

the first diplomatic AI I did for HoI3 actually had an EU3 style min/max style. it was pretty impossible to get anything historical out of it so we fell back to much tighter scripted solution with events and country specific decisions.

Fewrfreyut made a good post too. it would be interesting to have a game where in reality there are parts of the government pulling in different directions, not following orders properly and having their own crazy agendas (its generally thought that Hitler had some skill with strategy but lost his marbles more and more as the war progressed and same with many of the people he surrounded himself with), but i suspect it would be very frustrating to play a wargame like that :p
 
podcat said:
the first diplomatic AI I did for HoI3 actually had an EU3 style min/max style. it was pretty impossible to get anything historical out of it so we fell back to much tighter scripted solution with events and country specific decisions.

Fewrfreyut's made a good post too. it would be interesting to have a game where in reality there are parts of the government pulling in different directions, not following orders properly and having their own crazy agendas (its generally thought that Hitler had some skill with tactics and strategy but lost his marbles more and more as the war progressed and same with many of the people he surrounded himself with), but i suspect it would be very frustrating to play a wargame like that :p
Click to expand...

not exactly hitler just instinctively picked the right plans without understanding them and had much much luck with his vabanque plays. later he thought he was the great general and tried to decide and plan everything himself (he even tried to command one army group himself). that didn't really work....
 
A game which would have complex politics, conflicting ministers and important "personal" decisions would be great. This is sth which could really take the meaning of "strategy" to the new level. However, it would have to be a bit asymmetrical when it comes to the mechanics the AI and the player use. ATM it would be impossible to create an AI which would be able to effectively use such a system, but as long as the asymmetry is not ridiculous (unlimited naval range...), it can actually help the devs to create a challenging and complex game at the same time.
 
Slan said:
Actually, taking away that hindsight advantage could be done in two ways:
i) Removing every single bit of historical scripting, so you won't know what to expect. Would that still be WWII? Of course not.
ii) Making the AI make all the minimax optimal decisions. Would that still be WWII? Of course not. Germany would probably be attacked by the Soviets at the moment they start going into France, which would have twice the strength as historical.

My point is that you can not have a game both historical and rational, because history is not rational. Some of the causes and effects can be modelled, but you can never get the same chain of events to always happen with a simulation. Life is stochastic.
Click to expand...

I am afraid removing historical scripts would not make player's life harder. It could be easily shown by Random Mod AAR's. They actually prove that knowing historical path is not important advantage player posseses.

The main advantage, I think, is 10,000 year old strategy of overhelming your enemies in numbers in required sectors.

Somebody mentioned that BBs were obsolete. It doesn't matter. I build tons of BBs and SHBs in my very first game on VH or H level and sunk all British and American navies. I had no single CV as I didn't know how to build them and what are CAGs for :rolleyes:

I remember Steel Panters. At the begining AI used only frontal assaults like in HOI3. Later AI was taught to use random flankink operations and concentrated attacks.

I think Theatre AI command should be taught to assemble force inlcuding armoured (now it tends to spread armour) and then attack with it one sector. If attack is completely bogged it could re-assemble force and attack different sector.

In order to make it less predictable - it should be more or less random.

I also think aircraft and land radars give too much information. Americans had no a clue about German force concentration at Ardennes despite complete air superiority and famous message interception radars with the best decription. Not surprisingly it worked only in France ;)
 
Cybvep said:
If the AI is not taught how to form encirclements and protect its armies against enemy encirclement attempts, then it will never be a challenge. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Actually I have noticed that AI tries to avoid encirclement and sends reinforcements to keep open the last gap. You can easily notice that when you encircle one province from 3 sides. AI then withdraws divisions from the encirclement. The problem, that AI do not easily foresee grand scale encirclements but the Soviets or even Polish or British didn't too. Encirclements are done in MP games too ;)

AI lacks punching reserves with which it could go to rescue encircled armies and form encirclements themselves.
 
Cybvep said:
Have you seen e.g. the GER AI performing encriclements when fighting with the Soviets? From my experience they just push forward.
Click to expand...

No. I saw just accidental encirclements. This is because Germans spread their forces and move evenly through out the front without concentrated breakthroughs.
 
Cybvep said:
You forgot about gamey exploits the AI used. I mean, tanks attacking through the forests in 1940? Huge pockets in the East? Invisibility trick performed by the JAP AI on the USA in 1941 (BTW they attacked without a DOW - this needs fixing)?

This game is clearly unbalanced.
Click to expand...

hey come on now Japan gets an automatic DOW event just like the Germans get one on Poland
 
  • Stupid Japanese send half their fleet to Alaska while the other half is buggering an invasion of Midway.
  • Japanese send one lone super BB to defend against the entire US Navy at Okinawa.
  • Germans send a lone BB and CA un-screened into the Atlantic and expect it to raid convoys undefeated.
  • USA builds 10 BBs and 22 CVs - why aren't they building an army?
  • UK only has 9 divisions in France in 1940 and leaves their mainland undefended
  • Germans build like 40 militia divisions and use them on the attack
  • Soviets lost like 80 divisions in 5 months and can't defend their country for sh!t
  • The BEF evacuates while the French just sit there doing nothing and get encircled
  • Bulgaria won't join the Germans when they Call to Arms against the Soviets
  • Australia only sends like two divisions to help the UK in Africa
  • Germany has like 20 divisions in freakin Yugoslavia for some reason
  • The US can't even support its 40 divisions in France with 500 convoys
  • The Germans only have two interceptor units defending their homeland while the US bombs it
  • Japan lost all its screens and isn't even building any new ones
  • The Germans are losing in the East and don't even try to withdraw when almost encircled
  • Finland just attacked the Soviets in about 5 provinces and just sits there not helping Germany
 
podcat said:
the first diplomatic AI I did for HoI3 actually had an EU3 style min/max style. it was pretty impossible to get anything historical out of it so we fell back to much tighter scripted solution with events and country specific decisions.

Fewrfreyut made a good post too. it would be interesting to have a game where in reality there are parts of the government pulling in different directions, not following orders properly and having their own crazy agendas (its generally thought that Hitler had some skill with strategy but lost his marbles more and more as the war progressed and same with many of the people he surrounded himself with), but i suspect it would be very frustrating to play a wargame like that :p
Click to expand...

You guys already made a game like that; it's called EU:Rome. :D
'Tis my favorite. Friggin' whining senators and scheming generals... ;)

I think the "player as god" problem is the single biggest issue in the making of strategy games. Here, Matrix, Battlefront, etc. All of you suffer from it and I don't think there really is a cure other than a degree of scripting. Then you have to deal with a general weakening of the whole dynamic of having a responsive AI.

Like my fave pet issue - the PTO. The damned JAP AI refuses to come out and play in the Central Pacific, the USA AI won't invade your islands (well, Central Pacific islands anyway), and both would be stupid to do so, waste of resources that they are (islands, that is), but then it's not WW2. Is it fun? That obviously depends. So anyway, the AI gets nudged and shoved and it plays in the islands. But then we as the player know this, and counter before the war starts then complain about an inflexible AI... :p

Sometimes I feel badly for you guys. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back