There are loads of things the AI can't do.Originally Posted by Amoral
For example the AI can't change, switch, add more or upgrade (to another unit type) it's brigades once a division is created.
Do you consider using those game tools cheating too?
There are loads of things the AI can't do.
For example the AI can't change, switch, add more or upgrade (to another unit type) it's brigades once a division is created.
Do you consider using those game tools cheating too?
"Experience is something you don't usually get until just after you need it"
After taking over an airbase and rebasing my fighters to it, I recall having to wait several weeks for fuel to reach it, unless I specifically flew it there using Transport aircraft. That kind of delay is almost unworkable in a moving theater, even at the speed of infantry. It's one thing to spend over a week waiting for fuel deep in Russia, another thing entirely when your aircraft are sitting for lack of fuel in freshly occupied parts of France before Vichy fires. It's not like my 3 armor divisions (ARM+LARM+2xMOT) in the region or my five ENG brigades (originally gathered as one ENG per division in a single Corps dedicated to breaching the Maginot Line, then redistributed to various Corps) were using too much of it (my 4th Armor division hadn't been redeployed from Poland yet).
My answer to the problem is to send a brigade or two of Armored Cars (or AC+CAV) as an airfield "garrison", and to have those ACs advance from their former base as soon as my front lines appproach a new one. They drag 30 days of supplies and fuel with them, which may be trivial compared to what aircraft consume, but should be at least enough for an air unit to conduct limited operations until I can establish a proper fuel supply route.
LOL, just had a picture of Sd.Kfz. 232's festooned with jerry cans. Just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat.
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter" Sir Winston Churchill
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Lady Margaret Thatcher
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" Napoleon Bonaparte
Roll Tide! BCS Champions 2009, 2011, 2012, and counting!
So would that be Kugel Rot Ausdrückliche?
It's similar to parking fleets on Pacific islands to build a stockpile for later. I'm sure the AI doesn't do this either. Is that cheating? Is it Gamey?
No! It's common sense. What we need is for PI to find a way to have the AI actually plan an offensive, taking fuel & supply issues in to account. I always thought it only sent the troops it could support in to an area. Something it’s far better at calculating than I am. But offensives required a much greater supply of fuel & munitions than could be supported so, we (and the AI) need to be able to build a stockpile, just like IRL.
“You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you.”
"It is a sin to carry a weapon in to battle & not use it."
Miyamoto Musashi
Actually, some of the German armored cars had brackets for jerry cans above or alongside the "rear" fenders or on the "back" end, with additional brackets for smoke dischargers or "makeshift" armor (scrap metal or stacked logs) on the "other" end. It's a bit hazy to describe, because they could drive in either direction. Most of the fuel would probably be in the horse-drawn supply wagons following the ACs, carting some from the last airfield to the next one, instead of direct all the way from Berlin.
It's "gamey" in one sense, but only serves to correct an issue that's equally unrealistic, because, as has been pointed out, you can't build rail supply lines to intermediate depots along the way, and stockpile for an offensive. Each time you redeploy your aircraft, for example, or strategically redeploy a unit, almost everything has to reroute and come in a direct path from Berlin and will take weeks to arrive, rather than already being on its way. All of the existing supply currently in transit, rather than follow the unit to its new location, is sent all the way back to your capital and then starts over. I'm sure that when the landings at Normandy succeeded, the Allies didn't say "now that we're there, maybe we should bring back all those supplies sitting in Dover and start sending fresh supplies from the US"; those supplies were already enroute for weeks or months before the landing was made, or were waiting in the UK for quick shipment across the channel as soon as a usable port was available.
The game might really benefit from using HQs as supply routing points, where each would serve as a (movable) depot, and all supply would be directed from those to the individual subordinate units. As it is, if the AI decides to place a depot at your initial landing area around some small port along an inhospitable coastline, your subsequent capture of several major ports and the advance of the front far from that original landing point would, and too often does, lead to ALL of your supplies having to route both to and then from that out-of-the-way depot.
Yup, that´s right, I totally agree with you... It doesn´t really matter with German ground units, but play as Nat. China, and you´ll understand...And then we are amazed by the supply transport cost lol...
Anyway, this could be used also for "normal" resources for IC... I mean, if you cannot get resources to your ICs location by any means, then it just can´t work!
I think the current supply system is the biggest flaw in the game, thus above of any military problems...
"Write a narration", they said.
"Get more views", they said.
"It'll drain your time", they didn't say.
You´re nuts! Ikar has made his own inkwell!
15/04/2013 - Fan of the Week (KLorberau)
If there was a game option for "should the AI be able to adjust its forces?" I would turn it on. And turning it off would be gamey.
There is a game option that says "should supplies just show up where you need them?". It is called arcade supplies. Leaving it off, but hacking the supply engine so that the restriction applies to the AI, but not to you. Is cheating.
See the difference?
But are we "Hacking" the supply engine?
Or are we telling it to use it's normal rules and limitations like throughput, consumtions, transfer speed and partisan disruptions to get some extra fuel to where we want them before it's needed?
And what if we only use it when we play multiplayer with a few friends? Then all my enemies are free to use it the same way I am so there is no advantage to anyone?
Or were does the limit go? If I only use AC which is a game unit already in the original game to do the same thing am I cheating then?
You could also put it like this:
Do you consider playing any other mod even if they make the game experience overall significantly harder, to be cheating also?
Just because these mods change the gamefiles and add things that the AI might not be able to use?
If you view the game from a historical perspective adding things that was possible to do historically but can't be done without changing game files is not cheating.
But on the other hand doing things you can do in the game but couldn't do historically like crossing the channel with 30 Panzer divisions at once in 1940 is cheating.
It all depends on what your point of view is.
Cheating normally implies doing something with the sole intent of gaining an unfair advantage, that is not the point here
"Experience is something you don't usually get until just after you need it"
Are you just bitter about semantics? Are you mad because I used the word cheating? In a single player game play however you like.But are we "Hacking" the supply engine?
Or are we telling it to use it's normal rules and limitations like throughput, consumtions, transfer speed and partisan disruptions to get some extra fuel to where we want them before it's needed?
And what if we only use it when we play multiplayer with a few friends? Then all my enemies are free to use it the same way I am so there is no advantage to anyone?
Or were does the limit go? If I only use AC which is a game unit already in the original game to do the same thing am I cheating then?
You could also put it like this:
Do you consider playing any other mod even if they make the game experience overall significantly harder, to be cheating also?
Just because these mods change the gamefiles and add things that the AI might not be able to use?
If you view the game from a historical perspective adding things that was possible to do historically but can't be done without changing game files is not cheating.
But on the other hand doing things you can do in the game but couldn't do historically like crossing the channel with 30 Panzer divisions at once in 1940 is cheating.
It all depends on what your point of view is.
Cheating normally implies doing something with the sole intent of gaining an unfair advantage, that is not the point here
I just think that if a solution exists that gives the same advanatges to the AI and the player, that it is preferable to a solution that only gives the advantage to the player.
...
You could also put it like this:
Do you consider playing any other mod even if they make the game experience overall significantly harder, to be cheating also?
Just because these mods change the gamefiles and add things that the AI might not be able to use?
...
If you view the game from a historical perspective adding things that was possible to do historically but can't be done without changing game files is not cheating.
But on the other hand doing things you can do in the game but couldn't do historically like crossing the channel with 30 Panzer divisions at once in 1940 is cheating.
It all depends on what your point of view is.
Cheating normally implies doing something with the sole intent of gaining an unfair advantage, that is not the point here
Any good mod is an extension of the game itself, and as such should be fully compatible with the AI. In reverse, published games themselves often include features that the game AI cannot use, thus can be as much WIP as any other variants; official or unofficial.
It is my view, that features that can easily be abused to create substantial in game bonuses or nerfs are 'game breaking' and indicative poor balance, or poor game design. This has bugger all to do with cheating, which is by definition; 'not playing by the rules or mechanics'. Unfair advantage has nothing to do with cheating as you can have a a game of chess played between a grand master and utter novice, and still hae no cheating involved. The skill of a player to confer advantage, can only be metered by the opponents of the player providing a challenge suitable of the player.
In that sense, in the context of HoI3 any human playing a major nation already has an unfair advantage and 'easy game' because the players skill is vastly greater than the games AI. In such a case the only suitable thing for a player to do is to stack the odds ever against him/herself by playing by house rules or give themselves a handicap in choice of starting nation.
This is why I prefer playing minors, the challenge is far greater than that of playing a major, and as such I gain great satisfaction........untill some scripted event/game code screws me over because Paradox in its infinite wisdom has not considered the viewpoint of a player playing a minor and how they might want to challenge the annexation of Austria or Czechslovakia etc.
Personally I feel that 'logistics units' are fair if you want them, and I would never tell anybody not to include them into their own personal game because of XYZ. It is for the player to decide how much of a challenge or not they want to match their skill and have fun. If you enjoy jackboots comp.stompin' over Europe then don't let me stop you! if you want verisimilitude, go for it and add historical content. If you want a mix of, or pump up the game AI with PeterHoI3 .lua files knock yourself out! It is for the player to decide, not us to argue over.
In a game of this complexity we can wish however much we want about an AI that can use all features and mechanics just like a player would, it's not gonna happen anyway :P
Ofcourse I'm mad, thats why I use(d) the
"Experience is something you don't usually get until just after you need it"
The easiest way of dealing with this is having airbases and forts have a supply & fuel reserve based on the size of the facility.In a game of this complexity we can wish however much we want about an AI that can use all features and mechanics just like a player would, it's not gonna happen anyway :P
Ofcourse I'm mad, thats why I use(d) the
It's laughable that my level 10 airfield in Germany proper has no fuel and it can take days, if not weeks for anything to start trickling in.
This sounds completely reasonable. All airbases and ports (forts?) should have fuel equivalent to their level, drawn from the supply system as per normal procedures for drawing supply.
I don't see how this could be construed as "gamey" as it would benefit the AI as well. Does anyone see any problems with this instead of the "logistics unit" that seems to be so contentious?
"When everyone is dead the Great Game is finished, not before."
Rudyard Kipling
I do, unless rebasing naval and air units resulted in some kind of attack delay and not just the ORG penalty.Does anyone see any problems with this instead of the "logistics unit" that seems to be so contentious?
If you had to wait a week to be able to use those units in combat, then I'd be happy with airbases stocking all kinds of stuff. As it stands now, this goofy logistics mechanic does help prevent abuse of the rebase feature.
All Hail Him,
The Secret Master
Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.
I just meant the actual supply mechanic and whether or not it would work
"When everyone is dead the Great Game is finished, not before."
Rudyard Kipling
I see this as the best solution. It aids the player, but confers greater advantage to the AI. In the ongoing arguement over this issue people seem to not know this. The AI is far more prone to rebase for the hell of it, and it does this on a more than regular basis. I can overcome the supply limitations by simply rebasing smartly (I guess that would be cheating?). What I cannot do is stop the AI from sending OOS fleets at me for instant destruction, but I have to assume that an added feature that aids the AI more than the human is to be considered less of a challenge
I’m all for this.
Rebasing, IMHO, should be considered a Strategic Redeployment.
With the exception of Transport planes operating within their command range.
“You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you.”
"It is a sin to carry a weapon in to battle & not use it."
Miyamoto Musashi
The real joke is that you can rebase aircraft right after midnight and send them out on mssions IMMEDIATELY for the rest of the day on their current day's fuel and supplies (with the ORG reduction for rebasing), but you can't bring them in late in the day and let them park overnight before flying. At that point, they're grounded for the next week or two because their daily supply resets and the supply route hasn't caught up.I just meant the actual supply mechanic and whether or not it would work
Using a fuel-consuming unit to maintain a modest stockpile at the airfield for limited operations is FAR more realistic. The aircraft can't operate at their full potential until the ground crews have fully moved in and set up properly, but they're still able to make an occasional flight using the limited resources on hand or brought hastily forward. The runway is there, and the hangers, and probably a couple of truckloads of fuel, ammo, and a few "essential" spare parts sufficient for routine flying, but not enough to maintain constant operations or repair battle damage. The game's supply system forces an "all or nothing" situation otherwise.
Would be great with a button of wanted fuel and supplies on your HQ, so you could have stockpile where and how much you want at a place !
Air units were frequently rebased from one front to another in a matter of hours and immediately sent into action, continuously and notably by the Germans, whose pilots had chronic fatigue problems because of it. There maybe should not be a significant organization penalty for rebasing an air unit in the game, or a fuel delay penalty, not for historical reasons, at least to an established base, unless such a thing is somehow modeled to include fatigue. It appears to me that the decision then is whether to accept delays or penalties for rebasing air units due to game balance, or change things in an expansion assuming the issue has reached a high enough priority.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
