• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have seen the German ww2 documentary(Kampf um Norwegen) about the invasion Denmark and Norway. The Movie was never reviled to public during the war because it was to soft and to weak as a propaganda toll. I shows us that Armour units was not very effective not much of a surprise. I say Germany best weapon for invading Norway was surprise(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI) and initiative. The terrain was difficult for the German infantry, but it manged quite well to the defeat the small Norwegian army. But the whole campaign could have been in jeopardy if Germany had declared war on Sweden before Norway was secured because the Allies had its first victory at Narvik during ww2.
Advancing on Sweden after Norway is under secure control would be a different matter.
A Sweden under German occupation could led some devartion of troops that would have been more useful other places and Swedish-puppet state would a little recondition among the population.

By the way I have made changes to the Beta today*.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?799828-109-beta-patch-1 link
 
Last edited:
I completely agree that surprise was the most important factor in Germany's success when invading Norway. This is because the invasion went against all logic: any amphibious invasion needed naval supremacy, or at least naval superiority. Germany had neither and its surface fleet was decimated because of the campaign.

In AoD invading Sweden is in fact the best way to solve this, ensuring the UK's fleet plays little role in the campaign.
 
Just seen AI Italy utterly steam roll the UK out of Africa and the Middle East by mid 41, looking at the production menu I'd suggest a lot less infra builds for the UK :blink:
 
Just seen AI Italy utterly steam roll the UK out of Africa and the Middle East by mid 41, looking at the production menu I'd suggest a lot less infra builds for the UK :blink:
I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised when you see the starting production builds of all the major countries.
 
I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised when you see the starting production builds of all the major countries.

If there is a relationship between UK spending lots of IC on infra to result in losing N. Africa - or not building so much infra and holding N. Africa - I would conclude that the first choice must be bad. :D
 
Well the France AI is even more of a pushover in 1.09 then it already was beforehand. France has a much greater potential, especially with free research.

And now the Germany AI can be annexed in January 1940 by just the starting Allies alone.

As a positive, with all the major country AIs wasting so much IC on infra, perhaps it balances itself out on single player, so long as the human is a minor.
 
Last edited:
As a positive, with all the major country AIs wasting so much IC on infra, perhaps it balances itself out on single player, so long as the human is a minor.

Or perhaps not? Italy's consistent phenomenal success is not any real balance. Such things did not happen before 1.08. At least I never encountered it in 1.04 which I played far more than any other version. I never encountered Italy's easy win in 1.07 either. But in 1.08 one can count on it happening every time regardless what major one plays in SP; and sounds like 1.09 is just an extension of that trend.

Well, what fun is there in "Can't play major to maintain AI balance?" Actually, playing a minor didn't change Italy's performance. The problem is far too much infra for the majors. Maybe balance will come in 1.10 with every country building vast amounts of infra? :D
 
And now the Germany AI can be annexed in January 1940 by just the starting Allies alone.

That is intended. IRL Germany was rather vulnerable to a systematic attack of the mobilized manpower and icd of all allied nations together. That germany could take of the allied nation one by one greatly helped for the military sucess.

As a positive, with all the major country AIs wasting so much IC on infra, perhaps it balances itself out on single player, so long as the human is a minor.

No, it is no specific of single player.

And i donnot think that Infra is the problem, the military building schemes are. UK spending icd on 10 carriers and other high icd unit units reduces icd available for infantry etc.. Properly changing the military building schemes is one of the first step towards a better performance of the UK. Reducing infra builds further seems just like a last resort.
 
If the historic argument is to be used, then we should also witness:
* A much more challenging invasion of France by Germany should it invade through Belgium, especially if it invades without a significant panzer/motorised force and little air support
* The ability to virtually destroy the Red Air Force by the Luftwaffe, should it launch airport strikes as soon as Germany declares war.
* The USA not joining the war unless Japan or Germany declare war on them, or on any nation in the Americas that is not part of the Allies
* Finland (Japan too) not entering into a formal alliance with Germany
* The German occupation of Western Europe having little partisan resistance, at least in comparison to central and eastern Europe.
* Puppet states not being able to extract the same resources, industry and manpower as the previous states that controlled the land (at least not without some sort of permanent resistance)
* The gross inaccuracy of strategic bombing, where not only incorrect cities are bombed, but incorrect countries too

The point being it is impossible to be consistent when arguing for a rigidly historical game. It is possible to be consistent in having a generally historical game that maximises the ability of the AI. If gameplay is unfairly affected by this, then the problem is in the structure of the game (I.e. A certain major has too much/ little manpower or IC or resources etc).

Yes another problem is the UK's military build. One mod has removed, or at least reduced this problem, as have many other edits by AoDers. I'm willing to bet most of the people who have done edits improving the AI would like to see their hard, and very productive work, in vanilla.

I don't get how its not specific to single player, as humans can play the majors on multi-player and thus remove the AI's stupidity.
 
Emoilia Mola

I think Emoilia Mola should be removed from them game if N.spain dosent control Madrid between June the 1. and 6. 1937.
I have read the wiki artikel about him it question if Franco had something to it. When Emolia dies in AOD he remain as minister, but is removed as a leader. This should be changed, but he should live somewhat longer. We dont have to use all the rigid death events in cars and planes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Mola post 666 he he
 
Last edited:
The UK vs. Italy is not different if it is multiplayer unless human player intervenies into the war of those 2 nations, that i implicity assume to stay AI. If they are played by human arguments about their AI can hardly apply.
I think Chiron was referring to an AI vs. AI instance.

I think Emoilia Mola should be removed from them game if N.spain dosent control Madrid between June the 1. and 6. 1937.
I have read the wiki artikel about him it question if Franco had something to it. When Emolia dies in AOD he remain as minister, but is removed as a leader. This should be changed, but he should live somewhat longer. We dont have to use all the rigid death events in cars and planes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Mola post 666 he he
Thanks for the link, I never knew where the the term "fifth column" came from until now. Congrats on your fourth devil's post! :D
 
And i donnot think that Infra is the problem, the military building schemes are. UK spending icd on 10 carriers and other high icd unit units reduces icd available for infantry etc.. Properly changing the military building schemes is one of the first step towards a better performance of the UK. Reducing infra builds further seems just like a last resort.

This seems strange logic. You claim infra construction is not the problem, but rather AI constructing 10 CVs is (to so result in the main problem of not enough icd available for infantry). Would not either a reduction in CVs or infra construction (or a bit of both) give the needed extra for infantry?

Of course it would, so the argument is not lack of icd for infantry but "priorities" that result in not enough left for infantry. Clearly, either reducing infra construction or lines of CVs will result in the same benefit to infantry.

Yet you think "reducing infra builds further" seems like the last resort. Why? Next, the clarifier of "further" does not even apply. There has been no reduction in infra builds (but only increase), so there can not be any "further" reduction. Your statement does not make sense.

What is clear is that you think infra construction should be most prioritized. Now that you see the problem of not enough infantry leading to an Italian AI blitz, you propose creating a further problem by cutting UK's naval program.

But Pang, there wasn't ANY problem at all BEFORE all the over abundant infra constructions got added. The problem began with UK's exorbitant infra construction. Logic (and honestly) would be an admission that perhaps the UK is constructing far too much infra - and not next cutting the UK's navy which is the highest priority item the country has always had. The RN is the key defense for UK. With that guarding all the oceans (because they have plenty of CVs) and a few extra infantry, the UK AI never had this problem before. Thinking the problem is not directly the result of icd diverted to infra is just not facing the facts. And trying to improve the situation by next doing another drastic mistake is just that - another mistake.

I'm all for a v1.10 that keeps all the good hard work put into 1.08 and 1.09 - but completely removes the huge changes that are proving to result in the game now being less balanced than before.
 
And speaking of AI imbalance, I would like to advise that the last Spanish Civil War was an incredible short one - July 17/36 to Aug 25/36. I was playing China, so we can assume I was in no way responsible for Franco's unbelievable success. :D
 
I agree with Commander on all the above points, apart from the claim that there weren't any problems beforehand. There have always been problems with the vanilla AI. Some of these can be ameliorated by further softcoded edits to its research and build priorities. A mod has already done this to near perfection, and the brilliant mind behind the mod has said his edits (** cough cough significant improvements cough cough **) can be included into 1.09, if permitted.

Although, IMO, the ultimate deficiency of the AI is it's handling of combat. It's best at land combat, rating: awful. Second best at air warfare, rating: abysmal. Third best at naval warfare, rating: tragic. Yet this appears to need hardcoded changes. Ideally, the easiest and perhaps best solution would be to enable modders to (significantly) edit the AI's combat skills through softcoding.

The AI can see everything, has free research & brigade building, and no retooling. It should be a force to be reckoned with, not one easily exploited and defeated.
 
But Pang, there wasn't ANY problem at all BEFORE all the over abundant infra constructions got added.

Yes, there was. 108 added very little infra, but it did change to relative building schemes without changing those building schemes appropriatly.

and not next cutting the UK's navy which is the highest priority item the country has always had.

One must differ between priority and urgency. Increasing the land forces has a high urgency as the starting navy is superior to anything other nations start with. Later on, when the advantages from Infra builds apply, the navy is to be strengthened.
 
Yes, there was. 108 added very little infra, but it did change to relative building schemes without changing those building schemes appropriately..

Is what one sees opening any country what the AI builds at start? Because on 1.08 UK has nil infra constructing, but far too much navy. It is all navy at start. I agree that Italian AI blitz of N. Africa started with 1.08. I never noticed it in 1.07 best I recall.

So if the big change for UK regarding 1.08 was changing production to totally navy only at start, and next Italy starts always blitzing Africa, I guess we can assume that the drastic changes done in 1.08 must be the problem.

I don't have 1.09, but I assume that the report of all the infra builds for UK at start combined with continuing Italian blitz relates to 1.09, correct? Then we can assume that the drastic changes for UK in 1.09 (lots of infra added) did not fix the problem. And why would it since the problem must have begun with the first drastic change that cut infantry construction.

Logic would be to roll UK right back to exactly what it was in 1.07 - so removing all current craziness.

In fact, it is rather predictable that huge game changes will incur balance problems. Reason being that the game progressed thru many versions all addressing balance issues incrementaly. But these days it seems like your idea is, "The game's not balanced... let's add a ton of weight to one side of the balance beam... oops! that didn't balance it---- let's add a couple tons to the opposite balance beam."

Huge game changes like you have been responsible for (I hope I am giving credit to the right party) will not ever fix the balance issues and are - in fact - creating serious imbalance issues.

There is a saying, "Don't fix what isn't broken." However, there really are things in AoD that need fixing... like convoys. How strange that they don't seem to be getting fixed.

On the other hand the changes I see Pioniere doing like getting more leaders and pics are really good. There are many areas the game can always be enhanced. But when any version has proven to introduce a new major imbalance (like 1.08 seems to be where Italy always blitz Africa) then I think the proper procedure would be determining what new change caused that; and removing it in next version - and not adding huge counter changes in an effort to recover lost balance.
 
Last edited:
The idea that any form of the vanilla AI - be it from 1.07, 1.04 or whatever version - "isn't broken" is seriously flawed. Every form of vanilla AI is broken.

The convoy issue is a hardcoded one. At the moment, only the softcoding can be edited until a C++ programmer is found. The most important form of softcoding that needs editing is the AI (but my above point is that it already has been majorly improved in a superb modification, and that these improvements can be used for vanilla 1.09).
 
The idea that any form of the vanilla AI - be it from 1.07, 1.04 or whatever version - "isn't broken" is seriously flawed. Every form of vanilla AI is broken.

I agree with you and did not mean to give that impression. I really was only discussing Chiron's point and the Italian AI blitzing Africa - which I never noticed before 1.08.

The game has been ameliorated (made better) with every version. However, when a new major imbalance appears with a new version, I think the proper procedure is determining what recent new change caused that; and removing it in next version. Adding huge counter balances to try to restore balance lost regarding some specific issue due to an earlier significant change is not the logical way to keep improving the game. Smaller changes over several versions that keep moving the game closer towards the desired goals are much safer than drastic changes.

The mod work you mention sounds good. I certainly don't understand what might be the politics behind this game, but it would be great if other's really good ideas could be included in a beta version so the community could comment on it. Somehow that thought suddenly gets me very interested in the game again. :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.