HOI4 - Development Diary - 12th of August 2016 **read OP edit**

[BelisarioManu]

Maybe you are right concerning the majority of players that prefer SP. That's a fact indeed. SP is more simple to handle.
But, are you sure that an AI is able to handle such games ? Do you know at least one Grand Strategy history game with a good challenging AI ? It's not a chess game. I've already developed this point in this thread, in two words : calculators are not good at that, for many reasons. PI dev skills or concern has nothing to do with it.

For me, AI is just a way to train for my MP games. And I know why.
That said, I agree HOIs need a minimal AI even for MP games, to be played in good conditions. I'm reading the same complaints about AI flaws since HOI1. The only thing maybe you can reproach to PI is to let people believe that they can provide a real non-human challenger for a complex big scale Wargame. But, unless you think they are priest, and gaming a religion, you are not forced to believe that.

Anyway, why complaining about what they are the only one to have the courage to do : make strong Grand Strategy WW2 games ? I understand your concern about the AI, if for you it is the only interest in this game. But, it remains that MP is the only way to go if you want to play the game seriously with all its potentiality.

Clash of Steel (from SSI) was pretty decent at any level.
And i m talking about a 1993 game.

 

[Balesir]

@SteelVolt - glad to hear the AI is getting some love! One thing I haven't seen mentioned but I have noticed that would be a great improvement is the AI use of units with different "supply footprints". What I mean, I'll try to illustrate by example: if I give the AI battle manager in North Africa divisions including an armoured division (that requires lots of supply) and a couple of infantry brigades (that don't require much supply), it seems intent on putting the armour in the deep desert (where it will wither and die) and the infantry near the coast. If it could somehow consider placement along the front based on the supply "weight", that would both make the battle planner easier to use for me and help the AI nations who can't micromanage fronts, etc. Thanks!

 

[Aries666]

Skimming over the last few pages of this thread confirmed why I stopped coming to the HOI4 forum for a while.

 

[jackda]

Clash of Steel (from SSI) was pretty decent at any level.
And i m talking about a 1993 game.

Indeed, I've also talked about HOI1 in my first post concerning this subject in this thread.
Old games had "decent" AI just because they had FAR less features, provinces, different units etc. In two words they were more "closed" than HOI4 (less possibilities for the players, and ALSO for the AI). Possibilities in HOI4 comparing with those two examples are exponentials. We can't imagine how difficult it is to code a decent AI (I'm not even talking about a challenging AI) for such games.

 

[Havebeard]

A new custom difficulty setting and some AI improvements... I mean, that's all good, and AI stuff is very important (crucial, even) but it doesn't seem very ambitious for the next full patch. When will we start seeing player feedback really being implemented?

You mean you give us a cheat slider to buff the AI with wild boni since you cant get the AI to work as it is supposed to be? That does not sound too good.

Personally I hate balancing the game around handicaps and not around properly responding to the in-game situation AI. It seems to me like choosing an easy way around. Don't get me wrong, I understood that they are also going to put effort into improving AI but I'd me more happy seeing all the production capabilities being put into the AI and broken game mechanics rather than short term fix of the problem which are custom handicaps. Just my opinion tho.

Shouldn't you first have a balanced AI first before you start trying to customize it? The current AI is incompetent. Paradox released the game as such, do we really want their focus to be testing adverse effects to custom sliders when their focus should be fixing the AI?

Actually, even though you obviously want both, customization without competence is still an improvement and it is one that can be gained quickly. AI competence is ultimately more important but it is also much much more difficult to achieve and will take much more time. This latter item will happen gradually over the course of the next 2-3 years. I'd rather not wait two years to get the customization.

Not replying directly to you @Dalwin. Just addressing the issue.
Custom strengths for nations never took time away from an AI programmer. We have people on the team with different skill sets.

Reading between the lines...

Please don't. You're likely to get it wrong, and only hurt the discussion.

I really don't mean to sound disrespectful here, but you guys need to do better. I know I am not the only one who has been frustrated with the lack of communication since the last hot fix, and Paradox really needs to take a hard look at how they are communicating to he HOI community.

Main reason is that people have been away. When people get back there is usually a lot of work to do, so time is spend on the game instead of the forum.
A contributing factor can be found in the tone of many posts. Since reading and posting on the forum, is something we usually do besides our normal work tasks, it would be great if it was a nice break from the usual work. Something we could look forward to.
Instead we get:

Cool. Thanks guys.

*sigh*

Sliders....ffs.

So....

Git gud?

Stellaris and CK and whatnot is making this team look like it has no idea what its doing and wont be able to get it together to fix the problems we have. Not just not in the short term, but at all.

"This is paradox fixing bugs"

And this is why the slider had this hostile reception. Any no AI improvement told in this DD could have been anyething most people expected.

And now I'm pretty sure someone will respond with: "If you had made a better game to begin with, we would all be happy and congratulating you!"
If that's your view and reason for speaking then so be it. But it's not something that encourages discussion.

========

Paradox, none of us want damage/defense bonuses as the go- to way of making a campaign harder! It is not fun having russian peasents beating my SS HArm, and it break immersion. When you do that the game will revolve around numbers and trying to game the system, instead of trying to outsmart the AI opponent.

No one? I'm going to reply with quotes.

The ability to strengthen other nations is nice. It will add some variety to playthroughs. I used that option with some mods in HOI3 at times, and liked it.

Well considering I made two separate threads asking for precisely this feature (the ability to buff specific countries) and a few people agreed, I think this is a helluva good start, Bravo PDX!

========

Im not trying to be a jerk here

Are you sure?

Wait - let me ask this explicitly, can difficulty be changed mid game, or only at game start???

Game start only.

Unless you think UI guys should code AI? Hey, maybe that's why the AI is in such a bad shape Paradox! Stop putting your UI team on AI script coding

This guy has a point. And humor.

Just posting to show some appreciation for your efforts and communication.
Please don't give up seeing all this rant.

Thank you.

These things do not eat up that much time and are immensely helpful and cathartic

Wrong. Reading through posts and answering takes immense amounts of time. Making a road map suited for public view takes a lot of work.

What concerns me the most is the lack of attention and immediate concern spent on this game right now compared to Stellaris but I made the mistake in thinking Hearts of Iron IV would be the flagship title. Just goes to show that sales numbers dictate where resources and dedication should go. I just feel bad for those few left to work on Hearts of Iron IV now. Just seems pointless to me when all that caution in not making the same mistakes with Hearts of Iron III's release and then it ultimately ends up in development hell anyway.

Why are you presuming to know about internal Paradox matters, like team size?
How many do you think are working on HOI now? How many before release?

It makes me so sad seeing how toxic part of this community has become so quickly.

I think toxic is a dangerous word. People are frustrated, and are having a hard time expressing it in a way that leaves room for an informed discussion. Maybe when the dust settles, we will be able to work together on improving the game further.

This is problem that's well know, and has been reported many times. Germany has trouble taking Copenhagen. Where in WW2 they surrendered after 6 hours.

Agreed. We're working on it.

But no one is saying this. No one is saying this. No one is saying Paradox is evil, etc... etc... This get thrown out there every time, and it's not true.

It sure sounds like it.

======

Do you Paradox play your own game SP?

Yes

How can it be that each title at the series is inferior than its predecessor?

I disagree, but if you think so, fair enough. Sad to hear it.

Is there ANY love in what you re doing?

Yes! Is there any love for us in your post? ;'(

Can't speak about the money matters you asked about. It's not my department.
======

I personally have enjoyed Hearts Of Iron 4 immensely and I have gotten 160 hours of entertainment from the game, but I feel like the game needs more depth. Not the point of Hoi3 depth, but enough to the point where you can always feel like you're learning things and finding more optimal ways to do things. After 160 hours, I feel like I've found the most optimal paths to go.
I don't think Hoi4 was as good as it was hyped to be, but it's still an enjoyable experience that I've had a lot of fun to play with.
Can't wait for the next few patches that can help the game realize it's potential.

Glad to hear it you have gotten so many hours of enjoyment from it.


So that's it from me. We're listening. We're working. Sorry if you feel we're not communicating enough. Answering takes a lot of time away from development.
Please be considerate in your posts. Pointing out problems is fine, but think about how you can make it constructive for us.

//Havebeard

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

The Micromanagement of HoI3 we neither need nor want back though. Good riddance if you ask me.

Now this is a statement I was not expecting to see coming from you; HOI IV increased the micromanagement across the board to sometimes almost unbelievable levels like the air force management (well above 1000% more micro for my style of play); the navy also requires more micromanagement due to the lack of a outliner (...) and not being actual units on the map for most of the time, lack of transports and naval invasions, the lack of automation makes trade very, very tedious (...) and managing the armies due to lack of an adequate UI or proper automation (by comparison with HOI III TFH) is an exercise in frustration and a true micro-management hell. The biggest problem with HOI III was the UI that conveyed little info to the player, lack of army management tools (like the HOI IV templates) that could let us update the divisions with minimal effort as seen in HOI IV and a bad AI (which by comparison with HOI IV was actually a genius), keep in mind that the full OOB was not mandatory in HOI III. To sum it up the only things good that HOI IV brought to the HOI series was the production, division’s templates and up-to-date graphics at the expense of depth, replay ability and I never thought I would say it: SP challenge.

 

[chevyrob420]

hey guys im new here and have been searching for a certain mod i cant seem to find. please help if you can i seen a new video from Devildoggamer with a modern day mod but when i look that up i see a few different versions some start in 2000 which isnt the one he had and others like modern warfare i cant seem to find out how to install they seem to be still creating it and not available for download help anyone? thanks in advance

 

[Had a dad]

hey guys im new here and have been searching for a certain mod i cant seem to find. please help if you can i seen a new video from Devildoggamer with a modern day mod but when i look that up i see a few different versions some start in 2000 which isnt the one he had and others like modern warfare i cant seem to find out how to install they seem to be still creating it and not available for download help anyone? thanks in advance

register your game and ask in the usermod forum.

 

[fredgiblet]

What prevents you from using autonomous brigades or battalions in HoI4?

The Army XP system makes it absurdly expensive to deploy specialist units. You can spend your entire pre-war budget to design a single one.

 

[The Disaster]

The Army XP system makes it absurdly expensive to deploy specialist units. You can spend your entire pre-war budget to design a single one.

I have noticed this. Perhaps there could be a few extra template divisions that unlock when you research something without the need to spend your limited pre-war Army XP on, such as a Garrison Division when you research MP.

 

[Had a dad]

The Army XP system makes it absurdly expensive to deploy specialist units. You can spend your entire pre-war budget to design a single one.

console command "xp" and make whatever template you want

 

[Had a dad]

btw after wading through a few pages of hostility, it stops now. if you cannot post in a constructive manner and on topic, don't post.

 

[Balesir]

I have noticed this. Perhaps there could be a few extra template divisions that unlock when you research something without the need to spend your limited pre-war Army XP on, such as a Garrison Division when you research MP.

Or just reduce the points needed to tweak division templates, which is what I have done in the Mod I'm using.

 

[Dan1109]

@Havebeard - disappointed in hearing that the difficulty settings cannot be changed mid game. I hope you see the need to do this, as we all have played games where when we FINALLY get to the meat of it, find a setting to be too light or too heavy. I'm not requesting that the modifiers be changeable during the game, but I would at minimum like to see that one can save the game, reload it and be offered a chance to modify the difficulty "sliders" at that point. Of course, it won't be like playing an entire new game at that setting, but it will prevent numerous "restarts".

And of course Iron Man cannot change such settings.

 

[fredgiblet]

I have noticed this. Perhaps there could be a few extra template divisions that unlock when you research something without the need to spend your limited pre-war Army XP on, such as a Garrison Division when you research MP.

My preferred option would be to make division design free and just increase the XP loss from changing it. Also I would add in a "trained reserve" number so that the XP loss for reinforcements wasn't as high. IRL you can attach units freely to other units, it's just they aren't as good at working together until they've practiced.

Basically you'd have the option to train people and put them in the reserve, that way you can deploy units from the reserve or pass the trained reservists on as replacements to your line units.

console command "xp" and make whatever template you want

Sure, but cheating shouldn't be a necessary part of the game.

 

[Had a dad]

Sure, but cheating shouldn't be a necessary part of the game.

well what you are asking for goes against how the game was designed, so... why not? You want to play a certain way with certain things that ofc the game wasn't coded for, so. if you wish to enjoy it as you would like, it's not cheating it's just playing the game the way you want to.
A long time ago I heard the comment "you get the game you choose to play" and there is a fair amount of truth to that. Building the specialist units in hoi3 was an exploit that the AI wasn't coded for except in some mods that had the AI build similar units, same here (though I don't think there is a mod out yet that does).

 

[grandad1982]

@Havebeard thank-you for taking time to reply to so many posts.

After hanging around these forums for a few years I have seen several episodes of people letting there emotions run wild on both sides of the arguments. Ultimately I'm sure it's because we all care about the game and it's progress.

What I'm trying to say is I appreciate that you interact with us even though it's not your job to do so. Its one of the things that sets pdx apart and part of why we all feel invested in your games, because with constructive feedback and discussion we ARE.

 

[safe-keeper]

well what you are asking for goes against how the game was designed, so... why not? You want to play a certain way with certain things that ofc the game wasn't coded for, so. if you wish to enjoy it as you would like, it's not cheating it's just playing the game the way you want to.
A long time ago I heard the comment "you get the game you choose to play" and there is a fair amount of truth to that. Building the specialist units in hoi3 was an exploit that the AI wasn't coded for except in some mods that had the AI build similar units, same here (though I don't think there is a mod out yet that does).

Yes and no. The starting divisions should be historical in the first place, then you wouldn't have to spend lots of XP building them up from their bare-bones basics, and you would have far more XP to experiment with new designs.

 

[egslim]

So that's it from me. We're listening. We're working. Sorry if you feel we're not communicating enough. Answering takes a lot of time away from development.
Please be considerate in your posts. Pointing out problems is fine, but think about how you can make it constructive for us.

My first Paradox game was HOI2, and I've always been immensely impressed with the AI relative to other games. (Total War and Civilization series, for example.)

I think HOI4 has a lot of potential, and I can see glimpes of cleverness in the AI. But unfortunatly, right now I don't find Vanilla enjoyable to play, due to the AI's issues.

However, I have 100% confidence you work hard to resolve them, and you'll succeed. I appreciate when you keep us informed on progress, and I'll wait for the necessary patches.

 

[Had a dad]

Yes and no. The starting divisions should be historical in the first place, then you wouldn't have to spend lots of XP building them up from their bare-bones basics, and you would have far more XP to experiment with new designs.

we could debate the "historicalness or lack of" of the starting template, but my comment was directed at his "specialist" div that you could make in hoi3. What you are referencing is imo different as it was a deliberate design feature, to improve the template via XP gain and give you something to do during the early years with the little that you can accrue (unless you can send volunteers in which case you can accrue a fair amount...)