Anyone finds Sahara and northern Canada fun?

[Secret Master]

There's no PTI in HoI3, all provinces can be traversed if you build infra.

You are right, but until they get that infra (which the AI never builds), they more or less function the same way.

And how many posts in the HOI3 forum have there been over the years about those impassable regions?

 

[Fulmen]

Its because those provinces dont have strategic regions assigned to them. Just give them a dummy region and its fine. You can see my post about it in the bug forums.

I tried giving them a state and it didn't fix it. Don't think I tried giving them a strategic region though, not sure. I'll have to give it a shot when I get more interested in HoI4 again. Thanks.

 

[Killerrabbit]

The core problem is the AI ignoring supply caps when it comes to troop deployments. Tested many different things for our mod, but the AI will, even in peacetime, fill up low supply regions with an ton of troops, if it is an border state with someone they aren't good friends with.

 

[Meglok]

Those who are annoyed by this only think that way because they're too lazy to manage the large African front. They can't or won't multitask, so it's a pain for them to handle the AI ambitions in Africa while they're busy doing the 'real deal'. If you're so annoyed by this, then just garrison some meagre troops to protect your lands there and be done with it. Or if you're not in the Allies then just capture what matters to you and leave a small garrison. If the AI ends up beating you there, then well you just better benefit from them not committing those units to the mportant front lines and win quickly.

This is so wrong it is laughable. The issue is the ai denuding it's lines in Europe to pour more troops into a backwater front than can be supplied, using routes that cause half of the troops to be sunk at sea, and then stranding them in high attrition provinces. The ai is committing suicide removing what little challenge it provides in single player games.

I don't think it is.

Given the complaints about PTI in HOI3 and other Paradox titles, it seems to me to be a consequence of satisfying one group of players.

Perhaps in the beginning that was the concept. But at this point when it has been shown by results to be an unmanageable clusterfudge, to continue with the policy smacks of stubbornness Sir Douglas Haig would be proud of.

The core problem is the AI ignoring supply caps when it comes to troop deployments. Tested many different things for our mod, but the AI will, even in peacetime, fill up low supply regions with an ton of troops, if it is an border state with someone they aren't good friends with.

Likely the battle planner seeing a front and rushing divisions to it, overriding all other code. Either the code hiearchy is off or non-existent.

 

[cellinis]

Perhaps in the beginning that was the concept. But at this point when it has been shown by results to be an unmanageable clusterfudge, to continue with the policy smacks of stubbornness Sir Douglas Haig would be proud of.

Perhaps, perhaps not. No-man's land provides a quick-fix to what is a deeper problem that you mention in the other part of your post. Sure, in Africa/Asia it renders the game quite literally unplayable in SP, but it has ramifications even with the NML switched on as the AI doesn't seem to understand supply (and quite frankly, a lot of other variables that any half-competent human player like me will take into account while deploying his armies or moving them around). Of course, the easiest thing the developpers can do is put in un-passable terrain. Or, they can work at the AI to ensure that without any terrain being 'impassable', it takes into account supply, attrition, etc and therefore simply decides not to venture into Sahara/Himalayas.

I think/hope that developers are looking to perfect the second solution, which will ensure a better AI overall instead of a quick fix.

 

[Meglok]

Perhaps, perhaps not. No-man's land provides a quick-fix to what is a deeper problem that you mention in the other part of your post. Sure, in Africa/Asia it renders the game quite literally unplayable in SP, but it has ramifications even with the NML switched on as the AI doesn't seem to understand supply (and quite frankly, a lot of other variables that any half-competent human player like me will take into account while deploying his armies or moving them around). Of course, the easiest thing the developpers can do is put in un-passable terrain. Or, they can work at the AI to ensure that without any terrain being 'impassable', it takes into account supply, attrition, etc and therefore simply decides not to venture into Sahara/Himalayas.

I think/hope that developers are looking to perfect the second solution, which will ensure a better AI overall instead of a quick fix.

Yes, in a perfect world the code would be reworked to do all you suggest in the second solution, if that is even possible. At this point I have my doubts.

The other option is a "super" NML. Impassible across from West to East below North Africa. Impassible Siberia, Amazon, interior Australia. IEA and the Allied african colonies turned into colonies under TfV. This would hopefully lessen the desire to flood Africa as the UK and France would not have fronts, their puppets would. Let territorial divisions raised by puppets deal with sub-sahara Africa.

The final fix would be to get the ai to stop transporting unescorted troop convoys without naval superiority. Since this issue is pretty important to an overall game fix we can hope it is a focus of 1.4.

 

[Art1985]

I really hope they will make this lands impassible in future, because I want historical war in northern Africa, and I believe that AI is better with narrow fronts than with all this deserts.

 

[billcorr]

To some extent, the African campaign is a scapegoat for what is wrong with the game. We all know some things are wrong and the AI does not perform as we would like. Even new players can also see at a glance that some strange things happen in or on the way to Africa. Clearly it is partly at fault for the flaws in the bigger picture, but how much of the burden of blame really belongs in Africa? I would speculate that its proper share of the blame is far less than the amount of discussion it has gotten since release. It is simply such an obvious flaw that it becomes an easy target.

Well said, sir.

Well said.

That is good rhetoric.

 

[Kaosium]

Completely wrong. Those who are annoyed are not so because of laziness in coping with another front. The problem stems from not wanting to see the AI (as either side) waste so very many resources on such an unimportant front.

Hrm.

After seeing numerous games where it didn't seem to have much negative effect on the Axis (GB has been invaded and fallen in about 30-40% of my recent SP games and the Soviets forced to capitulation at least twice with 2DD2) I think the Africa campaign just ruined my last game. I was playing France and going right and seeing if I could build up and declare over Yugoslavia circa Jan '42 and when the Germans declared on the Soviets on May first, 1941 I thought I might get a good game. That would turn out not to be the case, Berlin fell by August '41, though the Germans took it back temporarily and restored their lines for a while they didn't keep it for long.

Italy however overran Africa almost like it was the Sunflower release and held it long after both Italy and Germany capitulated. Outside a few random spaces the only thing Germany controlled was the Sinai, Israel and Jordan.