Current state of HoI IV

[LostAlone]

Not even that much.

Because the AI sucks at fighting, in SP it's easy to continually increase the size of your army as long as there is free manpower. And while there are penalties for higher conscription laws, Service by Requirement is not that much of a burden on your industry.

But where the limitations come into play is with equipment. I've noticed that against a competent human player, assuming you don't lose the entire war in six months, equipment lost in combat and to attrition becomes the effective limitation on how much you can expand the army. Manpower losses might not be that severe, but even I might find it hard to expand Germany's army while also replacing 100k in lost infantry equipment, thousands of Panthers, hundreds of trucks, and who knows how much lost artillery.

This doesn't excuse how easy it is to get manpower into play, but I've felt constrained in my number of divisions (front line ones at least) at various times in some MP games.

Note that minors that use the generic tree tend to get tons of manpower they really shouldn't have due to Communist and Fascist NFs. This is where some of the ahistorical division spam comes from.

I think that the equipment thing is the major problem in the game right now. Not that it's bad, as such. I just don't think it's intended, at least not as such. It feels like the game intends for you to build units and then those units are, mostly, good to go until they die. If it's intended that you need to closely watch your production to ensure you keep your material stocks up then that feels like that should be an actual mechanic with a name and things to manage it not just background effect of the game running normally.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

That, sir, is a massive understatement. As I said in another thread, the AI is passive at best, and suicidal at worst. It isn't capable of managing it's production, exhausts itself in endless attacks against superior enemy lines again and again, lacks the ability to create templates that are even remotely able to compete with those of a mildly competent player... the list goes on.

I consider the current AI to be some kind of placeholder or dummy. It poses no challenge once you know what you are doing, even when playing minors. You can easily pull off a 1:50 casualty ratio when playing Sweden and fighting against the Soviets, for instance.

So true.

It is hard to complain about the strategic shortcomings of the AI. It is extremely hard to create the kind of AI needed to moderately challenge a player.

But the tactical AI is also a joke, and there isn't much excuse for that. Not breaking off suicidal attacks is a massive oversight, one of many, which would require very, very little coding to fix. And it would make a HUGE difference, I can't count the times the AI simply loses a war because it bleeds material and men non-stop against superior entrenched troops.

 

[lihp]

That isn't true at all though.

The AI builds towards ..

<snip>

Generally, I think a lot of issues are also caused by human intervention. The AI is reasonable and fun if you play historically and fight a normal WW2. If you only build perfect specialised divisions, attack in 36, play completely a-historically or a just a good player then things get a lot easier. The AI cant adapt to your tactics and divisions, the AI wont be able to catch up if you build 20k CAS and the AI cant do breakthroughs and encirclements so cant deal with your encirclements or just sitting on perfect defensive positions. Limit yourself, build ordinary divisions, and turn the difficulty up if you want a challenge.

Summary: the game is still poor in AI logic and not a challenge for a skilled player. But the AI behaves almost ok, when someone plays "nice" and handicaps himself. And then it is fun.

We plain have a different perception of fun. Fine with me,

 

[lihp]

Note that minors that use the generic tree tend to get tons of manpower they really shouldn't have due to Communist and Fascist NFs. This is where some of the ahistorical division spam comes from.

Worst example: British Raj breaking free from UK without the DLC and standard conscription law in Fascist focus tree. Already 18.9 Mill manpower. And then go and grab Siam, China and Japan to get your IC rolling, rolling, rolling,....

 

[lihp]

@liph, this is not true. In multiplayer against competent players every decision is important and you will lose all the time unless you know what you are doing. Optimal play is difficult. There is a reason serious mp's require majors to have +500 hours in the game lmao.

I have no experience in MP like I told above. So all this applies to SP. Figure Id go down like a n00b in my first few MP games - fine with me, when I got the time

 

[redrum68]

So true.

It is hard to complain about the strategic shortcomings of the AI. It is extremely hard to create the kind of AI needed to moderately challenge a player.

But the tactical AI is also a joke, and there isn't much excuse for that. Not breaking off suicidal attacks is a massive oversight, one of many, which would require very, very little coding to fix. And it would make a HUGE difference, I can't count the times the AI simply loses a war because it bleeds material and men non-stop against superior entrenched troops.

This.

Creating even a decent AI is extremely difficult but having some basic tactical checks on how poorly attacks are going and retreating if they are just bleeding equipment/manpower should be fairly simple. When the AI attacking troops literally have 0 attack and don't have bomber support there is no reason to continue attacking unless they are just pinning down troops.

 

[Wizard12]

Its pretty fun but still needs some polish and a few of the features are a bit shallow (problems of still being fairly new I guess). I typically enjoy HOI3 with BlackICE but I've managed to have a few fun campaigns in 4. What it lacks in immersion it arguably makes up in a faster pace, so if you're looking for something quick or not particularly brain intensive (like after a day at work or after school/uni stuff) its quite nice to just kick back, run on speed 5 and take over the world.

I think of it as beer and pretzels edition of HOI

 

[Tacticus101]

Summary: the game is still poor in AI logic and not a challenge for a skilled player. But the AI behaves almost ok, when someone plays "nice" and handicaps himself. And then it is fun.

We plain have a different perception of fun. Fine with me,

There are no strategy games where a good player doesn't have to handicap themselves (or buff the AI) in order to make it a challenge. Even the pretty good AI in a fairly simple game like Age of Empires 2 gets much easier if you rush, use certain tactics, pick certain civs or play on certain maps; there are players who can 1v3 the hardest AI in that game. I cant think of a single game where there isn't a tactic that will give you a significant advantage over the AI.

In Hearts of Iron this is even more severe. You have more long term strategic decisions with massive effects, more min-max opportunities and huge benefits from even a small out-manoeuvre. In Age of Empires good micro might let you kill a slightly larger enemy force or take less casualties, in Hearts of Iron good micro will let you surround and destroy half the Chinese army within the first week of the war, basically winning it for you. There is nothing different in the error the AI makes, in pretty much every strategy game the AI happily advances strait forwards into enemy fire, but due to the mechanics of the game the cost is astronomically higher.

So yes, I recommend that if you want to have fun you limit yourself and avoid those tactics. The AI cant adapt its divisions, so if you turn up with armour in every division the AI wont be able to pierce and will die. The AI cant read your nation screen and adapt its production, so if you build 20k planes the AI will not be able to contest you and will die. The AI cannot predict what tactics you will use, so if you group all your armour and smash through the lines it will not be able to respond and will die. The AI cannot adapt and design units specifically for certain tasks, so if you build level 10 forts along your entire border the AI will not be able to do anything against them and will die.

I don't disagree there are issues with the tactical AI, but they are majorly exacerbated by player actions and decisions that can be easily avoided. If you want to play the same way that's fine, its your game, just please don't complain that the tactics you used worked.

 

[lihp]

There are no strategy games where a good player <snip>

Seriously: you assume too much and elaborate on your assumptions.

You have fun if you handicap yourself. I dont. Simple as that.

---

Apart from that, there are not only issues, but also bugs with the AI. Blaming the player for those is plain poor style. OP asked and the answer is: game is still buggy in importnt areas and its probably a good tactc to hold and wait.

 

[Dalwin]

Seriously: you assume too much and elaborate on your assumptions.

You have fun if you handicap yourself. I dont. Simple as that.

---

Apart from that, there are not only issues, but also bugs with the AI. Blaming the player for those is plain poor style. OP asked and the answer is: game is still buggy in importnt areas and its probably a good tactc to hold and wait.

Not abusing weak points in the design is not the same as handicapping yourself. You claim it is not fun for you to give the AI a sporting chance, fair enough. Is it fun for you to crush a helpless AI mercilessly? If the answer to that is no, you seem to have a bit of a dilemma.

This is also not the same as blaming the player. The point being made is that the game can be more fun than it otherwise is, if you don't take advantage of flaws. That is not to say that the flaws are not abundant and that improvements are not badly needed.

Earlier HOI (all versions) would also have forums filled with posts of players being proud to beat the AI by such tricks as leaving a gap in their line and destroying Ai units that entered it, over and over. I personally don't see much to celebrate in such tactics.

 

[lihp]

Not abusing weak points in the design is not the same as handicapping yourself. You claim it is not fun for you to give the AI a sporting chance, fair enough. Is it fun for you to crush a helpless AI mercilessly? If the answer to that is no, you seem to have a bit of a dilemma.

This is also not the same as blaming the player. The point being made is that the game can be more fun than it otherwise is, if you don't take advantage of flaws. That is not to say that the flaws are not abundant and that improvements are not badly needed.

Earlier HOI (all versions) would also have forums filled with posts of players being proud to beat the AI by such tricks as leaving a gap in their line and destroying Ai units that entered it, over and over. I personally don't see much to celebrate in such tactics.

Could ppl just hold their breath on assuming other stances?

To be more clear:

• No, I see zero point in deploying only 1CV fleets with less screens, just because the AI does so.
• No, I see zero point in producing less planes of lower quality than I can, so that the AI has a chance to beat me.
• No, I see zero point to drop art in my INF-templates so the AI stands a chance.
• No, I see zero point in letting the battle planer commence suicide of my troops, when I can intervene and win.
• No, I see zero point to play less efficient in technology, so the AI stands a chance.
• ...

No need for tricks, just play the game, even like it is meant to be. And the AI is zero challenge.

@Dalwin @Tacticus101 - please just gimme a break on what you assume about other players. It just shows you are not in to argue at all.

 

[C-Breeze]

Creating even a decent AI is extremely difficult but having some basic tactical checks on how poorly attacks are going and retreating if they are just bleeding equipment/manpower should be fairly simple.

Agree. But from my experience, these types of secondary 'tactical checks' seem to be entirely missing from the code. Not sure how this oversight made it's way into the basic design, but it's a huge two-ton elephant in the room.

 

[BurdenedWarrior]

Teaching the ai how to manage logistics will be coming. Steelvolt is rewriting the "shuffling along the front" part of the ai for 1.4. This will give the ai a lot more thrust rather then it always trying to cover the whole line before advancing. Also personally I think the AI is mediocre (passible) on the tactical regard (play the Spanish civil war). It really fails on the strategic sense right now. Building the right amount of divisions of the right make up with the right amount of reserves. It is much better at not building divisions until its death due to lacking equipment in 1.3.3 but it needs work in other areas now.

Other things the team is working on. AI and how it works its planes. It tends to overfill airbases leading to attrition and loss of efficiency. Also it deploys way too many planes in inefficient places which ties up huge amounts of manpower. This is going to be balanced.

The ai is being worked on. Constructive, precise feedback is helpful but complaining about general problems is not very productive for both the forum and the team in my opinion. The team knows exactly what needs fixing and tweaking and they are working on it. Lack luster complaints or not. Also there is an ai thread already...

 

[melkor88]

Hey there, haven't really played HoI IV since last summer so wondering what is the current state of the game.
Is it playable? With mods perhaps? Or should I wait until next DLC is released?

Thoughts and mod recommendations are welcome.

It is playable, you can increase the AI difficulties by countries on sliders which makes it more challenging now.

I recommend Black Ice mod if you want a lot more realistic game. (I love the mod personally!)

So yes, come and play, and don't wait!

 

[Tacticus101]

Could ppl just hold their breath on assuming other stances?

To be more clear:

• No, I see zero point in deploying only 1CV fleets with less screens, just because the AI does so.
• No, I see zero point in producing less planes of lower quality than I can, so that the AI has a chance to beat me.
• No, I see zero point to drop art in my INF-templates so the AI stands a chance.
• No, I see zero point in letting the battle planer commence suicide of my troops, when I can intervene and win.
• No, I see zero point to play less efficient in technology, so the AI stands a chance.
• ...

No need for tricks, just play the game, even like it is meant to be. And the AI is zero challenge.

- please just gimme a break on what you assume about other players. It just shows you are not in to argue at all.

No-one has suggested any of those things. But by all means, keep completely avoiding the point and beating at your straw man, it is you who is finding the game unenjoyable, not me.

The ai is being worked on. Constructive, precise feedback is helpful but complaining about general problems is not very productive for both the forum and the team in my opinion. The team knows exactly what needs fixing and tweaking and they are working on it. Lack luster complaints or not. Also there is an ai thread already...

Well said.

 

[lihp]

No-one has suggested any of those things.

Enlighten me on what you meant by: "handicap yourself" besides playing on veteran difficulty without cheesy moves (without eg. the Dutchonesia opening move).

How do you handicap yourself then that is so much fun for you? Besides above points?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

New player here, on second Italy game. The game seems virtually bug free. The ai in regular mode is a pushover. I was able to conquer Africa and Asia minus German owned Soviet Union and Japanese owned China. I am currently trying to get Hawaii so I can drop a nuke on California for the achievement. Did I say it's my second game?

The game play seems fun so far but I wonder if it will have the same replay value as EU4 or CK2.

Haven't tried multiplayer. That might be a blast.

My $0.03,
SR

edit - I just have the base game picked up on sale last month. I can not say what the Victory DLC does to the game.

 

[lihp]

The game play seems fun so far but I wonder if it will have the same replay value as EU4 or CK2.

There is a replay value, when you go for Steam achievements. Problem is: some acheivements force you to play to a huge disadvantage, where the game is even cheating on you. Figuring it out and finding a way around it can be a blast.

Examples:

• Northern Light: before you could pushroll the achievement in '37 - '38. This seems to be no longer possible. So your turn to invade the UK as Sweden to end WW2.
• Rule Brittania: start as British Raj without DLC and try to break free and then invade the UK.
• ...

Achievements can be fun.

 

[Tacticus101]

Enlighten me on what you meant by: "handicap yourself" besides playing on veteran difficulty without cheesy moves (without eg. the Dutchonesia opening move).

How do you handicap yourself then that is so much fun for you? Besides above points?

I don't know why you have "handicap yourself" in quotation marks, it isn't a quote, the only person talking about handicapping yourself is you.

But if you want to read some of my suggestions on how to keep the game fun, I suggest reading some of the lengthy posts I have written in this thread (or those of others). Preferably the actual posts rather than whatever strange version you have in your head, but like I said before, its entirely up to you, its your game. If you want to keep playing a game you have said you don't find fun, my all means do, I don't care.

 

[lihp]

I don't know why you have "handicap yourself" in quotation marks, it isn't a quote, the only person talking about handicapping yourself is you.

But if you want to read some of my suggestions on how to keep the game fun, I suggest reading some of the lengthy posts I have written in this thread (or those of others). Preferably the actual posts rather than whatever strange version you have in your head, but like I said before, its entirely up to you, its your game. If you want to keep playing a game you have said you don't find fun, my all means do, I don't care.

There are no strategy games where a good player doesn't have to handicap themselves (or buff the AI) in order to make it a challenge.
<snip>

Sorry man, +1 to the ignore list.

Can't be bothered with you, when you forget your own posts and claim the opposite, while becoming personal.