HOI4 has completely lost its strategic nature

[Qswhisper]

Since the release of the Man the Guns DLC, the design structure of various weapons has completely destroyed the strategic aspect of the game, as the AI is unable to use them correctly. Players have designed invincible warships with incredibly high light artillery damage and astonishing submarine fleets with low casualty ratios. They have also designed invincible tanks with incredibly high anti-personnel capabilities and astonishing offensive efficiency. Furthermore, players have designed invincible aircraft with extremely high anti-aircraft capabilities, making heavy aircraft almost obsolete.

Every aspect of the game now has optimal solutions, and most of the gameplay time is spent on repetitive tasks. For example, every time you play as Germany, you have to design the same tanks all over again because most components have no value. This is not the result of my pursuit of efficiency; rather, it is due to the AI's incompetence, as it does not require you to think strategically. Even if you use your creativity to design a unique tank, you will find that the enemy does not react to it, rendering strategic thinking a waste of time.

Paradox could have changed this situation. For example, the designer should have provided several sets of design templates (categories such as suppression, siege, occupation and mobility) automatically generated based on scientific research levels, military doctrine and resources for the AI and new players to choose from and use; if you choose occupation, he will design a light tank with superior speed depending on your country. If you choose Mobility, it will design a light or medium tank with average speed and firepower, depending on your country, and so on. Allowing the game process to focus more on upgrading scientific research levels , improving military doctrine and having more resources, Then the system will automatically generate a better design template. Keeps the player fully focused on macro-strategy rather than micro-design. Improves immersion. This is a relatively low cost way to improve.

Description: because Ai only uses design templates, At low and medium difficulties, and new players certainly do, retaining the sense of immersion and strategy. Only at high difficulties, because the Ai has a more powerful buff than the player, using the same design templates will make the player's tank unable to beat the Ai's tank, At this point, if the player does not want to win in other ways (e.g. diplomacy, spying, air support, etc.) then they need to work out how to configure a tank efficiently.

In the future, I am not optimistic about the Military Industrial Organizations (MIO) feature because Paradox rarely improves AI logic. It can be imagined that the AI will struggle to use the MIO feature reasonably or improve its own predicament through the economic system. This is not my malicious speculation; history has proven it to be true. Has anyone tried giving advanced tanks to puppet states? Or manually assisting the AI in upgrading their tanks? You will find that puppet states do not use them, even when they have 8,000 self-propelled artillery in their stockpile, they still fail to organize new self-propelled artillery units... These foolish behaviors will continue.

( Many thanks to “Secret Master” for his analysis and answer, and I correct my statement that: I think the MIO system could potentially improve this in the current situation, as MIO could use a form of tech tree and randomness to achieve a similar gameplay to stellaris upgrading the galactic fleet )

I have played Paradox games for five years, and I appreciate the enjoyment they have brought me. They are the best historical grand strategy games for immersion. However, now, HOI4 has lost its strategic nature and immersion because both your allies and enemies are too foolish. The freedom to design tanks, aircraft, and warships makes victory certain.
What makes me despair is that these designers must know this is happening now since they can make such a good game, but they still do it, so they must be doing it on purpose. I don't understand, do they not need players like us anymore? I will wait and see if MIO will improve the situation

 

[Bolshevik-]

Since the release of the Man the Guns DLC, the design structure of various weapons has completely destroyed the strategic aspect of the game, as the AI is unable to use them correctly. Players have designed invincible warships with incredibly high light artillery damage and astonishing submarine fleets with low casualty ratios. They have also designed invincible tanks with incredibly high anti-personnel capabilities and astonishing offensive efficiency. Furthermore, players have designed invincible aircraft with extremely high anti-aircraft capabilities, making heavy aircraft almost obsolete.

Every aspect of the game now has optimal solutions, and most of the gameplay time is spent on repetitive tasks. For example, every time you play as Germany, you have to design the same tanks all over again because most components have no value. This is not the result of my pursuit of efficiency; rather, it is due to the AI's incompetence, as it does not require you to think strategically. Even if you use your creativity to design a unique tank, you will find that the enemy does not react to it, rendering strategic thinking a waste of time.

Paradox could have changed this situation. For instance, they could have limited players' freedom in designing units by providing 10 design templates and allowing players to choose based on categories such as suppression, siege, occupation, and mobility priority. If you choose occupation, the game would design a light tank with superior speed based on your country's research, industry, Military doctrines, and resources. If you choose mobility, it would design a light or medium tank with average speed and firepower, and so on. This approach would undoubtedly make HOI4 more strategic than the current system of designing numerous components and spending a significant amount of time balancing data.

In the future, I am not optimistic about the Military Industrial Organizations (MIO) feature because Paradox rarely improves AI logic. It can be imagined that the AI will struggle to use the MIO feature reasonably or improve its own predicament through the economic system. This is not my malicious speculation; history has proven it to be true. Has anyone tried giving advanced tanks to puppet states? Or manually assisting the AI in upgrading their tanks? You will find that puppet states do not use them, even when they have 8,000 self-propelled artillery in their stockpile, they still fail to organize new self-propelled artillery units... These foolish behaviors will continue.

I have played Paradox games for five years, and I appreciate the enjoyment they have brought me. They are the best historical grand strategy games for immersion. However, now, HOI4 has lost its strategic nature and immersion because both your allies and enemies are too foolish. The freedom to design tanks, aircraft, and warships makes victory certain.

What makes me despair is that these designers must know this is happening now since they can make such a good game, but they still do it, so they must be doing it on purpose. I don't understand, do they not need players like us anymore?

AI is trash in hearts. I like the designers but they only work in multiplayer. Idk why the AI produces tanks that get battleplanned by infantry. Its a joke. Need AI improvements not the ability to rename convoys.

 

[Qswhisper]

AI is trash in hearts. I like the designers but they only work in multiplayer. Idk why the AI produces tanks that get battleplanned by infantry. Its a joke. Need AI improvements not the ability to rename convoys.

Agree, but I was thinking today from the other side, maybe this reduces the difficulty of the game? Makes it easier for more newbies to play hoi4?

 

[Bolshevik-]

Agree, but I was thinking today from the other side, maybe this reduces the difficulty of the game? Makes it easier for more newbies to play hoi4?

Hard to say but you might be right. Maybe they intentionally dumb down the AI to make it into a tutorial mode.

 

[Secret Master]

It may have been awhile since we've had this problem, but I want to remind everyone that no swastikas are allowed on this forum.

 

[mpop]

I don't understand why you people would downvote him I agree with many point he is saying. I always build the same designs because they're simply too effective and many modules are not worth it. Ridiculous medium tank design where you can just slap a close support gun or howitzer as a turret with a very high soft attack. I have given my puppet over 5k medium tanks and they don't even have a single medium tank division besides few modern tank division at the later stage of the game. Why would your puppet have all their 60 docks on convoys when having 5k on reserve?

 

[Jafkka]

What’s especially maddening about all the designers: the AI has no conception how to use a tank division relative to a 10w infantry division anyway. i.e. it just throws a pile of mismatched divisions into the same line.

 

[Qswhisper]

Hard to say but you might be right. Maybe they intentionally dumb down the AI to make it into a tutorial mode.

I still think the production of a game tutorial similar to CK3 or V3 is more helpful to new players…Anyway, thank you for responding to me

 

[AssassiBG]

I agree. I have played Hoi 2, DH, Hoi 3, Hoi 4 now, almost 18 years of Hearts of Iron for me. Hoi4 is amazing on so many aspects, but once the initial stage of being overwhelmed by new stuff dissapeares you do notice how the AI is very predictable and downright easy. To be fair it's the first HoI that cheats aren't even necessary lol. The design was a tad difficult for me coming from the previous editions, but once you get "the meta" from a few guides, its like playing against my 6 year old son.

 

[anbory]

Players have designed invincible warships with incredibly high light artillery damage and astonishing submarine fleets with low casualty ratios

Just don't design them invincible then, I don't know what else to say here. Everyone knows that vanilla AI sucks, that's true. AI can't really use meta against you, so it's purely your choice to use it against AI. The game need some work to teach AI new tricks, not some arbitrary restrictions

 

[Vlad123]

Just don't design them invincible then, I don't know what else to say here. Everyone knows that vanilla AI sucks, that's true. AI can't really use meta against you, so it's purely your choice to use it against AI. The game need some work to teach AI new tricks, not some arbitrary restrictions

Yeah the IA block u only if u give rules to you self (like make realistic tank/ship/airplane) and not use exploit...or better is only harder but at least u can beat, but is like YOU need limit you self...

 

[anbory]

Yeah the IA block u only if u give rules to you self (like make realistic tank/ship/airplane) and not use exploit...or better is only harder but at least u can beat, but is like YOU need limit you self...

Yeah, and...? I've already told Qswhisper that if you are playing meta or using exploits AI can't naturally handle, don't be surprised that it can't stop you. It's not about AI, it's about you. AI is not a digital version of Rommel's brain, it's just a bunch of scripts. Of cource, these scripts could have been upgraded but it would never stop the player, especially experienced one.

 

[Vlad123]

Yeah, and...? I've already told Qswhisper that if you are playing meta or using exploits AI can't naturally handle, don't be surprised that it can't stop you. It's not about AI, it's about you. AI is not a digital version of Rommel's brain, it's just a bunch of scripts. Of cource, these scripts could have been upgraded but it would never stop the player, especially experienced one.

Rigth for this motive i say "in eu4 are u need stop u self" i now play vanilla or mod with RP, except few "tricks" for help my allies if they are doing things VERY DUMB...

 

[Voigt]

The problem is that the AI is using historical templates, and those templates are kinda dumb. Blame the historical actors how they designed such bad equipment.

Sure when you untick the historical AI checkmark it could be better, but sadly this mostly affects focus stuff. We simply don't have a roughly historical but more competent than history AI. This could be implemented, but simply is to much of a niche case.

Historical grognards are already complaining how ahistorical the AI acts even on historical mode and around half of players play on one of the easier difficulty.
So improved somewhat historical AI would only please a small subgroup (me included), but don't think will ever come from Paradox.

 

[Qswhisper]

Rigth for this motive i say "in eu4 are u need stop u self" i now play vanilla or mod with RP, except few "tricks" for help my allies if they are doing things VERY DUMB...

Yes, the game has lost its historical immersion when you impose limits on yourself because you're not doing everything you can to win ......

 

[Qswhisper]

Just don't design them invincible then

I can understand your spirit of roleplaying and appreciate the kind advice. But in this game, if I'm not doing everything I can to win, then I'm losing historical immersion. I think that if the designers are not capable of making Ai that will use tank designs, then there could be several design templates for players and Ai, which lowers the upper limit and raises the lower limit, making it easier for even new players to get started with HOI4

At low and medium difficulties, the game is played using only the design templates, retaining the sense of immersion and strategy. Only at high difficulties, because the Ai has a more powerful buff than the player, using the same design templates will make the player's tank unable to beat the Ai's tank, and the player will then go to work on how to configure the various parts efficiently.

 

[KubiG37]

The problem is that the AI is using historical templates, and those templates are kinda dumb. Blame the historical actors how they designed such bad equipment.

Sure when you untick the historical AI checkmark it could be better, but sadly this mostly affects focus stuff. We simply don't have a roughly historical but more competent than history AI. This could be implemented, but simply is to much of a niche case.

Historical grognards are already complaining how ahistorical the AI acts even on historical mode and around half of players play on one of the easier difficulty.
So improved somewhat historical AI would only please a small subgroup (me included), but don't think will ever come from Paradox.

Isn't it the other way around? I feel like if the equipment designers worked the way they should, the optimal build would be somewhat resembling the real thing.

Whether it's a tank, plane or a ship, there is no "best" design, ever. It's always gain something, sacrifice something. Better technology just pushes the limits.

But in the game, the best tank has 10 machineguns, huge howitzer, and a suspension that wouldn't be able to even hold the weight IRL.
A best ship is a ship that has so many guns, it would capsize in the slightest bad weather or explode upon first hit IRL.
IDK about planes, never used the DLC, but from what I heard it's a similar tale.

 

[KubiG37]

Just don't design them invincible then, I don't know what else to say here. Everyone knows that vanilla AI sucks, that's true. AI can't really use meta against you, so it's purely your choice to use it against AI. The game need some work to teach AI new tricks, not some arbitrary restrictions

Am I the only one generally agreeing with this?

Yes, the game has lost its historical immersion when you impose limits on yourself because you're not doing everything you can to win ......

The 'you must do everything to win' - why?

When you play a football with a 6-year old kid, as an adult - do you also 'do everything possible to win'? I guess not. The point is not to obliterate your opponent. If you need that for your satisfaction >>> find a more worthy opponent than the AI = A real player = Multiplayer

Even if they do improve the AI, until it becomes some sort of ACTUAL Artificial Intelligence that can think, react and predict like a human can, you'll always be an 'adult playing with a kid'. Once you learn its patterns, you'll always know exactly how to defeat it.

 

[LordWahu]

Am I the only one generally agreeing with this?

The issue isn't the idea, but the tone: Saying "just don't play optimally" is a terrible way to say "you get to decide what challenge you have"

And even then, it's not even fully true. If the only way to have any kind of challenge is to make bad choices (and yes, in this case not building optimally is not just "not a good choice" but a strictly bad one) then that is a problem with the game, not the players

 

[Secret Master]

Isn't it the other way around? I feel like if the equipment designers worked the way they should, the optimal build would be somewhat resembling the real thing.

This is one of those "Well yes, but actually no" situations.

Because there are literally meme builds from the actual war, there has to be wide latitude with what you can do with a designer in the game. And there is significant disagreement even on what constituted a "good" design in the period. Hell, I still see people discussing the Sherman tank like it's a flaming death trap and talking about the Tiger like it was some kind of God-tier tank.

So, between offering players the option to do weird things, and the fact that people can't always agree on what was good, and then you add issues like "we want the game to be fun, not a on-rails movie that results in an Axis defeat every time," and the result is what you see now.

And then you factor in the fact that the designer has to work within the parameters of the other mechanics. And then you don't have infinite man-hours and money to get the right balance.

With the current mechanics, I'm not even sure it is possible to balance the game in a way to make historical designs solid choices in the designer. Let me give some simple examples:

1) When piercing was all or nothing, creating nigh-invincible heavy tanks was possible and desirable in some situations because of the value being unpierceable brings to the table. For some players, reaching that state of "my tanks simply can't be pierced" was driven not by the designer as such, but by the mechanics of combat. The good news is that the tank designer is fulfilling its role of creating tanks that fit the players' needs in combat. The bad news is is that it binary armor/piercing values leads to binary tanks where you either make a tank that can avoid piercing entirely, or you just use tank chassis in other ways and ignore the system.

2) With piercing being more granular, the opposite happens. Now it's too easy to reduce the benefits of armor values in combat, so spamming tanks becomes more viable. So rather than create expensive invincible tanks, it's not the worth the effort in many cases to do that. So you'd rather just have the breakthrough and stats of tanks everywhere and just ignore being pierced. Add to that an AI that has issues bringing sufficient AT to the table in SP, and you have a recipe for mediocre medium tank spam with an emphasis on howitzer guns rather than standard tank guns.

3) You could just remove armor/piercing entirely. But from the beginning, the Devs really wanted the game to have the historical arms race between better armor and better guns throughout the war. If that is your design goal, and it's one that makes sense, then you can't just scrap the combat mechanics as they are. You might redesign the entire system (unlikely at this point), but you aren't going to wake up and say "Nah, we just won't have armor and piercing anymore. Tanks are now generic containers for other stats." It's baked in similar to the issues surrounding submarines; with submarines being on-map, that entails a ton of other things in the game.

It's worth pointing out that there are really two different problems identified by your statement.

1) The absolute meta of the game does not reward historical designs.
2) The AI plays in a way that does not fully reward historical designs.

I had to talk to a friend of mine about AI tank production when I played two games as the Soviets in a row and saw radically different tanks from Germany. In game 1, Germany had zero medium tanks. And I mean none. No templates active with them at all and none in production. In game 2, there were around 2000 German medium tanks lost in the first year of the war. In game 1, if I had built AT guns and invested in AT techs and made TDs, I would have been wasting my time. In game 2, due to equipment shortages at the front, it still didn't matter (not enough tanks in actual divisions to get full stats).

If the AI did things a bit differently (and it didn't sidetracked in its production schemes), the MP meta might not change, but in SP, you would be rewarded for at least engaging in that historical competition between armor and guns.

I applauded the move to a more granular armor/piercing system, and I think I still like it better. But I'm not 100% sure it's possible to make a game using HOI4's mechanics where you have historical designs be optimal without so much railroading that it no longer resembles the same game.