Considering the game runs on focus trees now, is there even an AI? Isn't it just some code to weigh what units to assign units to X frontline and some weights on what to build, then some code on when to press the "all out attack button"?
- 1
HOI4 has completely lost its strategic nature
- Thread starter Qswhisper
- Start date
-
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.
What's AI then if not a bunch of weights required to make a certain decision?
- 3
- 2
By "boring" I did not mean "easy". Just like this thread topic does not say that designers made the game easy but that it made it less strategic. The Japanese (almost) beating you despite you having the better strategy and units in every way is just inherently boring to me and why I don't play at non-default difficulties.
As @TheMeInTeam said earlier, there is a whole lot of learning rules and UI in this game. It is then just a tiny step from knowing the rules of plane combat to decisively beating the AI in the plane designer and as a result in the air war.
With the vanilla plane variants, after the speed/agility rework, there are some options for customization and small advantages to be gained over the AI in exchange for XP. That is much closer to the role air plane design should be playing in the grand scheme of things, imho.
- 1
The totally inept way the computer plays the game has made me pack away HoI4. I have written about this problem several times for the last couple of years now. I've also read threads from others here addressing the issue. It pretty much seems to be ignored by the developers.
I spend too much time playing strategy games; HoI, HoI2, HoI3, AoD, Darkest Hour, I've got more than 1000 hours clocked in with Stellaris, I play Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific AE and War in the East 2, as well as Matrix Games' World in Flames. ALL the games listed above have flaws, ranging from horrible UIs through buggy systems to bad AIs. Still, the way Paradox is treating its player base with Hearts of Iron 4 is the most disappointing thing I've ever experienced as a gamer. They did everything right with most of their games, even Hearts of Iron 3 was a decent game in the end. And Stellaris is proof that they can still create very good RTS games. It's not perfect, but it is a very good game.
Somehow they seem to not care with this game. The decisions they've made from the start of Hearts of Iron 4 are weird at best. I'm going to assume that they had a quite large & loyal base of players with the series. And yes, I know I don't speak for everybody, and there will be some players here that strongly disagree with me on several issues, but here goes; Most of us don't really care about fancy graphics, 3d maps, 3d sprites etc. We would be perfectly happy with any nice looking map and the usual counters. Most of us don't need individual focus trees for every minor country in the world. We will take them, but it's no big deal. Most of us like the different designers (ships, armor, aircraft), but the game could be great without them. What we DO care about is having a good experience when we play. And as a long time player of Paradox games, this is something I have come to expect whenever I play their games. Somehow they have botched it, and botched it bad.
We keep getting fancy new features, but that is all they are. When they provide us with focus trees, unit designers, logistical systems etc, the least we should expect is that the computer is able to make use of them. So what we have here is a game that at release was not all that good - and then they have patched bugs and sold us expansions while pretty much ignoring the already lackluster AI. With every system they add to the game, the AI gets left a little more behind. In the end it has broken the game. If you play MP only, fine. For anybody playing alone it is close to a disaster.
What is needed is an expansion or large patch focusing solely on the AI. Make Japan create ships that are not completely useless. Make Russia create divisions that are not completely useless. Teach the computer to make use of all the features of the game. Fix the elephant in the room. Lots of players have spent lots of money on this game, and I'm sure I'm not speaking only for myself when I say that I feel cheated here. I regret every bit of time and money spent on Hearts of Iron 4. It is just sad. I WANT to like the game. There are so many good ideas and I think the potential for a fantastic game is there - but Paradox has to address this issue at some point. Or they will lose customers that have bought their games for 20 years.
(Just to be clear - I don't need a game that can beat me when I optimize my game. But without a feeling of immersion in these games, there is nothing left. And when the AI cannot create anything resembling a decent ship or division, the immersion is lost in an instant.)
I spend too much time playing strategy games; HoI, HoI2, HoI3, AoD, Darkest Hour, I've got more than 1000 hours clocked in with Stellaris, I play Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific AE and War in the East 2, as well as Matrix Games' World in Flames. ALL the games listed above have flaws, ranging from horrible UIs through buggy systems to bad AIs. Still, the way Paradox is treating its player base with Hearts of Iron 4 is the most disappointing thing I've ever experienced as a gamer. They did everything right with most of their games, even Hearts of Iron 3 was a decent game in the end. And Stellaris is proof that they can still create very good RTS games. It's not perfect, but it is a very good game.
Somehow they seem to not care with this game. The decisions they've made from the start of Hearts of Iron 4 are weird at best. I'm going to assume that they had a quite large & loyal base of players with the series. And yes, I know I don't speak for everybody, and there will be some players here that strongly disagree with me on several issues, but here goes; Most of us don't really care about fancy graphics, 3d maps, 3d sprites etc. We would be perfectly happy with any nice looking map and the usual counters. Most of us don't need individual focus trees for every minor country in the world. We will take them, but it's no big deal. Most of us like the different designers (ships, armor, aircraft), but the game could be great without them. What we DO care about is having a good experience when we play. And as a long time player of Paradox games, this is something I have come to expect whenever I play their games. Somehow they have botched it, and botched it bad.
We keep getting fancy new features, but that is all they are. When they provide us with focus trees, unit designers, logistical systems etc, the least we should expect is that the computer is able to make use of them. So what we have here is a game that at release was not all that good - and then they have patched bugs and sold us expansions while pretty much ignoring the already lackluster AI. With every system they add to the game, the AI gets left a little more behind. In the end it has broken the game. If you play MP only, fine. For anybody playing alone it is close to a disaster.
What is needed is an expansion or large patch focusing solely on the AI. Make Japan create ships that are not completely useless. Make Russia create divisions that are not completely useless. Teach the computer to make use of all the features of the game. Fix the elephant in the room. Lots of players have spent lots of money on this game, and I'm sure I'm not speaking only for myself when I say that I feel cheated here. I regret every bit of time and money spent on Hearts of Iron 4. It is just sad. I WANT to like the game. There are so many good ideas and I think the potential for a fantastic game is there - but Paradox has to address this issue at some point. Or they will lose customers that have bought their games for 20 years.
(Just to be clear - I don't need a game that can beat me when I optimize my game. But without a feeling of immersion in these games, there is nothing left. And when the AI cannot create anything resembling a decent ship or division, the immersion is lost in an instant.)
- 6
- 3
- 1
Without the bonuses it gets from higher difficulties, will the AI be able to produce to fill the better templates? I have my doubts.
It has so much promise. Small incremental changes could be made to drastically improve the game.
A lot of the sillier, dumber stuff can be modded away… e.g. I made a small mod with layered logic statements to keep Spain and Peru from joining the Asian Co-P Sphere. I don’t know why PDX has never bothered with this (surely they see these issues in their own playthroughs?)
The fundamental issues with the game, such as getting the computer to mass armor, or think in terms of offensives, are either hard-coded, or requires extensive modding.
Yet the attention with expansions is generally focus trees, needlessly complex mini games (industrial orgs? Come on!), or cosmetic nonsense like awarding medals to division commanders. Almost always these changes align with general pop culture or cliches about the war, I.e. their approach to Switzerland.
It’s really unfortunate. However I’m grateful for the War Effort improvements.
- 3
- 1
- 1
You aren't wrong, but I was specifically responding to Kadanz who was talking about AI performance on higher difficulties. I was partially refuting his point with that story. The AI does perform better at higher difficulties to the point that it can do silly things.
Yes. Looking at k/d ratios, and k/d IC ratios, in the air war in my SP games clearly show that the AI has some... issues... with the designer.
Some of these issues stem from telling the AI to do things in a semi-historical way. Germany's refusal to research the Fw-190 early is a good example, as I have been told that is deliberate.
Yes, the more linear nature of the non-designer air system makes it easier for the AI to have decent planes even if it falls behind.
Though I want to say that even before the air designer, my fighters were dominating AI fighters in k/d ratios, just not quite to the extent they are now. And now, I can do some goofier things with aircraft that I wasn't able to do before. Like the time I won the war with the most multi-role of multi-role aircraft: a plane with basically 1 of every offensive module.
(The AI traded against that plane fairly well for the first six months.)
- 2
Reading all of these posts, there is one thing I don't understand. If you have mastered this game in vanilla why aren't you playing mods that make the game more difficult? There are plenty to choose from. This can be a HARD game, especially to new players. Does everyone not remember posts about German players that can't defeat Poland or France or get their butts kicked when they invade the USSR?
- 1
- 1
Other than Expert AI, there are no mods that fundamentally alter the AI.
However even Expert AI is limited. It doesn't alter how the AI approaches strategy or uses its divisions once built.
If you're referring to just giving handicaps to the player, the existing difficulty system already does that.
Consider the analogy of a chess opponent. Do you want more difficult opponents, or do you want to "mod" the game so that, for example, the enemy pawns can attack in any direction?
- 4
There's literally a post on the main page asking these questions right now.
(Give that guy some advice. I'm sure he'd appreciate more viewpoints than mine.)
- 3
- 2
Expert AI is what I play. It took me months to figure out how to defeat the USSR with a Bonus of Insane and Desperate Defense of High with Reinforcements on. The only time I play vanilla is when I help beta test. I've had this game since it came out and I have zero achievements.
I would NEVER use the existing difficulty system, because to me it is backwards. IMO the way to do it is to give bonuses to the AI, not penalties to the player.
He wants advice on playing France. I haven't been masochistic enough to play France in a long time...View attachment 985896
There's literally a post on the main page asking these questions right now.
(Give that guy some advice. I'm sure he'd appreciate more viewpoints than mine.)
I was going to say that you haven't been filled with enough ennui, desire for wine and cheese, or a hatred for the English to play France. But your way works, too.
Last edited:
Mr. Moderator, the discussion on this thread over several days has clearly proven that the issues I have raised are objective, Nearly 90% agreement rate (54:7) and no one denying the automatic design template feature, can you help invite Paradox designers to take a look at this post? (I have now re-edited my original view to make it easier to read)
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
- 1
I don't use spies to steal 200% industrial acceleration effects; I don't use paratroopers to attack, because Ai doesn't use airborne paratroopers; and I don't use the daily 12:00 interruption of trade to get oil, because these are very utilitarian ways of playing the game that would destroy the sense of historical immersion.
(most players do the same...)But equipment design is another matter. After all, it involves more and more scientific research, more and more advanced military doctrines, and more and more abundant resources in every game. If I don't follow up these efforts by doing my best to design the perfect tank, then the significance of those efforts is diminished, The positive feedback of the game is shrunk.
- 2
- 1
Just thought I'd chime in on this. It really depends on what you mean by "strategy." Expert AI certainly changes where the AI puts its divisions by prioritizing certain fronts. If you look at a vanilla game, the AI UK will barely have any divisions in Asia, and all the rubber is ripe for the picking. If you play with Expert AI, you can expect to find 30+ divisions defending Singapore with solid templates. EAI also adds in the Continuation War and makes a Phony War happen, at least with historical focuses on.
It also forces the AI to use full armies instead of a bunch of 1 division armies without generals scattered around.
It may not be able to micro units any differently, but it definitely organizes its armies better and puts troops in the right places on a macro level, both of which I would consider to be forms of strategy.
- 2
- 1
- 1
because most of them use "magic" to make the AI units stronger, and/or extensive script railroading. And I don't like "magic" where factories produce X amount under player control but 2X amount under AI control, or arbitary +100% division attack if Q condition is met. And I don't like scripts that break when the player gets involved, or magically summon manpower, equipment, units, etc.
So I tinker with my own personal mods, but right now it's so much work to figure out how to do what I want to do, that I've been mostly playing other games.
- 1
- 1
- 1
I'll probably eat some disagrees here, but I don't think it's really a fault of the game that players who spend hundreds or thousands of hours in a game mastering it are able to master the game to the point where they know the optimal strategies for nearly every situation.
You can pick any game and some strategies are going to be better than others, and in any largely single player game where the AI doesn't change much from game to game it becomes easy to just do the same thing every game if it works all the time.
This is more so the case in hoi4 since it isn't designed purely around competitive balance but is a mixture of game balance and historical accuracy. It's also very difficult to translate the way things work in real life into a game engine, especially a strategy game. Every layer you "zoom out" so to speak, the harder it is to model the little things in a way that represents the real world.
I have my complaints with the designers, but most of my problems with it are the existence of "trap" options that serve no purpose from an optimization standpoint. A prime example would be rocket launchers in the tank designer, they simply have worse stats than howitzers but are researched later. There is zero reason to ever put one on any vehicle except for the memes, and yet they are in the game.
I don't think the AI needs to design competitive variants necessarily, but it would be better if the game mechanics punished ahistorical meme designs like four-turreted heavy tanks being a good idea and rewarded things that worked well in history. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily even possible to model tank design in a way that does this. Some stats are always going to be more valuable than others, and with a limited number of module slots and the need to have different components affect different stats you're usually going to have a state where adding attack is better than adding a little bit of something else.
Honestly, from a balance perspective it's a distinct possibility that the game was better off without the tank designer. Personally I think the new partial piercing mechanics alone would have done a lot to balance the preexisting battle between armor and piercing. Armor being expensive but optional as part of the tank designer throws that all out the window and makes unarmored metal boxes with guns the best thing you can do with your industry.
But, people requested a tank designer over and over for years, and so we got a tank designer. It's not a bad feature, I enjoy the customization and it opens up a lot of interesting strategy. No feature comes without downsides though and it's next to impossible to balance well and keep more historical designs good.
You can pick any game and some strategies are going to be better than others, and in any largely single player game where the AI doesn't change much from game to game it becomes easy to just do the same thing every game if it works all the time.
This is more so the case in hoi4 since it isn't designed purely around competitive balance but is a mixture of game balance and historical accuracy. It's also very difficult to translate the way things work in real life into a game engine, especially a strategy game. Every layer you "zoom out" so to speak, the harder it is to model the little things in a way that represents the real world.
I have my complaints with the designers, but most of my problems with it are the existence of "trap" options that serve no purpose from an optimization standpoint. A prime example would be rocket launchers in the tank designer, they simply have worse stats than howitzers but are researched later. There is zero reason to ever put one on any vehicle except for the memes, and yet they are in the game.
I don't think the AI needs to design competitive variants necessarily, but it would be better if the game mechanics punished ahistorical meme designs like four-turreted heavy tanks being a good idea and rewarded things that worked well in history. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily even possible to model tank design in a way that does this. Some stats are always going to be more valuable than others, and with a limited number of module slots and the need to have different components affect different stats you're usually going to have a state where adding attack is better than adding a little bit of something else.
Honestly, from a balance perspective it's a distinct possibility that the game was better off without the tank designer. Personally I think the new partial piercing mechanics alone would have done a lot to balance the preexisting battle between armor and piercing. Armor being expensive but optional as part of the tank designer throws that all out the window and makes unarmored metal boxes with guns the best thing you can do with your industry.
But, people requested a tank designer over and over for years, and so we got a tank designer. It's not a bad feature, I enjoy the customization and it opens up a lot of interesting strategy. No feature comes without downsides though and it's next to impossible to balance well and keep more historical designs good.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Yeah It's reaching the EU4 thing with it just adding lots of little things to sell DLC and a poor A.I that is falling behind.
Stellaris and EU4 did improve the A.I in the last half year but not seeing it here.
Stellaris and EU4 did improve the A.I in the last half year but not seeing it here.
- 2