HOI4 - Together For Victory AI Update #2

[TeutoDraeger]

Playing as a released nation is inherently less blobby than just releasing it... so not sure if your "pro-blob devs" point really holds here.

Think you're reading a bit much into it... they did fix it when the flaw was noticed.

Except that the game punishes you as a released nation if you don't blob to increase your industry etc.

I conquer Finland as USSR, for example, and release it to play as communist Finland (for the sake of example). If I don't immediately start expanding, I don't really get to do that much for the rest of the game other than get as tall as possible and maybe fight in a few key battles here and there as part of some other nation's faction. Not that it's really very hard to blob as pretty much any nation in HoI4, just that if one doesn't, one is punished by not getting to have as much fun by the way the game is designed.

They get credit for noticing and fixing the flaw, but that's like giving a kid credit for going back and finishing an incomplete assignment after they already turned it in. It shouldn't have been a problem---and, I argue, wouldn't have been a problem if the devs considered playstyles other than what seems to be their collective preference (blobbing for blobbing's sake/powergaming/achievement runs) as evidenced by their mp streams, DDs, feedback here etc.

[EDIT]

No fun allowed

Please stop being petulant for petulance's sake. Stop being part of the problem. Thanks.

 

[Meglok]

@SteelVolt what you mean you actually had time to code stuff tighter instead of oh my god hurry up, we needed that done by yesterday! Seriously thank you and podcat for the work y'all are doing to improve the game. Everything listed today will be definite game quality improvements. I look forward to hearing what has been done regarding the division spam/production issues.

 

[Meglok]

Except that the game punishes you as a released nation if you don't blob to increase your industry etc.

I conquer Finland as USSR, for example, and release it to play as communist Finland (for the sake of example). If I don't immediately start expanding, I don't really get to do that much for the rest of the game other than get as tall as possible and maybe fight in a few key battles here and there as part of some other nation's faction. Not that it's really very hard to blob as pretty much any nation in HoI4, just that if one doesn't, one is punished by not getting to have as much fun by the way the game is designed.

They get credit for noticing and fixing the flaw, but that's like giving a kid credit for going back and finishing an incomplete assignment after they already turned it in. It shouldn't have been a problem---and, I argue, wouldn't have been a problem if the devs considered playstyles other than what seems to be their collective preference (blobbing for blobbing's sake/powergaming/achievement runs) as evidenced by their mp streams, DDs, feedback here etc.

[EDIT]

Please keep f*nposting in the 4chan thread. Adults are talking.

Seriously? You need to lighten up a little, no need to be insulting. And there is no need to play the offended card because SteelVolt was a little snarky. Is it really going to crush your life if the devs dont play the game the way you approve of? Everyone enjoys the game differently and hoi4 is a wargame, conquering others is usually encouraged.

 

[Gamer_1745]

well, you are right of course but on the other hand I would like it more that the 2-3h it needs to write this DD are invested in coding... to write (and formulate) a mini-DD every week is time consuming :/ better to let Carl smash bugs/optimise the AI :/

Well on the forum & other places it seems the general opinion is that the Devs are doing very little to improve the AI. I think for many reasons it might be best for the AI team to take a 'Man Week' or two off from fixing/improving the AI to do PR on that the AI is being improved. Does it really matter to Paradox if the AI is being improved if general opinion is that it is either not being done or low priority and HOI IV sucks & will always suck because of bad AI?

So I say @SteelVolt should take 3 or 4 hours off a week from working on the AI to engage the community until the AI is no longer thought of as an issue so the community knows it is being worked on.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Just want to thank SteelVolt for the interesting updates on his A.I. work. Reading about the tumorous growth of certain parts of the code reminds me of my (very) small role in an attempt to introduce the old Avalon Hill game Panzerblitz to a computerized format. The need to code every unit's line-of-sight limitations produced a similar problem that was headbreakingly difficult to resolve.

From this I learned a valuable lifelong lesson: never again go anywhere near the project of coding a complicated game for the computer!

 

[Meglok]

Just want to thank SteelVolt for the interesting updates on his A.I. work. Reading about the tumorous growth of certain parts of the code reminds me of my (very) small role in an attempt to introduce the old Avalon Hill game Panzerblitz to a computerized format. The need to code every unit's line-of-sight limitations produced a similar problem that was headbreakingly difficult to resolve.

From this I learned a valuable lifelong lesson: never again go anywhere near the project of coding a complicated game for the computer!

Lol, could have been worse, could have been Squad Leader.

 

[TeutoDraeger]

Seriously? You need to lighten up a little, no need to be insulting. And there is no need to play the offended card because SteelVolt was a little snarky. Is it really going to crush your life if the devs dont play the game the way you approve of? Everyone enjoys the game differently and hoi4 is a wargame, conquering others is usually encouraged.

Are you victim-blaming, buddy? Saying I can't have a problem with feeling marginalized as a player?

The deliberate design choices made for HoI4 exclude non-blobby playstyles. It's all about the epic screenshots/achievements/office multiplayer with this particular dev team, it seems. This game was never (and still isn't, even with these fixes) designed to be a mostly singleplayer experience, but rather seems to have been designed for/around multiplayer. The fact that flaws/bugs like broken released nations were left is evidence of this.

I don't play multiplayer (much) and therefore don't get as much out of the game -because- it was designed for multiplayer. And flippant comments like the one SteelVolt made at the end of his post are indicative that the devs either (A) understand this and don't care or (B) it never occurred to them to make the game functional for singleplayer (and non-blobby playstyles in particular). Both of these are equally bad, though for different reasons.

 

[Johuotar]

- Made sure released AI countries don't get stuck building nothing.

• Again, pretty basic. A flag was not set, and the AI was never run for released countries.

Nice, I was hoping this to get fixed!

 

[tom_jones]

The deliberate design choices made for HoI4 exclude non-blobby playstyles.

In an attempt to get something constructive here, what do you then think should be included in the game to enable "non-blobby playstyles"?

(i have to say your example of "released Finland won't achieve much if it doesn't gear up to become a major power" is rather unconvincing because, well, what exactly should a minor country which makes no active attempt to become a major player... be able to achieve?)

 

[TeutoDraeger]

In an attempt to get something constructive here, what do you then think should be included in the game to enable "non-blobby playstyles"?

Not saying they're not enabled as-is, just that the design choices before/since launch reflect a design philosophy that doesn't take them into account. The fact that a glaring bug like 'released nations not being able to build anything' got left in the game for so long---something as simple as a missing flag---is indicative of this.

My problem was with the flippant comment made that conveys that (at least some of) the dev team (a) understood this prior to/since launch AND (b) didn't care---and likely still don't, judging by the tone of what's otherwise a harmless remark.

As to your question: AI has long been a problem in many Paradox titles (with special regard to this game's predecessor, HoI3); I contend this is so because the developers prioritize the multiplayer experience over singleplayer. After all, you don't really need a competent AI when all the major powers are human players. If the devs want to get serious about boosting HoI4's singleplayer experience, they could start by fixing the AI---not just fixing glaring flaws, but in fact optimizing it to resemble something like a bot (this is doable, I believe, because of the linear nature of the game's progression---it should be possible to have the AI 'pathfind' throughout the course of the game, adjusting and reacting on the fly better than it currently does; for example, confronting the AI with any more than a single front, heaven forbid a naval invasion, broke it completely at launch). A competent AI would go a long way to boosting singleplayer, and give this game true replayability beyond multiplayer.

 

[fabius]

Enjoying your AI DDs, great idea.

I dropped in to say thanks, your work, well what looks like significant work, on the AI is appreciated.

 

[Mamluke]

I want to say tank you to StellVolt and HOI team for giving the AI major priority for this develepment, I do love this AI DD, they show a strong progression for the game relating to the most essencial part of the game, the AI. (as my early experiences with the game are of any indication...).

I'm happy that a good AI progamer is working on HOIIV, and that the team has acknowledge that the AI needed major work. Can't wait for the next DD

 

[Bernard Black]

In a similar attempt to get this onto a more constructive course:

Not saying they're not enabled as-is, just that the design choices before/since launch reflect a design philosophy that doesn't take them into account. The fact that a glaring bug like 'released nations not being able to build anything' got left in the game for so long---something as simple as a missing flag---is indicative of this.

1. The game focuses on WW2 Era and Conquest much more than any other of their titles. I can't really imagine what you would want to do and have mechanically implemented that lets you do something less blobby. Could you tell us, what you are thinking of, as of now i have trouble judging, if your wish is out of scope for that title or very nice to have as a mod or future expansion. Going tall and doing something different is an absolutely necessary option for CK2, EUIV and Vicky but because of the very limited timeframe of HoI i cant really see what you want to get without having a completely different game.

2. Just because the solution to the problem was simple in the end, doesn't mean that it was easy to identifiy. Sometimes you have to walk through hundreds of lines of code and in the end the mistake was a simple typo. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of indifference on the dev-side because of that.

3. I am not sure what your experience is in coding or the simulation of complex systems. I dabbled a bit in those and from what i understand of these subjects you underestimate the complexity and difficulty of the subject. It is not trivial at all, especially with so many variables. Of course the game is gonna be better with human players but the AI can never achieve that kind of competence and creativity, that doesnt mean they are focused on Multiplayer. And i am an exclusive Singleplayer as well.

That doesn't mean i will excuse everything in the AI. Not being able to build proper templates and totally messing up the air forces should have been spotted before release. And that he NF trees will go apeshit after the midgame was something others and I recognized almost instantly in the WWW when we saw Daniel with 1000PP and no NF to follow in 1941.
In closing, please dont undervalue the work of SteelVolt and what he has achieved so far, with all its flaws. AI is a huge task with big limitations.

Regards

 

[Axe99]

As to your question: AI has long been a problem in many Paradox titles (with special regard to this game's predecessor, HoI3); I contend this is so because the developers prioritize the multiplayer experience over singleplayer.

While I fully agree HoI3 had AI issues, I'd argue that more broadly the AI in PDS titles is comfortably in the 'better than average' camp when looking at grand strategy titles, and for a number of their titles (particularly CK2 and EU4) it's very, very good. Of course, CK2 and EU4 have had far longer for their teams to do the kind of refining and developing that Steelvolt and co. are doing at the moment, so we'd expect them to be in a better shape, but the fact that they've significantly improved over time suggests Paradox takes AI (and therefore single-player) seriously. That they have a dedicated member of what is a small team on AI (with, iirc, an at least part-time helper as well) also suggests they're not taking AI lightly (indeed, if they were prioritising MP instead, I'd expect them to have an AI part-timer and a full-timer dealing with network issues, MP rulesets and what-have-you).

I do see how it could be interpreted that Paradox are all about the MP (most (but by no means all) of the streams are MP oriented), but I think the AI wobbles HoI4 has at the moment are similar to the AI wobbles for pretty much any GSG at launch. They all have them, no matter what the dev, as it's an issue of complexity (and the fact that the game's features won't be locked until not too long before release, so it's not like Steelvolt had two years with a fixed set of features to work on the AI, but rather the was (and is) continually working with an ever-changing set of dynamics (and, I'd argue, the most complex gameplay dynamics of any currently-in-development* Paradox game, in terms of unit and production management, and technology). I don't think it's a coincidence that the other (modern-ish - HoI1 had some interesting issues but it was very early days back then) Paradox title with AI issues was HoI3, the only other game that is on a similar level of complexity.

 

[Daelyn75]

I would absolutely say yes. I am not claiming to have accomplished miracles, but certainly noticable improvements in several areas. The next one or two diaries will go into the improvements we have worked on for areas where the AI performed badly

I cannot wait to read the next DDs then. Ever since HOI, the AI has always been my personal top priority wish to be greatly improved. Considering that no one has ever made a challenging AI in a complicated strategy game without giving the AI big bonuses over you, I had feared that I may (I'm soon to be 41 years old tomorrow) never see a good AI in my lifetime.

 

[Van Tuber]

Well on the forum & other places it seems the general opinion is that the Devs are doing very little to improve the AI. I think for many reasons it might be best for the AI team to take a 'Man Week' or two off from fixing/improving the AI to do PR on that the AI is being improved. Does it really matter to Paradox if the AI is being improved if general opinion is that it is either not being done or low priority and HOI IV sucks & will always suck because of bad AI?

So I say @SteelVolt should take 3 or 4 hours off a week from working on the AI to engage the community until the AI is no longer thought of as an issue so the community knows it is being worked on.

I'm pretty sure that's why this update exists.

 

[Jorlem]

I do see how it could be interpreted that Paradox are all about the MP (most (but by no means all) of the streams are MP oriented), but I think the AI wobbles HoI4 has at the moment are similar to the AI wobbles for pretty much any GSG at launch. They all have them, no matter what the dev, as it's an issue of complexity (and the fact that the game's features won't be locked until not too long before release, so it's not like Steelvolt had two years with a fixed set of features to work on the AI, but rather the was (and is) continually working with an ever-changing set of dynamics (and, I'd argue, the most complex gameplay dynamics of any currently-in-development* Paradox game, in terms of unit and production management, and technology). I don't think it's a coincidence that the other (modern-ish - HoI1 had some interesting issues but it was very early days back then) Paradox title with AI issues was HoI3, the only other game that is on a similar level of complexity.

While I don't agree with TeutoDraeger's assertion regarding the AI's issues implying a MP priority by the devs over SP, I am forced to admit that I don't think his conclusion is inaccurate, for reasons other than the MP PR streams you mentioned. In my view, the insistence of the "never pause, minimal to no pop-ups, no ledger" design is the biggest indicator that the game was intended for MP and not SP, as that design philosophy benefits MP at the detriment of SP.

That said, I really do look forward to playing with the improved AI next week. I'm hoping that ToV can draw me back into the game, as I really would like to be entertained by the game again, in the same way that my first few playthroughs when the game first was released did.

 

[bERt0r]

The code for doing this has grown in phases since about two years back, in some sences almost uncontrolably so due to chasing a good enough state for deadlines. After a while, what easily happens with such systems is that parts of the code "fix" problems that are no longer problems. Indeed, more than just making the code unnecessarily complicated, it can cause new bugs.

Tbh a lot of the Ai seems like this. Imho a lot of things the ai does could be simplified.

Recalculating frontlines and balancing them does not have to happen every hour. Would be fine if players could set a frontline to manual that only runs the positioning code once, when you assign a unit to it. (The player can select divisions and reassign them to the plan to manually start the frontline reevaluation for just those units).

Another thing is that the "value" of a battle plan is a very bad estimate but it seems to matter to the ai, so it sometimes doesn't start battleplans attacking into empty territory because of river crossings or units still deploying.

Keep up fighting them bugs.

 

[Axe99]

While I don't agree with TeutoDraeger's assertion regarding the AI's issues implying a MP priority by the devs over SP, I am forced to admit that I don't think his conclusion is inaccurate, for reasons other than the MP PR streams you mentioned. In my view, the insistence of the "never pause, minimal to no pop-ups, no ledger" design is the biggest indicator that the game was intended for MP and not SP, as that design philosophy benefits MP at the detriment of SP.

That said, I really do look forward to playing with the improved AI next week. I'm hoping that ToV can draw me back into the game, as I really would like to be entertained by the game again, in the same way that my first few playthroughs when the game first was released did.

I'd definitely agree that a lot of MP and MP-style gameplay in PDS influenced design, such that some decisions were made that mate HoI4 less friendly to slower-paced, more thoughtful play (I've posted plenty on the message notifications on a number, but am holding off at the moment as they've clearly got the message and have something in the works, so we'll see how they go with that - and I miss the ledger as well). That said, I don't think that means the game was intended for MP (they're well aware significantly more players play SP than MP) ahead of SP, but I do think they're trying to design for both, and that to some degree both suffer a little for it - but I wouldn't say that the AI is the symptom of this.

 

[SensitiveDannyBoi]

Can the AI take islands now? Ai Germany cant do anything to Britain. Ai Japan cant do anything to British or Netherlands holdings.