Idea for a better a.i. by abstracting air and naval warfare

[seattle]

When it comes to a.i. chess proves that an a.i. can be superior to the best human player in the world.
How's that?
a) The rule-set of chess is slim and hence the amount of calculations rather limited
b) super computers

However, even a weak computer can beat any of us in chess.
The only solution leading to a strong a.i. in HoI4 is streamlining and thus reducing the amount of calculations and the depth of decisions. For example an abstracted air warfare will limit the edge a human player has over the a.i. If you are able to micro every air wing, your advantage will increase, as does the range of a.i. blunders.
Btw. multiplayer games would benefit from such abstractions as well. No more stop'n'go games...

Possible abstractions without dumbing the game down significantly:
a) air:
Have fixed/customizable zones (like central Europe). Click the zone to pick the desired missions. You get checkboxes for missions: air superiority, tactical bombing, strategic bombing... and the default setting "ignore".
You can check as many non-conflicting boxes as you wish. Example: Allies check "air superiority" and "strategic bombing" over Germany in 1943.
Next step assigning forces. Instead of clumsily picking single air wings, you merely assign numbers. Which specific wing is involved is up to a.i. calculations. Example: 500 fighters, 1500 strat bombers, done.
You get feedback on the efficiency of each mission. If you got too few fighters assigned to provide adequate bomber protection, you get a memo and can react to it. More automation is possible: Like setting lower and upper bounds for number of assigned planes (like always have between 500 and 800 fighters in that zone).

That's it! It takes a minute to effectively control air warfare without dumbing the game down. Plus, the a.i. won't be at a disadvantage.

b) navy:
Same principle. Sea zones and checkbox missions (convoy raiding, convoy protection, naval interdiction... default "ignore"). Assign a number of ships and done.
---------------------

With above mentioned changes, the new production system comes fully into play. Now the "x amount of product p / week"-system becomes ideally suited for the proposed abstraction. In the air and navy mode, the feedback you get will include an estimation of the numbers you need to produce per week. You can adept your production lines accordingly.

What do you think?

 

[SFSLovenought]

War isn't chess, it requires creativity and can not be narrowed down to a flowchart of optimum moves.

I am not in favour of dumbing down the game to the point that an AI with no spark of creativity will be able to outperform a human.

 

[Big Nev]

If I wanted to play chess...

I'd play chess.

If I wanted to play RISK...

I'd play RISK.

It's not about how many calculations need to be made. The amount of number-crunching that gets done "just" to figure out where all the supplies & fuel are is staggering. Coming-up with realistic weather must also tie-up considerable processor time.

It's about which calculations need to be made. Teaching the AI to fight effectively is about programming what it takes in to account. With the speed of even modest modern computers a million extra calculations isn't going to be a serious issue. I want to see an AI that will select targets for bombing missions and select a fighter escort for them. Possibly, but not necessarily, bombing targets within range of its escorts. I want to see it decide that it's loss rate has dropped to a level where it can start bombing beyond its fighter cover. I also want to see it place its fighters on forward airfields and re-position them when it "decides" a large long-range bomber-only phase is appropriate.

I also want to see it try to sucker me with feints and false retreats.

If they can somehow streamline the supply system they may be able to free-up quite a bit of processor time but, as I say, I don't think that's the major issue.

 

[Daelyn75]

I want a different type of air war to be modeled, not a super simplified version that has no soul but just seems to work for the AI. Sorry bro, there are other ways to model it than PI has been doing so far. I even show how this is possible in a thread I made about a month or so back. Check my signature.

I agree submarine warfare needs more abstraction that previous HOIs but I want it to be engaging, not: "Oh I have 50 subs in the Atlantic that sunk ten ships last week. I build 5 subs per week, and 2 of which were sunk in that period." Hell no! There needs to be more than that!

 

[telesien]

Honestly this concept is kind of better than what we have now. Especially for air combat. Too much micro, especially if you want to keep up with your ground troops in the true blitzkrieg style

 

[Suaske666]

i agree with OP. air warfare should absolutely work by assigning numbers of aircraft to zones, and it would work well with the production line system. as for naval warfare i like the idea of convoy raiding being abstracted, but i still thing the other ships might be better off being player controlled.

 

[GrafKeks]

War isn't chess, it requires creativity and can not be narrowed down to a flowchart of optimum moves.

I am not in favour of dumbing down the game to the point that an AI with no spark of creativity will be able to outperform a human.

Well if you had ALL variables then it could be narrowed down to such a things, the more variables you leave out the more it becomes based on luck or creativity and sincee this is a game (computer game not in the game theory sense, most variables are openly available ) you could build an A.I that would outperform any human player ( except for bug usuage, althought he A.I could be programmed to do that as well ). Also there are already song-writing computers that can make extremely good songs based upon what the audience likes and what not the same goes for art, and it does not havy any kind of creativity it's merely an algorithm. programming big algorithms requires extremely huge budgets as well as extremely fast computers so they can produce results in a proper time-frame. I think a more abstracted naval and air warfare wouldn't be bad as we can have a better A.I enemy then.

 

[seattle]

i agree with OP. air warfare should absolutely work by assigning numbers of aircraft to zones, and it would work well with the production line system. as for naval warfare i like the idea of convoy raiding being abstracted, but i still thing the other ships might be better off being player controlled.

That's a pretty good point about the naval war. It's probably a good idea to have the surface fleet not abstracted in order to simulate large engagements like the Battle of Midway.

 

[Rithral]

That's a pretty good point about the naval war. It's probably a good idea to have the surface fleet not abstracted in order to simulate large engagements like the Battle of Midway.

I would be for implementing this for sub vs convoy part of the game.

I could be convinced that this is how air theaters should work.

I would not like to see this for surface or CAGs.

 

[Mannstien]

That might work for strategic warfare but it's to abstract for supporting ground warfare and I would rather just assign air units to HQ's and as part of my battle plan take into account what air assets I have available and let the AI use them to best effect. As for naval warfare aside from subs and convoys I would rather control these assets myself or assign naval battle plans. I don't trust the AI to take my super long production and IC heavy CTF's and use them to best effect.

 

[Daelyn75]

That might work for strategic warfare but it's to abstract for supporting ground warfare and I would rather just assign air units to HQ's and as part of my battle plan take into account what air assets I have available and let the AI use them to best effect. As for naval warfare aside from subs and convoys I would rather control these assets myself or assign naval battle plans. I don't trust the AI to take my super long production and IC heavy CTF's and use them to best effect.

I think along the same lines.

 

[Dalwin]

The OP is absolutely correct. A degree of abstraction to the air war will make for a better game. I also think it will make for a more realistic game. Add to that it being a more playable system, I think we are coming out ahead on all fronts.

The other thing that I hope to see from a more abstract air system is, for the first time in HOI, some realisitc level of risk assesment when it comes to sailing fleets into areas with uncontested enemy land based air assets. I hate how easy it is for the Allies to sail a fleet into the Baltic and land at some place like Stettin. During the war, they would not have seriously considered such an operation (certainly not before 1945) because it would have been suicidal.

Once Italy entered the war, the Allies rarely even ran supplies or troops through the Med. They went the long way around Africa. Sure the option to run the gauntlet was still there and in desprate times they may have chanced it, but it would have been a very risky proposition.

This lack of respect that fleets are able to show land based air has always been one of HOIs weaker points.

 

[Big Nev]

...
Once Italy entered the war, the Allies rarely even ran supplies or troops through the Med. They went the long way around Africa. Sure the option to run the gauntlet was still there and in desprate times they may have chanced it, but it would have been a very risky proposition.

This lack of respect that fleets are able to show land based air has always been one of HOIs weaker points.

May have chanced it?

In two minutes I've counted 40 operations involving transport of fuel, supplies, reinforcement and aircraft to Malta of which Pedestal is only one.

The milk runs performed by submarine and fast minelayers aren’t always mentioned individually.

Whilst a certain degree of further abstraction for the air war may improve the game (although I'm not convinced) abstracting convoys out would, IMHO, ruin it.

Many of the major naval battles were all about escorting supply. I think that to remove the strateigic significance of the Arctic Convoys and the Malta runs, to say nothing of what went-on in the Atlantic & Paccific would negate about half the reasons for having any kind of fleet at all.

 

[PrivateSpooks]

I've thought along OP's lines and was praying with the introduction of theaters in TFH(?) or FML that you'd assign air wings to theatres and they'd battle it out. Here's my rough idea that I've been toying with in my head since people started talking about HoI3s' overbearing micro for air warfare.

A new tab is created for air warfare on the top of the map in it are several new things, firstly each theatre of war is where you'll be allocate fighters (light/heavy/naval) and bombers (CAS/Heavy/Naval) with no player input these planes will just fight it out over the disputed theatre border with very cautious behaviour. Although on the side of the screen are options, which include the number of each group you'd like to allocate to this theatre, reinforcement priority, stance and strategy also included is the ability to highlight provinces on the map of those you deem important (Varying shades of blue [light = low focus, dark = high focus] as well as vertical stripes for bombing importance and horizontal stripes for interceptor superiority).

These are how I imagine they'd work;

Each theatre would work on an hourly tick with the night time ticks(based on average time for theatre) sustaining lowest casualties and dawn/dusk raids the highest. The opposition factions will fight for supremacy against each other based off tech, numbers, tactics, experience and %focus points either being a negative or positive modifier. How the player successfully works this system instead of just a pre-determined maths game are the tactics, stances, focus points and prepared strategical air raids/offensives.

Tactics give +% bonuses and -% bonuses to your air wings, think of these playing out as the battle tactics that were introduced in TFH.
Some of these tactics may include;


Interceptors:
Mass response (Huge air wing response, high firepower, slow reaction time and flak will do more damage)
Normal response (No real negatives or positives)
Quick response (Fastest response time to bombers, but low in numbers and in org, won't fair well against a major air offensive)

Escorts:
No escorts (Your fighters are safe I guess)
Light escorts
Med escorts
Heavy escorts (Lose more fighters than bombers, easier to spot, easier for espionage etc)

Raiding (hang time):
Min (In and Out): Quick, less chance of intercept
Medium (Drop all your payload on target in >2 passes):
Deliberate bombing (Dropping payload as accurate as possible):
Suicidal bombing (I will even empty my god damn revolver into those bastards!): Either all the bombs are out or I'm dead.

Stance is how aggressive or how passive you want your air wing to be.

Base: Stay on the ground no matter what
Passive: Defensive
Balanced: Only 1-3 provinces deep
Invasive: 1-7 provinces deep
Aggressive: As far as range allows

Focus points are exactly that, depending on how well your air force is doing then that province will get bonuses and do damage to hostile troops their.

Air offensives would be selecting a time, duration, clauses (Day, Dusk, Night, ALL), available aircraft and targets.

(This took a lot longer than to write out then I envisaged, I'm late for training I'll fill it out a bit more as I know it has a few loop holes but I don't have time to write out everything but I hope you understand what I was getting at).

So what do you think is it some sort of compromise with too little management (numbers game) and too much management like the individual air wings in HoI3?

 

[seattle]

I've thought along OP's lines and was praying with the introduction of theaters in TFH(?) or FML that you'd assign air wings to theatres and they'd battle it out.

Problem with theatres is that your theatres are not the enemy's theatres. Let's say you as Germany create a theatre "Homeland". Then you assign interceptors to it to protect your industry. Another guy plays the UK and plans his strategic bombing campaign. He can only create theatres on his own territory. How does he assign bombers and escorts for the strategic bombing campaign over Germany? If he could create theatres over hostile territory, then that wouldn't be exactly the same as Germany's "Homeland" theatre leading to all kind of undesired outcomes.

Hence I would propose having fixed theatres of war, valid for all countries. Like the regions in previous HoI titles.

 

[Rancher]

The most sensible reply to this idea is to say no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Everybody with an ounce of creativity in his soul disagrees with this. Naval war is what the WW2 is all about

 

[Dalwin]

The most sensible reply to this idea is to say no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Everybody with an ounce of creativity in his soul disagrees with this. Naval war is what the WW2 is all about

You make me laugh even though I disagree with you. I don't really want to see total abstraction of the naval system, but we need something different and better than what any other version of HOI has had. Sure it is cool to have all the historical ships and to sail around in the middle of WWII, but as random and unrealistic (sometimes practically uncontrollable) as the HOI naval systems have been; the naval war might as well have been conducted in an arcade style mini game within the rest of the game.

Look at the war in the Pacific in any version of HOI. It bears no resemblance to WWII whatsoever other than the names and locatiions of the bases and the ship classes etc. At one point ( I don't remember if a patch to HOI2 or 3) they tried adding victory points to some of the Pacific Islands hoping that this would encourage the AI and the players to follow at least a semi-historical plan of action.

The system has never given any real reason let alone need to go island hopping. There is no possibility in HOI for Japan to build a shield of islands with air bases to keep the Americans from penetrating deep within their empire.

The main reason for this is that in HOI naval units have no real reason to fear land based air. In real life, they certainly did.

 

[seattle]

There is no possibility in HOI for Japan to build a shield of islands with air bases to keep the Americans from penetrating deep within their empire.

The main reason for this is that in HOI naval units have no real reason to fear land based air. In real life, they certainly did.

Which is part of the reason I propose abstraction.
If Japan gains the modifier "air superiority" in the Western Pacific theatre, then the navy will benefit from it and the US navy in that region suffers from attrition due to Japanese air superiority.
It's a fairly simple yet elegant solution. Ironically the simplification adds both depth and realism compared to the old, clumsy and quite frankly never really working system.

Imagine you play the USA and in good old HoI fashion simply rush your fleets straight towards the Japanese mainland. You never bothered with gaining air superiority, so your fleet gets decimated by attrition from the Japanese air screen. Once you reach Japan, your fleet will resemble the Army of Virginia midway through the Picket-Pettigrew Charge.

Restart the game and re-think your strategy. Now that you've learned that the old tactics won't work, you'll try it more cautiously and historically. Your conclusion will be that you need you conquer some Pacific islands for the air and naval bases. So you'll start doing some island hopping and piece by piece reducing the Japanese air screen. Your ever growing carrier fleet will do the rest.

This is unfortunately what many people just don't get: An elegant solution can be simple and slim and at the same time increase strategic depth.
Compare chess to Warhammer 40k. Both similar games, yet chess comes with a slim set of rules that fit on one page while Warhammer comes with ever updated rule-books! Chess is the much more efficient algorithm to the same gameplay idea.

 

[Dalwin]

Which is pretty much what I have been saying in the half dozen different threads touching on this subject. I think more or less total abstraction of air has the potential to finally make the naval war much more realistic. I also think that the sub/convoy war should be abstracted, for most of the same reasons the airwar should be.

However, I side with the anti-abstractionists when it comes to taking out the rest of the navies. I still want direct control of the main battle fleets, however, I want it in a system better than what previous versions of HOI have had. I want land based air to be something not easily ignored. I want fleets to be able to realistically disengage without losing 30 ships in 2-3 hours or just because I couldn't hit pause quickly enough.

There have been so many flaws in previous HOI naval systems that total abstraction would be better than seeing the same old thing again. Better still would be abstracting only air and subs and integrating the mechanics of the rest of it in a way that is playable while still yielding some degree of historicity.

 

[Mannstien]

Which is pretty much what I have been saying in the half dozen different threads touching on this subject. I think more or less total abstraction of air has the potential to finally make the naval war much more realistic. I also think that the sub/convoy war should be abstracted, for most of the same reasons the airwar should be.

However, I side with the anti-abstractionists when it comes to taking out the rest of the navies. I still want direct control of the main battle fleets, however, I want it in a system better than what previous versions of HOI have had. I want land based air to be something not easily ignored. I want fleets to be able to realistically disengage without losing 30 ships in 2-3 hours or just because I couldn't hit pause quickly enough.

There have been so many flaws in previous HOI naval systems that total abstraction would be better than seeing the same old thing again. Better still would be abstracting only air and subs and integrating the mechanics of the rest of it in a way that is playable while still yielding some degree of historicity.

I agree with the subs convoys, however the level of abstraction the author is speaking is still to much to be believable unless it is made somehow relative to how many planes, of what type, and how many pilots you have available. Japan could not cover the entire western pacific to have full air superiority so the scale must be lower with values assigned to each promise on the required of the above assets to gain an air superiority bonus. I believe that there needs to be a way to transfer those assets from theatre's or whatever level of abstraction you would call this down to Army HQs to make them available for use in the execution of battle plans to include any strategic retreats e.g. Dunkirk. I'm not against some abstraction of the air but I still want a bit more control than suggested over such important assets.