Infrastructure building queue for AI in AoD 1.09

[Pang Bingxun]

Yes, you did. I clearly remember it.

Well, then i must have used a wording that a significantly different intended meaning than either you or Mr_B0narparte have summarized it. I cannot recall having written something like this.

Clearly, you have a vision for what you think AoD should be...

That however would be a lot different than what 1.09 will be. It is mostly a matter of the lesser evil as i must compose an AI out to components that all have significant flaws. If i had a proper framework for AI i would indeed not force it to builds as much Infra as it does now, at least not early on. Right now it is spam out Infra first, and spam out military second. A proper AI would be much more adaptive and avoid many of the current inevitabilities.

Of course the AI does not want anything, but the relevant thing is what we want the AI to be. I want it to be a challenging as possible within a historical context (mainly regarding dates, i.e war beginning 1 Sep 1939 in Europe).

Well, both challenging and historical context are open to much interpretation. Do we want a continous arms race reaching its peak with assembly line becoming available? Or do we want a short burst and a crashing economy instead? One can vary the preffered time table in either direction. As things are the economies mobilize (much) higher portions of their manpower into the military early than IRL.

and with the Italy AI there's the never-ending problem of finding a balance between it defending its mainland and it sending units abroad - I believe that having 1/2 divisions locked on each Italian beach would help resolve this.

The way i see it a sufficient solution has been implemented in set33+.

I doubt Germany is stronger by 1941 for building infra in Magdeburg, Kiel, Hamburg etc.

I on the other other hand am rather sure of it.

The same for the USSR building infra in Kiev, Vinnitsa, Rostov etc. You do know those provinces lose their IC via the movement of industry events, right?

Of couse i know. But i choose to ignore that. I implemented a limited hindsight for AI. So that is kind of a bit of war. A bit of war makes probably no sense, but for AoD it has proven to be the lesser evil.

So you don't believe delaying Danzig benefits the Allies? Common sense suggests otherwise. The IC, manpower and resources of the UK, USA, France, USSR, Poland and all the Allied minors are much greater then Germany, Italy, Japan and the Axis minors.

In AoD and prior versions of HoI2 delaying the war can be beneficial. That way germany can delay building up the military till it is most efficient. It can have 1943 Armour etc. in great numbers and attack the allies that will have huge armies they can neither supply, nor reinforce, nor upgrade properly. Some heavy artillery bombardement may be needed for initial breakthroughs through heavily fortified and highly manned positions. But after the initial breakthrough germany should have little problem getting through those AI armies.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

That however would be a lot different than what 1.09 will be. It is mostly a matter of the lesser evil as i must compose an AI out to components that all have significant flaws. If i had a proper framework for AI i would indeed not force it to builds as much Infra as it does now, at least not early on. Right now it is spam out Infra first, and spam out military second. A proper AI would be much more adaptive and avoid many of the current inevitabilities.

A better compromise would be reducing the infra parallels, if not the serials. Infra need not be built upto 200%.

Well, both challenging and historical context are open to much interpretation. Do we want a continous arms race reaching its peak with assembly line becoming available? Or do we want a short burst and a crashing economy instead? One can vary the preffered time table in either direction. As things are the economies mobilize (much) higher portions of their manpower into the military early than IRL.

That is because of the way AoD works, it is a war game where players have 100% hindsight. Thus they will aim to fully mobilise by late-39 or mid-40 if they plan to join the war by then. Rather then leading to a crashing economy, it leads to faster and a greater amount of conquests.

The way i see it a sufficient solution has been implemented in set33+.

I hope so. Prey tell as to how you've done this?

I on the other other hand am rather sure of it.

When does building infra in 3 IC provinces pay off?

Of couse i know. But i choose to ignore that. I implemented a limited hindsight for AI. So that is kind of a bit of war. A bit of war makes probably no sense, but for AoD it has proven to be the lesser evil.

Players have 100% hindsight. The AI is already given numerous benefits to compensate for its incompetence, giving it 100% hindsight too should be another such benefit. USSR building infra in Ukraine is just an obvious waste - and I doubt Stalin invested much in developing Ukraine's infrastructure IRL anyway...

In AoD and prior versions of HoI2 delaying the war can be beneficial. That way germany can delay building up the military till it is most efficient. It can have 1943 Armour etc. in great numbers and attack the allies that will have huge armies they can neither supply, nor reinforce, nor upgrade properly. Some heavy artillery bombardement may be needed for initial breakthroughs through heavily fortified and highly manned positions. But after the initial breakthrough germany should have little problem getting through those AI armies.

It sounds like you're describing a situation where Germany is human and the rest of the world is AI. In such a situation it doesn't matter when war breaks out, it is infinitely more likely that Germany will win. I meant a situation where the whole world is AI - I doubt the Germany AI would do well in dealing with a delayed start to the war.

 

[PB-DK]

well i think i would just like to say that overdoing the infra builds and in particular the production speeds regardless of how the AI handles the terrain et al, have a negative impact on the game balance as they prevent the AI from building units when they are needed, there needs to be a balance between the cost and the benefit gained from everything the AI do and their set-up, too much is just as bad as too little and in this case they are more than just a little overdone, but neither should countries like usa not build any infra excepting in their capital as that would be even worse and more than a little bonkers.

Slimming down the number of infra builds and adding a few lines of IC would be the sensible choice for many of the countries in the recent sets, also turning down the speeds on every non capital/non major IC centers would allow the AI to build a lot more efficiently

 

[Commander666]

but neither should countries like usa not build any infra excepting in their capital as that would be even worse and more than a little bonkers.

Firstly, I wish to clarify that I implied that only the USA should be the only country to only build infra just at its capital. While I mentioned that Tokyo is both capital and outlet, that does not imply that Japan should construct infra only in its capital. Therefore there is no such thing as "countries like usa" and it isn't fair that you take what I said and expand it into more. To clarify, I think all major countries should 1) build capital to 200 infra, 2) except for USA, build some infra for greater resources and increased IC, 3) some specific countries need 200 infra line to outlet. As regards Point 2, how much infra depends on resources needed, what trades will be lost during war, and what provinces are available to get the preferred double benefit of most increased resources with best increased concentration bonus.

In V1.08 the USA AI builds no infra. In v1.09 I understand that has been changed to ~80 serials of infra. Does that not seem like a huge change to make in a game that is supposed to be preparing the USA for fighting on 2 fronts come 1941?

Next, in last game as USA, I built 6 or 7 serials of infra in the highest IC provinces with consideration as to also high resources there. It taught me that all – except the serial in Washington to get a 200 infra capital for maximum upgrading AND a maximum outlet for best possible world-wide ESE - was a waste. All of the infra builds except at Washington was a waste because the only real useful benefit was the slightly higher IC due to concentration bonus. The greatly increased resources gotten from the other infra improvements were a waste because I was never able to trade my entire daily resource surplus off anyway. So I just stockpiled hundreds of thousands of energy, metal, rares and oils - even after thousands gifted to UK and SU. And all stockpiles that vastly exceed what can be used are a waste. Next, the little extra IC gotten because of concentration bonus was also fairly wasted, with a case for building a line of factories instead probably making more sense if the goal is "most increased IC." The USA does benefit from an early program of increasing total IC, so we don’t need to debate that again. But constructing infra in 3-4 IC provinces hardly increases total IC at all. And if USA AI is really building 80 infra serials, that must include many provinces with only 2 IC, and some with only 1 IC. That is simply building up economically a country's resources to a point not needed - so wasting a huge amount of IC.

But what is really worrying about Pang's alleged many infra constructions in USA and India with Set 33 or 34 is that it must cripple what the USA and UK AIs should be otherwise doing from start with available IC - which is build up their navies. Navies take years to build, need nearly no supplies to maintain for the long pre-war years while building them, can't be upgraded except for their brigades (which is minor except for CAGs) so they benefit the least by tech rushing, and are most efficiently build in long serials (meaning certain unit builds need starting in 1936).

But if the IC is not available at start because of too much infra construction, the navies will need to build faster later with laying down multiple serials - which is wasteful and also conflicts with trying to find later much spare IC then needed to later lay down multiple lines of army and airforce to avail of the huge benefits of tech rushing those units can get, which is mostly avoiding as many upgrades as possible.

WHAT ALSO BOTHERS ME IS THE INCORRECT FOCUS on how to make the AIs better for greater SP challenge. It is wrong to majorly change anything in this game when there are so many examples of smaller reasons why the game fails to deliver strong AI play. Instead, the many small things should be fixed. I'll discuss 1 example.

AI DOES NOT BUILD EXTRA ASW BRIGADES:
Experienced German player winning Battle of Atlantic against UK AI is fairly easy because the UK AI does not equip its original DD-1s and DD-2 with ASW brigade. In fact, I think it probably builds new DD-3 also with incorrect brigade. And maybe it simply never builds ASW brigades at all. While getting AIs to properly build brigades may be a considerable DEV challenge, all of Pang's concentration on major game changes certainly is not providing the best environment to achieve correcting serious faults already existing in the game.

Simply put, the intense focus to majorly change the game is wrong because it detracts from the focus to fix the many smaller issues that would definitely make AIs harder to play against.

Now, PB-DK, if you really think USA AI should have more infra except at Washington, please state where… and what is the actual benefit other than slight IC increase due to concentration bonus. I’m sure you agree that 10 IC for 2 serials of factories gives greater total IC than 10 IC for 5 serials of infra placed in the USA (and you can’t use Washington again because that serial is already taken).

Actually, if we look strategically at USA’s possible infra building then, on top of Washington, good candidates are San Diego, Pearl Harbour, and Wake for greater ESE in those places. This now lessens the need to run fleets to Washington for upgrading their brigades. Also aircraft stationed at Pearl and Wake will benefit very much as regards org regain. But over building infra with mostly getting more resources that can not be used is simply something the USA does not need.

EDIT: My major point is that "Pang is concentrating on the wrong thing by trying to improve the AIs via major economic changes." He should instead be figuring out how to overcome well known deficiencies with the AIs. I did edit here because I just thought of another example - the AIs preference to build very short serials - oftentimes only a single unit (but many parallel lines tying up huge amount of available IC). So, in v1.08 the USA at start has seven serials of CL-4. While the USA does need about 16 new CL-4s, that is most efficiently gotten by Dec/41 via one line done from start. These are the kind of "problems" AoD vanilla needs over coming for AIs to become more of a challenge playing human. Majorly changing the world's economy will not result in fixing anything that actually matters, IMO.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

well i think i would just like to say that overdoing the infra builds and in particular the production speeds regardless of how the AI handles the terrain et al, have a negative impact on the game balance as they prevent the AI from building units when they are needed, there needs to be a balance between the cost and the benefit gained from everything the AI do and their set-up, too much is just as bad as too little and in this case they are more than just a little overdone, but neither should countries like usa not build any infra excepting in their capital as that would be even worse and more than a little bonkers.

Well, a slight overload of Infra is intentional. The human player that plays with hindsight can simply increase the difficulty level and the build up of military will be antedated significantly. Than AI can use both high infra and a great military early.

Medium difficulty is good for AI vs. AI balance and good for those players that prefer a medium term strategy. Hard difficulty level and higher is good for player with a preference for short term strategy.

Slimming down the number of infra builds and adding a few lines of IC would be the sensible choice for many of the countries in the recent sets, also turning down the speeds on every non capital/non major IC centers would allow the AI to build a lot more efficiently

Set33 had added a lot of factories to the building queue. As for the speed steps it would be good to dim them down later, but i lack the ability. Also a good deal of the increased speed steps is intentional. It is more efficient to build Infra in 3 factories province with double speed than to build Infra with single speed in provinces with 2 factories. Getting base ic up soon to get more techslots is a priority.

That is because of the way AoD works, it is a war game where players have 100% hindsight. Thus they will aim to fully mobilise by late-39 or mid-40 if they plan to join the war by then. Rather then leading to a crashing economy, it leads to faster and a greater amount of conquests.

Do you want AI to make a greater amount of conquests? Conquest increase the tc load and thus increase the amount of needed infra.

I am not sure it is rational for the human player to use the short term preference you described in such detail. Delaying things till better techs become available has its merits. Using speed 15 armour1943 instead of speed 10 Armour1939 is an advantage. Using 1942 logistics instead of 1936 logistics is a strong advantage.

Imo the best solution would be to have a standard patch where AI has a medium term preference, a realism mod where the peak of the arms race is not reached before late 1944 as IRL and a short term preference mods. The later may already be in existence, i donnot how how Jarskis Mods exactly works.

I hope so. Prey tell as to how you've done this?

I recall there was something that preventeed the proper interaction of AI events in AI_ITA.txt. I hopefully have fixed it.

When does building infra in 3 IC provinces pay off?

When does it not? More tc is always welcome. Barbarossa is limited by tc, not by manpower.

USSR building infra in Ukraine is just an obvious waste - and I doubt Stalin invested much in developing Ukraine's infrastructure IRL anyway...

That might be so, but as i lack the ability to add those Infra serials into the building queue of germany or a ukrainian puppet i must use what is second best. And as for USSR it really needs those resources there. So unlike Luxemburg it even is the proper choice from an egoistic point of view.

It sounds like you're describing a situation where Germany is human and the rest of the world is AI. In such a situation it doesn't matter when war breaks out, it is infinitely more likely that Germany will win. I meant a situation where the whole world is AI - I doubt the Germany AI would do well in dealing with a delayed start to the war.

It might be interesting to see what happens with AI if Danzig is delayed by 720 days, but yes i refer to a human played nation. You mentioned a human countering a medium term stretegy of AI with a short term strategy. I mentioned a human player countering a short term AI strategy with a long term strategy. It works both ways. For the official patch a balanced approach is needed.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

In V1.08 the USA AI builds no infra. In v1.09 I understand that has been changed to ~80 serials of infra. Does that not seem like a huge change to make in a game that is supposed to be preparing the USA for fighting on 2 fronts come 1941?

This thread is for 1.09 set33+ only. If you refer to wrong versions you are destined to arrive to wrong conclusions. As for the USA it has 115 land diviions either build or soon to be built before barbarossa starts and when 2 gearing up events are still to come. Still they achieve to have the largest navy and 100+ air divisions and thus 50% more than germany in march 1942. That does not surprise when they have 627 effective ic and rising while germany has 607 effective ic and dropping:

After some further radical changes to the AI of the USA all majors seem to have appropriate building queues in mid 1942. At march the 4th the USA have 627 effective ic followed by germany with 607 effective ic. The soviet union is reduced to 202 effective ic after bitter peace and has 171 land divisions.

I could address your post in an essay like manner, but i will refrain from doing that because this is the wrong thread for it. This here is only about 1.09 set33+ Infra for AI starting building queues. Still i need to clarify a term to avoid future confusion:

All of the infra builds except at Washington was a waste because the only real useful benefit was the slightly higher IC due to concentration bonus.[...] Next, the little extra IC gotten because of concentration bonus was also fairly wasted, with a case for building a line of factories instead probably making more sense if the goal is "most increased IC."

The term concentration bonus refers to increasing provincial effeciancy by increasing the mount of factories in a province. So it only refers to later part of the following equation:

provincial efficiency = (0.7 + 0.3 x Infra) x (1 + 0.01 x factories)

 

[Commander666]

The term concentration bonus refers to increasing provincial effeciancy by increasing the mount of factories in a province. So it only refers to later part of the following equation:

provincial efficiency = (0.7 + 0.3 x Infra) x (1 + 0.01 x factories)

And I had said that more infra increases total IC because of concentration bonus. As more infra does increase provincial efficiency AND as that increases the total IC, I fail to see anything wrong with my statement. Perhaps my statement is a short cut for the formula, but I don't see it creating any confusion.

Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss that, unless you think it important. As regards USA having 627 IC, might I point out your stated time for that which is March 1942. What concerns me is USA spending nearly 160 IC on infra in Jan 1936 when they have nothing near 600 IC. How much do they start with?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

And I had said that more infra increases total IC because of concentration bonus. As more infra does increase provincial efficiency AND as that increases the total IC, I fail to see anything wrong with my statement. Perhaps my statement is a short cut for the formula, but I don't see it creating any confusion.

Well, the concentration bonus remains constant, therefore saying that ic was increased due to concentration bonus is wrong. Base ic was increased due to a higher provincial efficiency which was permitted by increasing Infra.

Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss that, unless you think it important. As regards USA having 627 IC, might I point out your stated time for that which is March 1942. What concerns me is USA spending nearly 160 IC on infra in Jan 1936 when they have nothing near 600 IC. How much do they start with?

Install Set34 and find out yourself. I expect it to be uploaded in this evening and different to prior sets i can really advise to use it.

 

[Commander666]

Install Set34 and find out yourself.

Well, I have a problem with that. As you know, installing patches is not really easy for me. Worse, I would hate to lose 1.08 if I patched my current installation. Obviously it needs saving v1.08 and installing a copy 1.08 with 1.09 patch - which is even more problematic for me. I'm sure I would end up over-riding v1.08 in my attempts to create two separate games.

As such I'll keep my v1.08 for now so I can readily avail of game facts to discuss with others - probably especially newbies having strategy related difficulties. Chances are very high they will be using v1.08. Further I still consider it the official version. Of course, what is really official is somewhat hard to define but - as before - I'll take my cue from Gringo.

Sorry, but I think I really not the right person to participate in Beta testing. However, I have no reservations about commenting on 1.09 based on what others who have installed it are writing about it. And if I discount all my posts here, the score currently is 2 nays and no yays. So it actually might behoof you to try to get me on your side. I must say I am very impressed with the unit figures you give for USA in March 1942. But risking the loss of my 1.08 to patch to 1.09 to check the proposed next version is just not what I care to do.

And is Set 34 really the final product? If so, sounds like there is no point in anybody doing any Beta testing since it would seem you have already reached all final decisions.

 

[PB-DK]

Well, a slight overload of Infra is intentional. The human player that plays with hindsight can simply increase the difficulty level and the build up of military will be antedated significantly. Than AI can use both high infra and a great military early.

Medium difficulty is good for AI vs. AI balance and good for those players that prefer a medium term strategy. Hard difficulty level and higher is good for player with a preference for short term strategy.

a human player can do a lot of things, neither of which are relevant to the discussion at hand, the base of this discussion is the over emphasis of infra lines, to which a balanced approach is a lot more useful for the AI in the longer run against AI and human players.

Set33 had added a lot of factories to the building queue. As for the speed steps it would be good to dim them down later, but i lack the ability. Also a good deal of the increased speed steps is intentional. It is more efficient to build Infra in 3 factories province with double speed than to build Infra with single speed in provinces with 2 factories. Getting base ic up soon to get more techslots is a priority.

...do you lack the ability to make that change in what way? you have had no problems making those previously so what has changed?

making 3 lines of infra at double speed cost the same as making 6(+) lines of infra at normal speed and to that you will need to calculate the dwindling efficiency of the increased speeds, at 2x you will only get about 145% speed at 200% cost, the same goes for IC, having 4 lines of factories at x3 is wasting a ton of icd which will take decades to make up for the investments which could more efficiently have been used with 12 lines of ic. which would also have raised the base ic up to increase the number of techslots more efficiently. There are very few provinces that will support any increase of speed for building IC and infra, Tokyo, Paris and Chicago are among the very few that i would even consider increasing the speed on and of those 3, 2 are capitals...

 

[Pang Bingxun]

...do you lack the ability to make that change in what way? you have had no problems making those previously so what has changed?

I have no means to change the speed step after the game has started. Events offer no such option.

 

[PB-DK]

I have no means to change the speed step after the game has started. Events offer no such option.

ah yes but since we where discussing the setup i did not make that connection

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Well, a slight overload of Infra is intentional. The human player that plays with hindsight can simply increase the difficulty level and the build up of military will be antedated significantly. Than AI can use both high infra and a great military early.

Every AoD player I have ever played with plays with 100% hindsight - including players who only play single-player. I would posit that every single HoIer knows when WWII broke out, and so even if they tried playing without hindsight, they would still have infinitely more hindsight then the AI (which obviously cannot think at all - it only does what it's told).

Medium difficulty is good for AI vs. AI balance and good for those players that prefer a medium term strategy. Hard difficulty level and higher is good for player with a preference for short term strategy.

I think I've said this before long ago: I've yet to find a player who plays AoD primarily to see how the AI performs v. AI. Assuming the structure of the game is balanced, surely maximising every AI will lead to a historical outcome.

It is more efficient to build Infra in 3 factories province with double speed than to build Infra with single speed in provinces with 2 factories. Getting base ic up soon to get more techslots is a priority.

I'm sorry but that's like saying wasting $5 is better then wasting $10. It's still a waste of resources.

Do you want AI to make a greater amount of conquests? Conquest increase the tc load and thus increase the amount of needed infra.

I want the AI to be maximised in order for it to be more of a challenge. AIs can be told to create puppets.

I am not sure it is rational for the human player to use the short term preference you described in such detail. Delaying things till better techs become available has its merits. Using speed 15 armour1943 instead of speed 10 Armour1939 is an advantage. Using 1942 logistics instead of 1936 logistics is a strong advantage.

L.arm have 15 speed, there is 1940 logistics. Anyway, that is detail - I'm focusing on the bigger picture. The longer Germany waits, the stronger the USSR, the USA and the UK get - France could easily create a Maginot spanning its entire eastern border by mid-1941.

Imo the best solution would be to have a standard patch where AI has a medium term preference, a realism mod where the peak of the arms race is not reached before late 1944 as IRL and a short term preference mods. The later may already be in existence, i donnot how how Jarskis Mods exactly works.

Jarski's mod makes the AI more intelligent in the sense it maximises its builds, IC and infra builds to a sensible degree. It wastes as little IC as possible.

When does it not? More tc is always welcome. Barbarossa is limited by tc, not by manpower.

How much more TC do you get from building infra up in a 3IC province from 1936-41? My guess is 1. Focusing on high-IC, high resource provinces is best; building both IC and infra.

That might be so, but as i lack the ability to add those Infra serials into the building queue of germany or a ukrainian puppet i must use what is second best. And as for USSR it really needs those resources there. So unlike Luxemburg it even is the proper choice from an egoistic point of view.

So you are deliberately making the USSR AI an extension of Germany... AoD has it's errors but this is no way to rectify them. Ukraine already gets a significant amount of off-map IC anyway - even if the transfer of industry events never triggered.

It might be interesting to see what happens with AI if Danzig is delayed by 720 days, but yes i refer to a human played nation. You mentioned a human countering a medium term stretegy of AI with a short term strategy. I mentioned a human player countering a short term AI strategy with a long term strategy. It works both ways. For the official patch a balanced approach is needed.

Balanced does not mean over-loading the AI was infra. It can easily infra and IC spam while militarise faster then a human player considering it has 0 retooling, 0 research cost, ridiculous gearing increase and terrain blind infra production.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

the same goes for IC, having 4 lines of factories at x3 is wasting a ton of icd which will take decades to make up for the investments which could more efficiently have been used with 12 lines of ic. which would also have raised the base ic up to increase the number of techslots more efficiently.

I consider the option to add factories exhausted as resource scarceness is high already.

There are very few provinces that will support any increase of speed for building IC and infra, Tokyo, Paris and Chicago are among the very few that i would even consider increasing the speed on and of those 3, 2 are capitals...

My calculations show that double ic usage pay off in most provinces with 5 factories. For AI i calculate with lower thresholds because building military instead will create great amounts of costs. Building a units 2 years earlier and thus having to maintain and upgrade it costs about as much as building 2 to 2.5 units at the proper year. Smoothening military construction is a major consideration about Infra.

Assuming the structure of the game is balanced, surely maximising every AI will lead to a historical outcome.

Maximizing is open to interpretation. I maximize AI mid run. You want to maximize it short run. Other might prefer to maximize it long run like IRL.

I want the AI to be maximised in order for it to be more of a challenge. AIs can be told to create puppets.

AI and puppets donnot mix very well.

L.arm have 15 speed, there is 1940 logistics. Anyway, that is detail - I'm focusing on the bigger picture. The longer Germany waits, the stronger the USSR, the USA and the UK get - France could easily create a Maginot spanning its entire eastern border by mid-1941.

This is not true per se. Waiting can easily be in germanys best interests.

How much more TC do you get from building infra up in a 3IC province from 1936-41? My guess is 1.

It is 2.59 with 1940 logistics and effective ic / base ic = 1.55.

Focusing on high-IC, high resource provinces is best; building both IC and infra.

That is the case. Those provinces have increased priority.

So you are deliberately making the USSR AI an extension of Germany...

No. As i wrote USSR Infra is justified by sole egoism. For CZE it is however the case unless this state somehow survives or is reliberated.

Balanced does not mean over-loading the AI was infra. It can easily infra and IC spam while militarise faster then a human player considering it has 0 retooling, 0 research cost, ridiculous gearing increase and terrain blind infra production.

But is not truely overloaded. It makes quite some sense to say that AI is overloaded with military builds. Both sides have their merits.

 

[Commander666]

I'm sorry but that's like saying wasting $5 is better then wasting $10. It's still a waste of resources.
.

No need to apologize when you are the one who is making perfect sense.

 

[Commander666]

AI and puppets donnot mix very well.

What is this but another deflection against one of Mr_BOnarpte's excellent solutions as to how the AIs can be improved in different and better ways than simply giving all of them "Pang's Economic Infra Solution"?

Just how do AI and puppets not mix well? Does the USA have some particular problem with the Philippines that somehow weakens those AIs in a way I have not experienced playing against them? Of course AI masters mix very well with their AI puppets - as regards what matters.... which is the use of military forces.

The AI in fact mixes far better with puppets (or anybody aligned with it) than the human ever can. For example, I can't mix my Romanian allies I have taken MC of with my German stacks because then I can not combine German units (when just 1 Romanian is there preventing it). But the AIs have no such problems.... and mix their units from different nationalities extremely effectively.

Mr_BOnarpte's suggestion of "AIs can be told to create puppets" is actually one way for greatly improving the AI challenge. But unfortunately you seem so stuck defending your actions you don't seem to be considering other alternatives which have been suggested to you many times before.

EDIT done to delete last 2 lines.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I have made AI create some puppets. So i have developed an understanding of where what kind of difficulties are to be expected. As said in a different thread: Familiarize yourself with the facts first so you gain the ability to formulate useful criticism.


So far this thread has surfaced many legits points of view but no reason why deleting Infra would improve the game. Most reasoning follows two patterns:

1. Humanize the AI. The AI is implicitly assummed to act much more human or rational than it does. If it would that critique would be justified, but given that AI does no act in such manners it is necessary to assume a more ai like point of view. Before i did that i was much more reluctant about Infra for AI as the 1.08 patch demonstrates.

2. Ignore the difficulty setting. It is critized that AI refrains from having more military resources or similar early in the game. This "shortage" could easily be eliminated by increasing the difficulty setting by a step or two. There is no reason to delete Infra at the higher settings, is there?

 

[PB-DK]

I have made AI create some puppets. So i have developed an understanding of where what kind of difficulties are to be expected. As said in a different thread: Familiarize yourself with the facts first so you gain the ability to formulate useful criticism.


So far this thread has surfaced many legits points of view but no reason why deleting Infra would improve the game. Most reasoning follows two patterns:

1. Humanize the AI. The AI is implicitly assummed to act much more human or rational than it does. If it would that critique would be justified, but given that AI does no act in such manners it is necessary to assume a more ai like point of view. Before i did that i was much more reluctant about Infra for AI as the 1.08 patch demonstrates.

2. Ignore the difficulty setting. It is criticized that AI refrains from having more military resources or similar early in the game. This "shortage" could easily be eliminated by increasing the difficulty setting by a step or two. There is no reason to delete Infra at the higher settings, is there?

well i have no interest in continuing the debate, you have given your reasons, i disagree but i have better things to do than debate the subject that has already been decided by you. cheers and i hope you make something decent of 1.09

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I can understand the rationale for overloading the Axis with infra builds regarding the 'AI struggles with resources argument' - even though I'm sure that still leads to an over-stockpiling of energy if not metal too by Germany. But for the the Allies it makes little sense - especially when, as Pang knows, they stockpile ridiculous amount of resources anyway. By 30 August 1939 the USA has around 300-500k of every resource bar rare materials, of which it has around 50k. If the argument there is that it helps grow the USA's TC, then surely building IC - not infra - in all those 1-3IC provinces is much more worthwhile.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I can understand the rationale for overloading the Axis with infra builds regarding the 'AI struggles with resources argument' - even though I'm sure that still leads to an over-stockpiling of energy if not metal too by Germany.

It only has more metal than it can use. Axis runs out of energy before it runs out of metal. Naturally it runs out of rares long before that. I could change that by making AI build even more symthetic plants so germany converts more energy into oil and more oil in rares. Than germany would run out of energy before anything else. So far i have chosen not to do that and i tend to keep this stance.

There is a general lack of rares on the euroasian continent. This limits factory construction if either some reserves are to be built up by AI or there should be enough resources for the human player to build up effective ic to high levels.

But for the the Allies it makes little sense - especially when, as Pang knows, they stockpile ridiculous amount of resources anyway. By 30 August 1939 the USA has around 300-500k of every resource bar rare materials, of which it has around 50k. If the argument there is that it helps grow the USA's TC, then surely building IC - not infra - in all those 1-3IC provinces is much more worthwhile.

For the USA i would estimate that TC is a minors concern.

Something sensible could be to make USA build synthetic rares plants. Else its energy and metal cannot by utilized, no matter by whom. Also past 1941 the USA tend to have more than enough oil because it cannot export it to axis because it is at war with them.