Infrastructure building queue for AI in AoD 1.09

[Commander666]

I have now EXITED the game, loaded as Costa Rica, read USA resource figures in trade tab; and exited game.

Loading up same file save as USA, I get significantly different resource figures. The comparison with Costa figures first is:
Oil 597.82 versus 656.20
Energy: 704.86 versus 779.30
Metal: 376.74 versus 416.70
Rares: 130.40 versus 143.90

Seems the USA is reporting ~10% more resources accumulating per day than Costa Rica reports is available for trade.

The file save used was a week before Pearl Harbor so "game run up" would not be affected by change in peacetime modifier. Something feels broken.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Regarding resource bug, I did mean you'd need to exit the game. But what you post above does worry me. Sorry, just have to ask the obvious, do you have auto trade on when loading up as the USA? Or, does the USA have any dissent?

 

[Commander666]

Loading as the USA I note that Auto-Trading is "OFF". The USA does not have any dissent. Best as I can tell, the USA AI basically stopped trading in any substantial manner a long time ago.

What I can best watch over the years are the USA trades selling oil to UK. It is rather small... only 50 oil. Even when UK runs -80 oil temporarily (probably because of fleets replenishing) no further oils trades are set up. That is logical since the UK has a massive oil stockpile.

The only other USA trades selling oil are to N. China (receives 12.0 oil), Canada (receives 7.0) and a fairly recent trade to New Zealand (2.1).

What is of further concern is that from Sept 7/40 to Dec 5/41 USA has done 17 Lend-Lease shipments to the UK (and slightly greater number to N. China).

Who the heck needs to trade and so risk U-boat action?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Certainly the Lend-Lease events need editing, creating convoys from USA rather then magically teleporting them across thousands of miles of ocean. But yes, arguably the UK does not need lend-lease at all - however China certainly does!

 

[Commander666]

True. N. China is also getting about same number of "gifts" from SU. That might be 20 in same time frame mentioned.

But I like to repeat what I suspect is happening:

"USA over abundant resources result in over abundant Lend Lease; and all countries being much more resource self-sufficient combine to majorly reduce world-wide trading which then negatively affects game strategy for the Battle of the Atlantic."

 

[Commander666]

Looking at the UK AI

Viewing the UK just after Pearl Harbour, I note that they still have 29 infra serials and a factory left to finish.... and the serials have a long ways to go.

You know, this is just getting worse and worse - to the point that I might have to invent a new language to describe it since all the old adjectives of "crazy, nuts, ridiculous and absurd" got worn out describing the USA AI infra builds.

Anyway, the massive size of the UK stockpiles accumulated supports the notion that player of Germany may as well never construct a new U-boat since engaging in the Battle of the Atlantic will have zero economic effect on the UK - even if every last UK merchant ship is sunk.

With nearly 1 million energy, 154K metal, 72K rares and 111K oil stockpiled by Dec, 1941 - even if the U-boats have by now sunk the entire UK merchant fleet and even if the UK had lost all its overseas possessions - the forces in the British Isles will be able to continue for many years before running out of any resource. Add German bombers and rockets and they will still will not be short of any resource because Lend Lease supplied from over stuffed USA resource stockpiles will assure it.

Sure, German player might still build U-boats for the other reason - affect supply convoys to UK over seas areas - but I'm discussing the UK economy... which is unassailable as regards any resource stockpile actually being depleted.

Further, the most incorrect late-running infra constructions are killing the UK total economy because it doesn't even have enough money saved just to Open Negotiations when taking over as a human.

I fail to see game balance, or even any reason to engage in senseless strategy.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Regarding resource bug, I did mean you'd need to exit the game. But what you post above does worry me. Sorry, just have to ask the obvious, do you have auto trade on when loading up as the USA? Or, does the USA have any dissent?

As for displaying the daily surplus only 90% are made visible for trading. This is supposed to reduce the chance of AI trading away everything and then cancelling the trade a short while after. If you want to know the true surpluss you need to divede by 0.9 as they are 11.11% larger.

Another issue is that AI can choose to block its exports. Those are then displayed as zero. So far so fine, both are intended to work like this.

But there is a bug. When choosing surrender(Leave a current game, but not closing the executable) some things seem to be not forgotten and this confuses AI when loading a game so that it will block some exports. Exiting the game is workaround for this. An annoying one, though.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

The AI never stockpiles money, so it not having enough for Open Negotiations is no surprise. Apart from that, I agree with Commander's above post.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Regarding this 'just play a harder difficulty' argument', what do I need to do to prove it's not enough? I imagine defeating the UK, USSR and France by 1940 as Germany on Very Hard will not be enough to persuade Pang.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

The AI never stockpiles money, so it not having enough for Open Negotiations is no surprise.

AI does stockpile money and quite on purpose. AI Germany uses Open Negotiations for many one time deals to get oil and rares. All major AIs are set to overfund cg a bit in order to stockpile money and trade blueprints via Open Negotiations.

Negative money via events may upset things.

Regarding this 'just play a harder difficulty' argument', what do I need to do to prove it's not enough? I imagine defeating the UK, USSR and France by 1940 as Germany on Very Hard will not be enough to persuade Pang.

Maybe. But its was meant as practical advise(hard should probably be enough), not as means to prove something. I could then turn the tables, play the UK and prevent germany from taking poland. So all this very experienced human vs. AI is of low meaning. If allies were completely determined to stop germany they would succeed in doing so. The fundamentals are rather strong, even early on. So for an official patch there needs to be some sort of compromise betweeen realism and a proper challenge. The way i see it 1.09 should be more of a challenge than 1.08 and 1.08 was a greater challange than 1.07. The direction is the right one, isn't it? But when one chooses an unfair comparision the conclusion will not be helpful. For mods the rules are different than for an official patch.

Edit: If you are real willing to try "defeating the UK, USSR and France by 1940 as Germany on Very Hard", than this might be an interesting read at least. If for some reason this would make you change your mind it would be even better.

 

[Commander666]

Edit: If you are real willing to try "defeating the UK, USSR and France by 1940 as Germany on Very Hard", than this might be an interesting read at least. If for some reason this would make you change your mind it would be even better.

This is a horribly aloof response given the OP you did here Pang. You - PANG - should publish an admission here that your massive changes which has AIs still building up factories until 1948 and infra until 1942 (or maybe 1943) for some countries constitutes a game that completely heads in the wrong direction in every way... including balance, human challenge to play against your artificially crippled AIs, and even learning anything sensible about WW2 as regards the massive changes you made - which are soundly opposed by a large portion of the community.

Now, that would be an interesting read.

 

[Commander666]

Regarding this 'just play a harder difficulty' argument', what do I need to do to prove it's not enough? I imagine defeating the UK, USSR and France by 1940 as Germany on Very Hard will not be enough to persuade Pang.

Unfortunately you are right. The self-appointed demi-god stated flatly... that if you succeed doing that on v1.09... then it will only be "an interesting read" for him. Even that would not sway Pang... because he is so wrongly stuck in thinking he knows best.

In fact, Pang, your unilateral massive changes constitute the worst of the worst I have ever seen in the long development history of Hearts of Iron. Enjoy your future legacy.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

For me, I think the ultimate difference I have with Pang on this topic is not regarding infrastructure. It is regarding when should the AI prepare for war - I believe it should be fully, or at least ~75%, prepared by the late-1939 to 1941 period as that is the most critical stage - both for the game and IRL. Pang believes the AI should be fully prepared by 1943-44, which is realistic in a sense, but highly impractical in game terms.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

For me, I think the ultimate difference I have with Pang on this topic is not regarding infrastructure. It is regarding when should the AI prepare for war - I believe it should be fully, or at least ~75%, prepared by the late-1939 to 1941 period as that is the most critical stage - both for the game and IRL. Pang believes the AI should be fully prepared by 1943-44, which is realistic in a sense, but highly impractical in game terms.

Not exactly. By the start of the war in 1939 and 1941 the 3 major western allies should only be prepared 25% to 50%. So far so fine(or not depending on the point of view). But i purposefully refrained from making it too realistic time wise aswell. If you play not too well, choose the medium dificulty setting and set yourself a few houserules the challenge should be fine. For germany those houserules would be:

1. Donnot aim at more than 100 german landdivisions prior to Danzig.
2. Donnot aim to take unsmall portions of French core territory prior to April 1940.
3. Donnot attack soviet union or the baltic states prior to 1941.
4. Donnot make any unhistoric conquest prior to 1942. This includes everything in America. It does not include switzerland, but it does include turkey.

I expect you to play too well to be challenged at medium difficulty by this, but at hard it should suffice. You would still win in the end, but nothing less is to be expected. But beating all european powerhouses by 1940 on VH is something different, isn't it?

 

[Commander666]

For me, I think the ultimate difference I have with Pang on this topic is not regarding infrastructure. It is regarding when should the AI prepare for war - I believe it should be fully, or at least ~75%, prepared by the late-1939 to 1941 period as that is the most critical stage - both for the game and IRL. Pang believes the AI should be fully prepared by 1943-44, which is realistic in a sense, but highly impractical in game terms.

There is no such thing as being "fully prepared for war" by any country. By nature, and as seen in history, world wars are an intense race to gain superiority. Even the USA was never "fully prepared" for war. How could they be when they were definitely "more prepared" with the successful first test of the A-bomb?

What is good for the game is balance so human playing any country can have a challenging game. Using various difficulty settings is a good feature... but it is not an excuse to push out a new version that now has all AIs artificially crippled because of the infra changes. While that might serve hands off balance (which I'm not really sure it does) the changes done will take this game to the "back shelf" for all who now find it generally easier to win. There is no doubt that the game has lost challenge.... and discussing 1943 or 1944 for the USA to peak is inapplicable since every human who played the Axis before and conquered the world by then... now simply will be rather bored.

And as AoD is not really well known for attracting new players in this day and age, it is the existing community which has been demanding a more challenging game (stronger AI performance) that mostly needs catering to for AoD to survive as a Classical Game.

Pang can always offer a further "easiest difficulty setting" if needed to accommodate newbies. But wether he can keep the old timers with the work he has done remains to be seen. Personally, I think there is currently a movement happening to "get away from this v1.09" as per the very objectionable views expressed by very many people since over a year ago. I think everybody was giving Pang a chance - in good sportsmanship - to prove himself. But it may be that the general mood is changing.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Well, the issue i see at hand is whether parts of the community are willing to give the final 1.09 a chance without all the prejudice floating around in this thread and possibly elsewhere. There is a difference between what things are assumed to be and how they do work out in the final patch.

AoD is a niche within a niche. Mods for AoD are a niche within a niche within a niche. It is a natural process that the more experienced players move on to mods that support features that cannot be supported in an official patch. That may make me a bit sad as i have put quite some work into prefecting AoD under uneasy circumstances, but it is the natural thing to happen.

 

[Commander666]

Firstly, there is no prejudice occurring against you. While you personally may not like some of the color in my statements, I call your changes as I believe it to be - based on the game... and not you!

Secondly, I have not made any assumptions about your development work. I tested and inspected thoroughly, counted things, and all else.

Thirdly, it really is not a natural process that experienced players "move on" because experienced players are here because they love this community... this sub-Forum... and like to stay here. Moving on means you won't have anybody to debate with unless where you move to has a large enough community playing same thing.

Fourthly, I'm sad that you will be sad. But let's stop the crap.... and you just admit that you brought it onto yourself because of your nearly totalitarian style of personal game development. You had a year ago - before I ever posted a word on this topic - to gain some compatibility with the many others that were discussing with you. That excluded me totally. I never contributed to V1.09 Beta 1 thread.

Fifthly, what is most wrong in this "perfecting AoD" is that it isn't getting perfect. You have done nearly nothing to fix anything that is actually broken, was wanting, or is seriously flawed. You have disregarded nearly totally the wishes of the community. Did you fix the Capital Ship camou? Seems as UK I can't put that on a BB. You made me a promise, Pang!

Sixthly, while I sympathize with all the work you have indeed put in, you might try to emphasize with all the work I and others put in debating with you - which has proven fruitless... a gross waste of time it seems, and all really turned out quite unsatisfactory.

Seventhly, and finally, you want to debate it all over again? "Willing to give the final 1.09 a chance"? What kind of chance can that be in the face of the AIs constructing infra when I can slaughter them because you cripple them with useless builds until such late years? Or you think I should just satisfy myself with running more "hands off"? That's like you telling us that we must have no experience how to judge a new version when we are intimately knowledgeable of all previous versions, understand build schemes, and can predict what happens when Poland only builds infra to face our human built army in 1939. What you did with Poland is so absurd you don't get any more chances. What the hell is wrong with you that you give Poland a build scheme like that? It is nothing but a very nice gift for the Wehrmacht.

Frankly, take the collective advice... and scrap your infra changes.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I don't see the prejudice in pointing out that developing infra in 0-3IC provinces is a complete waste of resources.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

That depends on what effects it actually has in the end. To me it seems that there is a significant discrepancy between what effects it has in the end and what it is assumed to have. It is this discrepancy i that refer to with the term prejudice.

 

[MagooNZ]

I'm working on a spreadsheet to compare IC gain from various combinations of infrastructure and factory builds. One thing I still need is the formula's for the gearing bonus of infrastructure builds. Is there a previous thread that discusses this feature in detail? The second infrastructure build is 95% of the ungeared build time; and this is 5% additive? sequentially, but I need to work out how to determine the max gearing limit. Then I should be able to compare USA 1936 pre-war performance with say 70 IC/d to spend. I picked 70 since I can have 14 provinces with single factory build, 7 provinces with 2x speed factory build, 10 provinces with single factory and infrastructure build, 5 provinces with 2x speed factory & infrastructure build. And I want to compare different starting infrastructure & factory levels. At this stage I'm only considering IC not resource gain, but if I get this working then resource gain can be included later.