Yes, I know it's history, but face it, I need a little crude oil and my faithful ally refuses to give it. I think HOI4 should make the AI more likely to accept trade deals and other diplomatic things.
Let's talk about the issues with AI trade
- Thread starter DPKdebator
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Except no, since if someone bought out the stockpiles of pretty much any Axis power it would break the game.
It would be pretty stupid if Japan started the Pacific War with NO fuel, because the German player bought it all.
It would be pretty stupid if Japan started the Pacific War with NO fuel, because the German player bought it all.
Agreed.
But isn't this where money comes in to play?
IRL at least, if you desperately need a scarce comodity...
You end up paying through the nose for it.
If you're strugging to get oil/fuel/whatever, being able to offer more money should atract the attention of anyone with a surplus.
Maybe getting a little too comercial as this could then add another dimension to the game where trade is a serious buisness and upsetting the maket value can have profound repercussions.
After all... isn't this how "a nation of shopkeepers" controlled the world?
Each country should look logically at what its needs are and trade accordingly. I can see having a small bonus if in the same faction, but the AI country should never put itself in a negative. The AI has a hard enough time just making ends meet most of the time as it is.
Why you assume that nations with no surplus of some resources would like to trade it? I think the ability to trade should be also linked with war goals - when nobody wants to sell what you need then you have to take it by force. Making Germany starve for resources it needs would invoke hostilities leading to open war.
In a '36 campaign that makes it sound too easy to spark an early war with Germany before they are ready.
AI should be able of calculating its odds so it starts a war only when it feels strong enough.
HOI3 does this now, but we still get players who whine when Germany fails to start certain wars or offensives on schedule.
So? It would still make little sense to let AI wage war with no basis behind it. Just make AI more efficient via difficulty level.
I'm suggesting that not everyone sees it your way. I can see the game reviews now:
"This game advertises itself as a WWII game, but the one time I played (because that's all I have time for in order to get the review in on time), WWII didn't break out. Wahh! Not WWII! Lower Metacritic score! Fire the employees! Spread bad rumors by word of mouth! Whine!"
(Can we please get back to the OP? Thanks 
) Not so that you'd be able to drain Germany of all it's oil, just so that the AI is a little more likely to accept small trades rather than declining everything you NEED. However, AI will bother you like nuts for resources!
) Not so that you'd be able to drain Germany of all it's oil, just so that the AI is a little more likely to accept small trades rather than declining everything you NEED. However, AI will bother you like nuts for resources!
Rome 2 developers praised themselves on making games the way it had high metacritic scores. We know how well that ended.
If AI is incapable of making enough units so it can safely attack anther nation in case of resource's shortage then it should be capable of making more forces. There is an interesting suggestion floating around that World War II started mostly due to the imminent collapse of Germany's economy which was sustained by spoils of war. I talk about tying it [trade/resource mechanic] to other gameplay mechanics. Country that has no means of obtaining requires resources via trade should be aware of a possibility of attacking someone who has it or make deals, like Germany inviting Romania into the Axis. Allies should trade resources between themselves more eagerly, provided they have something to spare (safe reserves for some time). There is a huge potential in making strategic resources much more important in terms of obtaining and protecting them.
Last edited:
And if you don't think comments like the ones I listed are not a consideration in game design and profitability, even when it is well known that metacritic scores are not the most reliable measure of quality, then you are not nearly as cynical as I would hope you should be.
The last thing anyone developing a WWII game needs is word of mouth spreading that WWII never happens in the game.
And what I'm telling you is that even though HOI3 is pretty driven to get a proper WWII, when players through their own bizarrely ahistorical behavior cause the war to happen in a different way or make Germany's AI rethink starting the war because of how many units are sitting on the border, they still complain even when it's their fault.
While I personally don't have a problem with any of this AI behavior, that doesn't change the fact that some players, players who can be very vocal in the misplaced criticisms, creates a problem with the way it is currently implemented in HOI3. If you took some elements farther in HOI4, there will be consequences. The real question is whether those consequences are severe enough to be worth considering. I can't answer that right now.
I was actually going to say that it should be regulated from the other side. The Axis powers in HOI3 already can more or less DOW at will. I'm not sure extra mechanics are really called for, especially because many of the historical DOWs made by various Axis powers are, in fact, moves to acquire resources. But the non-Axis powers who have excess resources need mechanics to ensure that they have a real incentive to trade with the Axis powers before the war starts. I wouldn't mind seeing dissent, NU, or even political party popularity penalties for not trading excess resources abroad unless certain threat thresholds are crossed (to allow the US to start cutting off resources to Japan as time goes by).
Seeing Chamberlain lose a no-confidence vote in 37 because he refuses to trade with Germany and Italy for no good reason would be interesting.
In HoI3 this aspect was more event-based rather than system-based (I am having CK2 and EU4 in mind here), so I am in favor of putting more detailed system into place that'll govern the whole "trade or war" situation. It's less about "if" and more about "when" war breaks out and AI should be teached to declare and wage war in more plausible, dynamic way. This, in turn, leads to military as means of obtaining resources other nations won't trade with us so more aggressive countries should have the upper hand in their abilities of mobilizing their economy towards war over democracies. In exchange democracies have more excess resources to trade with their allies (Soviet Union being the prime example, but supporting India, Egypt or Australia isn't off the book either). The real issue is, as you said, how to convince democracies to trade with non-democracies prior the war. If we'd go for more complex answer then I'd point out the following concept: you need money to sustain your economy. Make it so that you need to gain money which you'll have to spend in order to keep economy of your nation stable.
Well to be fair one of the MAIN reasons the Japanese started the war with the Allies as because it had about 30 days of fuel left. If it didn't go to war with the UK and USA and others when it did, it would have run out. So the idea of an AI Japan starting the war with virtually no fuel left is not only acceptable but historically accurate. It would be wildly INACCURATE for them to start with a large surplus.
Of course I have no problem whatsoever if the AI manages to get it from someone else through trade. I am not saying that they should always be out at the start of the war, I'm not looking for 100% historical accuracy every game, just historical PLAUSIBILITY.
The trade does need to be better though. I got really sick of knowing that my neighbor, ally and partner in war is sitting on a massive surplus of something they refuse to trade to me.