• 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.

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
I know that this is core specific, but the core forum seemed so organized and historic minded that I felt sorta strange about making a thread in there.

Anyway, I am playing my 4th game of HoI - all have been played using CORE. Its my first german game, and I am about to quit it because its gotten too easy.

I play it on vhard/furious, I edited the hard core events so that it didn't give me the -resource & dissent modifiers, and instead just gave my enemies additional tech.

But its still a little too easy, rolling through most of europe with just your starting units is a little silly. The americans even entered the war early, in 39 I think (maybe late 38) when I was still busy in france. 4 well placed fighters pretty much ended their involvement. Further more, the Allies DoW'd me in 38 while all my units were surrounding the czechs. I had zero troops bordering france, so I decided to quick DoW the czechs, and rolled through the czech republic fast enough to get my troops to the border with france, DoW belgum, and break through into french territory still just using my starting OOB. I was tech whoring and didn't expect the allies to DoW me so early. I also had trouble getting italy or nationalist spain to ally with me, so I was on my own.

Anyway, whatever, I'm not trying to brag, just saying that its way too easy. In that situation I should have gotten crushed, its just about the worst case possible for a german player, only thing that would have been worse is if the reds also DoW'd me before I was finished in france, and had time to switch to production.

So I thought about it a little bit, and I decided that to make it more challenging, I should give a number of countries a production bonus, a toned down version of the great patriotic war, recieved at the beginning. This goes to the allies (including france), the russians, and maybe even some of the little minors you might eat up.

In addition, I was considering writing some kind of hardcoded invasion event for the allies. Have them randomly pop up with 20+ divs of infantry on 2-3 beaches. I don't know if the AI would be able to secure and expand any of these beachheads into something really threatening, but whatever, it'd be a start.

Anyay, I thought I'd ask the community for suggestions and help with this since I really want to enjoy playing some of the major majors, but they all just seem to be no challenge at all.

Not to mention, I'm sure you guys can come up with better ways to implement all this then the hacky events I am planning on using.
 

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
yeah, but after reading 3 msgs in the stony road forum and seeing 4 people mention CTDs, I'm very hesitant to even try it.

Plus, I've grown really attached to the CORE design philosophy, and events. I just want it to be more of a challenge.
 

Ghost_dk

Chief of all Ghost Divisions
5 Badges
Feb 6, 2003
2.353
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
Originally posted by Jack Frost
yeah, but after reading 3 msgs in the stony road forum and seeing 4 people mention CTDs, I'm very hesitant to even try it.

Plus, I've grown really attached to the CORE design philosophy, and events. I just want it to be more of a challenge.

well if you want more of a challenge perhaps you shouldnt edit out the - resources and extra dissent
 

unmerged(18738)

Crusher of Dreams
Aug 7, 2003
1.388
0
Originally posted by Jack Frost
Not to mention, I'm sure you guys can come up with better ways to implement all this then the hacky events I am planning on using.

Actually, that's how we do it at CORE - with hacky events! :)

Just create a universal event that uses the ai = yes trigger and have it grant a special tech. Create a special tech in the Electronics section in the first level that grants all the bonuses that you want to the AI countries. Set that special tech with the prereq of 99999 and you cannot research it (not that you would).
 

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
"well if you want more of a challenge perhaps you shouldnt edit out the - resources and extra dissent"

eh, dissent is just annoying. Means that for the first 100 days I need to keep my CG really high. All that means is I am a bit slower on getting a few techs.

The resources mean I need to prioritise industry a little more, and micro my world market trades. I don't think resources work quite like how they're supposed to. I know its comparing apples to oranges, but Civ3s representation at least made achieving control over strategic resources really critical (yes, I know, it was really simplistic, and it couldn't map to HoIs design, but lets face it, resources have a better more meaningful impact on civ3 then they do in HoI).

I prefer changes that really give me military concern instead of just something annoying I need to micromanage before I beat everyone up. Which is why instead of giving myself a big dissent hit, I'd prefer making opposing countries much more difficult to take over.


---------

Ah! Thats how you make it impossible to research. Sneaky.

I ended up going into the core hard events, and adding a one time construction bonus to various countries, but after playing through a test game I don't think it worked. My guess is that the save game didn't save the effect, and the only way I could do it is by making a tech.

On the other hand my invasion events are working great, with allied landings all over the place. I ended up stealing them from SR and modifying them to make it more random. I felt dirty about using hardcoded events for invasions, but after playing with these invasion events in I didn't feel so bad anymore. Yes, I know that there probably will be a strong invasion, but I'm not sure when, and I'm not sure where, so I need to commit some forces to watching the western shores, but there is still uncertainty and risk... And there are currently about 60 allied divisions in spain :)

Futher, I was giving basically a 25% discount on construction time and cost for land units, but even though I don't think it worked right I don't know if that'd be enough. The minors (and france) need more help to put up a bit more resistance... Not to mention the russians didn't produce nearly enough. They started out with only a small advantage in units in summer of 42 when I attacked. After two giant pockets, they had less then me in all unit types... so I decided to table the game, and re-mod it to give the russians more units.

I also am considering modifying the AI files for focus production a little smarter, even if its less historic for instance, motorized forces are useless for the AI, since it doesn't react fast enough to make good use of them, and I think it tends to use mixed stacks. So the soviets would be better off producing tons of mech instead of motor. Maybe give them a hand getting the mech inf doctrine early too.

If anyone is interested, I would be more then happy to post some of my changes, and I'd really appreciate some help working out how to boost the AI without just making it ridiculous. I want a challange, but I don't want Poland to have 250 divisions or anything.
 

unmerged(14683)

HoI2 Shtrafnik
Feb 12, 2003
5.432
0
Visit site
Patience, patience... more HARD C.O.R.E. elements will soon show up. So far we have higher dissent, lower IC and resources and events.

Soon will come modifiers to the R&D cost (so human player will have to struggle to reach historical development, not AI) and maybe modifier to the troops effciency.

For now I strongly suggest SR - I really enjoy playing that mod, and latest version 0.21 is mostly bug free (just edit out New Order events, those are not up to date :().

Or simply play CORE as Japan - Steel did some great work there...
 

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
I liked japan. I guess thats why I found germany so dissapointing - I played my first couple games with japan, and after annexing the SU from the east, coming from the west is a joke.

I have offically become mildly obsessed with this. Instead of just hacking up a couple events, I've decided to build what is looking to be a full on (albeit small) core exansion. I think somewhere in the back of my mind I want you guys to include it ;)

A few new techs to help the ais out, a slew of events (including more then 9 variations of d-day), and I'm working on a really highly detailed set of AIs, to get absolutely maximum results.

Does anyone have any ideas on how you create a control environment for testing ai behavior?
 

unmerged(14683)

HoI2 Shtrafnik
Feb 12, 2003
5.432
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Jack Frost
Does anyone have any ideas on how you create a control environment for testing ai behavior?

Ok, sneak peek of ideas for 0.7:

- special AI only tech changing some global parameters for all AI countries (like R&D time, blocking unnecessary techs, maybe modifing conversion ratios),

- this tech will enable AI to build some other tech, correcting obvious AI problems (like lack of fighter cover for example),

- as an update for the HARD CORE, human player will have some costs (R&D, maybe units, supplies?) higher, thanks to the other tech.

But IMO we shouldn't go too far with that, to avoid situations, when GER player would have to start Barbarossa with Pz I vs T34/85. That's not the point.

If you got some other good ideas how to make game more challenging feel free to post those (or preferably, script those... :D) - but we have some ground rules there:

1) No "units from the sky" events - if there is no good explaination for free units, there should be no such thing.

2) No "delete_unit" command - as it works randomly.

3) No "Panthers in 1939" - if we are going to add any changes, those should rather make human player position harder, then AI easier.
 

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
Heres the approach I've taken (and I have only approached Germany thus far):

I have three main goals:

- Force a player to commit more in order to achieve success against poland, czech republic, and france. Do this by giving the AI helper techs, but also by highly focusing the AI (although I haven't taken a good look at the AIs for these countries yet, since I am focusing on the russians first). The ideal result here would be rewarding those who didn't overly tech whore the early years.

- Provide a set of AI files that focus on AI strength and game mechanics instead of historical predisposition. And also to simply optimise research and production as much as possible. At minimum this would result in getting rid of Mot. Additionally I'd like to assure that AIs doesn't waste ICs on outdated tanks and planes with strict control on production and research in pre war times.

- Provide a set of Invasion events that provide for a second front against germany once at war with the reds.

Finally all of the above can be turned off and on at player selection - only want the non-historic optimised AI? Fine, only want the invasions? Fine. Any mixture you please.

I'll probably finish up my first version in a couple days, I'd appreciate it if you guys take a look.

-------

"special AI only tech changing some global parameters for all AI countries (like R&D time, blocking unnecessary techs, maybe modifing conversion ratios)"

Yeah, I realized that conversion might be a problem with AI, especially if they're running off higher IC bases, so I give them a high end oil conversion.

I'm not sure about modifying R&D time, and the like, I think a more healthy approach to this is just increasing IC output. Unbalancing the playing field in terms of research time can turn into an ugly situation, especially with rampant tech sharing, and a nuclear research branch.

"this tech will enable AI to build some other tech, correcting obvious AI problems (like lack of fighter cover for example)"

I also wanted to fix that. But I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. The problem as far as I can see is just that the AI doesn't compose air stacks at all properly, since the AI files don't have any ability to design target stack compositions (50% fighter 50%tac for example), I don't think there is really a lot that can be done here. The best change IMO is just making sure the AI gets the basic mr fighter, and dive bomber, and then devotes very little research to air (its really a shame you cant differentiate between air doctrine and main fighter/bomber development). Then just pumps out of a ton of dive bombers and mr fighters. At least this means that the soviet air stacks even if mismanaged will be able to mildly defend themselves. Unfortionatly, you can't specify what type of fighter to build. Hopefully the AI would be smart enough to only produce MR basic fighters rather then pre-basic intercept.

And unfortionatly, I don't think anything can be done about allied strat bombings, I don't think there is any way to encourage them to ... escourt their bombers.


Finally, about the invasions or "units from the sky". I'm not going to argue with CORE fundimentals, but I think that offering the option to players is a good way to handle it. I was very skeptical at first, but after playing with hardcoded invasions, I am completely converted. Its worth it to provide a second front, and actually get the americans to... well... do something.

EDIT:
PS - I know I am a newbie to all this, and you guys have been rocking and rolling kicking out quality work for some time, so excuse me if I am being arrogant even coming close to debating any of these points. But its just my way - please feel free to correct any of my misconceptions in the above :)
 
Last edited:

unmerged(14683)

HoI2 Shtrafnik
Feb 12, 2003
5.432
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Jack Frost
EDIT:
PS - I know I am a newbie to all this, and you guys have been rocking and rolling kicking out quality work for some time, so excuse me if I am being arrogant even coming close to debating any of these points. But its just my way - please feel free to correct any of my misconceptions in the above :)

OK, your ideas are not bad. I remember similar discussions 5-6 months ago... on SR forum. :D


Let's start from the beggining...

Focused AI:

Originally posted by Jack Frost
- Provide a set of AI files that focus on AI strength and game mechanics instead of historical predisposition. And also to simply optimise research and production as much as possible. At minimum this would result in getting rid of Mot. Additionally I'd like to assure that AIs doesn't waste ICs on outdated tanks and planes with strict control on production and research in pre war times.


Remember, that C.O.R.E. is the mod designed to ALL countries. It's much more important factor, than it looks at the start. It means, that if someone plays USA, he expects, that GER will win against POL, FRA and only SOV will stop them for a while.

Similarly, SOV player expects, that GER will be ready to attack him around 1941...

So, the main factor of the C.O.R.E. is general balance. We simply can't go for the GER focused mod, like early SR versions.


Originally posted by Jack Frost
- Provide a set of Invasion events that provide for a second front against germany once at war with the reds.

Ahhh, invasion events... SR 3xxx - 4xxx. Not neccessary anymore - in 1.05c AI handles invasions pretty well. Really.


Originally posted by Jack Frost
I'm not sure about modifying R&D time, and the like, I think a more healthy approach to this is just increasing IC output. Unbalancing the playing field in terms of research time can turn into an ugly situation, especially with rampant tech sharing, and a nuclear research branch.


In fact, IC is worse solution, because for the IC AI needs resources, so adding IC can potentially break whole economy of AI country. R&C modding is more safe, since it not affects economical balace - it drops the cost of R&D, so more IC is ready for units/supplies. Especially, when you mod COST, not TIME - if you leave time alone, that not unbalance historicity of research. :)

Fighters:

Originally posted by Jack Frost
I also wanted to fix that. But I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. The problem as far as I can see is just that the AI doesn't compose air stacks at all properly, since the AI files don't have any ability to design target stack compositions (50% fighter 50%tac for example), I don't think there is really a lot that can be done here. The best change IMO is just making sure the AI gets the basic mr fighter, and dive bomber, and then devotes very little research to air (its really a shame you cant differentiate between air doctrine and main fighter/bomber development). Then just pumps out of a ton of dive bombers and mr fighters. At least this means that the soviet air stacks even if mismanaged will be able to mildly defend themselves. Unfortionatly, you can't specify what type of fighter to build. Hopefully the AI would be smart enough to only produce MR basic fighters rather then pre-basic intercept.

And unfortionatly, I don't think anything can be done about allied strat bombings, I don't think there is any way to encourage them to ... escourt their bombers.


Well, wait for 0.7... I run the test of new air tech mod right now and results are impressive... :D
 
Last edited:

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
"Remember, that C.O.R.E. is the mod designed to ALL countries. It's much more important factor, than it looks at the start. It means, that if someone plays USA, he expects, that GER will win against POL, FRA and only SOV will stop them for a while."

Its easy enough to control which countries get what events. As a USA player looking for a challenge you would run a default POL, FRA, SOV, and a beast of a GER AI.

"Ahhh, invasion events... SR 3xxx - 4xxx. Not neccessary anymore - in 1.05c AI handles invasions pretty well. Really."

Ok I am certainly a newbie, having only run through the game a few times. But as a player I have never seen anything close to a second front. Drop 1 infantry division in every beach province, add 2 to the ones the AI decides it really likes.

Result: There is no second front.

Even with an AI germany, I have never seen a (worth mentioning) allied invasion in france.

I'm sure its gotten considerably better then it was in 1.03 (when I last messed with HoI), but its still far from effective. Far less so against even a semi competant human player.

I understand the stance taken against scripted invasions. But after playing with them, I feel they only enhance gameplay. With a bit of creativity the events can be written very open endedly. The results are pleasing, and far more rewarding for a human player (in my personal experience).


"In fact, IC is worse solution, because for the IC AI needs resources, so adding IC can potentially break whole economy of AI country. R&C modding is more safe, since it not affects economical balace - it drops the cost of R&D, so more IC is ready for units/supplies. Especially, when you mod COST, not TIME - if you leave time alone, that not unbalance historicity of research. "

I was worried about this, but I haven't gotten to the point where I can really test the effects of IC increases yet. I read somewhere that the AI at VH already gets a conversion cheat, if you give them high end conversion techs in addition, would this not keep their econs steady? What built in advantages does the AI get already?

"Well, wait for 0.7... I run the test of new air tech mod right now and results are impressive... "

Sounds very cool! Want to give a hint about what changes you've implemented?


And do you have any tips on creating a testing ground for AI changes? It seems like running hands off games and judging results is a very poor method (too many variables). Mostly I'd be curious about the front AI, and how changes are tested? My gut feeling is that people just edit them till they look good, then release. I've examined the SR, CORE, and Trip AIs pretty closely, and I donno...it doesn't seem very scientific.
 

jdrou

Field Marshal
74 Badges
Jun 10, 2002
24.161
461
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Paradox Order
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Humble Paradox Bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • 500k Club
  • 200k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Originally posted by Jack Frost
And do you have any tips on creating a testing ground for AI changes? It seems like running hands off games and judging results is a very poor method (too many variables). Mostly I'd be curious about the front AI, and how changes are tested? My gut feeling is that people just edit them till they look good, then release. I've examined the SR, CORE, and Trip AIs pretty closely, and I donno...it doesn't seem very scientific.
I think hands off is how they usually do it, sometimes on multiple computers at the same time. Have you checked out the AI Enhancement Project forum?
EDIT: There seem to be only a couple of people actively working on AI at the moment (besides CORE).
 
Last edited:

Steel

Field Marshal
56 Badges
May 4, 2001
7.689
0
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
Originally posted by Jack Frost
And do you have any tips on creating a testing ground for AI changes? It seems like running hands off games and judging results is a very poor method (too many variables). Mostly I'd be curious about the front AI, and how changes are tested? My gut feeling is that people just edit them till they look good, then release. I've examined the SR, CORE, and Trip AIs pretty closely, and I donno...it doesn't seem very scientific.


Run a game up to a given point, save and exit. Edit the AI variables in the save game, run the game. Take copious note, rinse, repeat. It takes hours, days, weeks... The point about doing it from the save game is that it gives you a controlled starting point for a specific problem.
 

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
I really appreciate the tip Steel.

After being heavily occupied for 2 days, I have some more free time and am continuing to work on my CORE add on :)

I've finished up most of my events, and am now working on the AI and smoothly triggering my AIs over the standard CORE AI. I'm sort of surprised at how you guys decided to trigger the SOV AI changes.

But could you share some of your notes and research on AI behavior? I have a lot of questions and I don't have THAT much time.

For instance, the effects of recklessness? With a min/max/std strength ratio to decide for attacks, how does recklessness fit in? Does it just define length of time for the AI to be willing to commit to min strength attacks?

How strongly does the AI listen to the min/max/std strength ratios for attack? It seems like it should never send over the 1-2 div suicide squads that it often does in gameplay (although a bit of this is just non-cancelled reinforcements).

Even/Reactive? Isn't maintaining equality a reactive stance already?

The strength ratio weights for SA, GD, etc. Whats the starting basis for these? If one unit is 20 SA 10 GD 10 ORG and one unit is 10 SA 5 GD and 100 ORG, which does the AI consider stronger? My gut says the AI underrates ORG significantly from some of the attacks I've seen it commit to, but thats far from hard evidence.

What exactly does Panic mode mean? I've seen it said that the front AI requests additional troops, but that it also begins spitting out militia. The first effect is highly desirable for the russians (as it will pull from far eastern garrison duty), the second much less so obviously.

As far as tech research I see people avoiding a zero weight, preferring .1, how effective is .1 in encouraging the AI to completely avoid research in this field? Giving 2.0 to land doctrine and 1.0 to air doctrine means that the AI will attempt to maintain a 2-1 investment in land doctrine to air? Or is it much more vague then that? How do the 'preferences' interwork with the weights? How much does the AI deviate from your preference path (assuming a very thorough list of technology)?
 

unmerged(12885)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 18, 2002
187
0
Visit site
2 more comments

If the AI has access to min-max'd tech, will it produce the best available? For example, if I force the AI to research only multi-role fighters, will it produce only multi-role fighters or will it produce pre-war escourt planes too? Same thing goes for Armor.

Secondly, I know I asked a lot of basic questions there, so if anyone has a pointer to a thread with very practical discussion about these questions I'd appreciate it. I had trouble finding any, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Thanks for any help.
 

unmerged(14683)

HoI2 Shtrafnik
Feb 12, 2003
5.432
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Jack Frost
2 more comments

If the AI has access to min-max'd tech, will it produce the best available? For example, if I force the AI to research only multi-role fighters, will it produce only multi-role fighters or will it produce pre-war escourt planes too? Same thing goes for Armor.


AI always builds the unit with the highest model number.

Originally posted by Jack Frost
Secondly, I know I asked a lot of basic questions there, so if anyone has a pointer to a thread with very practical discussion about these questions I'd appreciate it. I had trouble finding any, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.


- Havard's Site - a bit old and not updated, but still some basic knowledge is available here,

- all threads in AI Project Forum.
 

mvsnconsolegene

Console Generale
30 Badges
Jun 25, 2003
1.240
0
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome Gold
  • Hearts of Iron III
I think C.O.R.E. or regular HoI is only challenging now if you use a vastly outnumbered country (e.g. italy vs. the U.S.) OR if you are playing multiplayer...then its a whole different ballgame.

Although A.I. is good defending fronts now, it is completely unable to interpret random moves or make any of their own. Unless it is hardcoded in, i.e. historical.

- MVSN
 

unmerged(14683)

HoI2 Shtrafnik
Feb 12, 2003
5.432
0
Visit site
0.7 HARD C.O.R.E. plans...

For 0.7 I've prepared special tech that:

- raises the cost (but not time) of R&D by 20%,

- raises the cost of land/air units by 1-3 points,

- drops the supply modifier of human player by 5% (to initial 1-1 ratio).

I must admit that I was inspired somehow by the SR startup events, although I modified whole concept to fit more to C.O.R.E. philosophy.

Those changes make harder:

- development of units (so strategy of small, hyper-modern army winning with AI by technological superiority is rather hard to achieve),

- building units (so strategy of wast, averange tech army winning with AI thanks to the numbers number is hard to achieve as well),

- supplying units (even if the player build big or modern army, supporting it will be hard).


I prefer to make harder for player geting Pz.IV in 1939, then allowing AI to use IS-2 in 1941.

About AI's - IMO the most important is the new, aggressive French AI, that will make GER player guard Western border more seriously, as well as, when USA joins war, would make units that land in France work more effectively.

France is the key - the longer France fights, the stronger USSR is at the point of "Barbarossa", and UK/USA are more advanced.


EDIT:

BTW, to bring some order in that discussion - I think we should move to the C.O.R.E. forums.

Use this link to move to proper forum...

If any moderator could move all the current discussion posts there... :D
 
Last edited: