Pushing for Stalingrad while Berlin falls?!?

[Adonnus]

To me it is the biggest problem with the AI, it simply lacks a sense of prioritisation. All provinces are equally valuable in its eyes. So, it will push in random territories while losing the Heimatland. Darkest Hour AI was the same. In fact all HOI games have been this way.

I suppose it needs to be coded to treat certain territories (and maybe the territories on periphery of cores as well?) as urgent for defence, and can de-prioritise territories in occupied states to get the required troops.

 

[SRhistory]

Reading all updates and must say seen this problem a lot. In my current run Italy is losing Rome to UK and Italy still fights Greece /USSR. Yes, AI is not good in defending it own capital… but hee… when you are part of the AXIS you should help other countries right? Like the AI is a country. For me it’s just helping Italy getting UK out of it (and in Africa etc… hope Italy is better in next dlc). So don’t ask /tell what the AI should do for it’s country but ask yourself what you can do for the AI!

and I agree the AI could be better… but well we are human and always better right? (So why am I as many others losing so much in a game run??)

 

[Jays298]

The major issue I have seen is that countries garrison many victory points instead of the front lines (not sure if this has been altered somewhat in recent patches.)

Whereas player only garrisons ports, maybe capital.

Thus AI cannot efficiently fight a two front war. Many units will be guarding random victory points.

And one drastic suggestion, delete all victory points that are less than 5 points.

Because distinguishing between the importance of various locations is beyond the AI, beyond player ability if using garrison order.

 

[Beagá]

What? France fights Germans with ALL their western ports garrisoned...

 

[Adonnus]

What? France fights Germans with ALL their western ports garrisoned...

Yeah, they always put a bunch of divisions in Britanny while Paris is about to get conquered

 

[WilliamG55]

Reading all updates and must say seen this problem a lot. In my current run Italy is losing Rome to UK and Italy still fights Greece /USSR. Yes, AI is not good in defending it own capital… but hee… when you are part of the AXIS you should help other countries right? Like the AI is a country. For me it’s just helping Italy getting UK out of it (and in Africa etc… hope Italy is better in next dlc). So don’t ask /tell what the AI should do for it’s country but ask yourself what you can do for the AI!

and I agree the AI could be better… but well we are human and always better right? (So why am I as many others losing so much in a game run??)

You are right. However, the capital must be defended by its own army.
At least three times in one game I have to defend the capital of Italy from the Allied landings.

In general, he is often forced to close holes in the allies' defense.
And it seems that if I had not done this, the war would have been lost)

Thats the thing, France is actually strong just the vanilla AI path for focuses is so bad that it prevents it from ever doing anything. I poop you not they will spend like 3 years in the economic tree for no reason! Like for example the AI will never resolve the manpower shortage crisis nor the disjointed government, so what happens is that even if France survives to 1942, they have 0 man power and have 0 PP to scale up their military draft laws or take better economic laws or the correct focuses to remove their penalties.

The fact is that France at that time had one of the strongest armies in Europe. The French even had more tanks than anyone in Europe. And they were good units. But due to passivity and lack of reforms, the morale of the army was undermined. The soldiers were not motivated.

When I played germany in expert AI I noticed the mod maker made sure the french AI took proper focus paths and it ended up making them much more tougher opponent especially since they dont have disjointed government so you couldnt just rush paris and be done.

So this means that at a higher difficulty level, France is more viable. But on the normal difficulty level, France is sluggish.

Haven't you checked out France's alternative routes? Because it seems to me that when I chose "unhistorical" for France, it was much stronger.

 

[Ivankovsky]

I have noticed this a lot when playing Soviets, that the pressure was always on me.
And if playing any other unrelated country, this thing of having the Germans far into the USSR but capitulating to the Allies without much resistance is quite common, think its actually the norm...

Imo an Allied invasion should take off pressure from the eastern front, the Germans should relocate a fair number of units to stop the allied offensive, this naturally would allow the Soviets to start their push (from what I understood that was the devs intention?), while that is not what actually occurred irl, it would be a lot closer and immersive I feel.

 

[KubiG37]

I think this problem became more apparent back when they removed the requirement to have “suppression units” and moved them out of the map entirely…

Think about it - There was always a lot of resistance in the occupied western countries - forcing considerable amount of troops to be there. Troops which could at the very least slow down all the invasions. Now they’re gone fighting the bloodthirsty partisans, unable to provide any kond of resistance to enemy troops.

In the east - unnecessary - there was already enough of regular troops to provide enough suppression.

 

[nymet260]

So this means that at a higher difficulty level, France is more viable. But on the normal difficulty level, France is sluggish.

Haven't you checked out France's alternative routes? Because it seems to me that when I chose "unhistorical" for France, it was much stronger.

Thats the thing its not difficulty level issue but telling the AI to not be a bone head when picking focuses. If you tell France to be ahistorical it should be stronger because those trees remove modifers just for going down them.

Like for exmple taking the communist or monarchist path, you will just by default remove disjointed government to get to the rest of those trees. Its not the AI being smarter its just a required focus to finish their respective focus tree.

 

[Ossiv]

The problem is somewhat "simple": The Soviets need massive lend lease to be able to push Germany as the supply issue that hamstrings Germany to push further into the SU also works the other way around and attrition just burns Soviet equipment so it becomes a massive stalemate where no one can push.

If you want the Soviets to push Germany you need to throw half of the US production at the SU. The problem is, a AI US will not do that and that weakens the SU a lot, or better not boost it.

The massive superiority of the Allies after D-Day is because they have all the stuff for themselfs while letting the SU fail, restulting in an Allied victory instead of a team effort.

That might have happened in WWII had the Western Allies not sent any lend-lease to the Soviet Union. The Soviets lost tanks 7:1 against Germany, and similar numbers in many other equipment. Most tanks used by the SU were Soviet built, but most of their trucks were lend-lease imports.

 

[Noldo_Prague]

Well, what I see is not primarily the problem of prioritization, but problem of ratios of powers.

First - SU is losing to Germany, probably around 45 in the original picture, even when Germany has lost most of its territory. This is attrocious. SU was able to massively outproduce Germany in 43 as well as solve most of its problems of quality in army and air force. PDX historical - Germany has 2x as much MILs in 44 (not counting other Axis), and SU still has a ton of nerfing spirits. SU was able to do wholefront offensive in 43, a successful one! SU would defeat in the end Germany even withoul D-Day. Also, SU tends to produce out of date equip, and chain attacking itself into oblivion with underequiped divisions, while Germany is just defending, or attacking when they have real good chance.

Second - Allies really do not Lend-Lease much. Part of the problem is that Allied AI is brain dead, and is losing tons of divisions all over the world, and the rest is floating here or there, and Allied nations are not able to cooperate in any way, so most of their division are idle somewhere and usually starving, and they tend to lose a lot of resources in SE Asia , because Japan steamrolls Malaya and around to Japan and losing while trying to get it back, So, Allies are having huge loses themselves, lot of problems to solve, and the US industrious capacity is just a small fraction of what it really was, so they do not have that much to spare...

Third - Germany was having huge logistical problems, lack of trains and trucks even before the war, they financially on the edge of collapse all the time, didnt start Total Mobilization till 44, as Hitler didnt want women in factories (German women), their industry and military procurement were disorganized and ineffective, they had lack of industrious tools, and huge lack of fuel. In game - none of those. The same Italy. Germany got out of manpower after 6 M losses.. In game - 15 M and rolling. Industry - even UK alone produced more in 42-43. In Game - Germany and US have the same in 44. Make your opinion yourself.

 

[WilliamG55]

Well, what I see is not primarily the problem of prioritization, but problem of ratios of powers.

First - SU is losing to Germany, probably around 45 in the original picture, even when Germany has lost most of its territory. This is attrocious. SU was able to massively outproduce Germany in 43 as well as solve most of its problems of quality in army and air force. PDX historical - Germany has 2x as much MILs in 44 (not counting other Axis), and SU still has a ton of nerfing spirits. SU was able to do wholefront offensive in 43, a successful one! SU would defeat in the end Germany even withoul D-Day. Also, SU tends to produce out of date equip, and chain attacking itself into oblivion with underequiped divisions, while Germany is just defending, or attacking when they have real good chance.

Second - Allies really do not Lend-Lease much. Part of the problem is that Allied AI is brain dead, and is losing tons of divisions all over the world, and the rest is floating here or there, and Allied nations are not able to cooperate in any way, so most of their division are idle somewhere and usually starving, and they tend to lose a lot of resources in SE Asia , because Japan steamrolls Malaya and around to Japan and losing while trying to get it back, So, Allies are having huge loses themselves, lot of problems to solve, and the US industrious capacity is just a small fraction of what it really was, so they do not have that much to spare...

Third - Germany was having huge logistical problems, lack of trains and trucks even before the war, they financially on the edge of collapse all the time, didnt start Total Mobilization till 44, as Hitler didnt want women in factories (German women), their industry and military procurement were disorganized and ineffective, they had lack of industrious tools, and huge lack of fuel. In game - none of those. The same Italy. Germany got out of manpower after 6 M losses.. In game - 15 M and rolling. Industry - even UK alone produced more in 42-43. In Game - Germany and US have the same in 44. Make your opinion yourself.

Very good clarifications. But we cannot always push back from purely historical facts in such a case. It's a game, and it's different every time.

Look at how the players got fed up with weakened France. And you talk about the correspondence of historicism.

The player plays - it is up to the player to decide whether the women will join the machines). Similarly, the player can take France and turn it into an industrial and military giant. Although in practice France lost.

Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that Germany will lose because it has to lose.

I play on the highest level of difficulty. And for the second time in a row, the USSR intervened in the war with the Allies in 1940. The Allies involved Turkey and Portugal in the war, although the war did not threaten them at all. Roughly speaking, the AI beat me on the diplomatic front.

But still, when it comes to the manipulation of troops, the AI is still quite primitive. Nevertheless, the priority of protecting one's own territory must exist. At least because logic requires it.

Nevertheless, historically, the Germans defended Berlin to the last. Despite the fact that he was already cut off from the main divisions. Similarly, the USSR defended Moscow at any cost. And in the game we often visit the capital as if it were our own home)

 

[Noldo_Prague]

Very good clarifications. But we cannot always push back from purely historical facts in such a case. It's a game, and it's different every time.

Look at how the players got fed up with weakened France. And you talk about the correspondence of historicism.

The player plays - it is up to the player to decide whether the women will join the machines). Similarly, the player can take France and turn it into an industrial and military giant. Although in practice France lost.

Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that Germany will lose because it has to lose.

I play on the highest level of difficulty. And for the second time in a row, the USSR intervened in the war with the Allies in 1940. The Allies involved Turkey and Portugal in the war, although the war did not threaten them at all. Roughly speaking, the AI beat me on the diplomatic front.

But still, when it comes to the manipulation of troops, the AI is still quite primitive. Nevertheless, the priority of protecting one's own territory must exist. At least because logic requires it.

Nevertheless, historically, the Germans defended Berlin to the last. Despite the fact that he was already cut off from the main divisions. Similarly, the USSR defended Moscow at any cost. And in the game we often visit the capital as if it were our own home)

Well - when I talk about which country is relatively strong or weak, I mean it only as AI vs AI, in observer mode or such.

I dont want realism or simulationism, that would be no fun. US industrial capacity by 45 was larger than the rest of the world combined, that would be absurd. The same absurd would be US ability to produce 151 carriers (122 Escort ones), etc. I also dont want all the games be the same, and all event ending up the way they did.

What I would expect is that if you observed 100 games, at least half of them would end up very roughly as WWII did. Various historical situations were either close to be decided to one side, or quite even... So - Operation Overlord - 10% max for Germany. Japanese siege of Singapore - 55% for Japan, Second battle of el Alamein - 20% for Germany,
Barbarossa -
if UK exists free and Atlantic routes are somewhat working etc (US dem, free Suez and Giblartar, ...) - 30% max for Germany
if UK has fallen - 60-65% for Germany

For every major situation in the game, anywhere in the world, if human player is not involved in that, or very little, there should always be a significant (10+%) probablity of going either side, but in lots of games, it should mostly end up as it did.

And so on ... These values (just for explanaton, the real values are not important) would be expectable without or before human intervention. If you play a minor or a distant medium country, you have small chance to influence it, so "Allies should save SU" PDX ideology is really not good if you play for Dem New Zealand... and SU keeps failing, because when you play a dem anywhere, odds change... (and vice verca). When you start playing a major, you can influence anything anywhere, so the numbers might differ.

As an example - When I was trying to get Bevrijding achievement for exiled Dutch govt in Indonesia, it is hard to get when SU loses 6 out of 7 games, and Japan is ruling all SE Asia till 47 all the time, and it had to be me who has stopped them and eventually landed in Japan, coz US Navy hardly ever got out of Hawaii...

I dont know for how many small non-European nations I had to try to save Eastern front in the end - Mexico, Canada, Australia, NatChi, QingChi, Portugal... it CAN happen SU fails, but it should not be most often result if 'ceteris paribus' (if you dont influence either side much).

 

[Ossiv]

Well, what I see is not primarily the problem of prioritization, but problem of ratios of powers.

First - SU is losing to Germany, probably around 45 in the original picture, even when Germany has lost most of its territory. This is attrocious. SU was able to massively outproduce Germany in 43 as well as solve most of its problems of quality in army and air force. PDX historical - Germany has 2x as much MILs in 44 (not counting other Axis), and SU still has a ton of nerfing spirits. SU was able to do wholefront offensive in 43, a successful one! SU would defeat in the end Germany even withoul D-Day. Also, SU tends to produce out of date equip, and chain attacking itself into oblivion with underequiped divisions, while Germany is just defending, or attacking when they have real good chance.

Historically German tank and plane production was highest in 1944. Without Western Allies bombing campaign they would have produced more and also would have had fuel to fight and fly. The Soviet Union was very dependent on the Western lend-lease: the Soviet tanks needed fuel and most fuel trucks were lend-lease. The same with motorized infantry, most vehicles were from the West. The Soviet (and now Russian) propaganda tells that the Soviets won the war nearly alone - they did not.
The US industry was stronger than the rest of the world - yes. The Soviet Union was very dependent of it.

 

[Noldo_Prague]

Historically German tank and plane production was highest in 1944. Without Western Allies bombing campaign they would have produced more and also would have had fuel to fight and fly. The Soviet Union was very dependent on the Western lend-lease: the Soviet tanks needed fuel and most fuel trucks were lend-lease. The same with motorized infantry, most vehicles were from the West. The Soviet (and now Russian) propaganda tells that the Soviets won the war nearly alone - they did not.
The US industry was stronger than the rest of the world - yes. The Soviet Union was very dependent of it.

Ï did not say "without allied supplies", I have said "without D-Day", and that is not the same... I agree that SU needed allied supplies of food cans, fuel, electronics, rubber, shoes, trucks, supposedly even something for ammo production.

Also I have said that UK, US and SU have outpaced Germany in tanks production, but I didnt say that German production was not increasing, it was, hugelly in 44.

But, when you are mentioning that, and that Germany would have enough fuel for it, there is a catch. Germany on purpose didnt motorize its army, because they would not be able to afford it, both the trucks production as well as the fuel consumption.
Second part of the problem is if Germany was having much more tanks. There is huge logistical chain of issues behind
- more imported Iron and other metals - Germany have no money for it
- impact on railroad network (during production), as they didnt have their production concentrated like US or SU
- need more trains and wagons for transport of the armored divisions
- need more high skilled engineers, as their tanks were not designed to be produced by lesser skilled labour, like in US or SU
- not enough drivers
- tanks need much more crew training than other military branches, germany couldnt afford that easily in 44
- each deployed tank need 5-10 other deployed "frontline" vehicles in the division - motorized inf, SPG, recon, ammo vehicles
- each of these vehicles (tank and the MotInf) need its supply vehicles, repair squads, supply hubs, undercarriages, bergpanzers, bridging and engineering squads etc

So, from military supplies PoV, for each tank you need 20 other vehicles running, and lot of people taking care of all the production, logisticst and maintenance... I do not think Germany was able to provide that in 44, but it is only y opinion.