Serious question: Does ANYONE think HoI is challenging even with 1.03 ?

[ErikHeinrichs]

wow, never expected this to get this big.

Fiendex, dont know if that was a typo but finnish troops were never even close to Stalingrad

Probably mean Leningrad (St. Petersburg) hehe

 

[hinkar]

Originally posted by Fiendix
Exactly but at one point there was only one supply line which could have been cut off by the fins had they decided to take advantage of the situation completely.. The russians would have eaten themselves as many did..

I presume you mean Leningrad, not Stalingrad.
Indeed, it was pretty honourable of the Finns not to advance beyond the lands which the Soviets grabbed off them during the Winter war.

 

[unmerged(12885)]

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1254440#post1254440

this guy made a cheat for the AI. They get 200% production.

The only trick is to make sure that only certain nations get the tech - it'd be cool if someone could write an event that finds out which nation the player is and gives the IC increasing tech to all the opposing AI nations.

if player is uk
give germany IC boost tech

if player is germany
give russia, uk, us IC boost tech

etc

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Originally posted by hinkar
I presume you mean Leningrad, not Stalingrad.

yes of course, sorry - got keyboard happy . They kept changing names of a lot of cities ... like Sankt Petersburg, Sankt-Pietierburg, Petersburg, 1914-1924 Piotrogród, Pietrograd, 1924-1991 Leningrad

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale

There are many fairy stories from WW2; Sealion, German nearly defeating Russia, The German Atomic bomb program among them. All have pretty much been hashed to death here and elsewhere.

I suggest that we continue this in the history forum if necessary.

no point said my 2 cents..

cheers

F

 

[unmerged(8564)]

I wanna too better AI (dont worry AI is gettting better and better) , but I dont wanna that computor cheats.

 

[unmerged(6935)]

Originally posted by pcasey
I think people who don't play a lot of chess fail to recognize the vast gulf between even a very good ameteur and a true master,...

Make this:

...the vast gulf between a Novice and a good Amateur.
...the vast gulf between a good Amateur and someone who is nearly a Master.
...the vast gulf between someone who is nearly a Master and an experienced Master.
...the vast gulf between an experienced Master and a Grandmaster.
...the vast gulf between an average Grandmaster and Kasparov.

Vast gulfs are as common in Chess as are holes in cheese.

 

[unmerged(6935)]

Originally posted by Horrorshow
what computer wargame do you play that you feel has a good AI? Not trying to be a smartass, but I'd like to know what your point of comparison is, and maybe pick up a good game.

No direct comparison, because it has a very different design philosophy, but Avalon Hill´s Third Reich, played with the latest patch, has a reasonable Ai.

It cheats at the higher levels, but it also knows where the Victory Cities are etc. -when all is said and done, it does give the average player a challenge.

Even with the different design goals of Third Reich and Hoi, there *is* something to be learned here, namely:

If some exploits are unavoidable, *program the Ai to make use of them.*

 

[unmerged(6935)]

Originally posted by Munchkin

If some exploits are unavoidable, *program the Ai to make use of them.*

Along the same line of thought: Don´t make the Ai simulate a historical personality. Make it simulate a player who knows all the rules and wants to win. Make it *much* more aware of the shortcuts -Paris, Bitter Peace, racing along to certain techs etc etc- OR remove the shortcuts. Both should go a long way to make the game more difficult.

 

[daedalus]

About your signature, and Sharpei comments. When somebody talks about making decisions that are historical and realistic, I am sure they are not referring to following history step by step, but to do thinks that are reasonable, and avoid things that are simply exploits. Like if you are germany , going directly for paris with one division, just because you know of an internal rule of the game that says that if you capture paris, you will get vichy event.
Also advices are directed to people who want to have fun with the game, not to stop people from ranting. (may be I should put this on my sig too)

 

[unmerged(11117)]

Originally posted by Munchkin
Vast gulfs are as common in Chess as are holes in cheese.

No master of cheese then, you are, for cheddar certainly has no holes

 

[Jorath13]

Back on subject

To get back on subject, namely:

Is HoI challenging even with 1.03?

I think it is more challenging now than with 1.02 or earlier, however, Bolts 1.02c mod is better with it's scripted events. The only reason I'm playing 1.03 is I thoroughly enjoy the revamped naval combat routines.

Some points:

1) Germany well and truly could have won the war if they hadn't committed some mistakes - Dunkirk, late invasion of Russia, helping out Italy, lack of supplying Rommel in the desert, and changing the main thrust of jet research (making it a bomber instead of a fighter) are among the few. However, the chief reason Germany lost WW2 is their complete trust in their Enigma (sp?) machine. The only time in the war the Allies got surprised due to lack of intel resulted in the Battle of the Bulge.

2) Can Fed's Axis scenario work in 1.03? I ask because both Bolt's and Trip's mods will not.

3) Those refusing to play with a cheating AI - perhaps you do not realize that anytime you play a SP game against the computer chances are very good that the programmers have the computer AI "cheat"? Play Warcraft 3 - know any humans with lightning-like reflexes able to cast multiple spells on multiple units all in the blink of an eye? Thought not. Play any FPS and you'll know that the AI can cheat. Likewise with most computer wargames - the computer "knows" where your units are and what their strengths are. For me, I would wholeheartedly embrace some cheat routines if made for a more difficult game.

4) Chess AI and HoI AI are two different beasts. Chess AI has a theoretical limit - there are only 20 different opening moves in Chess however there are millions of possible opening moves in HoI.

5) Unit movement needs to be slowed down and some staticticity needs to be introduced. In WW2 Germany typically had offensive operations for only 4-6 months out of the year. Russia had very limited Winter offensives and neither really did anything in the Spring. Due to poor weather in the Atlantic region, D-Day could only happen in late Spring to mid Fall. And for tank units to move from the Polish border to Warsaw in under 24 hours (I've done it) is absolutely ridiculous. What about the supply trucks that need to follow those Panzers? What about small unit actions that delay army movements? Considering the actual distance of Paris to Berlin, real time movement takes about half a day driving. It took the Allies nearly a year to accomplish the same move. Reduce the MPs and I think you'll see longer more realistic games.

6) Tech research costs should be revamped and looked at. Some seem to take few ICs while it should be more while other tech takes too long to accomplish. 1IC should not equal 10 days or whatever the current ratio is. The project should determine the time and IC cost.

7) I use paratroopers as they were designed to be used for - as specialists designed to take important rear objectives and to support offensive operations. I refuse to land in undefended provinces of strategic import like capitals and such.

8) I love this game and each time I read a new AAR I get a thrill and think what other country could I play that hardly gets play time? What strategies could I develop to better enjoy a particular major/minor power? I think HoI will only get better thanks to Paradox and the modding community.

 

[Dinsdale]

Re: Back on subject

Originally posted by Jorath13
1) Germany well and truly could have won the war if they hadn't committed some mistakes - Dunkirk, late invasion of Russia, helping out Italy, lack of supplying Rommel in the desert, and changing the main thrust of jet research (making it a bomber instead of a fighter) are among the few. However, the chief reason Germany lost WW2 is their complete trust in their Enigma (sp?) machine. The only time in the war the Allies got surprised due to lack of intel resulted in the Battle of the Bulge.

This really should go to the history forum. Enough myths to just count on 1 hand.

1) Dunkirk -read up on German panzer readyness to attack Dunkirk. Read up on Luftwaffe casualties during the sea operation

2) North Africa - study port capacities and supply problems, Rommel didn't get the supplies, but not because Germany did not try

3) Earlier invasion of Russia means Stalingrad fought in Moscow in 41. No guarantee of victory there. Why does a German advance to Moscow always provoke thoughts that they would actually take it, especially as they couldn't take the other two cities you all think so vital.

4) Check out German jet engine life and the impossibility of equipping enough frontline squadrons with the technology.

 

[Jorath13]

Re: Re: Back on subject

Originally posted by Dinsdale
This really should go to the history forum. Enough myths to just count on 1 hand.

1) Dunkirk -read up on German panzer readyness to attack Dunkirk. Read up on Luftwaffe casualties during the sea operation

2) North Africa - study port capacities and supply problems, Rommel didn't get the supplies, but not because Germany did not try

3) Earlier invasion of Russia means Stalingrad fought in Moscow in 41. No guarantee of victory there. Why does a German advance to Moscow always provoke thoughts that they would actually take it, especially as they couldn't take the other two cities you all think so vital.

4) Check out German jet engine life and the impossibility of equipping enough frontline squadrons with the technology.

Truly it should:

1) Read up on how Hitler stopped all unit movement in the general direction of Dunkirk.

2) True, Germany tried but thanks to it's pathetic Italian allies who often refused to sail nearby Malta and thanks to Hitler's refusal to release just one armored division from Russia to Rommel, Africa stays out of Axis hands.

3) Actually, I feel Moscow and Leningrad were the major political cities Germany needed to capture, not Stalingrad. If Germany got into Moscow and chased down Uncle Joe, Russia would be speaking German now.

4) Germany didn't need many squadrons with jet engines...only a couple were necessary in late '42 (earliest Germany could've gotten flights equipped) in order to put a stop to the bombing raids over the Fatherland. Plus, one squadron of jets in Russia would've killed off the majority of their air force. Read Fox Over the Rhine (admitadly a piece of fiction) for some examples of what German jets could've done.

That all said however, WW2 is not about a bunch of what-ifs. It's all based on fact now. However, HoI is based on what-ifs...I feel any major power should be able to do better than history.

 

[Dinsdale]

Re: Re: Re: Back on subject

Originally posted by Jorath13

That all said however, WW2 is not about a bunch of what-ifs. It's all based on fact now. However, HoI is based on what-ifs...I feel any major power should be able to do better than history.

This is very true, and this is what we are looking for in HOI. Right now you could make all the mistakes listed in this thread and more (indeed for game challenge you have to, including wasting resources on every tank prototype and nuclear research) yet still win without breaking a sweat.

I think that lost in the debating is the fact that all nations exerted a tremendous struggle to achieve what they did. Regardless of what odds each of us would give a country to do better, the struggle is missing from the game.

I have yet to try the federalist scenario, and currently have had problems when playing as Russia in 1939 scen, but it still requires a lot of self-handicapping to do so.

Back to the AI, while I think some cheating is necessary, I would like to avoid IC doubling or manpower doubling alone. Those changes simply create the Space Invaders syndrome; swamp the human until winning. I don't think that's going to have a WW2 feel either.

Among all the debate about Go, Chess and AIs in general, I think the one point which is missing is this; The AI in this engine has not improved significantly since the early release of EU.

Since then there have been bells, whistles and plenty of window dressing. However, seeing Russia abandon Moscow, or Japan invade an infrastructure 20 province are exactly the same tendancies which plagued the original game.

 

[unmerged(12283)]

Re: Back on subject

Originally posted by Jorath13
Is HoI challenging even with 1.03?

I find it more challenging, and think it's a bit of a step forward. Nagging bugs(retreating armies esp) prevent it from being a big step forward, but at least it is playable.

3) Those refusing to play with a cheating AI - perhaps you do not realize that anytime you play a SP game against the computer chances are very good that the programmers have the computer AI "cheat"? Play Warcraft 3 - know any humans with lightning-like reflexes able to cast multiple spells on multiple units all in the blink of an eye? Thought not. Play any FPS and you'll know that the AI can cheat. Likewise with most computer wargames - the computer "knows" where your units are and what their strengths are. For me, I would wholeheartedly embrace some cheat routines if made for a more difficult game.

There's cheating and then there's CHEATING. Alter it's strength within the parameters of the rules: yes. Bend/break the rules to give it a chance: no.

I don't consider it cheating for the ai to do simultaneous activities in Hoi or a RTS: that is one of its few strengths and something a player has to learn to compensate for.

Funny thing i saw the other day. An email about gamers knowing they're old when kinda thing, and it said something like "Back in my day, games didn't have an end. They just got harder and harder till you died. Just like life!" I grew up with that gaming principle, so i accept it. In pacman it was fine if the ghosts got faster and started to go directly for you, it wouldn't have been fine if they didn't have to follow the confines of the maze

5) Unit movement needs to be slowed down and some staticticity needs to be introduced.

Agreed. Easy for a modder to do. You can do it yourself even..

6) Tech research costs should be revamped and looked at. Some seem to take few ICs while it should be more while other tech takes too long to accomplish. 1IC should not equal 10 days or whatever the current ratio is. The project should determine the time and IC cost.

I don't think the techs are out of line, so much as IC development is out of line. I wrote about it here: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68359

Basically when you can improve a 1 IC province from producing 4500 IC(total through game) to 22500 anything relying on IC is going to get thrown out of wack. Mathematically, 3 1 IC provinces outproduce 1 10 IC province.

7) I use paratroopers as they were designed to be used for - as specialists designed to take important rear objectives and to support offensive operations. I refuse to land in undefended provinces of strategic import like capitals and such.

I very rarely use them, and think they shouldnt be in a game of this scale. The lesson learned from WWII is that massive paratroop landings are a great waste of resources.

8) I love this game and each time I read a new AAR I get a thrill and think what other country could I play that hardly gets play time? What strategies could I develop to better enjoy a particular major/minor power? I think HoI will only get better thanks to Paradox and the modding community.

Personally, i got a love/hate thing going for it. On the plus side it is the best representation to date of the war on this scale. On the negative side, I don't think the engine is best suited to this. I think the folks at paradox are bright and will eventually make a reasonably good game by hammering, bolting, welding the engine until it works.....but it won't be as good as it could be until(and if) they decide to take what they learned and build a new engine for Hoi 2.

 

[unmerged(1345)]

Just wanted to mention:

The Germany-only 1939 scenario is now ready for download. Just click on the link in my signature

 

[Horrorshow]

Originally posted by Bluestew
Medieval: Total War, Russo-German War '41-44' are a couple current games I consider to have decent AI. Of course the games are rather different in scope.

Thanks!

 

[Rankorian]

Originally posted by Munchkin
No direct comparison, because it has a very different design philosophy, but Avalon Hill´s Third Reich, played with the latest patch, has a reasonable Ai.

Avalon Hill's Third Reich has been computerized! My oh my, that game brings back old memories--the board game, that is. Loved to play it as Italy--if one picked the right "chit" option. Will need to look that up.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Rankorian
Avalon Hill's Third Reich has been computerized! My oh my, that game brings back old memories--the board game, that is. Loved to play it as Italy--if one picked the right "chit" option. Will need to look that up.

Unfortunately it's one of the worst PC games of all time. When I found it I thought it was the solution for all WW2 games, took only about an hour for that bubble to burst

WIF has a no-AI version on the computer. You might want to try that, although the interface makes HOI look sleek.