Soviets too strong

[Dalwin]

I think calling it "still broken" is misleading. The current disaster for AI Germany is a direct consequence of other bugs being fixed in 1.3.3. As of 1.3.2 Germany had been doing much better even if their success was to a large degree the product of bugs and design flaws. The scores of Allied divisions stuck at sea helped Germany. The fact that the same bug prevented amphibious invasions from certain countries for long periods also helped. The way that the Soviets used to poorly deploy too many units to guard neutral and insignificant borders (Sinkiang anyone?) also obviously favored Germany.

The team's fixing of the above issues is obviously forward progress even if we are temporary left with larger balance issues than we had before. The real flaw was in not having 1.3.3 in public beta for at least one more week. This is especially true for a patch which also made significant changes to the base economic model which was almost guaranteed to have a far reaching impact on balance.

 

[Praetori]

In summary, the game is pretty much broken still at this point.

I wouldn't go that far. It's not ahistorical for Garmany to go deficit in some equipment (given what equipment represents in HOI4). After all they did get defeated by the Soviets, it just didn't happen that soon.

 

[Madae]

You shouldn't be mad that you couldn't win with Turkey vs USSR, that is the way it should be.

As it stands right now, you just need to learn to play a little better and you can win a war of Turkey vs USSR without anyone else helping you.

I'm not trying to take them on alone. They were able to hold up against Finland, Germany and Romania, Turkey and Japan. They absolutely slaughtered Germany after awhile, like usual, but all of their fronts weren't giving an inch despite being spread out so much. The resource situation aside, at least I should have been able to make at least some gain helping Romania and going through Georgia since I had no resource issues.

 

[Dalwin]

I'm not trying to take them on alone. They were able to hold up against Finland, Germany and Romania, Turkey and Japan. They absolutely slaughtered Germany after awhile, like usual, but all of their fronts weren't giving an inch despite being spread out so much. The resource situation aside, at least I should have been able to make at least some gain helping Romania and going through Georgia since I had no resource issues.

I think you may want to re-examine your division templates or the effects of exceeding supply in an area or methods of minimizing terrain penalties etc. I don't wish to imply that you are playing badly, but I do think you are giving the Soviets far more credit than they deserve. The best I have ever seen them do is to hold a stable line for 6-8 months before the equipment deficits start making their units brittle thus forcing the line to collapse. The problem at the moment is that AI Germany is doing so badly that they can't keep a steady pressure on the Russian line for the needed 6-8 months.

 

[Meglok]

Well powering up germany works pretty well, but still irritated at how peace and land is awarded. Seems like every time I win a war, and even if I do most of the work, the AI gets to go first and takes all the land around me. There needs to be a heavy distance modifier to make the AI choose land closer to their capital first.

Oops, hit send way too fast.

Use the mod Enhanced Peace Conferences. PDS added an older version of the mod to the game in 1.3, the newer version is even better.

I have even seen Germany in this latest build pull divisions out of a half finished Norwegian campaign to ship them to Africa via the Channel. Those that survive the gauntlet have a pretty good chance of being shipped back to Norway a couple of weeks later. Not only are these transport missions probably the most idiotic thing the AI currently does, they also turn a winning campaign in Norway into a losing one.

This is so frustrating it makes my hair hurt. The ai ignores the define code regarding prioritizing front via strategic resources, victory points, and threat levels to convoys, instead it tunnel visions onto the battle planner code and sends troops to a worthless front.

In summary, the game is pretty much broken still at this point.

No, don't use broken. Broken is can not stably run, crashes constantly, or will not load/install.

Instead, say HOI4 ai performance is very sub-optimal. Or any other simile that floats your boat, like the ai fights back like a baby seal, or the ai is dumber than a box of rocks, etc etc.

But never "broken".

 

[Celdur]

I'm not trying to take them on alone. They were able to hold up against Finland, Germany and Romania, Turkey and Japan. They absolutely slaughtered Germany after awhile, like usual, but all of their fronts weren't giving an inch despite being spread out so much. The resource situation aside, at least I should have been able to make at least some gain helping Romania and going through Georgia since I had no resource issues.

That's not the "fault" of the game, but rather your skill at it. As i said, you will, eventually, be able to win against USSR 1v1.

Just keep playing and improve your tactics.

 

[War Emblem]

Once again I find myself struggling to understand this thread. The OP complains they can't beat the Soviets as Turkey. Please reread that. If you could beat the Soviets with Turkey that would suggest to me the real problem! Why do you think the Turks should even have a chance against the Soviet Union? Then I read how the game is 'broken' because Germany loses to the Soviet Union. Umm...this is exactly what happened. If they fought the East Front 10 times the Soviets would have won 9 of the 10.

I believe that the real issue is people want to see a years long struggle on the Eastern Front. How do you program this though? Do you 'prop' up one side or another? Do you make it impossible to win the war in a year? You've now moved from a simulation to stacking the deck so you get specific results. Now I have seen Germany have horrible games and I've seen them have decent games. Germany btw destroys Poland and Western Europe far faster in this game than they did in real life. In every game I have played (including me as France!) AI Germany has conquered Poland/Denmark/Netherlands/Belgium/France before 40. Taking out the Soviets should be hard - almost impossible if you ask me. Right now the weather barely even has an effect in Russia. Campaigning in January is barely different from campaigning in July. And where is the famous Rasputitsa? Early spring and late fall should slow armies to a crawl due to the mud. In my opinion, the German AI should always lose to the Soviets (without player intervention as a very well played ally), and novice human players should always lose to the Soviets. Moderate human players should lose to the Soviets 7 times out of 10 and Expert players should only beat the Soviets 5 times out of 10. This would be he baseline on how I would program the Soviet AI.

 

[Madae]

Um, I was complaining that they were able to fight against half a dozen factions on as many fronts and appear to not have any problem doing that. This was never about me defeating them as Turkey. It is their seemingly endless resources, in addition to the Axis having a clear disadvantage with this (apparently), that is the problem.

And before you get all historical on me, if I were to play a faction that didn't do anything major during this period, then you are guaranteed to see a difference in how the game turns out. No one is playing this game 100% accurate to how it actually happened, nor is it anywhere as detailed as it would need to be to support that.

 

[grandad1982]

In real life the ussr had massive amounts of lend lease to prop it up. In game that never really happens (same for the uk too). This is two fold imo. First I think they are too strong industrially or rather to easy to make strong early and secondly America doesn't ever have huge surplus to send out because the ai production management is sub par and they over produce divisions.

The other reason that the ussr seems over strong in my opinion is the way in which the Eastern front is over so fast due to Germany collapsing.

Anyway as Turkey build a load of decent mountaineers, stick them in the caucuses and watch the soviets attrition themselves to death. Next take the oil and win.

 

[Dalwin]

Once again I find myself struggling to understand this thread. The OP complains they can't beat the Soviets as Turkey. Please reread that. If you could beat the Soviets with Turkey that would suggest to me the real problem! Why do you think the Turks should even have a chance against the Soviet Union? Then I read how the game is 'broken' because Germany loses to the Soviet Union. Umm...this is exactly what happened. If they fought the East Front 10 times the Soviets would have won 9 of the 10.

I believe that the real issue is people want to see a years long struggle on the Eastern Front. How do you program this though? Do you 'prop' up one side or another? Do you make it impossible to win the war in a year? You've now moved from a simulation to stacking the deck so you get specific results. Now I have seen Germany have horrible games and I've seen them have decent games. Germany btw destroys Poland and Western Europe far faster in this game than they did in real life. In every game I have played (including me as France!) AI Germany has conquered Poland/Denmark/Netherlands/Belgium/France before 40. Taking out the Soviets should be hard - almost impossible if you ask me. Right now the weather barely even has an effect in Russia. Campaigning in January is barely different from campaigning in July. And where is the famous Rasputitsa? Early spring and late fall should slow armies to a crawl due to the mud. In my opinion, the German AI should always lose to the Soviets (without player intervention as a very well played ally), and novice human players should always lose to the Soviets. Moderate human players should lose to the Soviets 7 times out of 10 and Expert players should only beat the Soviets 5 times out of 10. This would be he baseline on how I would program the Soviet AI.

In real life and in most versions of HOI4 prior to 1.3.3 Germany at least put up a real fight in Russia. Now they fold like a wet napkin virtually every time often in less than 6 months. It is not even that they couldn't fight the campaign better. They put only the thinnest line of troops on the northern half of the front. They are not even giving it a good try, instead sending way too many units to less important areas while Berlin falls, Most of the time the Soviets spend getting to Berlin is the time is takes the overlay cautious AI to advance that far. It would not take that much less time if the entire area was devoid of enemy troops.

Your above comments are so far away from current reality that I don't think they were worth the time and effort you put into typing them.

How do you program a struggle that lasts years on the Eastern Front?? Let me see. They managed to do it in version 1.0, 1.1.x, 1.2.x, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, and 1.3.2. I suppose that means that it must be possible. It is only the latest build where Germany is completely hopeless when controlled by the AI.

 

[War Emblem]

Um, I was complaining that they were able to fight against half a dozen factions on as many fronts and appear to not have any problem doing that. This was never about me defeating them as Turkey. It is their seemingly endless resources, in addition to the Axis having a clear disadvantage with this (apparently), that is the problem.
.

Never get into a ground war in Asia. The Axis is at a disadvantage and rightfully so. Please show me where a Western Nation ever had any success going into Russia. Yes, we are making our own history here but the point is it SHOULD be hard.

As for the Soviets defending on half a dozen fronts - how is this even possible? A bit of hyperbole perhaps? There are only a couple ways the Axis can attack the Soviet Union and since Japan doesn't invade from the East that leaves Finland, the long front from the Baltic States to the Crimea and your attempt to push North out of Turkey. And who cares how many Romanians and Hungarians they are fighting? The Soviets fought all those half dozen factions historically and whipped them all. They blew up the Romanian army which led to the Germans being encircled at Stalingrad. It is worth nothing that from my experience Hungary and Romania always over-perform in games.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

Because sending troops to Sahara is much more important than fielding a strong eastern front.

 

[War Emblem]

In real life and in most versions of HOI4 prior to 1.3.3 Germany at least put up a real fight in Russia. Now they fold like a wet napkin virtually every time often in less than 6 months..

Source? Where is this 'often' they fold in 6 months data. I have never seen them fold in 6 months. We should really scale back on the hyperbole as it doesn't help illuminate the issues. Again, the root problem appears to be the extent of time the war on the eastern front takes. Secondly, what player actions are influencing the AI. I just had AI Germany last until late 44 and they drove all the way to Stalingrad. The Soviets never even got across the Oder and the Germans didn't collapse until the Western Allies drove across Europe. That Germany loses to the Soviets in different amount of times is a positive to me because it tells me the AI is playing different strategies and/or the actions of the player are influencing the AI. Maybe the butterfly effect of playing Turkey per the OP causes the Soviet Union to have a stronger strategy. I don't know, you would have to play 100 games as Turkey to see.

Speaking of game volume, the other thing people have to realize is you are working with a small sample size. Your gaming experiences are going to be influenced by the sample size you have experienced. This may (or may not) be reflective of what generally happens. If you play Turkey once or twice do you really know if that was an accurate picture of what happens or was what happened an outlier?

For me, the issue with AI Germany is not what happens on the Eastern front but the overall lack of strategic options which they take after Barbarossa. Indeed I would like to see some games where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not even broken.

 

[Dalwin]

Source? Where is this 'often' they fold in 6 months data. I have never seen them fold in 6 months. We should really scale back on the hyperbole as it doesn't help illuminate the issues. Again, the root problem appears to be the extent of time the war on the eastern front takes. Secondly, what player actions are influencing the AI. I just had AI Germany last until late 44 and they drove all the way to Stalingrad. The Soviets never even got across the Oder and the Germans didn't collapse until the Western Allies drove across Europe. That Germany loses to the Soviets in different amount of times is a positive to me because it tells me the AI is playing different strategies and/or the actions of the player are influencing the AI. Maybe the butterfly effect of playing Turkey per the OP causes the Soviet Union to have a stronger strategy. I don't know, you would have to play 100 games as Turkey to see.

Speaking of game volume, the other thing people have to realize is you are working with a small sample size. Your gaming experiences are going to be influenced by the sample size you have experienced. This may (or may not) be reflective of what generally happens. If you play Turkey once or twice do you really know if that was an accurate picture of what happens or was what happened an outlier?

For me, the issue with AI Germany is not what happens on the Eastern front but the overall lack of strategic options which they take after Barbarossa. Indeed I would like to see some games where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not even broken.

The source would be every game I have played in 1.3.3 unless a human was controlling Germany. There have been multiple threads on this topic over the last 5 weeks and a great many players lamenting that since 1.3.3 the SP game is nearly unplayable as any major except Germany, because if a human is not controlling them, then either Russia or UK will be in Berlin by mid '42 at the latest and often before the end of '41. This might technically be as long as ten months of war with Russia before capitulation but only a few weeks of that were spent actually trying to fight and the rest in a hopelessly disorganized route.

 

[Redz28]

The source would be every game I have played in 1.3.3 unless a human was controlling Germany. There have been multiple threads on this topic over the last 5 weeks and a great many players lamenting that since 1.3.3 the SP game is nearly unplayable as any major except Germany, because if a human is not controlling them, then either Russia or UK will be in Berlin by mid '42 at the latest and often before the end of '41. This might technically be as long as ten months of war with Russia before capitulation but only a few weeks of that were spent actually trying to fight and the rest in a hopelessly disorganized route.

Exactly. Unless you play as Germany, the game is just an AI race to Berlin which renders it broken IMHO.

 

[War Emblem]

The source would be every game I have played in 1.3.3 unless a human was controlling Germany. There have been multiple threads on this topic over the last 5 weeks and a great many players lamenting that since 1.3.3 the SP game is nearly unplayable as any major except Germany, because if a human is not controlling them, then either Russia or UK will be in Berlin by mid '42 at the latest and often before the end of '41. This might technically be as long as ten months of war with Russia before capitulation but only a few weeks of that were spent actually trying to fight and the rest in a hopelessly disorganized route.

I believe you have stated you only play MP now, so how many SP games have you actually played since 1.3.3? Yes, there have been a lot of threads saying the same thing (game is broken! dooooom!) but we have no idea what the sample size is. In this specific thread the game is broken thesis came up because one person played one game as Turkey and was repelled by the Soviets. I have already stated that I just played a game where Germany did not surrender until 44. Germany surrendered on 19 February 1944 to be exact then Hungary and Romania fought on through March before surrendering. Japan surrendered on December 4th 1944. That is pretty close to the historical timeline. I simply don't believe that Germany 'often' surrenders in 41.

The other thing I found interesting today from the Dev Diary is that 40% of all games are played as human Germany. So for almost half of all the games played this isn't even an issue. This further makes me wonder about my sample size hypothesis. Exactly how many games have people played with an AI Germany to form their opinions?

 

[Redz28]

I believe you have stated you only play MP now, so how many SP games have you actually played since 1.3.3? Yes, there have been a lot of threads saying the same thing (game is broken! dooooom!) but we have no idea what the sample size is. In this specific thread the game is broken thesis came up because one person played one game as Turkey and was repelled by the Soviets. I have already stated that I just played a game where Germany did not surrender until 44. Germany surrendered on 19 February 1944 to be exact then Hungary and Romania fought on through March before surrendering. Japan surrendered on December 4th 1944. That is pretty close to the historical timeline. I simply don't believe that Germany 'often' surrenders in 41.

The other thing I found interesting today from the Dev Diary is that 40% of all games are played as human Germany. So for almost half of all the games played this isn't even an issue. This further makes me wonder about my sample size hypothesis. Exactly how many games have people played with an AI Germany to form their opinions?

I play primarily as Germany, when playing Axis, because I got sick of seeing Germany crushed when I played Italy or Japan.

 

[Dalwin]

I believe you have stated you only play MP now, so how many SP games have you actually played since 1.3.3? Yes, there have been a lot of threads saying the same thing (game is broken! dooooom!) but we have no idea what the sample size is. In this specific thread the game is broken thesis came up because one person played one game as Turkey and was repelled by the Soviets. I have already stated that I just played a game where Germany did not surrender until 44. Germany surrendered on 19 February 1944 to be exact then Hungary and Romania fought on through March before surrendering. Japan surrendered on December 4th 1944. That is pretty close to the historical timeline. I simply don't believe that Germany 'often' surrenders in 41.

The other thing I found interesting today from the Dev Diary is that 40% of all games are played as human Germany. So for almost half of all the games played this isn't even an issue. This further makes me wonder about my sample size hypothesis. Exactly how many games have people played with an AI Germany to form their opinions?

That is a fair question. I still run test games as various countries. The main purpose of these is to try various buildup strategies to improve my MP play. I don't really count these as games since I am not as concerned with the end result as I would be if I was focused on SP. I do take these far enough, however, to be seeing Germany collapse quickly and repeatedly.

I count my SP games as part of MP when I say that I play almost exclusively MP. It is rare that I take one of my SP tests past the end of '42 whereas our MP games usually make it into '44, almost '45 on the last one. There is little point in carrying the SP tests out further since the world without live opponents eventually loses its relevance, especially after Germany has collapsed.

 

[tylerdurden199]

It's mostly only the AI

 

[jura28]

One thing that wasn't mentioned yet is that in real life, Russia was heavily supported by the US via lend lease, so maybe it's true they would win 9 times out of 10, but not without lend lease. Maybe there should be added some kind of focus to model this.