The AI is not making defensive battleplans

[panzerzombie]

3. Tactics and leadership and doctrines accounted for the German success not some arrows drawn on a map.

I like the idea of a planning bonus. I just think it is way overpowered. If you really believe that drawing some arrows on a map can make 10 divisions fight like 15 divisions then we have a fundamentally different view of how combat worked in WW2.

Oh, come on. You have to draw something simple on a map in a game to "simulate" planning in RL. Do you really want to preplan mission objectives, schwerpunkte, timetables, artillery placement and preplanned bombardment plans, and so on......you can do that - a bit - in a tactical game but not in HOI.

Better planning ( which ofc includes better tactical implementation by frontline commanders, training and so on ) always beats a clueless and unprepared but numerically superior enemy ( how would the initial german success against same number or more of divisions be explained ?)

 

[eddyill]

The 50% planning bonus seems way to high. Just because a unit has a plan doesn't make it perform like a unit and a half for the duration of the offensive. Perhaps a 20% bonus that degrades over the course of a few days.
If the 50% planning bonus stays in, Barbarossa could be a routine and boring cake walk. German panzers and infantry slice up the Red Army for a few days due the big planning bonus and then the rest is easy.

But it dosnt just represent a plan, it's laying communications lines, timetables, verifying chain of command, preparing supply dumps, drilling troops, distributing maps, zeroing artillery, aerial and ground reconnaissance, misdirecting and misleading the enemy, weather forecasts. Look at the preparations for something like Operation Bagration where planning was a huge operation but was highly effective.

 

[AOW]

Oh, come on. You have to draw something simple on a map in a game to "simulate" planning in RL. Do you really want to preplan mission objectives, schwerpunkte, timetables, artillery placement and preplanned bombardment plans, and so on......you can do that - a bit - in a tactical game but not in HOI.

Better planning ( which ofc includes better tactical implementation by frontline commanders, training and so on ) always beats a clueless and unprepared but numerically superior enemy ( how would the initial german success against same number or more of divisions be explained ?)

It's game, i get that the player would not want to deal with the little stuff. The advantages those things convey should come from doctrines (e.g. schwerpunkt) which can be developed over years, and it is a poor representation, imo, to give a 50% bonus from the start of the war. Battles in WW1 were planned to death (Somme) yet resulted in high casualties and gains you could measure in meters. Market Garden was well planned. "Planning" by itself doesn't guarantee results and a 50% bonus is nearly a guarantee. ... besides "No plan survives contact with the enemy". German commanders were given much more flexibility than their Soviet counterparts. and had better tactics, doctrines (blitzkrieg) and leadership. All the zeroing, stockpiling etc. doesn't mean much after about 24 hours. As I stated I am ok with a planning bonus, but such a bonus should cost something (IC?) and be way lower than 50%.

 

[AOW]

But it dosnt just represent a plan, it's laying communications lines, timetables, verifying chain of command, preparing supply dumps, drilling troops, distributing maps, zeroing artillery, aerial and ground reconnaissance, misdirecting and misleading the enemy, weather forecasts. Look at the preparations for something like Operation Bagration where planning was a huge operation but was highly effective.

All of that stuff was done in WW1 and rarely resulted in anything other than massive casualties and gains of a few miles. Planning, imo, should not be worth a 50% bonus. Also, most of those things you mention should cost something (perhaps IC?), but so far in HOI4 they cost nothing yet let 10 divisions fight as well as 15. I would be happier if the planning bonus started out at something like 20% and then could be increased due to doctrines. As it is now players will stay on the offensive 100% of the time because there is a severe penalty to playing good defense. Why hide behind a river or defend a mountain range when any attack against your line becomes an unstoppable juggernaut? It also opens the door to very gamey tactics in multiplayer.

 

[Gort11]

I have to disagree the the AI should have created battleplans and counterattacked Daniel during the war. All 4 countries he attacked, Austria, Czech, Yugoslavia, and Romania were outgunned and outmatched. The first 3 lost the war before it was even started with Romania about to lose. You cannot counterattack when all of your troops are fighting and you are being pummeled, unable to hold the line, and being overrun. Perhaps some kind of orderly fallback but none of these countries had much to fall back to. It needed more troops, not better planning. The only improvement I could see would be the AI reacting to Daniel's actions before the war with a larger military buildup to counteract any attack. Maybe we'll see that, the AI isn't done of course.

Every single country would have lost nothing by creating offensive lines inside Daniel's territory, and every country attacked Daniel's troops at some point during the war, so they would have gained during those attacks.

Not to mention that Czechoslovakia looked impressive on paper, to the point where Daniel felt the need to save the game before the attack in case they beat him. When he attacked, it was pretty impressive how quickly they fell apart.

Some of you seem to forget that even in a "defensive" war you need to capture the enemy victory points to win. You're not going to do that without attacking, and you lose nothing and gain a lot by making an offensive plan ahead of time. If the AI doesn't do this, it's flawed and either it or the game rules need fixing, or players are going to have an easy time taking over enemy countries.

 

[ComradeCommissar]

If its possible maybe there should be some sort of counterattacking battle plan based on how the AI perceives the success or failure of the army facing it. For example if AI perceives Daniel's army as weak it will have ambitious plans to destroy him.

Historically the Soviet Union had just that: in the south Zhukov ordered the Red Army to be in Lublin by the night of June 24th (!!) and the Timoshenko plan was a plan before the German invasion, of which only the southern pincers were left when the Battle of Smolensk was raging, and then there was the Raseiniai border battle.

 

[Modestus]

Every single country would have lost nothing by creating offensive lines inside Daniel's territory, and every country attacked Daniel's troops at some point during the war, so they would have gained during those attacks.

Not to mention that Czechoslovakia looked impressive on paper, to the point where Daniel felt the need to save the game before the attack in case they beat him. When he attacked, it was pretty impressive how quickly they fell apart.

Some of you seem to forget that even in a "defensive" war you need to capture the enemy victory points to win. You're not going to do that without attacking, and you lose nothing and gain a lot by making an offensive plan ahead of time. If the AI doesn't do this, it's flawed and either it or the game rules need fixing, or players are going to have an easy time taking over enemy countries.

As far as I can tell the only drawback for the player is using the AI to implement their Plan, looking forward to seeing that mess unfold against an enemy that has some parity with the player with regards to its forces both in its overall strength and the capabilities of its Divisions.

 

[Gort11]

As far as I can tell the only drawback for the player is using the AI to implement their Plan, looking forward to seeing that mess unfold against an enemy that has some parity with the player with regards to its forces both in its overall strength and the capabilities of its Divisions.

You still get the planning bonus even if you override the AI's movement of your troops with your own manual orders. There isn't a drawback to making an offensive plan while at peace.

 

[Hansag]

It depends. There is historical precedent for being completely unprepared for an invasion.

Gameplay wise, if the enemy has good intel on you it should do defensive plans, or if it's "obvious" that you're going to get hit next somehow. But what qualifies being "obvious", idk. It's something that's easy to see with a human mind but probably not for the AI.

Hypothetical question, but perhaps high intel/decryption would enable a defender to "nerf" planning bonuses?

Battleplans itself doesn't give any bonus. Making a offensive line will start giving you a planning bonus, and then attacking (not defending) will grant you the bonus. Entrenchment is something you always get when the unit is standing still.

Yes, yes and yea, France retreating was a bug, already reported and actually something that our AI programmer was already working on.
Update: And after talking with our AI programmer most likely already fixed yesterday evening

So no planning bonuses when executing an order to fall back to a fallback line, or higher chance of generals executing "delaying actions" when units move back (and disengage) in good order (rather than just routing) etc.?

 

[Jamey]

It's game, i get that the player would not want to deal with the little stuff. The advantages those things convey should come from doctrines (e.g. schwerpunkt) which can be developed over years, and it is a poor representation, imo, to give a 50% bonus from the start of the war. Battles in WW1 were planned to death (Somme) yet resulted in high casualties and gains you could measure in meters. Market Garden was well planned. "Planning" by itself doesn't guarantee results and a 50% bonus is nearly a guarantee. ... besides "No plan survives contact with the enemy". German commanders were given much more flexibility than their Soviet counterparts. and had better tactics, doctrines (blitzkrieg) and leadership. All the zeroing, stockpiling etc. doesn't mean much after about 24 hours. As I stated I am ok with a planning bonus, but such a bonus should cost something (IC?) and be way lower than 50%.

"In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

I think you are seriously fixated on the 50% number. Whether it is right or wrong really will depend on the rest of the game (including the size of other modifiers).

 

[AOW]

"In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

I think you are seriously fixated on the 50% number. Whether it is right or wrong really will depend on the rest of the game (including the size of other modifiers).

Guilty as charged! .... and you are correct that it is an issue of proper balance. ... Cheers

 

[Gort11]

Dig in bonuses are higher than Battleplan bonuses AFIK. Furthermore the attacker suffers terrain penalties, weather effects and so on.

This is incorrect. Without extra doctrine bonuses, a battleplan grants a maximum bonus of 50%, while entrenchment only grants a maximum bonus of 20%.

Both bonuses increase at a rate of 2% per day when building them up.

 

[GsusNSV]

while entrenchment only grants a maximum bonus of 20%.

And where do you know this from? There are ways to increase the entrenchment bonus.
Gerneral with Old Guard trait = +1 max entrenchment
Engineers = +5 max entrenchment
1st tech of the Grand Battleplan doctrine (Trench Warfare) = +10 max entrenchment; +25% entrenchment speed

3rd tech of the Mass Assault doctrine (Defense in Depth) = +5 max entrenchment

 

[Gort11]

And where do you know this from? There are ways to increase the entrenchment bonus.
Gerneral with Old Guard trait = +1 max entrenchment
Engineers = +5 max entrenchment
1st tech of the Grand Battleplan doctrine (Trench Warfare) = +10 max entrenchment; +25% entrenchment speed
View attachment 172236
3rd tech of the Mass Assault doctrine (Defense in Depth) = +5 max entrenchment

I know this from the WWW streams.

You're right about ways to increase entrenchment bonuses, that's why I specifically said "without extra doctrine bonuses". If you start looking at that then you have to start looking at what you can do to increase your planning bonus, such as the first tech of the grand battleplan doctrine, which grants +30 planning.

With all the bonuses we've mentioned, there isn't a way to get a maximum dig-in bonus greater than your maximum battleplan bonus.

-----

Another issue I've seen in WWW is that the AI doesn't always assign units to a leader, which leads to stuff like this: