Major improvements to the invasion AI really aren't possible without a significant rewrite of the military AI in general. I will look into the not building navy bit though.
UK = Paper tiger in HoD?
- Thread starter unmerged(53301)
- Start date
-
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.
Major improvements to the invasion AI really aren't possible without a significant rewrite of the military AI in general. I will look into the not building navy bit though.
I was amazed to see the UK knocked to #25 after it's second Great War defeat (nothing to do with me). 0/221/22 iirc was the point score. They later returned to GP status, and the UK had been around #5 most of the game, so obviously they'd had troubles before the two Great War losses. It's good to see the vaunted UK not invulnerable, but it was very weird seeing it score around some German principality. Even on coming back I don't think it had much Mil score, just the Ind had recovered a lot. Mind you, having given Eritrea from my Portugal to Russia, Britain deserved its fate.
It's good to see the UK not romp every game unless the player beats it, but better to see it from a combination of rivals than invasion issues. I haven't played that many HoD games, but I do like the variety in Great War combinations, which can sometimes put a crimp on the UK's power.
It's good to see the UK not romp every game unless the player beats it, but better to see it from a combination of rivals than invasion issues. I haven't played that many HoD games, but I do like the variety in Great War combinations, which can sometimes put a crimp on the UK's power.
wish you guys would give that priority over new content when designing patches and expansions.
Okay, your point. Hands off, UK is likley to be outpaced by france, this will even happen if they aren't confronted directly. I would say, the human interaction with the UK feels okay. As mentioned they actually do sth when your are allied with them. If you are a small country, they are a threat. When you go against them as a powerful country, that is the weakest point. With a right set up war, you'll beat them. But thats the case with every other country aswell. Its only a bit of a diffrence because they should be the dominating power and they should be able to keep the status due to theyr starting postition.
I know these "historical..." and "important for gameplay..." Arguments are disliked by some people, but would it be lots of fun if every early confrontaition with the UK, lets say before 1900, would end in being destroyed by a rageing giant whos bringing all the stuff he has at you? For me I would say no.
Further it wont feel proper if they would do so. Manageing a colonial world empire doesnt allow to concentrate almost all of your power on one point. You cant show large parts of your lands blank and you dont have capacity to ship one million men from india to europe in two weeks (in 1850 at last). Okay to sit on the island and do nothing, while continental europe is burning looks odd, but thats what they did most of the time. You can for sure hold against that things wouldve gone diffrent if some country had destroyed the european balace of power by hard (like they often do as human controlled in the game).
If you play a hands off game, its likely they will submerge slow but steady or within a blast of one or two great war defeats. This is not was historical happend, but with the time of 1900 - 1920 coming, the power shifted westwards to the USA. So again, it doesent feel very wrong. But honestly I don't want to watch a hands of game with "correct" results, I wanna play! I wanna crush the others! I want those to win who didn't in reality! Thats my core motivation to play those great paradox games.
I totally understand that people dont like the UK behaviour, it certainly would be even more fun if they had a higher wage in oversea wars. But I don't think they are totally broken or an usless ally. Its okay for most situations and very enjoyable if it comes down to my opinion.
But AI isn't very marketable. I mean, you can't really *show* AI in action, unlike new content. That makes turning AI into a priority a difficult decision to make.
Well, sure, everyone likes an improved AI. But how do you advertise your big AI expansion DLC? It's hard to say much more about it than "we made it better". While with new features and content, you have shiny things you can show in trailers and explain in development diaries.
As an expansion it is incredibly marketable. If it were a new feature in a stand alone game (Victoria 3), perhaps less so, but an expansion is marketing towards people who already own or would consider owning the game. Also, you're kinda mistaking the grand strategy audience for your typical video game audience. One of the selling points of HoD was that the naval AI was supposedly improved. Advertising a completely new dynamic AI would easily top that.
Hm...well maybe you have a point. I guess it doesn't fit Paradox's current advertising style, at least. But maybe there's opportunity.
I will say that I would guarantee purchase of an expansion if its new features include a major overhaul of military AI in general. I want sea-based invasions, I want the AI developing coherent fronts with strategic reserves, separating cavalry(esp. Dragoons) as forces of encirclement or an emergency reserve, rational naval decisions(a full blockade being a real thing after the decisive battle, modernization efforts, decent composition choices,) etc. If I could get that in an expansion I would pay you $20 for it.
But can you put Charles Babbage on the cover and still expand the market...certainly we vets would buy it, but someone new to the franchise? You still need something for "box appeal" imo.
Why not give a decision to the UK to have a +4% mobilization rate modifier, making it equal to France? That could make things equal in their battles without changing the national values. Would that make the UK very powerful? Yes, and that's the idea. If you're a human player and don't want that advantage, just don't click it.
i think it would be more important to get them using the troops they have first
And to use an army in an efficient manner as an island nation empire with far flung possessions (UK) requires a powerful NAVY - even more so in HoD. Guys let's be realistic - sure we can and should push for improved ai, but that is a long term project (Vicky 3 anyone?) - let us be clear on one point here: the number one thing that can be done here and now to improve UK ai play is to make sure they actually build and maintain a huuuge navy with loads of transports. UK certainly has the money and resources for that. I get nostalgic when thinking of the monster fleet UK fielded in vicky 1 - didn't we all just love to blow that monstrous battle fleet to pieces or, mind you, be blown to pieces by that very same fleet if you got sloppy in your gameplay?
Last edited:
Technically, the UK military strength did not rely on land power, if you exclude their troops in India, but on naval power. Their land strength is historically accurate actually, the only problem is that the UK is not transporting their troops from India in Europe, they do not build enough ships and they do not keep a sufficient naval force in Europe. UK AI should always try to build a naval in order to meet the double standard except, of course, if they are risking bankruptcy. UK AI shall always try to have the strongest navy both in term of quantity and in term of quality.
We can easily imagine a " double standard " decision reducing the naval upkeep and increasing their naval capacity in order to help the UK building and maintaining a large navy.
We can easily imagine a " double standard " decision reducing the naval upkeep and increasing their naval capacity in order to help the UK building and maintaining a large navy.
Another thing that isn't very well modeled in the game is simply troop quality. At the time of the Napoleonic wars, the UK was spending more than 20 times per soldier per year what Russia spent for practice ammunition, for instance. France fell somewhere between the two and Prussia was closer to the UK (though even Prussia didn't spend as much on training and equipping their soldiers as the UK). While British land forces were relatively small and troops from the colonies were historically not used in Europe for much of the game's period, control of the sea gave the British great strategic mobility and the forces that were deployed were, man for man, the best in the world in the early 19th century.
A major issue for the Russians during the Crimean War was that it actually took them longer to get troops to Sevastopol than it would have taken to sail reinforcements from London for the British. This was largely due to Russia's backwards infrastructure, but it does illustrate that before the advent of modern railways and motor vehicles, sea travel was much faster than land travel. Granted the Crimean War wasn't really glorious for anyone, though, although it did show the superiority of a number of 19th century innovations.
What I'm getting at is that while 19th century Britain deployed few troops, they used them with supreme efficiency to achieve victory, combined of course with being effectively immune to invasion due to being an island and controlling the sea. A solution like making Britain's conscript forces (which historically were only used in the second half of WWI during the game's period) would be pretty much an admission of defeat
A major issue for the Russians during the Crimean War was that it actually took them longer to get troops to Sevastopol than it would have taken to sail reinforcements from London for the British. This was largely due to Russia's backwards infrastructure, but it does illustrate that before the advent of modern railways and motor vehicles, sea travel was much faster than land travel. Granted the Crimean War wasn't really glorious for anyone, though, although it did show the superiority of a number of 19th century innovations.
What I'm getting at is that while 19th century Britain deployed few troops, they used them with supreme efficiency to achieve victory, combined of course with being effectively immune to invasion due to being an island and controlling the sea. A solution like making Britain's conscript forces (which historically were only used in the second half of WWI during the game's period) would be pretty much an admission of defeat
Any chance of non-agression pacts? If the AI was told to ignore borders of countries it had NA pacts... it would make a tad easier to teach it to concentrate troops near hot spots.
Where there is a pact, you can break them.
On that note, maybe truces should be broken for a massive infamy cost? And you can only do this whilst under 25 infamy anyway (And it will add 25 to whatever you do have)? It would pick up the pace of grabbing that last state.
Truces can be broken already, you cannot however justify a CB during truce. You need to have one already, or have one handed to you by event. And it costs prestige.