Unacceptable AI

[D-Dave]

Yeah it's been really PATHETIC the way this has been (ignored) handled by Paradox. A year after release and it's still not working and we're still in beta. After release. And the way they have communicated with the players is "dont tell us to fix the AI, it cant be fixed, it can only be improved". So improve the bloody AI then.

I don't have any faith whatsoever in Paradox anymore and I used to be a die hard fan.

 

[Dalwin]

Here is one specific issue that is indicative of how bad some of the AI production choices are. This should be a simple thing to fix compared to many AI issues.

In one of our recent MP games, one of our players switched to one of the larger minors after his starting country was knocked out. This was in mid '42 IIRC. To his dismay he found the country at All Adults Must Serve, but still using peacetime economy. What is even worse is that this was a country with lots of manpower, the Raj.

(Please note @SteelVolt )

 

[Krafty]

Why does that seem like an incredibly simple if/then coding fix Dalwin. If you haven't gotten off of toaster, the AIs first choice for PP spending, should be to get off toaster. Manpower should be if they actually need manpower and have the equipment to actually field it. How are these even bugs? How does that pass as acceptable? All Adults Serve is a niche choice and should happen rarely under extreme circumstances...

*Sigh*

I want this game to function adequately so badly....but I have to admit I'm close to losing faith.

What irks me the most is seeing something like Expert AI, that while it breaks Podcat's ubiquitous design philosophy of "sand box", actually WORKS. CAS strikes ships, AI strat bombs, uses nukes, has good templates, etc. Everything short of the actual functionality of the AI as designed in the .EXE coding, works. And works well. Now it achieves this by GIVING templates and bonuses to the AI at certain times and under certain conditions which Podcat doesn't want to do...but it WORKS.

It seems like its a personal choice of his, and is completely ignoring all the metrics showing that his personal opinion is infact, factually wrong.

Then we get placations like "Well the front shuffling isn't "Fixed" we cant "Fix" it, but its improved."

Actually...you CAN fix it. You just wont. For WHATEVER REASON Steve doesn't appear to actually dive into the .EXE and fix the AI. Its all scripting in the files that we all, as modders and players, can edit ourselves. The choice making of the AI. Not how it actually functions at the engine level.

A year of data SHOULD convince just about anyone that this plan to make a single AI that isn't heavily scripted with its hand held, is a lost cause...but I guess we're just not there yet...

Look. Ill be as frank as I can.

Its one or the other.

Either you rip open the hood and actually fix the AI. Not the scripting files, no, the ACTUAL AI written in the .exe, we assume in C#, (maybe its PASCAL and that's why its terrible...)....

OR

You heavily script and hand hold the AI ala HOI3 or HOI3 Black ICE (just GIVE the AI units, if its incapable of managing production...please god I just want a game that works, I don't care if it "cheats") you give the Soviets forts, you give them a +50% defense on territory in December 41 for two months to account for "Easy Mode Weather" that doesn't have an effect on combat, and we move on from this horrorshow to a better HOI future...

You cant have both.

And one doesn't work.

Simple math tells us that the second option is the ONLY option. We've done this for a year now. A YEAR. How much more time can you pursue the same goal in the same way before you realize its a failure.

1.4 is the final straw for a lot of people. Either it drastically improves the situation, or people need to know that the direction will change drastically if it doesn't.

Otherwise theyre going to jump ship.

 

[Art1985]

HOI3 had huge load of problems at lunch, but it took 3 month to fix it to playable stage... I don't see this happening for HOI4, and after every patch I have less and less faith.
And it is really frustrating to hear that they think that HOI3 is to hard and to serious and that they won't make such games anymore.

 

[Meglok]

Here is one specific issue that is indicative of how bad some of the AI production choices are. This should be a simple thing to fix compared to many AI issues.

In one of our recent MP games, one of our players switched to one of the larger minors after his starting country was knocked out. This was in mid '42 IIRC. To his dismay he found the country at All Adults Must Serve, but still using peacetime economy. What is even worse is that this was a country with lots of manpower, the Raj.

(Please note @SteelVolt )

The issues with ai law choices has been reported before, I remember talking about it before 1.3 at least. The ai appears to make a beeline for the highest manpower law it can get whether it needs it or not. Yet it will stick at civilian or whatever it starts with as economic laws. I got to the point I just made a tour of all the players and manually upgraded economic laws to try to create a decent contest.

 

[Khevenhuller]

The issues with ai law choices has been reported before, I remember talking about it before 1.3 at least. The ai appears to make a beeline for the highest manpower law it can get whether it needs it or not. Yet it will stick at civilian or whatever it starts with as economic laws. I got to the point I just made a tour of all the players and manually upgraded economic laws to try to create a decent contest.

Should it not concern PDX that the more die hard fans are 'losing faith' in them? It's a phrase I see on this forum more and more and from a marketing perspective alone it should be a concern. For PDX relies a lot (even if unaware of the fact) that word of mouth and personal recommendation is a key driver for people being introduced to this game. The impression is a lack of urgency, and a feeling among many customers that this has not lived up to its billing. More posters are having sentimental thoughts about the 'good old days' of HOI3.

It is not yet a crisis. it is not yet impossible to salvage both the game and the reputation that goes with it. But it could slip into that, if we continue down the path of 'very little happening' over a 12 month period when many of the issues raised were obvious after a weekend of play. And that would be a tragedy.

I love this game. I think PDX can make it work really well, but it will take effort and money spent on it to make me want to recommend it to friends as, at the moment, I want to keep them. But there are 'Core' issues, AI issues, artistic issues, Tech and Focus issues and even basic fixes that seem to be overwhelming when taken in the round. I am not sure that the underlying game philosophy has not created many of these problems and the designers are now boxed in. Modders are doing sterling work on this, trying to fix what they can (like Africa) but this should not be seen as some sort of substitute for PDX doing what they are being paid to do: make a workable game.

K

 

[Art1985]

I think big problem with hoi4 and how devs see information from the game... is that many of active players play this game just because of good memories from previous titles of hoi series. At least this is case about me, I play this game just because I can't believe that my most favorite game could be spoiled, because this game was my child fantasy when I was playing panzer generals and when I found hoi2 it was like a dream comes true. But devs see info that many players are active and play this game and see this info like everything is ok. And when HOI4 were in development I have seen all those problems that were real and after game was out it was reality, but I didn't want to believe my brains just because I wanted to see new HOI game. But as time goes on I feel that HOI4 is dead for me, it is to cartoonish, to abstract, to much arcade. In hoi3 and hoi2 I am feeling immersion, in hoi4 I feel nothing as much as I wanted and tried .. nothing. Just frustration.

 

[permanently_afk]

Why does that seem like an incredibly simple if/then coding fix Dalwin. If you haven't gotten off of toaster, the AIs first choice for PP spending, should be to get off toaster. Manpower should be if they actually need manpower and have the equipment to actually field it. How are these even bugs? How does that pass as acceptable? All Adults Serve is a niche choice and should happen rarely under extreme circumstances...

Corner case of a general evaluation? Either you are saying the Paradox team is stupid, or the simple and obvious solution was discarded for a variety of reasons (see using objects in one case, scripting in the other).

I want this game to function adequately so badly....but I have to admit I'm close to losing faith.

Go cry some more.

What irks me the most is seeing something like Expert AI, that while it breaks Podcat's ubiquitous design philosophy of "sand box", actually WORKS. CAS strikes ships, AI strat bombs, uses nukes, has good templates, etc. Everything short of the actual functionality of the AI as designed in the .EXE coding, works. And works well. Now it achieves this by GIVING templates and bonuses to the AI at certain times and under certain conditions which Podcat doesn't want to do...but it WORKS.

That's because those thing plaster over the crack while podcat needs to fix the underlying behavior. This was done over and over and doesn't seem to go in your head. There is a reason why software which isn't fire-and-forget shouldn't consist of a mess of plasters and fix-mes.

It seems like its a personal choice of his, and is completely ignoring all the metrics showing that his personal opinion is infact, factually wrong.

You keep using that word.

Then we get placations like "Well the front shuffling isn't "Fixed" we cant "Fix" it, but its improved."

Because they got careful. You yourself savaged them multiple times when you believed that they didn't deliver. If I attack you all the time, interpret all your statements in a hostile manner and agitate others to do likewise, would you still go on and post optimistically? No, you won't.

Actually...you CAN fix it. You just wont. For WHATEVER REASON Steve doesn't appear to actually dive into the .EXE and fix the AI. Its all scripting in the files that we all, as modders and players, can edit ourselves. The choice making of the AI. Not how it actually functions at the engine level.

Right. Either you right now prove to me that you're an expert programmer with AI experience or you admit that you got full on Dunning-Kruger

A year of data SHOULD convince just about anyone that this plan to make a single AI that isn't heavily scripted with its hand held, is a lost cause...but I guess we're just not there yet...

For various reasons, which have been detailed on these forums at length, we will never get there. One of them is that scripting a chaning system is a bit the labor of Sysiphos.

Either you rip open the hood and actually fix the AI. Not the scripting files, no, the ACTUAL AI written in the .exe, we assume in C#, (maybe its PASCAL and that's why its terrible...)....

You're just proving that you don't know shit. What the hell do you think podcat is doing with the unit controller?

You heavily script and hand hold the AI ala HOI3 or HOI3 Black ICE (just GIVE the AI units, if its incapable of managing production...please god I just want a game that works, I don't care if it "cheats") you give the Soviets forts, you give them a +50% defense on territory in December 41 for two months to account for "Easy Mode Weather" that doesn't have an effect on combat, and we move on from this horrorshow to a better HOI future...

See above.

You cant have both.

And one doesn't work.

Simple math tells us that the second option is the ONLY option. We've done this for a year now. A YEAR. How much more time can you pursue the same goal in the same way before you realize its a failure.

Dunning-Kruger. Again. Also, common sense (oh, the irony) should tell you that if the simple, obvious solution isn't taken by someone competent there is a REASON for that behavior.

1.4 is the final straw for a lot of people. Either it drastically improves the situation, or people need to know that the direction will change drastically if it doesn't.

Otherwise theyre going to jump ship.

I'll hold you to that. If you're still griping after 1.4, it'll be hard to take your complaing seriously.

 

[Bhaal]

As a long time Paradox fan and avid player of their games, I have to agree with the overall feeling of the thread. I keep coming back to the game due to loyalty and faith, but they are running thin. I just want the game to work, be somewhat plausible and somewhat of a challenge. I don't care if the AI cheats, you hold its hand, you give it templates, forts etc. I do not care. It has been almost a year and the overall improvement has been minimal.

As a fan of the company and its games for over a decade, it pains me to say this, but I am losing faith. I have high hopes for 1.4, and one can only hope there is a radical improvement.

 

[Khevenhuller]

But as time goes on I feel that HOI4 is dead for me, it is to cartoonish, to abstract, to much arcade. In hoi3 and hoi2 I am feeling immersion, in hoi4 I feel nothing as much as I wanted and tried .. nothing. Just frustration.

It is terribly sad to see you write this, but I am aware that you are part of a growing group of players who are getting increasingly frustrated. It is now 12 months since release, or as near as dammit. We may get 1.4 before that 12 months is up as our second DLC. On that evidence alone it's hard to shake off the feeling that something is wrong.

One issue you raise, that of 'Immersion', is very dear to me. The thoughts that it is 'cartoonish', 'abstract' and 'arcade' are also ones that speak to me. When I find poor or sloppy research about things I know about, I start to wonder ho many of the things I do not know about that are portrayed as true are also wrong and poorly researched. The game philosophy of having 'Every country playable = every country should be equal' is clearly doomed to failure, yet I am still waiting for the Norwegian Nuclear Programme in their Tech Tree, or those mythical 'Heavy Tanks of Luxembourg' to make an appearance.

I am not a programmer, so I do not feel particularly qualified to talk about that. But I do want the mechanisms and outcomes of combat to accord with what you should expect from the thirties and forties. I do want diplomacy, politics and trade to be more linked to each other. I do want elections to alter governments. There are lots of solid outcomes that are just missing, almost as if they were dismissed as irrelevant or just not even thought about.

But here we are, nearly 12 months on, waiting for our second DLC praying against all available evidence that it will represent a significant improvement to play. If it fails then more people will vote with their feet, PDX will have less money for further fixes, those fixes will fall short of expectations due to lack of resources and eventually the game will start circling the drain.

This is why it is vitally important for them to get it right. We should neither talk it down or talk it up in advance of release, but we are customers of PDX. We are not their tribunes.

K

 

[macegee]

Should it not concern PDX that the more die hard fans are 'losing faith' in them? It's a phrase I see on this forum more and more and from a marketing perspective alone it should be a concern. For PDX relies a lot (even if unaware of the fact) that word of mouth and personal recommendation is a key driver for people being introduced to this game. The impression is a lack of urgency, and a feeling among many customers that this has not lived up to its billing. More posters are having sentimental thoughts about the 'good old days' of HOI3.

I had to ask the man himself about it, and the answer made very clear to me that I should go play other games. Here are the quotes:

- Mr. Lind, based on your knowledge of how the development of HOI4 goes, how much time do you think would it roughly take to improve the game to the point when people will generally stop telling others to stay away from SP game? I'm not talking about pleasing everyone, but specific major problems that the game has since what looks like 1.0. A rough, general estimate.

Looking at telemetry numbers we are already pleasing the majority very well. We keep getting more and more active players playing more time. If we are referencing a previous discussion on people with 1k hours played telling people not to play on steam reviews that is a minority who sadly might be scaring away some new blood, but clearly cant stop playing the game either. So its already happened and I can't give you an estimate. As for those I dont think there will ever be a point no matter how many years we put into it where they will be 100% happy. Player skills increase faster than you can code a better AI so its simply an impossible task. We have improved the AI a lot, and the biggest stuff was probably 1.3 where people started having issues beating the AI who had actually played a bunch.

Look closely to what I asked and what he answers. Podcat a) talks about stuff I specifically said are not a concern ("pleasing everyone"); b) hints that "player skills" are the problem; c) hides behind "telemetry numbers" and "people who played 1k hours" (I did not play 1k hours btw). Seeing such a dodgy answer like that demolished my trust completely. "Air revamp" that turned out to be a UI change and the DLC about the countries that people barely play.. It all fits. Podcat and his team don't deserve my trust. Nor faith. Not anymore. Doesn't mean I don't want HOI4 to be great, but these people, no, I no longer trust. Surprisingly, or, should I say, paradoxically, Stellaris team, on the other hand, earned my trust. Stellaris is not perfect but it's an actual game, not beta/early access quality hearts of generic ferrum. That's how I see it.

 

[Art1985]

'Every country playable = every country should be equal

Yes this sjw logic really big part of the problem that breaks immersion for me.
When I watched those streams from the game before release I was irritated with all that style where they just select all divisions remade them all to infantry and send to the frontline. No immersion, no buildup, no planning, no micro in any way. And yes... I really don't understand why did we didn't option to have our simple usual nato counters like we had in all previous hoi games.
I can't enjoy hoi4, I have tried many times , but it all ends just as war starts and all problems showing up at their full capacity.
Nothing personal for Podcat, but for me it seems like he got good career project for him, but he had no passion in this game.

 

[Krafty]

To me its the opposite, this is Podcats 'Passion Play', but unfortunately, it seems like it might have been a bad career choice and may be his 'Swan Song'.

I know, I don't think, I KNOW this is Podcats baby. This is his first chance at bat, and he has years and years of successful training seasons to get here, he's Casey from American folk lore. We all expected a home run, and so did he.

The deafening sound of the bat not striking the ball, is heard well beyond the ballpark.

On the bright side, PDX just picked up Gordon Van Dyke. Maybe he can shake things up over there.

If you ask me, its a lack of resources, not a lack of passion, that is causing these problems. Podcat wanted this game to be PDX's flagship product, and HOI was for three iterations. That hasn't happened. Since ive watched Podcats career for nigh on a decade now, I'm pretty darned sure its not because he doesn't care...its because the guy with the bowties, fell in love with his motorcycle, and has lost all passion for games. He wants to make money, and he likes graphs...and the graph he sees, says that WW2 games are not only niche, but insanely unpopular right now after the market being over saturated with WW2 and wargame settings and ambiance, and simply doesn't support the team the way it should be, and doesn't assign the resources needed.

They wont drop 200k to get guys in to fix it. Its a none issue to them. They don't see how theyre going to make more money by spending money. I'm sure Podcat asks for resources and they ask for "data", he notes problems, and they say "80/20".

Theres no desire from the top, to make this game work. They have Cities and Stellaris, EU and CK....we're at the back of the bus.

They could stop fixing the game at all, work on DLCs, and still make a steady stream of revenue on Steam Sales when suckers pick up HOI4 for 12 dollars for the next several years selling people Focus Trees.

That's NOT what the HOI team want. You have to remember this isnt something theyre doing TO us, its something that's happening TO them. They want what we want. An awesome game. While I find a fault with ONE design choice on Podcats part, I think the rest of his choices have been fantastic. I mean look at the production mechanics we have. That's amazing and leaps and bounds beyond HOI3.

I'm 100% convinced the HOI4 team want this game to be as awesome as we want it to be. But you can only do so much without proper support and resources. And in this business, that means CASH and CODERS.

In this business you spend cash and hire coders BEFORE release. Once a project is released you drop the team size to save money. No one ive ever heard of, hires a slew of new talent and throws money at an already released product that is treading water. They just cut and run. That's business.

 

[Sanny]

This project was a disaster two years from the release date by the way, they have never recovered to an acceptable level where enough work is being done in a reasonable amount of time. It's been more than 6 months since we've had a patch, let that sink in.

You know what Hearts of Iron IV is? The Titanic, a grand ship, built poorly and was doomed to sink.

 

[Krafty]

What if I told you I write socially relevant pieces for Kotaku.

I don't.

But I just want to know what you'd think.

But, heres a pro-tip. Glassdoor exists.

 

[Alexlazer]

God damm are you full of yourself. You know things. Which are far to broad. Either you have the professional credits and the access to back this up, or you'll go in the bin of internet rubbish.

Hey! Show some damn respect!

 

[Krafty]

Its alright. He's ruffled because he has passion for the game, and thinks I was attacking something he cares about. I wasnt, but I can empathize with his discontent. I don't want him, or you, getting warnings or bans or anything because of a reaction to something I said.

Be excellent to each other y'all.

 

[JerkyJerry]

I used to be getting warnings, probation, tattled tailed on because I was so quick to defend my boys however I have not been moved to do so in months now. I have always considered myself a PDX & Podcat fanboy however lately I'm finding it more and more difficult to defend them.

I'm just not a fan of the business model. Take what has to be one of the most complex games the world has ever seen, (with the least amount of graphics/action) and mimic the worlds largest war (I guess I really don't know ) with the fewest staff members possible. Fewest? While I am not a computer programmer I am thinking that taking the most complex war & game ever (or in the top 5% for both) and try to make it 100% historically accurate with the bare minimum of staffing is IMHO doomed from the start. I say this with all the information available to me both here on this forum and what I have accrued in my lifetime.

Another business decision example that I do not agree with is DoD/Oak. Yugoslavia? No offense to Yugoslavia or anyone from there or a fan of that country, this is not about Yugoslavia per se it could be about any other country except: America. What % of game purchasers of the 500,000+ copies are American? During the video presentation what was the % of people that play America? How many play Yugoslavia? Less than 1%? Another business question I ask myself is how many additional copies are going to be sold with a Yugo improvement compared to an America that was fixed updated?
Again no offense to Yugo or Yugo'ians however when does the bulk of purchaser's and the most major of all major nations of WWII receive improvements? Either directly or indirectly. I'm not saying that DoD/Oak is not going to be good just not the business direction I would have gone in. I would have recognized that the most important country, in the worlds most important war, with the most purchasing dollars (already spent) and to be potentially spent would have required the love it so deserves.
Can we have a D-Day? Ever? When I'm playing Germany can't America be improved upon (rather than DoD/Oak) so that there is a D-Day? Or when I'm playing America can't there be a reason for me to ramp up for a D-Day invasion without the war being basically over by then? I'll just add there is more to add when one considers America and the war in the pacific.

Another area where less is not more is with simple fixes. Things like spelling errors, decimal point corrections, and numerous other graphical or none game play issues that are reported and as of yet have not addressed.
The inability to address loyal customer's requests (which have been recognized by PDX staff that should be changed) but due to staffing/time "we will put that on our back burner, again."

I guess for me I'm more disappointed in the business model being used than anything else. I guess I can't get my head around a business model that does not get the majors 100% correct, playable, or is PDX's focus of the entire game; as those countries were the entire war, rather than trying to make happy the players that make up the less than 1% that either play the You-go's or purchase the game.

 

[Krafty]

I feel you. To me I put the business model in one hand, and 'the guys' in the other, and never shall the two meet.

My discontent with the business, isn't discontent with the team. The team is awesome. Theyre great guys. They do great work. They are however, just employees. Accountability lies at the top imho. A design decision that doesn't work, sure that's on Podcat, but patching, DLC, releases, pricing, advertising, community outreach/management, etc etc, are not his decision, or the teams decision. They can influence, they can ask, but at the end of the day, they tow the line, because they have too. Even if they don't want too.

Case in point, practically starting over from scratch a year before a set in stone release date. If they had considerably more resource and way less pressure to release a product, we would have a different scenario right now. But at the end of the day, no matter how much passion you have for a project, it is still 'just a product'.

If you have 3 months of work that takes 30 guys to complete, but you have to have it done in two months with 15 guys....

Walp.

Its not that they don't care, its that they have to triage. A spelling error gets an M on the forehead, whereas a crash or bugged focus, gets the medical attention. They have far more problems than there are hours in the day.

I think people just need to see, if 1.4 doesn't fix things, is that theres going to be a real change of direction. That resources, time, money, etc, are going to devoted in adequate supply to actually solve the problems.

If we're just going to keep on the same path, assuming 1.4 doesn't drastically improve the situation, then I think theres going to be a plethora of validly upset customers. If that's the case, we definitely need a new direction, which includes the support the team needs to actually fix the problems.

Or 1.4 makes considerable progress. While my expectations are low, its clear that the team understands what problems are the worst problems, and are doing what they can to fix those problems or mitigate those problems (see No Mans Land inclusion, something they didn't want to do), so I know its just a matter of resources and time. Theyre aware of whats wrong and are actively working to fix it, and have shown theyre able and willing, to change course if they cant find a reasonable solution. Theyre learning to work with their limited resources.

Theyre a great team.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I had to ask the man himself about it, and the answer made very clear to me that I should go play other games. Here are the quotes:

Look closely to what I asked and what he answers. Podcat a) talks about stuff I specifically said are not a concern ("pleasing everyone"); b) hints that "player skills" are the problem; c) hides behind "telemetry numbers" and "people who played 1k hours" (I did not play 1k hours btw). Seeing such a dodgy answer like that demolished my trust completely. "Air revamp" that turned out to be a UI change and the DLC about the countries that people barely play.. It all fits. Podcat and his team don't deserve my trust. Nor faith. Not anymore. Doesn't mean I don't want HOI4 to be great, but these people, no, I no longer trust. Surprisingly, or, should I say, paradoxically, Stellaris team, on the other hand, earned my trust. Stellaris is not perfect but it's an actual game, not beta/early access quality hearts of generic ferrum. That's how I see it.

Ouch. That is some high-grade corporate BS spin-doctoring. All it needs is a couple stock phrases about how great the game is right now...