There are alternatives however. Check out Gary Grigsbys games, War in the East and War in the West for example. Amazing, real war games.
Unacceptable AI
- Thread starter WaxPython
- 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.
There are alternatives however. Check out Gary Grigsbys games, War in the East and War in the West for example. Amazing, real war games.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
I personally bought the game to support them. Knowing well that it's in a bad state. I played the game in order to be able to file bug reports and write reviews, to give feedback. Seeing Podcat's remark about "majority" and "1k hour played" people complaining, that's discouraging, to say the least. I did everything I could to help them. But it appears to me that we're not on a same page somehow. Something is amiss. They're misinterpreting my gaming activity. Or even, maybe there's more misunderstanding in between? Like, when I see all their live streams, what do they promote, how do they play the game? Cltr+A divisions, assign to a front, draw an arrow, attack. Boom boom, roflstomp. Unpaused, RTS just on a grand scale? Maybe this game is actually not supposed to be made for me? I still remember that QA person being totally fine with zerghundreds of divisions in the field.. Am I even in the right place? As that dev put it, there are "many fires buring" within the game. But here you go, get some history lesson Yugoslavia Dev Diary. Ughh...
Uhm, sure. So what, should any slack be given or something?
Yeah. Those are not for everyone, tho. Because the interface sucks big time. I'm doing a WITP AE allied 1941-45 campaign right now. It's May 1942, and the Japs have taken over Port Moresby. But I managed to take out 3 of their carriers without losing a single one myself. Tedious, but worth the time.
With pending HOI4 air UI changes, it's quite relevant topic, btw. I'd rather grind through a bad UI, but with good mechanics and decent AI behind it, than go against a pretty & shiny interface but shallow mechanics and incompetent AI.
You have to acknowledge that what the AI is supposed to do in these games are fundamentally very different though.
In any of the hex based singleplayer scenario games the AI only needs to follow a fairly heavily scripted historical path using a predetermined set of units given to it, most of the time starting at the opening of hostilities.
Naturally it will be vastly superior at reproducing a very narrowly defined historical scenario then the HoI4 AI which needs to be able to manage everything from production & research priorities in 1936 to how to best deal with a Fascist Australia attacking it with Marine divisions in 1943.
It's a bit like trying to compare how many brands of beer you can find in a general store with how many you can find in a liqueur store of similar size, and finding the general store to be lacking. Ofcourse it will be lacking since it tries to do everything and has a vastly larger offering of other things.
Yes, indeed. I acknowledge that. But it is their decision to go this route. And it's up to us to provide feedback on how great it works (or not).
It happened with NATO counters and an option to disable 3d models. To remind you, initially, Podcat gave pretty specific reasoning why these features should not be in the game. Same with the unpassable terrain. I'm sure the same will happen to air regions, and many other things. But how much time should pass before it actually happens? I asked that question and you see how it went.
It's okay to try things, and it's okay to admit being wrong and to change things. Being frank about it is the only way to go, regardless.
Well, going off the dev comments in the most recent diary, the general theme for the AI fixes in 1.4 seems to be "lower your expectations." I'll give Steel Volt credit for being honest about the state of the fixes, but it's still pretty disheartening to hear that most of the biggest AI issues aren't fixed and won't be fixed anytime soon. It sounds like he's working hard on it and trying to set up a foundation to build future changes off of, but still...
To an extent this is a problem of their own creation. They are asking a lot of the AI. Having a game which is totally and utterly random is both easier and harder to create an AI for. It is easier in that the AI does not need to deal with sticky problems like a realistic Vichy, or what happens with Italian entry, but is also stretched beyond measure by playing the non-historical game and still trying to make it feel realistic. If you took a step back and asked 'how would a Communist Raj affect the world?' It would be a huge multiplicity of answers that rebounded off each other in ways that are almost impossible to predict. So you have to ditch that plan and instead be totally sci-fi about it.
If you ask for a historical AI with reality as the baseline and events along that timeline that could go in a different, but historically viable way, it still stresses the AI. How would Italy staying out of the war until 1941 affect the game? What if the Yugoslav Coup went the other way? What if Mussolini did not attack Greece? On top of these are the effects of the actual war. If Alexandria falls? If Moscow falls? If there is no Pearl Harbour or it is less/more effective? You mix these together and you have an issue for the AI at the macro level.
Then we have the whole combat issue. Or should I say issues? These cannot really be modded and we are prisoners of the efforts (or lack of same) of PDX. I am not expecting an AI that behaves like Manstein. I am expecting an AI that does not abandon critically important fronts and decides to garrison Christmas Island with an armoured division. One that does not ship unescorted troop convoys through sea areas crawling with enemy warships. One that does not start one war whilst it's troops are sat in another continent.
People's opinion that 'most people play Germany' out of choice may be wrong: they play it because it is the only way to get a game where Berlin does not fall by 1942. They may be more willing to play other Majors or all these Minors who are getting DLC if Germany could be trusted under AI to provide a degree of challenge.
K
Well, Germany is always going to be a popular pick for a World War II game because they're the most proactive of the majors; they have the biggest goals, and the most control over the pace of the game. Which means that if the AI can't run them with a reasonable degree of competence, the whole thing kind of falls apart.
Just to clarify, I love this genre of games, i love paradox interactive i think it takes a lot of effort and commitment to create a niche game like hearts of iron 4 compared to other titles which may see easier monetary gain for far less effort spent. i also apologise in advance if there are any spelling or grammatical error in my post as i'm hastily typing this in my spare time before getting back to work.
Paradox interactive must also address issues with the game ASAP before anything else, I am no programmer and i Understnsad a game of this scale has vastly complex algrothiims due to the sandbox nature of the title, but it cannot be that difficult of a task to merely have the AI keep up with up with the player to match their capabilities. For example if I have 200 divisions when i'm playing Italy i expect Germany to have a least 200 as well and not fall behind.
The game may have more features added and the ui revised but if the ai is not fixed ultimately the core issues remain and the game is fundamentally broken. A county that is fighting a war should NEVER declare war on another state that has 4x as many divisions as them that just breaks immersion more than the sandbox approach Paradox have taken with the game whether or not Luxembourgshould realistically be able to have heavy tanks and whatnot is another topic entirely.
Many would argue that calling the game fundamentally broken is a huge stretch such as on the surface it seems amazing . great performance and everything seems to work as intended. But consider this the game is meant to put us in a setting that is historically accurate and simulates how nations would behave in those circumstances. Would Germany ever declare war on the soviet union if they are losing a war on another front and have over 4x less manpower than them? Would Italy have 50 divisions for the duration of the war and stagnate? A more sandbox less historical setting is fine for the purpose of a balanced fun game but when it completely breaks immersion due to the incompetence of the Ai something that can make or break a game until it is fixed the game is as its core broken.
I'm all for Paradox to release DLC's after the AI is fixed if it cannot be done for some reason time to change the system so its more scripted or so it cheats that is more favourable than losing a game you invest hours in due to something ridiculous happening. Such as the pic I posted.
This is slightly off topic but in my area of expertise. if you look at Mazlow's hierarchy of needs which for those who don't know is a pyramid hierarchy stating that certain needs must be met before people can be motivated. Take out the motivation part and look at it from face value for example if someone is hungry they won't care about anything else until that hunger is met. Same with the AI until it is fixed Paradox should put aside other factors that can improve the game and focus on the most important. Updating the Ui is not the most important nor is adding new features. Fixing the core mechanics that immerse players and make the game fun is what is needed. Once those needs are met then paradox can move on to adding new features and whatever they want and keep going up a hierarchy so the most important issues are taken care off first and people are satisfied with the base product and will happily welcome new ways to play.
The problem I'm sure paradox are having is that there is no profit to be had with fixing the AI. If people aren't voting with their wallets which is understandable why they're not Paradox do not see it as something that is a need that needs to be fixed ASAP believe me if graphs showed that the AI adversely effected sales significantly the first thing done would be an overhaul of the AI. Stats must show that the casual gamer thinks it is fine so it is not a big need. But for the sake of the company they must make an investment to fixing the AI as if it is not seen as a priority will people be as eager to purchase hearts of iron 5? Or future titles a fix here will benefit paradox interactive in the long run. People may not like this but perhaps a compromise would be to bundle the AI updates with the DLC to justify investing in fixing the Ai.
Paradox interactive must also address issues with the game ASAP before anything else, I am no programmer and i Understnsad a game of this scale has vastly complex algrothiims due to the sandbox nature of the title, but it cannot be that difficult of a task to merely have the AI keep up with up with the player to match their capabilities. For example if I have 200 divisions when i'm playing Italy i expect Germany to have a least 200 as well and not fall behind.
The game may have more features added and the ui revised but if the ai is not fixed ultimately the core issues remain and the game is fundamentally broken. A county that is fighting a war should NEVER declare war on another state that has 4x as many divisions as them that just breaks immersion more than the sandbox approach Paradox have taken with the game whether or not Luxembourgshould realistically be able to have heavy tanks and whatnot is another topic entirely.
Many would argue that calling the game fundamentally broken is a huge stretch such as on the surface it seems amazing . great performance and everything seems to work as intended. But consider this the game is meant to put us in a setting that is historically accurate and simulates how nations would behave in those circumstances. Would Germany ever declare war on the soviet union if they are losing a war on another front and have over 4x less manpower than them? Would Italy have 50 divisions for the duration of the war and stagnate? A more sandbox less historical setting is fine for the purpose of a balanced fun game but when it completely breaks immersion due to the incompetence of the Ai something that can make or break a game until it is fixed the game is as its core broken.
I'm all for Paradox to release DLC's after the AI is fixed if it cannot be done for some reason time to change the system so its more scripted or so it cheats that is more favourable than losing a game you invest hours in due to something ridiculous happening. Such as the pic I posted.
This is slightly off topic but in my area of expertise. if you look at Mazlow's hierarchy of needs which for those who don't know is a pyramid hierarchy stating that certain needs must be met before people can be motivated. Take out the motivation part and look at it from face value for example if someone is hungry they won't care about anything else until that hunger is met. Same with the AI until it is fixed Paradox should put aside other factors that can improve the game and focus on the most important. Updating the Ui is not the most important nor is adding new features. Fixing the core mechanics that immerse players and make the game fun is what is needed. Once those needs are met then paradox can move on to adding new features and whatever they want and keep going up a hierarchy so the most important issues are taken care off first and people are satisfied with the base product and will happily welcome new ways to play.
The problem I'm sure paradox are having is that there is no profit to be had with fixing the AI. If people aren't voting with their wallets which is understandable why they're not Paradox do not see it as something that is a need that needs to be fixed ASAP believe me if graphs showed that the AI adversely effected sales significantly the first thing done would be an overhaul of the AI. Stats must show that the casual gamer thinks it is fine so it is not a big need. But for the sake of the company they must make an investment to fixing the AI as if it is not seen as a priority will people be as eager to purchase hearts of iron 5? Or future titles a fix here will benefit paradox interactive in the long run. People may not like this but perhaps a compromise would be to bundle the AI updates with the DLC to justify investing in fixing the Ai.
I am not sure if it matters that you are a programmer or not. Being one may encourage you to make excuses and be more understanding of failures. You are a customer.
If you had bought a car, and the brakes did not work, or it only turned left, or it only started one day in three, nobody would turn round to you and say; 'You can't comment, you are not a mechanic. How do you know how complicated it is to fix these things. Here, have a new paint job to make it better.' But this seems to be an approach taken by PDX and some people on this forum.
I am not sure if they had advertised this game and included all it's myriad issues: "Yes, watch as Germany sends it's army to Africa and declares war on Russia! Marvel as convoys full of men plough bravely through seas crawling with enemy ships and get sunk all the time," things would have turned out so well in sales terms. It is hard to believe that issues like this did not come up in playtesting, as they seem to come up with depressing regularity for everyone else.
So, well, why PDX, why?
K
I stop playing this game due to AI issues. I like a lot in the game but AI spoils all things. 1 year has passed by from the release of the game and a lot of things don't work properly. I hope 1.4 will make AI much better. I almost start losing a hope that the game becomes better in foreseeable future.
Man, nobody except for PDS should be paying to fix the game. It is their direct responsibility. Period.
Here's an excellent example of a good approach to adressing the public, when you release a buggy game:
http://steamcommunity.com/games/392110/announcements/detail/1262544440037165396
PDS should have come up with similar statement. Not DLCs.
Here's an excellent example of a good approach to adressing the public, when you release a buggy game:
http://steamcommunity.com/games/392110/announcements/detail/1262544440037165396
PDS should have come up with similar statement. Not DLCs.
@Khevenhuller
Because the development was reset halfway through it's life, the release was delayed a year already, they had to put together a "working" beta game to meet the new release date, left a whole list of issues for "sometime in the future", and they are still trying to allocate adequate manpower to the problem. They have a whole list of problems and ideas for "sometime in the future", a phrase that is really getting old.
SteelVolt did post in the latest DD he is finally getting another body to help with his workload. Imo for one of the games that is a flagship of your company this should have been done before release, it might have prevented a lot of bad pr and customer feelings. Another penny wise pound foolish example. They can't do anything about the past and they are doing the best they can to fix the issues asap. Hopefully 1.4 makes a big difference in quality of the so game.
Because the development was reset halfway through it's life, the release was delayed a year already, they had to put together a "working" beta game to meet the new release date, left a whole list of issues for "sometime in the future", and they are still trying to allocate adequate manpower to the problem. They have a whole list of problems and ideas for "sometime in the future", a phrase that is really getting old.
SteelVolt did post in the latest DD he is finally getting another body to help with his workload. Imo for one of the games that is a flagship of your company this should have been done before release, it might have prevented a lot of bad pr and customer feelings. Another penny wise pound foolish example. They can't do anything about the past and they are doing the best they can to fix the issues asap. Hopefully 1.4 makes a big difference in quality of the so game.
One of my worries is 'have I enough future left to see HOI4 fixed?' I am in my mid-forties now and only have two or three decades left.
I have similar hopes for 1.4, but there is already so much disquiet about it that it is tough to remain open minded. That is as a fan of HOI4.
As a customer, I do not care about the difficulties of the company, neither should I. I just want the product I bought in good faith to work properly on its own merits, never mind what i would personally want changing as an individual.
K
Actually... Weren't they suppose to do that months ago? I remember reading about it quite a while back. I just tried to search for a specific post that talks about it, but all I could find is this one:
That's December 2016.
So, if "HoI is one of the more complex strategy games", and as devs said that HoI AI is more complex than in their other games (like Stellaris), and they "keep getting new players" (read = people keep giving them money), then WHY IS THIS STILL A PROBLEM? They KNOW it's more complex, meaning it needs more man-hours to work on, they've GOT the money, and a year down the line, it's still a freaking problem.
I shiver at the thought that people might become more understanding or, God forbid, more patient.
If we can compare cars and computer programs, let me try softwares and books. You bought the first book of a series of novels. Then people complain how the vilain's motives were not revealed, there was no closure, the universe is underdevelopped, and it's been a year already. Then they say they don't care how long it takes to write the next part, they want the epic story they were promised already.
Is this a fair comparison? No, if only because some HoI4 features don't work as intended. Still, I don't think it's worse than comparing HoI4 to a car that doesn't start.
I think we all understand that this is no easy problem to fix, and I think we have all been patient in waiting a year. Often the comments of veteran PDS customers is to expect any new release to take a year or two to really mature in to a polished game. The difference of opinion here is the level of progress being made to that end. So it's not a lack of understanding or patience that is being expressed, it's a disappointment in the lack of progress on them. Which is a very subjective standard and will be different from individual to individual.
The purpose of an analogy is not always to do an apples to apples comparison, sometimes it's just meant to emphasize similarities in a general sense. I personally dislike using them because a good debater will always be able to nitpick the things that are dissimilar while avoiding the general point and truth in its purpose. If we ignore the pedantics of why analogies are not the best form of argument, and just focus on the general point I think we can all agree that a customer who has owned a product for a year, would be right in expressing disappointment in that product if the product did not meet their core expectations. PDS acknowledges that there are still serious problems with the AI, and it is not working as they intend or desire, so that to me makes those complaints generally valid. The arguments of those that complain on the other hand have to be judged individually for what they are. A bad argument for a legitimate complaint does not make the complaint less legitimate, only the argument and person complaining.
I am not sure anyone bought HIOI4 in the expectation that it was a 'work in progress'. At best you expect teething problems and issues that may have failed to come up in playtesting. I think Dalwin pointed out that it was a year behind schedule on launch. Which leaves the impression that PDX shoved it out knowing it was unready because the alternative was abandoning the project for lack of resources.
The problem is you cannot really utilise that as a marketing slogan: 'It does not work properly but it is the best we can do on the money for now' is not going to shift many units. So, we are where we are with a game that does not live up to it's billing and the constant refrain that the developers lack the resources to tackle the issues any faster than they are.
K
Every Paradox game that I have purchased since 2002 has been a "work in progress" up until the next major version of the game was released, and often free patches were released even after that.
I've never viewed it as incompetence, but as dedication.
YMMV.
I've never viewed it as incompetence, but as dedication.
YMMV.
I did. HOI3 was that way, CK2, EU3, EU4, Stellaris. My memory is too foggy on HOI1 and HOI2. I just remember enjoying them for the most part. I can also say that most of the people I know who purchase PDS games feel the same way, that it is essentially a work in progress and are happy with that mostly. I will say that HOI4 has soured this some for me that I will be far more cautious and skeptical in the future on PDS titles.
As I knew the game will had major unbalance and weakness at launch, I wished a "work in progress" game. I try to carefully choose which game I buy, which editor or licence I follow.
And I try to remember how it was in the past. Years between games iteration or expansions. More or less no patch, at least before you could found CDs in gaming magazines. And it was not free, you had to buy a magazine.
So, work in progress is something I like. More, for some games you can actually speak with the team. There is some example of the community impacting the game in a good way.
A lot of things drive me crazy in HOI4, and I didn't launch the game since 1.3.2, waiting for some more work.
But HOI (3 & 4) have the best ratio cost on time spent in game of my gaming history. It's not my favourite licence, it will probably be civ forever cause it's sentimental (I played all the civ game since the first, except Civnet), but it's in the top 5, and top 5 deserve some faith, not a blinded one, a hard to please faith, but still faith.