Wake Up!

[Tortuga Power]

Well, as I said, no one is accusing anyone of being a pirate. Unless you can specifically quote an example that I didn't catch here.
...
Even most of the responses on the "Your Top 5 Issues" thread offer no explanation as to how to fix certain issues, or even get into the specifics of what those issues are.

I agree that the responses to the "Your Top 5 Issues" thread were mostly without specifics. I'm not sure how many people actually read through Kallocain's post before replying, to be honest. But there were still many good contributions, and there are many people who do not understand enough about how a game is made to post anything beyond the superficial "the tactical AI is bad". I tried to make my post as helpful as possible.

And, yes yes, we can play cheeky by saying "no one has accused anyone"... In fact, I never accused anyone of accusing anyone! :rofl: Mind you, almost all of the forum members and all but one moderator have treated me with respect (why, I haven't the foggiest!), but it was a defensive reflex I hope you understand.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Sorry, but, I totally disagree. What registering does is allow Paradox to have sway over you and your posts and your game support and causes the customer grief on getting support if/when they get banned for whatever reason. I've had three friends already who DID register the game and gave honest opinions of the game get banned. They called them trolls which is pretty easy to generalize a definition of what it is. Anybody who doesn't say nicey nice or gives too much negative feedback is called a troll here by the Moderators and thus issued warnings and bans. So, the smart gamer will never register their game here as if you do and get banned you lose all online support priveledges and that's pretty wrong imho. They force them to use email support afterwards and there is little to no support from that or it is very slow. It's bad enough they release such sloppy product, but, then to ban them from support as well because they are pissed off? lol I really wonder who Paradox think they are?

I've been critical of the game, and even critical of EU:Rome, and yet I've never been called a troll or been infracted even once.

They don't control me any more than they control you. I'm not scared of being banned, but I can easily make my point without violating forum rules.

Edit: If you get issued a warning, that means STOP. If you keep going or question that warning in public, you WILL be banned.

If that has ever happened to you, then you should have done the right thing and PMed the mod, or gone over their head and PMed an admin.

I mean the CEO of the company has placed his e-mail address here numerous times so angry customers can contact him directly.

Name one other company that does that!

How can you expect people to listen to you if you don't act in a civil manner? And that's not a mark against you, because your response was quite civil.

If King came in here and just screamed at everyone who said something bad about the game would you even take him seriously?

Of course not! So why expect the same in reverse?

 

[MontanaPrussian]

I've been critical of the game, and even critical of EU:Rome, and yet I've never been called a troll or been infracted even once.

They don't control me any more than they control you. I'm not scared of being banned, but I can easily make my point without violating forum rules.

Exactly. I have been critical also,but I also maintain proper decorum by not insulting others or making unfounded accusations.

Could that be the difference???

 

[VetMax]

I did play the game extensively during testing. However you are missing the point of the post. Things like AI imrpovements and game speed are not absolutes. It is not like we will suddenly produce an AI that will have the whole forum going this great. What we are aiming for in the next patch is an AI that performs better and although there may be things about the AI that still annoy you, we hope that you will see an improved AI.

Personaly i am not intersted in AI or speed absolutely (in fact not absolutely but there are some much more importat problems i think - too much LoTR for adult).

 

[Tortuga Power]

People come here, people post, and registration is not a requirement. However the person with the unregistered game I took issue with started to imply all sorts of hidden agendas with the patch and things like that. I draw the line at that.

I understand. For the record, I was offended by the posts that you mentioned with their... blazen disrespect. I'll follow your example by not getting personal, but you can probably imagine a couple words I'd like to say to a person like that (and neither of them is "happy" "birthday").

Just like I mentioned in my most recent above post, it was a defensive reflex, and all my text, in hindsight, was probably not necessary in the end.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Personaly i am not intersted in AI or speed absolutely.

And that's another problem.

For some people the game speed is fine and not an issue, and perhaps the way they play the game means that the game is still interesting and challenging to play for them.

You can't please everyone with every patch.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

I understand. For the record, I was offended by the posts that you mentioned with their... blazen disrespect. I'll follow your example by not getting personal, but you can probably imagine a couple words I'd like to say to a person like that (and neither of them is "happy" "birthday").

Just like I mentioned in my most recent above post, it was a defensive reflex, and all my text, in hindsight, was probably not necessary in the end.

There IS a PM option.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

The forum rules don't apply to registered game owners any differently than non-registered, either can be banned if they're disrespectful enough which is really the crux of the issue. There are a lot of people out there who have no respect for others and can't make their points in a mature manner and I for one agree with banning people who behave like that. I absolutely support those people who can bring useful criticism to the devs attention so we can all benefit from better games.

 

[Tortuga Power]

Yes and no, it some ways it acutally makes it easier because you do not have to have the AI constantly diverge from its best plan to go do something historical but, in the current game context, stupid. However in HoI3 we added steering scripts and refined them and will continue to do so.

Strategic AIs are harder than you think but there are a couple of things we are working on. With regards to the UK, we are currenlty looking at not sending the entire UK home forces off to the Chanel Islands in a death glory style defence. If the UK AI can stop doing that then hopefully the UK will be a tougher nut to crack, Doomdark is on this. Regarding Japan in China there is the two part problem that the AI reinforces beachheads without regard to port capcity, Doomdark is on this too, however there is also the interesting little issue that once you sieze a port in China the supply net stops trying to draw supply from Manchuria, I have sent a save game off to Johan and he is looking into this one.

In an effort to draw this topic back to the really cool comments, I would like to ask about these aspects of the AI. People, probably the OP included, are reacting harshly to the present AI, but I was under the impression was that Paradox initially wanted to design a generic AI that would be used for every nation and would automatically optimize for that country, whoever it was. If I am not mistaken, it was supposed to be much more adaptable to new countries than, for example, the HOI2.**

I am sure that SOME nation-specific scripting had to be added to make WW2 start off at least somewhat historical. But with the new little bugs found in the game (like the two you mentioned, like England's defense), is the proposed solution to prop-up individual nation's AI to fix these things, or do you go back to the drawing board and figure out where the generic AI failed?

(I also want to applaud Paradox for this approach, it is exactly the same approach I take professionally -- go for the ideal, and then add prop-up fixes when the ideal shows its imperfections)

**If this is completely wrong, kindly ignore my question.

 

[Dimes]

Sorry, but, I totally disagree. What registering does is allow Paradox to have sway over you and your posts and your game support and causes the customer grief on getting support if/when they get banned for whatever reason.

I think the problem here might not be what you say but how you say it. Well not you, but your friends who got banned. The people I have seen being even warned for anything in these forums have usually been posting very rude swearing posts, acting like internet tough guys or breaking other forum rules.

I have never even heard of anyone here having issues with mods or devs for just saying that they are unhappy with the product they bought. If they can say it in a way that abides by the forum rules.

But, I guess, people need to read (and understand) forum rules before they post. Or at least use some common sense

I also want to thank King for taking the time to actually answer posts here on Christmas Eve; Merry Christmas

 

[TheLoneGunman]

In an effort to draw this topic back to the really cool comments, I would like to ask about these aspects of the AI. People, probably the OP included, are reacting harshly to the present AI, but I was under the impression was that Paradox initially wanted to design a generic AI that would be used for every nation and would automatically optimize for that country, whoever it was. If I am not mistaken, it was supposed to be much more adaptable to new countries than, for example, the HOI2.**

I am sure that SOME nation-specific scripting had to be added to make WW2 start off at least somewhat historical. But with the new little bugs found in the game (like the two you mentioned, like England's defense), is the proposed solution to prop-up individual nation's AI to fix these things, or do you go back to the drawing board and figure out where the generic AI failed?

(I also want to applaud Paradox for this approach, it is exactly the same approach I take professionally -- go for the ideal, and then add prop-up fixes when the ideal shows its imperfections)

**If this is completely wrong, kindly ignore my question.

Well the good thing about HOI3 is that a lot of the AI can be managed with the new lua script system they've enabled for modders.

If you go in there, there are a few nation-specific bits.

For Germany, these are things like:

1. Do not allow Austria to join the Axis or form an alliance with Austria (so the AI can get the Anschluss decision).

2. Do not declare war on Sweden if they are trading metal with you or give you military access.

3. Declare war on Belgium if at war with France (otherwise the German AI would try to simply breakthrough the Maginot Line).

There are a few others, but that's about the extent.

 

[Vhorthex]

They don't control me any more than they control you. I'm not scared of being banned, but I can easily make my point without violating forum rules.

Edit: If you get issued a warning, that means STOP. If you keep going or question that warning in public, you WILL be banned.

If that has ever happened to you, then you should have done the right thing and PMed the mod, or gone over their head and PMed an admin.

A voice of reason, well said.

I don't think that any post, be it for or against HOI 3, which respected forums rules would ever get banned. The problem is, like you just said, that people will get angry when they receive a warning and will attempt to publicly denounce it and thus signing up for the "ban" wagon.

I've had my own disappointments with the game, but rather then entrench myself in anger. I tried to reach out and help. I mean, what good will it do to post nonconstructive rants? Sure it probably feels good for a few minutes, but then what?

And anyways, at my total surprise around launch time, PI even offered REFUNDS to those who felt outraged. Then again, some seemed to prefer to have an end battle on the forums and get banned, rather then get their money back? I was really puzzled. Maybe it has something to do with Bon Jovi's song about going down in a Blaze of Glory?

As long as someone keeps their post clean, you can say whatever you like in terms of what you expected of the game or what you don't like about it. It's when it turns personal that things get ugly.

Hope everyone can huddle up and sing holiday songs.

Happy Holidays to you all!

 

[crusaderking]

u know, i actually like the ideas of HOI3 alott....i bought the game, played it a bit and threw it away, thinking it was trash ( dont kill me...read through ma post completely )....then i went through it again after finishing a few other games....and believe me, PI did a wonderful job...absolutely marvelous....for those of you whiners there, have u thought of how hard they work to actually make this game???? sure they could have done an AoD and called it HOI2 war gods....but no, they made a new game with brand new ideas....can u name even 1 game which has theoretical and practical aspects of technology????
c'mon guyz, no game is good on release (or even after a few patches for a game as massive as HOI3) but they are putting in the effort to cater to our needs...we the players have to stop complaining and instead act in a more mature way by giving them valid and reasonable suggestions...anyone with me????

 

[King]

In an effort to draw this topic back to the really cool comments, I would like to ask about these aspects of the AI. People, probably the OP included, are reacting harshly to the present AI, but I was under the impression was that Paradox initially wanted to design a generic AI that would be used for every nation and would automatically optimize for that country, whoever it was. If I am not mistaken, it was supposed to be much more adaptable to new countries than, for example, the HOI2.**

I am sure that SOME nation-specific scripting had to be added to make WW2 start off at least somewhat historical. But with the new little bugs found in the game (like the two you mentioned, like England's defense), is the proposed solution to prop-up individual nation's AI to fix these things, or do you go back to the drawing board and figure out where the generic AI failed?

(I also want to applaud Paradox for this approach, it is exactly the same approach I take professionally -- go for the ideal, and then add prop-up fixes when the ideal shows its imperfections)

**If this is completely wrong, kindly ignore my question.

The proposed solution is to fix the generic AI. If the British AI should be abandoning the chanel islands because it is a lost cause then there are probably other situations where other AIs should be doing the same. So we identify a set of paramaters that define a lost cause then tell the AI to withdraw. Only should that fail will resort to hard coded scripting.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

The proposed solution is to fix the generic AI. If the British AI should be abandoning the chanel islands because it is a lost cause then there are probably other situations where other AIs should be doing the same. So we identify a set of paramaters that define a lost cause then tell the AI to withdraw. Only should that fail will resort to hard coded scripting.

While improving the generic AI is a great goal, I feel that there are reasons to have some slightly varied AIs.

The UK and Germany both having the same Naval AI wouldn't make sense for one.

Or the Japanese and the Germans having the same Army AI.

And unfortunately, I don't think that the generic AI is at a level yet where it can determine as Germany that the only way it can successfully fight the Royal Navy is by commerce raiding and u-boats, and that the UK AI would recognize that it has naval superiority against Germany and use that to successfully blockade Germany and prevent a Sea Lion from occurring.

Hell, the Germans shouldn't even be trying a Sea Lion unless they've somehow achieved a better than average upper hand in the naval war to begin with.

 

[King]

While improving the generic AI is a great goal, I feel that there are reasons to have some slightly varied AIs.

The UK and Germany both having the same Naval AI wouldn't make sense for one.

Or the Japanese and the Germans having the same Army AI.

And unfortunately, I don't think that the generic AI is at a level yet where it can determine as Germany that the only way it can successfully fight the Royal Navy is by commerce raiding and u-boats, and that the UK AI would recognize that it has naval superiority against Germany and use that to successfully blockade Germany and prevent a Sea Lion from occurring.

Hell, the Germans shouldn't even be trying a Sea Lion unless they've somehow achieved a better than average upper hand in the naval war to begin with.

Well I am not an expert of the how the AI works, you'll see the theatre AI start asking for submarines. It does this because it knows* that there are large number of enemy convoys near by. Thus it wants submarines to go attack them. Thus the German theatre AI will generate a much higher number of submarine requests that the opposing British threatre AI. So generic, if done well, can give you want. However we are always looking to improve this.


* through strange AI powers not properly explained to me

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Well I am not an expert of the how the AI works, you'll see the theatre AI start asking for submarines. It does this because it knows* that there are large number of enemy convoys near by. Thus it wants submarines to go attack them. Thus the German theatre AI will generate a much higher number of submarine requests that the opposing British threatre AI. So generic, if done well, can give you want. However we are always looking to improve this.


* through strange AI powers not properly explained to me

I'm no expert either, but it seems hard to account for every possibility within the confines of a single generic AI.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

Not really, the principles that lead to advantage or victory should be universal, teaching the AI to choose which principles serves it best is harder I imagine.

** And of course the underlying systems need to work correctly for the principles to work.

 

[King]

I'm no expert either, but it seems hard to account for every possibility within the confines of a single generic AI.

The AI does have steering scripts to aid. So the German AI will be told to prepare for war with Poland for example, that is a strategic decision that we are going to froce the AI into so we give it some assistance in doing this. However the principals for attacking and defending say in land are the same. The AI alters its prefered assets according to the situation, e.g. the Italain AI likes mountian troops to watch the rench frontier because of their combat bonuses. However we feel two things are true, one we can get a lot of good out of the generic AI approach, with a little help. Two that there are still further things we could do with it.

 

[AlanC9]

The proposed solution is to fix the generic AI. If the British AI should be abandoning the chanel islands because it is a lost cause then there are probably other situations where other AIs should be doing the same. So we identify a set of paramaters that define a lost cause then tell the AI to withdraw. Only should that fail will resort to hard coded scripting.

The thing about the Channel Islands is that it's actually a pretty good place to defend, if you want a fight. You've got only one province that can attack you and that's across a strait, and your airbases and ports are close at hand. I think the UK AI is right to try and hold it. The German AI should probably just guard the strait and bomb convoys in the Channel. But to do that the German AI would need to understand that taking the CI doesn't gain them anything, and I don't have a good way to reduce that to an algorithm.