Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
The best game ai i've ever seen in a strategy game is in Ultimate general civil war, but it's definitely alone in that regard.
A good ai needs to not just be good at a game but also play the part the user wants. You don't want an ai just to be smart or hard to beat, it also has to be immersive
There's just no easy (and by that I mean cheap) way to make that
I want the UK and US to not naval invade as long as there is a normal port they can land in. If there is no port, they can start to think about naval invading(by the way, air strikes should damage a naval invasion more than it does now). They can land in any Axis held territory. The landing will be in a port, by a full army of 24 divisions most of the time, with many more in reserve. If this fails, they will land near to a port but not in it next time, and then quickly move to sieze the port. They will only attempt a landing in an area where they have naval supremacy, and they will anchor their fleet next to the combat zone once the fighting starts. They will also only attempt a landing if they have air superiority, or if the Germans have less than 100 ground attack planes, naval or tactical bombers assigned to the region. Once they have a port, the divisions will start flowing in and you have your second front.
Alternatively, I would like to see the allies trying a paratroop invasion, landing paras around a port then attacking it, and once they sieze it, they can sail their men in. This would be useful if the German player has done the Atlantic Wall focus.
Boy oh boy would I not want to be a QA tester working for Paradox. Two releases worth of "new stuff" without fixing the old mess would drive me up the wall.
The brand of this ai would then be recognized as high quality and would sell more games for the companies who pay to use them.
PS: and with a thousand frontlines
This is a great idea - could co-brand it like Dolby did for audio systems.
This is a terrible idea. It would require a true AI, and once we've created a true AI, humanity is doomed. Why do you want to destroy humanity? WHY?!?!
Seriously, good in theory, but impossible today. Google with all their billions spent can't perfect a driving car, and that has about 5 things it needs to do. Stop, go forward, go backward, turn left, turn right. Granted, it needs to take in a significant amount of input to make those decisions, but it still can't do it better than (or even as good as) a human. Yet. Getting an affordable and adaptable AI is a long way away, and would require a true AI, which would, of course, destroy humanity.
We'll finish our first enjoyable Hoi4 game and then be destroyed. Stephen Hawking was right!
Over the top blind hated? Really?
The features they added were extra fluff on top of a broken game. Chain of command is useless if the front line mechanism doesn't work.
How many threads on here and elsewhere are asking for PDS to fix the AI? Has PDS responded here or elsewhere? No.
Just stick to the facts @spike and stop the ad hominem attacks.
True AI? No you don't need that
I'm A software engineer and part time game developer. What you really want from an "AI" In game is just to play a game, which is not that hard to actually automate. I think it could even be done generically and built in such a way where you could reuse the fundamental "game playing" AI in different games.
Concepts like "objectives" and "game moves" with different "decision weights" could all be incorporated. For how does any game have any AI now? Obviously something exists, it isnt hardcoded to move troop X to location Y.
There's a MASSIVE difference between an AI for driving a car (which has video input in real time trying to avoid accidents and interpret road conditions, etc.) and simply playing a video game which can be interfaced with directly (getting data like X number of troops, a list of nations that share your ideology, neighboring regions, etc.).
Like building a spaceship to get to mars is very different than flying a kite on a string. I can build a kite.
What they added was based on customer feedback. Your entire argument is that they don't listen to their customers.
The AI improves with each iteration. I rolled back to the earliest build on my laptop, and it was a big difference. You can see what they're working on in various dev diaries (where the devs will sometimes reply), and the patch notes delineate what AI changes were made. Are you expecting them to reply on every single thread to just say, "we're working on it"?
I listed nothing but facts about the argument at hand (Paradox listening to their customers).
Regarding the "blind hatred" comment, that is easily verifiable. The large majority of your posts are how the game is broken when that is obviously not the case for the majority of users. You deride the game in almost every post. You've literally posted F Paradox (or something similar). I think any reasonable person would conclude you hate Hears of Iron 4 and Paradox. I'm sure if I looked through your post history I would probably find you admitting it (I think we had an argument a while back where you did).
Your inability to see anything positive about the devs or the game makes you blind, as evidenced by my previous post. Your claim was that Paradox never listens to its customers. I pointed out several examples where they did. And you said, no it still sucks.
The fact that I expressed how much laughter your posts elicit was probably unnecessary, and I apologize.