the AI is too retarded and modern strategy games developers should be ashamed.

[Mr.l]

first of all, i just feel the need to express how disappointed i am by modern strategy games developers.
I had the fortune to play several early 2000 strategy games like american conquest and impervm, and i think that modern games can't just hold a damn candle to those development teams, expecially to heamimont games.

those "early strategy games", like the third entry in the imperium series, were often rushed and perform by minor teams, and yet always managed to posses an astonishing level of gameplay thanks to the excellent AI.

american conquest AI is just relentless, never gives you a brek, while imperium AI was on an almost human level, it was literally one of the few games were you could actually learn tactics by observing the artificial intelligence acting, and then copying it.

the developers rushed the ♥♥♥♥ out of that game, and yet they managed to give it an AI that was capable of
1: understanding its needs, and acting based on those
2:evaluating the unit's value, in order to understand when it has an advantage, when it is time to flee, and deciding wich unit is better to sacrifice to grant the survival of the most valuable ones.
3:actually being aware of what is going on, in order to understand when it is time to act and how.

boys they did this with an extremely low budget and with a tight timer.

this crap can't compare with it in any way.


i was once playing with germany, it was one of my first games, i was fighting the soviet union on my own.
meanwhile Italy on it's own decides to attack Yugoslavia, he evidently forgot to place soldiers on the border with France and got raped in like 30 seconds i believe.

so we have an AI that has no awareness, acts randomly like a rabid dog, it was clear that the allies would have whooped it's ass, and yet it still did it; not only that but it left the entire flank with France exposed!
and this ♥♥♥♥ is considered a "top dog" of strategy games.

in imperium the AI would never let his fortresses undefended, it always reacts quickly when a fort or village is being conquered, it has patrol going on, and when it gets besieged, it will stop all other operations to save the city.

but that's not all.

Right after getting beaten, italy, with no army, decides to declare war on another allied faction, and in the 3 seconds it lasted, it joined the commitern, and the soviet union joined wars, even tho it was alerady at war with me!
so it just got at war with nazis and allies together!

in my last game,as the soviets, i gave the chinese a lot of weapons in land lease to keep the ♥♥♥♥ away from me as i was planning on taking on Germany once it gets at war with the allies.
everything goes according to plans, Germany declares war on the allies, and i sandwich it.
Even better! France left the allies and became communist. excellent.

a few months afther germany was defeated, the allies end up in a war with Japan, that has been at war with China for 5 years, and still wasn't near defeating them.
i declare war on the allies since i know that in the late game they get strong since every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ body joins them, and poor japan couldn't even beat the chinese on it's own.

Japan is barely holding on, but i was going strong with 15 millions in reserve and a positive kill death ratio.
slowly i was taking on all of Europe, but then Japan, that was strugggling a lot, and could barely hold on on the chinese coast, decided to just declare war on France, France despite being communist, decides to join alles and i found myself at war with France with my armies all in a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ position.

so japan, that is losing, just decided to get in even more wars with more majors powers, why the ♥♥♥♥ would he do that.

We literally have an AI that can not EVALUATE anything.
it's just a broken script written with the ass.

and bullcrap like this happens in almost every match, and the other "top dog" in strategy games, the total war Saga, is not that much better from an AI prospective.

[coffeemm8]

HOI4 is like a million times more complex than American Conquest lol

[coconut eater]

i agree with this

[mk11]

Three points:

1. The AI is bad
2. If the AI was good it would be unbeatable for most players simply because of the advantage of knowing all the rules and being able to react instantly to anything anywhere is a major advantage
3. Historically, there were some extremely bad evaluations made by the real-world leaders (Japan DoW on USA, Germany DoW on USA, USSR basing forces at the border rather than a defence in depth, USSR attacking Finland with minimal forces).

[Lepidus Stupidius]

It's just realistic. Why? People are really stupid.
-Italy's was actually that incompetent in real life. Couldn't even take greece.
-If a country(Commie France) feels in danger, then of course they are going to the join the enemy of their new enemy, despite ideology. Happened for a while with the Allies and the soviets.
-It's possible someone declared war on Japan, and it wasn't their fault.

Edit: Also, possibly one of the reasons the AI seems better in older games is because the game itself was simpler. Simple Game=Simple AI. I haven't played them, but few 4K games are as complex as paradox games.

[Reaper King]

Sorry man but it appears you have stage 4 lack of skill and stage 3 coping. The Ai is actually incredibly balanced with each nations having modifiers, posistives and negatives to create memorable experiences that while challenging are beatable. If every singe nation in the game was as competent as the player is if not better you could never succeed as germany. Like ever. Nor could you win as any of the nations other then the Democratic allies because the USA would simply steamroll all. The USA as is already horrendously broken and can quickly make games were you are playing as a minor nation unwinnable if they are allowed to join the war and given the time to ramp up.

If you want to experience what happens when you only have competent ai just go play mulitplayer. This game has a vibrant if toxic MP base. Just go their. But don't come crying when you get flamed

[Dermot]

Expert Ai mod

[TasteDasRainbow]

Definitely not perfect. That being said, in terms of what's available on the market, it quite literally is the best you can do.

Don't like that? Make your own better title if it's so overtly easy. Until then, take a step back and realize you're just a mindless consumer with wild expectations.

[TheCr33pur]

Its funny, most players out there esp Paradox fans thinks this is a great WW2 game, well it stinks as single player, but the most good reviews came from multiplayer fans. Unless just plain idiots doesnt know what they are talking about.

Sadly the AIs is terrible, i really dont know which best HoI Series there is, to me this is the worst game i ever played from Paradox, even with almost all DLCs that they promise to keep polishing over the years. Idk if they are lack of creative skills or not doing enough work on this project.

[G.I. ROBOT]

Single player is a puzzle game where you set your own goals, multiplayer is a chaotic maelstrom of Role playing

[Benny]

The more mechanics the game have, the worse the ai will seem. I recommend giving it a chance, i normally allow it to encircle me and then i can try and break out of the pockets and pretend im fighting a dangerous enemy. Or delete half my troops when barbarossa starts etc.

[SteahmChip]

Автор сообщения: mk11

...USSR basing forces at the border rather than a defence in depth, ....

Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany from the rear in July 1941, only a few weeks after the date on which the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union took place. According to Suvorov, the Red Army had already redeployed from a defensive to an offensive stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

This point is rather interesting, with a book researching that Soviet deployment resulting in lots of zesty back and forth about it to say the least:

Viktor Suvorov with his 1980s book Icebreaker:
Who started the Second World War? He argues, based on his analysis of historical documents and data, that Stalin used Nazi Germany as a proxy to attack Europe as an opportunity to spread communist revolutions throughout the continent.
Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany from the rear in July 1941, only a few weeks after the date on which the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union took place. According to Suvorov, the Red Army had already redeployed from a defensive to an offensive stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

@Mr.l
As earlier mentioned
Expert AI
(a comprehensive and heavywieght AI, rather tough to mod if so inclined)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=741805475

Better AI
(do not know much about it, have to try an AI vs AI game to see what happens)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=822874218

Improved AI Research
(been trying this one and AI builds MOAR TANKS!
In my view, since NSB, AI has been building less tanks overall).
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1630725171

Also, if you notice if a country is perennially too weak, if Germany / Italy /Japan / USSR dies too soon and you want a strong opponent, you can boost them a bit in the options/settings before the game starts. Its not really making the AI play smarter, but at least it helps them last longer if that is what you are finding.

[Professor of Dorkisme]

Paradox games, in my opinion, have the worst AI of any game, maybe the "total war" AI is just as bad, its a cointoss ... It has something to do with the concept of the game design. Instead of building the game around an AI they design a game and add the AI as an afterthought.

Firaxis make good game AIs, their SID MEIERS GETTYSBURG and XCOM games where/are actually a challange at times.

Ive given up on these kind of games. its all bling and no pride in making an epic game any more. The faster these companies die the better for smaller developers.

[kenzie apple puppy love flower]

Автор сообщения: mk11

Three points:
3. Historically, there were some extremely bad evaluations made by the real-world leaders (Japan DoW on USA, Germany DoW on USA,)

>embargo 80% of Japan's oil because they occupied parts of Indochina to cut off Chinese aid
>Japanese come negotiate
>demand they withdraw from all of China
Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing, as if having kill-on-sight orders for German submarines in the Atlantic wasn't enough. Keep selling them oil and no pearl harbor.

Автор сообщения: Mr.l

words words words

Play MP

[mk11]

Автор сообщения: Thoughtfall

Автор сообщения: mk11

Three points:
3. Historically, there were some extremely bad evaluations made by the real-world leaders (Japan DoW on USA, Germany DoW on USA,)

>embargo 80% of Japan's oil because they occupied parts of Indochina to cut off Chinese aid
>Japanese come negotiate
>demand they withdraw from all of China
Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing, as if having kill-on-sight orders for German submarines in the Atlantic wasn't enough. Keep selling them oil and no pearl harbor.

Автор сообщения: Mr.l

words words words

Play MP

Of course, Roosevelt knew what he was doing. However, the way Germany and Japan responded was the sort of bad decision to start a war that the OP refers to the AI making.

[Zorlond]

Автор сообщения: mk11

2. If the AI was good it would be unbeatable for most players simply because of the advantage of knowing all the rules and being able to react instantly to anything anywhere is a major advantage

This is a lie apologists keep repeating over the years.

Game developers don't make good AIs because they never bother to try to. It really is that simple. They get one guy, pay him to work on AI for a month, then fire him and use whatever he managed to crap out that fast (usually a copy/paste of the last AI he made, which was a copy/paste of a copy/paste...). Meanwhile the game continues to change and outgrow that AI, but it's left to rot until launch. This is SOP for game development. They might bother a minor AI patch later, but that's only a maybe.

It's been like this for years.