• 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.
AI suggestions

Here are the major AI changes that I propose:

1 - Germany. The AI often keeps gigantic stacks in Berlin for no reason, and likes to garrison the Dutch and Danish border even though they are not hostile at all.

2 - Austria. Far, far too competent. Playing as Germany, I struggled greatly against Russia, but Austria was cruising, threatening Moscow whilst I fought in Berlin. Bear in mind here that I chose NOT to implement the Schlieffen Plan. If I did, I would have a very long Western frontier to garrison, meaning the situation on the Eastern Front would be even worse.

1915austrianmadness.gif


3 - (related to 2) Russia. Perhaps these guys are focusing everything on Germany, leaving their Austrian border undefended. They are keeping stacks of 30+ in each province that borders Germany.

4 - France. I don't think much work is required here in fact, the French AI did absolutely nothing when I was playing Germany. However, the German AI is so terrible and the Russian AI so good that the Western Front just doesnt have enough men to defend it since everyone is dying fighting the Russians. Once the above issues are sorted I expect we'll see a more "accurate" France.

5 - Britain. Well what can we do here. HOI just cannot handle naval invasions. That said, I do remember the Josip mod having a very very competent American AI, I specifically remember seeing a 110 division stack in Paris. Perhaps we could get someone to do something similar for Britain? I don't have Josips mod anymore so I've lost that AI file.

Plainly put, the French and Russian mobilisation events means Germany does not have enough troops to man both fronts.
 
Last edited:
NUKER said:
Brits do NOTHING.. haven't tried playing them yet, but playing against them, I feel that they should be able to field massive army since they control the commonwealth.
Out of interest, could you check the national army comparison screen and see how many divisions they have? It could be that they have 150 infantry divisions sitting in London doing nothing. :)

France stacks in Caen???
Possibly because their AI has a limit set on the number of troops it allocates to the front with Germany (based on a ratio to German strength) and so the left-over units are held back in reserve. The sugestion to reduce halve the effectof the French mobilisation event might help here. I'd also suggest giving Germany extra starting manpower, either right at the start or as a mobilisation event.

Fortress infantry moving is just crazy hahah :rofl: fortress unit with attached arty brigade almost unstoppable early game.
Well, there were a lot of pre-war forts scattered about Europe that were virtually useless in military terms, because there were few troops and only obsolete guns defending them. Think of the moving fortress troops as transferring your resources to a different sector of the front. :) As for "unstoppable" - don't they have a zero attack factor?

Hardly any air units created.
Sounds pretty realistic, actually, although it might need a little tweaking. Or setting AI priority to researching aircraft. But we shouldn't allow the vanilla-HoI phenomenon of several stacks of 9 air units on every battlefront. In November 1918 the world's largest air force (the French), at the peak of its strength, had, in HoI terms, a grand total of 11 fighter and 5 bomber units.

Ottomans steamroll Egypt and N. Africa.
Again, reducing the Ottoman unit strengths might help here. And making many of their troops militia instead of infantry, perhaps.

I think A-H is somewhat overpowered. Although they don't start with as many techs, they do have a ton of IC's. But given Russia's current strength, it stands as ok.
They do seem to do remarkably well in all AARs we've seen so far. I suspect they may have too much manpower; whatever the theoretical population of the Dual Monarchy, they couldn't recruit troops with anything like the same freedom that nationally-homogenous countries like Germany or France did.

Seriously, by mid-1916, Russia is technologically on an equal footing with the Germans!! at least in infantry and artillery techs. CRAZY!!!

I'm not relaly familiar with WW1 battles, but aren't the Russians supposed to be pathetic??
Perhaps surprisingly, no. From what I've read the Russians were actually pretty far advanced when it came to technology. They were the first country in the world to develop a four-engined strategic bomber, their ships were usually state-of-the-art (especially their destroyers and seaplane carriers), and even on land they were pretty effective. Even the Germans sometimes grudgingly admitted that Russian tactics, use of artillery, fieldcraft, etc were better than their own. :eek: What really let the Russians down were two things, both linked: first, the higher-level organisation of their armies was very poor. This meant that however well the Russian soldiers were fighting on a local level, they might find that High Command had got them surrounded by Germans or overstretched without support.(In HoI terms this should be represented by Russia having very few high-quality leaders?). Secondly, their society and economy were even more badly organised. Russian industry was little worse than that of other countries at producing guns and ammunition, but they were then allowed to pile up in warehouses or be shipped to out-of-the-way forts and garrisons instead of to front-line troops. Even worse, the railway lines were allowed to fall into disrepair, so food was rotting in heaps in the Ukraine while in Petrograd, the factory workers were facing starvation. This is all covered by events, although perhaps they should be beefed up; and also, perhaps Russian ICs need to be reduced further. (I know this was discussed; was it actually done?)

Overall, A GREAT MOD!!! lots of work put in, great leaders, keep up the good work! now i guess just balance issues and ironing out bugs... :)
Thanks!
 
StephenT said:
Well, there were a lot of pre-war forts scattered about Europe that were virtually useless in military terms, because there were few troops and only obsolete guns defending them. Think of the moving fortress troops as transferring your resources to a different sector of the front.

Do you think they should stay in the mod as a unit? Fortresses seemed to lose their significance during and towards the end of the war...


StephenT said:
Again, reducing the Ottoman unit strengths might help here. And making many of their troops militia instead of infantry, perhaps.

How about reducing all Anatolian divisions to a strength of 90, except for two or so in Constantinople, and turn non-Anatolian divisions into militia/colonials with a strength of 50?


StephenT said:
perhaps Russian ICs need to be reduced further. (I know this was discussed; was it actually done?)

Lots of talking, but no implementation ;)
 
Stephen T, he Brits had 40 divs total. They didn't have anything in N. Africa. Fortress infantry have attack if you brigade them.. maybe take out brigaded fortress? or make it so that brigaded fortress have speed of 0. Russians need to start with a 50% dissent hit for both entering the war or not entering the war. That way, their army will suck and so will their economy, I think that will more realistically emulate their incompetence during the war while giving it potential.

Also, another thing of note, A-H gets 15% dissent hit for entering the war, is that intentional or not? Also, I think you should implement some cheats just so we can get rid of dissent hits that don't make sense. :D
 
Unfortunately, I don't think it's possibly to block brigades for a certain units. It isn't possible to use speed 0, it will always default to 1. As for the cheats, you can just use the normal ones, I think. I don't remember the random events file being pulled out, so you can just trigger a -dissent one.
 
NUKER said:
Russians need to start with a 50% dissent hit for both entering the war or not entering the war. That way, their army will suck and so will their economy, I think that will more realistically emulate their incompetence during the war while giving it potential.

And making the Russian Revolution a certainty :eek:

NUKER said:
Also, another thing of note, A-H gets 15% dissent hit for entering the war, is that intentional or not? Also, I think you should implement some cheats just so we can get rid of dissent hits that don't make sense. :D

It may be expedient to make alterations to any events that involve declerations of war.
 
Just wanna know...
If I get tired or TGW ruins HoI to run normally!!!
How do I then delete TGW, without deleting HoI???
 
Okay thanks...
It's not because I want to delete TGW!
Just in case if the game ruins the whole game and all! ;)
 
Allenby said:
Do you think they should stay in the mod as a unit? Fortresses seemed to lose their significance during and towards the end of the war...
Maybe... on the other hand, there was a very common unit type in the later part of the war called the "trench division" or "static division". Basically, this was a unit that could be relied upon to hold a trench line, but wasn't trusted for any offensive or mobile operations. They were therefore low down the priority list for equipment, training and replacements (which, of course, created a vicious circle). A fortress unit which has high defence but zero attack might well be a good emulation of this - otherwise you'd have to use Militia divisions.

To make this work, Fortress units should be fairly cheap to build, but have lower organisation than normal infantry.

How about reducing all Anatolian divisions to a strength of 90, except for two or so in Constantinople, and turn non-Anatolian divisions into militia/colonials with a strength of 50?
I was thinking of a much bigger reduction than that - more like strength 30. From the WW1 Sourcebook:
"It was estimated that of some 240,000 men annually liable for service, about half were exempted and only about 70,000 of the remainder actually served...Christians and Jews were prohibited from combat service.
"In peacetime a Nizam (Regular) division [was] theoretically 15,500 strong, rising to 19,000 in wartime...Such strengths were rarely attained: the 23rd Division in Albania, for example, actually numbered 6,000 men, one-third of whom were conscripts of less than a year's experience...none of the three Armies in Palestine at the end of the war were stronger than a British division."

Alternatively, delete every second division in the OOB, make the remaining units 60 strength and rename them "Corps". (But withthe same statistics as a division of any other country).
 
I attempted to invade Belgium as Germany. I also wrote a German mobilisation event giving 30 infantry.

Oh dear.

I was able to keep the Russians at bay, I lost Colmar, and could NOT take Brussels from Belgium.

24 divisions, in 2 army groups, 1 led by Ludendorff the other by Moltke.

versus 5 Belgians led by King Albert.

Barely beat them to take Arlon.

But Brussels? No way. That damn river gives a hefty penalty to my troops and its surely a bitch trying to take out those damn Belgians (remember I've got the French stacking 30 units about to invade fortressless Colmar........I think Colmar needs level 2 fortress like Strasbourg).

Belgium has too many fortress infantry which are very difficult to take out, and they have an uncanny ability to fast build militia divisions.

We'll have to dumb down Belgium - lower manpower.
Just imagine, 5 Belgian divisions beat off 24 Germans in Brussels.

How the hell can you expect the Western Front to form if the Germans cannot even get past Belgium? By the end of 1914 I was stuck on the Belgian front, and abandoned Arlon to shorten my frontline which was getting dangerously low on manpower thanks to the crazy French stacks.

As for the German AI, Belgium always take Koln because the AI doesnt fortify the Belgian front (since Belgium doesnt start off as an enemy) and when the Schlieffen Plan event happens the DOW fires. Belgians then walk into an undefended Koln.

Battle of the Marne? More like Battle of the Rhine.
 
Previously I described what would happen if Germany had won WW1, and the annexation of belgium and eastern France. As I say, Holland would probably have been incorporated into germany, ESPECIALLY if the Schlieffen Plan was implemented in full. Therefore a 'Holland has been defeated' event would seem 'realistic'.

A-H does seem to do very well against Russia in my games as well, but being beaten back all the way to Berlin without implementing the Schlieffen plan? That seems like very poor generalship to me!

:)
 
StephenT said:
Maybe... on the other hand, there was a very common unit type in the later part of the war called the "trench division" or "static division". Basically, this was a unit that could be relied upon to hold a trench line, but wasn't trusted for any offensive or mobile operations. They were therefore low down the priority list for equipment, training and replacements (which, of course, created a vicious circle).

Are these units in the same spirit of the 'attack', 'assault' and 'trench' divisions used by the Germans in 1917/8?

StephenT said:
Alternatively, delete every second division in the OOB, make the remaining units 60 strength and rename them "Corps". (But withthe same statistics as a division of any other country).

Best just to keep the formations as they are, but to just reduce their strength....the Turks were big on pretending that something the size of a brigade was a division. ;)
 
Allenby said:
Are these units in the same spirit of the 'attack', 'assault' and 'trench' divisions used by the Germans in 1917/8?
That's where I got the phrase "trench division" from.
I believe that the British weren't as formal or organised about it as the Germans (naturally... :) ) but GHQ still had a firm concept of which divisions were "elite" (eg 9th Scottish, 18th Eastern, 36th Ulster, 51st Highland, 63rd Royal Naval, and the ANZACs and Canadians) and would see more than their fair share of attacking, and those which were "duds" and should be left out of any offensive plans.
 
StephenT said:
That's where I got the phrase "trench division" from.
I believe that the British weren't as formal or organised about it as the Germans (naturally... :) ) but GHQ still had a firm concept of which divisions were "elite" (eg 9th Scottish, 18th Eastern, 36th Ulster, 51st Highland, 63rd Royal Naval, and the ANZACs and Canadians) and would see more than their fair share of attacking, and those which were "duds" and should be left out of any offensive plans.

How about a tech advance that creates two new models of infantry division, to go alongside the bog-standard one? 'Attack' infantry could be quicker and a higher soft attack rating but consume greater supplies, and the 'trench' infantry divisions could be slower, have high defence ratings, but extremely low attack ratings.
 
You have to think about the AI in this. It will only build one of them. Which one depends on which has the highest model number.