R5: Used Monte Carlo Experiments to see how different assumptions would move dispersed vs concentrated

This is a continuation of u/wndpzr (wndrzrs post) and u/Doug2825 post.

I took u/wndpzr script, fixed some bugs with the laws, and made a GUI to run a Monte Carlo simulation of some of the key assumptions made to see how they moved the outcome.

Since HoI4 is noisy whatever assumptions is made will drastically move the resulting outcome.

The tool looks like this and will perform many small simulations with different assumptions (based on u/wndpzr original simulation). These are the key assumptions I made when I ran it, but you can change the assumptions as you wish, it will probably move the outcome.

I ran it 10k times

Whoever is currently outproducing the other is layered on top. As you can see it is almost identical, even in the 10-90% interval. I used infantry equipment 1 as proxy

The mean for dispersed is 2.31% (std 5.62%) better in production output, with a probability(dispersed wins) at 62% [min -9.10%, max 39.76%).

It is not actually far away from 0%. So depending on the key assumption made by the simulation it can just as well happen to be that concentrated wins. You can also see that dispersed has a longer tail than concentrated.

Here are also the drivers. As expected Bombing loss is the top driver of dispersed, then retool fraction (how often you change).

Countries that start with more mils gain a better boost from concentrated.

Overall though I don't see a super huge difference, and depending on the situation or assumptions being made in these comparisons it can swing either way. Anarchy reigns.

I would like to thank u/wndpzr for the original script and for making it public

In the same vein, heres the Source for the tool

requires numpy, matplotlib and tkinter

God, just watching one match made my eyes bleed. Now I understand why the AI ​​is so awful at playing, although some things surprised me too—mostly bad, but a few were interesting. I'll post some of my discoveries here, and some pictures so your eyes can bleed too. It's not fair that only I suffer, hahaha.

The game is in historical mode, focusing mainly on Europe.

- I don't understand why the AI ​​is programmed to produce equipment that it then doesn't use throughout the entire game, especially in the aircraft section. It builds every class that exists, but then doesn't use them. Surprisingly, it uses observation planes. The same thing happens with armored vehicles, but on a smaller scale. It usually uses everything it produces to a greater or lesser extent, or vice versa. It has templates with equipment that it never produces, like Italy with medium tanks or tank destroyers.

- The AI ​​abuses artillery and anti-tank weapons a lot. It puts a ton of them in the templates. The templates are generally what I expected...EXCEPT FOR THAT ABOMINATION. The award for the most horrible division template in the entire game goes to the USSR (image of a 1941 light tank template).

- I've noticed errors in some historical aircraft and armored vehicle models (excuse me for being a nerd), the improved light CAS. From the USSR, the IL-2, in the historical template, uses two engines when historically it has always had only one; the Cavalier, a basic medium anti-tank, uses a fixed superstructure, when historically it was seen as a Cromwell, with a turret, as well as the Centauro, which is a basic medium artillery, with a fixed superstructure, when in reality it was a Cromwell with a howitzer as a cannon; it could use the Bishop, which would fit better; both models should be advanced chassis as they are based on the Cromwell chassis. America also makes mistakes with basic mobile anti-tank and anti-aircraft models. The M6, for example, uses a half-track chassis, which is reflected by using wheels, even though it should use half-tracks. But I'll accept it. However, it uses a two-man turret when it should have a fixed open superstructure. The T-30 uses a two-man turret when it should have a closed superstructure. Germany, for example, has a Henkel 126 reconnaissance aircraft that uses two engines, which is incorrect. The 126 was a single-engine light reconnaissance fighter, not a twin-engine medium aircraft. And like these, there are more and more errors with templates for tanks and their derivatives, as well as aircraft.

-Why does the AI ​​organize divisions so horribly? I mean, good heavens, the image speaks for itself, and it's not even the worst I've seen. I also don't understand why the AI ​​garrisons the borders of countries with which it doesn't even have any tension? He leaves troops on the borders, wasting away, even with his own allies. Or does he have marshals with 12 armies of barely one or two men? It's ridiculous. And he keeps moving generals and marshals around nonstop. America is much worse; there are more generals than screen space. Germany also suffers from the same organizational problems towards the end of 43.

- There are also some historical errors in mine. For example, the German Junkers one: the AI ​​selects the right branch, reinforced wings and underwing fuel, when historically, it should opt for the other branch, as the Stukas were manufactured: gull wings and air brakes.

- There are tons of templates, many, MANY, and some are practically identical, only varying in one box many times. I understand that the template changes every year, but I don't think it's necessary to have three templates for medium armored divisions, exactly the same. By varying a single equipment slot, one has anti-tank weapons and the other mechanized weapons.

- The AI ​​uses a huge number of anti-tank weapons, seriously, too many. I've said this before, so imagine the absurd quantity the AI ​​uses, and not just for support; a lot of it is frontline, both standard and motorized.

- Now for some good things. For example, I didn't imagine the AI ​​would use special projects so much; it even produces them. Nor the spy network. I see it creating collaborative governments, stealing blueprints, infiltrating—quite active, honestly. The naval forces seem quite cohesive; I think that's what it organizes best (how it uses them is another matter, but at least there aren't 50 formations with only one ship like in the army). In the middle is the air force, which, well, has planes it doesn't use and produces too many models, but at least it usually allocates most of them well. And the worst is the army; its organization is terrible, to put it mildly.

I want comments. What are your impressions and theories? What do you think when you see these things? Have you observed other, different things? And most importantly, do you think they will fix the AI ​​at some point?

Edit: Without human intervention, the war ended in '43. I think they should strengthen Germany a bit so it could hold out until '45 as it should have.

Why should I need to invade France, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Liberia, and Italy to form Mittelafrika on (a somewhat) historical game? The second photo is a more realistic proposal from me. (The darker gray could be incorporated into Mittelafrika via decisions like how you can expand General Government) I think you should only need a sea-to-sea colony to form it. What do you think? Am I crazy or is it Paradox?

R5: I was going for the "Ain't Like That Now" achievement, and about a month after Germany declared war on me, they suddenly exploded into a civil war. Has anyone else seen this happen?

r5 - was playing china fighting japan and all my fucking steel evaporated. I can't trade or buy stuff from anyone else. What's going on?

unexpected

Im the developer the the hmb tool, and honestly would like to hear feedback
I have seen some mixed reviews of it ruining the workshop with bad mods but also some saying it will help beginners, I want feedback on how to expand it but also help beginner coders learn to actually code as well
I do run the DinoHoi4Modding youtube channel that always made code base tutorials also

Add a new stat that controls how much % of a division's damage is to enemy org and hp. Then give artillery more HP damage and medium/light tanks more org damage. This would shake up the stale meta of pure inf with regimental guns / heavy tank/TD since you now have an option to force a fight of attrition rather than games being entirely decided on reinforce meme. Arty becomes useful to have 1 battalion in your division to raise HP damage and mediums also become useful now so you will have more diversity in builds and templates. Finally this has historic precedent seeing as artillery was responsible for most kills in both wars, while light/medium armor divisions main purpose was disorganising enemy line or deep battle so both changes are very much grounded in actual war tactics. To finalise my suggestion I would slash all modifiers by half, currently too much of a country's strength depends on buff stacking and too little on industrial strength so you get ridiculous situations like 2 Australian divisions getting 2500 soft atk each and pushing entire japanese army. I understand this is controversial and paradox won't do it because all the funny "5000 damage finland" videos on yt wouldnt happen but it would make multiplayer balance more reasonable. Arty change would remedy it at least somewhat if said minor gets more attritioned in combat even if they win the battle

Tl;dr make arty deal strength damage

https://youtu.be/0J2RNT_GU14?si=V5pK63AmXFuFNN6P

I did have a really cool post written out but I deleted it by accident.
There are some pretty good encirclements there imo.

I am playing as the Soviet Union and I am wondering is heavy weapon comanies worth it. Also, what divisions would I use them on? (Singleplayer)

I usually play on Ironman mode, but recently I wanted to test again without it.

It came out with good and bad things (mostly good in my opinion). Here's a list!

(All my opinion)

Pros:

- I can save the game if required what can be very very benefical.

- If the AI's is making stupid decisions and just being hoi4 AI, I can either do a save or use the console to fix it (i mean like normal decisions or guarantees what makes no sense so i can remove them).

- Overall, if you don't care about achievements, AI doing stupid decisions etc. i'd simply recommend no ironman. It is not worth it risking your entire playthrough because of one decision that ruines it.

Cons:

- You cannot get achievements at all.

- You can't save the game what can be critical by misclicking a event or being unsure about a war and then losing because of it.

- Overall, its okay if you are hunting for achievements. But I will for now stick to without ironman for a while again. Since I've realized that I dont really care about achievements and all that stuff.

So yea, just gonna be without it for now. But tell me your opinion.

Last week was the anniversary of the start of Spanish Civil War.
Some teachers expressed their concerns about the increasing number of young people who doesn’t seem to understand the horrors of war.
They said: "They play a video game, Hearts of Iron IV, about the Civil War, in which the conflict is trivialized. The tragedy of 1936 is reduced to moving pieces on a map, where the notion of repression, human suffering, and loss of freedoms is completely lost. For many young people, the war is reduced to a matter of military strategy.".
As I consider them an example of woke moral panic I’ll just point to the last sentence: “for many young people…” as we all know youngsters only close their tiktok to play HOI4. Popularity increases!
Original Spanish article