The AI values war exhaustion a bit more than it should, I think. I had a string of 50 years where I was at or near maximum war exhaustion, and every time I made peace with my current enemies, a new minor would DoW me.Richard Head said:
A Grand List of AI Problems with the hope they will be fixed
- Thread starter JScott991
- Start date
-
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.
It would seem you are too strong then. I have been attacked by Aragon as Castile, by Persia as the Ottomans and by France as Denmark... All while waging large wars elsewhere.JScott991 said:
You seem very keen on targetting the betatesters... If Paradox work like any other game developers around they have plans for development that aren't public, and non-diclosure agreements with betatesters meaning they can't comment or talk about it.
As for the suggestions... They will have to be implementable. In your initial post you are on one side complaining about too agressive AI (agains minors) and on the other about too passive AI (against majors). It is clear, IMO, that is has to do with evaluating chances of success (cost/benefit). What is not clear to me (and not many others either, based on this thread) is how these evaluations should be changed...
Richard Head said:
You can not see the distinction in arguing that the AI behaves too aggressively towards the minor nations (especially minor v. minor wars), while behaving too passively towards majors (unless they are one province minors, in which case they are quite suicidal, for whatever reason)? I cannot fathom how anyone could percieve that position as being inconsistent.
But you have pointed one thing that is quite correct. After a time it becomes fairly useless to attempt to argue for reform. Every thread twists into the same chasm. A "problem" is pointed out. Several people agree saying they have noticed that problem too. Then a number of people post saying that isn't a problem at all, but the most wonderful design feature ever concieved. Then more people post about how to compromise solutions to the "problem" that keep "feature" aspects intact. Debate ensues. Then, by the end, the entire situation is so muddied that the perception has been created that the problem really wasn't a problem at all, but merely a feature that was interpreted positively by some and negatively by others.
Larger AI powers will not go to war with other, larger powers under almost any circumstance. They break alliances to avoid wars. They sign white peaces immediately if you "force" them into wars by loading savegames as different nations or modifying the savegame text file. They simply won't fight great power wars. The majors preference is to gobble up minor powers and then sit and do nothing if no more minors are accessible. Minor powers on the other hand are suicidal and aggressive. They attack each other and then, inexplicably, they attack majors. Soon they are all gone. The longer you play, the more static the map, until, finally, there is nothing to do. Is anyone observing a different pattern than this? Is anyone seeing something else?
Some feel that this is an expression of the brilliance of the AI. Now it evaluates its chances accurately and if it isn't overwhelmingly likely to win a war, it won't engage in it. Hurrah for the AI! No longer will the player will able to take advantage of France after she exhausts herself fighting a great power war against Spain to liberate Franche Comte and Rouisillon. The AI is wonderful because now it is a challenge for world conquest players and is less historically predictable.
Except, it doesn't do anything, right? All this new static AI does is form stationary roadblocks to world conquest players blob-like expansion. It doesn't exhaust itself fighting other forms of itself, but it doesn't do anything either. It won't attack strong players (though, apparently, it might attack medium players). And it gives the player nothing to do, but sit and plan his next war.
Is that what people want from EU3? To go from war to war gradually conquering the map? Didn't people kind of enjoy just sitting in the game, watching the world develop? Isn't there any roleplaying aspect at all left in EU3's fandom? Don't you want to feel that you're in a realistic environment where large nations are rivals to each other, not speedbumps to slow the player and create an artificial "challenge"?
But, anyway, as I said, the waters are muddied. There is no "problem" here. There is just a difference in opinion. Those of us who want something more, we're just bitter historical gamers who want our old AI files back and can't embrace this new, wonderfully dynamic AI (who, ironically, is not dynamic at all and is far more predictable than any EU2 ai-file run AI).
I think EU3 is a dead-end game because of the AI. I don't think it will be changed to more "realistic". I think the design strategy IS working as intended and that the AI is designed to balance itself as blobs to prevent easy player expansion. I think all the mods in the world can't fix this problem. What baffles me though is how the defenders of this newly enhanced AI aren't incredibly bored by 1680, 1690, 1700, etc. watching the AI do absolutely nothing. But, I wish those who carry on this discussion good luck. Put me down as being in favor of hard-coded tweaks to the AI's routines that allow it to consider fighting major v. major wars to give the game flavor, to keep the map from ossifying, and to just make the game believable, but put me also down in the column that thinks, based on betatesters and moderator comments, that things are working exactly as Paradox intended.
This topic is hauntingly reminiscent of many topics made back in the days of Rome: Total War's peak as a popular game. The problem was that the Rome: Total War AI had a crippling bug that caused the AI to cancel all of its current progress upon loading the game. This meant that any sieges, armies marching to sieges, or armies marching to fight other armies would inexplicably turn around and begin doing other things. When asked to patch this feature, Creative Assembly (makers of R:TW) declared that it was actually a "feature", not a bug. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, if Rome was sieging Macedonia's last province with 1 turn left until it fell, and you saved and reloaded, Rome would simply wander off, maybe to return some time later, and this was a "feature". This seems to be the exact situation here.
You can call something a feature as many times as you want to, but that doesn't make it a feature. Large AI countries can and should try to keep each other in check. Large AI countries should always be trying to advance their own power, too, so this conflict of interest should keep things interesting. Large AI countries should try to defend small AI countries within their "sphere" of influence (France for French minors, Austria/other great German powers in Germany, biggest Italian power in Italy, etc.). This should (and did, in real life) create large wars between great powers trying to stop each other from brutalizing smaller powers in order to get bigger. Instead, they sit on their hands and let it happen.
You can call something a feature as many times as you want to, but that doesn't make it a feature. Large AI countries can and should try to keep each other in check. Large AI countries should always be trying to advance their own power, too, so this conflict of interest should keep things interesting. Large AI countries should try to defend small AI countries within their "sphere" of influence (France for French minors, Austria/other great German powers in Germany, biggest Italian power in Italy, etc.). This should (and did, in real life) create large wars between great powers trying to stop each other from brutalizing smaller powers in order to get bigger. Instead, they sit on their hands and let it happen.
Yes, maybe AI is too rational. There is a lack of realism here. Judgement in making war could be biased with short and long term goals like "I want this province" or "I want to unify this region" because of some criteria: religion, culture, natural borders... and not only cores. And "God is with us!" is not a stupid argument for this era. Such behavior should change perception of chance of winning a war for AI to a certain degree. But I don't say AI should make big mistakes in its evaluation of the situation.Inferis said:
Expansion only for expansion purpose is not a goal. AI being opportunistic is not a bad thing but this logic tends to no wars (and boredom) when relative strength is the same for two possible opponents. AI could say: "yes, strength seems to be almost the same, but we will win because it is obvious since we are right".
AI will maybe figure out after a couple of years in war that it wasn't so obvious... At least, war happened.
YodaMaster said:
Rationality isn't involved, since this isn't a learning AI. It is rules-based, which means that the rules have to be extended and tweaked a great deal to better simulate human analysis. Whether this can be done effectively or not, remains to be seen. As I recall, the AI in EU2 also had its severe rules-based flaws, especially before the final patch. Hopefully, 1.2 will improve a great deal. We'll just have to wait and see.
What I am saying is that they both regards AI agressiveness, and that what we are discussing here is about where to draw the line for what is "proper" agressiveness. As I understand it, you argue that it should be less agressive towards minors, and more agressive towards majors. What I am saying is that it's not just about making the AI more agressive or passive, as that would enhance the other issues. To make any changes, the factors that goes into the evaluation needs to change.JScott991 said:
Well, for what it's worth: If it's not possible to reach consensus about if a raised issue is a problem or not, then it isn't a problem for many users...JScott991 said:
I rarely play an all-out warmonger style, and I enjoy seeing the world evolving as the game passes.
One difference, from what I gather, is that I also enjoy seeing the world evolving along different paths than it did historically. I had great fun as Novgorod rivalling with Genoa over access and power to the Black Sea, and as Norway fighting colonial wars with Venice and Aragon over Brazil.
Personally I think there's room to work with the AI, and that it's way too soon to pass any lasting judgement on the end result. In the end, though, we can't all get what we want all the time. As sad as it is...
Richard Head said:
I don't understand why people keep raising this line of argument. This is not about historical v. dynamic determinism. This has nothing to do with making the historic powers develop. I can hard-code that on my end through events (thank God!).
Even if the major powers in your game are a 30 province Cologne and a 40 province Gelre, they aren't going to fight! Even if Genoa and Novgorod are the two greatest powers in Europe, then the "problem" would still exist. Two AI majors, regardless of who they are, simply will not engage in war.
This problem is not related to the game developing historically or not, but the great defenders of Paradox keep trying to turn it into that discussion.
JScott991 said:
In my current game as Austria, Russia just beat the living hell out of the Ottomans taking all of Crimea. And France is taking over nearly all of the Spanish Colonies North of the Rio Grande. Then again, I started my game in 1660, don't know if that has any bearing on this issue.
Russia and France were the aggressors btw. So they might percieve weakness on both the Spanish and Ottoman's side.
JScott991 said:
I wonder what the difference is, that some people experience some major vs. major wars, and others can play several games and watch France never fight anyone bigger than Lorraine after the first war with England is over.
In my games, I've never seen a major vs. major war last years. When majors do fight, other nations don't jump in.
Historically, however, any time a major European power exerted itself, half the continent stuck its nose into it in some form. England and France fought each other constantly - and not just over "core provinces", but over successions, and balance of power issues.
EU3 does model successions, but it doesn't model balance of power. BB doesn't count - you can easily rack up BB without gaining a lot of power - ask Burgundy after 5 minors rebel and get re-annexed in 2 years. EU 2 managed this somewhat with the grand alliance system, and with the AI's willingness to join a war based more on relations than anything else. With Grand Alliances out, and the AI being willing to avoid nearly every call to allies, majors are left with only 1 thing to kick off wars - cost/benefit analysis.
And that cost/benefit analysis is simple: it's easier, cheaper, and more cost/effective to bully someone 1/30th your size than your neighbor who is the same size. Absent other reasons to fight, the AI sits. And sits. And sits...until the player attacks. Then the other majors watch until the very end, then dogpile on the now defenseless loser.
Also, a note on succession wars: the conflict created by them generally tends to be minor vs. minor, or (my favorite), 1-prov Moldavia contesting succession with Russia. I've yet to see Austria and France contesting a succession.
One should be ashamed of talking such bullshit.
Fire up HoI2, start as Germany, dow Luxemburg.
Here you go, thank you very much.
I think the real problem is that the AI is programmed more or less "stateless". It has no coherent view of what is going on, or a strategy. And then Paradox has done real wonders with this AI with a goldfish memory, but some problems are almost impossible to solve using this type of AI.
What the AI really needs are some goals and an better idea of what is going on in the world, and react to it.
OTOH it is really hard issue to solve, since a stateless AI is much faster to calculate, and EU3 need to calculate an insane amount of AIs all the time. Compared to Civ4 which also has a pretty stupid AI, EU3 has a much harder task having to track 100 nations in real-time instead of 8 turn-based.
This all means that Paradox can only focus on small specific problems in EU3, that makes the AI more "suited" for the game(more fun to play against), but not really smarter.
Some simple mechanics for power balance is what I am hoping for, but again that might go against the popular world conquest playing style.
What the AI really needs are some goals and an better idea of what is going on in the world, and react to it.
OTOH it is really hard issue to solve, since a stateless AI is much faster to calculate, and EU3 need to calculate an insane amount of AIs all the time. Compared to Civ4 which also has a pretty stupid AI, EU3 has a much harder task having to track 100 nations in real-time instead of 8 turn-based.
This all means that Paradox can only focus on small specific problems in EU3, that makes the AI more "suited" for the game(more fun to play against), but not really smarter.
Some simple mechanics for power balance is what I am hoping for, but again that might go against the popular world conquest playing style.
First of all it shoud be pointed out that Paradox folks have said several times that the top difficulty setting does induce indiscriminate DOWs and was primarily put in for the conquer the world addicts. They have also said that the AI is actually toughest on the next setting down because it does look at consequences of a DOW before making it.
As to major versus major wars I have seen them several times both in Europe and Asia. I have only run into the AI being unwilling to make a reasonable peace a couple of times in a dozen complete games from 1453. Sometimes I have had to ask a few times to drive down stability, but they always come around.
I do think there are some definite balance and other issues in the game, however there is a lot more power in diplomacy that a lot of folks seem to take the time to realize. In my current game as Bavaria/ Germany I not only managed to absorb most of the other German states diplomatically, but also Hungary, Sweden (controlling a large part of Scandanavia), and Burgundy with my BB going over 50% of max. (I set my own limitation in the game I would not initiate war with another Christian nation unless it was in response to their attacking an ally.) In the meantime I have cleared the Muslims from Europe and converted all to the true church.
As to historicity, I understand, I enjoyed AGCEEP, but from the first press release that this would not be designed as a game with historicity built in or hisotically determined events. Rather, they were very clear their goal was to provide a historical start point with a completely free hand to take things from their without regard to actual history. I understand others might have liked a different game, but if they thought EUIII would be historical they simply weren't paying attention to what Paradox was saying.
As to major versus major wars I have seen them several times both in Europe and Asia. I have only run into the AI being unwilling to make a reasonable peace a couple of times in a dozen complete games from 1453. Sometimes I have had to ask a few times to drive down stability, but they always come around.
I do think there are some definite balance and other issues in the game, however there is a lot more power in diplomacy that a lot of folks seem to take the time to realize. In my current game as Bavaria/ Germany I not only managed to absorb most of the other German states diplomatically, but also Hungary, Sweden (controlling a large part of Scandanavia), and Burgundy with my BB going over 50% of max. (I set my own limitation in the game I would not initiate war with another Christian nation unless it was in response to their attacking an ally.) In the meantime I have cleared the Muslims from Europe and converted all to the true church.
As to historicity, I understand, I enjoyed AGCEEP, but from the first press release that this would not be designed as a game with historicity built in or hisotically determined events. Rather, they were very clear their goal was to provide a historical start point with a completely free hand to take things from their without regard to actual history. I understand others might have liked a different game, but if they thought EUIII would be historical they simply weren't paying attention to what Paradox was saying.
Inferis said:
In the future, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. Either respond to what I wrote, or don't respond at all. Thank you.
France should go after Burgundy because they have cores on a number of French-cultured provinces held by Burgundy. When they attack depends on France's estimate of the relative strength of the two nations. If France isn't strong enough, then wait until the evaluation changes, either due to a French build-up or a Burgundian war elsewhere. Do you really think that's "emotional" or "irrational" thinking?
Conversely, Burgundy has every reason to attack France as well. I don't believe they start with cores on France, but sooner or later events will change that, and in any case connecting the capital to the provinces around Flanders is an important strategic goal. Could be done via Lorraine, of course, but it depends who hits Lorraine first.The status quo does encourage irrational DoWs from the player, though. I'm tempted to attack someone just out of boredom that nothing has happened in western Europe for roughly a hundred years now...
Richard Head - to be clear, your understanding is correct. Ideally, the AI should be made less aggressive for minors, more aggressive for majors, and to be fair I think it does a marvelous job already with medium powers. If the minors and majors can be made to behave equally sensibly, I'll be a very happy customer.
Inferis said:Why are you so sure about that? Would you accept every province somebody else would throw at you, even for 0 ducats?
No, but if I was a two province nation and was offered a same religion province directly next door to my capital for free I'd think I'd have some interest, no?
What am I thinking, clearly that's crazy talk.
JScott991 said:
In my current game as Sicily I've been attacked by both Genoa and Aragon at various times to the point I think I'm in a ping pong match. For example if I attack Genoa, Aragon DOWs me in the middle of the war and I have a hard time surviving. There seems to be several factors creating this situation.
1: I'm playing at the very hard difficulty setting.
2: Both Aragon and Genoa are my size or larger.
3: I own provinces they consider cores.
4: The AI seems to wait until my losses in battle cause my armies to fall in manpower to a certain point and then they attack.
If you have the time read my AAR on it and see what I mean. I think from the few games I've played that your country's size has a lot to do in how the AI reacts to your actions.
Joe
The very hard difficulty has something to do with it as well. On that level, my understanding is that the AI is less rational towards the player.
But size and manpower are definetely more of a factor I think. The AI won't attack near equals or better. They prefer to gobble up minors, as we've said.
I'm considering mod'ing the difficulty settings (eliminating all economic penalties and AI bonuses) and playing very hard to see if that produces a more fluid map for my next game, but I believe the ball on this issue is in Paradox's court. I hope they fix it and cause the AI to behave more realistically towards majors and minors, alike, but I'm not sure they will.
But size and manpower are definetely more of a factor I think. The AI won't attack near equals or better. They prefer to gobble up minors, as we've said.
I'm considering mod'ing the difficulty settings (eliminating all economic penalties and AI bonuses) and playing very hard to see if that produces a more fluid map for my next game, but I believe the ball on this issue is in Paradox's court. I hope they fix it and cause the AI to behave more realistically towards majors and minors, alike, but I'm not sure they will.
Last edited: