AI and generic missions

[Seelensturm]

- Major update to missions, where many missions were reworked and some pointless and impossible ones were removed. Most missions should now give much more interesting rewards.

Completing missions is fun because of the mentioned "interesting rewards", actually so much fun it imbalances the human-AI balance in the long run and make the game anti-fun because you became again the unchallengeable blob at latest as 1600.

The reason for this is the AI currently only gets the rare country specific missions and the "Get a Presence in India" stuff, while the player is showered with significant rewards from generic mission for stuff he would do anyway, such as coring the province he just conquered or fixing his negative stabiliy after an event etc.

There are enough other features the AI makes no real use of, giving the human player significant advantages. I hope you used the opportunity to give the AI some love instead of making this problem worse with the "more interesting rewards" only for humans. I would hate to continue house-rule-out such an intrinsically fun feature because of this.

 

[Seelensturm]

tiny advantage for the AI detected =forum outrage about unfair cheating AI
big advantage for player mentioned = who cares, we want world conquest over challenge/historical immersion?

 

[Sunspawn]

tiny advantage for the AI detected =forum outrage about unfair cheating AI
big advantage for player mentioned = who cares, we want world conquest over challenge/historical immersion?

Exactly. Now go cry in a corner.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I had no idea that the AI don't get the generic missions; that is a really big problem. Guess I will need to stop taking generic missions until that is fixed then. Although I never cared much for those---in my opinion idiotic---missions to recover stability or core a newly conquered province.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you restrict yourself to AI-only actions, you can't play the game effectively unless you only restrict said things arbitrarily.

But obviously one should opt to do actions that are fun as opposed to not. It just doesn't make sense to frame "AI inadequacy" as the basis when even something as basic as going to war greatly abuses AI inadequacy.

 

[Seelensturm]

If you restrict yourself to AI-only actions, you can't play the game effectively unless you only restrict said things arbitrarily.

But obviously one should opt to do actions that are fun as opposed to not. It just doesn't make sense to frame "AI inadequacy" as the basis when even something as basic as going to war greatly abuses AI inadequacy.

Well, I do. Because once you realize that the AI is even too dumb to retreat from an unfavorable battle you see the game with different eyes. Sad thing is: I am pretty sure the EU3 AI still knew how to do this... For more things like this see these see the list of player advantages (likely somewhat outdated, but I fear the main points were never addressed).

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-by-the-same-rules-where-the-ai-fails.798493/

 

[Wagonlitz]

If you restrict yourself to AI-only actions, you can't play the game effectively unless you only restrict said things arbitrarily.

But obviously one should opt to do actions that are fun as opposed to not. It just doesn't make sense to frame "AI inadequacy" as the basis when even something as basic as going to war greatly abuses AI inadequacy.

You can try to take the sting of some of the things. The game won't be less fun because you skip the worst missions after all. And there are other things where you won't lose much fun---if any---by having house rules.
There is a difference between things you can limit with no or little cost and things which would rob you of quite a lot of fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can try to take the sting of some of the things. The game won't be less fun because you skip the worst missions after all. And there are other things where you won't lose much fun---if any---by having house rules.
There is a difference between things you can limit with no or little cost and things which would rob you of quite a lot of fun.

Well sure, it's just the "I don't do this because the AI can't use it" line of thinking that will lead to inconsistent application of the rule. "I don't do this because I think it's not fun to have an advantage in this regard" isn't constrained by a logical/consistent threshold.

Note that even sending split regiments that all have generals and then stacking 100 units on the AI if it attacks or attacking 50 vs 30 (while the latter has no general) will absolutely demolish it in wars, and is something it can't do in return. Additionally, you can siege + threaten to reinforce and the AI will get scared and not attack, gradually being sieged without contesting it...also not covered in his list. I could go on, too. Ultimately it doesn't matter and it makes sense to just do things as one finds them enjoyable, but then it doesn't mesh with the reasoning given.

 

[Korashy]

The difference is that AI missions drive the AI into action, while players tend to leave their mission open until they find something that is something they are already going to do (Reduce Overextension), or that is a very quick "btw" that gives huge rewards (Colonize X -> Abanadon).

 

[Wagonlitz]

The difference is that AI missions drive the AI into action, while players tend to leave their mission open until they find something that is something they are already going to do (Reduce Overextension), or that is a very quick "btw" that gives huge rewards (Colonize X -> Abanadon).

This. You will do the country specific ones, but with regard to generic ones you are only going to do the ones which you would do anyway or which are easy.

 

[earlofbrigand]

One of the great things about being a human being is that we can choose whether to take the missions or not. If you find they give too much of an advantage, resist the temptation.

 

[Seelensturm]

Note that even sending split regiments that all have generals and then stacking 100 units on the AI if it attacks or attacking 50 vs 30 (while the latter has no general) will absolutely demolish it in wars, and is something it can't do in return. Additionally, you can siege + threaten to reinforce and the AI will get scared and not attack, gradually being sieged without contesting it...also not covered in his list. I could go on, too. Ultimately it doesn't matter and it makes sense to just do things as one finds them enjoyable, but then it doesn't mesh with the reasoning given.

I agree that you can't avoid everything the AI is not capable of. I see advanced micro management in warfare is something really hard to teach the AI. I avoid tactics such as lure with small stack + reinforce because they really feel like exploiting the AI. But I do carpet sieging for convenience reasons even though the AI doesn't do it. I hope this becomes less a problem with the new fort system.
But I really want to express my concern about obvious player only features (such as generic missions) which seem to become even better for the player judging from the published feature list of CS. They shift the game away from the way I like it - challenging and immersive. Of course I can continue to house-rule this, but I feel I miss out a feature which could be really fun when it would be overhauled with human-AI balance in mind.

 

[grommile]

The difference is that AI missions drive the AI into action, while players tend to leave their mission open until they find something that is something they are already going to do (Reduce Overextension), or that is a very quick "btw" that gives huge rewards (Colonize X -> Abanadon).

The classic example of the latter is of course "upgrade fort for +5 AT".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The AI is given a long list of freebie handicaps/ability to ignore rules and by the sound they're only adding to that list.

 

[Wagonlitz]

The classic example of the latter is of course "upgrade fort for +5 AT".

So much that mission. I had no idea the AI don't get it, but since it doesn't I have probably taken that mission for the last time. It is not like it is hard to get AT from other sources after all.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The AI is given a long list of freebie handicaps/ability to ignore rules and by the sound they're only adding to that list.

The list is actually far less extensive than people think.

 

[Korashy]

The list is actually far less extensive than people think.

Depends. If you play with lucky nations (I have almost 2k hours on EUIV and always play with lucky nations even in non ironman games), then that list becomes quite a bit larger. At least with any of the nations that matter in mid-late game.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Depends. If you play with lucky nations (I have almost 2k hours on EUIV and always play with lucky nations even in non ironman games), then that list becomes quite a bit larger. At least with any of the nations that matter in mid-late game.

And have you seen in the files/from devs that the AI gets advantages in those fields or is it just a feeling you have? Because that feeling most likely is biased given that you note it when you feel the AI is getting an advantage---even if it isn't---but not when it is disadvantaged on the same thing.

Wiz listed the advantages the AI get a while ago; it was a rather short list and many of the things people had complained about weren't on the list.

 

[Korashy]

And have you seen in the files/from devs that the AI gets advantages in those fields or is it just a feeling you have? Because that feeling most likely is biased given that you note it when you feel the AI is getting an advantage---even if it isn't---but not when it is disadvantaged on the same thing.

Wiz listed the advantages the AI get a while ago; it was a rather short list and many of the things people had complained about weren't on the list.

Lucky nation advantages are well document and incredibly powerful:
Lucky nation rulers have a bonus of +1[1] to their administrative, diplomatic and military skills. Additionally the following bonuses[2]:

Administrative

• +1 Yearly legitimacy
• +25% Increased chance of new heir
• −1 National unrest
• +1 Yearly republican tradition
• +1% Missionary strength
• +1 Monthly fervor (only with Wealth of Nations)
• -10% Stability cost modifier
• +1 Possible advisors
• −1 Interest per annum

Diplomatic

• +10% Global trade power
• +5% Settler chance
• +5% Spy offense
• +25% Improve relations
• −25% Aggressive expansion impact

Military

• +1 Land leader fire
• +1 Land leader shock
• +10% Fort defense
• +5% Siege ability
• −25% Mercenary cost
• +33% Manpower recovery speed

 

[Seelensturm]

Yes, the AI advantages ("cheating") list is actually tiny compared to the player advantage list (especially if you include stuff the AI could use in theory but is not capable of).