It turns out that short list was missing quite a few things, either due to bugs or just not documenting them.
AI and generic missions
- Thread starter Seelensturm
- 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 turns out that short list was missing quite a few things, either due to bugs or just not documenting them.
Could you provide the list and the things which are missing on it?
It strongly depends on how missions are designed. In EUIV, I won't lie, I do exactly as you described. In other Paradox games however, I sometimes complete missions and do things I had not planned. Right before coming to the forum for exemple, in EU:Rome, I just had finished a war, were at -10k manpower (more than a decade worth of manpower), and thought "time to let manpower recover". Then I received a mission that would give me a core on a neighbour for completing it. It wasn't a too powerful neighbour so my weak army was still up to the task, but it did cost me one or two more years to recover from negative manpower (plus a good share of money for stability).
My point being: if missions are easy and give powerful rewards (colonize X (typically the highest BT uncolonized so a good pick) -> +1 BT), or is easy and give a small boost of something very valuable (core X -> +10 ADM; claim Y -> +25 MIL), then, yes, it's a no-brainer. Same when the reward is insignificant but the mission is tough: get a higher standing army then Ottomans with Trebizond for a handful prestige,...) If they are made tougher (target a country of similar strength than yours for exemple), but with more significant rewards (there's one actually to take a province from one of your rivals, but the meager 25 MIL it gives is not worth waging war on its own... So I only pick it when I'm going to annex it anyway), or even things you could not obtain in any other way (there's a mission to reduce your AE for exemple), then it can make the whole system interesting and make you consider things you had not planned.
Last edited:
- As of the time this post was marked as updated, the AI very much *did* cheat with land attrition, due to a bug. For a substantial chunk of that post's existence, this claim was false, including several major patches. The bug allowed the AI (and only the AI) to only count the largest stack on a province towards attrition. If it had an alliance of 10 nations each having 15 regiments in one spot, the supply weight would be 15, not 150...but if you paused the game and tag switched as the player...boom huge attrition. This was later patched out.
- Due to a bug, the AI will occasionally blockade outside of supply range.
- The extent the AI can see through the fog has changed across patches, and "pretends it can't in most cases" seems ingenuous; I used to use this cheat against it when it was more flagrant.
- AI apparently does not pay for going over its diplomatic relations cap, though in most cases it won't do it (see the thread with Oirat having 17 vassals or some such).
- The AI on occasion has a -5 unrest bonus that I have never been able to reproduce as a player. At first I thought it was an Ottoman event, but I've seen it on other majors when trying to rebel break them.
- For a long time, the lucky AE bonus was applied to all AI, not just luckies
- Luckies are more a handicap than cheating per se', but should be considered for completeness sake as they are certainly things the player can't access w/o player bonuses.
I know I'm forgetting a few because I'm doing this offhand. Regardless, this whole thing is somewhat tangential to your initial line of reasoning anyway. The AI is not a human player and unless you want to pretend you're an AI there's no way to offset the differences in play capabilities that way in a logically consistent fashion, so the end practice is that you cherry pick out the things you don't want to do.
Are you talking "national defense"? That is actually not a cheat or an AI bonus, but one of the least documented features in the game. Google only led my to an explanation from EU3 that seems to be perfectly valid for EU4 as well: While only in a defensive war, all primary culture (and I believe culture group, but not accepted culture) provinces get -5 local unrest. So with the Ottomans it would apply to Turkish provinces, but not to Bulgarian or Greek ones, for example. If you start up a France game you get it in all provinces, since you're a defender against England and don't start with wrong culture provinces.
That could be it. Thanks for the clarification. Tentatively strike that one from above for now, and add the following:
- Unlike human players, AI has access to all of the rules of the game.
Because let's be honest, there are still many mechanics in this game where, if you're playing it and want to know a rule...you can't find it in the game. It's wiki/forum or bust to learn how that rule works, assuming them to be accurate. Since the AI can access information in the game that a player physically can't in-game, it is reasonable to construe that as an advantage.
Does it? I'm not sure it has meaningful access to event triggers and MttH modifiers.
- 1
Access =/= uses effectively. This is clearly evidenced by how it controls its units, or that it will *never* sortie.
Bugs don't count, because they are---bugs. And are you sure that Oirat thing isn't a bug? And lucky nations aren't applied to all nations so that isn't an AI 'cheat'; plus you can easily turn it off.
You have access to all rules too. And national defense isn't known? Sure it isn't something you think about particularly often, but I thought it was well known.
And you can also find extensive information in the game files.
Indeed. The AI won't know about such things, but you as a human player will and you might well be optimising your strategy for triggering as many meaty events as possible and as few bad ones as possible. The rule of thumb to never go under 25% of your total manpower to avoid the peasant war for instance...
Benefiting from a bug is still cheating, whether intentional or not. Though of course it shouldn't be held against the AI.
And while lucky nations aren't applied to all, those are usually the protagonists of most games. ROTW is less affected by them for the first part of the game, but eventually you will have to deal with the lucky AI no matter where you are.
Indeed; especially since the player abuses bugs all the time.
Lucky nations aren't necessarily the succesful nations, but yes they have a bigger chance to be it. Denmark for instance isn't lucky, yet she can become a large empire without too much trouble.
And you can turn lucky nations off.
Yes, you can. You can also turn player bonus on or console 10000 ducats. It's my opinion that the game is intended to be played with Lucky nations on.
Consoling 10000 ducats is different from the other two in that it clearly isn't intended play. But I agree that lucky nations are intended to be on.
Wrong. We do not have access to all rules. Just from the game and from no other source (including memory), explain how we find the following:
- What are the odds a ruler dies per year? What if you make him a general?
- Before annexing a nation, what religion will it be released as if you were to release it as a vassal?
- Without first engaging in combat (!), what is your current combat width?
- Under what conditions will a peace offer cause a stability hit?
- What modifiers are relevant for securing an alliance during a defensive war, before going into a defensive war?
- When are you allowed to guarantee other nations, precisely?
Just to name a few. Some of these most of us know, but you can not find them readily in-game (except some through trial and error). Others none of us know for certain unless accessing the code.
And on this topic, if Wiz gets to post-define legitimate in-game actions with tradeoffs and limitations as exploits and equate them cheats (undermining the legitimacy of QUITE a few playthroughs), then backpedal into calling them almost the same thing as cheating, you'd be hard pressed to turn around and call non-WAD AI usage of bugs "not cheating" in that context. Basically, using that language as precedent it is impossible not to define bugs that the AI benefits from as cheating.
Even if the AI would know these things, it is not smart enough to use them to its advantage. The AI will never convert a crappy ruler to a general just to decrease his life expectancy (and keep its demi-gods at home) or ever voluntary release a vassal. Alone the whole vassal thing can make human expansion so much more efficient.
That statement is completely irrelevant to the AI's access to the game rules (which is equal to the developer's access) being greater than a human's. As we've already established, the AI plays poorly irrespective of its access to rules, but in some cases it knows the rules when a human player in its same situation could not know them from in-game information alone, and it will occasionally factor them as such. If it does so in even a single case, then it stands as an AI cheat.