AI being agressive and a potential solution

[Pellucid]

"I get less AE because my name is X" is exactly the sort of thing that can't be justified using "history".

Indeed. The frustrating part is that they COULD model the history here, and I thought they were going to when I heard about Coalitions being in the game, but then those turned out to just be a crappy implementation of punishing badboy.

If countries would form coalitions regardless of aggressive expansion value against nearby threats, that would be the historical solution to too much blobbing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Coalitions would need to be reworked for that to function properly, but possibly. Can't block separate peace.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

1:2 disadvantage

I have never seen that.

2:1 advantage.

I think they should be losing at this advantage if attacking armies in the mountains. I really think mountain defensive warfare should have more of an impact.

 

[Pellucid]

I have never seen that.


I think they should be losing at this advantage if attacking armies in the mountains. I really think mountain defensive warfare should have more of an impact.

I have seen it. Plenty of times. Usually it's a combination of their bonkers early game bonuses and a 1 point tech advantage over someone.

Mountains used to have a considerably smaller combat width, but they got nerfed at some point for some reason.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Mountains used to have a considerably smaller combat width, but they got nerfed at some point for some reason.

That sounds like something they should add back in.

 

[Vin55]

They aslso used to have supply limit, which they removed so that the ai can move 100k units without loosing too much.

 

[Forderz]

There's a whole lotta talk in thus thread but I'm wondering why you all aren't just asking for a reversion of the AE calculations from a few patches ago.

It's a lot simpler than tweaking ai or whatever else, and it slows down blabbing for pretty much anyone but the ottos due to their three different expansion vectors.

As an aside, why wouldn't you want lategame blobs? A lot easier to fight one tag than 4+, and not seperate peacing for land means you save huge on diplo points. By the time huge blobs form you've hit the age of absolutism so you can snag massive chunks of land in one war.

 

[Fingon_Felagund]

There's a whole lotta talk in thus thread but I'm wondering why you all aren't just asking for a reversion of the AE calculations from a few patches ago.

It's a lot simpler than tweaking ai or whatever else, and it slows down blabbing for pretty much anyone but the ottos due to their three different expansion vectors.

As an aside, why wouldn't you want lategame blobs? A lot easier to fight one tag than 4+, and not seperate peacing for land means you save huge on diplo points. By the time huge blobs form you've hit the age of absolutism so you can snag massive chunks of land in one war.

Problem with Ottoblob is that they have 25% AE reduction and 25 % improve relations from game start , becauce they are lucky nation.

Luck - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have seen it. Plenty of times. Usually it's a combination of their bonkers early game bonuses and a 1 point tech advantage over someone.

Mountains used to have a considerably smaller combat width, but they got nerfed at some point for some reason.

Mountains weren't the only provinces with width constraints either. IIRC, this went away around the same time as the terrain %s were removed, if not the same time.

The terrain % were wrong/misinformation outright, it was definitely good to remove that. It wasn't even kind-of close. You could get a sub-50% chance 50-80x in a row, with that being reproducible, because the game was *not* just rolling based on those weights under the hood.

One could make the case that just bringing width back similar to how other pdox titles deal with width could work. Would make breaking through some mountain forts/areas a lot more challenging, which would probably be healthy for the game's tactics. Tactics (as in player move choices, not the game mechanic) in EU 4 now are less impactful than pre-1.11, which doesn't have to be true.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

I have seen it. Plenty of times.

I will report that I saw it yesterday. Ottomans somehow won against a double their size Austro-Hungarian army while attacking on a mountain province... Austria as well as having Hungary and Burgundy in PU also had Castile with Aragon in a PU and me with ~25K troops as allies, outnumbered the Ottomans over 2:1 and still lost...though they won the next war Ottomans declared against them. So, I think the nerf to Anatolian units is perhaps a good thing.

 

[LAF1994]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The problem is not that the AIs are "too strong", but that they become too consolidated. For example India usually ends up divided between 3 or 4 large countries, where in reality there were hundreds of small Indian princedoms way into the 1800s. I think that most AIs (except Ottomans, Mughals, Qing, France, Russia etc.) should almost not expand at all. And that situation in India could be resolved if, for example, Indian nations were allowed to make tributaries and a tributary could be established without a common border in general (but still only with a close-by country anyways). Then, for example, Orissa would turn all the Gondi OPMs into tributaries instead of eating them in like 20 years.

The other half of the problem is that large blobs don't 'decline' or collapse organically within the normal game mechanics since internal issues aren't really a thing.

It actually doesn't. The Ottomans fairly regularly lost battles against Albania, Wallachia, and other minor powers in their region. Far from their depiction in game where they can easily beat armies when at a 1:2 disadvantage, they actually pretty commonly lost battles when at a 2:1 advantage.

This is also a product of EU4 not representing logistical constraints very well (or at all really).

 

[st360]

This game is Europa Universalis and not World Universalis, Europeans should have it pretty easy to conquer places in Indonesia or Southern India to be honest.
What do you thing of this idea, would it be possible to implement?

Sorry buddy, this game is called Europa Universalis and not AI being agressive and a potential solution Universalis.

 

[Vin55]

Sorry buddy, this game is called Europa Universalis and not AI being agressive and a potential solution Universalis.

True genius, but well whatever great comment. the ai blobs so much that by 1700 the world is conquered by less than 20 tags, even in the victorian age there where more countries around. I am not against humans being able to blobs a little and create the roman empire per se. But the Songhai getting the whole of west africa in 50 years is just ahistoric and not fun. If the ottomans have 9000000 men or 4000000 men it doesnt really that matter it is just a wackamole simulator of you chasing the ai aroudn if your army is better. Skill in Eu4 is to take a small nation and get big, which is atm not fun as the pacing is all over the place.

 

[Oporto]

True genius, but well whatever great comment. the ai blobs so much that by 1700 the world is conquered by less than 20 tags, even in the victorian age there where more countries around. I am not against humans being able to blobs a little and create the roman empire per se. But the Songhai getting the whole of west africa in 50 years is just ahistoric and not fun. If the ottomans have 9000000 men or 4000000 men it doesnt really that matter it is just a wackamole simulator of you chasing the ai aroudn if your army is better. Skill in Eu4 is to take a small nation and get big, which is atm not fun as the pacing is all over the place.

The problem is not in the AI agressiveness per se, but rather in little restrictions to blobbing and ease at handling large empires.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Skill in Eu4 is to take a small nation and get big

This is the only thing I can do. If I start as a big country I don't know what to do...I always have to start as a little country in the HRE

 

[sr999]

The other half of the problem is that large blobs don't 'decline' or collapse organically within the normal game mechanics since internal issues aren't really a thing.

Hopefully that's the destination toward which the new experimental Ottoman decadence/collapse mechanics are heading.

 

[Oporto]

This is the only thing I can do. If I start as a big country I don't know what to do...I always have to start as a little country in the HRE

Imagine ruling HRE as Liechtestein.

Down with the tyranny of Ulm!

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Down with the tyranny of Ulm!

Spoiler

Konstanz is better than Ulm...

 

[Oporto]

Spoiler

Konstanz is better than Ulm...

Damn, those Swabian City-State NI are OP!

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Damn, those Swabian City-State NI are OP!

They are nice to have until you can form Swabia. Better than Ulm's anyway.