AI doesn't sortie

[Viperswhip]

I sometimes wondered where the 1600 or so troops came from that attacked my armies when I had carpet sieged. I am pretty sure they do sortie, but it's a lost cause, I think they start with low morale and are the attacker, so get penalties, I've had that happen twice.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

"- AI still can´t handle player loans so goodbye feature."

to be fair. Marco. why whould you accept a loan from some other AI (lets say said AI offer you one) when you could just ask (near-endless) loans from some anonyous source?(as in: buget interface) with possible better interest rates (thanks to Ideas)?

bc lets be frank hear... the main perpuse of that feature was CB farming... anyone disagree?

Sorry for some reason I missed your post, yes that was useful for that because the AI did not pay the loans 99% of the times but it could also be useful to make more dosh from money that won´t be needed in the near future. If you ask me the correct thing to do should have been to teach the AI to prioritize paying the loans even if it had to get bank loans for that but keep the CB for the <1% chance that it could not meet its obligation (like bankruptcy looming).

 

[IIWW]

- No sitting idle when ally called in a war where is nothing to gain or is already a lost cause.

That one is actually good. If human player did it, You would count him as unreliable ally. AI should never act unfair towards player, it's the better compromise.

 

[Seelensturm]

It is not, the power projection mechanics encourage procrastination (...) and the AI is a champion at that (...)

Edit: In fact this system had its roots in the AI baffling stupidity/fumble for selecting rivals so instead of teaching the AI to play better PDS levelled the gameplay and made stupidity a standard; the power projection is a derivate of this enlightened AI.

Players use privateers, insults and other stuff to get above the 50 threshold. AI also uses these things, but apparently not with PP in mind, even if they are close to 50. How often do you spot an AI nation with more than 50 PP in the ledger?

That is funny, so developers put out a game with a stone cold brain-dead AI and the player is a cheater for playing well? Amazing logic

Doesn't matter if a feature is not available, never used or not used for a different reason (e.g. asking for military access only to get 190 opinion for diplo-vassalisation) - we obviously play the game by very different rules than the AI. Many players complain about the little cheats the AI uses e.g. for naval attrition but are not aware that they are actually the far bigger cheaters.

Cconclusion: The game really needs an AI overhaul to make it more challenging again. No need to add more and more features which the AI doesn't know to use. There are even some steps backwards e.g. when did the AI unlearn to retreat from unfavorable battles?

 

[Viperswhip]

Sorry for some reason I missed your post, yes that was useful for that because the AI did not pay the loans 99% of the times but it could also be useful to make more dosh from money that won´t be needed in the near future. If you ask me the correct thing to do should have been to teach the AI to prioritize paying the loans even if it had to get bank loans for that but keep the CB for the <1% chance that it could not meet its obligation (like bankruptcy looming).

It's how I used to become Emperor without no cbing Austria. It was pretty cheap lol, you owe me 100 ducats, you are my vassal, hahahahaha.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

I sometimes wondered where the 1600 or so troops came from that attacked my armies when I had carpet sieged. I am pretty sure they do sortie, but it's a lost cause, I think they start with low morale and are the attacker, so get penalties, I've had that happen twice.

I've left regiments with only 10 men "sieging" provinces and I’ve done hundreds (thousands?) of sieges since 1.8 came out and UI never seen a sortie. IMO you probably missed those regiments and they came back to bite you where you were vulnerable (typical AI behavior).

 

[IIWW]

Doesn't matter if a feature is not available, never used or not used for a different reason (e.g. asking for military access only to get 190 opinion for diplo-vassalisation) - we obviously play the game by very different rules than the AI.

I actually grow a custom of always offering MA to an ally. There are really almost no situation when it would hurt, AI could do the same.

 

[Viperswhip]

I've left regiments with only 10 men "sieging" provinces and I’ve done hundreds (thousands?) of sieges since 1.8 came out and UI never seen a sortie. IMO you probably missed those regiments and they came back to bite you where you were vulnerable (typical AI behavior).

I wasn't vulnerable, both times it was when the walls were breached and I had 5-10 men on the province. I have only seen it twice out of hundreds of sieges and you may be right, but this isn't Total War Rome 2.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Players use privateers, insults and other stuff to get above the 50 threshold. AI also uses these things, but apparently not with PP in mind, even if they are close to 50. How often do you spot an AI nation with more than 50 PP in the ledger?

IDK because I never checked it, what I do know is that the mechanics for power projection encourage doing nothing over smashing your opponent to pieces; so if the AI does (almost nothing) but insults as a result of missions, embargoes and keeps declaring war taking almost no land/humiliates/war reparations each 6-7 years it has a good chance to go near/above 50 PP while a player that is very aggressive, that obliterates all its rivals but mostly does vassal feeding will most likely never reach 50PP even with privateering.

Cconclusion: The game really needs an AI overhaul to make it more challenging again. No need to add more and more features which the AI doesn't know to use. There are even some steps backwards e.g. when did the AI unlearn to retreat from unfavorable battles?

I wholeheartedly agree I really doubt that there is someone that is more active (maybe to the point of being annoying because I’ve seen near 0 AI improvements in the last 2 years; I’ve seen mostly gimmicks and workarounds) in the sense of actively asking for AI improvements in this community than me.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Is that supposed to be a joke of some kind? The PP system encourages constant warring with your rivals, especially if you don't own Wealth of Nations (privateers could use a nerf). That's pretty much the opposite of procrastination.

It is not a joke, the last time I checked having 3 rivals gave you 30 PP over time (that means keeping your rivals alive and kicking is a must have ); declaring war gives +10; taking provinces gives you +5 each; insult gives you something small and embargo is supposed to give you something over time in 1.8 but I did not care enough to check it because with the privateer nerf of 1.8 PP is now useless to me because I simply conquer too fast. I suggest you do the math.

No rivals possible after ~100 years and I was only above 50PP for a couple of months one single time:

 

[TheMeInTeam]

IDK because I never checked it, what I do know is that the mechanics for power projection encourage doing nothing over smashing your opponent to pieces; so if the AI does (almost nothing) but insults as a result of missions and keeps declaring war taking almost no land/humiliates/war reparations each 6-7 years it has a good chance to go near/above 50 PP while a player that is very aggressive, that obliterates all its rivals but mostly does vassal feeding will most likely never reach 50PP even with privateering.

Long term rivals only gives +15 now.

The trick is to mostly pick rivals you don't fight (derp), pirate/embargo them, subsidize their enemies, and if you have a spare diplomat drop some rebel support.

If you think about it, it's mostly a way to somewhat inefficiently transfer money --> monarch points. Pirating is usually worth less than protecting trade (unless you're in a junk node with rivals in good ones and have things boosting it), and supporting rebels and giving subsidies are both direct money sinks. I haven't done the math officially; I suspect this kind of stuff is less expensive than going to tier 3 advisors, but if you're making money at +3 advisors anyway then it's definitely a good idea to just toss money at what essentially amounts to +4 advisors.

 

[Steelers1990]

Having 3 rivals only give 15 points (5 per rival). I find it almost impossible to keep it about 50 until late game when I am constantly warring and taking provinces. That admin eff late game make conquest possible.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Long term rivals only gives +15 now..

Having 3 rivals only give 15 points (5 per rival).

Thanks for the clarification.

The trick is to mostly pick rivals you don't fight (derp),.

That is why I said this:

Edit: In fact this system had its roots in the AI baffling stupidity/fumble for selecting rivals...; the power projection is a derivate of this enlightened AI.

 

[Thrake]

I've been trying some other strategy games lately. I quickly ended bored of those, unlike EU. That made me realise one thing: EU AI isn't perfect for sure, but still, it's a bit more clever than "throw mindlessly all my units at the ennemy and hope to win even though I'm outnumbered" or "systematic DOW when we share a border",... In many games, the whole single of a diplomatic AI is a joke; it's usually very dumb, the kind that refuse any offer (although it might come up next turn/month to offer you the very same offer, ie diplomacy restricts to accepting or refusing AI offers), or lunatic AI that will declare war on you, do nothing and after a while just offer to white peace for no apparent reason, then ally, break alliance, DOW, sit, peace,...

EU has it flaws, but to me, AI is where it shines.

 

[Freudia]

I actually grow a custom of always offering MA to an ally. There are really almost no situation when it would hurt, AI could do the same.

The AI sometimes goes out of its way to hunt your rebels for you too, which is pretty amusing. That sold me on giving access to nations who I was going to be allied with for a long time.

 

[Mamluke]

I've been trying some other strategy games lately. I quickly ended bored of those, unlike EU. That made me realise one thing: EU AI isn't perfect for sure, but still, it's a bit more clever than "throw mindlessly all my units at the ennemy and hope to win even though I'm outnumbered" or "systematic DOW when we share a border",... In many games, the whole single of a diplomatic AI is a joke; it's usually very dumb, the kind that refuse any offer (although it might come up next turn/month to offer you the very same offer, ie diplomacy restricts to accepting or refusing AI offers), or lunatic AI that will declare war on you, do nothing and after a while just offer to white peace for no apparent reason, then ally, break alliance, DOW, sit, peace,...

EU has it flaws, but to me, AI is where it shines.

total war much?
bc that sure sounds like it. like BarrosRodrigues point it out. there is still a lot of improvement to be had. but at least the AI can give you a fight.

 

[IIWW]

total war much?
bc that sure sounds like it. like BarrosRodrigues point it out. there is still a lot of improvement to be had. but at least the AI can give you a fight.

Or civ. Non of EU competitors have even half as good (or, maybe, they are twice as bad) AI, especially when it come to diplomacy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Or civ. Non of EU competitors have even half as good (or, maybe, they are twice as bad) AI, especially when it come to diplomacy.

None in this era anyway. The HOMM AI was reasonably good at what it did, enough that rookie-to-some-time-invested players would struggle, while experienced players could trash it. That's pretty similar to EU IV.

If you count RTS as competitors, the AI has a distinctive advantage there as you've no diplomacy (an AI weakness when there is diplomacy) and lots of micro pressure (theoretically an insurmountable AI advantage in terms of potential raw #inputs/time, though it does have to choose good actions). Top notch pros in Sc2 can get a few hundred actions/minute, though how many are useful vs not is debatable. An AI could do many more than that though.

 

[IIWW]

None in this era anyway. The HOMM AI was reasonably good at what it did, enough that rookie-to-some-time-invested players would struggle, while experienced players could trash it. That's pretty similar to EU IV.

If you count RTS as competitors, the AI has a distinctive advantage there as you've no diplomacy (an AI weakness when there is diplomacy) and lots of micro pressure (theoretically an insurmountable AI advantage in terms of potential raw #inputs/time, though it does have to choose good actions). Top notch pros in Sc2 can get a few hundred actions/minute, though how many are useful vs not is debatable. An AI could do many more than that though.

I was talking only about Grand Strategies. As for EU I always thought that navy attrition managing should actually be easier for AI, since it would never foget about fleet. And it's a function of just 2 variables (at most!), nothing that could be easier (for exploration).

 

[Krajzen]

When I think about it, it would be very hilarious if AI after some patch gained a bug making it instantly creating sortie when human (!) player sieges it's province

To add insult: both AI countries and rebels would do that all time for no military point cost and only against human.