AI 'handicap' on border forts goes too far.

[BarrosRodrigues]

Even so, giving it stuff that strengthens it (and scripting it to use that stuff) should be preferable to giving the ability to stall, when choosing between the two.

The AI could have been given half its army free instead of forts. It would be difficult to make a case that such wouldn't make the game harder than the forts change. In that light, I'm inclined to agree with Arumba that this isn't really a situation where the developers are tuning difficulty, but rather an issue arising from another attempt to "close exploits". If that results in more difficulty, I can accept it. When that results in more waiting...not so much.

I think you´ve interpreted my comment too literally (my bad I guess), what I meant to say is that the AI (and most of the core game mechanics btw) was designed/programmed to stall and not much else; so giving the AI more money will increase its ability to stall due to having more forts, having more military and at least theoretically making bankruptcy issues less common (like the AI giving up due to lack of cash). I agree that as usual this seems like another poorly tested feature where it was not supposed to give the AI free forts whenever they border wasteland (etc.) but still if it is implemented it is much better than dumbing down the game as unfortunately happened before and is happening in another of their games.

The idea behind it would be longer term planning, not cheese. It would be a 1-2 year project, and only allow you to move a fort one province over via adjacency. So if you conquer some land and suddenly have extra forts with competing zones of control, the solution isn't to just delete one/all, but to relocate one to a more suitable position.

The fort force limit is a great idea but I am afraid that being able to relocate forts is IMO silly albeit coherent with all the other arcade present in-game.

 

[Frogbait]

It is really silly and there is no good explanation for that since it should be the result of scripts like in HOI III (...)


WRT is the abbreviation of "With regard to"


Since ~2011 I´ve been asking for better AI for HOI but the best that I got from the developers at some point was something in the line of "AI does not sell games" (I can´t locate that post, sorry). Since it is a huge undertaking to program a clever AI, what I usually see instead is workarounds to increase the AI ability to stall the player. The AI cheating does not bother me so much as seeing games loose depth as a workaround for the lack of good AI. TL;DR So yeah I would love a clever AI but since that is not going to happen, letting the AI cheat is the lesser of two evils I guess.

I get the whole "AI doesn't sell games" quote. Unfortunately for you and me, more competent AI results in much heavier processing power and turns off more people to the game due to the sheer difficulty of it. Would be nice if they could implement it via difficulty, but then we would run into how often would it be updated and if it was updated often would that mean more expensive DLCs since that would be more developing time?

Oh well, thanks for the clarification

 

[Chaingun]

If you're OK with modding (no ironman), change defines.lua:

FORT_MAINTENANCE_CHEAT = 1, -- Set to 0 to disable AI fort maintenance cheating. Warning: Will make AI suck.

 

[Subbak]

If you're OK with modding (no ironman), change defines.lua:

FORT_MAINTENANCE_CHEAT = 1, -- Set to 0 to disable AI fort maintenance cheating. Warning: Will make AI suck.

Would it be possible to make them pay for the fort as though it were mothballed, at the very least? So the AI wouldn't just keep every single fort they had? A non-existent fort is much less of a liability than a mothballed fort in case of an ambush.

 

[Arumba]

Wow, even Paradox considers it a 'cheat'..... That's saying something...

There are some great ideas in here, and on this reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/48ity7/ai_handicap_on_border_forts_goes_too_far/
Any chance something else could be done? I especially like the idea of at least making the AI fort maintenance cheat only apply when bordering the player.

 

[net.split]

If you're in the business of modding anyway, turn off that cheat and simultaneously tank the costs of forts. Reduce their building cost to something like 1/5 - 1/4 or so of the current costs, and slash the upkeep costs to around 1/4 - 1/3.

Suddenly everything improves. Forts are no longer "lol no" from the player's perspective, and the AI is better able to handle the costs when they are in fact much more reasonable. After all, the opportunity cost of a building slot is already kind of substantial.

Well, the pathing problems don't improve, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[grommile]

Wow, even Paradox considers it a 'cheat'..... That's saying something...

Er, yes? Paradox are quite open about the fact that the AI does, in fact, cheat in some ways.

It has to. It's faced with a significantly smarter opponent to whom it is still expected to offer at least some kind of challenge when it has only a modest mathematical advantage over that opponent.

 

[Orange1861]

I think the AI should get instant full garrison when raising forts instead of getting free forts.

 

[ChildeR]

If you're OK with modding (no ironman), change defines.lua:

FORT_MAINTENANCE_CHEAT = 1, -- Set to 0 to disable AI fort maintenance cheating. Warning: Will make AI suck.

If you are the AI guy now, could you update the FAQ thread on AI cheats when you have the time?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ai-cheats-facts-and-misunderstandings.713930/

 

[Falc]

Well at the moment with the state of the game it has the AI with free forts and the majority of humans, at least in singleplayer, deleting all of them since they cost too much. Why not just have them free for all but a limit based on your forcelimit?

Every fort level is a thousand soldiers... There's no reason why those should not simply be deducted from your forcelimit and maybe even from your manpower...

 

[Tom013]

Would it be possible to make them pay for the fort as though it were mothballed, at the very least? So the AI wouldn't just keep every single fort they had? A non-existent fort is much less of a liability than a mothballed fort in case of an ambush.

I'd even find it more comfortable if the AI got an insta-garrison on war declaration than for them to get zero-maintenance forts everywhere.

If the problem they are trying to solve is the AI getting forts ninja'd at the start of wars, that fixes that WITHOUT giving them free army tradition AND extra money.

 

[grommile]

Every fort level is a thousand soldiers... There's no reason why those should not simply be deducted from your forcelimit and maybe even from your manpower...

... are you trying to make forts even worse than they already are?

Remember, good players are deleting most or all of their forts so that they can spend that money on army maintenance instead.

 

[Chaingun]

If you are the AI guy now, could you update the FAQ thread on AI cheats when you have the time?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ai-cheats-facts-and-misunderstandings.713930/

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's fairly out of date.

I'd even find it more comfortable if the AI got an insta-garrison on war declaration than for them to get zero-maintenance forts everywhere.

If the problem they are trying to solve is the AI getting forts ninja'd at the start of wars, that fixes that WITHOUT giving them free army tradition AND extra money.

It's both the tactical problem, and the fact AI easily bogs down its budget in forts. The player can majorly outclass the AI by changing strategy in response to the static choice made by the AI and adjusted for the circumstances. Even after fixing AI loan repayment last patch AI was still easily getting caught in fort expense spirals. Although Wiz suggested a full cheat, the "border only" cheat as seen here was created to let small AI countries have comparatively larger benefits than large AI countries (with a greater proportion of internal provinces). Sea counted as a border since the human player might rather easily perform a naval invasion. Ottomans do have a lot coast, unfortunately, leading to the result seen by Arumba.

I've removed it for wastelands in 1.16 as that obviously wasn't intended.

 

[Freudia]

It's both the tactical problem, and the fact AI easily bogs down its budget in forts. The player can majorly outclass the AI by changing strategy in response to the static choice made by the AI and adjusted for the circumstances. Even after fixing AI loan repayment last patch AI was still easily getting caught in fort expense spirals. Although Wiz suggested a full cheat, the "border only" cheat as seen here was created to let small AI countries have comparatively larger benefits than large AI countries (with a greater proportion of internal provinces). Sea counted as a border since the human player might rather easily perform a naval invasion. Ottomans do have a lot coast, unfortunately, leading to the result seen by Arumba.

I've removed it for wastelands in 1.16 as that obviously wasn't intended.

Wouldn't the general consistency at which the AI gets bogged down due to fort expenses be a sign that the fort expenses are too high, though? Players are deleting them in favor of spending that money on more useful things, and the AI is literally dying due to it, so that's generally indicative of such a problem, I'd imagine.

I feel like it's somewhat dubious to just continuously bandaid the problem without addressing the underlying cause. Constantly making small fixes like this seems temporary, or at least it'll end up requiring so many fringe case adjustments that I can't help but feel like it'd have been faster in the end to just address the underlying problem instead.

Clearly this is all just speculation on my part, though; I don't know what goes on in coding the AI.

 

[Arumba]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's fairly out of date.



It's both the tactical problem, and the fact AI easily bogs down its budget in forts. The player can majorly outclass the AI by changing strategy in response to the static choice made by the AI and adjusted for the circumstances. Even after fixing AI loan repayment last patch AI was still easily getting caught in fort expense spirals. Although Wiz suggested a full cheat, the "border only" cheat as seen here was created to let small AI countries have comparatively larger benefits than large AI countries (with a greater proportion of internal provinces). Sea counted as a border since the human player might rather easily perform a naval invasion. Ottomans do have a lot coast, unfortunately, leading to the result seen by Arumba.

I've removed it for wastelands in 1.16 as that obviously wasn't intended.

A naval landing takes 36 days if the province is hostile.

UNLOAD_COST_FRIENDLY = 12,                        -- cost to unload to friendly territory
UNLOAD_COST_ENEMY = 36,                           -- cost to hostile.

I'm fairly sure it would be impossible to stage a naval invasion of a coastal fort before a monthly tick could recover some garrison. Even if you declared on the 1st of the month, there is no month long enough to allow for a 36 day invasion to clear before the next tick.

With maneuver increasing movement speed by 5% per pip, the following invasion times are possible from sea:

0 maneuver = 36.0 days = 36 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 100% modified speed))
1 maneuver = 34.3 days = 34 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 105% modified speed))
2 maneuver = 32.7 days = 33 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 110% modified speed))
3 maneuver = 31.3 days = 31 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 115% modified speed))
4 maneuver = 30.0 days = 30 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 120% modified speed))
5 maneuver = 28.8 days = 29 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 125% modified speed))
6 maneuver = 27.7 days = 28 days (36 days base * (100% base speed / 130% modified speed))

Further testing has revealed that the game is rounding to the nearest integer. So the best possible invasion speed is 28 days. So to actually succeed in a naval invasion before a possible recovery tick could happen, you would have to declare a war on the 1st of January, March, May, July, August, October, or December and have a general with 4 maneuver or higher, or in any other month other than February you would have to have 5 maneuver or more.

February is officially no-sneaky-naval-invasions-allowed month.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Giving the AI freebies on an over-priced stalling mechanic seems like the last place you'd want to give the AI freebies to make the game more entertaining. If you want the game to be more challenging/engaging, extra siege times is probably not the best path.

 

[Rae2]

A naval landing takes 36 days if the province is hostile.

UNLOAD_COST_FRIENDLY = 12,                        -- cost to unload to friendly territory
UNLOAD_COST_ENEMY = 36,                           -- cost to hostile.

I'm fairly sure it would be impossible to stage a naval invasion of a coastal fort before a monthly tick could recover some garrison. Even if you declared on the 1st of the month, there is no month long enough to allow for a 36 day invasion to clear before the next tick.

Forced march would make it possible though, wouldn't it? I know that you can activate it for naval landings... I don't know for shure if it actually does anything, though.

 

[ramius3443]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's fairly out of date.



It's both the tactical problem, and the fact AI easily bogs down its budget in forts. The player can majorly outclass the AI by changing strategy in response to the static choice made by the AI and adjusted for the circumstances. Even after fixing AI loan repayment last patch AI was still easily getting caught in fort expense spirals. Although Wiz suggested a full cheat, the "border only" cheat as seen here was created to let small AI countries have comparatively larger benefits than large AI countries (with a greater proportion of internal provinces). Sea counted as a border since the human player might rather easily perform a naval invasion. Ottomans do have a lot coast, unfortunately, leading to the result seen by Arumba.

I've removed it for wastelands in 1.16 as that obviously wasn't intended.

Wouldn't it make more sense to set a maximum amount of money the AI is allowed to spend on fort maitenence (10-20% of total expenses) and have them auto-disband forts if they go over that limit? Or just give them an automatic -20% reduced fort maitenence?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Wouldn't it make more sense to set a maximum amount of money the AI is allowed to spend on fort maitenence (10-20% of total expenses) and have them auto-disband forts if they go over that limit? Or just give them an automatic -20% reduced fort maitenence?

If you wanted to have it avoid uselessly sinking money into a bad deal that is the most recent pet "feature", yes.

But then you wouldn't get nations with 15-20 level 6-8 forts in the late game to constantly try to siege through, almost all of them free. It's more "fun" to have those free forts there, supposedly, despite that any strategy in utilizing them is cost-prohibitive to the player by design.

 

[Chaingun]

Wouldn't the general consistency at which the AI gets bogged down due to fort expenses be a sign that the fort expenses are too high, though? Players are deleting them in favor of spending that money on more useful things, and the AI is literally dying due to it, so that's generally indicative of such a problem, I'd imagine.

Yes, Johan/Wiz could certainly change the design. IDD that fort maintenance feels rather risky to me and it's difficult to not overdo it in MP. On the other hand, the difficulty can be interpreted as depth in gameplay. Nonetheless, if you're going to have any luck with design changes, Johan is the person you need to convince.

I'm fairly sure it would be impossible to stage a naval invasion of a coastal fort before a monthly tick could recover some garrison.

Sure, it would still be severely understrength though with associated implications. The current solution may be too generous, but it was quick without tacking on additional exceptions. It's especially nice in AI code for the AI to be able to ignore maintenance of a specific fort altogether as it makes the problem vastly more simple.

Giving the AI freebies on an over-priced stalling mechanic seems like the last place you'd want to give the AI freebies to make the game more entertaining. If you want the game to be more challenging/engaging, extra siege times is probably not the best path.

Again, this is more of a game design question. I basically share your sentiment, but then again I've always been the conqueror type playing the game (EU2+) at almost perpetual war. Late game fort balance may be an entirely different beast, referring to the multiple threads on the excitement of sieging a level 8 fort.

Wouldn't it make more sense to set a maximum amount of money the AI is allowed to spend on fort maitenence (10-20% of total expenses) and have them auto-disband forts if they go over that limit? Or just give them an automatic -20% reduced fort maitenence?

I could write a long explanation but you will have to trust me when I say simple solutions have been tried. (The current AI is also indeed simple but a fair bit more complex than what you describe here.) For a start, consider that country income is not a fixed number but often varies from month to month.