AI 'handicap' on border forts goes too far.

[Chaingun]

It's great to see so many design suggestions in response to the posts I made. However, my capability to see these things through from idea stage to implementation is realistically rather limited, both because of time constraints and my mandate. I've updated my forum signature to remind everyone of this.

I haven't really seen many of the devs replying on the EU4 forums recently (barring, obviously, Chaingun), so I do have to wonder how often they read nowadays.

Pretty sure Johan and most QAs read at least once a day, but because discussions are a potential time sink they are sometimes better avoided (I am writing this at 3.45 AM).

It's a problem with AI in general, and how it fits into the game development cycle.

Work on the AI calculations on any given feature can't really start until the feature is complete, and by then the company developing the game wants it to be released (it's ready and functional, companies are about business and making money, let's release).

This happens to all and every game developer out there. The time to improve AI would be once the game is complete and not being developed anymore - but by that time the companies behind the game cut funding and start focusing other projects.

Even ongoing games like EUIV, which are lucky enough to have a company behind like PDX who really cares about the product, fall into this trap.

You're certainly right. I should add that as a dev it's a challenge to keep up with the new features being added and understanding them in time. Even features that I implemented myself, because it's unclear how much they impact the 'efficient' way to play the game, until after release when I can read players' AARs and discussions on strategies.

 

[darkfireslide]

I wonder if this explains what happened to me in this campaign. (Notice the year)

 

[Chaingun]

I worked quite extensively with making the AI follow missions a bit better and similar things for the 1.15 patch (there were Christmas holidays in-between which helped). I wouldn't blame it all on forts.

To be clear, my focus has now shifted to de-blobbing mechanisms, but there are yet no holidays in sight.

 

[Arumba]

Side thought, Chaingun you mentioned you're trying to make the AI play the game well as it currently is, could we perhaps consider teaching the AI to please god stop hiring mercenary cavalry and cannons? I think even the newest player in EU4 quickly realizes how atrocious the cost-benefit is on them, yet I constantly see the AI raising mercs in dangerous locations, I go to kill them and its a solo merc cannon. I mean.. why? Just say no! You can only hire merc infantry. You hire them and you use your manpower on your other units.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

It's a problem with AI in general, and how it fits into the game development cycle.

Work on the AI calculations on any given feature can't really start until the feature is complete, and by then the company developing the game wants it to be released (it's ready and functional, companies are about business and making money, let's release).

This happens to all and every game developer out there. The time to improve AI would be once the game is complete and not being developed anymore - but by that time the companies behind the game cut funding and start focusing other projects.

Even ongoing games like EUIV, which are lucky enough to have a company behind like PDX who really cares about the product, fall into this trap.

I understand that but the biggest issue IMO is that this AI (that seems mostly pasted from game to game and then adapted) still has very serious flaws that don´t seem to be addressed game after game. Maybe I expect too much. IDK

Side thought, Chaingun you mentioned you're trying to make the AI play the game well as it currently is, could we perhaps consider teaching the AI to please god stop hiring mercenary cavalry and cannons? I think even the newest player in EU4 quickly realizes how atrocious the cost-benefit is on them, yet I constantly see the AI raising mercs in dangerous locations, I go to kill them and its a solo merc cannon. I mean.. why? Just say no! You can only hire merc infantry. You hire them and you use your manpower on your other units.

That would be great if the AI knew how to conserve its manpower but it doesn´t so its only solution is to hire every type of merc available either that or give up. Workaround: drastically reduce the cost/maintenance of mercs whenever the AI hires them.
Edit: Actually there are very good reasons to hire Merc CAV too so one would actually be teaching the AI to play sub optimally.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I see your point but probably the reason is that forts impacted the AI harsher than they anticipated and it is easier to make them a non-issue (i.e. return to the balance prior to common sense) than to rebalance the whole game; besides hopefully this is only a band-aid while they try to find the time/resources to program the AI* to deal with them (permanent fix). Whatever the reason the pattern is clear PDS usually (always?) choses the path with the least amount of resistance.

*Yes I acknowledge that the AI has improved over the years but the progress is very slow and the AI is still near the brain-dead level of performance especially at a strategic level.

There are still design shackles on the AI. It could be made to take land more aggressively. It would still suck using troops and allocating resources but it would grow faster, especially the luckies. The AI has even define-level constraints on what it takes at war.

Edit: It's easier to give poor AI a pass because I've yet to see a strategy game where it is particularly good, aside from ones where spamming something is advantageous (custom starcraft AIs with APM past what the human body can achieve to compensate weak strategy). You can always make an AI better and some areas at least LOOK like low hanging fruits wrt tendencies/choices, but incremental improvements do seem to get more expensive computationally and creation-wise.

The design aspect of it is another matter though. There is a difference between decided that you don't want to put more money into making the AI incrementally better, and intentionally making it less effective within the framework of the game's own rules in order to achieve other goals...some not so consistent with what was stated regarding them.

 

[Chaingun]

Side thought, Chaingun you mentioned you're trying to make the AI play the game well as it currently is, could we perhaps consider teaching the AI to please god stop hiring mercenary cavalry and cannons? I think even the newest player in EU4 quickly realizes how atrocious the cost-benefit is on them, yet I constantly see the AI raising mercs in dangerous locations, I go to kill them and its a solo merc cannon. I mean.. why? Just say no! You can only hire merc infantry. You hire them and you use your manpower on your other units.

Sure, low hanging fruit like this is always welcome. Can't really recall why it hasn't been addressed (maybe the solution is more complicated than it would appear) but it really shouldn't be at first glance. My guess is that AI is somehow needing to maintain unit balance because it doesn't understand it can compensate via regular regiments, or it's simply to be compatible with mods (but one can leave a define for that).

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

There are still design shackles on the AI. It could be made to take land more aggressively. It would still suck using troops and allocating resources but it would grow faster, especially the luckies. The AI has even define-level constraints on what it takes at war.

I think those shackles are needed because it has little no understating of what it is doing and no strategic understanding so it would collapse to rebellions and coalitions more often than not (especially if it took wrong religion/culture provinces). One just needs to take a look at its idea group/mission selections to realize that it *really* does not know what it is doing. Regardless of what I just said many people would complain that such expansion is not historical which is pretty ridiculous when playing a game with mostly arcade mechanics if you ask me. But it is what it is I guess.

Sure, low hanging fruit like this is always welcome. Can't really recall why it hasn't been addressed (maybe the solution is more complicated than it would appear) but it really shouldn't be at first glance. My guess is that AI is somehow needing to maintain unit balance because it doesn't understand it can compensate via regular regiments, or it's simply to be compatible with mods (but one can leave a define for that).

The AI runs out of manpower in a heartbeat and you are contemplating the option to deprive it of cav mercs? I can understand that coming from ppl with less knowledge but from a dev? Are you serious?

 

[Chaingun]

Don't worry, this kind of thing passes through QA first. I am aware that how human plays isn't always necessarily the best for AI.

No, I am not at all an expert at EU4 which I've played little in comparison to EU2/3. Hence I'm not in charge of design.

 

[kentun]

OOT but related, in any game that I remember Poland never upgrade Warsawa fort no matter how big they expand. Even when I play Lithuania and bordering their capital

 

[ChildeR]

Can't really recall why it hasn't been addressed (maybe the solution is more complicated than it would appear)

Before the merc overhaul it used to be that you ran out of infantry mercs. I know I used at least cavalry mercs in dire straits, so the AI may have been better off doing the same. Of course, it should only have happened when out of infantry so the logic may be wrong even for that situation.

 

[Ninaran]

Workaround: drastically reduce the cost/maintenance of mercs whenever the AI hires them.

I just imagined the Ottomans with free forts and drastically cheaper mercenaries. I think I threw up a little in my mouth. :x

 

[Zelius]

Sure, low hanging fruit like this is always welcome. Can't really recall why it hasn't been addressed (maybe the solution is more complicated than it would appear) but it really shouldn't be at first glance. My guess is that AI is somehow needing to maintain unit balance because it doesn't understand it can compensate via regular regiments, or it's simply to be compatible with mods (but one can leave a define for that).

Current situation appears to be like this:
Human logic: "Wellp, I've taken a lot of casualties and if I let my infantry reinforce my manpower will be drained. Time to consolidate regiments and hire infantry mercs."
AI logic: "Manpower zero and no army? Everything is now replaced with mercs."

If the AI could recognise early on that a war will drag on and deplete its manpower, and begin replacing infantry with mercs even when they still have a good manpower reserve, that'd be great.

 

[Subbak]

It's great to see so many design suggestions in response to the posts I made. However, my capability to see these things through from idea stage to implementation is realistically rather limited, both because of time constraints and my mandate. I've updated my forum signature to remind everyone of this.

(...)

Before you shower me with your design proposals for EU4, please remember that I am not Wiz, nor am I Johan. I am mainly concerned with making the AI play the game as it is, and you're far better of trying to get Johan's (or DDRJake's) attention when you want to change the game.

So, should we infer from this that DDRJake and Wiz are the same person? But they were two of them on that stream for Cossacks preview! Is one of them a impostor? Are they a hive mind? We need to know!

 

[ChildeR]

So, should we infer from this that DDRJake and Wiz are the same person? But they were two of them on that stream for Cossacks preview! Is one of them a impostor? Are they a hive mind? We need to know!

Wiz moved to other projects for now and DDRJake joined the design team. You can find a thread about it somewhere.

 

[Subbak]

Wiz moved to other projects for now and DDRJake joined the design team. You can find a thread about it somewhere.

I know, but the phrasing is weird. He shoudl say "I am not Johan, nor am I DDRJake", by this logic.

 

[Frogbait]

Don't worry, this kind of thing passes through QA first. I am aware that how human plays isn't always necessarily the best for AI.

No, I am not at all an expert at EU4 which I've played little in comparison to EU2/3. Hence I'm not in charge of design.

We all saw your Portugal play in the latest Dev MP

Serious note, thanks for taking the time out to join in this discussion.

Something from an AI perspective that it possibly a low hanging fruit. Anyway to let the AI know that if it combines its fleet / army it can take on an enemy fleet/army? It still falls into the trap where so long as I have a fleet that can take on their biggest merged navy stack they will not engage, even if they could beat me by adding 1-2 more ships that they have nearby.

 

[Victory5]

If you have a difficult time beating the AI, even with its 'cheating', you probably are not that good of a player.

Is it nice to have the AI play the right way...of course. But there are bigger design problems and visions that need to be worked out first. The minutia regarding AI not paying for forts when the AI is absolutely no challenge to beat is irrelevant.

 

[mcmanusaur]

No more AI cheats!

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Is it nice to have the AI play the right way...of course. But there are bigger design problems and visions that need to be worked out first. The minutia regarding AI not paying for forts when the AI is absolutely no challenge to beat is irrelevant.

That is more or less what I´ve been trying to say all along but apparently few ppl think that way; most people must have a hard time defeating this brain-dead AI if they think that the free forts cheat goes too far. Just compare the like/deslike ratio of the OP and the 2nd post. Lol