"AI now less fond of peaces that result in enemy territory being split up into multiple parts"

[gebali]

Not, it isn't (note Milan as well):

 

[ahyangyi]

I guess they are just less fond of doing so, but they are not obliged not to do so. They might even still favor split than not, just not so much than before.

 

[Chaingun]

They do it less frequently, you'll still see plenty of cases where it happens.

Yes, I could entirely force a behavior where AI doesn't ever split up opponents when avoidable, but then it would play worse than otherwise: There are fair reasons to pick a better province that splits up an enemy, and there are currently no penalties for doing so. Not saying that the latter is an ideal state of affairs - there's a fair chance we might introduce such penalties in the future.

 

[Wagonlitz]

They do it less frequently, you'll still see plenty of cases where it happens.

Yes, I could entirely force a behavior where AI doesn't ever split up opponents when avoidable, but then it would play worse than otherwise: There are fair reasons to pick a better province that splits up an enemy, and there are currently no penalties for doing so. Not saying that the latter is an ideal state of affairs - there's a fair chance we might introduce such penalties in the future.

Why should splitting a country in two not be valid? Historically that tactic was used by at least the Swedes. The point being that it severely weakens the opponent and perhaps even allows you to easily gobble up one of the parts later.

 

[ahyangyi]

Why should splitting a country in two not be valid? Historically that tactic was used by at least the Swedes. The point being that it severely weakens the opponent and perhaps even allows you to easily gobble up one of the parts later.

Because some players love pretty borders.

I don't, though. What can better represent the EU4 era than a chaotic HRE map?

 

[Gratak]

Why should splitting a country in two not be valid? Historically that tactic was used by at least the Swedes. The point being that it severely weakens the opponent and perhaps even allows you to easily gobble up one of the parts later.

Well I'm not sure how the change in AI is exactly working but it makes sense that the country who is supposed to be seperated into parts objects to this...

 

[Chaingun]

Why should splitting a country in two not be valid? Historically that tactic was used by at least the Swedes. The point being that it severely weakens the opponent and perhaps even allows you to easily gobble up one of the parts later.

Where have I said we would make it invalid? Regardless, you have to admit placing stretches of your own territory inside someone else's isn't a 100% beneficial strategy completely without downsides. The game does simulate some of the downsides already, but arguably not to the extent where the player will stop think doing it to the AI ("ugliness" excepted).

 

[Wagonlitz]

Where have I said we would make it invalid? Regardless, you have to admit placing stretches of your own territory inside someone else's isn't a 100% beneficial strategy completely without downsides. The game does simulate some of the downsides already, but arguably not to the extent where the player will stop think doing it to the AI ("ugliness" excepted).

I misread you then; I read you as saying that you might prevent the AI from doing it.
And as mentioned inserting yourself in a country thereby cutting it in two was a valid strategy that at least the Swedes used. It could lead to it being easier to gobble up the less important part later.

 

[RobRoy3]

...And as mentioned inserting yourself in a country thereby cutting it in two was a valid strategy that at least the Swedes used. It could lead to it being easier to gobble up the less important part later.

And for that reason, it would be a peace resolution that would be resisted more fiercely. I would think doing such violence to a nation's integrity would require a much higher warscore (double?) than taking edge provinces.

Granted, a prostrate country wouldn't be in much position to resist such an imposed peace. But a prostrate country wouldn't be able to resist complete annexation, either. Since the game systems restrict the conqueror, in a variety of ways, and since some of those presumably model residual capacity to continue to make life difficult for the conqueror, upping the cost of splitting the country seems a more elegant solution than hard coding AI behavior in ways that might be contrary to its interests.

 

[G_Morgan]

Where have I said we would make it invalid? Regardless, you have to admit placing stretches of your own territory inside someone else's isn't a 100% beneficial strategy completely without downsides. The game does simulate some of the downsides already, but arguably not to the extent where the player will stop think doing it to the AI ("ugliness" excepted).

It would be better if there was additional separatism or something for cutting a line through the middle of a nation. This would represent the increased length of border potential patriots could cross.

 

[Wagonlitz]

And for that reason, it would be a peace resolution that would be resisted more fiercely. I would think doing such violence to a nation's integrity would require a much higher warscore (double?) than taking edge provinces.

Granted, a prostrate country wouldn't be in much position to resist such an imposed peace. But a prostrate country wouldn't be able to resist complete annexation, either. Since the game systems restrict the conqueror, in a variety of ways, and since some of those presumably model residual capacity to continue to make life difficult for the conqueror, upping the cost of splitting the country seems a more elegant solution than hard coding AI behavior in ways that might be contrary to its interests.

Seems like a good solution.

 

[Gratak]

It would be better if there was additional separatism or something for cutting a line through the middle of a nation. This would represent the increased length of border potential patriots could cross.

While not changing the AI so that they kill themselves by still doing it? Bad idea in my opinion.

 

[Vulkandrache]

The moment i read this in the patch notes i almost facepalmed. If anything the AI should be MORE willing to split up an enemy.
This change "because aethetic" is form over function

 

[Chaingun]

Who do you think benefits the most when the AI countries are messing each others up?

 

[Oldpara]

Well, I don't get this.

Screenshot is perfectly fine. AI should care about IT'S OWN borders and don't give a shit about enemy's.

What I see is Bavaria taking some land form Austria and Milan form Switzerland but their borders are to some extend fine. What those counties should even care about consistency of enemy's borders?

Works fine if you ask me.

 

[Frogbait]

Who do you think benefits the most when the AI countries are messing each others up?

Sweden, Johan, Wiz, France, Ottomans, Ming, Austria. In that order. No matter where on the planet.

 

[Milith]

Who do you think benefits the most when the AI countries are messing each others up?

By that logic you should make the AI less likely to declare war on other AIs.

 

[Gratak]

By that logic you should make the AI less likely to declare war on other AIs.

In the long term the player would profit from this as no large AI nations could ever arise

 

[gebali]

Actually I dont give a damn, I only posted it because I have nearly never seen the AI doing this splitting during my 500+ hours, and now, with the patch came out, it happened almost instantly, twice. I find it funny

 

[Chaingun]

By that logic you should make the AI less likely to declare war on other AIs.

Correct, this is exactly one of the considerations that goes into AI war declaration frequency. Over-aggression leads to weakness (it's pretty obvious with for instance a depleted manpower pool).