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

[Milith]

Correct, this is exactly one of the considerations that goes into AI war declaration frequency.

Interesting. What happens when you turn this off?

The reason I (and most players, probably) pretty much never play more than 200 years into a given game is that no AI, no matter how big they start, can match my blobbing speed, which means I inevitably become way bigger than everyone else and there's no point in going on anymore. I didn't know it was intentional.

A more aggressive AI could make lategame more interesting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Nah, what they should do is make separatism decay slower the more border you have with the country it was taken from.

 

[Viperswhip]

Snaking is a very good tactic, I lol when people talk about ugly borders. I envelope countries so I can munch on them at my leisure, I have a snaky route through various countries so that I can attack way more people at once. To see the AI doing so brightens my heart because it is often the right thing to do.

 

[Chaingun]

Interesting. What happens when you turn this off?

The reason I (and most players, probably) pretty much never play more than 200 years into a given game is that no AI, no matter how big they start, can match my blobbing speed, which means I inevitably become way bigger than everyone else and there's no point in going on anymore. I didn't know it was intentional.

A more aggressive AI could make lategame more interesting.

I should be careful what I say. I didn't mean to say there's "if player is human" code at normal difficulty, rather, I intended to point out one of the aspects that must be considered when determining how frequently the AI should be at war.

Regarding your particular point that AIs stop growing, I'm pretty sure there's a limit to how large they want to grow that you can mod in the defines IIRC (interest to conquer or something, too tired to look it up right now). The AI will not match a good human's blobbing speed either way because it's simply much more inefficient at everything, and does not formulate "grand strategies", instead being composed of multiple fairly independently operating subsystems.

 

[Viperswhip]

I should be careful what I say. I didn't mean to say there's "if player is human" code at normal difficulty, rather, I intended to poin out one of the aspects that must be considered when determining how frequently the AI should be at war.

Regarding your particular point that AIs stop growing, I'm pretty sure there's a limit to how much AIs want to grow that you can disable in the defines IIRC. The AI will not match a good human's blobbing speed either way because it's simply much more inefficient at everything.

Oh way to slap your boss, not that I want skynet or anything. In my games Observer games AIs stop growing because of alliance chains of blobs. Everyone blobs until they run into other blobs, and with no player there to mess things up, it just ends in a stalemate.

 

[Milith]

So I looked into the defines and found these two:

AGGRESSIVENESS = 300, -- Base chance (out of 10000) of AI being willing to start a war each diplomatic tick (~1.5 times a month)
AGGRESSIVENESS_BONUS_EASY_WAR = 500, -- Added to aggressiveness if the war is against a weak or particularily hated enemy

I think i'll bump the second one a bit and see what happens. If the AI is more willing to attack weak targets it should be able to blob faster without putting itself at risk.

 

[Arthasus]

bump both to 10000 and see what happens >.>

 

[Nirmara]

Not saying that the latter is an ideal state of affairs - there's a fair chance we might introduce such penalties in the future.

Are you considering increased AE in this case or making the AI less likely to accept peace deals that would split their countries?

 

[Kayden_II]

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.

AAAH No ? ...
Could the Game not use some Kind of, I do not know to calling It, "Algorithm" ...

The Bavaria/Austria-Example, but with "Lienz" is still a Province of Austria (Picture, Page 1) ...
The "Algorithm" for the Annexion: "Minimize the Foreign-Province-Borders (F-P-B) in Relation to the Own-Province-Borders (O-P-B)" ...
Linz: 4 (F-P-B) - 3 (O-P-B) = 1 (First Choice !)
Steiermark: 4 (F-P-B) - 1 (O-P-B) = 3 (Second Choice !)
Kärnten: 6 (F-P-B) - 1 (O-P-B) = 5 (Fourth Choice !)
Lienz: 5 (F-P-B) - 1 (O-P-B) = 4 (Third Choice !)
Tirol: 6 (F-P-B) - 2 (O-P-B) = 4 (Third Choice !) ...

Result: The Bavaria-AI had annexed "Linz" instead of "Lienz" ... Better !