Ai...

[Jadelith]

I have played and loved Eu, Eu2 and HoI. They were perfect games... if only they had a bit better AI
I'm pretty sure that everyone's aware of the weakness in AI. (ex. England changing its religion every 3 years so that it never has a positive stability (in eu), or the allies never attacking germany (in hoi), and so forth). I wonder if the AI will be better in Victoria?

(If this topic has already been discussed, then please give a link.. As you all know, the search function doesn't work).

 

[Icecold]

It looks better from reading the AAR's, but only time will tell on this question I think.

Cheers, Ice

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I'll reserve judgment. The pre-release AARs we had for HoI suggested the game was far more of a challenge than it was. It's difficult to tell when an AAR writer is trying to rationalise a game quirk.

 

[IEX Totalview]

I dunno. When reading HOI's beta AARs it was pretty obvious there were problems:

1) In the German AAR, I remeber France falling in three or four days

2) In BIB's Japanese AAR, I remember him taking over the Philipines without declaring war on the United States.

3) In Systass's Soviet AAR, I remember a pre-war attack on Persia, with no British response, and the later nuking of Washington D.C..

At least to me, the Victoria AARs seem to be much more realstic. Maybe the AAR writers are embellishing weaknesses (which is something many AAR writers do to aid the story) but it sounds like the game is reasonably challenging. If this was HOI, then Aprof would have already annexed the U.S. and Japan as Mexico by now, but in Victoria, it seemes he is struggling to become a decent power.

Of course I'll reserve judgement till I play the game, but I am optimistic Victoria will be more challenging than HOI.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

The AI does look a lot better this time around, I remember Kings? Beta HoI AAR at Germany when he took Leningrad in 4 days as being a problem. Bottom line with Vicky is that the movement rates will be a lot lower so hopefully the AI will be able to build a more stable front. Also we haven't seen major naval battles so I hope that that’s improved over HoI.

If I have one concern over the AI it would be that it's overly aggressive, the French kept on attacking on the Western front despite suffering massive losses each time. Maybe they would have been better served by defending? But I’ll reserve final judgment until after I've played the game and some patches have come out.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Kiith

If I have one concern over the AI it would be that it's overly aggressive, the French kept on attacking on the Western front despite suffering massive losses each time.

But otherwise people would be complaining that the game was ahistorical.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
But otherwise people would be complaining that the game was ahistorical.

Yeah your right I guess it's not something that I would have done in their place, but that didn't stop the generals of WWI from do so did it

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally posted by Jadelith
(ex. England changing its religion every 3 years so that it never has a positive stability (in eu)

To be fair, England's state religion really did change that much, actually they missed one change from Protestant to Calvinist (under Henry VIII's son, can't remember name & number)\\

As for the AI, it seems to be doing decently in the Beta AARs...

 

[Jadelith]

Re: Re: Ai...

Originally posted by Chengar Qordath
To be fair, England's state religion really did change that much, actually they missed one change from Protestant to Calvinist (under Henry VIII's son, can't remember name & number)\\

yeah, well, I wasn't talking about the event-driven changes.
after the two events that changes the religion, (henry VIII & bloody mary) sometimes the AI goes into a conversion spree

that was just an example, anyway

 

[Chengar Qordath]

[historical nitpick]

You forgot the change in the Cromwell event.

[historical nitpick]

All I am saying is that claiming that England's conversions are an example of weak is invalid, since England's conversions are event driven and historical. England's unstable religious policy certainly did keep them weak for some time, England does not really become a major power until the Stuarts are removed for good and the religious issue is finally resolved in 1689.

Considering the complexity of the EU game engine, the AI does a fairly decent job of handling it. As in any game, the human is better than the AI, but every once in a while the AI will pull off a nasty surprise in EU (I remember my Polish game where the Turks took Vienna )

I am certain that Paradox has also found ways to make the AI work even more effectively in Victoria, and if the game is half as good as the beta AARs make it sound, then I will buy it as soon as I can.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Something I like in the WWI AAR (sytass's)


He didn't crush France, in the least bit...It was a 50/50 chance at win/loss if Italy doesn't join him..and then he didn't really gain all that much in peace (from france) and he was actually about to lose to Russia if Sweden doesn't join.

he also ducked out of WWI before the Americans arrived

Both very good signs..especially since he's been playing the game for a month or so..

 

[unmerged(11593)]

i think the ai will be better in vic than hoi as it does not have as much to think about in wars.

ie. no carrier battles, britain being one entity instead of a commonwealth, not having to deal with players using large stacks of planes (At least until very near the end).

 

[unmerged(9895)]

I must say a few things because I just cant resist this fine opertunity to bash the ai

pre-release HoI aar's made the ai look weak, just as these aar's for victoria are doing. the fact that german is able to defeat russia, while assisting A-H, and taking down the french and belgium in the west is my first concern.

second, mexico colonizing in africa? come on, some european nation must of been able to get to it first. this reminds me of Eu, in which there was no real rush to colonize by the ai, so any nation you played could end up conquering the aztecs because the spanish ai would never bother.

third, america playing nice with mexico? seems like a big mistake. america had no real cause for a war with mexico historically, we just wanted the land so we made up a few things, over dramatized a few things (you know, the american way!) and kicked their butt.

fourth, this will be my last point because if i dont stop here i'll go on all day, seems to me the techs are being aquired at an alarming rate by trade. i guess this isnt such a bad thing, though its very unhistorical for the times, but you know the ai isnt going to be capable of making smart choices. It wont be able to make very good choices of when it should/shouldn't trade techs, so i would think that the entire tech trading system should be penalized (like ai wont trade unless you offer them way more than what its worth) so that players can not abuse this (something that could become very important in MP games) think of HoI with its tech trading, where ai nations hardly, hardly do it, but player nations will share everything instead of wasting valuable research time on the same project.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
I must say a few things because I just cant resist this fine opertunity to bash the ai

pre-release HoI aar's made the ai look weak, just as these aar's for victoria are doing. the fact that german is able to defeat russia, while assisting A-H, and taking down the french and belgium in the west is my first concern.

Isn't that what happened in RL, more or less?

second, mexico colonizing in africa? come on, some european nation must of been able to get to it first. this reminds me of Eu, in which there was no real rush to colonize by the ai, so any nation you played could end up conquering the aztecs because the spanish ai would never bother.

A good bit of Africa was uncolonized until after 1870. It's not like he got the whole thing, or even a big piece.

third, america playing nice with mexico? seems like a big mistake. america had no real cause for a war with mexico historically, we just wanted the land so we made up a few things, over dramatized a few things (you know, the american way!) and kicked their butt.

The Mexican-American war could have been avoided if Mexico has ceded the Texas issue to the United States and not been so easily drawn into the war. There were many in the North who saw the venture as the road to slavery expansion and an increase in the political power of the slave states.

Besides, are you saying it should be impossible for Mexico to avoid the war, no matter what it does? Aprof said a good bit of his diplomatic activity was spent keeping America happy. If it is impossible to avoid the war, what is the point of playing?

fourth, this will be my last point because if i dont stop here i'll go on all day, seems to me the techs are being aquired at an alarming rate by trade. i guess this isnt such a bad thing, though its very unhistorical for the times, but you know the ai isnt going to be capable of making smart choices. It wont be able to make very good choices of when it should/shouldn't trade techs, so i would think that the entire tech trading system should be penalized (like ai wont trade unless you offer them way more than what its worth) so that players can not abuse this (something that could become very important in MP games) think of HoI with its tech trading, where ai nations hardly, hardly do it, but player nations will share everything instead of wasting valuable research time on the same project.

You could have a point here. I don't know if the system is balanced or not, as I haven't played the game. Regardless, if it is too liberal, it can easily be resolved with a patch. I don't think it's an AI issue at all.

Just remember - if Aprof was playing HOI, he would have annexed the United States in the 1840s and currently be invading the British Isles.

 

[Icecold]

IEX Totalview wrote:

Just remember - if Aprof was playing HOI, he would have annexed the United States in the 1840s and currently be invading the British Isles.

Very true I totally agree, which is why I'm hopeful for Victoria.....lets keep our fingers crossed.

Cheers, Ice

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
so i would think that the entire tech trading system should be penalized (like ai wont trade unless you offer them way more than what its worth)

Then you get a whole board of people complaining about how unbalanced the tech trading is. Limited it with DI should work better than it did in HoI since you never had to spend DI in HoI one the war had started.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Lets keep in mind too Aprofs Mexico hasnt really expanded into NA...... he has a tiny little land in Africa (which really..do we want the AI going to war over anything..then we could bade them into anything we want).

The only worry I have is that its too easy to industrialize and build RR..but really the game is 30? years in and he is still a 2nd..or 3rd..rate power..

 

[daedalus]

Originally posted by skkrrt

The only worry I have is that its too easy to industrialize and build RR..but really the game is 30? years in and he is still a 2nd..or 3rd..rate power..

IMHO, IRL Mexico is relatively a rich country, so given all the right conditions, I dont think is too crazy that it could have eventually become an industrialize country. Of course, the game does not seem to be simulating all the internal turmoil that seem to have hit most of the young american republics. It could be introduced through events I guess, and it probably could slow down the industralization process a lot. In the other hand, I dont think many players will be happy with the game tying up their hands when trying to bring up a nation to its full potential. Why put too much effort in a game when you know that you will never crack the top 50 economies?

 

[unmerged(14393)]

Originally posted by daedalus
IMHO, IRL Mexico is relatively a rich country, so given all the right conditions, I dont think is too crazy that it could have eventually become an industrialize country. Of course, the game does not seem to be simulating all the internal turmoil that seem to have hit most of the young american republics. It could be introduced through events I guess, and it probably could slow down the industralization process a lot. In the other hand, I dont think many players will be happy with the game tying up their hands when trying to bring up a nation to its full potential. Why put too much effort in a game when you know that you will never crack the top 50 economies?

Excactly.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Also, aprof did say in the comments thread for his AAR that he played some of the game on an earlier version than the gold release, and that some of the changes might have made it much harder for him to accomplish as much as he has.