All this kings horses, and all things king's men, could not get rid of the AI's stupidity

[HybridRifter]

Nothing in this game makes me want to hit the "EXIT" button more than when my allies start stupid wars. Latest one I had was Prussia deciding it wanted to start a "wrong government type" war with Novgorod. Novgorod had a larger alliance than Prussia did, but went ahead and declared that war anyway. Then, because the level of stupid is high with this Prussian King, asked ONLY me to help him. France? Russia? Why call them into this giant war? They are useless. So, against my better judgment, went ahead and joined his war (not knowing at the time I was the only one to help join in with Prussia). and do my best to help win against poor odds.

However, due to some sheer luck, I was able to remove all enemy opposition on the western border of Prussia - Now all that is left is Novgorod and Hungry (which is un-normally large in my game - bigger than Russia). Progress then begins happening in the east! Province after province is falling to our armies with no opposition. Its looking like we may win this things because the Prussian king luckily found a leader to declare war on with a lower IQ than him. Do I even dare say the Prussian king is looking like a tactical genius. Then suddenly Prussia accepts a white peace. WTF?!?!?!?

The war score was -7%, but it was all from silly blockades. Only 2 provinces in the African coast of my country were under their control to the dozen Hungarian and Novgorodan provinces we had. On top of that, I was actually about to move an army into the capital province of Novgorod and accomplish the crazy objective of the war within a year.

I know this comes off as a rant, and I agree it somewhat is, but this really is the kind of dumb crap that makes so few players want to finish games to the end. At late game the stupidity of the AI is magnified due to fewer countries existing and the greater need for alliances so you do not get dog piled. However, this also leads to the AI trying to bait you into really bad wars, either through requests from nations to form an alliance with you (so tired of colonies asking me to support their independence so I can then be dog piled by their colonial overlords and have no allies to call into the war) or existing allies starting wars that end in disaster more often than not. in the later case, if you do not join that war, you ally will end up a shadow of itself and the balance of power in is now less in your favor a lose - lose situation for players.

 

[Boodas]

You made the mistake of having allies late game instead of client states and marches.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

One more reason to have the AI-ally-asks-human-for-interest-in-war-before-starting-it-mechanic and the ability for human to set their own war enthusiasm.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I find the need to restart the game to get the AI to move whatsoever to be a more vexing/priority problem, but yes the modifiers that go into the AI making/accepting peace need a long look. Length of war is a stopgap, and a poor one. It can't be replaced by nothing or every war is insta-white peace, but it's nevertheless terrible and results in many cases where the AI burns its resources or game-throws in adherence to it.

Using it leads to situations where the AI will let itself bleed to death rather than making even the most trivial of concessions, but it also leads to situations where it throws away a marked advantage because enough time has elapsed, regardless of relative positional strength in the war.

 

[Von Lauenburg]

Russia hunting Ottoman rebels (and avoiding Ottoman forces) in the Russia-Ottoman war is even better example. Especially after I had funded those rebels.

 

[Wizzington]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

 

[IcyBlizzard]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

What´s the benefit to Prussia changing Novgorod´s Government type when they´ll end up being enemies? I confused, master.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

That said, do you really think that outcome is any better for gameplay overall, regardless of who's benefitting in any given case?

The AI's inability to make evaluations of its war situation and relying on at least x amount of time absent fringe cases like "100% occupation without allies" is a serious detriment to its ability to blob (or avoid shattering to rebels) and present a long-term threat. Whether it's refusing to white peace at -30% war score or giving white peace when it has 100000 more manpower and is sieging the war goal, both are detrimental choices by factions that are, in theory, trying to maximize their position.

 

[HybridRifter]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

Thing is, it was not that long of a war. War exhaustion was not even an issue with Prussia or myself. We were facing no opposition in our sieges of their land. My issues is how the AI judged the chances of winning the war it declared in the first place and then how it decided it was losing a war it was winning. If Hungary had fought in Europe instead of taking land in Africa, Prussia and myself would not have been able to push forward in an eastern offensive. I doubt the AI took that into account when it formulated its chances of winning the war....or did it? *tinfoil hat*

 

[NetherViking]

One more reason to have the AI-ally-asks-human-for-interest-in-war-before-starting-it-mechanic and the ability for human to set their own war enthusiasm.

I would really appreciate being able to give the AI some feedback on my readiness, even if expressing hesitation brought a relationship penalty.

 

[NetherViking]

Russia hunting Ottoman rebels (and avoiding Ottoman forces) in the Russia-Ottoman war is even better example. Especially after I had funded those rebels.

Lol oh dear. Moscow didn't get the memo.

 

[Plantagent]

The AI got a bit dumber after forts were added. I had a war against Hungary where my PU Lithuania had 22k troops just sit in the capital the entire time. I understand Novgorod, but Hungary should be close enough to attack. They also acted like a sleep deprived teenager when I fought Golden Horde - Nogai even came up and was sieging down their own provinces with little to no reaction from Lith troops.

Also, Bohemia ally in an Ottoman war? Oh, there's a fort blocking our way into Ottoland, let's go home until it gets sieged down. Their army should be waiting in a high supply limit province that is close to the annoying fort, not all the way back home.

That said, vassals do a superb job of claiming things now. It's beautiful. Also, AI stupidity in tactical manuevers - sieging things, making a decision on which province to enter in next, attacking - has saved me a lot. So I don't really feel like I should complain about the AI. Of course, my Bohemia ally pretty much never declares on anyone large. And they gave me an HRE province from Pomerania - when they were Emperor. I might be sentimental.

 

[Manchester.bw]

One more reason to have the AI-ally-asks-human-for-interest-in-war-before-starting-it-mechanic and the ability for human to set their own war enthusiasm.

Omg, they should totes add this. Why can't I tell the AI "call me only into defensive wars" when the AI does the same to me?

 

[knoddy]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

Im sorry but when does that EVER happen. The AI NEVER wants to accept white peace without losing a war in some way shape or form. Perfect example last night, in my ottoman game, I had 70% something warscore against England, I then got every ally out of the way by sieging their forts, except the Hansa, (i didnt siege anything of theirs) but I had crushed their army multiple times, they had been pulled into 4 wars defending england as the AI dogpiled them. I had 700k troops Vs their 30k and Englands 60k. Yet no white peace, I had to go and fully 100% blockade them to get white peace....Oh also there was no length of war modifier because we had been at war for like 4-5 years.

The AI loves to fight to the death in wars that are not even about them against the player but when they AI fights the AI they white peace out when they are winning easily.

 

[VanguardZero]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

This doesn't answer the question. It just highlights that there is a problem with the white peace logic.

 

[Todenpuhuja]

One more reason to have the AI-ally-asks-human-for-interest-in-war-before-starting-it-mechanic and the ability for human to set their own war enthusiasm.

This, and a mechanic to communicate with the alliance during the war. For example, expressing willingness to continue the war, or pull out from it, or telling the war leader what one expects from the peace deal should it be signed.

 

[Dell19]

Omg, they should totes add this. Why can't I tell the AI "call me only into defensive wars" when the AI does the same to me?

Presumably because they think players would always switch the attitude to defensive. I think to get around this I would have two tiers of alliances, a defensive one which is most common and then a full alliance type. This would obviously increase the number of defensive partners in a war so when starting a war it would be possible to invite other nations that you are not currently allied to into the war. They would only accept if they had good relations and a strategic interest.

In terms of the original post I think the declaration of war is sort of fine as the AI has to make mistakes otherwise wars in the game would be much rarer. I agree though that the AI would ideally be better at judging when to try and peace out early or when to continue (mistakes should still be allowed).

 

[RELee]

Allies should always do their human master's will. It's a moral imperative!



edit: do I need to add the /irony tag here or does everyone get it?

 

[-Jester-]

I often find myself begging for the AI to end wars instead of waiting for obscenely high war scores.

Like COME ON, it's 80%+, do you really need more than that? I've had my people calling for peace for some time now and I want to avoid the "separate peace" relations penalty.

Then again, if it is the AI's war, my only goal is to end it ASAP so I can go back to what I was doing.

 

[chrnno]

I'm sure you've been equally upset every time the AI's willingness to white peace in a long war worked in your favor. After all, it isn't as though players would ever judge an AI's competence on whether its decisions benefit them or not.

So by that can I understand you are working on solving the problem with AI's willingness to white peace in long war work in favour of the player?