Does the AI expand too much?

[Maykievic]

I think that without blob a player wouldnt have much of a challenge but there is also people that loke to roleplay from time to time and not only expand but taking care of trade , colonizing etc.
So maybe something in between , a way to have strong enemies tags but also a discrete survability for minors.
It would be nice if minors ai had more possibilities to ally with strong tags and that bloballiances (eng austria spain dor example) would less frequent and with max one other major nation. It would protect minors , blobs qould still be strong and the game wouldnt see always the same blobs to expand in the same one or two ways...
Like i previously said 1.13 was quite more balanced

 

[Violent AI]

I wish the AI was spreading MORE, FASTER, HARDER..

You can modify game files to make military personality rulers more likely and therefore more wars and more blobs.
There's an ai_personalities file that you can edit for it

 

[GC13]

Actually, I'd just wanted to point out that above everything this is a game and not a history simulator. Gameplay choices should prevail over historical arguments, but I keep seeing people here and the steam boards (mostly the steam boards) bringing up history to remove or add features.

Right now blobbing is terrible for gameplay: with every province you take, taking the next province becomes easier. It's like if in Pac-Man the game started pretty fast but slowed down each level you completed. People make all sorts of suggestions from history because EU4 sells itself as being well-grounded in history (even bragging about "unparalleled" historical accuracy), but is lacking all sorts of historically authentic mechanisms to keep blobs from eating the world.

I mean, it's really fun to make a music video for Shinedown's "Enemies", but you never get past the "you've got the world on its knees, you're taking all that you please" part.

 

[SPAMbuca]

That's true, but as others pointed out already and as far as I know, this game is designed to see how far and wide you can expand in a set period of time. It goes without saying that expanding makes more expansion easier. The only way to counter that is by having rivals controlled by the AI (Assuming you're not playing multiplayer) blob out as well to offer a challenge. I don't think a lot of people would enjoy it either if you would get coalitioned to death for winning 2 wars. Also keep in mind that coalitions in real history were a lot less efficient while here it mostly boils down to the total troop count, manpower, economy and the player decisions. In this timespan and after, I don't think that many coalitions were always so successful with probably the best example being revolutionary France beating the crap out of the coalition Austria/Prussia/Great Brittain.

But maybe it would make the game more challenging if coalitions fired easier. Right now the AI usually waits until they have about twice your troop count. Maybe the AI would be satisfied to fire the coalition between equal amount of troops and 150% your amount of troops. Will likely be a more even fight and could take years while both sides don't get anywhere, just like in real history.

 

[Violent AI]

That's true, but as others pointed out already and as far as I know, this game is designed to see how far and wide you can expand in a set period of time. It goes without saying that expanding makes more expansion easier. The only way to counter that is by having rivals controlled by the AI (Assuming you're not playing multiplayer) blob out as well to offer a challenge. I don't think a lot of people would enjoy it either if you would get coalitioned to death for winning 2 wars. Also keep in mind that coalitions in real history were a lot less efficient while here it mostly boils down to the total troop count, manpower, economy and the player decisions. In this timespan and after, I don't think that many coalitions were always so successful with probably the best example being revolutionary France beating the crap out of the coalition Austria/Prussia/Great Brittain.

But maybe it would make the game more challenging if coalitions fired easier. Right now the AI usually waits until they have about twice your troop count. Maybe the AI would be satisfied to fire the coalition between equal amount of troops and 150% your amount of troops. Will likely be a more even fight and could take years while both sides don't get anywhere, just like in real history.

I think AI limitations also play a significant part (having to run AI for hundreds of countries does limit what paradox can implement). Games don't play out the same way in MP

 

[drake546]

If we take away blobbing, Eu4 doesn't have enough interesting gameplay to make it worth playing. War and conquest is the heart and soul of Eu4. Making it harder to blob with harsh restrictions just makes the game less fun, unless the developers can find a way to add other interesting gameplay.

And I don't mean yet another page with three buttons to click on and watch three sets of numbers change. That's not interesting gameplay. They either need to expand the war and conquest gameplay, and make it more challenging, or they need to expand other areas of the game. There's lots to choose from.

-Trade should be completely reworked, its boring. And mostly doesn't have any serious connection to reality anyway.
-Internal governments have some interesting ideas, but they're too shallow. Estates should be a precursor and integral aspect of parliaments, not a separate feature.
-War and conquest needs to integrate logistics. It would have add a realistic aspect and at the same time provide a new way via gameplay to limit blobbing.
-Dynasties needs a complete rework. Its a glorified slot machine right now.
-Exploration is wide open for expanding the depth. Even ignoring the current patch's stupid spread of discovery, its still pretty shallow.

 

[LS22]

Answering to the thread title: No.

 

[Pro]

Blobbing is always going to be a thing unless wars are changed in some way to favor the defender more. In the current setup if there are two countries a and b then either a can conquer b or b can conquer a. Any obstacle to blobbing that doesn't change that is just going to be a speed bump.

 

[Nassau]

One of the problems is the lack of family ties. Once a country is conquered, it is gone. Yes there are rebels, even noble rebels, but real rebels had family connections, heir claimants on their side, etc.

In order to have effective rebels, you need some kind of CK2 adoption in EU4. Some level of family structure, some kind of power outside of the existing nations.

 

[drake546]

One of the problems is the lack of family ties. Once a country is conquered, it is gone. Yes there are rebels, even noble rebels, but real rebels had family connections, heir claimants on their side, etc.

In order to have effective rebels, you need some kind of CK2 adoption in EU4. Some level of family structure, some kind of power outside of the existing nations.

I've always thought that every province should have two population cultures, elites and majority. When you culture convert a province in the game, you'd only be converted the elites. Similar to how there was a german minority of nobility ruling over the area of the baltic states, while the majority of the population was local.

Then you could use this to determine the type of rebellion you'd have. If the rulers match the locals, its a big well financed rebellion. If the rulers match you but the peasants don't, and if the peasants do and the nobles don't, you'd have a small elite army of rebels.

And even better depth could be gained with an implementation similar to Vic2's pops.

 

[Freebot]

So argue for a game mechanic that whenever you're winning all the other great powers come down and beat the shit out of you.

I think the reason the developers have steered clear of that is that eventually the player would reach a point where they COULD get more powerful, but then they'd just be beat down to likely worse off than they were before anyway.

Ah, the badboy wars of EU 2 where literally every country bordering you would declare war bring in their allies while your allies would refuse to defend you. That ultimately backfired, though, as the powergamers learned to stagger truces and actually exploit badboy wars to expand faster. In that game, casus bellis were a lot harder to get so taking stab hits when DOWing was common. Therefore, your life was made easier when your would-be victims eagerly DOW you instead.

 

[drake546]

Ah, the badboy wars of EU 2 where literally every country bordering you would declare war bring in their allies while your allies would refuse to defend you. That ultimately backfired, though, as the powergamers learned to stagger truces and actually exploit badboy wars to expand faster. In that game, casus bellis were a lot harder to get so taking stab hits when DOWing was common. Therefore, your life was made easier when your would-be victims eagerly DOW you instead.

Yeah. It'd b nice to avoid a system like that. Coalitions in eu4 are kind of ok right now, although very gamey. i'd rather have realistic challenges that actually made it hard to establish and maintain large empires historically.

 

[UnluckyKat]

I am always curious when I'm playing a country that cannot see Europe from the start and see how it turns out. I've seen most major lucky nations being beaten into a pulp. Which can be abused as a non-european country with European ambitions

 

[Nassau]

I've always thought that every province should have two population cultures, elites and majority. When you culture convert a province in the game, you'd only be converted the elites. Similar to how there was a german minority of nobility ruling over the area of the baltic states, while the majority of the population was local.

Then you could use this to determine the type of rebellion you'd have. If the rulers match the locals, its a big well financed rebellion. If the rulers match you but the peasants don't, and if the peasants do and the nobles don't, you'd have a small elite army of rebels.

And even better depth could be gained with an implementation similar to Vic2's pops.

This is indeed an improvement, clergy could also be part of the deal. Leading to all three states being represented. Anf ofcourse, if the elite was converted, it should and could slowly trickle down to the masses. With help of the clergy, economic motives, or migration/mix if cultures. Placing a standing army in a province should speed up integration of a province as well.

Actually, with a more detailed population and the importation of the dynasty's like in CK2 EU4 would be a hell of a lot better.

 

[CrabHelmet]

This is indeed an improvement, clergy could also be part of the deal. Leading to all three states being represented. Anf ofcourse, if the elite was converted, it should and could slowly trickle down to the masses. With help of the clergy, economic motives, or migration/mix if cultures. Placing a standing army in a province should speed up integration of a province as well.

Actually, with a more detailed population and the importation of the dynasty's like in CK2 EU4 would be a hell of a lot better.

I think the devs are very reluctant to take features that shadow those in CK2 or V2 because they want to keep their games distinct. The trouble is that there's a huge amount of overlap between the CK2 era and the EU4 era and the EU4 era and the V2 era; history didn't suddenly become systematically different in an incommensurable way in 1444 or between 1821 and 1836. It's really damaging EU4 at this point. It doesn't need a POP system as detailed as V2, because half the social classes in V2 don't even exist in EU4... but a basic POP system for culture, religion, and urban/rural divide would do wonders. It doesn't need a dynasty system that models characters in the level of depth of CK2 because in EU4 you play the state not the character... but dynastic politics was immensely important to European state development and the game needs to reflect that.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

The AI expands roughly twice as fast as the historical comparison, by my estimation. Sometimes it expands more slowly than history (see: Ottomans), sometimes much more quickly (see: Austria), but in general I find Europe has blobbed to about 8 major powers by ~1630 instead of ~1820.

And wouldn´t that be historical?
http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europe_1648.jpg

 

[CrabHelmet]

And wouldn´t that be historical?
http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europe_1648.jpg

Not really. I would be willing to wager that England conquers Scotland forcibly prior to 1550 in ~80%+ of games; that the conquest of Aragon by Castile or Castile by Aragon is the most common way Spain forms, that Portugal exists only as a 3PM remnant by ~1600 in ~70%+ of games, that Italy has blobbed into about 3 states by ~1650 rather than 10-11 in ~80%+ of games, that the HRE has turned into about three large-ish blobs with as few as 10-15 OPMs left by 1650 in 90% of games, and so on.

Basically: blobbing by conquest is more common than dynastic blobbing in EU4 compared to real life (so England conquers Scotland rather than GB forming by PU, Castile conquers Aragon rather than Spain forming by PU), and specifically HRE/Italy blobs appear when they really shouldn't.

 

[Nassau]

I think the devs are very reluctant to take features that shadow those in CK2 or V2 because they want to keep their games distinct. The trouble is that there's a huge amount of overlap between the CK2 era and the EU4 era and the EU4 era and the V2 era; history didn't suddenly become systematically different in an incommensurable way in 1444 or between 1821 and 1836. It's really damaging EU4 at this point. It doesn't need a POP system as detailed as V2, because half the social classes in V2 don't even exist in EU4... but a basic POP system for culture, religion, and urban/rural divide would do wonders. It doesn't need a dynasty system that models characters in the level of depth of CK2 because in EU4 you play the state not the character... but dynastic politics was immensely important to European state development and the game needs to reflect that.

Importing dynasty's light and population modelling light to EU4 would make sense, be fun and historical.

 

[Canute VII]

The problem is that there's really no difficulty for the human player to match that, and if the AI doesn't do it will inevitably be easy mode. This by the way makes me think I could probably seriously reduce blobbing on lower game difficulties (Easy for a start) without this constraint in mind.

It would already help, if AI could defend itself. Currently it stand no chance against humans. And it would take only tiny corrections to ameliorate this situation:

• If AI gets beaten, it should retreat its troops into the province with the highest defensibility (eg mountains). Its so silly when austria retreats to vienna and gets exterminated... When a province or two away it would have had a chance to stand.
• If this is not possible, give capitals always higher defensibility (not only fort, but bonus for defending army)
• Let the army coming to relieve a besieged fort always enjoy the defensive bonus of the fort province, and let the AI prioritize relief