Does the ai get smarter the closer it is to the player?

[Kathandis]

So Ive been noticed something in my recent poland campaign and my previous spain campaign. Is it just me or does the ai purposely play better when its a direct rival to your nation. In my Spain game France did really well by the end and the ottomans imploded. Meanwhile in my Commonwealth campaign pretty much every major nation besides spain and Ottoderps imploded meanwhile Ottoderps proceeded to destroy me. So has anyone else noticed something similar or is it just me?

 

[heliostellar]

I can pretty much categorically reject your observations as a result of confirmation bias. You have to consider other factors, for instance, if you're really aggressively expanding then naturally you will stop expanding once you hit a truly powerful rival. Also, the nation's surrounding you will naturally react to your aggression and team up, etc.

The AI does cheat in some ways, but not in the way you're suggesting.

 

[fleetothemoon]

Aside from potential confirmation bias, we have to consider that it may just be due to your playstyle rather than your status as a player.

Maybe your playstyle gives your AI rivals a far easier time than the typical AI playstyle.

Not necessarily because you're a bad player, but because AI make decisions that humans wouldn't make. For example, maybe Ottoman is doing so much better in your game because one of their main rivals (you, the Commonwealth) never bothered joining unwinnable wars against them!

 

[Zones]

If you play near ming, like say Oirat, they will NEVER explode. Play anywhere else where they aren't a consideration for your plans and they will explode within 50 years.

Considering this can be observed in the overwhelming majority of games I don't really think confirmation bias is the major culprit.

 

[bzflater]

If you play near ming, like say Oirat, they will NEVER explode. Play anywhere else where they aren't a consideration for your plans and they will explode within 50 years.

Considering this can be observed in the overwhelming majority of games I don't really think confirmation bias is the major culprit.

You have to help Ming implode. I once rekt Ming in a war in 1480 and it literally imploded before the war was over.

 

[hwoosh]

If you play near ming, like say Oirat, they will NEVER explode. Play anywhere else where they aren't a consideration for your plans and they will explode within 50 years.

Considering this can be observed in the overwhelming majority of games I don't really think confirmation bias is the major culprit.

Anecdotes provided rather than hard data ------> nope, still confirmation bias

 

[heliostellar]

Anecdotes provided rather than hard data ------> nope, still confirmation bias

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

 

[L33tfr0g]

You have to help Ming implode. I once rekt Ming in a war in 1480 and it literally imploded before the war was over.

And sometimes they just implode near you without any war. Just need to be lucky.

 

[Daddl]

Ming imploded after 20 years in my Manchuria game. Ottomans imploded due to the 30 years war in combination with Internal Trouble in my Ethiopian game.

Consider the following: The AI often fights out wars a human player would never ever begin. So an AI Commonwealth may be in a war with the Ottomans for years and years, and in the end, both gained not much, but didn't had the opportunity to do anything else. As a player, you either win or you peace out as soon as possible if you are loosing, preferably by just releasing some OPMs well inside your borders you simply eat again 5 years later. The AI is not able to do that.
Another thing which may help the AI are your wars. I've seen it so often as Ottomans. I'm attacking Hungary, annexing half of them, and when I'm done Austria comes and eats the other half without any looses. So yeah, its random and confirmation bias, but a human most often doesn't fight against one nation at all costs because its not worth it, but the AI does, with the result of delaying expansion of this nation for decades.

 

[fleetothemoon]

If you play near ming, like say Oirat, they will NEVER explode. Play anywhere else where they aren't a consideration for your plans and they will explode within 50 years.

Considering this can be observed in the overwhelming majority of games I don't really think confirmation bias is the major culprit.

Others has mentioned this already, but yeah. Not true. I played a Manchu tribe, Khmer and Tibet sometime ago and in all three of those games, Ming got destroyed by losing mandate of heaven without my intervention.


Also, Ming can stay together even if you play far away. In this instance, I was playing Huron on the grand start, and not only has Ming not implode, they actually westernized and is kicking Portugese ass in Siberia...

Well, they're still losing the war though but I can't remember why. Probably because they're stuck and will never able to take Lisbon to fuflill the war goal of Imperialism. That and attempts to invade Europe probably failed miserably.

 

[hwoosh]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

I know the meaning of "anecdote", thanks. Hence the arrow rather than equals sign in my post: "You haven't collected any actual data on the phenomenon you're describing, hence your contention that it "ALWAYS" happens amounts to confirmation bias."

 

[indika_tates]

Yes, it does. That's the reason because the BBB crush everyone in their surrondings. The AI manages fine when the territories are connected inland. Nations like Venice, England, Genoa are crap on the AI hands. In a war I had against GB, the AI decided that is better to send a 25k stack to Malacca (around the world of course) than defending it's own territory. Naval AI management is the root of all EU4 silly and unpredictable behaviour.

Another example. In one game, Venice managed to ally Austria and they both were crushing the Ottomans. Then, Venice declared a war against Ottos with "Biga" as war objective. ???? Ottomans still had a decent galley fleet and then Venice got crushed and lost all of Greece provinces because the bosphorus was blocked.

I have no hope it will be fixed sooner or later without a 100% complete rework of naval system.

 

[Wizzington]

Yes, but only if your webcamera is on and directed at your head.

 

[Checco]

If you play near ming, like say Oirat, they will NEVER explode. Play anywhere else where they aren't a consideration for your plans and they will explode within 50 years.

Considering this can be observed in the overwhelming majority of games I don't really think confirmation bias is the major culprit.

Agreed.

I played with Japan and several manchurian factions to get the achievements, and Ming has always been stronger then a stone-made pillar.

Instead, while playing with any European nation, most of the time I can see Ming provinces they are rebel-controlled.

You may call it confirmation bias as much as you want, but it's something I experienced directly in Ironman everytime.

 

[Wizzington]

Agreed.

I played with Japan and several manchurian factions to get the achievements, and Ming has always been stronger then a stone-made pillars.

Instead, while playing with any European nation, most of the time I can see Ming provinces they are rebel-controlled.

You may call it confirmation bias as much as you want, but it's something I experienced directly in Ironman everytime.

Let's apply occam's razor here and ask ourselves what's more likely:

1) Out of your small sample size of games near Ming you experienced an unlikely but hardly impossible set out of outcomes (something like say, a coin coming up heads five times in a row).

OR

2) The AI grows more intelligent by feeding off the brain-waves of nearby human nations.

Clearly it must be option 2.

 

[AlphaSonic]

Every time Ming implodes the AI becomes more intelligent.

 

[josh127]

Agreed.

I played with Japan and several manchurian factions to get the achievements, and Ming has always been stronger then a stone-made pillar.

Instead, while playing with any European nation, most of the time I can see Ming provinces they are rebel-controlled.

You may call it confirmation bias as much as you want, but it's something I experienced directly in Ironman everytime.

Ming survives much longer in the game in 1.11 (might have been 1.10 too, don't remember). They do a better job of holding together all game or most of it as well. You simply don't get a Mingsplosion every game these days, and if you do it's often not until much later in the game.

 

[Checco]

Let's apply occam's razor here and ask ourselves what's more likely:

1) Out of your small sample size of games near Ming you experienced an unlikely but hardly impossible set out of outcomes (something like say, a coin coming up heads five times in a row).

OR

2) The AI grows more intelligent by feeding off the brain-waves of nearby human nations.

Clearly it must be option 2.

Actually, the option 2 seems quite flawed to me, like science-fiction.

More likely could be:
2) As soon the AI's mechanics (like Choosing Rival, no name one of the most signigicant in my experience) start to have a human on the receiving end, the AI focuses on survival at any cost, becoming less effective in aggressions but more cohesive while defending and preserving its own borders.

It might be interesting to test an Ironman game with the 3 different Manchurian tribes, like I did by chance.
You choose Haixi, and Jurchin gets allied with Ming and Korea and rivals you.
You choose Jurchin instead, thinking to have outsmarted the AI to get a good starting position, and you find Haixi allied with Ming, and Korea rivaling you.

This is not confirmation bias, anyone can verify that by starting an Ironman game and playing for 2 months.

It's surely WAD, but it does not mean it treats the human like just another AI.
As long as AI is scripted to rival humans, it will have less opportunities to wage war against AIs since rivals are targeted first.

Simple as that, no need to use science-fiction.

 

[Slargos]

Of course, it's also possible that taking an AI country out of the local equation and replacing it with a human player changes the dynamic which provides the observed results.

But that would feel too much like rational thinking, so I'm going to go ahead and install my webcamera and test wiz's assertion.

 

[HabemusZlatan]

If you play near ming, like say Oirat, they will NEVER explode. Play anywhere else where they aren't a consideration for your plans and they will explode within 50 years.

Considering this can be observed in the overwhelming majority of games I don't really think confirmation bias is the major culprit.

Not really, I had two games as Jianzhou>Manchu>Qing, in the first I had to literally implode them with constant war (and they also vassalized Haixi), while in the second they just exploded some time before I could even form Manchu.
It's pretty casual.