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

[Wizzington]

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.

Or how about the AI programmer (me) just tells you that you're wrong and experiencing confirmation bias.

 

[grandad1982]

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.

I'm pretty sure the guy who was in charge of writing the AI has no reason to lie or mislead people over this....

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by the man in question.

 

[ThaBus]

Humans tend to get a lot of AI rivals because a human player expands their power base rapidly, meaning that they become valid rivals for countries that were previously too powerful but the weaker countries that rivaled you earlier remain your rivals (until you grow way bigger/kill them) thus the possible range of countries that can/could have rivalled you in a few decades is much larger than most AI countries that remain more static.

 

[Dnote]

To be fair, the player will impact every nation around them, even if they aren't directly getting involved with them. By the sheer nature of you controlling a country and not the AI, you are having an impact.

I've played a lot in Asia and Ming will implode most times whether I get involved with them or not, the reason the implosion can be later than normal or really early is usually because I'm affecting the other nations in the area and that is having a knock on effect on Mind, either to stablise them further or the destablise them.

 

[wergy]

AI is just generally more aggressive toward the player than to other AI nations, that's why it rivals the player more likely and tends to be more aggressive against the player.

 

[grandad1982]

AI is just generally more aggressive toward the player than to other AI nations, that's why it rivals the player more likely and tends to be more aggressive against the player.

Yes because you're playing differently so the mechanics that are applied equally to you and the AI will mean your going to be targeted/feared more, not because it's programed to target you as the human play.

 

[PhroX]

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.

There are all sorts of oddities with the AI's actions when it comes to Manchuria. I made a thread a couple of months back trying to get help figuring out why the hell is did some of the things it did when I was playing as Yeren. It certianly gave me the impression that the AI was targetting me, as a human player, over other AIs, even when it was clearly in their interest to be attacking the other AIs instead. Now, I do trust Wiz when he says that the AI isn't programmed to go for the human, but I'm pretty sure that something off, whether deliberate or not, in that part of the world.

 

[PhoenixDown]

AI vassal under AI: doesn't suicide, stick to their overlord like they are in love or siege provinces near their army, master strategists, they all read sun tzu

AI vassal under player: kamikaze incarnated, drooling retards, favorite band: rage against machine, they won't do what they are told to do, their favorite book is Peppa the Pig "The biggest muddy puddle in the world",

It's a conspiracy I tell you!

 

[Darkath]

Or how about the AI programmer (me) just tells you that you're wrong and experiencing confirmation bias.

Even if you activate selflearningai ?

 

[Wizzington]

Yes because you're playing differently so the mechanics that are applied equally to you and the AI will mean your going to be targeted/feared more, not because it's programed to target you as the human play.

AI targets and fears humans more if playing on Hard, not otherwise.

 

[Darkath]

On a serious note doesn't AI have bonus to Agressive expansion reduction meaning even an agressive AI isn't likely to accumulate much AE ?

 

[grandad1982]

AI targets and fears humans more if playing on Hard, not otherwise.

I stand corrected.

 

[Wizzington]

I stand corrected.

You were entirely correct for Normal difficulty.

 

[SilasW]

So on normal the AI will react to human actions the same way it would if an AI carried out those actions? Obviously Lucky Nations alters this somewhat if you're playing as one, but beyond that it acts the same way on normal to say player controlled [nation X] as to AI controlled [nation X]?

 

[ThaBus]

On a serious note doesn't AI have bonus to Agressive expansion reduction meaning even an agressive AI isn't likely to accumulate much AE ?

Only lucky nations have that.

 

[Wizzington]

So on normal the AI will react to human actions the same way it would if an AI carried out those actions? Obviously Lucky Nations alters this somewhat if you're playing as one, but beyond that it acts the same way on normal to say player controlled [nation X] as to AI controlled [nation X]?

Right.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

In one game as England I seen a 30 stack of exiled Danish troops hanging out in Salzburg. During a league war. The AI is weird, and there is no real pattern to how it acts sometimes.

 

[BFTeixeira]

In my current France game (playing in Hard difficulty and Ironman mode), although i've kicked England out of continental europe, and having 3 vassals in the isles (Cornwall, Wales, Northumberland), and having an ally (Scotland - i'm also allied to Austria), that didn't stop England to go on a war versus Castile, leaving me with an open path to carpet siege them (again).

 

[Aries666]

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.

Then consider that maybe in game were Oirat is AI it is Oirat that makes Ming implode and that maybe you as player Oirat just werent aggressive enough.

 

[Aries666]

Every time Ming implodes the AI becomes more intelligent.

And will eventually become Skynet...