Eliminate Radio Communications in the 16th Century

[Nuclear Elvis]

So, I have a 22K Army built in my capital, and I am playing a Defensive War against the invaders. There are multiple smaller armies from my invader, in the 10-15K range so I have to play this out very sequentially to use my numeric advantages in each battle, to win the war.

But Paradox Game Developers inserted Radio Communications technology into the 16th Century.

You see, when I am 3x Provinces away, and I start movement toward the first enemy army, which was its weakest, that was under 5k in strength, just 5x game-days later that smaller army picks up and moves away, because somehow a 25+ game-day journey for any Messenger can instead use mythical Radio calls to the Army to warn it of my approaching army that they can't see yet, would not know about yet, and in no physical way possible - could possibly be forewarned that I am approaching from 2x provinces away (which would be at least 250-500 miles away, on a real map. And to be clear - I had not yet entered the adjacent province when the enemy army picked up and ran away.

Pray tell, how could an enemy army be forewarned in just 4-5 days of time of my advance on their position, when they are 25+ days ride away from even the fastest Cavalryman of the day?

Again, this is why I say "radio" use, because the Dev's built in warning systems that are simply out of line with ancient times and travel speeds. Am I the first to notice this? Dev's should have corrected forewarning like this - years ago in a patch to the game.

 

[Aquamancer]

It could be because the AI has a special modifier, where armies seen by an enemy will be known by all enemy AIs, but will eventually be forgotten if it goes into fog of war. It's meant to mimic the human player's ability to see an army and guess where it is some time after it enters the Fog of War.

 

[Kimbole]

I presume then you would also expect to be shown only the position of AI troops from 20 days ago or if they are right beside you? That sounds, at least, computationally tricky.

It is a game. I think being able to see enemy armies is sort of essential to, well, playing the game... Also the AI needs all the help it can get.

Check out Radio General if you haven’t already though, it implements uncertainty around enemy positions quite nicely I think, albeit in a very different (single World War 2 battles) context.

 

[MatthewP]

Since you noticed the AI’s use of radio, I assume you also noticed your own constant use of it to perfectly and instantly coordinate not only your armies but every decision throughout your entire empire, parts of which may be separated by many months of travel.

In all seriousness, I think you’re asking for a very interesting mechanic. It’s just that it’s a game-defining mechanic that needs a whole game built around it to work right, and this is a game that’s doing something else. Making the ai a bit worse doesn’t solve the radio problem, it just makes the ai a bit worse.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Since you noticed the AI’s use of radio, I assume you also noticed your own constant use of it to perfectly and instantly coordinate not only your armies but every decision throughout your entire empire, parts of which may be separated by many months of travel.

In all seriousness, I think you’re asking for a very interesting mechanic. It’s just that it’s a game-defining mechanic that needs a whole game built around it to work right, and this is a game that’s doing something else. Making the ai a bit worse doesn’t solve the radio problem, it just makes the ai a bit worse.

Certainly we human players, in a 1-person game, do see as if from a satellite (also not invented in the 16th Century), but the AI is holding thousands of mouse-equivalent interfaces in its hand, whereas I can only focus on and input through one mouse. While some berate the AI, the AI has that distinct advantage of simultaneous decision-making in the face of our actions. For that reason - I am critical of the AI having this advantage.

 

[AirikrStrife]

Ai is already worse than humans in warfare, strategy, easily exploited (you can win a war you should loose bu blitzing a few strategc points, worse at economic management. The only way ai can beat a decent player is by being bigger and humans snowball faster than ai.

Nerfing AI makes no improvent to the game. And yes ai cheats, but humans cheat to, we control time, we can pause the game and sort out our strategies and do our administration, that is a huge strategic advantage to us

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Ai is already worse than humans in warfare, strategy, easily exploited (you can win a war you should loose bu blitzing a few strategc points, worse at economic management. The only way ai can beat a decent player is by being bigger and humans snowball faster than ai.

Nerfing AI makes no improvent to the game. And yes ai cheats, but humans cheat to, we control time, we can pause the game and sort out our strategies and do our administration, that is a huge strategic advantage to us

Something about my original suggestion is the way that I play - I am often a single-province nation, way underdog, much smaller than larger peers around me, or I may start a Custom game in Hawaii (quite fun if you've never tried, and lots of variance depending on starting tech type). Starting small means that the AI has extreme advantages on you, even with a "Normal" level of difficulty in Ironman mode (to preserve Achievements). From that perspective, this becomes a larger issue than if one started as England.