Daztek: 'sid meier would never leave you feeling like this. he'd leave you feeling clobbered from the start.'
Sid Meier's AIs cheat.
Sid Meier's AIs cheat.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
all AIs cheat. no AI is as good as a competent human player. the trick is to get a balance of intelligent behaviour by AI and giving it advantages (cheats) that give it a chance.
i'd rather have a super-sentient AI opponent, but one that cheated and gave me a tough game is better than one that didn't and gives a lame game. the success of CIVs I, II, III & IV not to mention all the spin-offs makes the point. sniff all you want, but meier's the millionaire, not you.
kekkonen said the EU AI behaviour was ok but 'What [the AIs] *did* do was look the other way while France took its first steps towards a superpower status'.
and hey, then they looked the other way when france took its midgame and endgame steps to superpower status!! wow, that's just like my game and every AAR on the site!
look, i just started a CG as a weak power, russia, this time on sehr schwer/aggressiv. its 1580 and i know i've got it won. it doesn't seem any harder than 'normal'. and this is my *second* game . . .
if i've got a criticism of this list its that you guys haven't been critical enough. admittedly its hard given the bucketing sapura gives anyone who doesn't set out to flatter.
but i'm telling you, the market is the toughest critic of all and paradox has to get this stuff right real quick. EU can survive as a niche multiplayer game, which suits me, but the big bucks come from making it satisfying as a solo game.
and hey - don't shoot the messenger.
daz
Kekkonen - Yes, just as you said, it works out quite realistically except for the fact that no one seems to feel threatened by a nation that is gaining power. I think it may be the way the AI calculates who is a threat ...
sisyphus - I also do not want an AI that cheats. If the AI is made to cheat, it should be an option that can be turned on/off. I would much prefer changes to the AI in the diplomatic area, as well as the inflation/economic area. Both of those should make it more of a challenge. In fact the thing I hate most about some of the games is how the AI either cheats or automatically bands against the human player. It should not matter whether an opponent becoming strong is human or not. It was realistic for nations to combine forces against stronger enemies then as it is today.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
sisyphus - I also do not want an AI that cheats. If the AI is made to cheat, it should be an option that can be turned on/off. I would much prefer changes to the AI in the diplomatic area, as well as the inflation/economic area. Both of those should make it more of a challenge. In fact the thing I hate most about some of the games is how the AI either cheats or automatically bands against the human player. It should not matter whether an opponent becoming strong is human or not. It was realistic for nations to combine forces against stronger enemies then as it is today.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
Tom,
The answer is cannons and dispersion of forces. The AI tends to concentrate its forces (in most games this is a good thing, but not in EU), and concentrate on one province at a time. As a player, you should create small independent task forces, each capable of taking a city.
I tend to go for 60 cannons and 9-15k infantry for lvl 2 fortresses when possible. They blow holes through those walls like a charm. Build up your artillery force (getting 100 cannons even with a small nation only takes 5-6 years). Keep your cannon safe - with the new rules (which I think are good), your cannon will only really die if you do something stupid. And pick your sieges carefully - don't waste time on sieging an enemy province unless you want it. And always go for the jugular (i.e., the capital).
A good leader (with 4 or better in shock), will always rip holes through fortresses, since he usually KILLS the garrison. Exploit your leaders - they can be very effectively used for 'blitzkriegs' (I think leaders are overpowered).
But check the 'Rule Brittania' AAR which should be up in a couple of days. I'll try and put in some of my tips and tricks.
And yeah - it would be nice if the AI could do some real counter-alliance making, though I did recently have Spain make a DOW on me while I was engaged in another major war - quite fun. But this sort of thing seems to be the exception, rather than the rule.
The answer is cannons and dispersion of forces. The AI tends to concentrate its forces (in most games this is a good thing, but not in EU), and concentrate on one province at a time. As a player, you should create small independent task forces, each capable of taking a city.
I tend to go for 60 cannons and 9-15k infantry for lvl 2 fortresses when possible. They blow holes through those walls like a charm. Build up your artillery force (getting 100 cannons even with a small nation only takes 5-6 years). Keep your cannon safe - with the new rules (which I think are good), your cannon will only really die if you do something stupid. And pick your sieges carefully - don't waste time on sieging an enemy province unless you want it. And always go for the jugular (i.e., the capital).
A good leader (with 4 or better in shock), will always rip holes through fortresses, since he usually KILLS the garrison. Exploit your leaders - they can be very effectively used for 'blitzkriegs' (I think leaders are overpowered).
But check the 'Rule Brittania' AAR which should be up in a couple of days. I'll try and put in some of my tips and tricks.
And yeah - it would be nice if the AI could do some real counter-alliance making, though I did recently have Spain make a DOW on me while I was engaged in another major war - quite fun. But this sort of thing seems to be the exception, rather than the rule.
I've often experienced DOWs when in importants wars. Even on a 'normal' aggression level.
That's pretty much what I thought. I had relations of -200 with a lot of the big powers. The problem is that a relation of -200 isn't enough for them to gang up on you (unless you're unlucky), since just about everybody hates just about everybody anyway. A lot of the relations between great powers are at or near rock bottom.
I wonder if that could be fixed by allowing negative relations to go all the way to, say, -250, with -200 being a 'natural' low, below which you could only go by being really big and having radically expansionistic policies (so the Hansa annexing a province or two wouldn't trigger this yet). Also, anything below -200 should mean hatred beyond belief, meaning that a country who has a -210 relationship with you would be willing to ally with a -200 country just to see you suffer.
I've reached the point in the game were I hardly bother allying any more. My first act in any game in any case is to annex a neighbour, from which point relations all go downhill anyway. There isn't much the AI is capable of doing against you anyway - and even if there is, it is often easy to get a peace.
The only time I've ever seen the AI declare war on me is at the very start. The AI never seems to declare war unless it by itself is at least your match (or maybe matches your alliance?). In the mentioned case, my size was about corresponding to that of Spain, so it would have been an interesting war if Spain had been human controlled.
[This message has been edited by strategy (edited 30-12-2000).]
This sounds strange to me. In my friend's game as Turkey, that country covers most of Eastern Europe and North Africa by now (1680), but a tiny, backward Poland still declares war quite often. And in my French campaign, my country has swallowed all of Germany, Poland, Switzerland, Italy and the Spanish Low Countries, controls half of North Africa, all of Australia, most of North America and a good part of Asia. My technology is at the top in all cathegories. I'm playing on the Normal aggression level, and have been assaulted by Russia, Spain, Scotland and England on four different occasions the last thirty years! Is this just a string of weird coincidences?
Daztek, I've got one word for you: 'Multiplayer'. =)
When it comes to AI cheating, Sid Meier's AIs always recieved unreasonable amounts of resources, as well as a fully discovered map at the beginning of a game. I've had no part in the making of the EU AI, but if it is cheating, at least it's not as obvious and annoying as the Civ AI.
Personally, I don't see what you people are complaining about. EU ends 20 years before Napoleon had conquered, annexed or vasallized 70 percent of Europe. If our favourite French midget did it in real life, how hard can it be to do it in a historical simulation? =)
But EU _is_ a boardgame coversion, to expect that the single player version is as funny as the multiplayer version is sheer folly.
Regarding my financial status ('Sid Meier is the millionaire, not you'), I can only advice you to stay out of it, as I tend to stop respecting people's opinions once they show that they clearly have no clue what they are talking about. =)
Cheers,
sisyphus
When it comes to AI cheating, Sid Meier's AIs always recieved unreasonable amounts of resources, as well as a fully discovered map at the beginning of a game. I've had no part in the making of the EU AI, but if it is cheating, at least it's not as obvious and annoying as the Civ AI.
Personally, I don't see what you people are complaining about. EU ends 20 years before Napoleon had conquered, annexed or vasallized 70 percent of Europe. If our favourite French midget did it in real life, how hard can it be to do it in a historical simulation? =)
But EU _is_ a boardgame coversion, to expect that the single player version is as funny as the multiplayer version is sheer folly.
Regarding my financial status ('Sid Meier is the millionaire, not you'), I can only advice you to stay out of it, as I tend to stop respecting people's opinions once they show that they clearly have no clue what they are talking about. =)
Cheers,
sisyphus
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.408
- 38.945
I wrote most of the AI in EU, and it doesn't cheat.
Then again I'm not a millionaire...
/Johan
Then again I'm not a millionaire...
/Johan
Aha!
If that is so, I would like to see a reply to my questions about the CP's attrition
and payment of upkeep....
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forums/Forum1/HTML/000982.html
Mormegill
------------------
As a general rule, I try not to let fear of hypocrisy get in the way of my whining.
-Brian Lindenlaub, WFRP Mailing List
If that is so, I would like to see a reply to my questions about the CP's attrition
and payment of upkeep....
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forums/Forum1/HTML/000982.html
Mormegill
------------------
As a general rule, I try not to let fear of hypocrisy get in the way of my whining.
-Brian Lindenlaub, WFRP Mailing List
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.408
- 38.945
Johan, I would be simply delighted (!) to send you a saved game to digest on the subject of CP fleet attrition.
Just say the word.
Mormegill
Just say the word.
Mormegill
I have also noted the AI's tendency to ignore naval attrition, but the strange thing is that it seems only to happen if the concerned country no longer has a port! I've seen it happen with Poland, Russia and Austria (!), and their ships hung around for up to 200 years while other AI nations lost their ships in the regular manner.
Well, there could be a easy way out for the blood thirsty gamers. Why not have a few crazy kings to appear (even if it historically improper).
A few 'Hitler' around Europe at 1650 on a special level, who just want to kick everyones butt.....
You could also start the game with some kind of handicap, for example let some of the natural enemies get some extra armies to spice up the game. This could be through a fiction event like 'people demands action against the horrible basil' or 'Hyperinflation at Kekkonen due to corrupt officals in the central bank'......
Playing France for a while, my biggest problems are the rebels. Then of course the fact that you can not get more than 3 provinces at peace time......
Regarding economy, Navarra is a good source of income. I have had two wars and every time we have a peace I get about 1200 in settlement. Much better than taking them over ;-)
I guess that the next level of the game would be to make it possible to 'tamper' with history before 1492, meaning setting the situation differenlty at start....
Why not a random generator of the original countries in Europe (can keep the map though). This would give a larger replayability to the game and also end some of the more 'agressive' players complaint. They would be busy fighting riots and hyperinflation ;-)
Just a few opinions....
------------------
bmolsson
*Just passing by*
A few 'Hitler' around Europe at 1650 on a special level, who just want to kick everyones butt.....
You could also start the game with some kind of handicap, for example let some of the natural enemies get some extra armies to spice up the game. This could be through a fiction event like 'people demands action against the horrible basil' or 'Hyperinflation at Kekkonen due to corrupt officals in the central bank'......
Playing France for a while, my biggest problems are the rebels. Then of course the fact that you can not get more than 3 provinces at peace time......
Regarding economy, Navarra is a good source of income. I have had two wars and every time we have a peace I get about 1200 in settlement. Much better than taking them over ;-)
I guess that the next level of the game would be to make it possible to 'tamper' with history before 1492, meaning setting the situation differenlty at start....
Why not a random generator of the original countries in Europe (can keep the map though). This would give a larger replayability to the game and also end some of the more 'agressive' players complaint. They would be busy fighting riots and hyperinflation ;-)
Just a few opinions....
------------------
bmolsson
*Just passing by*
Compared to the first halve of the 20th century the time of EU was a quite rationalistic age. To include aggressive madmen for playbalance is no good idea because EU is a historical simulation. Basically in a game like EU one has to struggle against the computer opponents and the model of the game. The computer opponents can only be improved by cheating (no good idea) or by improving the AI (too expansive). What remains is to make the model more difficult. For example I proposed elsewhere to increase the costs for research. That would also increase the exitement for the human player towards the end of the game. Also because of playbalance a cheat could be appropriate here: make research costs for the human higher than for the computer (at least in higher difficulty levels).