How can the AI be made a more selfish ally?

[richelieu1628]

So let me start this off by saying that I really enjoy the AI in EU4, especially ally behaviour in war. Not perfect, mind you, but so much better than it was in previous editions, and a lot of fun to play with - and against.

But here's the thing, I think the AI is now way too selfless for its own good, constantly helping out players for almost nothing in return.

I think there are some things that could be done to change this, and make the AI much less of a dufus - and more of a self-interested ally.

1. Make it so that in peace deals, you can negotiate war reparations, concede defeat, trade power and all that non-territorial stuff for your allies as well as yourself.

2. If you're the warleader and peace out, you get to keep the first province, or the first 20% warscore to yourself without your allies being pissed.

3. If you take more than that, you have to share the spoils with your allies. If they're not interested in provinces (and that's the big difference to now), you have to give them something else. Reparations, trade power, prestige. A token for throwing away thousands of their young men for your nation's glory, don't you think?

4. If you don't share the spoils with your allies, then first it'll start to act defensively in wars you call them into. This mimicks the extremely common player behaviour of "sure, I help with strength of the alliance, but otherwise you're on your own, buddie".

5. If you still don't share the spoils, the AI cancels the alliance.

6. Not quite the same logic, but still: If the AI's basetax is more than 5 times the player's, it takes a big malus to considering player alliance proposals on the grounds of "why would I want to bother myself with some chickenshit backwater like yours?"


Any thoughts?

 

[Mattzey]

If they're not interested in provinces (and that's the big difference to now), you have to give them something else. Reparations, trade power, prestige.

Why would you force the player to give the ai something if they don't want anything? That's just stupid plus if you don't give an ally provinces in a war they get ike -70 opinion which can easily lead to them breaking an alliance

6. Not quite the same logic, but still: If the AI's basetax is more than 5 times the player's, it takes a big malus to considering player alliance proposals on the grounds of "why would I want to bother myself with some chickenshit backwater like yours?"

So how are you meant to secure decent alliances as an opm in europe? You already get penalties if your small. further nerfing opm's when they already have other punishments and coalitions making it impossible for them to take land is already difficult

 

[richelieu1628]

Why would you force the player to give the ai something if they don't want anything? That's just stupid plus if you don't give an ally provinces in a war they get ike -70 opinion which can easily lead to them breaking an alliance

The point is not to give the AI something it doesn't want, the point is to make the AI want something that should be completely obvious. If you fight a war together and win, you share the spoils. If your partner doesn't want land, give it money, influence or glory.

So how are you meant to secure decent alliances as an opm in europe? You already get penalties if your small. further nerfing opm's when they already have other punishments and coalitions making it impossible for them to take land is already difficult

Not quite sure why OPM strategy should be premised on making France your robot soldier. If you're an OPM, allying with a 5pm makes sense, why any bona fide great power should have any interest in allying you is beyond me. I agree though that the flipside of that is that huge countries should not bother much with coalitions against OPMs, unless they want their land or in the HRE.

 

[HansBaer]

So how are you meant to secure decent alliances as an opm in europe? You already get penalties if your small. further nerfing opm's when they already have other punishments and coalitions making it impossible for them to take land is already difficult

Who says you are meant to secure decent alliances as an opm or minor? Why should Brandenburg be able to ally Poland, the Hansa, Denmark, Austria and Bohemia on day 1? If you want it easy, play a major. If you play an opm, you shouldn't expect an easy time and if you do, use the console.

I like all the suggestions made in the OP.

 

[Waar]

Not quite sure why OPM strategy should be premised on making France your robot soldier. If you're an OPM, allying with a 5pm makes sense, why any bona fide great power should have any interest in allying you is beyond me. I agree though that the flipside of that is that huge countries should not bother much with coalitions against OPMs, unless they want their land or in the HRE.

It makes some sense if it is against a rival. Why wouldn't France want to harm Spain, Austria or England (and simillar for other situations)?

 

[Thrake]

I always thought that reworking peace deals was a better alternative to coalitions, AE, OE and the likes. Not that they shouldn't exist, but it looks as a more intuitive, realistic (Navarra claiming half of Spain after France did all the work??) and fun way to deal with it overall. I mean, alliance web is the prime way to expand, no matter one's size, so making it harder to maintain is good (and if you're forced to let your allies grow as well, then it's harder to be unchallenged at some point).

I'll add though that big nations might not be willing to ally too small nations, but sometimes still it is in their interest to protect those small nations, so there a guarantee would be best; basically it's a good mean to prevent a rival from easy expansions, and I think the AI should be taught to understand this. Then you could still live as an OPM, but not use the AI to stomp everything on sight.

 

[HansBaer]

It makes some sense if it is against a rival. Why wouldn't France want to harm Spain, Austria or England (and simillar for other situations)?

Because it would be like the Soviets winning WW2 and giving it all to Poland and Czechia?

 

[redomer]

Yeah. It is time to make allies useless. The game is too easy anyway. I never understood why a skilled player would need allies at all. Make it impossible for players to get allies.

Such talk makes me angry. The AI ALREADY refuses often enough an alliance or to join a war or dislikes peace deals that doesn't give them stuff they want.

 

[Mattzey]

Who says you are meant to secure decent alliances as an opm or minor? Why should Brandenburg be able to ally Poland, the Hansa, Denmark, Austria and Bohemia on day 1?

Who said anything about allying all great powers in day 1? But why shouldn't (for example) Albania to ally Austria? Many countries were worried about the Ottomans expansion into Europe so having a strategically strong Albania (getting stronger by helping them and eventually pushing out the Ottomans) makes perfect sense? or are you too fickle to apply abit of logic to such a situation?

 

[Waar]

Because it would be like the Soviets winning WW2 and giving it all to Poland and Czechia?

I guaranteed the independence of byzantium once as poland, the following war set the ottomans back 50 years. I imagine the ai tries to do the same when allying minors under threat from their rivals.

 

[Moah]

I guaranteed the independence of byzantium once as poland, the following war set the ottomans back 50 years. I imagine the ai tries to do the same when allying minors under threat from their rivals.

France did something like that to me. I was playing Brittany, Provence DOWed me, France swooped in as an ally (that i didn't want, I suppose they had guaranteed me or warned Provence), and flash-sieged all of Provence before I could even get a troop in Maine (where I had a claim).

Then they got pissed of at me for not giving them anything.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Who said anything about allying all great powers in day 1? But why shouldn't (for example) Albania to ally Austria? Many countries were worried about the Ottomans expansion into Europe so having a strategically strong Albania (getting stronger by helping them and eventually pushing out the Ottomans) makes perfect sense? or are you too fickle to apply abit of logic to such a situation?

I agree with this. Makes absolute sense that major powers ally small nations with strategic importance.
But one question remains... is the AI capable of determine these strategic alliances?

 

[Sunspawn]

France did something like that to me. I was playing Brittany, Provence DOWed me, France swooped in as an ally (that i didn't want, I suppose they had guaranteed me or warned Provence), and flash-sieged all of Provence before I could even get a troop in Maine (where I had a claim).

Then they got pissed of at me for not giving them anything.

Would you have been able to win alone? If no, they're totally right. And besides, it's their cores, thus they are entirely right in being pissed at you for not giving them back to them.

 

[Ensiferum]

France did something like that to me. I was playing Brittany, Provence DOWed me, France swooped in as an ally (that i didn't want, I suppose they had guaranteed me or warned Provence), and flash-sieged all of Provence before I could even get a troop in Maine (where I had a claim).

Then they got pissed of at me for not giving them anything.

You wanted a french core as Brittany? I also like to live dangerously.

 

[Siffi]

But here's the thing, I think the AI is now way too selfless for its own good, constantly helping out players for almost nothing in return.

And? The AI does the same thing. I can count the times the AI gave me something in their which wasn't a core on one hand.

 

[Krajzen]

5 minutes after introducing selfish ai allies in a patch

PETITION PLEASE PARADOX REPAIR ALLIES

27 pages, 349 0000 views, riots on the streets, widespread destruction

Suddenly proposers of change can't never be found

Wiz facepalms

 

[spinoza013]

Instead of flat out alliances we should have treaties that spell out the conditions and terms of mutual assistance. These may range from shaing trade through protection to full on military alliances. These deals can be brokered through negotiations similar to peace deals. You want Austria to protect you?, give them 10% of your trade income or cancel your treaty with France. etc.


Of course this will be a challenge for the AI and game optimisation but some form of Treaty system would be good.

 

[Thrake]

Who said anything about allying all great powers in day 1? But why shouldn't (for example) Albania to ally Austria? Many countries were worried about the Ottomans expansion into Europe so having a strategically strong Albania (getting stronger by helping them and eventually pushing out the Ottomans) makes perfect sense? or are you too fickle to apply abit of logic to such a situation?

That still doesn't make sense to me. Austria protecting Albania? Perhaps. Austria being called to arms by Albania in an agressive war against Ottomans? No way. Albania on its own is insignificant; basically, it's like asking Austria to do all the job. And with the current rules, they would do all the job and get nothing in turn but debt, loans and dead soldiers.

Instead of flat out alliances we should have treaties that spell out the conditions and terms of mutual assistance. These may range from shaing trade through protection to full on military alliances. These deals can be brokered through negotiations similar to peace deals. You want Austria to protect you?, give them 10% of your trade income or cancel your treaty with France. etc.


Of course this will be a challenge for the AI and game optimisation but some form of Treaty system would be good.

That would be awesome, but that's a lot of rework. Though, they could still work with different kind of alliances.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Instead of flat out alliances we should have treaties that spell out the conditions and terms of mutual assistance. These may range from shaing trade through protection to full on military alliances. These deals can be brokered through negotiations similar to peace deals. You want Austria to protect you?, give them 10% of your trade income or cancel your treaty with France. etc.


Of course this will be a challenge for the AI and game optimisation but some form of Treaty system would be good.

I do hope Pdx reads this post! +1

 

[Siffi]

That still doesn't make sense to me. Austria protecting Albania? Perhaps. Austria being called to arms by Albania in an agressive war against Ottomans? No way. Albania on its own is insignificant; basically, it's like asking Austria to do all the job. And with the current rules, they would do all the job and get nothing in turn but debt, loans and dead soldiers.

The AI works the same way. The only difference is that the player won't ally small states and in many cases won't do anything in favor of the war.