How does StarNet AI compare to 3.4.5 vanilla AI?

[Mindel]

I've seen much praise for the StarNet AI but I've never tried it before. Could someone who has played it recently comment on how it compares with the current 3.4.5 AI? Does it feel convincingly like human multiplayer as some people claim?

 

[Koopatin]

i haven't played much but when i looked into it (including tag switching) they did play very min max, if that is what you are looking for i guess it is good, but all AI felt very same to me. Paradox vanilla AI does not aim at that. RP personalities do play a larger role. Including personalities that just do not expand much and will always be weaker because of that. those AI will be gone in starnet one way or the other.



that said, i am very much only one step above you in starnet experienc (meaning i have looked into it some but not played it fully) i did play a few games wit startech AI. i liked that more but the min max aspect stays.

 

[StellarXe]

I never use StarNet, but I play with StarTech, the AI could be very insane by actually abusing resources and building up their empire though it quickly falls behind in mid game.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Starnet minmaxes, but it doesn’t minmax in ways I’d consider unfair.

For example, AI empires build battleship mono-fleets, which I consider entirely fair since that’s what I do too.

It’s also more strategic with its tradition and ascension perk choices, even if some of the weaker traditions/perks would be more immersive.

In other words, you get what you’d expect: an AI that makes meta choices to the slight deterrent of “variety”.

 

[Incompetent]

The StarNet and StarTech AIs have the following basic strategy:
1. If safe and chill, macro with a heavy focus on tech
2. If threatened or just because it feels like being aggressive, make fleet and attack soft targets

The only difference is that StarTech is never aggressive before year 40 (although it can build fleet earlier if threatened). So if you play with StarNet, the galaxy tends to be quite violent almost from first contact, whereas with StarTech it's "no rush 40 years" and then the AIs start bashing each other with more of an economic base. The era of strife, whenever it happens, tends to inhibit progress until clear winners start to emerge, because all sides are investing heavily in fleets but only some of those fleets survive.

It's not as good as an actual player, e.g. it can't pull off any surprise gamer moves tactically or diplomatically. Once you're used to it, you can figure out ways to outmanoeuvre it, e.g. by never starting a war that you can't win cheaply and by tech rushing even more shamelessly than it does. Still, because it does generically rational things while staying active, it feels better to play IMO than a galaxy of vanilla AIs who aren't even trying to win.

 

[DeanTheDull]

The StarNet and StarTech AIs have the following basic strategy:
1. If safe and chill, macro with a heavy focus on tech
2. If threatened or just because it feels like being aggressive, make fleet and attack soft targets

The only difference is that StarTech is never aggressive before year 40 (although it can build fleet earlier if threatened). So if you play with StarNet, the galaxy tends to be quite violent almost from first contact, whereas with StarTech it's "no rush 40 years" and then the AIs start bashing each other with more of an economic base. The era of strife, whenever it happens, tends to inhibit progress until clear winners start to emerge, because all sides are investing heavily in fleets but only some of those fleets survive.

It's not as good as an actual player, e.g. it can't pull off any surprise gamer moves tactically or diplomatically. Once you're used to it, you can figure out ways to outmanoeuvre it, e.g. by never starting a war that you can't win cheaply and by tech rushing even more shamelessly than it does. Still, because it does generically rational things while staying active, it feels better to play IMO than a galaxy of vanilla AIs who aren't even trying to win.

Pretty much this. It's very meta-optimized per understanding of the meta (there are gaps in areas), but the real weakness is it's diplomatic/long-range planning.

I don't play it anymore, but I found the 'best' solution was to use diplomatic arrangements to balance the AI against eachother, so that you could be the decisive edge. Optimal way to get an early war advantage, for example, would be to solicit a defensive pact/security guarantee with another empire against a mutual third. Especially useful with AI rivals, as rivals can be willing to join wars, creating two-front wars.

 

[Mindel]

How do people find the current vanilla AI?

I started a war with a 3.5k fleet and the enemy hardly did anything. I killed one 1.5k fleet early on, but the rest of the war was just me slowly inching from system to system taking over claims while the AI seemed almost entirely passive. They had some fleets parked in their territory, but there was really no sign of action or even reaction to my presence.

Is the AI always this terrible at war? If so, I honestly don't even see much point in playing vanilla anymore.

 

[MathyM]

Keep in mind, there's a StarNet (also works with StarTech) mod called Friendship Patch that mostly restores aspects of vanilla AI diplomacy. You can have AI Empires that min-max their resource production, but still like/dislike other empires based on vanilla parameters. I think this is a good way to get started with StarNet, since it will ease the amount of changes you'll have to deal with. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1724817916