How is the AI?

[chameleon_skin]

Now that people have been able to pull a few all-nighters on the game, I'm wondering if anyone has specific feedback on their feelings about the AI.

I really like CK, but it did seem too easy to pull off wins against even very large enemies. For instance, I could attack island nations where both of us needed to keep trucking in resources, but my troops were coming from a much shorter distance away. The AI would fight to the bitter end, until he was literally out of money and troops, before letting me offer even a white peace. Because of that, though, it was then ridiculously easy for me to take over his home territories en masse because he didn't have anything left to defend with.

I think it makes sense for *some* rulers to do this, but it would make more sense for it to happen based on personality traits. It hapened enough that if I started out as a large nation, I could pretty much take over anybody using that strategy. It seemed like it was pretty binary, though - either rulers fought as above, or capitulated as soon as I conquered their first territory with a large army.

Is there more nuance to ruler behavior in CKII? Regardless I'm really looking forward to it, but wanted to see what people thought about this in particular.

 

[unmerged(209891)]

Its pretty decent, but if a player wants to dominate through gamey tactics, they will usually be able to. It takes a little restraint to give the AI a fair shot, though thats true for most strategy games, its hard to make one without the possibility for gamey tactics. Its as good if not better than any other Paradox title AI.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

It's not as dumb as a bag of rocks, but it's also not Deep Blue.

 

[chameleon_skin]

Thanks Salt - that was my experience with EUIII as well. Can you elaborate on the specific places in CKII that you need to show restraint in order to give the AI a chance? I want to make sure my first game is realistic and not just an all-out win.

 

[chameleon_skin]

It's not as dumb as a bag of rocks, but it's also not Deep Blue.

Now *there* are the labels I want to see on both ends of a difficulty slider.

 

[themrwho]

I love Paradox games so far and they are doing a good job, CK II is a master piece in the making. Still when it comes to AI there are industry limitations so don't get your hopes too high; as there is no known substitute for human brain, it is impossible to program a 'real challenge' to user without being sadistically restrictive/punitive (which won't be fun for average player anyway). Any human will easily identify and exploit AI weaknesses in a matter of minutes (unfortunately!).

As said above, one definitely needs to create some House Rules to keep it fun/challenge. For the sake of example, if one starts in Ireland as one of the 'middle counties', single province and typically same resources with all your neighbors except some already have duke titles and one has 2 provinces. Mathematically Player should not be able to dominate that political scene, at least not in a very short amount of time - dunno how short as time flies perhaps 25 to 50 years(?). Imagine this county was 'real' and (using in game numbers) one has 500 or so troops with all the neighbouring counties having the same.
For the sake of simplicity, if we leave 'political maneuvering' dimension aside for a minute, if one attacks head on, 500 to 500, with the advantage of defense/fortifications on defender's side, normally attacker should not succeed.
Obviously in an imaginary example there could be countless imaginary attack scenarios that might succed (Trojan horse, surprise attack, etc.) but from a simplistic view, ceteris paribus, attack should fail most times if not all.

Now in the game, it is so easy to overcome this. Initially I was so hesitant to attack head on due to above 'real world limitations' on my mind. Once I did attack with mercenaries I noticed it works every single time, I can simply hire mercenaries while the AI cannot (maybe they don't have money, but how can I have money if we did start in equal provinces/terms? - so it does not set aside any 'emergency funds' which is silly even for AI)



In the end, I noticed I have been taking my 1st and 2nd counties using mercenaries, after which, with upgrades, my own resources become abundant to conquer rest of the island.

* In my next game I will try a house rule of no mercenaries.

* Also considering a maximum limit of 3 aggressions per ruler per lifetime thus one single ruler cannot become Julius Caesar. I believe this will provide less blitzkrieg and more 'dynasty role playing', i.e. reigning peacefully, improving existing holdings, plotting to gain land with plots/marriages rather than war.

* Perhaps 2 max assassinations per ruler as well. There is a problem with the game as is though, if anyone in the world targets my precious heir it really pisses me off; they won't nicely 'End Plot', cannot be imprisoned as they are not in my realm, cannot be punished by their own ruler as there is no such diplomacy option / and their will not ask them to End Plot either (again missing option in diplo menu).

In this case, player's role is sitting back comfortably and watch heirs get killed one after another, which forces me to establish a virtual Ḥashshāshīn HQ in my capital and eliminate eliminaters one by one.
Even though I would prefer not using assassins in general. dynamic market rules: adapt or die...