I wish there was a DLC focused on improving AI

[Mesis]

Actually DLC worth the money​

 

[grommile]

AI improvements need to be in the same part of the game that the features they use are.

Building AI improvements need to be in the base game.

Diplomatic AI improvements need to in the base game unless they relate to DLC-only interactions.

Budgetary AI improvements need to be in the base game except to the extent they involve DLC-only revenues and expenses.

Etc.

 

[Meglok]

DLCs are about adding new and improved features. Accompanying patches are about bug fixes and ai improvements. And every patch works on improving the ai. I certainly would object to being charged for an ai improvement DLC.

Now a patch that strictly addressed lingering bugs and tech debt in between DLCs I could support. I however doubt that the bean counters at PDS would approve.

 

[Jesus was a communist]

every patch works on improving the ai.

1.30 added bigger bugs that it fixed, if that's the paradox way of fixing the ai I would prefer if they didn't even try...

 

[RAID186]

If you're willing to pay for AI fixes, you have zero self respect and I'd laugh if PDX ripped you off with such a DLC.

 

[Koopa]

You have paid for it already. Why pay again? No, AI that does work is part of the base game and if not it needs fixing. And not only the known AI Debt fixes. Hope they do not forget about the "just" bad stuff while fixing the broken stuff.

STOP, Example Time - A French AI that does not leave Paris undefended while sieging Delhi or some s**t would be nice. I beat Portugal in my last war because they did not defend anything at home. With colonies, they had me 10:1 but what of it? I remember a Patch in the long ago, I landed on Britain with 40k and was crushed by 120k. A good pain.
Sure, the AI is ok at defending when at war with a direct neighbour because they are in the vicinity anyhow. But the priorities are fracked up if some far away country is involved.

 

[WolframS67]

Actually DLC worth the money​

The really sad thing is that the AI was much better some versions ago.

I haven't played a minute in 1.30.
The AI in 1.29 is already very weak. Problems with economy, passivity of forces and so on.
For some test reasons I have gone back to 1.22. AI is way more aggressive and reacts to my movements way quicker.

For several versions features were added, that might (or might not) offer some flavour, historic accuracy or realism. But from a point of strategy these features give little or nothing. Yet the AI will use them, even if it is detrimental.
One example is army drilling, introduced with professionalism. Normally the AI cheats: armies and fleets are on minimal maintenance, yet the morale is just about a monthly tick away from maximun. With drilling the AI is fair: when drilling the morale is really on 0.51. [I am only playing/testing on VH, don't know if this genreal or not.]
Consequence: I might have taken half the lands of an AI already in previous wars, rivaled them, place my armies next to theirs, the truce is coming to end. Yet the AI keeps on drilling armies. And mothballing forts.
Wars are way too easy.

 

[Equester]

I get where you're coming from OP, but we shouldn't have to pay more for the game just to function.

 

[Hribor]

1.30 added bigger bugs that it fixed, if that's the paradox way of fixing the ai I would prefer if they didn't even try...

Actually it is exactly how a paradox works

 

[Nyrael]

The only reason why there would be a DLC solely for AI improvements is because you want to throw more developers onto it.
Alas, throwing too many programmers at a certain task will just make development harder and slower.
Also, peopel who don't do AI programming still need to be paid, so they need to work, so they need to work on other DLC features.

That's a surface explanation. It doesn't work as simply as you think it does.