Is this how Johan and Wiz look like while adjusting AE for 1.8?

[Wizzington]

Actually what I said was the assumption that taking Sweden under the new AE system (with AE scaled to BT) would result in more AE than before (when it was not scaled) was incorrect. Please don't attribute your assumptions as quotes from me, it misinforms people.

 

[Wizzington]

imo AE levels isnt that bad.
what bothers me alot is, Ai joins coala extremely more focused on the human player than other more agresive Ai nations.
I have never seen an ai nation have a coala of more than 2 nations on it. while i have +5 on me easily being half as aggresive as other nations >_>

Unless you're playing on Hard, this is incorrect. Lucky nations get 25% less AE but for the most part the reason AI doesn't get coalitions is because it paces itself when expanding.

 

[Wizzington]

Are you sure it is only -25% AE? Sometimes I think that all AIs are playing on easy (IIRC that is -50% AE) and lucky nations get another -25% AE on top of that. Btw I have played enough to know that the player the player is actually discriminated by the AI in several ways; for example whenever a player attacks an AI country that is already engaged in another war the AI pretty much forget about the other AI and sends everything it got against the player and his/her vassals.

You're wrong on both counts here, sorry.

 

[Wizzington]

Maybe I'll send you a "couple" of links/videos?

In return, I offer this wikipedia article.

 

[Wizzington]

The problem with this is that it is a positive feedback loop.

They get less AE, so their pacing is less threatening.
Because they tend to pace slower, they get even less AE.
Because of both of those, they can expand and expand and expand without ever facing the consequences.
The settings they get fuel growth which feeds back into being able to easily further grow.
It's why France, without player intervention, simply grows and grows and grows apart from the rare 1 in a 1000 game where they suffer an early defeat by combined Burgundy/Castile/Whoever alliances.
Don't you think players get tired of being forced to manage France in every campaign? Just once I would like to see Burgundy, Castile, Aragon, England become the superpower threat in the west...
A player by contrast much manage AE every step along the way. Hell, you can get a coalition from a single province at game start.

A player who paces themselves will also avoid coalitions...

 

[Wizzington]

Pace ourselfs shouldnt be a thing in a game where 90% of its gameplay comes from war. Everything else is just one-click-wait. I would love to grow as a diplomat country but diplomacy only comes to the game when you need someone else to scare you enemies or you need more brute force. All ''big'' things like tech, religion, trade and province development (buildings) are click-wait...

By pace ourselfs you are pretty much saying that i should not play the game for half of a campaing time... or maybe more...

What I'm saying is that it's not exactly unfair that AI does not get coalitions if the reason it doesn't get coalitions is because it expands slower. Lucky nations do get an advantage there, but even that advantage isn't terribly large.

I have documented proof that the AI stole my underwear and made me late for work yesterday. Are you going to deny that too?? Have you no shame??

WAD

 

[Wizzington]

So was this issue that was brought up earlier this year fixed? Or it didn't exist?

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...g-fishy...&p=17088984&viewfull=1#post17088984

Used to be the AE bonus for lucky was (incorrectly) applied to all AIs, it was fixed a number of patches ago.

 

[Wizzington]

So you're saying a player couldn't manage that kind of expansion in 215 years of play without having massive AE at the end of it? Because I'm completely certain that they could.

 

[Wizzington]

Have they lost provinces since? Because that would lower their AE. If not, upload a save from before they sign the peace with Bavaria and I'll see if something is weird.

 

[Wizzington]

But AI Austria doesn't ever get a Coalition against it while expanding like the above picture, because of the AE modifier to AE. AE is the source of Coalitions but "Lucky" AI Nations almost never cross the threshold need for another AI nation to create one. I think that is what the others are trying to say.

Lucky nations only get -25% AE, a peace deal like that would generate a very large amount of AE even if they have additional AE reduction, but without actually showing the AE at the day of signing peace it's hard to know if something else has influenced it since.

 

[Wizzington]

Trier signed the peace, they might've gotten the AE meant for Austria. I just ran a quick test with lucky Austria grabbing 3 provinces off Bavaria and even with AE reduction ideas unlocked in addition to the lucky bonus they get a boatload of AE.

So no, again, AI does not cheat beyond what I've already gone over. If there is something at play here besides the normal mechanics it's a bug.

I think the AE is accurate. -25% from cleansing of heresy, -25% from lucky, and maybe -20% from ideas and policies. The 25% reduction becomes pretty huge when coupled with all the other modifiers.

CB reduction is not additive with other bonuses, and given how high AE is within the HRE it seems dubious they'd be able to reduce it that low.

 

[Wizzington]

Your post implied that this was proof of some secret AI AE cheat though, which it's just not. It may be a bug, but without a repro save I really can't say for sure.

 

[Wizzington]

Just checked the wiki and the AE is only 10%. I didn't know that and I will try to use it more often in my games. Thanks for the explanation!
Btw it seems kind of overpowered. 4 AE for two provinces is not harsh enough imo but that's a different matter.

You can only take claims and cores with it. If it caused lots of AE it could result in rotating coalitions where whoever led the last coalition then gets coalitioned in turn.

 

[Wizzington]

It is not the 1st time that he is wrong and dismisses the claims that way; Like for example Wiz claiming that the AI does not cheat regarding knowledge of the player faraway troop movement when in fact that can be exploited to make the AI break sieges. I would give you a link but I simply don´t have the time to search for it, besides at least 2 people in this thread read it.

It does not *intentionally* cheat. Them retreating from a very far away movement is a bug.

 

[Wizzington]

I just don't understand the point of his comment. He makes it sound like the AE that should have gone to Austria went to Trier, instead, and that this is somehow an expected outcome, despite all peace deals attributing said AE (from granting land to an ally) to the ally, and not you.

So is that expected, or not? Or is it a bug? If it's a bug, is it being dealt with? Why does this sound surprising? If it's not a bug, then why is the description wrong?

I'm getting kind of tired of seeing or posting bug reports and the only response is "plz post a save" as if numerous situations like these weren't easily re-creatable via the console and the onus is on us to copy our ironman games anytime we find something out of whack. But whatever.

I have no idea if it's a bug. That's the point. I cannot tell from a single screenshot of an odd situation whether there is a bug, let alone find and fix if there one. I tried recreating the situation on my own and could not produce a similar result. The reason we ask for saves is not because we're too lazy to use our magical bug detectors to find all the bugs in the code, it's because we need repro cases of bugs to fix them. This is software coding 101.