Wiz confirmed he'll be looking into Trust one's he's back from his stint with HOI4 (think it ends today). He said (paraphrasing here), that AI shouldn't really break alliances -> rival when you have 80+ trust.
- 1
Militaristic Rulers Make Trust Useless
- Thread starter Senstrae
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
you're right in that it's it's a bad assumption: that the AI should not behave in this manner, or how you expect the AI to behave. but you wouldn't expect a human to behave this way, hence...
why would you ally someone who just got coalitioned by HRE and is a known austrian rival? you're just asking for punishment, so don't complain ;o
what randomness? i never found anything about previous AI interaction 'random'... in fact... it was too predictable...
all hail backstabbing AI (finally acting human for a change).
nothing random about that...
how random can it get? DOW france w/austria, so you can claim throne on aragon w/out interference... not very ;o
Last edited:
- 6
Did you miss the part where I said "I already have a PU over Austria"?
I allied Poland because they are my most reliable large ally in my immediate vicinity. Lithuania is rarely there for offensive calls because they're struggling with debt and rebels. I also allied GB, but we haven't been in an offensive war together yet.
yes i did...
anyways, i'm just poking fun at the AI... cuz it's... too damn high! i mean, predictable...
Well if the AI can't break Alliances with 80+ trust then players shouldnt be able to either. I mean its easy enought to dump trust by checking refuse to join offensive wars.
Also the AI should have that stuff in mind, and try to break of Alliances that may have become more trouble than they are Worth, but ti should take them time, not just instantly like it is now.
Also the AI should have that stuff in mind, and try to break of Alliances that may have become more trouble than they are Worth, but ti should take them time, not just instantly like it is now.
Well there are examples but usually those are with nations who never managed to get a border with each other.
Last edited:
- 1
surely, it may be a bit overboard; and having ai constantly break alliances will just lead to them developing bad reps with everyone, but there has to be some middle ground.
currently (er, without the DLC), they're just brainless zombies waiting to be eaten.
although, messing with stuff too much ain't good either; bcs then it requires a whole new round of testing (ahem: forts).
currently (er, without the DLC), they're just brainless zombies waiting to be eaten.
although, messing with stuff too much ain't good either; bcs then it requires a whole new round of testing (ahem: forts).
In the first example I provided Poland was required to annul with Byzantium as a result of signing a separate peace with Spain. He did not independently break the alliance. But because we were not allied when the militaristic ruler came into power, it resulted in a situation where he wanted all of my neighboring territory in spite of all of the positive modifiers we had between each other.
In the second example I provided Austria was allied with Byzantium and Milan before the ruler came into power. I independently took a Venetian territory right on her border which was marked prior to my arrival, but she unmarked it as a result of our alliance. This means that the militaristic AI Austria valued our alliance more than she valued that exact territory. You'll notice she also downgraded her claim on Venice to yellow probably because Milan or myself had it marked as "vital".
These examples were never about the AI breaking alliances or backstabbing. At most it is an example of militaristic rulers acting a bit overzealous, causing unnecessary (and potentially disadvantageous) decision making.
- 1
- 1
I haven't been playing much since 1.14 but is there an actual limit on how many provinces can be designated as "vital interest"? If not, then there absolutely should be.
- 1
Worst is the popup says ruler is said to be diplomat and when you check he is militaristic. Will there ever be a version when we dont have to triple check on everything ?
That text isn't talking about the ruler's diplomatic predisposition, but just a flavor indicator about their monarch point strength. You get the same flavor about your own rulers. You're not double or triple checking anything.
- 5
Cossacks was the first DLC for this game which honestly disappointed me 
- 2
I wish we could choose modes to play.
This aggressive AI that plays like a player (mode 1) and a more 'realistic" lets say AI that plays more like before, going for specific borders and such(mode 2).
This aggressive AI that plays like a player (mode 1) and a more 'realistic" lets say AI that plays more like before, going for specific borders and such(mode 2).
Nope, it actually (since many, many patches) tell us about personality of previous monarch, recently deceased, which is obvious bug.
- 1
That's a persistent bug that still hasn't been fixed: it refers to the previous monarch instead of the current one.
It's not „just a flavour indicator“, it's their personality. The dead monarch's though.
This so much. This alliance is cited 5 times a day on these forums as if the French king and the Sultan dined together every other evening.
Also, this mostly happens due to annul treaties, it would be good if the AI just doesn't write off a potential ally that it could get the moment the treaty expires and instead tries to save that alliance unless the other nation shows signs of not being interested.
I think the AI should be re-designed to mark only a few provinces as "Of Vital Interest" and the rest as "Strategic Utility". Given the way the system is descirbed, it seems like it would make more sense for the AI to have only a few vital interest provinces at a time. Keep it focused on its primary targets.
E.g. a Militarist Poland might decide it Danzig, the other TO provinces and Silesia are vital interest, and mark the rest of what it wants along its borders as strategic utility.
E.g. a Militarist Poland might decide it Danzig, the other TO provinces and Silesia are vital interest, and mark the rest of what it wants along its borders as strategic utility.
- 1
Well it has happened to me, I ruthenia went to war with the golden horde whom my long time ally russia had permanent claims on, but when I am about the declare war russia says they dont want any land from the golden horde, right after I finish the war it paints all those permanent claims (only one of which I actually took) plus the ones it has on crimmea (which I had) as vital intrest and breaks of the Alliance.
In game terms it simply was an alliance with the "join offensive war" box kept mostly unchecked and with a significant penalty from "distant war".
I remember writing in my 1.9.2 ryukyu aar
quote:
Don't ever ley your nation or your vassal border a nation with a large militaristic ruler nation. BAAAAD IDEA. Nations that have HIGH chance for militaristic ruler (like ottomans or burgundy) are worthless allies once you border them in any way.
In your case? I would have sold the bordering province to anyone who was willing to buy and keep abusing their help.
The ruler personalities are underestimated by players.
But to say they got to be NERFED?
Nope, please don't. Its realistic that militaristic kings want to expand, even if its means dissolving an alliance that his diplomatic forefathers held for decades...
It adds spice to the game.
Austria with a few militaristic rulers is funny, then they start eating entire HRE with imperial liberation cb... The irony.
I know this will probably not be agreed to, but militaristic rulers should be what they are. if you nerf them, then make the nation get events like "advisors disagree to war", "trade plummets", "imports blockaded" or god knows what to keep him in line...
But please don't alter ruler personalities.
If you do, you will gimp Burgundy, Ottomans and allthe other militaristic bogeyman nations on the map.
And to be honest, players should learn to deal with sudden changes in political landscape..
It adds spice to a campaign
quote:
Don't ever ley your nation or your vassal border a nation with a large militaristic ruler nation. BAAAAD IDEA. Nations that have HIGH chance for militaristic ruler (like ottomans or burgundy) are worthless allies once you border them in any way.
In your case? I would have sold the bordering province to anyone who was willing to buy and keep abusing their help.
The ruler personalities are underestimated by players.
But to say they got to be NERFED?
Nope, please don't. Its realistic that militaristic kings want to expand, even if its means dissolving an alliance that his diplomatic forefathers held for decades...
It adds spice to the game.
Austria with a few militaristic rulers is funny, then they start eating entire HRE with imperial liberation cb... The irony.
I know this will probably not be agreed to, but militaristic rulers should be what they are. if you nerf them, then make the nation get events like "advisors disagree to war", "trade plummets", "imports blockaded" or god knows what to keep him in line...
But please don't alter ruler personalities.
If you do, you will gimp Burgundy, Ottomans and allthe other militaristic bogeyman nations on the map.
And to be honest, players should learn to deal with sudden changes in political landscape..
It adds spice to a campaign
- 3
- 1