Please get rid of AI cheating (i.e. Lucky Nations)

[Ricox]

The difference is that the AI gets arbitrary bonuses that are extremely unrealistic. Additionally, with Ironman active, the player isn't capable of anything the AI is not.
It is ridiculous and incredibly cripplingly bad for balance that AI countries are able to pop 6/5/6 generals/rulers out en masse while player countries in similar circumstances can barely get a 3/3/3.

Sorry, but your argumentation is bad and simply doesn't work. No matter how arbitrary and illogical the bonuses are, the player still has an advantage, the ability of our human brain to explain the mechanics is an ability the AI does not have, at least not yet. When they finally develop an AI that will do just what the player does, then we will finally live in peace and happiness, until the AI realizes you're the only human player in the game and purposely targets and destroys you, and then takes over the world muahahahaa.

So if you play as england and have the lucky nation bonuses on your side is that part of the extra challenge?

Player doesn't get any Lucky bonuses, they apply ONLY to the AI.

Calculate the opinion bonuses and maluses for every decision you make, then make decisions solely based on it.

For example, France (allied with Portugal, Scandinavia, Austria and England) DoWed your Spain (allied with Navarre) over a claim on a 1 basetax oversea province. You are quickly losing the war and France sends a peace offer to you. Instead of making the decision, you calculate:

Length of war: -61
Proposed offer: -1
Warscore: +23
Relative strength of alliances: +20
France is making gains: +10
France has control over the war target: +3

Since the result is less than zero, you naturally refuse France's peace offer and drag the hopeless war on.

Haha, genius, someone should get all the formulas and decision logics for the AI from the game files and/or the devs, and then make an AAR playing like that, making decisions like the AI would according to the files. That would be interesting (and could be added with humor to have one sane advisor always facepalming at the decisions of the country's leader & his logic).

Did you ever try to play this game after drinking looottsss of beer?

I have played EU4 a lot while under the influence of very green substances that I will not discuss to avoid breaking any possible forum rules, it's fun, but I'm still better than the AI and I actually don't make any additional mistakes at all than I would be sober... weird.

there is a simple solution for this problem. just dont use the console and just dont reload. do you guys really have no self-control?

They're achievement-whores (no offense, the "whore" is not meant as an insult in this context), heh. That's the whole point of ironman to many people. I personally never play ironman, I like to have full control of my game - if any bug pops up, I deal with it myself, if any mechanic works in some weird way that I do not like it - I fix the consequences myself and such, it just really makes it so much better to play the game. The only problem is that I sometimes get into cheating habit, but it's very rare compared to my HoI 3 days as a little kiddo when I didn't even know how to play the game without cheats, haha (I had no idea how the mechanics worked, so I just had instant build pretty much as I was confused why everything takes so long to build etc.). But I can defend myself on that one because I was very young and now I've really improved in all Paradox games and could hold my own in an MP game most likely, altho I rarely try. :<

 

[Heatth]

So what qualifies Poland to be a Lucky Nation historically? And what exactly disqualifies Manch from being one?

Poland was one of the biggest realms in that era. Check it out, it was gigantic. It took 3 similarly powerful kingdoms to defeated them. Sure, it got destroyed in the end, but just near the end of the game timeframe. I believe they do lose their lucky status eventually, but I am not sure.

As for Manch, I don't even know who they are, which I suspect might be enough answer.

 

[Checco]

Seems that you want to steamroll the AI and this isn't supposed to happen, Lucky Nations must stay.

First, there is a wide gap between winning wars against AI and being blocked by AI because it has 4-5 times your MP.

Second, who said I wish to 'steamroll AI'?

Third, why 'steamrolling AI isn't supposed to happen?'. In EU3 I remember ppl happily steamrolling AI and the game was not less fun.

You write like you knew nothing of the game and its past incarnations, buddy.

 

[Qoff]

First, there is a wide gap between winning wars against AI and being blocked by AI because it has 4-5 times your MP.

Second, who said I wish to 'steamroll AI'?

Third, why 'steamrolling AI isn't supposed to happen?'. In EU3 I remember ppl happily steamrolling AI and the game was not less fun.

You write like you knew nothing of the game and its past incarnations, buddy.

Oh sorry, I thought that we were talking about EU4 here.

 

[Tacticus101]

They should only remove the AI cheats if they also remove the advantages Human players get (like not being able to be Inherited).

Ironman mode gives me 100% automation of saving the game. That's a huge QoL benefit, and it is immensely frustrating that the only way to get that QoL benefit is to play the unmodified game with default-or-harder difficulty settings.

I happen to like the unmodified game with default difficulty settings, which is why I don't make much noise about this deficiency compared to some people.

Cant you just set AutoSaves to monthly and get the same thing without Ironman?

First, there is a wide gap between winning wars against AI and being blocked by AI because it has 4-5 times your MP.

Since when does the AI get more manpower?

 

[cahtush]

Poland was one of the biggest realms in that era. Check it out, it was gigantic. It took 3 similarly powerful kingdoms to defeated them. Sure, it got destroyed in the end, but just near the end of the game timeframe. I believe they do lose their lucky status eventually, but I am not sure.

As for Manch, I don't even know who they are, which I suspect might be enough answer.

The Manchu, who conquered china and formed the Qing dynasty.

 

[Checco]

Oh sorry, I thought that we were talking about EU4 here.

You might consider stopping thinking if the result is what you wrote above...

 

[Qoff]

You might consider stopping thinking if the result is what you wrote above...

Yeah, I'm the one who are whining about a necessary feature of the game.

 

[shierholzer]

I want a way to still play ironman with lucky nations off. Does anyone know why they force you to play with it on?

Achievements. You'll need a equal playing field to make them fun for people enjoying them.

Additionally, with Ironman active, the player isn't capable of anything the AI is not.

Surviving as the Byzantine empire (or even reconquering Hadrian's empire)?
Winning the Hundred Years War as England?
Of course in a regular fashion.

Third, why 'steamrolling AI isn't supposed to happen?'.

Because devs think that way.

Cant you just set AutoSaves to monthly and get the same thing without Ironman?

Nope. Ironman autosaves are based on the name you allocated at the start - normal autosaves are called just 'autosave'. As soon as you've more than one campaign at a time, autosave just protects you from BSODs.

The Manchu, who conquered china and formed the Qing dynasty.

The Manchu weren't excessively lucky, they're just there for Chinas excessive bad luck.

--

Btw, even if humans forget their brain, they still 'cheat'. Numerous events and decisions are only available for either human or AI - a common one being the Burgundian Inheritance only firing for AI Burgundy.

 

[Checco]

Yeah, I'm the one who are whining about a necessary feature of the game.

What is a 'necessary feature' or not...just how do you claim to know it better than the next player?

 

[Qoff]

What is a 'necessary feature' or not...just how do you claim to know it better than the next player?

So when you're claiming that isn't necessary you judge that you know better than the next player but other people can't do that?

 

[Checco]

So when you're claiming that isn't necessary you judge that you know better than the next player but other people can't do that?

Do you answer a question with another question when you would be forced to show your faulty logic, or do you simply want to raise your post count with this nonsense?

 

[Qoff]

Do you answer a question with another question when you would be forced to show your faulty logic, or do you simply want to raise your post count with this nonsense?

The fact is that without Lucky Nations there is no challenge because the AI isn't smart enough, if they make a better AI I would aprove take away the AI benefits, but until then its necessary or the game would be too easy. However I'm in favor of a "Cooperman" mode where you could set your own settings but with the montly saving (without achievements of course.)

 

[Sandmann]

I want a way to still play ironman with lucky nations off. Does anyone know why they force you to play with it on?

+1000000000000

 

[CommunistCookie]

+1000000000000

I like the idea, but if Ironman is enabled without lucky nations (or any non-default settings) then achievements should be disabled.

 

[Heatth]

The Manchu, who conquered china and formed the Qing dynasty.

I know who the Manchu are, thanks. I don't know who the Manch are, though. Considering there is tons of similarly named nations in the game, you must forgive my inability to understand your misspelling.

I do agree they should probably be a lucky nation, though. Maybe gaining the status upon unifying or something.

What is a 'necessary feature' or not...just how do you claim to know it better than the next player?

Personally, I would go with the Dev's vision over a random player I don't know. And they apparently like Lucky nations.

 

[stratigo]

Seems that you want to steamroll the AI and this isn't supposed to happen, Lucky Nations must stay.

I personally just don't like seeing france rule all of germany because lucky.

 

[stratigo]

The fact is that without Lucky Nations there is no challenge because the AI isn't smart enough, if they make a better AI I would aprove take away the AI benefits, but until then its necessary or the game would be too easy. However I'm in favor of a "Cooperman" mode where you could set your own settings but with the montly saving (without achievements of course.)

This is a bad post. In EU, your nation selection is difficulty, not lucky nations. I have yet to play a game where lucky nations or not have affected anything but the AI beating up other AI. If I loose, I loose early with a small nation when france or the ottomans decide kicking me in the nads when I have 5 provinces is in order. Them being lucky doesn't change a thing. On the other hand by the mid 16th century, I have easily grabbed enough territory and power (if that is what I was going for) that the next 3 biggest nations could ally and go at me and chances are I'd still win, regardless of luck.

 

[grommile]

I personally just don't like seeing france rule all of germany because lucky.

Usually, it doesn't. Most of the Netherlands, a slice of Aragon, and a chunk of Italy, sure. All of Germany? Not a chance, mate. The AI's attitude to AE, even with the AE reduction for being Lucky, is too conservative for that.

 

[s13469986133]

ai cheating, nice terminology.