Same rules for Everyone!

[unmerged(21429)]

It dawned on me that something wasn't quite right when I was playing EUII earlier: I was BYZ and I owned pretty much all of the Balkans and was quite powerful, when suddenly I realized that I couldn't sustain a 70,000+ army. Maintaing an army that large costed more than my total income, and I was forced to automatically take a loan to pay for the costs. That is why I thought it so odd that another country, Genoa, which consisted of just 2 provinces, was maintaining an army of 53,000 men. Is the computer completley exempt from the finances of the game? I find this rather discouraging and unfair!

By the way, to prove that Genoa couldn't sustain an army that large, I loaded the game and played as them, and sure enough, even with maintainance costs at 50% their income was barely the maintainance cost. And I'm pretty sure that the computer doesnt fiddle with maintainance costs...

 

[MarshalN]

There's another thread going that has the same complaint....

 

[unmerged(11499)]

There's another thread going that has the same complaint....

I'd add SOME OTHER threads about it.


for example

 

[unmerged(25822)]

Yea this is frustrating, i beleive AI cheating games insult your IQ (this is a personal opinion). If you search the web for EA games forums will get what i mean .(i do know that without the cheats the game would be too easy to play but come on )

http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/c850.htm

the numbers of the byzantine standing army at 850AD

by that time in EU terms byzantines owned mainland greece, asia minor, kaffa( herson),Kerch (panticarpaion),corfu,albania,armenia,aegean islands and sicily maintaining 120,000 soldiers and still having a surplus in budget.

p.s. if you go to this numbers for all nations my old putter will not be able to run the game at all, scaling down support limits is ok but for ALL.

 

[Iso-A]

Would you please stop complaining about AI cheats? AI is so stupid that there are no difficulties beating it even with a minor or a tech-retard. If you can't beat the AI on very hard, try easier levels of difficulty.

If AI wouldn't be able to cheat on troop support limit and naval attrition, this game would be absolutely too easy.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Would you please stop complaining about AI cheats? AI is so stupid that there are no difficulties beating it even with a minor or a tech-retard. If you can't beat the AI on very hard, try easier levels of difficulty.

If AI wouldn't be able to cheat on troop support limit and naval attrition, this game would be absolutely too easy.

Exactly! It is remarkable to read these posts that come in now and then. And it is always, I dare to guess, newcomers to the game.

Listen newbies: after a while you will appreciate that the AI cheats a little, thus the game become more fun for you to play because of the increased challenge.

Ideally everything should be the same for all nations in the game, no one questions that. But in practice we must aim at having a fun time playing the game - for as many players as possible. To play a game were there is almost none competion is by definition not fun. But playing a game were your adversaries cheat may still be fun, it's just a question of telling yourself: heck, if it wasn't for the cheats the experienced players would not have a fun time playing the game and for me, well the game become more difficult, but that does not _decrease_ the fun, why should it?, I can still "win" the game.

 

[unmerged(25822)]

Exactly! It is remarkable to read these posts that come in now and then. And it is always, I dare to guess, newcomers to the game.

Listen newbies: after a while you will appreciate that the AI cheats a little, thus the game become more fun for you to play because of the increased challenge.

Ideally everything should be the same for all nations in the game, no one questions that. But in practice we must aim at having a fun time playing the game - for as many players as possible. To play a game were there is almost none competion is by definition not fun. But playing a game were your adversaries cheat may still be fun, it's just a question of telling yourself: heck, if it wasn't for the cheats the experienced players would not have a fun time playing the game and for me, well the game become more difficult, but that does not _decrease_ the fun, why should it?, I can still "win" the game.

i think we just have different approach on what is fun and as about the newbie issue im playing the game from they day it get out at stores....anyway no hard feelings ,a "turn AI cheats off" button would be enough to keep us all happy

 

[unmerged(4193)]

It'd be nice if the AI was smarter and didn't need to cheat, but those large armies they make seem to eat themselves up in attrition pretty quickly anyway. I'm pretty bad at the game myself, but I know enough to stand back and let my enemies attack first if they have larger armies

 

[unmerged(21992)]

Exactly! It is remarkable to read these posts that come in now and then. And it is always, I dare to guess, newcomers to the game.

Listen newbies: after a while you will appreciate that the AI cheats a little, thus the game become more fun for you to play because of the increased challenge.

Um, yeah, right, but maybe this sort of thing could be turned off for "Very Easy"? And maybe even "Easy"?

Probably 90% of the people who you think of as non-newbies have had the game for months. Those who are still around on these boards are obviously still playing it, and therefore have unimaginable levels of practice at the game. So they aren't really the best people to tell newbies that "You'll appreciate the AI's cheating because it gives you a bigger challenge". Uh, no, because newbies aren't at that stage yet.

 

[Castellon]

Umm, I was under the impression that the AI did not cheat on Maintenance when the game was set to very easy, so what is the problem?

 

[unmerged(25996)]

The maintenance cheat has been turned off on very easy for 1.07, but all the other cheats are in there. Having debated this issue in another thread I will try to summarize:

Some, like me, find the cheats more annoying than losing the game.

Some believe without the AI cheats, the game would be too easy. Not all the people in this camp shrug off all complaints as being whining from noobs, but some, like in this thread, do.

I will be the first to admit that a seemingly minor change to AI could break the game rather than help the situation. Testing is necessary, time consuming and tedious.

In my opinion, improving the AI so the cheats are not necessary would do much more to expand the player base than making a scenario more accurate historically or giving us another country to play, or giving us more event scripting. This is an opinion and the devs can agree or disagree whether or not it is worth the time and effort to improve the AI. Maybe it is not worth it for v1.08, but it might be for EU3.

If a 1 province minor needs bigger stacks to survive, there are ways to do that without cheating. The capital province could give +10,000 or +20,000 to the maintenance limit. The maintenance noose could be done in a progressive manner based on country size. There are other solutions that give the same rules for player and AI in identical situations. In my opinion, these solutions would be viewed much more favorably by new players than what are transparently cheats.

 

[unmerged(25609)]

I see no problem with the AI "cheating"
1) the player cheats by nature (without using F12), by having the same person direct their country for 400+ years; you also KNOW what's coming (events, etc) and can prepare for it
2) when a little state has an abnormally large army, you can rationalize it this way: they know you're coming, and in their paranoia have assembled a larger army than you expected / they can afford. Tough luck! Why should you be able to catch them by surprise?
3) over-sized armies keep little states independent for longer - it's more fun that way. Who wants to play with only half a dozen superpowers on the map?
4) I've no idea how the programming works - but in real-life, if a neighbouring state masses a huge army on or near your border, wouldn't you like some guarantee that it wasn't aimed at you? In the absence of a RM or an alliance, wouldn't you build up your forces? Well, maybe it's too difficult to program that way, so they settled for some over-sized armies.
Surprising, maybe. But not really that annoying, and in some ways quite beneficial.

 

[unmerged(19695)]

The maintenance cheat has been turned off on very easy for 1.07, but all the other cheats are in there.

"All the other cheats"? How many ways does the AI cheat? I can think of:

1) Ignoring the maintenance limit.
2) No ship deaths from attrition.
3) More people allowed in an alliance.

That's all I can think of that moment. #3 is a very small thing. #1 and #2 are both to protect the AI from themselves. If the AI had ship attrition they'd never discover anything. And if the AI didn't ignore the maintenance limit it would bankrupt itself repeatedly. IIRC, it's because the maintenance limit was made lower/nastier in one of the patches, and the troop building AI doesn't take it into account.

Meanwhile, only human players recruit mercenaries, colonize ahistorically, adjust DP sliders, always reject diplovassalization, or can make event choices based on what's best, not what's listed first. And the human has a *lot* of possible exploits the AI will not use, such as foreknowledge of provinces and events, systematic siege stealing, alliance hopping to minimize bb, and many others.

Before EUII, I spent most of my time with turn based strategy games (Civ, MoM, MOO, Civ2, Col, Imperialism are the main ones). The "cheats" in EU II beat the heck out of the usual difficulty level adjustments (giving more money per turn, faster tech research and better relations) that other games provide. After a certain point (the point at which a single minor's army doesn't threaten you with immediate extinction), the AI advantages are minor annoyances, especially since the AI is so wasteful of its stockpiled troops. If it annoys you that much, play on "furious". The AI will use its troops often enough that they won't get past the supply limit.

Overall, I think the EU II engine does a remarkable job of playing by the same rules. That's why the game is so easy once you're a major.

 

[joak]

In my opinion, improving the AI so the cheats are not necessary would do much more to expand the player base than making a scenario more accurate historically or giving us another country to play, or giving us more event scripting. This is an opinion and the devs can agree or disagree whether or not it is worth the time and effort to improve the AI. Maybe it is not worth it for v1.08, but it might be for EU3.

It's a question of return on investment--I suspect a company can put in hundreds or thousands of man-hours and end up with an AI only very marginally less stupid than they started with, or put in that time and almost completely fix every other problem and add features to boot.

 

[doktarr]

The maintenance cheat has been turned off on very easy for 1.07, but all the other cheats are in there.

Such as? The only one I can think of is no naval attrition, which is not a big deal at all. (This just covers for something the AI is exceptionally bad at. Without it, the computer would lose all its navies. Before you say "write a better AI, then", try to write a flowchart for what you would have a navy do. Then make a list of everything you haven't covered.)

Having debated this issue in another thread I will try to summarize:

Some, like me, find the cheats more annoying than losing the game.

The answer to your complaint (for the large part) is to play on very easy. What is more relevant is whether you find cheats more annoying than always easily winning the game.

Some believe without the AI cheats, the game would be too easy. Not all the people in this camp shrug off all complaints as being whining from noobs, but some, like in this thread, do.

My greater problem with those objecting to cheats is not that they are struggling against the cheating AI, which is just part of the learning process. My problem is that most of these people show a fundamental lack of understanding for both what the game would be like without AI cheats, and how difficult AI programming is.

I will be the first to admit that a seemingly minor change to AI could break the game rather than help the situation. Testing is necessary, time consuming and tedious.

True. And the returns will never be enough to satisfy everyone, at least not using current programming paradigms.

In my opinion, improving the AI so the cheats are not necessary would do much more to expand the player base than making a scenario more accurate historically or giving us another country to play, or giving us more event scripting.

That's almost certainly true. Giving every player $100 cash would also expand the player base a lot. Neither is realistic, though.

This is an opinion and the devs can agree or disagree whether or not it is worth the time and effort to improve the AI. Maybe it is not worth it for v1.08, but it might be for EU3.

Again, you are massively underestimating the difficulty involved in making the AI substantially better. It can be improved, sure. But it will never be good enough to challenge the best players without any cheats. Perhaps it will be improved enough to challenge the best players WITH cheats - that would be enough for me.

If a 1 province minor needs bigger stacks to survive, there are ways to do that without cheating. The capital province could give +10,000 or +20,000 to the maintenance limit. The maintenance noose could be done in a progressive manner based on country size. There are other solutions that give the same rules for player and AI in identical situations. In my opinion, these solutions would be viewed much more favorably by new players than what are transparently cheats.

Those approaches might be better from a "PR" standpoint, but they are not really any different in practice. Well, except that they make playing 1-province minors as a human much easier.

 

[EUnderhill]

It's a question of return on investment--I suspect a company can put in hundreds or thousands of man-hours and end up with an AI only very marginally less stupid than they started with, or put in that time and almost completely fix every other problem and add features to boot.

Better AI could very well slow down the game by a significant amount. I suspect many people would object far more than I would.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Genoa, which consisted of just 2 provinces, was maintaining an army of 53,000 men.

In the EUII Thread of World Records, record for Biggest Army Fielded by a One-Province Minor (AI) was

330,000.

There's definitely some cheating involved.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

i think we just have different approach on what is fun and as about the newbie issue im playing the game from they day it get out at stores....anyway no hard feelings ,a "turn AI cheats off" button would be enough to keep us all happy

In that case I am astonished. :wacko:

I will just make one example.

You have just stated that you believe it is entirely correct that ships that the AI forgets to place in harbour within about 12 or 24 months from departure will sink. Probably in just a decade or so all the AI nations will be without ships.

To entirely eliminate AI cheating would not be unwise, it would be ridiculous, none would be happy, anyone pressing that button would get angry after a while.

So start over and rethink what it is you wish

EDIT: Just read some other posts that mentioned this particular cheat. Well, one more example can't hurt

 

[Gerrit]

As dalestephenson stated, 'we' humans cheat. We always cheat because we usually use our brains (the occaision of playing for more then 5 hours nonstop excepted of course ) We can come up with several solutions to a situation. The AI knows not so many solutions. And a player that knows the AI behavior a little, will almost always exploit this. I think the AI has to be protected against itself (and us a little of course ).

It's a question of return on investment--I suspect a company can put in hundreds or thousands of man-hours and end up with an AI only very marginally less stupid than they started with, or put in that time and almost completely fix every other problem and add features to boot.

Of course they could but, but as EUnderhill stated, the AI could slow the pc down alot. Think of all the possible outcomes of a game. The AI would have to be totally rescripted.
The way it works now, a seperate AI file, for every country would not be sufficient enough i think. There had to be several AI files for one country for every situation one. This I know not entirely for sure becouse i am not very much into scripting, but i do know how to read them. But someone will come by who knows how it exactly works.

Not all people have a great PC (I felt the same you do 4AD )I feel is the best solution there is between balancing the minimum system requirements and a good AI.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Exactly! It is remarkable to read these posts that come in now and then. And it is always, I dare to guess, newcomers to the game.

Listen newbies: after a while you will appreciate that the AI cheats a little, thus the game become more fun for you to play because of the increased challenge.

Ideally everything should be the same for all nations in the game, no one questions that. But in practice we must aim at having a fun time playing the game - for as many players as possible. To play a game were there is almost none competion is by definition not fun. But playing a game were your adversaries cheat may still be fun, it's just a question of telling yourself: heck, if it wasn't for the cheats the experienced players would not have a fun time playing the game and for me, well the game become more difficult, but that does not _decrease_ the fun, why should it?, I can still "win" the game.

At first thought, I wouldn't even answer you, as insulting is your post.

How do you dare calling people you don't know of "newbies" ? When you look at the Date joined and at the number of posts, you only see for how long the guy has been ACTIVE on the forum.

I may have joined less than a month ago, and I may have less than hundred posts, but I AM NOT A NEWBIE. I've played EU2 since the release date, and before that I played EU1. And all Civs, Total War, Steel Panthers, Sims, Imperialisms, etc, etc, etc. I play computer games since my first 64k, and many other non-computerized games.

You object that people complaining over the AI cheat are bad players getting sucked by the AI, isn't it insulting ?

What would you say if I told "all these grand-pa's are happy with a cheating bad AI because they couldn't outsmart a good AI" ? It's insulting too, and IMO is as far of the truth than your comments.

Number of posts does not equate to your IQ, so you don't have all the answers because you were here before. Such comments are exactly what drive people away of countless forums.

On the problem of the dumb AI, I remember a time in which the AI dropped massive armies on territories with an huge attrition, and laying sieges loosing tens of thousands troops. They don't anymore. Why ? Because Our Mighty Divine Lord Johan improved it. So, stop telling it's impossible to get a better AI, because it has already been improved.