Serious AI Colonization Problems Spain Colonizing Thirteen Colonies has ruined 1.3.1

[LiberiusX]

The problem with the notion of "it's ok for Spain to send their trade to Bordeaux" is that Spain does all of the heavy lifting for France. Spain makes negligible amounts of money because all France has to do is send her ENTIRE trade fleet to Bordeaux. It's not needed anywhere else.

From my iPhone I apologize for grammar/spelling

 

[ramadawn]

People are complaining about the AI doing what the player ideally would do?

Sorry, but this is not an issue. The AI should have the same information that the player does (unfortunately they have more). As such, they should always go for an optimal colonization strategy. Besides, Spain was in North America, and they probably would have been in more of it if it was not for the British and the French. If England does not colonize, Spain should take it place (as they were probably the biggest reason why they weren't).

People are complaining because EU4 is a historical sandbox and they want to experience history.

 

[GamingHUD]

Circa 1583 from a recent game where Spain had already colonised Taqamkuk and Beothuk by the time my explorers (as England) were scouting the coastline (< 1520). Spain's shenanigans north of the Caribbean on a regular occurrence is becoming mildly annoying (to me).

 

[Beagá]

The problem with the notion of "it's ok for Spain to send their trade to Bordeaux" is that Spain does all of the heavy lifting for France. Spain makes negligible amounts of money because all France has to do is send her ENTIRE trade fleet to Bordeaux. It's not needed anywhere else.

From my iPhone I apologize for grammar/spelling

Bingo, the current setup is totally BS, impossible to justify that.

Maybe there should be some Sea Current mechanism that boosts colonization range in some ways and reduce it in others?

 

[Charles Louis]

If the gameplay went always according to a history book then we could just read a history book instead of playing :wub:

This misses the point entirely. Historicist players believe that things happened for a reason, and that these reasons should be reflected in the game. Nobody has asked for strong determinism, but rather the absence of a regular pattern of a-historicity.

 

[unmerged(752433)]

I'm no expert, but is it possible that the AI tries to block the other countries from reaching the New World? If it gets Brazil and the 13 colonies are + Newfoundland, wouldn't that make it harder for other countries to get there?

 

[unmerged(465279)]

People are complaining because EU4 is a historical sandbox and they want to experience history.

Read a book, I like AI that does something different each game.

 

[WeissRaben]

Bingo, the current setup is totally BS, impossible to justify that.

Maybe there should be some Sea Current mechanism that boosts colonization range in some ways and reduce it in others?

It was there in EU3.

 

[SpikeyMarshmall]

I started a new game today as England. Upon arriving in Canada, Newfoundland was already in the process of being colonised by Spain. I had to go to war which nearly wiped me out of an army but I managed to reclaim the parts of North East NA that they had taken. Unfortunately they've already started trying to colonise parts of North East NA around the areas I took off them.

I could understand maybe Florida or a bit further north of Florida but Canada? It's not meant to follow history but for a sailor to go to Canada first from Spain, it must of been one strange journey.

 

[Freebot]

View attachment 95242

Circa 1583 from a recent game where Spain had already colonised Taqamkuk and Beothuk by the time my explorers (as England) were scouting the coastline (< 1520). Spain's shenanigans north of the Caribbean on a regular occurrence is becoming mildly annoying (to me).

Interesting, my running theory was that Spain is attracted to Manhattan and/or Stadacone and once it has one of those, AI logic directs it to colonize adjacent provinces as well. However, Spain has neither of these trade bonus tiles in that screenshot.

 

[GamingHUD]

Interesting, my running theory was that Spain is attracted to Manhattan and/or Stadacone and once it has one of those, AI logic directs it to colonize adjacent provinces as well. However, Spain has neither of these trade bonus tiles in that screenshot.

Manhattan and Stadacona (in that order) were the provinces I prioritised to colonise first once I saw how far up they were, which probably helped. With those provinces they had up there though, they did later use to fabricate a claim on Stadacona and essentially start WWI over it. :wacko:

 

[Talq]

I thought it managed to get mentioned on the first page? Reason why Spain is so enthusiastic about NA is because it has a mission to colonize one of the thirteen colonies, so it does that then the 'fill a zone' AI priority takes over and it will start colonizing in force there (the connection to Bordeaux means it doesn't quite realise that is a poor strategy as regards connections).

Paradox probably needs to look at the missions a bit more - right now they encourage the AI (and players) to do not wise things.

The other issue is that the Caribbean is an important trade hub, but bodgy demands (especially for sugar) make its products less valuable than Chesepeke when to put it mildly it was the opposite.

 

[Beagá]

It was there in EU3.

How it worked?

And even worse than having cheap Sugar is having ALL of Colombia producing Fur...

 

[LiberiusX]

People are complaining because EU4 is a historical sandbox and they want to experience history.

Read a book, I like AI that does something different each game.

Both of these are strawman arguments. The main point of this thread isn't about historical accuracy. As I explained in the OP, It's about the Spanish AI doing something incredibly stupid by colonizing Chesapeake, in terms of game mechanics.

For instance, most of the people that are aggravated by this problem wouldn't care if it's England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, or any other country with the majority of its provinces in Bordeaux, North Sea, London or Antwerp. If I showed up in Chesapeake and saw Norway spamming colonies, it wouldn't bother me one bit, because it makes ample sense(send trade to North Sea and collect).

As has been repeated multiple times, Spain sending trade to Bordeaux makes no sense, literally. It cannot compete with a normal France. Even if France doesn't form properly, Spain can't compete when the English and the Dutch show up to forward trade to London and Antwerp. Any properly programmed AI would know this well in advance, because trade nodes/paths don't change at any point in the game. The AI knew this in 1.1 and acted correctly, now it doesn't. Something obviously broke and it very well could be the missions.

 

[WiseGreen]

Maybe it'd be an easier/simpler solution if the AI had a preference for colonizing places on trade zones upstream from the nodes it dominates/has the most power. So the Iberic countries would be driven upstream from Seville/Mauretanian Coast, and the northern european countries would be driven upstream from London/Bordeaux/North Sea.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

People are complaining because EU4 is a historical sandbox and they want to experience history.

Its not though. Even if it was, what is the fun in the AI playing suboptimal in every game, given that the player can use optimal strategies based upon what the player knows.

EU4 fits in some middle ground of historical determinism and some mix of gameplay determinism and nondeterminism. Not everyone on this board wants a history map where the AI does what it did in real life. I can appreciate the fact that people want history to guide the AI. However, when the human knows that the Bay is the wealthiest trade zone, the AI should as well and act accordingly.

To the person that said Spain is playing in a 0 sum game by going there, they are not. They can still make a good amount of money (especially with trade ships), while denying England, France, and Northern Europe a large amount of money. Seems to me to be an overall net positive, even above what they would get from the same amount of colonies in Central America.

Honestly, I cannot wait for the flame wars that the new world random map will cause (/sarcasm).

 

[Trickrs]

Read a book, I like AI that does something different each game.

Me too, like Spain don't colonizing NA, since the AI do in 90% of my recent games.

To the person that said Spain is playing in a 0 sum game by going there, they are not. They can still make a good amount of money (especially with trade ships), while denying England, France, and Northern Europe a large amount of money. Seems to me to be an overall net positive, even above what they would get from the same amount of colonies in Central America.

Their trade ships will get Trade Power back to Seville, not Trade Money in Bordeaux/London. The monay will be collected/transfered to Bordeaux, London, Antwerpen, etc.

And trade ships don't increase trade value in the node, so Spain still get -80% penalty, the Iroquois would be very happy.

 

[LiberiusX]

EU4 fits in some middle ground of historical determinism and some mix of gameplay determinism and nondeterminism. Not everyone on this board wants a history map where the AI does what it did in real life. I can appreciate the fact that people want history to guide the AI.

Once again, not the point of the thread. As I stated in the OP it's a problem with game mechanics, not Historical Accuracy. Trade routes are unchangeable mechanics that the AI is well aware of at the beginning of every game.

However, when the human knows that the Bay is the wealthiest trade zone, the AI should as well and act accordingly.

The Spanish AI is going after the wealthiest trade zone, but it is not acting accordingly because it can't exploit any benefit from its actions. This would be the equivalent of me making an investment with my own time and money, and then putting the proceeds in the bank account of someone that will use it to screw me over. I.E. Extreme cost for a continual guaranteed loss. There is no profit for Spain in this.

To the person that said Spain is playing in a 0 sum game by going there, they are not. They can still make a good amount of money (especially with trade ships), while denying England, France, and Northern Europe a large amount of money. Seems to me to be an overall net positive, even above what they would get from the same amount of colonies in Central America.

Except, as I said, the Spain AI does all the heavy lifting in Gold Coast, Caribbean and Chesapeake to get that money to Bordeaux for France to lap it up. Theres no point for the French AI to expend any ships in any of these other nodes, so it will naturally put them all in Bordeaux.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

Once again, not the point of the thread. As I stated in the OP it's a problem with game mechanics, not Historical Accuracy. Trade routes are unchangeable mechanics that the AI is well aware of at the beginning of every game.



The Spanish AI is going after the wealthiest trade zone, but it is not acting accordingly because it can't exploit any benefit from its actions. This would be the equivalent of me making an investment with my own time and money, and then putting the proceeds in the bank account of someone that will use it to screw me over. I.E. Extreme cost for a continual guaranteed loss. There is no profit for Spain in this.



Except, as I said, the Spain AI does all the heavy lifting in Gold Coast, Caribbean and Chesapeake to get that money to Bordeaux for France to lap it up. Theres no point for the French AI to expend any ships in any of these other nodes, so it will naturally put them all in Bordeaux.

OPs point is irrelevant, as I was replying to someones direct statement that people do not like the ahistorical factor.

It cannot exploit all of the benefit, but it can exploit much, depending on behavior. If the AI cannot forward as much trade to its places because Spain is dominating the node, then it is good for Spain. Spain may no be able to collect as much money as from the Caribbean, but compared to Panama or mexico, its probably not a bad choice (minus gold you would get from Mexico).

That all depends on where Spain's capital is. If Spains capital is in Bordeaux, I fail to see the issue of them forwarding trade (if its not then they should be collecting in the Bay). The AI loves to move its capital to wherever it feels like putting it. Heck they could move it to the Bay for all anyone cares (depending on if its true that the AI is not subject to the player's restrictions on Capital movement, though that is peculation from another thread).

Either way, everyone is basing their assumptions on Spain's capital being in Sevilla and Spain forwarding trade to Bordeaux if its not. Both of which may or may not be true.

 

[Trickrs]

The AI changes the capital without decisions?