I personally really hate when ai plays by different rules than player. Game already plagued by it.
Some tweaks to viking prepared invasions?
- Thread starter Vivs
- 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.
Yeah if you're going to change prepared invasions, making it more inconvenient for the player while keeping requirements the same for AI is for the best.
In that vein a Holy Fury style Crusade really is the answer. In that the lands you win are distributed among randomly generated courtiers ("participants.") Give the courtiers a few male dynasty members to prevent it from dying off instantly from one errant murder. The player would then need to plot to revoke and other CK2 vassal management shenanigans to get the lands they really want from the invasion, as opposed to just outright blobbing. In this way dynasties such as the de Hautevilles can emerge.
Increasing restrictions to fire when the current Prepared Invasion format isn't even abused by AI is not a good method of changing this.
In that vein a Holy Fury style Crusade really is the answer. In that the lands you win are distributed among randomly generated courtiers ("participants.") Give the courtiers a few male dynasty members to prevent it from dying off instantly from one errant murder. The player would then need to plot to revoke and other CK2 vassal management shenanigans to get the lands they really want from the invasion, as opposed to just outright blobbing. In this way dynasties such as the de Hautevilles can emerge.
Increasing restrictions to fire when the current Prepared Invasion format isn't even abused by AI is not a good method of changing this.
While I agree in most general situations, personally I feel it's ok for the AI to play by different rules when it's for things like prestige/piety costs because oftentimes the AI doesn't seem to plan for stuff so it can have irritating situations where, for example, the AI gets the MA and holy sites needed to reform [a pagan religion] but doesn't because the character never focuses the piety gain needed to do it.
For prestige it would probably be even worse, since the AI has something to spend prestige on fairly regularly, as a tribe, so could easily never use the mechanic if it just spent prestige as it gains it?
Last edited:
Sure in most games this is bad. But if the choice is between giving a AI i slight advantage and never seeing a interesting historical outcome in my history simulator game i think i know what id pick. Not like CK2 is a challenge anyway. Lets not propose nerfing the AI more lest the devs get the wrong idea.
Historical outcomes and the likes should depend on events or traits tied to rulers(characters) and lands, and perhaps rules. If ai to get advantage it should be clear and situational. Ideal state is that a player should never ask a rhetorical question "how the hell it did it?"
Thats a
Thats a good point. Im not suggesting we make it so AI is op. Simply that i prefer a challenge and the AI utilizing the same powerful CBs i do provides that. Can't maintain a game longer than a couple hundred years already because the challenge is lost.
Thats a good point. Im not suggesting we make it so AI is op. Simply that i prefer a challenge and the AI utilizing the same powerful CBs i do provides that. Can't maintain a game longer than a couple hundred years already because the challenge is lost.