That's it, can't play this anymore.

[bazza80]

Don't you think that's ... bad? I mean, do we want the primary driver of AI behavior to be other AI behavior? Doesn't that sound ... bad?

There are over 100 countries (estimate) in the game. Do you really think the behavior of all of them should be governed by one country (the player)? I personally like that the player isn't the center of everything. I enjoy watching the messages window to see what the AI is doing, who is allying who, who is declaring war on who.

That said, I think it would be good if we had more information on why the AI sees us as it does. I don't want to be able to predict that Russia will go hostile towards me, but I would like to know why they changed to hostile despite us being allied, having two common enemies, and no borders. Also it would be good if the AI didn't change its mind quite so often, although it is a little amusing to see Russia flip between Threatened and Hostile every 6 months.

 

[Riidi]

There are over 100 countries (estimate) in the game. Do you really think the behavior of all of them should be governed by one country (the player)?

No, but I think the behavior of the ones meaningfully interacting with me should be primarily driven by my actions. That's what gives the feeling of this being a game against a set of AI opponents.

 

[ryak2002]

Don't you think that's ... bad? I mean, do we want the primary driver of AI behavior to be other AI behavior? Doesn't that sound ... bad?

What? Let's pretend for a minute that instead of AIs, there is a person controlling every country. Would you seriously not expect them to base their behavior off of the behavior of the other countries? What else should they base their behavior off of, exactly? Frankly, people have complained considerably about the AI treating the human player differently. But people also complain about them treating the human player the same as yet another AI?

It makes no sense.

 

[Riidi]

What? Let's pretend for a minute that instead of AIs, there is a person controlling every country. Would you seriously not expect them to base their behavior off of the behavior of the other countries? What else should they base their behavior off of, exactly? Frankly, people have complained considerably about the AI treating the human player differently. But people also complain about them treating the human player the same as yet another AI?

It makes no sense.

The people who complain about the AI treating human players differently are stupid. Do not claim that I am making their arguments. I am not. I am making my argument.

I want the AI to treat me differently. I want this game to provide a structured challenge and give me the tools to overcome it. That is what the point of a single player game is.

 

[jonman122]

The people who complain about the AI treating human players differently are stupid. Do not claim that I am making their arguments. I am not. I am making my argument.

I want the AI to treat me differently. I want this game to provide a structured challenge and give me the tools to overcome it. That is what the point of a single player game is.

The AI do treat human players differently, the guy who programmed the AI explicitly said they do. Thus, it is not stupid.

 

[Riidi]

The AI do treat human players differently, the guy who programmed the AI explicitly said they do. Thus, it is not stupid.

I am saying that it is stupid to complain about this fact -the AI should treat a human differently, because I am the guy playing the game, rather than a piece of code. If Saxony doesn't have fun because it's buffeted by winds of fortune and the machinations of empires outside its knowledge or control, who cares? If I, playing Saxony, don't have fun because of that, then obviously I care - and the developers of the game should, too.

 

[Talq]

I am saying that it is stupid to complain about this fact -the AI should treat a human differently, because I am the guy playing the game, rather than a piece of code. If Saxony doesn't have fun because it's buffeted by winds of fortune and the machinations of empires outside its knowledge or control, who cares? If I, playing Saxony, don't have fun because of that, then obviously I care - and the developers of the game should, too.

Way, way back in the mists of time, in EU (not EU2, EU3, EU4. EU) you could only play 8 nations. Could you guess who they were? Hint: you want an easy game, play a large nation. You want a hard game, play a piddly little nation in the middle of the HRE where a number of other nations have a strong interest in cutting you down should you try to rise above your station. Prussia didn't fight three wars for Silesia for kicks.

This thread is just an illustration of King's dictum. Players may say they want a strong AI, but they don't really want a strong AI. God forbid it respond to them.

 

[jonman122]

Way, way back in the mists of time, in EU (not EU2, EU3, EU4. EU) you could only play 8 nations. Could you guess who they were? Hint: you want an easy game, play a large nation. You want a hard game, play a piddly little nation in the middle of the HRE where a number of other nations have a strong interest in cutting you down should you try to rise above your station. Prussia didn't fight three wars for Silesia for kicks.

This thread is just an illustration of King's dictum. Players may say they want a strong AI, but they don't really want a strong AI. God forbid it respond to them.

I never said I wanted a strong AI, that should be reserved for hard difficulty. I'd rather something average for normal, where it's slightly predictable (like ally's being ally's and not suddenly turn-coat destroying you.) and then on easy, which you can't play with Ironman, have them be dumb as bricks. What I don't want is for normal and hard mode to be effectively the same (they are right now, the AI is just as.. interesting, in both modes.) I can do hard mode just as well as normal, and that's not something I want. I want hard to be hard, normal to be normal, easy to be easy.

Half of the people here seems to want hard to be hard, normal to be hard, easy to be for people who they deem to be morons not worthy of getting any Ironman achievements regardless of how well they can get, because normal mode should be 9000x harder than easy, obviously.

The other half of people are normal human beings.

 

[Neoptolemos]

This thread is just an illustration of King's dictum. Players may say they want a strong AI, but they don't really want a strong AI. God forbid it respond to them.

Well, I don't want a strong AI unless it's also a fun AI. Playing 1.2 often feels like playing a board game with a relentlessly meta-gaming sociopath. Sure, he's good, but what a jerk, right? Former enemies will make common cause against you for annexing some random province, while AI Spain inherits Portugal and the united HRE while keeping happy alliances with Great Britain and the Commonwealth for another hundred years.

I don't want the AI to play like a human. If I did, I'd be playing multiplayer. When I play singleplayer, what I want is a historical sandbox that isn't full of robots hard-wired to kick down any sandcastles I build too high. You can call me a baby or whatever, I don't care.

 

[jonman122]

Well, I don't want a strong AI unless it's also a fun AI. Playing 1.2 often feels like playing a board game with a relentlessly meta-gaming sociopath. Sure, he's good, but what a jerk, right? Former enemies will make common cause against you for annexing some random province, while AI Spain inherits Portugal and the united HRE while keeping happy alliances with Great Britain and the Commonwealth for another hundred years.

I don't want the AI to play like a human. If I did, I'd be playing multiplayer. When I play singleplayer, what I want is a historical sandbox that isn't full of robots hard-wired to kick down any sandcastles I build too high. You can call me a baby or whatever, I don't care.

This sounds more like what I was thinking rather than what I said. I play singleplayer for that not-quite-human but still interesting gameplay, not the "now the AI are like humans and will break alliances and destroy you because hey, that's what people do in multiplayer so you'd better live with it." I expect it from multiplayer but now I have to expect it from every core aspect of the game and if that's the way the normal AI are set, that's not exactly a fun time.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Of course the AI needs to be opportunistic. Just as the player, and just like nations in the real world.

 

[Wolfmaster1979]

I see large AI nations breaking alliance with other large AI nations pretty commonly. They obviously didn't do it cause the other nation is the human then.

The AI can, however, shift attitudes frustratingly quickly and often at times, and the system is pretty opaque. I'm not against this deepening of the diplomacy game, but then there should probably be ways to get an idea what a nation is trying to do. Then maybe you could use that knowledge to orchestrate some pretty cool diplomatic strategies (like pitting two nations against each other) if you play it right.

Maybe that would make Espionage useful?

Espionage is total crap. It needs to be either reworked or redesigned to make it useful/ worth while to take. It is a waste of admin points...

But this is just my opinion...

 

[semaphore]

The reason this argument is tired and dumb is because it happens every game with all of the alliances I form. It's not just a I'm NEVER expecting to be backstabbed, it's I'm ALWAYS backstabbed because the AI in this game at this moment is stupid.

That indicates to me you choose your allies poorly. You need allies whose strategic interests do not conflict with yours, otherwise you are just temporarily on the same side. And in real history, nations backstab each other all over the place.

The AI being too smart to behave like the lapdog you want it to be doesn't make it stupid, it makes it smart.

 

[smikis]

had it so manytimes, best was when i helped sweden gain independence from denmark , they got raped before my army came there to save them , then at same time or bit latter muscovy declared war, saved them again, helped in another random war, boom, we win alll the wars, they gain provinces and stuff, they suddenly unfriendly me , then 50 or so years latter they still hate me, while beaten denmark is like " lets be friends ' the ....

 

[DarkThug]

I think there is something we need to clear up here.

There are two kind of strategy game (or any genre for that matter)
In MMO they usually use the term rollercoaster MMO vs sandbox MMO (WoW vs EVE)

I saw a good term from another poster "puzzle solving" strategy game, a game like Warcraft or C&C.
In this kind of puzzle-solving singleplayer campaign, Dev will guide players through series of obstacle presented to them.
AI in this kind of game is usually scripted and most event is triggered solely by player. The whole game world is revolved around you.
It is fun and challenging in its own way. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, when you make a "sandbox" strategy game like EU4, you need different approach.
Each and every AI nations are suppose to play their nations to the best of their ability.
Ideally, AI should be able to mimic human behavior to certain extent and more importantly react to such behavior properly.
So far in 1.2, I'm impressed. Yes, they still do stupid things from time to time but it's a vast improvement.

I believe the only reason human nation is marked for AI is to help them.
So AI know what to expect from this particular nation.
We all know how erratic warmongering EU4 players are.



TL;DR If you want AIs to revolve around you alone, this may not be the game for you.

 

[zodium]

No, but I think the behavior of the ones meaningfully interacting with me should be primarily driven by my actions. That's what gives the feeling of this being a game against a set of AI opponents.

You should try Hard, I think. The AI is more sensitive to player actions and gives stronger reactions, so assuming you don't get squished, you'll get the AI driven by player actions.

You may not actually want the AI to do that.

 

[roman566]

You should try Hard, I think. The AI is more sensitive to player actions and gives stronger reactions, so assuming you don't get squished, you'll get the AI driven by player actions.

You may not actually want the AI to do that.

Player - France
Day one - Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Muscovy, Novgorod, Burgundy, Denmark, OE, Timurids and Ming enter the coalition against you. Reason? Uh... do they even need one?

 

[zodium]

Player - France
Day one - Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Muscovy, Novgorod, Burgundy, Denmark, OE, Timurids and Ming enter the coalition against you. Reason? Uh... do they even need one?

Did that actually happen?

 

[joos]

Strategy is not just about shoving problems in the player's face but also about giving resources to solve that problem. It is this judicial use of resources that is the center point of any strategy. You have X number of men and you need to do X+1 number of things. How do you prioritize? Which one gets done last? Which one gets the most people? Etc.

My point is, if the AI is now going to behave smarter, I want smarter diplomacy actions to counter it too. Though it is a human playing the country, I cannot do anything I want. Many of my actions are still curtailed by game mechanics. I can't, for instance, assassinate the Castillian king to ensure a personal union. Despite the OP being a powerful colonial Tyrone with Religious Ideas, he can never ever get the Pope to grant Inter Ceteara in favour of Tyrone. Even if he is the Papal Controller.

I am all for smarter AIs. Just make the humans smarter too.

 

[DarkThug]

In all fairness, AIs do use the very same limited tools you have in your disposal.
If they are using said tools more effectively than you are then........great! it mean there is still better way to use your tools.

Smarter tools is called for smarter AI, not the other way around.