Tver´s vodka is of very stronk.
- Thread starter Beagá
- 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.
Yes? I've said several times that the current tech system isn't great. It works fine for the purpose of how the game develops, but tech groups are a blunt tool and westernization is an unfun chore. That doesn't mean we're just going to replace it with any random idea though, you don't throw out a working system until you have a much better idea you believe in (and time to implement it).
That has nothing to do with the current discussion, however. Do you think the AI should make westernization snakes and be willing to conquer any territory it would gain gameplay benefits from, no matter how messy the map becomes?
That has nothing to do with the current discussion, however. Do you think the AI should make westernization snakes and be willing to conquer any territory it would gain gameplay benefits from, no matter how messy the map becomes?
- 7
- 6
- 1
Does this work the same regardless of difficulty settings? I would be willing to rail about it if that would result in a more interesting "hard" setting. Throw immersion out of the window and free the AI from its shackles.
Does this work the same regardless of difficulty settings? I would be willing to rail about it if that would result in a more interesting "hard" setting. Throw immersion out of the window and free the AI from its shackles.
It wouldn't necessarily lead to a more difficult game, because AIs are ultimately going to be conquering other AIs the vast majority of the time. Much like OPMs not developing as much won't either, because it means less easy grab high development provinces.
- 1
Sure, makes sense. Could still be interesting, but I just threw it out there.
I think a major difference is that one is a legacy mechanic and the other is a fairly new system. I certainly understand that AI can't be perfect and concessions have to be made. I'm wondering if this particular instance is showing a flaw in the development system in general, and if that flaw is better handled directly than having the AI turn a blind eye to it as it does with other things.
I'm perfectly happy with the AI not doing annoying exploitative stuff, but I'd like if players have incentive to not do that as well, in cases where it makes sense.
I'm perfectly happy with the AI not doing annoying exploitative stuff, but I'd like if players have incentive to not do that as well, in cases where it makes sense.
- 4
I think you're stretching your arguments pretty hard here. The reasoning is the same in both cases: We don't want to block the player from making silly conquests like say, East Frisian Italy, but the AI should never go for such a goal no matter how much gameplay sense it might make. Similarly, we don't want to block the player from building 100 development Hamburg but the AI really shouldn't. How new the mechanic is doesn't matter at all - it's the same reasoning behind AI behaviour, and it's fine to be for one and against the other because that's how you would prefer it, just recognize that you don't really have a very good argument for your preference.
- 5
- 1
Personally i'm fine if you used this as a temporary solution, but it should be addressed more properly.
May be you should try to hook up development with different factors such as the amount of goods produced in the tradenode, trade node value, trade power, sadly you dont have population growth, which was one of the main force of development. Province being occupied should increase development cost for 5 years (you cant really build up a city thats being constantly looted). This kind of thing. Let's face it, only city states that benefited from huge trade became powerful city rivaling the capitals of bigger countries. If you don't have a big hinterland you must get your ressources from somewhere. And Tver as good at it was didnt have much resources and spent a lot of time at war with the mongols or the moscovite before game start.
The fact development is only linked to terrain and mana power is the main issue, because develepment is a complex dynamic you dont make it happen by only wishing for it to happen.
- 5
When you do this, could you consider limiting based on an algorithm that considers nearby development? For example, a 30-development Venice is less out of place next to a 26-development Treviso, 24-development Brescia so raising development in Venice from 29 to 30 is more likely than if it were surrounded by 15-development provinces.
- 7
- 2
IMO the AI upgrading development is a pretty neat feature. It makes Cities like Lübeck and Hamburg even more potent (as it happened in reality) and while it makes for a harder conquest within the HRE it's not even remotely as much of a problem in the rest of the world, since there are not that many OPMs. And while the occasional immersion breaking happens (e.g. if Norway only has Iceland left and upgrades that to no end) it's really not that big of a problem to downgrade the AI because of it.
Will these limits causes the AI to waste monarch points by going over their cap? It's one thing to say that the AI will prioritize other things than development in certain circumstances, it's another to say they will lose out in general because some hidden cap blocks them from spending.
I guess a tier system for limiting AI province development could work?
Following the terrain development cost modifiers from the wiki, something like:
Farmland, Grassland, = maximum 40;
Dryland, Coastline, Steppe = maximum 35;
Hills,Forest,Woods,Marsh, Coastal Desert= maximum 30;
Mountain, Highland, Jungle, Glacial= maximum 25;
Exceptions could be made for Centers of Trade (both inland and coastal), Estuaries and capitals.
Following the terrain development cost modifiers from the wiki, something like:
Farmland, Grassland, = maximum 40;
Dryland, Coastline, Steppe = maximum 35;
Hills,Forest,Woods,Marsh, Coastal Desert= maximum 30;
Mountain, Highland, Jungle, Glacial= maximum 25;
Exceptions could be made for Centers of Trade (both inland and coastal), Estuaries and capitals.
Last edited:
- 1
They'll generally spend the points on policies and maintaining ahead of time bonuses instead.
- 4
I agree with Wiz. While it is far from perfect, it is not too much work, and it works good enough (in theory). One thing I like about eu4 is that the AI doesn't play like a player, but as a historical nation. I'm even fine with the AI having max monarch power at points. What I don't see, I don't need to care about. I don't see how making the AI not use all of its resources on development is a bad thing.
See, all I'm really arguing is that this should be a good thing to do. Nothing really extreme.
- 2
Regarding the bolded, underlined part: If an AI is already ahead on tech, maximum stability, already has acceptable generals/admirals, has 0% overextension, no policies to enact, no idea groups to fill, then why would they not use it on development? I thinks that's silly.
- 4
Speaking of the ai making bad provincial decisions. How about making it not build shipyards freaking everywhere before it even looks at a temple or a workshop?
You can only build shipyards in coastal provinces, IIRC. If you have coastal provinces, a navy will probably useful. So...why not?
- 1