The Ottomans shouldn't have a naval range that far. Fixing the attrition would mean they wouldn't export a huge army by sea up there.
Unlimited naval range for AI
- Thread starter Cormac
- 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.
The Ottomans shouldn't have a naval range that far. Fixing the attrition would mean they wouldn't export a huge army by sea up there.
And at the same time a Human player would have no problems doing this by stopping at friendly ports that they have military access to, can your not see how your limiting the AI but at the same time having human players that can get around this by using their brains.
My point precisely. Everyone wants to give the AIOs a chance, but at what price? As I posted earlier, I think it's controversial to omit from the AI game a condition that essentially shaped the era that EUIV represents. You may say, "Hey, it's just a game." Fair enough. But what's the point of a historical game without the historical conditions? Again, as I posted earlier, Spain lost a ghastly amount of tonnage during its golden age *just to bad weather.* It's a huge, fundamental element of the early modern period that EUIV models. But when you're playing England in this game, your Spanish rivals don't have to worry about something as basic, essential, and historical as the loss of ships across the world's oceans to wear and tear. That aspect, which I consider essential, is gone.
I would love to have a great AI opponent, but where does one draw the line? Would you like to play a game about World War I in which only the human player was forced to dig trenches? In which a German opponent was immune to the effects of blockade? In which only the AI opponent's aircraft spotted the enemy? Sure, you would get a tougher fight out of your opponent, and a longer game. But you wouldn't be playing a game that looked anything like WWI.
The death of ships to attrition and their severe limits on long-distance travel were as basic to the age of discovery as trenches were to the Western Front of World War I.
My point is about historicity. I understand that unlimited naval range will make it tougher for me to win. But I'm not looking for an easy win--I'm looking for a game that gives me historical immersion, which is what Paradox specializes in. I don't care about winning, but about feeling like I'm playing a plausible historical scenario--and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Last edited:
Well, there shouldn't be many friendly ports in the first place. Morroco should be the last friendly place for the Ottomans, I believe no one in western Europe would allow the Ottomans to stop by so they can conquerr some Christians.
So, yeah, I don't think a human player should be able to pull it off either.
That's probably one of the best developer posts I've seen in a long time.
On a related note, thanks for your work!
So you want a game were the AI will keep sinking it ships or will not move them at all, but where the human players who knows were everything is and how to path their without any loss of ships can do so and have a major advantage, people have strange ideas what they think is historical and fair.
No drake, of course I don't want that. I just want a game that claims to be about the 15th and 16th centuries to actually attempt to create the factors that made those centuries fascinating enough for people like us to buy a game about them. Otherwise, it's just a game with Renaissance window dressing. Right? Or am I way off here?
This would give the human player so many advantages, think about it have you ever clicked between 2 points on the map and seen the path your navy would take and if it did take this path it would sink but as a human you can guide your fleet around this problem using way points but programming a AI to do this is close to impossible if not impossible
All I see with this is a AI that would never send its fleet any real distance and would be stuck close to home.
not really, cuz if the naval ai wasnt allowed to send said ships past its naval range then what you are describing is completely besides the point.
But the AI still won't understand attrition. So when it reaches the end of it's limit, it's likely to continue exploring in other directions, not dock in the nearest port. I can see how it could be possible to limit the range the AI can go, but when it comes to attrition itself the AI will still need it's cheat.
Ok, my English must be pretty bad, because I can't seem to be able to make myself clear. The AI would still suffer no attrition, never. But it would be hardcoded to NEVER send its ships beyond a certain limit. The limit should correspond to a place so far beyond supply range that the ships of a human player would die before they even get to it (I'm not even talking of the trip back). This wouldn't nerf the AI nor prevent it to do anything the human player could do - except if it is unable to ask for fleet basing rights as well. It would actually still be more effective than the human because in those seas where the player has to manage attrition, the AI would still suffer none. It would just be prevented to go where attrition is simply unmanageable for the HP.
Thus Portugal could still explore all of the American coast in one trip and park ships there, for instance, but would not be able to reach Japan in 1444.
Basically replacing attrition with a binary limit for the AI.
If there is an indirect path that allow to stay within supply range, then the AI will take it since it would be the only authorized path.
The AI wouldn't be stuck close to home any more than the HP, thanks to the increased range for it.
The only drawback is if the AI is unable to ask for fleet basing rights. But if it can ask for military access to move armies on land, I don't understand why it couldn't do the same at sea.
Last edited:
^Why would we want Portugal to explore the entire American coast in one trip (in 1444, since they start with 3 explorers)? Then all of Europe will see it by 1494...
Nothing prevents it to do so right now, with the no attrition thing. By 1494 Quill could see bits of American coast and Japan without having sent anyone south of Canada.
Can the AI be modded to return to nearest friendly port after covering a certain distance / being at sea for x months or a combination of the two?
Ah, okay. So the AI would keep their no-attrition cheat, but would not be able to go further than their Naval Range? If that is the case, there are still some problems. The thing about basing rights as opposed to military access: Basing rights cost you a monthly upkeep, while military access stays free like usual to my knowledge. How would the AI manage that? It has to evaluate the cost of basing rights, and then have to decide if it's worth it, and whom to get it from. How is it going to do that? By pre-determining that "here are the colonies we must take to make it worth our time"? We know where the good colonies are, and we know how to get there. If the AI is scripted to know too, then it'll be very linear and predictable.
The only in-game difference between unlimited naval range and your ideas are that your ideas will be a moneydrain on the AI and restricting them. If the AI were smart, it could still manage to go around the world and invade your colonies in Alaska by asking for basing rights, just as it could with the unlimited range. If Paradox said that the AI is just super-good at getting basing rights, would that have made any difference in-game? You could argue that it isn't smart to invade Alaska, but that's another case..
Oh, and unless I'm mistaken, Portugal doesn't have a naval range that can reach the Americas in 1444.
There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity... Actually, I am not so sure about the universe.
^_~