• 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.

LSF

Major
95 Badges
Dec 7, 2010
501
1.260
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Iron Cross
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • The Kings Crusade
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • For The Glory
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
Just a simple question.

I gave up playing 1.30.

I want a more interesting game, but withou the AI's "cheats" of hard and very hard. I just want my allies and enemies show some rationale during wars and in diplomacy.
 
Seconding 1.25. I've simply never gone ahead of it. Conversion was so bad in dharma i basically gave up on indulging paradox's DLC policy and roadmap for eu4
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think you will find they have been doing that since games release.
Are you sure? It is so many years ago, but I think I recall the strategy of the AI pre Common Sense was to suicide into your stacks.
It essentially leads to the same outcome, but it drains your resources making the game more challenging. Or I played worse back then? Who can tell...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Honestly, the current AI isn't that bad. At least since 1.30.4. It's often attributed to the player getting better that they 'feel' the AI got worse. But did it really? The fact that stacks run of to far away land is annoying, but isn't it also the best strategy when you're in a war with someone 10x your size? If you'd be in the same situation you'd do the same. Try and cause war exhaustion and try to peace out asap. The only thing that really needs a change is the AI's strength evaluation when relieving forts. You can often siege their forts while they dance around you, even though you're sieging mountaints and you'd receive a -2 roll to all your rolls.

Even though you don't want to play on hard, I still recommend doing it that way. The bonusses the AI receives are almost neglible, but they actually put in more effort in their wars, like hiring condotierre to fight against you and reacting more to what you do. Very hard feels a bit arbitrary where even a France that has not expanded past its borders is absolutely massive. But not the Hard setting.

See wiki:
  • When set to hard, the AI will get various bonuses, and the AI will react more harshly to player aggression and vulnerability.
So if you want the AI to not just ignore everything you do, play on Hard. Normal should really be categorised as 'easy, but you can get achievements here'.

The bonusses the AI receives on Hard are:

Manpower recovery speed.png+50%Manpower recovery speed
National unrest.png−1National unrest
War exhaustion.png−0.05Monthly war exhaustion
Interest per annum.png−1Interest per annum
Aggressive expansion impact.png−33%Aggressive expansion impact
Missionary maintenance cost.png−15%Missionary maintenance cost

Most of which have no impact on how you should handle an AI. Only the -33% AE makes a real impact, because it will mean that there will be less tags more quickly and the tags that remain will be bigger (because of quicker expansion). I've never had the manpower recovery speed be a real issue, because you shouldn't really fight wars until they're out of manpower. The moment they're out of money to acquire new troops, or have no free provinces to recruit in, they're screwed either way.

Another one that's noticeable is the -20 opinion to alliances, but nothing that a good 'set attitude and rivals' can't fix. As an example, I was still able to ally the Ottomans as Hisn Kayfa even though they were already allied to my rival Aq Qoyunlu and I was only a OPM.

A niche situation, but Mingsplotion doesn't work by blockading on Hard because of the reduced WE.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
1.30.4 has the best overall ai.
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I am considering playing on an older version like 1.25, could you provide some insight into why 1.25 would be the best patch to roll back to?
1.25 is before they started "experimenting" with changing religious conversions to cost more money. It's also before the whole "too many territories" giving corruption crap.

1.21 is decent too if you're going back to an older patch, you should see stronger AI Russias if you play on a patch before Third Rome, ironically enough.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
If I am not wrong the IMO really bad decision to change the AI rather substantially happened with the Comon Sense patch 1.12 or after.

So for most unaltered AI (compared to Art of War DLC state etc), maybe patch 1.11.4.

I think the change was actually later, but I remember a post by former AI coder "Chaingun", confirming to me that the AI was changed to blob more aggressively to be more of a threat to the player. As a consequence, larger AI controlled countries changed drastically, suddenly blobbing much faster and declaring aggressive wars on neighbours off truce cooldown (similar to an aggressive player). This resulted in much faster distribution of land among the big nations and global blobbing.

At the same time, I think, also the "Run to Siberia" army change and the new AI's ability to do "carpet sieging" was sold as an "improvement". I'd rather personally have the old AI from "Art of War" times back, with all the current map/estate improvements and quality of life changes from 1.30!

But probably also question of personal taste!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I really just want to point out that this is a serious discussion and people are seriously considering reverting to previous game versions. This says something about the direction the game is going with each progressive update.

That being said, I think things took a wrong turn at some point after Common Sense and they’ve been going that direction ever since.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really just want to point out that this is a serious discussion and people are seriously considering reverting to previous game versions. This says something about the direction the game is going with each progressive update.

That being said, I think things took a wrong turn at some point after Common Sense and they’ve been going that direction ever since.

Patch reversion has been common since at least the 1.26 update.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Honestly, the current AI isn't that bad. At least since 1.30.4. It's often attributed to the player getting better that they 'feel' the AI got worse. But did it really? The fact that stacks run of to far away land is annoying, but isn't it also the best strategy when you're in a war with someone 10x your size? If you'd be in the same situation you'd do the same. Try and cause war exhaustion and try to peace out asap. The only thing that really needs a change is the AI's strength evaluation when relieving forts. You can often siege their forts while they dance around you, even though you're sieging mountaints and you'd receive a -2 roll to all your rolls.

Even though you don't want to play on hard, I still recommend doing it that way. The bonusses the AI receives are almost neglible, but they actually put in more effort in their wars, like hiring condotierre to fight against you and reacting more to what you do. Very hard feels a bit arbitrary where even a France that has not expanded past its borders is absolutely massive. But not the Hard setting.

See wiki:
  • When set to hard, the AI will get various bonuses, and the AI will react more harshly to player aggression and vulnerability.
So if you want the AI to not just ignore everything you do, play on Hard. Normal should really be categorised as 'easy, but you can get achievements here'.

The bonusses the AI receives on Hard are:

Manpower recovery speed.png+50%Manpower recovery speed
National unrest.png−1National unrest
War exhaustion.png−0.05Monthly war exhaustion
Interest per annum.png−1Interest per annum
Aggressive expansion impact.png−33%Aggressive expansion impact
Missionary maintenance cost.png−15%Missionary maintenance cost

Most of which have no impact on how you should handle an AI. Only the -33% AE makes a real impact, because it will mean that there will be less tags more quickly and the tags that remain will be bigger (because of quicker expansion). I've never had the manpower recovery speed be a real issue, because you shouldn't really fight wars until they're out of manpower. The moment they're out of money to acquire new troops, or have no free provinces to recruit in, they're screwed either way.

Another one that's noticeable is the -20 opinion to alliances, but nothing that a good 'set attitude and rivals' can't fix. As an example, I was still able to ally the Ottomans as Hisn Kayfa even though they were already allied to my rival Aq Qoyunlu and I was only a OPM.

A niche situation, but Mingsplotion doesn't work by blockading on Hard because of the reduced WE.

The problem with H and VH is they are just buffs for the AI, they dont alter the way AI handles diplomacy, troop control and building priority. If they do it is only marginally, as a result of the buffs changing the environment, not changing AI's "rationality".

The matter is not really the difficulty. It is possible having hard games just playing on H or VH, or simply playing very weak countries.

I already have more than 3k hours in EU4. It is basically the only game I play continuously this decade with the exception of some periods playing Vic2 and Stellaris. Since I got some WCs I dont care to blob so much. I like to have a little RP in in the world that emerges from AI tags interaction. Unfortunately I dont have so much time to experiment with a lot of different patches to find the one I liked the most. I simply remember some time ago I felt the runs had more fun, because AI tags seemed to behave with more logical consistency.

I just want a strategical game to distract me on some days while my wife watches her soap opera!

Right now Im relying on playing a little of CK2, Battle Brothers and King of Dragon Pass. But EU4 is really superior than any other game IMO. But something went wrong in the last few years.
 
It's not great, for either immersion or challenge to the player, when the AI will happily march armies into defensible terrain that, once they're movement-locked, you can arrive at before them.

Other problems include AI debt (apparently not a problem in 1.25) and how the AI makes alliances based on how near countries are to them, not how near they are to their rivals/enemies.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: