Why does paradox love giving the AI unfair advantages so much?

[achmedino]

I'm not even talking about the lucky nations here, why would they make it so that nations can join wars after 60 days? Normally I'd be okay with this, but it's something that only the AI is ever going to use. For example: I start a war with Russia in my game, not that big a deal as I already severly weakened them a little while before. However, about 3 years into the war, Russia allies the ottomans (only god knows how they did that), now with the lovely new join the war after 60 days feature, I get to fight the worlds biggest power with twice as many troops with me, without having been able in any way to foresee this. Now there might be a way to deal with this: What blues can do, I can too! right? Well no, I start looking around for allies, only to find out, I still get the -2000 penalty for being at war, I can only imagine Russia doesn't get this penalty, simply because it's an AI nation. Now that's bullshit IMO.

 

[FreeSoc]

As far as I'm aware, this is not an AI-only feature. It's because you're the attacker, whereas Russia is the defender. People are more willing to help out the defending nation.

In an MP game I'm playing as Tuscany, I have been able to call in Austria when I've been the target of a coalition war by a few other Italian powers.

 

[laijka]

That's because you're the aggressor and not the defender. Nothing to do with AI advantages.

 

[lordelenath]

If I would be gifted 1 EURO for every false statement of so-called "AI advantages" I wouldn't have to work so much.

 

[ChildeR]

If I would be gifted 1 EURO for every false statement of so-called "AI advantages" I wouldn't have to work so much.

This. The AI advantages are listed in a thread in the FAQ section. Granted, it hasn't been updated for 1.8 but I doubt much has changed.

 

[achmedino]

Still a really stupid change IMO, I just don't see why there was any need for this.

 

[Arizal]

I invited the AI in my wars a few time already, so it's definelety not an AI advantage. It's a good feature making wars dynamic while avoiding cascading alliances.

 

[Achanei]

Still a really stupid change IMO, I just don't see why there was any need for this.

because it adds whole layers of diplomacy to warfare, where before you just needed to get into a separate war with their allies, especially the big ones, on either side and then you could cheese away? I fought countless wars in europe by calling france into some random war and then declaring on their OPM allies that were defenseless because their one big friend was busy sieging serbia...
Good riddance to that strat, now you at least need to blitzkrieg to pull stuff like that.

 

[Gorton]

This situation you're in as people have already said is intended and not an AI bonus. The change is good in that it prevents occurrences like what the previous post describes.
However, since you're the human, most of the time you are not really defending : humans are generally the attackers in wars in the game.
Because of that, it's usually the AI who gets benefits from this.
Personally, i'd like some numbers on when you're allowed to ally people : Apparantely you have to be winning your offensive war to get rid of the -xxxx modifier, yet over 70%/80%/90% warscore doesn't qualify as *winning*...

 

[Illianor123]

If I would be gifted 1 EURO for every false statement of so-called "AI advantages" I wouldn't have to work so much.

QFT
Also with many bug sang glitches that just stem from people not understanding the mechanics.

 

[Freudia]

Still a really stupid change IMO, I just don't see why there was any need for this.

Because it's historical and improves gameplay.

 

[Crusaderking28]

In 1.8, without AoW, I am able to call in allies a year after I start a war. I swear they removed it in 1.8.

 

[Freudia]

In 1.8, without AoW, I am able to call in allies a year after I start a war. I swear they removed it in 1.8.

No. They added it in 1.8. Not removed.

 

[hashinshin]

I'd actually like to see the war penalty moved to a simple -25 on the alliance chart. I'd like to see NEW alliances being formed and new allies brought in to a war.

Why?

Because it makes sense, it's historical, and the best generals did not win every war.

Hell, I think the AI should get BONUSES to entering wars against it's rivals, and the players too. I think the rival system should completely screw you and the AI over.

Historical examples: Poland against the Ottomans at Vienna, and France/Britain against Russia.

 

[Hari ganesh]

This is not really a advantage for the AI it rather historical too The lack of naval arrition is a far more useful advantage that the AI gets.

 

[Cossack8559]

It's not an advantage it can be done by player and a.i. I prefer it this way, i hated the 60 day limit. A good change.

 

[Aries666]

I'm not even talking about the lucky nations here, why would they make it so that nations can join wars after 60 days? Normally I'd be okay with this, but it's something that only the AI is ever going to use. For example: I start a war with Russia in my game, not that big a deal as I already severly weakened them a little while before. However, about 3 years into the war, Russia allies the ottomans (only god knows how they did that), now with the lovely new join the war after 60 days feature, I get to fight the worlds biggest power with twice as many troops with me, without having been able in any way to foresee this. Now there might be a way to deal with this: What blues can do, I can too! right? Well no, I start looking around for allies, only to find out, I still get the -2000 penalty for being at war, I can only imagine Russia doesn't get this penalty, simply because it's an AI nation. Now that's bullshit IMO.

Defenders get no malus for making an alliance during war, as the player you probably never noticed (I didn't until it happened to me) because you are almost always the attacker.

Also no one will join a war if the the score is -25 encouraging you to achieve your war goal faster.

 

[panionios]

Why does paradox love giving the AI unfair advantages so much?

Because we are smarter than the AI and it cannot possibly compete (though the examples you give are not examples of unfair advantages to the AI).

BTW, talking about giving the AI unfair advantages, try playing Civ

 

[Kalarhan]

I'm not even talking about the lucky nations here, why would they make it so that nations can join wars after 60 days? Normally I'd be okay with this, but it's something that only the AI is ever going to use. For example: I start a war with Russia in my game, not that big a deal as I already severly weakened them a little while before. However, about 3 years into the war, Russia allies the ottomans (only god knows how they did that), now with the lovely new join the war after 60 days feature, I get to fight the worlds biggest power with twice as many troops with me, without having been able in any way to foresee this. Now there might be a way to deal with this: What blues can do, I can too! right? Well no, I start looking around for allies, only to find out, I still get the -2000 penalty for being at war, I can only imagine Russia doesn't get this penalty, simply because it's an AI nation. Now that's bullshit IMO.

Simple.
Truce between two nations is meant to prevent conflict for some time.
Alliance between nations is meant to protect any nation in the alliance. If your ally needs help its your job to go and help. And if you need help, its his.

X and Y are allies.
You are Z. You have truce with X. If you break it and attack X you will get diplomatic penalties + Y will help to kick you.
If you attack Y its Y right to call on all allies to help it. X is not attacking you. Its not X invading you. X is protecting a ally.

Before you start a war check the allies your target has. Diplomacy is not meant to be a weak feature in a conflict. It is as important as the number of troops you have. It can be the decisive factor in a war. Use it well.

If you dont... your enemy will use it against you... and you will pay the price.

 

[Incompetent]

There's three kinds of AI bonus in EU4:

1. Specific things that every AI gets to compensate for weaknesses of the AI.

2. 'Lucky' bonuses that just make a country straight-up stronger, but only apply to a few countries. This is mainly to encourage a more 'historical' outcome, as historical majors are quite likely to have bad luck and implode if everything is left completely to chance.

3. Generic bonuses that you can optionally give to the AI as a kind of handicap.


Of the three, number 2. is the only one that's clearly 'unfair', because it's part of the standard game settings and isn't really compensating for any specific weakness. Number 1 can be unfair when the AI seems to be 'exploiting' its special bonus, e.g. if the AI uses its lack of naval attrition to send a navy non-stop from Portugal to Japan in the 15th century. But if that kind of thing happens, it's 'not WAD' and hopefully the devs will fix it.