Unless you're having fun just managing vassals, RP-ing, marrying kids off, and laughing at what the AI gets up to...
Why the A.I. being in such a crappy state isn't seen as a serious issue for this game?
- Thread starter Malprau
- 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.
Unless you're having fun just managing vassals, RP-ing, marrying kids off, and laughing at what the AI gets up to...
Is that how you think? It's an interesting point of view, where the pleasure of gaming mainly (I'm not saying exclusively) seems to be coming from the feeling of satisfaction people get when they achieve something challenging. It's probably the most common type of game, going back all the way to Spacewar!, Asteroids, and the other early games.
I'd say there appears to be a trend of growing appreciation for a different type of game, though. Witness the exploding market for "visual novels," or episodic "story" games like those from Telltale Games.
One huge benefit of a grand strategy game like CK2 is that both kinds of enjoyment easily can co-exist within the same game.
Not to mention Minecraft. I can play for hours in peaceful mode just mining and working my way up the tech trees of various mods.
Soo rewarding when you know to have built that town in survival mode
Peaceful is technically "survival" mode, in that you have a limited number of bricks available and are restricted to standard movement. There's just no food requirements or enemies. So the challenge is largely gone.Soo rewarding when you know to have built that town in survival mode
Its all cool and nice but talking in details about other game other than CK2 isnt really the topic at hand here. You still have yet to write something factual when it comes to why A.I. is good enough in this game, as this is what u were basically indirectly claiming with ur posts.
I'm pretty sure if you asked the player base "would you prefer the ai to play more competently" most would say yes.
It's interesting you quote me specifically, and not @Karlington or @Goodmongo who have already gone through that part of the discussion. Or perhaps you missed the point that was made by someone about "challenge being the only meaningful factor for a fun game" or some such nonsense.
You could at the very least follow the conversation instead of quoting me out of context without saying anything about the rest of the conversation that has occurred.
It depends on what you mean by "competently". If you mean have the AI follow their given traits and make less absurd pathfinding decisions, then yes. If you're saying it should be making good strategic or dynastic decisions regardless of character traits, then I'll firmly say no. CK II would be a much poorer game if it had an AI that treated the game as just a map painter like EU IV does.
I only quoted u specifically, cause u were the first one to transgress the topic, by talking about something completely else in detail, minecraft in this case, thats probably the only interesting thing about it if u were curious and those 2 persons u mentioned probably got the message too.
Also really bringing up minecraft, a largely survival cartooney game to compare with RPG/historical strategy hybrid that is CK2, isnt really the smartest of analogies even if u got a valid point in comparing the survival resemblance of both games, for survival of the dynasty in CK2 lets say, u gotta have a competent A.I. if u want the survival aspect have any credibility and meaning, if u dont, then ur just deluding urself that ur "pushed" to survive, im not sure if minecraft has any NPC's that are programmed to bring u down, and if it has, the NPC's that are in that game are much different fundamentally than the ones in CK2, so they are non comparable really.
If the main intention of the devs was to make the game 100% RPG and not strategical at all, then sure A.I. playing sub-optimally should be most ideal way of A.I. playing. But the game isnt 100% RPG only, its strategy also, u got tiles/territories/holdings, army count, army modifiers, income, resources in form of gold,prestige, army recruiting/building in retinues aspect, and piety etc etc and putting the strategy aspect at such a shallow and unfinished lvl (in this case A.I. aspect as part of strategy) makes the game look like a joke at times if u try to take it seriously in sense of trying to RP in it, for what it is.
For RP to be worth to try in a game like this, it has to have a degree of "believability" and that believability has to have a degree of "credibility", and currently that credibility is on a level of a joke/comedy, cause the A.I. is the one that makes the game world believable and thus roleplay worthy, since 99% + of characters are controlled by A.I. and characters are in this game(just like in RL) what makes world go round.
The only thing this game has flat out got right when it comes to making the game more "believable" to RP in, is the historical aspect, the historical details are done right on average, but that is far from enough to make the game actually flat out believable to RP in completely. If u got A.I. that is seemingly doing stuff randomly and isnt doing its main jobs right (jobs as in: bringing the player and other A.I. controlled countries down) then ur just deluding urself that ur playing a game with a roleplayable game world really, and I can understand why deluding urself is so common, its easy, especially if it serves as an escapism tool, but thats another topic of course.
So by saying this above, sure, some of it could be WaD, but if it was, it would be wrongly thought out cause of the things I mentioned above(game being also a strategy game) and chances are half of those things in OP arent WaD, cause they werent thought about much during the game design or were just left unfinished for other unjustifiable reasons.
Although that I'm aware that a PC player has a lot of stuff going for him when it comes to manipulating the game vs the A.I., the A.I. can have same stuff going for it, just as the player has, if its programmed that way of course, but it obviously isnt. What I'm talking about here is knowledge of troops that u can have at hand if u just check urself, the amount of gold oponent's country has, the specific building's that are built in single holding, the type of government, the NPC character info etc etc, the A.I. can also have it, A.I. can get programmed to manipulate it to a decent degree, maybe not at the lvl player can, but still at decent lvl, i'm pretty sure.
Additionally to mention i'm pretty sure that the A.I.s rationality/irrationality stat, even if it was designed to meaningfully interact with the world, based on its value, its just obvious that it as a "interactive value" in practice, isnt doing its job well, cause of the apparent outcomes on average, that are seemingly much more RNG than meaningful and reasonable and since in practice this is actual reality, it really should be a big NO NO/intolerable and should get improved or changed fast.
As for ur reply to what "competently" would mean, dont think anyone here is arguing for a map painting tier of competence of the A.I., I'm arguing for the stuff I wrote in the OP + for the stuff few people here wrote, like :
- that the A.I. should know how to resourcefully use their army and gold,
- that A.I. shouldnt go for suicidal wars,
- should be able to pull out proper laws more consistently,
- marry better spouses,
- maintain and care about losing and increasing its demesne over the longer span of time
- chosing inheritance law other than gavelkind(cause gavelkind is just too complex to pull for the A.I.)
- etc etc (can name more if needed but priority is priority),
To me honestly, it just looks like ur using a cheap card of labeling everyone's argument for why A.I. isnt good enough that its all "A.I. should be map painting tier competent" to make some here think its all what its about, no its not, and I and others are obviously not arguing for that if u pay attention even a little bit, if u think i am, feel free to point it out, otherwise stop spamming it as something valid to spam, when everyone here that is arguing for A.I. getting better, is not for it.
Last edited:
His examples were the Byzantines - fair enough, though they do snowball out of control a lot in my games, and... the Lombards who were conquered very shortly after the start.
Your arguments are all over the place, and you are working under unreasonable premises. No, it should NOT be the AI's job to bring the player and other AI's controlled entities down. That's the entire point.
The AI in CK2 is not particularly bad inasmuch as it's definitely not worse than the AI in the other Paradox games. The AI being less than optimal in the purest sense of the word is far less of a problem here than in HOI4 because the focus of the game is not map painting. And tying roleplaying to what you arbitrarily define as an AI-dependant variable in the form of "believability" or "credibility" is pure fiction and completely devoid of meaning to me as player of the game.
Your list of problems is actually quite pertinent, but the fact that you speak as some sort of alarmist, as if denouncing the "gruesome state" of the AI when compared with what we have in the other paradox games is detrimental to your posts
Last edited:
Can u name some "unreasonable premises" I work by? And why wouldnt the completely reasonable and meaningful idea of A.I. having a job to bring not only the PC player but also the A.I. controlled entities down not be a good and proper thing for this game, especially considering its also big part strategy game and also by this considering that this job for A.I. in strategy games is extremely typical? Funnily enough, u didnt even bother to say why urself, u just state it as if it should be true with nothing to back it up.
Im aware I wrote a lot and some of it in a bit more abstract manner than usual, and by that alone, im aware my stuff can be seen as "all over the place" but if u pay attention, u will see reason pertaining to matter at hand.
If im arguing for some specific aspects of A.I. to be improved, like A.I. marrying better options at hand, doesnt mean it automatically makes A.I. better at map painting does it, even not indirectly in this case.
Also bare in mind we are talking about just 1 game here (Crusader Kings 2), people who only play that game and not other Paradox games, sure will only care about that 1 game, so with this in mind, its pretty irrelevant to bring in other games of Paradox and use them as an excuse for this one lacking in something, u just cant think its an actual argument cause its basis is dependant on other game and not on this one.
Btw I never compared CK2 to any other Paradox game in my post here, ever, so u bringing it up just makes u look like u want to excuse this game being bad in some aspect, just cause some other game from same developer is bad in same aspect and that doesnt really make sense or is relevant at all to the matter at hand.
So nice try at labeling possibly my OP title as "detrimental", maybe from Paradox fanboy's perspective it is *wink wink*, but from "normal" people like me who are able to distance themselves from being a fanboy when talking about something serious, for sure cant be seen as detrimental at all.
Last edited:
Minecraft got mentioned not because of the similarities between these 2 games, but as an example where you make your own fun. "peaceful" mode, takes away enemy mobs and the need to eat, so a good chunk if the challenge is gone. You can still enjoy it though, by relaxing, taking your time, enjoying your builds and so on.
This was being compared to how some players, myself included, enjoy ck2. Playing on normal difficulty, managing my kids, getting lustful with the missus, backstabbing a patrician... And so on.
Since the comparison is valid, i didn't see anything wrong with mentioning Minecraft, and 3 comments on it, hardly derails the thread.
I find the Ai manages his money well. He's always ready to improve his holdings, save usually for hospitals and wonders, and once it has uograded that, it sits on an ever-growing pool of money which will allow him to hire mercs in wartime.
Suicidal war? Usually the AI attacks targets he thinks he can beat with a few exceptions like getting dragged into a war: Papal wars, alliances, liege being forced through favours to push someone's claim.
Other times the AI can be opportunist. I was involved in 3 wars/rebellions, when a neighbouring count declared a war in me to press his claim. Clearly he only did that in thinking he held a chance against a superior enemy who was being ravaged by war. As a player i do that all the time, such as attacking ERE when sniping hellenic holy sites. I'm way weaker but i take advantage of their strife.
Proper laws? Like what? There's not really a better set of laws, because it depends on circumstances, unless you are a player with a goal in mind.
Usually ai kingdoms have a big demesne save when there is a change of dinasty. If they conquer land the king will usually keep it if not above his limit. I don't think that the AI should be programmed to always want to expand its demesne. Not everyone's goal was dominion. Take San Marino. It maintained its independence due to its "insignificance". Not trying to expand, just trying to be a republic.
My own family stayed on same fief for a millennia. Why? Because they did an ok job at governing a very small fief and never had an expansionistic mentality, meaning that it was all fine until Napoleon showed up (the rascal). These are just two examples.
Gavelkind does have its benefits. Larger demesne, no need to land your heirs. Usually it's more of a bother to the player who worked hard to get a good demesne. If anything gavelking shows the weakness of the top liege, which ain't all that ahistorical.
Marry better? Yea ok, I'll give you that. Remember that although dinasty is important it is vital to the player due to getting a game over, meaning we'll go to any length to keep our dinasty "as is". Another example from my own family is that i have 2 surnames in one. Family #1 run out of male heirs except from an adopted one, who was later disinherited and made his own cadet branch.
The family name was important as it is family clause that only a dynast can inherit. Instead of "matrimarry" a daughter, they merged 2 surnames, effectively carrying on the family, yet with a twist in the name.
CK2 has neither adoptions, nor this surname mechanic, but it goes to show that dinasties in game and dibasties in real life didn't necessarily work like that.
I know there are other points, but my finger hurts for clicking furiously. In general i think the AI works really well, and I'd rather see more immersion added rather than an AI rework.
This was being compared to how some players, myself included, enjoy ck2. Playing on normal difficulty, managing my kids, getting lustful with the missus, backstabbing a patrician... And so on.
Since the comparison is valid, i didn't see anything wrong with mentioning Minecraft, and 3 comments on it, hardly derails the thread.
I find the Ai manages his money well. He's always ready to improve his holdings, save usually for hospitals and wonders, and once it has uograded that, it sits on an ever-growing pool of money which will allow him to hire mercs in wartime.
Suicidal war? Usually the AI attacks targets he thinks he can beat with a few exceptions like getting dragged into a war: Papal wars, alliances, liege being forced through favours to push someone's claim.
Other times the AI can be opportunist. I was involved in 3 wars/rebellions, when a neighbouring count declared a war in me to press his claim. Clearly he only did that in thinking he held a chance against a superior enemy who was being ravaged by war. As a player i do that all the time, such as attacking ERE when sniping hellenic holy sites. I'm way weaker but i take advantage of their strife.
Proper laws? Like what? There's not really a better set of laws, because it depends on circumstances, unless you are a player with a goal in mind.
Usually ai kingdoms have a big demesne save when there is a change of dinasty. If they conquer land the king will usually keep it if not above his limit. I don't think that the AI should be programmed to always want to expand its demesne. Not everyone's goal was dominion. Take San Marino. It maintained its independence due to its "insignificance". Not trying to expand, just trying to be a republic.
My own family stayed on same fief for a millennia. Why? Because they did an ok job at governing a very small fief and never had an expansionistic mentality, meaning that it was all fine until Napoleon showed up (the rascal). These are just two examples.
Gavelkind does have its benefits. Larger demesne, no need to land your heirs. Usually it's more of a bother to the player who worked hard to get a good demesne. If anything gavelking shows the weakness of the top liege, which ain't all that ahistorical.
Marry better? Yea ok, I'll give you that. Remember that although dinasty is important it is vital to the player due to getting a game over, meaning we'll go to any length to keep our dinasty "as is". Another example from my own family is that i have 2 surnames in one. Family #1 run out of male heirs except from an adopted one, who was later disinherited and made his own cadet branch.
The family name was important as it is family clause that only a dynast can inherit. Instead of "matrimarry" a daughter, they merged 2 surnames, effectively carrying on the family, yet with a twist in the name.
CK2 has neither adoptions, nor this surname mechanic, but it goes to show that dinasties in game and dibasties in real life didn't necessarily work like that.
I know there are other points, but my finger hurts for clicking furiously. In general i think the AI works really well, and I'd rather see more immersion added rather than an AI rework.
I'm not claiming the AI is perfect, but I'm 64 years into an Iron Century bookmark and my liege started as a 16 yr old genius usurper who -- with the help of a faction -- toppled the Byzantine Emperor, and she's playing a near flawless game. She properly managed her demesne size and vassal limit. She's now age 56 and all the highlighted land (see screenshot) she took without my help, with the exception of my demesne in upper Africa. This includes her taking part of Italy and carving a path thru the Middle East. She's at war near constantly, and winning every time.
My point is the AI is tolerable enough to provide an engaging player experience, and it's refreshing to see pro-active AI's constantly displaying a modicum of intelligence despite so many other individual character AI's acting in their own best interests. Really, from a technological standpoint, it's something no other game has yet achieved. Most strategy games suffer from passive AI's, and I believe CKII did in its infancy, so today it's refreshing to see AI who actually looks like they're trying to win.
My point is the AI is tolerable enough to provide an engaging player experience, and it's refreshing to see pro-active AI's constantly displaying a modicum of intelligence despite so many other individual character AI's acting in their own best interests. Really, from a technological standpoint, it's something no other game has yet achieved. Most strategy games suffer from passive AI's, and I believe CKII did in its infancy, so today it's refreshing to see AI who actually looks like they're trying to win.
Attachments
Last edited:
How confident are u urself in claiming this stuff? U dont have to answer ofc, but I think u claim this stuff only from shallow, first hand observations of urs.
Sorry to say but ur wrong on most of those claims, A.I. does suicidal wars more often than not, especially if he has, from my own observations at least, a personal claim on a single county of urs due to either higher tier title that allows it to get that title(like duchy or kingdom usually does), this is most common on medium to late game as A.I. tends to push that claim on that single county title of urs quite often and when he does, he usually ignores ur power as a country and his own current wars, and im not sure if u even come to mid to late game(assuming u start on age 769 or 876), with they way u play that is ofc (nothing personal really).
How often do u pay attention to A.I.s money management?
A.I. never exclusively saves for mercenaries and i 100% stand by this(and I wish A.I. did this just as human player does), if it happens that A.I. has sufficient amount of money, which really rarely happens and by sufficient I mean literally sufficient, money that is a bit too much to have, A.I. usually tends to waste it the "best"way possible, by either buying new flat empty holding and upgrading it while on other side having 3-5 diff unupgraded holdings, building hospital, which lets be honest, is useless unless ur really threatened by sick diseases and that is p. rare and even then hospital stuff upgrades are way too expensive to have such a high priority the A.I. has on it or just sometimes "wasting it" on a useless war while letting his semi big stack army roam around and waste upkeep. I agree that A.I. can seem like an "opportunist" at times, when he starts ganging up on u with other ones, but that exclusively happens early game(first 50-100years) after early game it literally never happens unless ur threat is above 25% and even then half of them dont join the war.
A.I. kingdoms super rarely have high demesne saves, and if they do, they usually dont have demesne bar filled, its usually examples of like 1/6 or 2/9 etc, never like 6/6 or 8/9 and i 100% stand by this claim, this is most noticeable mid to late game once again, A.I. just doesnt know what its doing legit, or at least it seems like it doesnt when it comes to demesne. The worst is that, when the current king dies, with a big demesne bar(usually cause of high stewardship and nice wife), the demesne bar falls down big time, the A.I. legit doesnt know how to maintain its demesne size even to a minimum, its sad to see whether if u are extremely focused on strategy aspect or RP aspect.
If this is true what i'm writing here, the A.I. really does need a rework big time, or at least some sort of a rework for starters.
Kinda wanted to ask u how many hours u have in this game with playing the way u play, but i figured out it doesnt really matter.
A question for u, whats the point of "deluding" uh, i meant "immersing" urself with immersive thinking like " uh look how cool and influental my dynasty is or look how sick I am at reuniting scandinavia" when u did it all in lowest effort possible with no realistic touch in any sense whatsoever in the actual game world ur trying to immerse urself in, IF the A.I. is there just virtually present and doesnt do anything meaningful much on its own?
My point is, if A.I. is good in sense that its competent, the game feels more immersive as a result too, cause 99% of NPCs are A.I. controlled, and its NPC's/rulers that do decisions and make world go round, not u with ur sick RP ideas and "muh immersions".
Be aware that claiming such a wild an extreme thing, that this game's A.I. "works really well" is just ignorant as hell at this point, especially knowing that theres so many solid arguments curently against that claim and also be aware that claiming that just makes u and people like u damage this game more.
U do realise using just 1 example of A.I. doing something sick and in that example, the strongest and usually on avg. most stable empire as an example of it being Byzantine, is not really proving anything, having 1 country that is basically made to be the strongest in europe since start, as the only country to challenge u mid and late game, is really not a good proof of A.I. being even decent.
Also in that screenshot u provided us with, u can just see its year 1000 and byzantine already gonna lose its main most royal dynasty by their Queen not caring to provide a heir, shes 56, husband dead, no offsprings that are actual heirs although 3 are alive, laws are p. screwed up big time seeing her Heir etc lots of wrong already and in 10-30years byzantine gonna split big time into irrelevant small pieces as usual.
Last edited:
Well this is why i didn't join the conversation before. If course what i can give you are my observations. I wasn't making claims to empirical truths.
I have many hours in the game, so yes i observed a lot of stuff. And it's fine, you can ask, i have clocked almost 3000 hours. At first i played the game strictly as a conquest game. Now i like to build up my kingdom, interact with courtiers and other sovereigns, and i love to build wonders.
I don't "delude" myself with something I easily achieve. I started as the duchy of Baleares, reformed the Aztec church at duke level, made Sardinia and Corsica my kingdom, fighting every year to help keeping the religion alive. I have Crusades, Jihads, constantly helping to defend the small buffer states i create. I manage to become immortal (ironman) as a beautiful 32 year old Nahua woman, and I'm roleplaying as a strong and benevolent goddess. Marriages play a big part in this too and so does intrigue as they can be much more powerful than the sword. I acquired the entire kingdom of England for (not myself) my dynasty without war. It was not easy.
To me the AI as it is more than fine. I have tons of fun with it. It could be tweaked in a few places, namely marriages, religious heads, stuff like that.
How is building a new holding a bad investment on the AI part? I do that all the time before having finished upgrading my existing ones. In fact i like that the AI isn't a min-maxers and mixes temples, cities and castles. It adds variety.
I had opportunist AI 300 years into the playthrough I described above, which I'm lead to believe is longer than the average playtrough, thus not early-mid game.
I've struggled and have been forever challenged by the AI in this playthrough. There's even a huge Kharajite empire of Marocco/Maghreb. Built and kept by the AI for generations, effectively posing a huge threat to me. It was created by an AI duchy level character.
Also "muh immersions" and "roleplay" are as valid a point as any in a roleplaying game. I find the AI very competent at delivering a great experience, and as someone above pointed out, i don't know of any other strategy game that has this level of detailed AI.
Remember that some things happen either due to a mean time, or as a dice roll. Good old ways.
I can't imagine the amount of resources PDX would have to spend to rework the AI, as you want it. Except a few things it's much historical to have an AI that doesn't have the knowledge a player can have.
Have you tried elevating the difficulty?
Have you tried playing multiplayer? You will be challenged by another human. I think this is what it boils down to.
Also claiming that someone else's observations or thoughts on a subject are "ignorant at this point" isn't going to get me on your side. I read the thread and didn't agree with your point. That's not ignorant. I simply disagree with you.
I have many hours in the game, so yes i observed a lot of stuff. And it's fine, you can ask, i have clocked almost 3000 hours. At first i played the game strictly as a conquest game. Now i like to build up my kingdom, interact with courtiers and other sovereigns, and i love to build wonders.
I don't "delude" myself with something I easily achieve. I started as the duchy of Baleares, reformed the Aztec church at duke level, made Sardinia and Corsica my kingdom, fighting every year to help keeping the religion alive. I have Crusades, Jihads, constantly helping to defend the small buffer states i create. I manage to become immortal (ironman) as a beautiful 32 year old Nahua woman, and I'm roleplaying as a strong and benevolent goddess. Marriages play a big part in this too and so does intrigue as they can be much more powerful than the sword. I acquired the entire kingdom of England for (not myself) my dynasty without war. It was not easy.
To me the AI as it is more than fine. I have tons of fun with it. It could be tweaked in a few places, namely marriages, religious heads, stuff like that.
How is building a new holding a bad investment on the AI part? I do that all the time before having finished upgrading my existing ones. In fact i like that the AI isn't a min-maxers and mixes temples, cities and castles. It adds variety.
I had opportunist AI 300 years into the playthrough I described above, which I'm lead to believe is longer than the average playtrough, thus not early-mid game.
I've struggled and have been forever challenged by the AI in this playthrough. There's even a huge Kharajite empire of Marocco/Maghreb. Built and kept by the AI for generations, effectively posing a huge threat to me. It was created by an AI duchy level character.
Also "muh immersions" and "roleplay" are as valid a point as any in a roleplaying game. I find the AI very competent at delivering a great experience, and as someone above pointed out, i don't know of any other strategy game that has this level of detailed AI.
Remember that some things happen either due to a mean time, or as a dice roll. Good old ways.
I can't imagine the amount of resources PDX would have to spend to rework the AI, as you want it. Except a few things it's much historical to have an AI that doesn't have the knowledge a player can have.
Have you tried elevating the difficulty?
Have you tried playing multiplayer? You will be challenged by another human. I think this is what it boils down to.
Also claiming that someone else's observations or thoughts on a subject are "ignorant at this point" isn't going to get me on your side. I read the thread and didn't agree with your point. That's not ignorant. I simply disagree with you.
If seeing an obviously crippled dog on the street, and saying he looks more than fine is ur way of rolling when it comes to perceiving things, idk if thats cool or realistic but you do you.
Buying new holding slot and then spending 2-3k gold to upgrade it to be on same lvl as ur other 3-5 non upgraded holdings that u didnt even touch, isnt the most smartest decision in the world especially when in the next war u lose exactly that holding and im not even mentioning here how useless and expensive hospitals are or some other minor stuff that A.I. tends to waste itself on.
I'm not demanding or asking off DEVs to maximize the A.I. of this game so that its extremely good, no of course not, yet u make it look like I am by writing that the DEVs dont have that much resources and that im arguing for some amazing A.I. that does MIN and MAX everything, no thats just u jumping into rash conclusions legit.
I just would like to see A.I. get more competent, even in small ways is enough for now, since obviously the A.I. getting better and more interesting to interact with isnt really focus of patches or DLCs.
Upping the difficulty up only gives annoying and flat out unfair bonuses to A.I., it doesnt make them play better. Playing vs other player demands a bit more time than just jumping in and playing a bit, so its not that attractive, also its much easier to RP solo than while playing vs random human.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
While I'm firmly entrenched in the "RP crowd" I'm surprised to see how many people think the AI comes even close to RPing the characters well. It's very rare, in my experience, that the character's traits justify their decision making.
History is not filled with examples of 12 year old boy kings being betrothed to one-legged heathen spinsters from nothing families, or the ruler deciding his firstborn's amazing firstborn should be taken out of succession to become a bishop, or whatever.
We can't ever get a perfect simulation but I would like something that did a half-decent approximation of what people with their various traits would do in the situations they find themselves in.
History is not filled with examples of 12 year old boy kings being betrothed to one-legged heathen spinsters from nothing families, or the ruler deciding his firstborn's amazing firstborn should be taken out of succession to become a bishop, or whatever.
We can't ever get a perfect simulation but I would like something that did a half-decent approximation of what people with their various traits would do in the situations they find themselves in.
In what way criticizing OP's laughable alarmism can be taken as believing the AI roleplayes WELL?
People have been defending the decision making the AI makes as "playing to its traits" (or WTTE) over the course of this thread.
While I'm sure those traits have some influence, it's not pronounced enough to alleviate the sense of "AI hitting any available buttons at random" which is -- for me, at least -- a big problem.