WTF happened to AI?

[IIWW]

Seriously, it's worse than it ever was. In my current game:
I was several times attacked by 5k army against my ~20-40k (who was just siting there, siegieng for a while), without any other enemy army nearby.

Golden horde DoWed me (blobbed sweden), my ally: France, who had Castille under PU, I also had Muscovy as vassal. Their allies: Ottos and UZbek (3PM). They had something about 4 times smaller army than my alliance, none of us were at war, nor had their manpower depleted. I alone could easily defeat them, when French and Castille shown up it wasn't even close to being a fair war.

Ottos lost against Theodoro (both without allies), because they didn't attacked them. They had the navy, they had the army, they just DoWed Theodoro, waited a bit, and released Byzantium in peace treaty. That was plain absurd war, I saw such things in previous versions, but against a nations that were far away, not one sea province!

War against GB, I "rule the seas". I had Tyrone as Vassal, the rest of Ireland and GB was british. What do they do? Move 70 thousand army to Ireland, effectively giving me the british Isle undefended.

In another game, I (scandinavia) DoWed Muscovy, Allied with Ming. My brilliant allies (Austria and France) decided to go all the way to China, through siberia, in winter, just to fight the secondary participant. I know, they prioritise destroying enemy forces, but thats absurd.

I understand, it's AI, it lack imagination, but it was never so freaking stupid. Patch 1.8, while beeing great in general, multiplied such situation.

On a side note: why are they always contesting a PU? France contested me over Baden PU (OPM, I was their "utterly trusted" ally). Whats the point? PU's OPM is not worth it, not even worth the diploslot.

 

[josh127]

In my Cherokee game I kept laughing and telling the other guy in the MP game how everyone I went to war with would march their armies to Biloxi (Mississippi coastal province). That held true even when I was fighting CN's in the southern part of Central America. In fact, Oregon had formed in its proper place and I hadn't colonized the central US, so they'd march armies across Canada, down the east coast, and back just to siege that province. Quite funny actually.

On a side note: why are they always contesting a PU? France contested me over Baden PU (OPM, I was their "utterly trusted" ally). Whats the point? PU's OPM is not worth it, not even worth the diploslot.

It would be nice if you got an option to back out of the contested PU too. If Baden's not worth the diplo slot, why not have the option to back out and let France have it without losing our alliance.

 

[Viperswhip]

I am not exactly sure how the Succession War thing works now. It used to the rival of the successor country with the highest prestige, but sometimes it tells me I will fight my largest ally instead.

I posted in the bug forums about allies never shipping their troops home after a war, they just sit exiled until they are destroyed via bankruptcy or their country is absorbed (they will go home if they can walk home).

So, ya, it's not stellar. You mostly won't run into these problems too often if you play over in the middle east.

 

[IIWW]

I am not exactly sure how the Succession War thing works now. It used to the rival of the successor country with the highest prestige, but sometimes it tells me I will fight my largest ally instead.

I posted in the bug forums about allies never shipping their troops home after a war, they just sit exiled until they are destroyed via bankruptcy or their country is absorbed (they will go home if they can walk home).

So, ya, it's not stellar. You mostly won't run into these problems too often if you play over in the middle east.

and colonial wars are just going on for decades, nobody knows why (everyone is on "low WE", yet there is no peace in sight).
As for PU's: yeah, thats how it seems to work now. Quite weird. Although I was able to contend to my rival PU, so it's more complex.

 

[nalfz]

France, who had Castille under PU