Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 19th of July 2022

[Gnivom]

I’m disappointed that Prussia still didn’t naturally form in these photos. It never forms currently, and the Teutons were given so much attention this upcoming dlc. Prussia was such a relevant country during this era and it’s sad to never be able to interact with it as a separate country

It's definitely a sentiment I agree with. But in Prussia's defense, it does form every few games. Sometimes it goes on to form Germany, I don't recall 100%, but I think that's what happened in the 5'th game I posted here.
Unfortunately, Prussia forming is still not an expected outcome, but we have definitely made some progress in that direction.

 

[brifbates]

Dev's, how on Earth can those overnight AI pictures be considered as successful? Consider the following:
1. Spain is overpowered for Colonization of the Americas in total. In 2 of the samples, Spain has even taken NW North America to include Alaska. In 2 of them, Spain has nearly all of the Americas painted yellow. NERF Spain for colonization. And Australia - Spain takes it 4 times (way too many). Dev's, you gotta throttle back Spain's colonization pace/breadth.
2. Portugal is also over-buffed for Americas colonization, just not as much as Spain, but - in 2 of the samples, Portugal has taken NW North America to include Alaska.
3. England is UNDER-buffed to colonize the modern-day USA east coast of North America. Only a single sample has a more realistic England colonization, and another sample has England taking only Canada, and a third sample has a tiny 2-3 province area of NA, but all the others have ZERO presence of English colonies in USA/Canadian area.
4. The Elephant in the Room: USA is not forming up. Is that just once that it did? Think about why. England is wonky right now for Colonization of the Americas. You need to get England up to current Spain level for colonization (for one thing, then England takes Australia also), and have a forceful AI event once England has a good chunk of North America (especially USA east coast) that the USA forms, no matter how powerful England is at the time. You need to overpower other colonizers of North America with England (with France a decent 2nd best) and then trigger a fracturing event with USA coming out of it.

I just can't see success with all the Yellow of Spain and puke green of Portugal painting the map in such large proportions.

The real issue is that colonization as a whole is much too fast.. There are parts of the map that weren't actually colonized during the game's time frame (or within 40-50 years afterwards) but good luck finding any uncolonized areas on those maps.

Of course rampant colonization isn't the only consistent problem with those game outcomes.

 

[annulen]

Not an easy workaround, but subsidies definitely help. I did several tests with this and there was always some amount of subsidies which made AI CNs colonize if they weren't blocked by other issues (e.g. losing a war against natives; no connection from the capital to a port or uncolonized province). But in some cases it was enough to give subsidies of 2 ducats which resulted in 5 income and 2 ducats profit. But in other cases more than 5 ducats of subsidies were necessary (IIRC this resulted in almost 10 monthly income and 5 ducats profit).

Have you ever managed to make them using both colonists they have?

 

[grotaclas]

Have you ever managed to make them using both colonists they have?

yes, but I didn't test this extensively. A test case which shows that a CN colonizes with two colonists in at least one situation is:

1. start as Castile in 1444
2. use the following console commands:

   tech 4
   ti
   integrate hst
   integrate oto

3. wait one day
4. this gives you a CN in Mexico which borders and can see three uncolonized provinces and has completed expansion ideas
5. subsidize them with 11 ducats
6. wait a few months

In the two times that I tried this, the CN first started to colonize Pame(4642) and after the colonist arrived there, they send their second colonist to Barrado/Rio Bravo(2668)

 

[Rullino]

I hope it wil make playing with vassals more enjoyable especially once you revoke privilegia or have the Shogunate government type,i like playing with vassals because it gives more life to the game.

I know that's unrelated but maybe you could add a republican version of the states-general, maybe it could be economists/administrators vs militarists, economists would give inflation reduction -0.1, +10% goods produced and -10% development cost, and the militarists would give +10% morale of armies, discipline and -10%war score cost at the cost of - 1/-0,5 republican tradition, there might be something unbalanced so feel free to correct me.

I replied here because it's the latest post and I don't want to reply where moderators won't reply to me.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Get a grip buddy.

A grip with what, Reality? Well, let's talk Reality. The AI, without Player intervention/action or input, should 75% of the time (or better) result in the real world arrangements that we had at 1820 (or very close). Should (key word). Why? The AI should produce results that are not >50% of the time - Alternate History. The AI should align to Real outcomes and it is up to the Player through action/input in the game, to alter those outcomes. The Player should be up against the AI wanting to be rigid toward current realities, not Player + AI moving the game into Alternative Outcomes. Huge difference there, whether it's Player + AI or Player vs AI toward Outcomes. That's an enormous Dichotomy for Game Design, I realize (and the ship has sailed, mostly), but it's still a concern. The Player should be biased toward an Alternative History outcome, while the AI should be biased toward a Real History outcome, and AI should not be fighting for its own Alternative Reality (in a reasonable weighted effort - let's say, 75% toward Real outcome, 25% toward Alternative outcomes). If the game is 100% "anything goes" alternative history outcome if AI is solely in charge, then it isn't giving us the Player the proper pressure that steer toward events, such as - the independence of the Colonies in North America that results in USA.

This is perhaps one of the top reasons that Patch after Patch, DLC after DLC, the EU4 game-we-have-now, has "drifted" from holding the line toward a more expected outcome.

And if some players want AI to work on Alternative Outcomes - make it a box check for Game Setup before jumping into the game, if you want a 100% randomized AI.

 

[grotaclas]

The AI, without Player intervention/action or input, should 75% of the time (or better) result in the real world arrangements that we had at 1820 (or very close)

But why? The chance for the real world to end up the way it did, were extremely small.

This is perhaps one of the top reasons that Patch after Patch, DLC after DLC, the EU4 game-we-have-now, has "drifted" from holding the line toward a more expected outcome.

why do you think that the expected outcome is the outcome which happend in our history? If we would rewind the world to 1444 and start again, it would be totally unexpected that it would end up the same way that it did in our history.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

But why? The chance for the real world to end up the way it did, were extremely small.

why do you think that the expected outcome is the outcome which happend in our history? If we would rewind the world to 1444 and start again, it would be totally unexpected that it would end up the same way that it did in our history.

You may be missing my core point - IF it is just the AI by itself, no real human player interacting nor providing Input into the EU4 game, the results at game date 1820 should look very close to what we had in our real world 1820.

That's not to imply that I want the game on rails to go there, but the game should have a bias to get there, and you the player are working against that.

I'm all for the Alternative Reality/History outcome that we get at 1820, and this isn't about that. It's about how the AI acts when unopposed outside itself. What the world moves toward. That in itself is true "balance" in the game's AI, nothing more, nothing less. It is "perfection" when it comes to AI coding, when the world in 1820 looks near exact as it was in our actual Reality of our 1820 in the Real World (again, IF the AI is playing against itself, and no human players). But in-between game start and game end should result in AI bias as well. Why does AI England want to colonize North America? Only because of some digits in code? What if France's digits get them there first? Would real England have quit? Probably not, so bias the England AI to work harder to get there, etc.

Anything else, means the AI is out of balance, whether it is Colonization that is too fast paced, or Natives that get Cannons when they couldn't even mine or smelt ore during the entire game's timeframe. AI Nations should focus on regions of the world that they actually cared about (Spain didn't colonize Australia, but England did - to offload criminals, as just one of many examples). The USA sprung out of British colony over-rule, not French or Spanish, although one could argue that any presence in the "New World" could have resulted in Independence from European overlords (which in itself is a way to "bend" Outcomes, when/if the conditions are not fully met -- so even if England is not the nation holding East Coast NA, an independent nation could still spring up from a French or Spanish set of colonies).

 

[annulen]

You may be missing my core point - IF it is just the AI by itself, no real human player interacting nor providing Input into the EU4 game, the results at game date 1820 should look very close to what we had in our real world 1820.

It's just a game, it doesn't have to be an accurate simulator. Large deviations from actual history may help with finding deficiencies in AI or game mechanics. But other than that, IMO it's enough if historic outcome have a non-zero chance to happen spontaneously.

For example you've pointed out that AI England doesn't have much interest or capability to colonize NA. According to game mechanics, it's a good strategy for England to colonize Chesapeake Bay node as it's directly connected to the Channel, while countries like Spain should have very little interest in this region as they cannot pull trade from there. It could be interesting to investigate why does it happen. Also, AI England can have an alliance with Spain and Portugal, while they actually should have a strong conflict of interests: England wants to have Chesapeake Bay (even if they are under-buffed in terms of colonization speed and lose competition at peace time, it's not a big problem if they can take these lands by war), and England wants trade to flow from Caribbean to Chesapeake Bay. They need to fight for their interests, not be passive.

 

[bokorthedust]

You may be missing my core point - IF it is just the AI by itself, no real human player interacting nor providing Input into the EU4 game, the results at game date 1820 should look very close to what we had in our real world 1820

That is not a realistic expectation. In the timeframe of the game, so many events that happened in history (battles, rulers dying, succession wars, heirs born, changes is the tides of war) were the result of what we call RNG that I doubt that even if we had all the accurate input (down to the last atom in 11.11.1444) and computing power to run a simulation, we'd end up with the same result. History could have gone down infinitely variably, expecting the same outcome every time from the same starting state is just folly.

The sandbox nature of EU4 is what makes this game great at what it is, having different outcomes and different hurdles every run is what makes it replayable. Asking for an AI that wants to achieve the same outcome every time when it only happened once is nonsense.

 

[currylambchop]

1. Spain is overpowered for Colonization of the Americas in total. In 2 of the samples, Spain has even taken NW North America to include Alaska. In 2 of them, Spain has nearly all of the Americas painted yellow. NERF Spain for colonization. And Australia - Spain takes it 4 times (way too many). Dev's, you gotta throttle back Spain's colonization pace/breadth.

- England and France after losing american land to spain

 

[annulen]

Your ideas 1 and 2 would help with reducing user impact, but would not necessarily reduce the development cost.

I'd rather say they would somewhat increase that cost

3 is a promising idea IMO, but would have a huge development cost to set up. So it's probably not for EU4.

What about starting a crowdfunding campaign for AI improvements? I understand that investing big effort into AI improvements is risky because apparently it's not a thing that actually sells your games. However, I believe there is a significant number of people around that would be interested in seeing this improvements and paying for them (instead of paying for mission trees and questionable mechanics)

 

[annulen]

yes, but I didn't test this extensively. A test case which shows that a CN colonizes with two colonists in at least one situation is:

1. start as Castile in 1444
2. use the following console commands:

   tech 4
   ti
   integrate hst
   integrate oto

3. wait one day
4. this gives you a CN in Mexico which borders and can see three uncolonized provinces and has completed expansion ideas
5. subsidize them with 11 ducats
6. wait a few months

In the two times that I tried this, the CN first started to colonize Pame(4642) and after the colonist arrived there, they send their second colonist to Barrado/Rio Bravo(2668)

With my (objectively poor) CN It took quite a while with 15 ducats (about year), but finally second colonist was deployed. Hopefully this will improve with AI fixes made for 1.34.

 

[Rebox-O-Lots]

A grip with what, Reality? Well, let's talk Reality...

It's not that I don't agree with you, I'd like the AI to set historical objectives or reform historical nations after they are destroyed, but ultimately its not realistic.

I really hate it when Portugal takes part of Grenada since it looks awful on the map, but who told Portugal not to take it?

History (in the game) will say the Portuguese conquered Málaga because they sought a costal fort facing the Mediterranean.

I do have my limit though, I will reload if Poland, Castile, Brandenburg or Hungary don't follow their historical paths since I think it makes Europe too unbalanced.

Furthermore, even playing as England I rarely subjugate France since I like them being a contential power and it's too game breaking for me if I want a chill England game.

I would sell them my contential possessions (except for Calais) if an event allowed me to or they stopped rivaling me and offered a good deal.

I dislike Castille/ Portugal going for North America, but that's a separate issue with colonization and the AI realizing trade steering.

I've learned that sometimes things are historical accurate but unbalanced, but that's ok. The Ottomans would be on Austria doorstep every time, blobing across the map. You would also have to consent to the Dutch settling in New England before the British.

To the point about Portugal owning part of Grenada

Maybe there's a modifier affecting the AI's desire to have an exclave or enclave in Europe?

After all, AIs with the trait obsessive perfectionist try to avoid ugly borders.

If there is one, specifically its desire of nice borders should be lower in the HRE and higher out of it, but I don't know if that's the case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of biggest problems that I think addresses your answer is the lack of diplomatic depth in the game, unlike real life. I would say that it would be nice for more nations to have a +25 historical friendship and -25 historical rivials modifier to improve the flow of the game, like between Scotland & England, Russia & Commonwealth (when both exist) Austria & Ottomans, Ottomans & Russia.


www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2018/08/30/10_rivalries_that_shaped_world_history_353.html

After reading this one below I'm shocked and very disappointed that Hungary & Poland don't start as historical friends. Or that there aren't more historical friendship modifiers between other nations in Europe.

visegradpost.com/en/2021/03/23/23rd-march-hungarians-and-poles-celebrate-their-thousand-year-friendship/

I would love a "buy province option" as a Great Power that both the AI and player can use which creates a 10 year truce and you can only do every 10 years, but never allows you to buy a nations' core provinces.

A number specific of conditions would have to be set (max dev willing to sell, culture, religion) so the AI doesn't give away land included in their expansion objectives.

After all, Russia sold Alaska to the US, Corsica was sold to France, and France sold Louisiana to the United States.

To this end, I really wish you could tell the AI, or the AI could tell you through diplomatic feedback their interest or your interest in buying a province.

If this was labeled with an easy to see blue color, so either party can then save money to buy/sell the province, and you, as Portugal, receive a notification:

"Spain wants to buy Málaga for 300 ducats increasing your inflation by... as a result of you will gain 10 favors from Spain" would be awesome!

You can do it in trade companies, but it has a very low chance of success that needs remedied in some way. To do it beyond trade companies it should require you to foster a good relationship with a nation having +100 relations.

I think that if the AI only controls a single province in a state while a single other nation controls all of the other ones, it should have a much higher desire to sell the province to the bigger nation with some exceptions.

Especially, if it's not an accepted culture/ religion whilst to the other nation it is, and if the other nation has a mission tree for it with a claim could be a factor.

This could be attached to the favor system. Also, the favor system can be expanded, creating a slighly larger difference in gain between military sizes.

As a result, the AI should be more offended when you reject their request for favors, making it a cumulative -20 relations each time a favor is rejected up to -100.

When a favor isn't its set it back to -20 for rejecting it the first time. It could also start to affect trust after repeatedly denying the AI.

Currently, if the AI asks you there's no consequences for always saying no to them.

In truth, much more favor interactions should be added to expand the diplomatic feel of the game and the ability to communicate and expand through diplomacy:

• Remove rival for 50 favors. (cooldown 15 years) (requesting nation CANNOT be set as a new rival)
• 
  
• Rival nation for 30 favors. (cooldown 15 years) (can only rival a new nation if valid rivals exists and doesn't already have 3 rivals, requesting nation CANNOT be set as a new rival).
• 
  
• Share maps for 20 favors. (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Steer trade for 5 years for 30 favors (cooldown 20 years)
• 
  
• Relinquish claim on province for 10 favors (cooldown 5 years, not valid if permanent claim).
• 
  
• Share 100 administrative power for 20 favors. (cooldown 10 years for each power)
• 
  
• Share 100 diplomatic power for 20 favors. (cooldown 10 years for each power)
• 
  
• Share 100 military power for 20 favors. (cooldown 10 years for each power)

(Each power meaning only one of the three can be used every 10 years, its too OP otherwise).

• Request knowledge sharing for 60 favors. (cooldown 30 years)
• 
  
• Support with papal influence in Curia for 30 favors (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Force break royal marriage with a country for 50 favors (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Support as next Emperor of HRE (+50 permanent reasons) for 30 favors (cooldown 20 years)
• 
  
• Support in Imperial Incident for 10 favors (no cooldown).
• 
  
• Force the Emperor's decision in an Imperial incident for 90 favors (cooldown 25 years for all nations)
• 
  
• Force the Emperor to revoke a reform for 100 favors. (cooldown 30 years for all nations)

Overall, one of the reasons the game doesn't play more historically beyond the RNG of real life, is that you or the AI cannot communicate in as great of depth as two people what land should be someone's and what concessions they're willing to make.

Even the Treaty of Tordesillas ingame is nowhere close to reality.

 

[gigau]

Let's calm down and remain civil please.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

It's just a game, it doesn't have to be an accurate simulator. Large deviations from actual history may help with finding deficiencies in AI or game mechanics. But other than that, IMO it's enough if historic outcome have a non-zero chance to happen spontaneously.

For example you've pointed out that AI England doesn't have much interest or capability to colonize NA. According to game mechanics, it's a good strategy for England to colonize Chesapeake Bay node as it's directly connected to the Channel, while countries like Spain should have very little interest in this region as they cannot pull trade from there. It could be interesting to investigate why does it happen. Also, AI England can have an alliance with Spain and Portugal, while they actually should have a strong conflict of interests: England wants to have Chesapeake Bay (even if they are under-buffed in terms of colonization speed and lose competition at peace time, it's not a big problem if they can take these lands by war), and England wants trade to flow from Caribbean to Chesapeake Bay. They need to fight for their interests, not be passive.

I concur that we won't have an "accurate simulator" here, and my comments were Idealistic to show "what should be" as goals to work toward (if the Dev's were so inclined, although as I said, "That Ship has sailed" for Game Design of EU4).
To be clear, I didn't point out a lack of desire for AI England, to colonize NA. It is something wonky in their metrics, that results in a noticeably slow pace in contrast to Spain. One could argue - Spain's pace is the primary problem, and perhaps a Nerf on Spain's pace helps England to then look more strengthened in their presence on the Eastern NA seaboard and better breadth for English colonization of NA, but my estimate is that some tweaks in the AI code for England are necessary (slight and targeted buffs for England specific to colonization).
I also acknowledge another post that pointed out the historic fact that the Dutch were also early to East Coast NA, and this would also be a place to examine the code for Netherland's "preferences" - that could steer toward modern New Jersey and New York, which is where the Dutch settled in around the same time as the Colony of Virginia did for England.

The corporate side of Colonization is in itself a separate but related topic/problem in of itself, when/if Paradox brings those dynamics into play (EU5 design, perhaps?). It would be refreshing to see a game change for colonization that helps portray the corporatism embodied in the trade companies that were arguably more influential than the state itself, for much of the colonization of the period.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

It's not that I don't agree with you, I'd like the AI to set historical objectives or reform historical nations after they are destroyed, but ultimately its not realistic.

I really hate it when Portugal takes part of Grenada since it looks awful on the map, but who told Portugal not to take it?

History (in the game) will say the Portuguese conquered Málaga because they sought a costal fort facing the Mediterranean.

I do have my limit though, I will reload if Poland, Castile, Brandenburg or Hungary don't follow their historical paths since I think it makes Europe too unbalanced.

Furthermore, even playing as England I rarely subjugate France since I like them being a contential power and it's too game breaking for me if I want a chill England game.

I would sell them my contential possessions (except for Calais) if an event allowed me to or they stopped rivaling me and offered a good deal.

I dislike Castille/ Portugal going for North America, but that's a separate issue with colonization and the AI realizing trade steering.

I've learned that sometimes things are historical accurate but unbalanced, but that's ok. The Ottomans would be on Austria doorstep every time, blobing across the map. You would also have to consent to the Dutch settling in New England before the British.

To the point about Portugal owning part of Grenada

Maybe there's a modifier affecting the AI's desire to have an exclave or enclave in Europe?

After all, AIs with the trait obsessive perfectionist try to avoid ugly borders.

If there is one, specifically its desire of nice borders should be lower in the HRE and higher out of it, but I don't know if that's the case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of biggest problems that I think addresses your answer is the lack of diplomatic depth in the game, unlike real life. I would say that it would be nice for more nations to have a +25 historical friendship and -25 historical rivials modifier to improve the flow of the game, like between Scotland & England, Russia & Commonwealth (when both exist) Austria & Ottomans, Ottomans & Russia.


www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2018/08/30/10_rivalries_that_shaped_world_history_353.html

After reading this one below I'm shocked and very disappointed that Hungary & Poland don't start as historical friends. Or that there aren't more historical friendship modifiers between other nations in Europe.

visegradpost.com/en/2021/03/23/23rd-march-hungarians-and-poles-celebrate-their-thousand-year-friendship/

I would love a "buy province option" as a Great Power that both the AI and player can use which creates a 10 year truce and you can only do every 10 years, but never allows you to buy a nations' core provinces.

A number specific of conditions would have to be set (max dev willing to sell, culture, religion) so the AI doesn't give away land included in their expansion objectives.

After all, Russia sold Alaska to the US, Corsica was sold to France, and France sold Louisiana to the United States.

To this end, I really wish you could tell the AI, or the AI could tell you through diplomatic feedback their interest or your interest in buying a province.

If this was labeled with an easy to see blue color, so either party can then save money to buy/sell the province, and you, as Portugal, receive a notification:

"Spain wants to buy Málaga for 300 ducats increasing your inflation by... as a result of you will gain 10 favors from Spain" would be awesome!

You can do it in trade companies, but it has a very low chance of success that needs remedied in some way. To do it beyond trade companies it should require you to foster a good relationship with a nation having +100 relations.

I think that if the AI only controls a single province in a state while a single other nation controls all of the other ones, it should have a much higher desire to sell the province to the bigger nation with some exceptions.

Especially, if it's not an accepted culture/ religion whilst to the other nation it is, and if the other nation has a mission tree for it with a claim could be a factor.

This could be attached to the favor system. Also, the favor system can be expanded, creating a slighly larger difference in gain between military sizes.

As a result, the AI should be more offended when you reject their request for favors, making it a cumulative -20 relations each time a favor is rejected up to -100.

When a favor isn't its set it back to -20 for rejecting it the first time. It could also start to affect trust after repeatedly denying the AI.

Currently, if the AI asks you there's no consequences for always saying no.

More favor interactions should be added to expand the diplomatic feel of the game and the ability to communicate and expand through diplomacy:

• Remove rival for 50 favors. (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Rival nation for 50 favors. (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Share maps for 20 favors. (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Steer trade for 5 years for 30 favors (cooldown 20 years)
• 
  
• Relinquish claim on province for 20 favors cooldown (10 years)
• 
  
• Share 100 administrative power for 20 favors. (cooldown 10 years for each power)
• 
  
• Share 100 diplomatic power for 20 favors. (cooldown 10 years for each power)
• 
  
• Share 100 military power for 20 favors. (cooldown 10 years for each power)
• 
  
• Request knowledge sharing for 60 favors. (cooldown 30 years)
• 
  
• Support with papal influence in Curia for 30 favors (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Force break royal marriage with a country for 50 favors (cooldown 15 years)
• 
  
• Support as next Emperor of HRE (+50 permanent reasons) for 30 favors (cooldown 20 years)
• 
  
• Support in Imperial Incident for 10 favors (no cooldown).
• 
  
• Force the Emperor's decision in an Imperial incident for 90 favors (cooldown 25 years for all nations)
• 
  
• Force the Emperor to revoke a reform for 100 favors. (cooldown 30 years for all nations)

Overall, one of the reasons the game doesn't play more historically beyond the RNG of real life, is that you or the AI cannot communicate in as great of depth as two people what land should be someone's.

Even the Treaty of Tordesillas ingame is nowhere close to reality.

I think you put many a good idea into that post, and I hope the Dev's consider what you wrote.

One of your comments that relates to a "desire" of the AI prompted me to think -- how could the AI for England be changed so that it always thinks, "I want Virginia." And similar for Netherlands AI to think, "I want New York and New Jersey." Perhaps it is in there already(?) or maybe not, or maybe Spain's pace of colonization discounts England and Netherlands' AI if Spain takes the land first. Who knows?

Something I did not mention in my original critical post here - Russia should have control of Alaska (and surrounding provinces) by game end 1820. This is challenging for both a Player who forms up Russia, and for AI Russia, due to the game's restriction that the govt must send colonists. When/if corporate entities are designed into the EU series, the Russian-American Company could help colonize Alaska and surrounding areas for the Russian govt, as example, as it's very challenging to get the Game's minimum standards met to colonize Alaska if a typical Russian playthrough has the player focusing more toward Europe and Asian competitors. But this is also in parallel to my England and Netherlands comment - does the Russia AI have a desire to colonize Alaska? I don't know, but it should be looked at, because all of the Dev's Sample play-throughs don't appear to have Russia holding Alaska.

 

[Vishmartzen]

Really looking forward for the next update! Can't wait to play with this new changes!

 

[Skyguy22]

@Gnivom, will there be some changes to AI development in 1.34? In my last England playthrough, when I got to south east asia, all provinces had around 12-18 development, which made expansion really slow and grindy. Most provinces in Europe, Asia (Apart from siberia) and North Africa had at least 10 dev.

I remember, that 1.33 changed the way AI was using its monarch points, but since the AI often expands way slower, it just pumps everything in developing their provinces now, which in turn makes aggressive expansion very high and also especially slows down colonial expansion alot.

 

[grommile]

since the AI often expands way slower, it just pumps everything in developing their provinces now

Of course!

And if you want that changed, you need to explain where it should be spending the monarch power left over after buying tech and ideas and getting brickwalled by opponents who are its equals in skill.