Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 19th of July 2022

[Gnivom]

How will the new AI updates impact forging alliances within a culture group? I am cynically imagining an HRE game where minors will not ally each other due to their desire to each consolidate their culture group.

There should be some sort of balance between AI desiring to ally within their culture group and wanting to consolidate their culture group. Perhaps have this AI behavior change with the Age of Absolutism. As in, during the earlier eras the AI would desire to ally within their culture group and then when Age of Aboslutism hits they switch to domineering towards their culture group. This would also reflect historical realities.

Another option is to make the AI weigh the dev of their culture group vis a vie the dev of the their neighboring non-culture group. Is our culture group higher dev than the threat next door? Consolidate our culture group. Is the threat next door more powerful than us? Time to ally-up.

This is an important point.
The desire for same-culture provinces is only on "province of interest" (yellow) level, never "vital interest" (red). This basically means the AI will happily take it in a peace deal if it can, but it will not directly create hostility. It can indirectly create some hostility by making the AI create a claim on the province, but that effect is barely noticeable in my experience.

 

[annulen]

I fixed an issue with AI budgeting that made small-medium sized countries often not send colonists.

Is there any easy local workaround for this bug? E.g. change some files, or at least know beforehand how many subsidies are needed.

 

[Gnivom]

Is there any easy local workaround for this bug? E.g. change some files, or at least know beforehand how many subsidies are needed.

Sure!
The issue is that the AI in a sense gets "addicted to" its budget surplus, and then doesn't want to cut it. So to force them to start colonizing, you need to bump their surplus by more than the cost of a colonist from one budget evaluation to the next (every couple of months). If you raise subsidies (or their economy grows) slowly, they will just get accustomed to a higher surplus.

So: give them a huge subsidy (let's say 5 ducats just to be sure) for a couple of months to start them colonizing. Then you can remove the subsidy and they will most likely keep colonizing. There's a small chance you have to redo it after the colony is done, but usually they'll keep going with a new colony.

Just to clarify: this is a workaround for 1.33. Whereas 1.34 fixes the bug.

 

[Arizal]

Do you as a player backstab longterm AI-allies if they hold territory that you need/want or simply are in your path of expansion?

It is ok for the AI to not be a care bear (to use a Diplomacy term)

I already have a giant coalitions of german and French nations, I don't want the Austrians to join the coalition simply because they suddenly hated me, there must be a reason on why someone would hate the other, Afterall rivalries have a reason on why they exist, it's also a historical due to the fact that no one hates the other for no reason and increasing trust to 80 is more of a chore.

I always thought it made little sense for alliances to last an eternity. Meanwhile, players need some consistency and to be well informed of when bad stuff is about to happen to them, otherwise they will feel that the change is "random" and trolling them.

At the same time, historically, alliance shifts could happen suddenly.

It's a delicate balance to strike for the devs, and I commend them (for once) if they managed to make a step towards a more realistic behaviour from the AI that also doesn't frustrates players too much. Ideally, the AI should strive organically for balance of power, and the real goal should be to break this balance.

So, it seems to be a good step forward to make the AI less reliable. I actually like when the AI guarantees independance of my target. It forces me to think of a way to make them abandon that guarantee and makes me wonder if they didn't do it especially to prevent me from getting stronger. It seems a perfectly reasonable behaviour. Nobody wants to be overwhelmed by their allies.

 

[realzoomer]

Thabk you very much @Gnivom for your amazing work on AI ! I'm curious about something I don't think I saw in the changes. Did you fix the bug with subjects having multiple one regiment stacks that does not move unless the game is restarted ?

 

[Militantti Talitintti]

In one of the earlier dev diaries for 1.34 was mentioned that performance improvements will be worked on, any info on this?

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

I think this is a good change in general as it can avoid the "dissolution of allies' land in case of the coalition" situation. However, what if the enemies' most minor demand is unacceptable for players for something like flavor or immersion reasons?

Win.

 

[Gnivom]

In one of the earlier dev diaries for 1.34 was mentioned that performance improvements will be worked on, any info on this?

We have worked a bit on performance, with some significant improvements. But it's the kind of thing that easily worsens by itself as more code and script is added, so we don't normally want to make any claims on how much it's improved until we're closer to release.
But it's definitely something we have worked on and continually keep in mind.

EDIT: Actually, one thing I probably can say is that we fixed a freeze (up to several minutes) when a huge war starts. Try to get 100+ countries into a coalition against you and you'll see what I mean. For the Computer Science minded, the complexity was O(N^5).

 

[ParadogsGamer]

Why do you make a Denmark DLC that is so damaging to Denmark, that Denmark is being beat up all the time?
In your screenshots, Denmark survived 0 times while IRL Denmark survived the time by only losing the Eastern provinces (and Norway at the very end).
I bet AI Denmark is not able to hold the union together for very long and an up-strengthed Sweden will be stomping all over them.

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

Why is this a problem? Unaccepted cultures cause penalty to taxes, but taxes don't affect trade value and tariffs.

Mainly from historical perspective native cultures are all but obliterated by European colonization, settlement, and conquest. By the end of the game's time period there should be very little native cultured provinces left.

 

[agonistes]

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).

3 ducats a month does the trick for me. My colonies will use both colonists with that amount. I also gift 200 start up funds, and place a few buildings that give good returns.

 

[agonistes]

These changes sound really exciting. I really do hope it makes the AI create more authentic-looking empires. I would be curious if there was a way to make colonial powers desire to establish a greater presence in Africa, India, South East Asia & China at some point? Especially since trade companies seem somewhat weak when the AI creates them.

View attachment 861943

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Union


For instance, this is a map of the Spanish–Portuguese Empire in 1598 which shows a slew of colonies, trade companies, and feitorias. While both Spain & Portugal get claims on *some* of these areas in the game, it would be really cool if their mission trees were updated, giving them more detailed claims that allow the player to take these areas more specifically. Some specific ones like Cape Verde and Santa Helana are represented in-game, and Portugual actually established a small presence in the latter before the English moved in.

https://www.friendsofsthelena.com/upload/files/Ships_at_St_Helena,_1502-1613.pdf

It often irks me that, unlike history, the Portuguese AI doesn't care in the slightest about finding a route to Asia, unlike their real-life counterparts. Portugal will become massive having 2-3 colonial nations in the new world, but they rarely have an extensive network of charter companies. I honestly think adding a bonus onto the existing national ideas of Portugal & Holland/Netherlands giving some theoretical -50% cost of purchasing provinces for charter companies would be interesting, or a +25% colonial range from trade companies? I just wish that Portugal cared a lot more about having feitorias and establishing a trade presence to counter the English from monopolizing global trade.

Making the AI more sophisticated about trade and attempting to cut off the player from global trade would revitalize the dull midgame of easily steering trade away from your rivals.

Below are all the claims that the game currently gives for both Iberian nations, however, I think they could use a lot more historical ones.

www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/o18bao/spain_with_all_territory_that_get_claims_from_the/

www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/o1es49/portugal_with_all_claims_from_missions_now_with/


Both of these below are also maps of other nations' historical colonial empires. In the game, the AI often does not prioritize the Indian subcontinent, African charter companies, or trading posts in China. Furthermore, nations like Russia never get to Cascadia in time before the Iberians colonize it. While this is a much more complex game issue altogether. I think if the AI saw colonial regions and regions like India & Africa as easier to conquer rather than provinces in Europe, then we would get more varied games with larger empires.

Asides from the fact that colonial nations rarely improve their own provinces to avoid expanding into other colonial regions, or that you or the AI can't stop colonial nations from expanding outside their intended territory, (which was historical precedence), at the expense of liberty desire like you can with subjects. For example:

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 [ushistory.org]

www.ushistory.org

View attachment 861947View attachment 861948




As a part of this, will the AI learn to demand an "annulment of treaties" with a nation's larger ally so that they can attack them later in a war with weaker allies?

• For instance, if Bohemia is allied with the Ottomans and Austria declared war on Transylvania, which is guaranteed by Bohemia, will Austria demand that Bohemia annuls their alliance with the Ottomans so that they can attack Bohemia directly because they consider their provinces vital? I think that setting some AI logic to account for this would VASTLY improve the state of the AI so that it can make decisions on par with a player.
• 
  
• Also, considering how many times Austria fails to enforce the personal union on Bohemia, they should be given permanent claims to bypass this condition like England is with Scotland's provinces and Castille is with Neopolitan provinces.
• 
  
• I still feel that the requirements for the AI to form Russia could be easier to avoid destabilizing Eastern Europe and that the Ottomans need to get their claims on the levant sooner so that they can focus on the Mamluks, thus giving Austria and Poland some ability to acquire strength before the Ottomans inevitably start snowballing.

That's good news. Most recently I was playing a game in a war with Burgundy where Austria let them into the Empire, despite being literally at war with them, and Charles died and picked Austria, causing Austria to switch sides!

• I think this was partially caused by Burgundy improving relations which can give +100 plus. I tried to undo this by reducing opinion by -100, however, since AI often improves relations with several nations I don't think this favor is strong enough. I'd much rather pay 20 favors for -150 relations with a +12.0 yearly decay than its current -100 relations with +7.1 yearly decay. Unfortunately, it's just not enough to reduce AI relations enough to start a war if the AI is countering it by improving relations with your ally.
• 
  
• As a side note, I think having a check box for your diplomats to avoid improving relations with a specific country would be amazing considering I have to wait by insulting them occasionally.
• 
  
• I also think that the AI weights and values for these imperial incidences could be adjusted a bit. For instance, Austria really SHOULDN'T let Burgundy join the Empire if they are in a war with them or their relations are hostile. However, they SHOULD ignore the princes & electors more if relations are above +100 and/or your ally. The fact they can still reject you then is ridiculous.
• 
  
• I hope that this patch fixes the issue of France declaring a restoration of the union on Burgundy if they don't have the ability to win against all the Emperor's allies. Honestly, I still feel this is kinda broken since France doesn't have much of a chance, even if they call their allies since they're likely smaller nations. If it was more balanced and historically it would just be a war between France and Austria where neither can call allies and it can end in a scripted peace or one or the other winning.
• 
  
• To avoid this mess altogether I'd rather the AI be more willing to make concessions to the French as well and the electors and princes to favor this since they likely don't want the Emperor becoming too powerful either.

Speaking of Naval improvements, I thought of a number of uses for higher naval siege and maneuver pips, for instance:

• +2% chance to capture enemy ships per admiral siege pip (maneuver difference does this).
• +10% movement speed on and off ships per admiral maneuver pip
• 
  
• I also think that blockaded Straits should become crossable, with the percent blockaded affecting if armies can cross:
• 
  
• 6 maneuver general: blockaded straits ≤ 80% can be crossed.
• 5 maneuver general: blockaded straits ≤ 60% can be crossed.
• 4 maneuver general: blockaded straits ≤ 40% can be crossed.
• 3 maneuver general: blockaded straits ≤ 20% can be crossed.
• 2 maneuver general: no blockaded straits can be crossed.
• 1 maneuver general: no blockaded straits can be crossed.

This way a single ship can't block an entire strait, but you don't need 100% blockade efficiency to stop enemies from crossing either.



It's worth mentioning to this that Ireland quickly becomes a fort slog since all the OPMs will construct forts.


Overall, I'm really excited for these AI changes to take effect and I look forward to the next development diary. I think that you guys are doing a great job and I sincerely appreciate how you're taking suggestions from the community. Have a great day!

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

Edit: Sorry for such a long post, I just wanted to add two (three) final things:

1. I know that starting development has always been a contentious issue in the game, however, I think examining the map wholistically one more time might be helpful in making some nations stronger and larger than they are currently in the game. For instance, Korea's development is still abysmally low compared to historical records. Overall, adding a bit more development generally to the areas of South/Central America & Mainland South East Asia, especially since new provinces won't be added, would make things much more historically flavorful. For instance, Tenochtitlan should be a massive city with 25-27 total development rather than its current dismal 16 development. Furthermore, this would help the Aztecs create a semi-historical Aztec Empire before the Europeans arrive, also giving Korea more development would allow them to better defend themselves from China.

View attachment 862151

View attachment 862149

www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/lkat94/regions_by_average_development/

2. Next, I wanted to mention that in only one of the screenshots something resembling Brandenburg or Prussia exists by 1821. Since a flavor pack won't be made for Brandenburg, will there be a plan to buff them by giving them stronger modifiers, national ideas, or existing missions? I don't expect them to survive often, but it would be very cool to see a rare Brandenburg-Prussia from time to time.

3. Finally, I think that your rival giving the nation your fighting subsidies is one of the cool mechanics ever created in a game. Period.

I think that the AI should definitely be more willing to give subsidies to the nations you fighting, this could also be scaled to your aggressive expansion which helps make it another anti-blob/pre-coalition measure against other AIs and against the player to keep them from getting too strong and snowballing. Maybe, this should start as being scaled back, but past a certain technology or when it's affordable, you notice your rivals financially supporting your enemies? I think half or over half of all your wars should be partially funded by your rivals, even if they only pitch in 5 ducats a month from their Empires themselves.

That's all I wanted to add. Thank you.

If you don't obliterate them or block them, all of the colonial powers will establish themselves in the pacific - conquering into SEA and even China. They will routinely attack into india, and colonize and conquer africa.

Maybe you don't play into the 1700s?

 

[annulen]

Mainly from historical perspective native cultures are all but obliterated by European colonization, settlement, and conquest. By the end of the game's time period there should be very little native cultured provinces left.

Then we need a mechanical reason for this conversion to happen, not simply make AI convert just because it can,

 

[agonistes]

Honestly the ai SHOULD be keen to build a castle in its capital if it can reasonably afford to do so in all cases. If you look at all the modifiers to various things it is clear that having your capital occupied is far worse for you than any other province you own and should be avoided at all cost. Thus doing what you can to make taking it harder is clearly in your best interest. Intentionally making the ai dumber because people complain that it is making things harder/slower is bad design IMO.

100% agree. What we have here is whiner creep - the game gets ever easier because players are whining that its too hard to steamroll. 'Too many level 3 forts'. 'Zomg the Ottomans have a better army than me.' 'The natives keep bullying my colonies.' Every time the devs listen to this crap the game gets worse. Someone above even complained about being rivaled by his allies: 'its not fair!'

Now we have these bonkers mission trees that make a nation OP. How about a mission that doesn't give +50 discipline and cores on all of eastern europe?

How about trying to make the game challenging?

 

[Kubus12369_]

Devs, please change how coalition wars work. Now first who joined the coalition is leader, not the strongest one in terms of military score.

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

EDIT: Actually, one thing I probably can say is that we fixed a freeze (up to several minutes) when a huge war starts. Try to get 100+ countries into a coalition against you and you'll see what I mean. For the Computer Science minded, the complexity was O(N^5).

Does this only happen when the war actually starts or only when some coalition members consider starting the war?

I'm currently in a Portugal game in which I had several good opportunities to force PUs on reasonably sized to major powers (Great Britain, slightly blobby Denmark, Austria) in relatively quick succession, so half of Europe is in a coalition against me, as are most remaining north American Natives and parts of the middle east. In my last (unrelated) war against Shun I noticed several seconds-long lags which, at the time, I chalked up to my ageing computer, but now that I've read your comment, I could imagine that there were some coalition considerations going on in the background. There are not quite 100 countries in the coalition, but there may be 30 to 50.

 

[adin85]

100% agree. What we have here is whiner creep - the game gets ever easier because players are whining that its too hard to steamroll. 'Too many level 3 forts'. 'Zomg the Ottomans have a better army than me.' 'The natives keep bullying my colonies.' Every time the devs listen to this crap the game gets worse. Someone above even complained about being rivaled by his allies: 'its not fair!'

Now we have these bonkers mission trees that make a nation OP. How about a mission that doesn't give +50 discipline and cores on all of eastern europe?

How about trying to make the game challenging?

I remember Eu 2. In 20 years I had coalition from all countries of Europe and Asia. Good days.

 

[grotaclas]

Devs, please change how coalition wars work. Now first who joined the coalition is leader, not the strongest one in terms of military score.

Coalitions don't have a specific leader. Any member is equal and can start the coalition war. And whoever starts the coalition war becomes the warleader

 

[SealionFilm]

Will the AI changes fix the issue where allies just hang out in their own lands and not engage the enemy? This was a major problem in 1.33.

How do the AI changes interface with setting objectives for your allies? How does the AI balance following an objective you set for it with its own AI logic/desires?

 

[Rawme]

Can you guys fix the AI ally that suddenly rivals me when I need them?

It's annoying when I'm in need for them and they rival me for no reason.

They probably have no other rival choices other than you