AI still very unbalanced

[TitaniumMan91]

Not only is Circassia not worth the money, but it was never a protectorate. The real history is that the UK backed down specifically because it thought it needed a continental partner to take on Russia (yet Vicky 3 UK is basically the Galactic Empire out of Star Wars--completely out of place and time). In reality, the UK was secretly upset because the Ottomans and Russians were conspiring to shutdown the Dardanelles to the UK and French in response to their shenanigans in Egypt. It had nothing to do with Circassia, but instead had more to do with anti-Russian public sentiment that dissipated when the leaders realized what it would take to make Russia leave Circassia alone.

So it was, in fact, plausible enough in real history that it was explored and you're mad that it happens in some games?

Yeah, it was dumb in the real history so they passed, but there were lots of dumb things that escalated to empire shattering wars. Bismarck messing with the how he worded a public release about an exchange between Wilhelm I and a French ambassador managed to get both the French and Prussian public ready for war to avenge the perceived insult the other had given, and this was over some distant cousin maybe becoming the Spanish monarch but it's my understanding the prince had already declined.

 

[heliostellar]

So it was, in fact, plausible enough in real history that it was explored and you're mad that it happens in some games?

Yeah, it was dumb in the real history so they passed, but there were lots of dumb things that escalated to empire shattering wars. Bismarck messing with the how he worded a public release about an exchange between Wilhelm I and a French ambassador managed to get both the French and Prussian public ready for war to avenge the perceived insult the other had given, and this was over some distant cousin maybe becoming the Spanish monarch but it's my understanding the prince had already declined.

I'll let someone else answer who I completely agree with (emphasis added):

Maybe it could have an event, yeah, and if the UK backs down as they did historically it has some effect where they won't intervene. The thing is, though, the UK trying to protectorate Circassia in-game has nothing to do with what happened historically. They aren't doing it because Russia captured one of their ships, they do it because the AI is insane and wants to protectorate everything it can and it sees Circassia has no allies

 

[Manchura]

I'll let someone else answer who I completely agree with (emphasis added):

"The thing is, though, the UK trying to protectorate Circassia in-game has nothing to do with what happened historically. They aren't doing it because Russia captured one of their ships, they do it because the AI is insane and wants to protectorate everything it can and it sees Circassia has no allies"

no, Britain is doing it because it sees that Russia has a potential war goal in Circassia and knows it can dent russia if it gets involved there...

Britain's AI just sees the easiest way to get involved is to protectorate them when it weights how much it's already spending on other factors related to diplomacy and adds bonus value to the fact doing so would give them a permeant interest in a region Russia is actively working to grow in, using console commands to read a printout of it's logic can easily prove this...

 

[Secret Master]

The people and societal cost of war is just not something I worry about. A competent player can replace the lost lives through immigration and my political make-up is never seriously shook up by placing my people through the meat grinder of war.

I find that money is only a worry if you are punching up(e.g. Romania fighting Russia with equal army size but a fraction of the population) and risk bankruptcy.

This is why I said something about these are game mechanics issues, not AI issues.

While the game does have some impact from going to war politically (lobbies might be happy or sad about it), by and large, there's no such thing as being tired of war affecting your politics. You can forced to conclude peace via war exhaustion, but your POPs don't actually care.

Conversely, while lobbies care about who you attack (anti-French lobby loves wars with France), your POPs don't care about the reasons for a war or even what the goals are.

 

[Zhetone]

"The thing is, though, the UK trying to protectorate Circassia in-game has nothing to do with what happened historically. They aren't doing it because Russia captured one of their ships, they do it because the AI is insane and wants to protectorate everything it can and it sees Circassia has no allies"

no, Britain is doing it because it sees that Russia has a potential war goal in Circassia and knows it can dent russia if it gets involved there...

Britain's AI just sees the easiest way to get involved is to protectorate them when it weights how much it's already spending on other factors related to diplomacy and adds bonus value to the fact doing so would give them a permeant interest in a region Russia is actively working to grow in, using console commands to read a printout of it's logic can easily prove this...

This is very wrong, the AI does not run those calculations (and I'd say the burden is on you to show that it does since you are claiming it as justification for the gameplay)

Additionally, the UK will do this to Circassia while Russia has a truce with Circassia and cannot actually use any war goals on it. Russia starts with I think a 20 year truce with Circassia and the UK will try to protectorate them routinely prior to its expiration; so much for your explanation of why it occurs.

Additionally, even if that were the case it would be poor game design. Why should the AI be designed to basically attack anything you can before your'e able to? It makes no sense.

 

[Manchura]

This is very wrong, the AI does not run those calculations (and I'd say the burden is on you to show that it does since you are claiming it as justification for the gameplay)

nah, burden is on the side claiming AI has no reason to do what it's doing other than it being stupid, I'm only pointing out console can be used to print out what it's doing and see why it's thinking about doing the thing specifically

Additionally, the UK will do this to Circassia while Russia has a truce with Circassia and cannot actually use any war goals on it. Russia starts with I think a 20 year truce with Circassia and the UK will try to protectorate them routinely prior to its expiration; so much for your explanation of why it occurs.

the British AI just wants to find a way to screw over Russia as it sees them as a near peer rival it should fight with to take down a peg, it does not care what truces or treaties Russia has so long as it can damage their ambitions and since russia has direct claims on those states, it makes them a prime target for early British aggression in much the same way any nation that ends up rivaling the US and sees them as a near peer will work to try and peal stuff off of Mexico if they are hostile or neutral with each other, or side with them after getting interests in regions you are going to be involved in while going for manifest destiny

Additionally, even if that were the case it would be poor game design. Why should the AI be designed to basically attack anything you can before your'e able to? It makes no sense.

if you consider this to be poor game design then you, the player, also using this kind of BS to jape things in weird ways from other nations should be made impossible, but we all know you'd riot if you couldn't screw over Britain as Russia by liberating Yue after the British opium war to make Hong Kong pointless just because Britain has a treaty that prevents them from going after china again

 

[Zhetone]

Yes, players have different motivations than AI and should. The AI exists to create a sensible sandbox for the player and should play by expected rules. Defending the way the UK AI acts in this game at this point is ridiculous when it is clearly overtuned

 

[Manchura]

Yes, players have different motivations than AI and should. The AI exists to create a sensible sandbox for the player and should play by expected rules. Defending the way the UK AI acts in this game at this point is ridiculous when it is clearly overtuned

no, you just hate having to fight the UK as Russia and are trying to justify changing the AI core so drastically that the UK wont ever decide to do anything to you as it sits like a lump on a log while ignoring any counterpoint of relevance or identifying how the general arguments of the "change the AI" side are, in fact, not related to it being overtuned and instead just general priority jank due to the war system and associated AI choices being a prototype of a functioning economics sim military system

 

[heliostellar]

no, you just hate having to fight the UK as Russia and are trying to justify BLAH BLAH BLAH

Again... from Victoria 3's own tin:

"Rather than paint the map of the world, you write the book of your nation. But you are an actor on a global stage, racing other nations up the mountain of prestige. In Victoria 3, anything achievable by war, can also be done by diplomacy. Use pacts, alliances, threats and bluffs to claim your place in the sun."

When do the "bluffs" happen? Because the AI never bluffs...

Also, please explain to me when the UK threatened to end slavery in the United States (literally it's source of cotton for its industrial machine) and proceeded to occupy everything south of Canada when South Carolina said no?

Why is the UK a military menace in such a game?

 

[Ilyasviel]

Again... from Victoria 3's own tin:

"Rather than paint the map of the world, you write the book of your nation. But you are an actor on a global stage, racing other nations up the mountain of prestige. In Victoria 3, anything achievable by war, can also be done by diplomacy. Use pacts, alliances, threats and bluffs to claim your place in the sun."

When do the "bluffs" happen? Because the AI never bluffs...

Also, please explain to me when the UK threatened to end slavery in the United States (literally it's source of cotton for its industrial machine) and proceeded to occupy everything south of Canada when South Carolina said no?

Why is the UK a military menace in such a game?

Because the UK is rich, and because they have a ton of puppets, and because the AI in general is willing to spend years and millions of men on any conflict. The rate of aggression of the UK isn't that far from what it was historically, but the amount of efforts they're actually willing to put into those wars is way overtuned, and that's what makes fighting them so annoying. It wouldn't be so bad if at the very least they couldn't bring the entirety of the commonwealth in total war every time. I think that making it so that colonies are limited in the amount of battalions they can send abroad would make a huge difference in making the game less annoying to play.

 

[heliostellar]

Because the UK is rich, and because they have a ton of puppets, and because the AI in general is willing to spend years and millions of men on any conflict. The rate of aggression of the UK isn't that far from what it was historically, but the amount of efforts they're actually willing to put into those wars is way overtuned, and that's what makes fighting them so annoying. It wouldn't be so bad if at the very least they couldn't bring the entirety of the commonwealth in total war every time. I think that making it so that colonies are limited in the amount of battalions they can send abroad would make a huge difference in making the game less annoying to play.

Or make it much more expensive to move armies over large distances...

Gallipoli in 1915 is traditionally considered the first EVER amphibious attack and it was a spectacular failure by the UK that ruined Winston Churchill's early career.

"Fought during the First World War (1914-18) from 25 April 1915 to 9 January 1916, Gallipoli was the first major amphibious operation in modern warfare. British Empire and French troops landed on the Ottoman-held peninsula in the Dardanelles Straits with disastrous consequences for the Allies."

Gallipoli campaign | National Army Museum

Gallipoli was the first major amphibious operation in modern warfare. In 1915, British Empire and French troops landed on the Ottoman-held peninsula in the Dardanelles Straits with disastrous consequences for the Allies.

www.nam.ac.uk

 

[Zhetone]

Because the UK is rich, and because they have a ton of puppets, and because the AI in general is willing to spend years and millions of men on any conflict. The rate of aggression of the UK isn't that far from what it was historically, but the amount of efforts they're actually willing to put into those wars is way overtuned, and that's what makes fighting them so annoying. It wouldn't be so bad if at the very least they couldn't bring the entirety of the commonwealth in total war every time. I think that making it so that colonies are limited in the amount of battalions they can send abroad would make a huge difference in making the game less annoying to play.

If anything the biggest issue though is who they target, most UK conflicts in this period were in Asia and Africa and were not against European powers. Yet they constantly project force in Europe and the Americas instead, I assume because there are more lucrative and larger targets and they face no opposition essentially in taking on those targets when they ought to. They should have far less force to push around, their armies should be much smaller than they are.

 

[Manchura]

Again... from Victoria 3's own tin:

*unrelated store text because I have had no real argument for 10 comments and need to keep deflecting to nonsense to seem like I have basic player sense*

Also, please explain to me when the UK threatened to end slavery in the United States (literally it's source of cotton for its industrial machine) and proceeded to occupy everything south of Canada when South Carolina said no?

Why is the UK a military menace in such a game?

2 can play the edit game, and your questions were answered repeatedly before because people kept rewording the question to try and get a gotcha moment but sure, we will continue with this disengeious game you play:

the AI tries to use all of it's maneuvers during a play and you only have like 3 things you can do being: take states, demand reparations, and liberate/protectorate nations, the AI will actively go after near peer targets it has hostility towards or will target nations in the regions those powers have deemed strategically important for themselves to limit those rivals, players are treated far worse than AI in terms of infamy because AI will downgrade diplomatic levels with players over 25 infamy but dont do that with other AI until 75 infamy leading britian in particular to never be hated or opposed by large coalitions, and the AI's priorities are based on self serving mechanics so it'll calculate the quickest way to own whatever it needs and MAPI makes conquest the only viable way for it to do what it wants

 

[heliostellar]

2 can play the edit game, and your questions were answered repeatedly before because people kept rewording the question to try and get a gotcha moment but sure, we will continue with this disengeious game you play:

the AI tries to use all of it's maneuvers during a play and you only have like 3 things you can do being: take states, demand reparations, and liberate/protectorate nations, the AI will actively go after near peer targets it has hostility towards or will target nations in the regions those powers have deemed strategically important for themselves to limit those rivals, players are treated far worse than AI in terms of infamy because AI will downgrade diplomatic levels with players over 25 infamy but dont do that with other AI until 75 infamy leading britian in particular to never be hated or opposed by large coalitions, and the AI's priorities are based on self serving mechanics so it'll calculate the quickest way to own whatever it needs and MAPI makes conquest the only viable way for it to do what it wants

I collapsed two posts into one with that edit. Not sure what the gotcha moment is, since I didn't reword anything.

Your arguments simply do not make sense. You basically keep saying that the AI acts realistically because you personally are able to dream up some imaginary head cannon for an absolutely bonkers scenario. So, you have head cannon for something off-the-wall, ergo the game is well-designed?