AI still very unbalanced

[heliostellar]

Completely true that this is ridiculous from a historical perspective and I really hope we eventually get a system that doesn't demand that the UK field XCOM paratroopers to get trade port concessions off of China. Also treaty port/protectorate goals should be much more common and conquest should be much less common

From a gameplay perspective this is a skill issue. The UK is survivable as Persia from pretty early in the game and Russia is way, way stronger. Mobilize some soldiers and defend your allies your country is kitted to be able to do it extremely easily from the start of the game. Even AI China can do naval defense against the UK once the opium war debuffs wear off which is why the UK AI always attacks them early

Also I'd strongly disagree with any desire to tune down the UK AI. You can already turn down AI aggressiveness and the difficulty if the current setup is too much for you but you'll probably have more fun beating them down for Circassia and those Persian provinces later than you would if they hadn't taken them

I'd disagree that this is a skills issue when the outcomes are at odds with how Paradox describes its own game:

"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."

It seems to me that the AI is more interested in painting the map and doing irrational things than in "racing up the mountain of prestige."

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

I know the masochist fanboys will say that they love the "challenge," even though it demands you use completely anachronistic strategies to win

Interesting, cherry picked point... to a side comment.

How does this justify the UK simultaneously invading Persia and Qing?

How does this justify a fullscale invasion of the United States to get it to ban slavery (and kneecap its own economy)? How does that justify any of the myriad of innane things that AI UK is doing?

You say cherry picked but in none of the games i played recently do the British actually have land in Persia. We would need more info about your settings and you would need to play a number of games and log who gets attacked and what gets taken to actually get a good overview on what the statistical outcomes will be of the amount of randomness that perhaps seems tolerable. Just picking out one of your games isnt much to go by.

Even then, i really dont see an issue with it if Britain invades Persia and grabs some land there providing it doesnt happen often statistically. They did manage to take almost all of India even before game start, they brought down country's like Burma in this timeframe, Persia seems an equally valid direction of expansion in an alternative history scenario i would think.

This game still covers the eheight of the imperialistic era, in this game's timeframe the number of independent country's existing in the world was sharply reduced, perhaps there were never fewer country's in the world than at the advent of ww1. So that there is some serious imperialism going on ... thats fine imho, even in a alt history fashion.

i'm more symphatetic to the idea that the focus of aggression should be far more on Africa and Asia than Latin American and Europe, all of Africa and Asia is potentially a valid colony to me even if chunks of China are taken. A sole exception might be made for Japan or atleast i would prefer Japan to become a modernized and ambitious Japan by late game in roughly 2/3rds of my games, but then if japan is made a colony or protectorate in 1/5th of my games i wouldn't necessarily take issue with it.

 

[Secret Master]

How does this justify the UK simultaneously invading Persia and Qing?

Looks to me like Britain is doing just fine attacking Qing and Persia at the same time. Both are valid targets for Britain to throw their weight around in the period. Britain was in an armed conflict with each country at various times in the period covered by Vic3.

Hell, attacking Persia and Qing is a better example of British imperialism than your first example. Britain backed down historically from a conflict with Russia over that tiny state near the Black Sea, but Britain did actually engage in armed fighting with China and Persia.

If Britain was losing these conflicts, I'd question the AI. But if its got the strength and capability to do it, I don't see the problem.

Again, it's not the AI's fault that game mechanics allow these kinds of amphibious shenanigans. Perhaps amphibious invasions need multiple technologies that impact their feasibility. HOI4 does something like this with multiple techs required to launch gigantic invasions (and Mulberrys). Right now, either you have a penalty to amphibious attacks, or you don't. As long as you have a big fleet (which Britain most certainly does), you can send hundreds of battalions to fight overseas.

 

[Zhetone]

Completely true that this is ridiculous from a historical perspective and I really hope we eventually get a system that doesn't demand that the UK field XCOM paratroopers to get trade port concessions off of China. Also treaty port/protectorate goals should be much more common and conquest should be much less common

From a gameplay perspective this is a skill issue. The UK is survivable as Persia from pretty early in the game and Russia is way, way stronger. Mobilize some soldiers and defend your allies your country is kitted to be able to do it extremely easily from the start of the game. Even AI China can do naval defense against the UK once the opium war debuffs wear off which is why the UK AI always attacks them early

Also I'd strongly disagree with any desire to tune down the UK AI. You can already turn down AI aggressiveness and the difficulty if the current setup is too much for you but you'll probably have more fun beating them down for Circassia and those Persian provinces later than you would if they hadn't taken them

You're free to enjoy the current UK AI, but some people in fact have issues with the UK annexing parts of Spain, large parts of China, all of Southeast Asia, and puppeting half of South America simply because the other countries in the game aren't nearly able to compete. But this is another issue where people default to "skill issue" as if the player's role in the game is to play world police and dedicate their playthrough to stopping the UK as the "big bad boss" of the game rather than the game actually functioning properly.

 

[Manchura]

You're free to enjoy the current UK AI, but some people in fact have issues with the UK annexing parts of Spain, large parts of China, all of Southeast Asia, and puppeting half of South America simply because the other countries in the game aren't nearly able to compete. But this is another issue where people default to "skill issue" as if the player's role in the game is to play world police and dedicate their playthrough to stopping the UK as the "big bad boss" of the game rather than the game actually functioning properly.

Britain never goes for south America unless one of it's rivals starts acting up there or the player blocked them from african and asian expansion and is far more likely to get involved in central america via it's bloc

I've never seen Britain do more than demand Guiana from the Netherlands if DEI and BIC get into a fight or if they get dragged into a fight with France when I don't immediate strangle their ability to expand into the plantation/rubber rich regions african and SEA so this is a blatant cherry pick where you use your own interference as a reference for why the AI does something abnormal

 

[Bisonmask]

I'd disagree that this is a skills issue when the outcomes are at odds with how Paradox describes its own game:

"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."

It seems to me that the AI is more interested in painting the map and doing irrational things than in "racing up the mountain of prestige."

Sure which is why I said the AI should be more interested in treaty poets, protectorates, etc. we're getting more unequal treaties in the new update which should make this problem less serious

As for your gameplay, part of maintaining your prestige is maintaining a competitive military and navy. You should be able to defend Persia very easily in this situation

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

5 random games on average agression, some test games among them where im just fooling around, lets see what the Uk has been up to in those 5 random games

game 1:

1906 Uk has:
-protectorates: buton, honduras, Jammu&kashmir, Kutai, Mascara, Portugal
-puppets: denmark, gaza, morocco, mosquito kingdom, sierra leone, trucial states
-dominion: Canada
-the usual colony's
-small bits of land held in Persia and China

Game 2:

1889 Uk has:
-Protectorates: Circasia, Hawai
-puppets: malidives, mosquito Kingdom, Oyo, Sierra leone, trucial states
-the usual colony's
-some land in Persia, none of special note in China

Game 3:

1887 Uk has:
-protectorates: bahrain, cambodia, Herat, Kabul, Khalsa raj, Perak, Selangor
-puppets: Dai Nam, kutai, Lahej, Maldives, Mosquito kingdom, Sierra leone, Sulu, Trucial states, Warsangli
-dominion Australia
-the usual colony's
-No land of note in Persia or China

Game 4:

1883 Uk has:
-protectorates: Bahrain, Futa jalon, gaza, Kutai, merina kingdom, oyo, Sindh
-puppet: Benin, ionian island,s Mosquito Kingdom, Nejd, Sierra Leone, Trucial States
-The usual colony's
-A little bit of land in persia taken from Oman, none of note in China

game 5:

1931 Uk has:
-protectorate: Shan states, morocco, Touggourt
-puppet: Aceh, Buton, Cambodia, Champassak, Chain Mai, Gaza, Jammu&kashmir, Kalat, Luang prabang, Makran, maldives, Mascara, Miskitia, Perak, Siam, Siera leone
-Dominion: Canada
-the usual colony's, as usual
-Small bits held in Persia taken from Oman, owns a southern province of China connected to its vietnam&Burma possesions.


Just based on the statistics one would draw out of these five games, though granted its not much of a poppulation to work by, the experience of the OP should be a statistical oddity. He mentions the UK and taking Circassia as a puppet, AND invading Persia and China to grab a lot of land. In my games it clearly seldomly happens that the Uk takes much if any land in Persia or China, and the Uk puppeting Circasia also happened in but 1 of 5 games. Most games here seem fairly reasonable for a "alt history" scenario imho, it's more notable that in game 1 the Uk had puppeted both Portugal and Denmark but then that was not unchallenged by its neighbouring GP's as Germany was occupying Denmark and Spain was occupying Portugal.

So i feel the OP's game does not represent the norm to nesecarily base criticism from. By itself i dont even have so much an issue that the Uk would do some landgrabbing in Persia or China, idk about Circassia but it hasnt happened often in my games that the Uk did that.

 

[heliostellar]

Sure which is why I said the AI should be more interested in treaty poets, protectorates, etc. we're getting more unequal treaties in the new update which should make this problem less serious

As for your gameplay, part of maintaining your prestige is maintaining a competitive military and navy. You should be able to defend Persia very easily in this situation

We are not talking about the same thing at all. I am not personally playing each of these nations that the UK is doing this to. Specifically, I was not playing Persia... that was the AI. You and several others seem to be intentionally obtuse just to defend the status quo.

The issue is that this game doesn't even behave the way it markets itself. It's actually all military, all the time. There is nothing achievable by diplomacy that you shouldn't just go to war to solve. That's the diplomacy game in a nutshell. The UK should abandon many of its innane plays that make no actual sense in the real world. Such as invading the United States... that was in my Canada game where I was very slowly waiting to be able to form the Confederation. Bam, next thing I know we're invading the South.

5 random games on average agression, some test games among them where im just fooling around, lets see what the Uk has been up to in those 5 random games

game 1:
View attachment 1282453

1906 Uk has:
-protectorates: buton, honduras, Jammu&kashmir, Kutai, Mascara, Portugal
-puppets: denmark, gaza, morocco, mosquito kingdom, sierra leone, trucial states
-dominion: Canada
-the usual colony's
-small bits of land held in Persia and China

Game 2:
View attachment 1282454

1889 Uk has:
-Protectorates: Circasia, Hawai
-puppets: malidives, mosquito Kingdom, Oyo, Sierra leone, trucial states
-the usual colony's
-some land in Persia, none of special note in China

Game 3:
View attachment 1282455

1887 Uk has:
-protectorates: bahrain, cambodia, Herat, Kabul, Khalsa raj, Perak, Selangor
-puppets: Dai Nam, kutai, Lahej, Maldives, Mosquito kingdom, Sierra leone, Sulu, Trucial states, Warsangli
-dominion Australia
-the usual colony's
-No land of note in Persia or China

Game 4:
View attachment 1282456

1883 Uk has:
-protectorates: Bahrain, Futa jalon, gaza, Kutai, merina kingdom, oyo, Sindh
-puppet: Benin, ionian island,s Mosquito Kingdom, Nejd, Sierra Leone, Trucial States
-The usual colony's
-A little bit of land in persia taken from Oman, none of note in China

game 5:
View attachment 1282458

1931 Uk has:
-protectorate: Shan states, morocco, Touggourt
-puppet: Aceh, Buton, Cambodia, Champassak, Chain Mai, Gaza, Jammu&kashmir, Kalat, Luang prabang, Makran, maldives, Mascara, Miskitia, Perak, Siam, Siera leone
-Dominion: Canada
-the usual colony's, as usual
-Small bits held in Persia taken from Oman, owns a southern province of China connected to its vietnam&Burma possesions.


Just based on the statistics one would draw out of these five games, though granted its not much of a poppulation to work by, the experience of the OP should be a statistical oddity. He mentions the UK and taking Circassia as a puppet, AND invading Persia and China to grab a lot of land. In my games it clearly seldomly happens that the Uk takes much if any land in Persia or China, and the Uk puppeting Circasia also happened in but 1 of 5 games. Most games here seem fairly reasonable for a "alt history" scenario imho, it's more notable that in game 1 the Uk had puppeted both Portugal and Denmark but then that was not unchallenged by its neighbouring GP's as Germany was occupying Denmark and Spain was occupying Portugal.

So i feel the OP's game does not represent the norm to nesecarily base criticism from. By itself i dont even have so much an issue that the Uk would do some landgrabbing in Persia or China, idk about Circassia but it hasnt happened often in my games that the Uk did that.

So, 5 games is a "statistical sample" just because you don't like the results I reported? You failed to share a log of what transpired during the game just the end result...

 

[47pik]

I really don’t have that much issue with the AI, especially compared to something like CK3. I think Vic is more limited by systems - the AI does dumb things because the mechanics to support them doing smart things aren’t there. They underproduce goods, for instance, because of the limitations of trade in the current patch, preventing them from getting accurate price signals. Similarly they handle naval and military bad because those systems are kind of janky.

Obviously I’d like the AI to be better, but I think it’s in a decent place, I think the game just needs its mechanical overhauls we’re all waiting for (trade, logistics, diplomacy, navies)

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

So, 5 games is a "statistical sample" just because you don't like the results I reported? You failed to share a log of what transpired during the game just the end result...

Ultimatly, if we ask ourself the question if the UK AI is "too agressive", then the only correct way we could analyse it is to look at many different games and draw statistics from it. It's a bit rich that you denounce that method withought looking to your own methods, lest to speak about the "personal" way you then also take it. You cherrypicked a situation to which we have from experience every reason to consider that it is not a common occurrence, and its not like you have given us any solid argument as to why that would be everything but very uncommon.I dont have the burden of proof for regards what you claims, you have! But you have made extremely lazy hyperbolic arguments all over this thread that you backed up with few substance to it. You would expect of me that i that i "also make logs", and if i do that maybe afterwards you move the goalpost a bit further as to when i can prove a point, meanwhile its not like you have been collecting such data, you didnt add any logs of your game afterall.

There is nothing achievable by diplomacy that you shouldn't just go to war to solve. That's the diplomacy game in a nutshell.

Nonsense, total hyperbolic nonsense. When i'm playing a foreign investment game as Switzerland i'm not going to invade France if i can get a free trade agreement and investment rights fairly easily trough diplomacy. When there is some threat to my existance ill likely seek a strong ally to protect me. Diplomacy has its function, and you make hyperbolic claims that make no sense and which you will never "prove".

And then there is your openly expressed disdain for "the people" who give a countering argument

I know the masochist fanboys will say that they love the "challenge," even though it demands you use completely anachronistic strategies to win

You and several others seem to be intentionally obtuse just to defend the status quo.

just because you don't like the results I reported?

You are also turning to "ad hominem arguments", suddently its not about the arguments people make anymore but the people itself, trough a claim of a supposed "polarized and irrational stance they take", where you can imply that they choose to be blind to rationalism out of personal preference. You are using some very bad rhetorical devices here. We can hence expect that you will try denouncing people that counter your arguments as people who are not debating from a rational but personal stance. But you afcourse, you are surely only debating from a rational pov right? And its because you are arguing from a rational POV that you have issue with the rational way i collect my data and come to imply that i do so because "i dont like your results"? is it not evident by your reaction that YOU dont like MY results???

If you want to prove a point and do it well, you might want to do it as proper as you possibly can. Collect all the data that you can and perhaps others won't be able to "deny" it, but when you make bold claims and dismiss good counter arguments if need be with ad hominem reflections of "worth in debate" then your not doing what it takes to have your point proven your trying to manipulate the discussion with fallacious rhetorical techniques and its insulting to people. Like whatever was the function of you denoting part of the fanbase as "masochists fanboys", is it not to imply that the feedback of certian people could be then dismissed as such people have no rational point but one you can denounce as masochist? And surely you also have the psychological research at hand that reveals the % of masochists among the Victoria 3 forum population right???

 

[Amina144]

Problem is AI mobilizes EVERYTHING, and bankrupts itself, then has a civil war. Then it repeats same cycle multiple times throughout the game.

 

[heliostellar]

Ultimatly, if we ask ourself the question if the UK AI is "too agressive", then the only correct way we could analyse it is to look at many different games and draw statistics from it. It's a bit rich that you denounce that method withought looking to your own methods, lest to speak about the "personal" way you then also take it. You cherrypicked a situation to which we have from experience every reason to consider that it is not a common occurrence, and its not like you have given us any solid argument as to why that would be everything but very uncommon.I dont have the burden of proof for regards what you claims, you have! But you have made extremely lazy hyperbolic arguments all over this thread that you backed up with few substance to it. You would expect of me that i that i "also make logs", and if i do that maybe afterwards you move the goalpost a bit further as to when i can prove a point, meanwhile its not like you have been collecting such data, you didnt add any logs of your game afterall.



Nonsense, total hyperbolic nonsense. When i'm playing a foreign investment game as Switzerland i'm not going to invade France if i can get a free trade agreement and investment rights fairly easily trough diplomacy. When there is some threat to my existance ill likely seek a strong ally to protect me. Diplomacy has its function, and you make hyperbolic claims that make no sense and which you will never "prove".

And then there is your openly expressed disdain for "the people" who give a countering argument







You are also turning to "ad hominem arguments", suddently its not about the arguments people make anymore but the people itself, trough a claim of a supposed "polarized and irrational stance they take", where you can imply that they choose to be blind to rationalism out of personal preference. You are using some very bad rhetorical devices here. We can hence expect that you will try denouncing people that counter your arguments as people who are not debating from a rational but personal stance. But you afcourse, you are surely only debating from a rational pov right? And its because you are arguing from a rational POV that you have issue with the rational way i collect my data and come to imply that i do so because "i dont like your results"? is it not evident by your reaction that YOU dont like MY results???

If you want to prove a point and do it well, you might want to do it as proper as you possibly can. Collect all the data that you can and perhaps others won't be able to "deny" it, but when you make bold claims and dismiss good counter arguments if need be with ad hominem reflections of "worth in debate" then your not doing what it takes to have your point proven your trying to manipulate the discussion with fallacious rhetorical techniques and its insulting to people. Like whatever was the function of you denoting part of the fanbase as "masochists fanboys", is it not to imply that the feedback of certian people could be then dismissed as such people have no rational point but one you can denounce as masochist? And surely you also have the psychological research at hand that reveals the % of masochists among the Victoria 3 forum population right???

This is why the game will continue to have Mixed ratings. Every time there is criticism of the game, people are tripping over themselves to defend "the challenge" even when the entire situation is so obviously ridiculous. The game cannot even do what it says on the tin.

I am genuinely interested in how many global, D-Day style invasions the UK accomplished in each of your games. How many times did it anachronistically invade other European powers all by itself?

 

[heliostellar]

Problem is AI mobilizes EVERYTHING, and bankrupts itself, then has a civil war. Then it repeats same cycle multiple times throughout the game.

Precisely... I suspect this is what happened ad naseum in each of the games @TheFlemishDuck is showing us.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

This is why the game will continue to have Mixed ratings. Every time there is criticism of the game, people are tripping over themselves to defend "the challenge" even when the entire situation is so obviously ridiculous.

You cannot excuse all the drama you make on a notion that those who don't accept it are "blind fanboys", thats just insulting to be fair and reveals a disdain for the fanbase. The reality is that many people here are either overall positive of the game with reservations attached or of an opinion that the game needs a few more things to be "great enough", its not the kind of hyperbole that you run around with where we either accept your very negative outlook or be otherwise accused of having a too rosy view of it.

 

[kingsword]

The main problem is that UK starts with a massive industry base that can actually make investments and convert its peasants while no other AI countries can reach a similar point before 1900s. They are also way behind in tech always. They cannot build up their navies or armies to actually challenge UK. I often see them taking sides against it but it's an uphill battle. And this will only get worse in 1.9 because lack of supply will have teeth and no other AI can challenge British navy from destroying their supply lines and none can threaten theirs.

By 1900s Britain can still manage 250+ ships while its closest contender maybe has 75. They'll keep getting wrecked because AI cannot industrialize unless it has a big starting capitalist base and only UK has that.

 

[Secret Master]

It's actually all military, all the time. There is nothing achievable by diplomacy that you shouldn't just go to war to solve.

I use diplomacy to solve issues all the time.

To be perfectly frank, I consider a solid strategy for diplomacy to be crucial for the European GPs to get anything done via war in the early game.

Let's use my favorite example: the starting situation for Austria.

Problems Austria faces at game start:

Prussia is going to become hostile soon, and Prussia will have a military advantage in army quality.
France is not on the best of terms with Austria, and would love to scheme against Austria in Italy, southern Germany, and Switzerland.
The Ottomans aren't a threat, but letting Russia have the entire Ottoman Empire is a stupid play to make.
We know the crisis in Egypt will happen soon; it's scripted, so we need to plan for that.
Britain is ambivalent to Austrian interests.

What's the solution to Austria's problems?
Well, the answer is to have Metternich possessed by the spirit of Otto von Bismark and form an alliance with Russia. Do whatever it takes to accomplish this. Spend influence, offer them what they want in plays, and so on.

Secondary objective, improve relations with France. Wait for British diplomatic fumbles and pull France into the Austrian alliance system. If required, let them snag some minors in Italy as long as we get something out of it. However, don't let them turn any part of Germany into subjects. Italy---> okay. Germany----> not okay.

Ideal outcome:

By 1855, Austria should have a solid alliance set up with Russia and France. This alliance system should result in Austria being able to smack the Ottomans around without a problem. Just invite Russia in for war goals she wants and partition the Ottomans every 5-10 years. With France allied, make moves for colonial possessions in Africa or Asia. Invite France to join you against China if you want. Hell, invite both France and Russia to attack China, and then send a mocking note to 10 Downing Street letting Britain know that their puny Opium Wars are pointless and stupid compared to Metternich Alliance Stronk carving up Qing.

Oh, and Prussia? Good luck unifying Germany with France and Russia by my side.

Bonus points: I don't have to expand Austria's army for the first 20 years of the game. Why bother when I have such good friends who will fight alongside me?

It's almost like Europe's a concert, and I'm the maestro.

I really don’t have that much issue with the AI, especially compared to something like CK3. I think Vic is more limited by systems - the AI does dumb things because the mechanics to support them doing smart things aren’t there.

As I've also said. There are systems here that cause the problems the OP has identified, not AI behavior as such.

Problem is AI mobilizes EVERYTHING, and bankrupts itself, then has a civil war. Then it repeats same cycle multiple times throughout the game.

This is an AI skill issue that stems from mechanics.

Mechanically, since war goals are limited, there's no reason not to just go all-in for wars. Every war has to turn into the Crimean War even when the goals are more limited. But if the AI didn't do this while humans did, the game would be a cake walk. So, it looks like the AI is designed to sacrifice long term potential for trying to win right now, with the result that it kills itself.

Every time there is criticism of the game, people are tripping over themselves to defend "the challenge" even when the entire situation is so obviously ridiculous. The game cannot even do what it says on the tin.

If Britain is opposing you in plays and you don't like it, take the appropriate actions to reduce Britain's capability or interest in doing so. If Britain is bullying minors you don't want them to bully, invest in protecting them via diplomacy. (Or leave them to their fate if they act stupid on their own) If you don't like the alliance system in place in Europe spend the influence to change it, cut deals with GPs to change it, or undermine it some other way.

As I've made clear, the mechanics are too lenient on amphibious invasions. But that's not an AI issue as you keep trying to articulate. The AI's behavior makes sense in the context of easy amphibious invasions. In fact, I can fully understand the AI's behavior and see why it's picking the targets it picks in your examples. If I wanted to oppose Russia, I'd consider turning Circassia into a protectorate if I thought that would work better than backing the Ottomans or some other approach. And how many times have I invaded China in Vic3 to grab land? In fact, why wouldn't you do so with current mechanics?

 

[ENFP]

I use diplomacy to solve issues all the time.

To be perfectly frank, I consider a solid strategy for diplomacy to be crucial for the European GPs to get anything done via war in the early game.

Let's use my favorite example: the starting situation for Austria.

Problems Austria faces at game start:

Prussia is going to become hostile soon, and Prussia will have a military advantage in army quality.
France is not on the best of terms with Austria, and would love to scheme against Austria in Italy, southern Germany, and Switzerland.
The Ottomans aren't a threat, but letting Russia have the entire Ottoman Empire is a stupid play to make.
We know the crisis in Egypt will happen soon; it's scripted, so we need to plan for that.
Britain is ambivalent to Austrian interests.

What's the solution to Austria's problems?
Well, the answer is to have Metternich possessed by the spirit of Otto von Bismark and form an alliance with Russia. Do whatever it takes to accomplish this. Spend influence, offer them what they want in plays, and so on.

Secondary objective, improve relations with France. Wait for British diplomatic fumbles and pull France into the Austrian alliance system. If required, let them snag some minors in Italy as long as we get something out of it. However, don't let them turn any part of Germany into subjects. Italy---> okay. Germany----> not okay.

Ideal outcome:

By 1855, Austria should have a solid alliance set up with Russia and France. This alliance system should result in Austria being able to smack the Ottomans around without a problem. Just invite Russia in for war goals she wants and partition the Ottomans every 5-10 years. With France allied, make moves for colonial possessions in Africa or Asia. Invite France to join you against China if you want. Hell, invite both France and Russia to attack China, and then send a mocking note to 10 Downing Street letting Britain know that their puny Opium Wars are pointless and stupid compared to Metternich Alliance Stronk carving up Qing.

Oh, and Prussia? Good luck unifying Germany with France and Russia by my side.

Bonus points: I don't have to expand Austria's army for the first 20 years of the game. Why bother when I have such good friends who will fight alongside me?

It's almost like Europe's a concert, and I'm the maestro.

View attachment 1282905



As I've also said. There are systems here that cause the problems the OP has identified, not AI behavior as such.



This is an AI skill issue that stems from mechanics.

Mechanically, since war goals are limited, there's no reason not to just go all-in for wars. Every war has to turn into the Crimean War even when the goals are more limited. But if the AI didn't do this while humans did, the game would be a cake walk. So, it looks like the AI is designed to sacrifice long term potential for trying to win right now, with the result that it kills itself.




If Britain is opposing you in plays and you don't like it, take the appropriate actions to reduce Britain's capability or interest in doing so. If Britain is bullying minors you don't want them to bully, invest in protecting them via diplomacy. (Or leave them to their fate if they act stupid on their own) If you don't like the alliance system in place in Europe spend the influence to change it, cut deals with GPs to change it, or undermine it some other way.

As I've made clear, the mechanics are too lenient on amphibious invasions. But that's not an AI issue as you keep trying to articulate. The AI's behavior makes sense in the context of easy amphibious invasions. In fact, I can fully understand the AI's behavior and see why it's picking the targets it picks in your examples. If I wanted to oppose Russia, I'd consider turning Circassia into a protectorate if I thought that would work better than backing the Ottomans or some other approach. And how many times have I invaded China in Vic3 to grab land? In fact, why wouldn't you do so with current mechanics?

View attachment 1282907

While this point has been repeated elsewhere, we and the AI definitely need some sort of war escalation mechanic tied into the political system. It would be really cool if in order to mobilize more of my forces for distant wars, I had to wrangle it out of IGs and characters in my nation who might be opposed to it. Imagine how cool it would be it there was a real tangible difference between how a nation with the Intelligentsia in power fought wars compared to one with the Armed Forces dominating government. I would really like to see IGs and their ideologies matter more in general. Shouldn't declaring and waging wars have huge effects on my government depending on who the target is?

I'm reminded of Conclave in CK2 and how certain council members would get angry if you fought certain types of wars--man I sure wish we had more mechanics like that in not just Victoria 3, but other PDX games.

 

[heliostellar]

You cannot excuse all the drama you make

Who's using ad hominem now?

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

While this point has been repeated elsewhere, we and the AI definitely need some sort of war escalation mechanic tied into the political system. It would be really cool if in order to mobilize more of my forces for distant wars, I had to wrangle it out of IGs and characters in my nation who might be opposed to it. Imagine how cool it would be it there was a real tangible difference between how a nation with the Intelligentsia in power fought wars compared to one with the Armed Forces dominating government. I would really like to see IGs and their ideologies matter more in general. Shouldn't declaring and waging wars have huge effects on my government depending on who the target is?

I'm reminded of Conclave in CK2 and how certain council members would get angry if you fought certain types of wars--man I sure wish we had more mechanics like that in not just Victoria 3, but other PDX games.

Well perhaps, although the historical examples of such a thing dont spring to mind right away, indeed there were rather occasions in this time period where IG's kinda forced the government to war, kinda opposite to what your describing, like when the Qing found themselves pushed to war by the Boxers, its kinda like an IG of your warring several nations by its own.

Not that i disagree nessecarily, i'm just trying to find examples.

 

[Bisonmask]

We are not talking about the same thing at all. I am not personally playing each of these nations that the UK is doing this to. Specifically, I was not playing Persia... that was the AI. You and several others seem to be intentionally obtuse just to defend the status quo.

I'm aware that the AI was playing Persia I'm saying even as a solo Persia it's possible to survive GB (tbf this is very early). With Russia too though? The war should be easy. This is the type of war you should play through when you're new to figure out how the gameplay systems work

The issue is that this game doesn't even behave the way it markets itself. It's actually all military, all the time. There is nothing achievable by diplomacy that you shouldn't just go to war to solve. That's the diplomacy game in a nutshell. The UK should abandon many of its innane plays that make no actual sense in the real world. Such as invading the United States... that was in my Canada game where I was very slowly waiting to be able to form the Confederation. Bam, next thing I know we're invading the South.

Part of that is the AI not being very challenging but either way you can conquer all of China as Russia and end the game worse off than you would've been if you lost all of Siberia. Of you think the game is just military you probably aren't playing well. What GDP do you normally see at the end of a Russia game for example?