-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Sid Meier said:
Pfft, AI countries exist to be eaten. Unless they are someone's vassals
And you defend them? Why, do you prefer to be eaten instead?
Daniel A said:
Na, its always better bb-wise to invade a player. If you have a CB versus a human(and nowadays, most games edit virtual CBs vs every players), it costs 0 badboy for dow; while it will cost 1 bb to dow the AI with a cb. OK, I agree, not much of a difference. But say you take 5 provinces? From the AI, with a CB(but no cores), it will cost you 10 badboy. Diploannexation is cheaper, but that implies the AI is right-religion, which isn't always the case. Vs a human, those same 5 provinces will cost you 3.33 badboy. Not a bad deal
But yeah, I agree AI should (usually) be eaten before the players. Less trouble, and if you don't eat them, someone else will do it for ya
But when you've got too much badboy to expand vs the AI, if you expand at all, it should be vs players. Of course, sometimes peace is the better option to just bleed it off(or because you've got nothing good to win from your enemies).
Say I'm China and I vassalize Chagotai Khanate and Ego is Mughal Empire by me having Chagos as a vassal I keep Ego from attacking me directly.
Otherwise he has to fight for every inch of territory in Chagotai and by the time he reaches me reifnrocements would have arrived and his supply lines would be too long.
Otherwise he has to fight for every inch of territory in Chagotai and by the time he reaches me reifnrocements would have arrived and his supply lines would be too long.
Looting_Bandito said:
Often this is the case, but not nearly all the time, it was not so in my last game for example
. The amount of generalizations here (In the thread) are mind boggling however, everyone is a specific mid-line combination with tendancies edging towards one or teh other, but with many exceptions.Though Temu, I disagree, I personally dislike the idea of mass AI consumption before any direct PvP competition ... it hurts the game and squews as KJ says, the concept of aggression, the game becomes far less of European Simulation then, and just an elaborate version of Risk.
Ehehe, KJ can gang like the best of them.
edit: I guess I shouldn't complain about generalizations when that is all this thread is. But the point remains, KJ is right and the deck will be stacked against you if you take on your neighbours before the AI, that is unless you know how to make the dice roll the way you want.
Last edited:
Note that, a player will never be the same in diferent games. John for example, in EGA (from what i saw) was playing on a total diferent aproach then in ToS. In ToS he was the unoposed Angry Warmonger, and in EGA he was a Good Samaritan.
He was dealt different cards, and generally emulated the persona that is most beneficial, as all good players would do.
I would say that the aims of the game also affects the style you are playing.
*Swoops away with his ninja buddies in to the darkness*
*Swoops away with his ninja buddies in to the darkness*
My take on the balance of power and the AI(in comparison with Victoria):
Daniel's 'Honorable' and EGO's 'Good Samaritan' groups would be right at home in Victoria MP. The warrior and dishonorable groups wouldn't make the cut, sadly. But, in EU2, the AI is just a stumbling bumbling nuisance to us players.
They:
- Compete in COTs, constantly knocking out monopolies, especially in rich eastern COTs
- Form barriers preventing human players from warring eachother
- Possess resources and base tax that the player wants
and other such things that we despise the AI for doing. Ergo, they don't worry about the AI, only the player to a large degree
In Vic, the attitude of the players in our community is to always take into account the AI in the balance of power. A prime example is Switzerland. They often survive a long, long time in games, even to the end sometimes. Why, you ask? They have excellent resources (coal, iron, timber, etc), and good terrain for borders. they also have 4 big powers on their borders: France, Austria, and later Italy and Germany. It often follows that, while in EU2, the french and austrian players would simply war over the corresponding provinces every several years, in Vic the players would not fight wars to determine who would own switzerland, but would instead make threats, or even fight a war to keep eachother from owning it. Sometimes, you get the often forming big alliance blocs in Vic that agree to partition it, but often even peaceful partition can't be agreed on. So, everyone GIs Switzerland and threatens eachother if they dare to think of violating it.
Again, its a matter of attitude. Vic players find that to be sucessful in any major wars, its necessary to be a master of the economy, first and foremost. In EU2, there isn't nearly as much to do in building that economy. in fact, conquest is the way to build that economy, that and COT trading later in the game as the eastern COTs are discovered and maps exchanged. If conquering the AI means a series of wars with other players that could screw their nation, just for a few provinces, they'll decide the BoP is best preserved by simply denying everyone access to those provinces, leaving them in AI hands.
But more importantly, the reason why John and others have pointed out that the BoP doesn't apply to AI nations is that pretty much every commonly played EU2 nation starts out with far less than their national culture territory. In Vic, nations start out unified, excepting Germany and Italy. There aren't many avenues of expansion, except overseas. There, BoP again comes into play for AIed nations. Unlike in EU2, where wrong culture/religion provinces in asia are generally not conquered (except for COTs) because they hurt tech development and such, in vic, they're a critical part of the BoP. Their resources and large populations can provide an enormous source of income, manpower and cheap native soldiers (if house MP rules or game mechanics aren't changed to rein some of those in). Japan, Korea, and China are generally not dismembered or annexed anymore in Vic MP, because to have those as human-owned are seen as a fundamental dangerous change to the BoP. Whereas, the conquest of Alsace-Lorraine in europe is not considered the same way, and germany may only have to fight for that region once in the game. In EU2, that area will likely see a ton of conflict in the game, countless battles between Austria and France for control.
If my post seems a little convoluted, i'll post a summary of my points on BoP and the AI
The AI is simply something to be brushed aside in EU2 because:
- It controls much of the natural territory of the major EU2 human nations at the start
- It doesn't add any noticeable benefit by its survival, and in fact has a bad rep
- There isn't really alot of internal economic development in EU2, so conquering early is normal, and the AI is the first victim, as a barrier to future human conflicts
- The frequency and viability of having those frequent wars allows for the AI to be annexed, and its provinces fought over countless times
In Vic, all the opposite conditions exist, so having the agressive and dishonorable groups of players in Vic MP would result in nations being ruined very quickly, while those that play economics primarily and in EU2 MP terms here 'SP style' are the majority (the Good Samaritans) with the rest being the common players who will engage in some conflict; primarily newer players fall into the common category.
I'm not going to touch on the all the discussion of 'gangbangs' in MP... those have caused as many quits in Vic as in EU2MP, or would if we had as many games/players and more wars than we do.
I hope my comparison added a useful, somewhat outside illumination to the subjects here.
Daniel's 'Honorable' and EGO's 'Good Samaritan' groups would be right at home in Victoria MP. The warrior and dishonorable groups wouldn't make the cut, sadly. But, in EU2, the AI is just a stumbling bumbling nuisance to us players.
They:
- Compete in COTs, constantly knocking out monopolies, especially in rich eastern COTs
- Form barriers preventing human players from warring eachother
- Possess resources and base tax that the player wants
and other such things that we despise the AI for doing. Ergo, they don't worry about the AI, only the player to a large degree
In Vic, the attitude of the players in our community is to always take into account the AI in the balance of power. A prime example is Switzerland. They often survive a long, long time in games, even to the end sometimes. Why, you ask? They have excellent resources (coal, iron, timber, etc), and good terrain for borders. they also have 4 big powers on their borders: France, Austria, and later Italy and Germany. It often follows that, while in EU2, the french and austrian players would simply war over the corresponding provinces every several years, in Vic the players would not fight wars to determine who would own switzerland, but would instead make threats, or even fight a war to keep eachother from owning it. Sometimes, you get the often forming big alliance blocs in Vic that agree to partition it, but often even peaceful partition can't be agreed on. So, everyone GIs Switzerland and threatens eachother if they dare to think of violating it.
Again, its a matter of attitude. Vic players find that to be sucessful in any major wars, its necessary to be a master of the economy, first and foremost. In EU2, there isn't nearly as much to do in building that economy. in fact, conquest is the way to build that economy, that and COT trading later in the game as the eastern COTs are discovered and maps exchanged. If conquering the AI means a series of wars with other players that could screw their nation, just for a few provinces, they'll decide the BoP is best preserved by simply denying everyone access to those provinces, leaving them in AI hands.
But more importantly, the reason why John and others have pointed out that the BoP doesn't apply to AI nations is that pretty much every commonly played EU2 nation starts out with far less than their national culture territory. In Vic, nations start out unified, excepting Germany and Italy. There aren't many avenues of expansion, except overseas. There, BoP again comes into play for AIed nations. Unlike in EU2, where wrong culture/religion provinces in asia are generally not conquered (except for COTs) because they hurt tech development and such, in vic, they're a critical part of the BoP. Their resources and large populations can provide an enormous source of income, manpower and cheap native soldiers (if house MP rules or game mechanics aren't changed to rein some of those in). Japan, Korea, and China are generally not dismembered or annexed anymore in Vic MP, because to have those as human-owned are seen as a fundamental dangerous change to the BoP. Whereas, the conquest of Alsace-Lorraine in europe is not considered the same way, and germany may only have to fight for that region once in the game. In EU2, that area will likely see a ton of conflict in the game, countless battles between Austria and France for control.
If my post seems a little convoluted, i'll post a summary of my points on BoP and the AI
The AI is simply something to be brushed aside in EU2 because:
- It controls much of the natural territory of the major EU2 human nations at the start
- It doesn't add any noticeable benefit by its survival, and in fact has a bad rep
- There isn't really alot of internal economic development in EU2, so conquering early is normal, and the AI is the first victim, as a barrier to future human conflicts
- The frequency and viability of having those frequent wars allows for the AI to be annexed, and its provinces fought over countless times
In Vic, all the opposite conditions exist, so having the agressive and dishonorable groups of players in Vic MP would result in nations being ruined very quickly, while those that play economics primarily and in EU2 MP terms here 'SP style' are the majority (the Good Samaritans) with the rest being the common players who will engage in some conflict; primarily newer players fall into the common category.
I'm not going to touch on the all the discussion of 'gangbangs' in MP... those have caused as many quits in Vic as in EU2MP, or would if we had as many games/players and more wars than we do.
I hope my comparison added a useful, somewhat outside illumination to the subjects here.
Sid Meier said:
You're then not fighting to maintain an independent AI, since its your vassal. Having it as your vassal is both beneficial to your economy, military(MP-wise) and strategic positioning(vs the Mughals, as you pointed out).
Were that territory of a compatible religion/culture, it might be worth annexing. But as it is now, it is neither, and has crappy tax/goods. So you vassalize it, which is good play. How does that disprove my theory? Would you let Korea be independent for example, or would you push for diplo-annexation? My guess is the later.
Right on Gaius, I'm not too surprised to hear that
I'm sure another factor is that there is no diplo-annexation in Vicky.
I'm sure another factor is that there is no diplo-annexation in Vicky.