Demand for a more challenging AI !!!!

[unmerged(541)]

Various statements on this forum show that AI needs improvement. I am grateful for the enthusiasm of Paradox to implement useful proposals of customers and players.

Maybe we can put up a list of the most important improvements AI needs. I will make a start:

1.AI countries shall be more active on the diplomatic front. They shall make it hard for the human player to advance militarily, to build aliances AND to keep them stable.

2. AI countries shall do more against inflation. Now runaway inflation cripples their economies, so that there is no money left for research etc.

3. For the superpowers there should be special challenges. Expanding empires create new problems. Wastage, slowliness and huge bureaucracies are specific disadvan-tages. To make it easy for implementation one could say that for every province exceeding a specific number(steps for little, mediumsized and big empires)there is a financial fine to reflect that(higher transaction-costs for empires).


3.

4.

5...



In hoc signo vinces!

 

[unmerged(541)]

Hi Folks! Hartmann opend the same topic 'How to Really improve AI in the next patch' at the same time in the FAQ Forum. I suggest, we continue there.

 

[unmerged(23)]

Originally posted by basil:
Various statements on this forum show that AI needs improvement. I am grateful for the enthusiasm of Paradox to implement useful proposals of customers and players.

Maybe we can put up a list of the most important improvements AI needs. I will make a start:

1.AI countries shall be more active on the diplomatic front. They shall make it hard for the human player to advance militarily, to build aliances AND to keep them stable.

AI countries are limited by the same rules than players : number of diplomats/year and money.
Should the AI more clever when forging alliance to stop a player becoming a 'superpower' ?
It's a very difficult thing to set. What does define a superpower ? Victory points score could be used. But it would mean the various AI countries would gang mindlessly against the player (like in some other games) because he's winning.
From the difficulty to set the moment where the AI should be hostile to the players to the fact it's quite weird to see your best AI friends becoming your bitter ennemies (or should Paradox avoid your allies to become your ennemies ? then throw some cash to everyone and noone will attack whatever the settings), I don't think it's a good idea per se.
Countries have their own agenda and do not each time decide to go on crusade against a rising superpower.

2. AI countries shall do more against inflation. Now runaway inflation cripples their economies, so that there is no money left for research etc.

I agree. But there is a whole problem of infrastructural development for some countries specifically because of priorities of the AI.

3. For the superpowers there should be special challenges. Expanding empires create new problems. Wastage, slowliness and huge bureaucracies are specific disadvan-tages. To make it easy for implementation one could say that for every province exceeding a specific number(steps for little, mediumsized and big empires)there is a financial fine to reflect that(higher transaction-costs for empires).

Yes and no. Currently, it depends mainly of the country you are playing. As an example, a Turkish empire including Hungary, the Balkans and Egypt has religious problems.
Furthermore, the cost to raise your stability becomes higher and higher as your empire grows. So it forces you to only use CB to declare war otherwise the stability drop will bring you revolts during decades.
Some nations are better prepared than others to manage a large empire.
Turkey and Russia have a fair number of 'perma' CB but it's not so much if you consider the game covers 3 centuries and that those countries can achieve their 'historical' goals (owning all their national provinces) far before the end of the game.
The size of your empire itself is included in the game already. Adding more penalties will hamper some nations developments which path to victory is to create a large empire.
That should be added very carefully.

------------------
Pierre
Retired EU Beta Tester

 

[Hartmann]

Pierre is right in pointing out the probs, the approach of 'ganging up against a superpower' brings with it. I don´t see a solution either and any proposed changes should be considered with extreme cate. But on the other hand SOMETHING should be done. I often experience, that even my worst enemies (-200), which also have permanent casus belli against me, do not want to stab my back, even not when I´m busy elsewhere.

Hartmann

P.S. Personally, I think that there are indeed already enough penalties for running a vast empire. Especially the religious tolerance issue. Once I had religious tolerance balanced for every religion. When I was at war for some years, 'Kriegsmüdigkeit' went up and suddenly rebellions popped up everywhere. Whereas the war was goin in my favor, I nevertheless had to conclude unfortunate peace treaties due to the increasing danger of annexed countries getting independent and the overthrow of governement. Really nice feature!



[This message has been edited by Hartmann (edited 21-12-2000).]

 

[unmerged(412)]

That's a great point, I've played Russia a few times. Everyone around Russia has pernment C.B. against Russia. I take my whole army against Kazan. The Poles and GOlden Horde don't take the opportunity hurt me. Negitive Diplomacy numbers only seem to matter if you want something from the A.I.
A aggressive human can take advantage of a timid A.I. even on aggressive settings. A C.B. should mean at every opportunity that country is going to take it to you.