Soo, the AI does not have to worry about money at all?

[Antonius66]

I have come to realize that the AI can mobilize their troops indefinitely and never care about losing cash or income at all? Is this correct? I have seen one of my enemies be at war for years, losing 100 a month and never ever have to stop fielding troops or lose any.

 

[jordarkelf]

The AI cannot go below zero, but cannot build for free either. So yes, the AI can keep troops supplied forever, but sending across the sea or building stuff still requires they save up money which is then subtracted.

 

[DarthJF]

What really pisses me off is when i'm at war with some distant moslems and they dow my vassals and then ... those cowardly vassals accept peace few days later paing all their money to my enemies --- without a fight ... damn them ... damn them both ...

Or even worse, give up their territory before it's even conquered. Really infuriates me when starting with Byzantium.

 

[Antonius66]

Hmmm...seems odd because I swear I have seen the AI send naval forces against me after being at war for years, when they should be more than broke. Second, I really hate stuff like that. Make AI that can beat me when we play on the same terms...I hate it when "challenge" in a game has to come from cheating AI that plays by a different set of game rules. Just like "lucky" nations is EU. Oh well, getting to enjoy the game anyway.

 

[GaiusC]

Looking on the bright side, it means that I won't feel any guilt if I "edit" my treasury in saved game file, or if I load as AI and accept a reasonable or even profitable peace I've been offering for the last 15 months and that got declined for stupid reasons

 

[TempestDK]

Hmmm...seems odd because I swear I have seen the AI send naval forces against me after being at war for years, when they should be more than broke. Second, I really hate stuff like that. Make AI that can beat me when we play on the same terms...I hate it when "challenge" in a game has to come from cheating AI that plays by a different set of game rules. Just like "lucky" nations is EU. Oh well, getting to enjoy the game anyway.

Trust me, if it didn't have this cheat, you would be facing small pitch-fork wielding armies defending provinces that only have a hill fort by the year 1200. You would be able to sweep aside any opposition.

Yes the AI could be better, and most likely will be in CK2. But this game is old, and Johan and his cohorts had to rush the game to production because Snowball (the original russian developer who was making it for PI) screwed it up completely.

It is not really THAT big a deal, and will keep you somewhat challenged in the final half of the game.

 

[GaiusC]

The real problem isn't as much that I lack money; I usually have plenty of it. It's just that the AI is stupid and stubborn enough not to want peace, just because it will never go broke and bankrupt, which would otherwise force any sane nation, even AI ones, to accept a reasonable and beneficial peace offer... Like Egypt who refuses the 150 gold I have left, my acceptance of their claimes all over the map, and my 2 Middle-East provinces, but still wants more, even when it is obvious they have no chance ever to conquer it, yet still prefer not to make peace for the rest of the decade.

On the other hand, I've also been visited by the dumbest AIs ever - like the Pope attacking me, sieging an undefended province with 5.000 troops, just to be destoyed when I activate the 12'000 reserve army that was waiting to be mobilised on this same province, all this ending with a 3.500 peace offer from said Pope as soon as the battle is over (I would've accepted a white peace, no need to piss off the Pope early in the game).

 

[Diet of Worms]

It's just that the AI is stupid and stubborn enough not to want peace, just because it will never go broke and bankrupt, which would otherwise force any sane nation, even AI ones, to accept a reasonable and beneficial peace offer... Like Egypt who refuses the 150 gold I have left, my acceptance of their claimes all over the map, and my 2 Middle-East provinces, but still wants more, even when it is obvious they have no chance ever to conquer it, yet still prefer not to make peace for the rest of the decade.

Yeah the AI is a little basic in CK it has to be said. What I do in that sort of situation is just ignore them. If they actually attack, then mobilise forces and deal with the incursion, but apart from that just get on with your life. At some point they'll offer a peace. There's no war exhaustion mechanic in CK, so unlike EU3 there really isn't any problem with prolonged wars.

 

[Rivus]

There's no exhaustion mechanic in CK but there's an event that triggers when you're at war that affects your stability. I remember vividly once I was at war with some pagan county in Scandinavia (I was allied to the King of Norway, who declared war over there, so I did the same being an ally and all) - I got the stability hit despite the fact that I never committed a single troop to this "war". To add insult to injury, Norway was already at peace with the pagan count, who somehow refused my countless peace offers even when I sweeten the deal with 500gold.

The same could be said of another case when an anatolian emir sent a meagre 1000 men to Ireland to seige Dublin, ignoring all attempts at white peace, and was promptly defeated by the local garrison of more than 5000 there. the emir then offered peace with tribute.

And the Danish King that gave up Skane and Halland for peace with the Seljuks, despite the fact that his Baltic possessions are still unmolested and the nearest Seljuk outpost was somewhere in the Middle East. The loss eventually caused Denmark to disintegrate. I was expecting an Arabic Skane... didn't happen.

There's clearly something wrong with how the AI assesses strategic value. This may be caused by the fact that they don't need to pay their armies once they empty their treasury... who knows...

 

[Snaake]

The AI is often foolhardy if they have more troops (and cowardly if you have more troops).

However, in civil wars, in an example where 1 minor vassal rebels (declares war, not just independence), it can quite easily be tested that they usually refuse all peace deals, even if you're offering them money and their independence (vs. total annihilation), until you've had one battle with them. Doesn't really matter which side wins the battle, you can send a 1-man army (not the Rambo type, but the sacrificial lamb-type) to die against said rebellious vassals 500 troops (when you have 10 000 troops available or even mobilised elsewhere).

After a single battle, at least weaker enemies will usually accept white peace at the least. It's as if warscore is effectively really high before the AI gets a taste of blood.

This is my experience.

 

[jordarkelf]

Another trick that helps is to (grand) mobilize all your troops, even if you do not plan to use them in a war. A country with fully mobilized armies is seen as more of a threat than one that fields little men, so the AI will be more likely to accept.

 

[DarthJF]

Another trick that helps is to (grand) mobilize all your troops, even if you do not plan to use them in a war. A country with fully mobilized armies is seen as more of a threat than one that fields little men, so the AI will be more likely to accept.

Yeah, the AI looks only your mobilised troops, so if you have 50 000 men in reserve it doesn't take that into account when considering peace. Often the AI will become very accepting toward peace offers when they see you popping up a huge stack or two somewhere.