The most important thing that has to be included in EU4

[Tornadoli]

While new features, more provinces (especially your home country of course) are all great, in my opinion, one thing needs to be improved a lot, and a lot of resources should be devoted to it: The AI. With current computer power, I'm pretty sure a very good AI can be made, and this could become a great selling point for EU4 too. The primitiveness of the AI in EU3 is evident in modding, where one actually needs to write, eg. AI_will_do = 1 (not sure if that's the exact syntax), and then the AI will do it 100% certain if the conditions are met. A better AI would just look at an event, and evaluate its usefulness, etc. Multiplayer is great, but in such a grand strategy game, the AI is even essential in Multiplayer games.

 

[Derp]

It's a shame the AI (and some other core mechanics, like combat) isn't as open to modding as the rest of the game. One of the greatest things about modding Civ4 was how deep you could get into the guts of it. It was a bit less accessible as a result but it allowed for some pretty major changes, including AI mods that were far better than the AIs that came with the game.

 

[Fishman786]

1. I support moddable AI.


2. The most important thing that has to be included in EU4 is actually another comet sighting option.

 

[Tsugan]

1. I support moddable AI.


2. The most important thing that has to be included in EU4 is actually another comet sighting option.

So true lol.

 

[SerialCereal]

1. I support moddable AI.


2. The most important thing that has to be included in EU4 is actually another comet sighting option.

I disagree, there should be a super-rare event in which a meteor is sighted but with only option - "BOOM". It ends the game in a ball of fire, in similar fashion to the players computer.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

N00bs!!111The most important thing is a stronger Byzantium

 

[Will Lucky]

1. I support moddable AI.


2. The most important thing that has to be included in EU4 is actually another comet sighting option.

Agreed on both counts,

A stronger AI is always better given usually these games are primarily played in Single Player.

 

[Descri]

Yes, the AI on EU3 is really pathetic compared to the depth of the game features, it isn't even able to use all of them effectively. Surely with today's tech, and Paradox's time, money and talent they can make a "smart" and capable AI. That would greatly improve the game regardless of features.

 

[unmerged(509501)]

I definitely agree that there should be another comet sighting option. In-fact this should be a staple addition for all future editions and expansion packs until gamers in the future will have to cycle through whole pages of options before making a choice.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

Eu3 AI isn't the worst ever, but its up there. The only way they can win a war is if you both only have one unit, or they have 30x as many units as you. It doesn't have any idea how to set its sliders. It can't preform a naval invasion or use open borders.

CKII has pretty good AI, so I have higher hopes.

 

[Fawr]

CKII still suffers from chosing the wrong options in events. That's particually noticable when you let your heir be tutored by someone else, they just do it badly (and every other states rule is AI tutored).

It should be fixable, but you either need to make events with choices which get picked evenly (by putting penalties on the option that gets picked 95% of the time by players). Alternativly take out the choices so that the AI and player are on a level playing field.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

CKII might pick objectively wrong (as in less powerful) options, but this would be because the AI is programmed to follow the traits the individual tutors have - slothful characters will pick the "least effort" option most of the time, generally leading to slothful characters. Highly moral, zealous characters will tend to take the options that encourage similar traits in the trainees.

The player of course just picks for power in most cases. It's mitigated to an extent by some choices being unavailable if you don't meet certain requirements, but not entirely. Taking out the option for the player to make any choices at all in such matters would of course be bad...

 

[King_Richard_XI]

The player of course just picks for power in most cases. It's mitigated to an extent by some choices being unavailable if you don't meet certain requirements, but not entirely. Taking out the option for the player to make any choices at all in such matters would of course be bad...

Well, what I've seen so far suggests that the game will be far more influenced by the quality (or qualities) of the player's ruler. That could be reflected in different options being available depending on the ruler, or perhaps certain requirements to a decision based on his ability.

EDIT: I'm referring to events here rather than decisions. Don't want no confusion 'ereabouts.

 

[Polish Empire]

Paradox should add more groups of cultures - eg. Hungarians (Hungarians arent western slavs!), Romanians (Wallachia and Moldavia), Berbers (Turko-Semic group sucks, it should be devided on Turks, and Arabians (Maghreb, al-misr arabic etc.), Dutch (Dutch and Flemish).
I hope in Eu4 there'll be better map of central and eastern Europe. In currently version it's awful, you should really work on that!

 

[Sn3ipen]

CK2 have some events where you only get one choice depending on the character traits.

I once had a lustful ruler and the only choice I got in a event where a courtier are flirting with me or something. It was to "give her a good tumble". It was my own daughter and she got pregnant with a hunchback child for christ sake! Thats the only one I remember because of the nasty nature of this event. I almost wanted to quit the game instead of pressing the button.

The point is, they could do the same in EU4 for low stat rulers by limiting the choices they get on some events.

 

[Gqarz]

I agree, the AI has to be number 1. I mean an AI that can weigh various options and select the best one by calculating probabilities. Perhaps it could even learn from the player?

I would also like to see some of the events of the type that drove so many very important aspects of so many of history's largest upheavals. Some examples:

-The rise of aggressive, powerful tribes that drove so many of the barbarian tribes like the Vandals and Huns Westward to invade the Roman Empire.

-The famines of the late 18th century in France that helped spark the French Revolution

-Volcanic eruptions that wiped out whole towns/cities/islands

-The birth of many influential thinkers who allowed humanity to break the shackles of superstition and oppressive dogma (Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, even Martin Luther...) (Though Euclid was before the time period in EUIV.)

The list goes on...

 

[Premu]

While a better AI is always good I wouldn't say that the EU III AI is really bad. Compared to the AI of other games, e.g. Civ5, it is excellent. It's just that the game is so complex and the player is normally more creative than the AI, and can use some nasty exploits if he wants to. (Although, sometimes the Paradox-AI uses exploits, too. Don't let your capital in HOI III uncovered if enemy Paratroopers are in range. )

 

[Tornadoli]

While a better AI is always good I wouldn't say that the EU III AI is really bad. Compared to the AI of other games, e.g. Civ5, it is excellent. It's just that the game is so complex and the player is normally more creative than the AI, and can use some nasty exploits if he wants to. (Although, sometimes the Paradox-AI uses exploits, too. Don't let your capital in HOI III uncovered if enemy Paratroopers are in range. )

I would rather that EU4 would have less features that both me and the AI could use fully and intelligently, than loads of cool and great features that only I can use.

 

[Derp]

While a better AI is always good I wouldn't say that the EU III AI is really bad. Compared to the AI of other games, e.g. Civ5, it is excellent.

No it's not. It's so broken and exploitable that you have to go out of your way to NOT take advantage of it.

 

[Premu]

No it's not. It's so broken and exploitable that you have to go out of your way to NOT take advantage of it.

Well, let's compare the EU III-AI with the AI of a blockbuster like CIV V:

Diplomatic AI: In EU III, the AI tries to get alliances which will help it. You can hardly ally to anyone halfaround the globe, nor would any country ally with someone much weaker. In Civ V, I have not yet discovered a pattern in the alliances.
Strategic AI: The EU III is extremly opportunistic. If the rival is already at war with someone else or seen as weak for other reason, it declares war. In Civ V on the other hand, the AI seems not to take into account that the large empire nearby which threatens its existence is already engaged at different fronts, so an attack would be very efficient now. On the other hand, you sometimes recieve a declaration of war from someone at the other end of the world who is already in trouble.
Tactical AI: The AI tries to crush the enemie's main armies and after that starts to siege every province. Since DW it even tries to avoid to take too much attrition. In Civ V on the other hand, the AI loves to shuffle around its troops, just in range of the distance units of the enemy. I never really fear an attack on a city by the AI in CIV V - You have to try very hard to lose a city.

Of course, humans still find ways to exploit the AI, for sure. But: Not everyone is such a crack and knows every exploit, and experienced players often avoid the most gamiest exploits.

Still, compared to other major titles, the AI is very strong - in a much complex game. Sure, you can always make it better, but before telling the AI is crap you should compare it to the "industrial standard".