Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why does AI never annex?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(3522)

unmerged(3522)

Major
Apr 30, 2001
645
0
Visit site
I've noticed that in GC, the AI of the major powers never ever annexes its weaker neigbors, and it makes the game both non-historical and too easy. For example, Austria never annexes Bohemia, Russia never annexes Kazan and Pskov, and Turkey never annexes Mameluks, England never annexes Iroquis, and so on. I know some of you would say that EU is not supposed to be a 100% true to history and some of those events happened by chance. That is partially true but not quite. From not only a historical, but also from LOGICAl stand point, it would make sense for stronger powers to conquer the weaker ones. And in 1492 in the game itself, Turkey is much stronger than Mameluks, Russia is much stronger than Pskov, and so on. So these conquests WERE NOT RANDOM EVENTS, which didn't have to happen. They were events which in a way were SUPPOSED TO happen simply because of brutal politics of the era and power inbalances. So I consider this a great flaw in the game.

Has this been fixed in the IGC?
 
I've seen the computer annex a fair amount (particularly Russia). Sometimes this isn't always, the case, though; Helvetia was conquered many times in my Portugal GC game, and each time the respective power took money instead of annexing. I suspect that it may have been due to the fact that the one Swiss province was not worth the diplomatic hit, though who knows with these AIs.
What I've noticed more often is that the computer is rarely willing to go out of its way to attempt annexation. Several times in that same GC France would capture Genoa (a fairly valuable province), and then immediately settle for peace rather than take Corsica and annex. Similarly, when as Prussia in the IGC I was seiging Western Pommerania, and the Teutonic Order came in and seiged and captured Eastern Pommerania. Again, the AI immediately took money rather than waiting a bit annexing East Pommerania as I took West Pommerania.
These may be calculated decisions (East Pommerania, again, not too valuable), but overall the AI seems to almost always immediately settle for peace for money once it captures a minor's capital, rather than annex.
 
The AI annexes quite a lot. Sometimes even more than is good for itself. Though they aren't always in the possibility to annex.

Esp with the latest patch most games end up with a lot of minors gone at the end.
 
as far as ive noticed, in the IGC, ai annexes quite a great deal...

Spain always annexes Granada & Naples, often aztec and inca empires, and sometimes Navarra, or Genoa or Milan or something... France often annexes Lorraine, Austria inherits Hungary, Russia annexes all smaller nations around it like ryazan, kazan, ..., pol-lith sometimes annexes Golden Horde, Turks annex Mameluks 9/10 games, and so on...

so i dont know whether in the GC less annexations happen, but i can tell you that if you want to see Ai annexations, get the IGC!

just my few words :)
 
Are you by chance, playing with the options set to AI Aggressiveness = Coward? This would explain why nobody gets eaten.

This has to be set at the start of the campaign (select a country and click "options")
 
Have you got force-annex turned off in the starting options? It seems very weird to play a campaign for any length of time at all and not see any annexations. In every game I've played there is at least one by 1520.
 
I don't know why Bourbon is not seeing annexations in the GC. I saw plenty of them on Normal & I see plenty more on Aggressive. The AI does prefer to reparations rather than annex, but this is more historical than the alternative - most wars in the period were not fought to the extinction of one side or the other.

As to his particular examples:
Austria never annexes Bohemia,
Click to expand...

I've seen this in most GCs, although the Hapsburg AI is often slow about it, & often allies with Bohemia instead. But then I've seen Austria annex Bohemia within the first 2 years of the game start also. It just depends.

Russia never annexes Kazan and Pskov,
Click to expand...

Since 1.08, I can't recall a GC where the Russians didn't at least try to take out Kazan fairly early. Sometimes they succeed, & whack all the khanates within 20 years, sometimes it takes a century. The only time I can recall Russia not eventually getting to the Siberian corridor is my GC as Poland-Lithuania, where I allied with Sibir to close the door to Russian expansion, & eventually rolled him back to just being the Grand Duchy of Moscow. ;)

and Turkey never annexes Mameluks,
Click to expand...

I don't know - in my games they always try, often DoWing the Mams with their first diplomat. More often the Turks wait until they have at least 1 ally before they let the Mams know how they feel about Shiism, but annexing the Mamelukes never seems to be far from the mind of the Turkish AI.

England never annexes Iroquis,
Click to expand...

This is one with which I agree. The game engine has some difficulties here. Part of it is that the AI usually keeps fairly small armies in the colonies, so taking out a 6 province nation is challenging. And the Iroquois cannot DoW anyone else, they can only respond to alliance calls or fight defensive wars. This means they are involved in fewer wars than most nations, and therefore present fewer opportunities to be annexed - which is probably wise, as they are a pushover.

Personally, I think the game has too many annexations, as opposed to too few. At the end of most GCs, the number of European minors has thinned out tremendously, while historically this was not the case. But the gameplay feels about right to me - which is probably the most important thing.
 
Re: annexations

In the game I'm playing right now, I just saw Wurtemburg diplo-annex Thuringen! It happens fairly often, actually.

I can understand actually why the Ai doesn't annex the Iroquois. I don't waste my time with it either. It's an other religion DoW, the penalty for annexation is lower, and its cheaper to roll in with 20k troops and take them over than it is to bribe them into your good graces. Save the diplo-cash for the European powers. (and MAYBE to break the alliance between the three Indian kingdoms.
 
I presume he meant that the AI never militarily annexes the Iroquois ... since they are, as you say, different religion, a diplo-annex is impossible (unless you're playing China/Japan/Aztecs/Incas)

I never bother even military-annexing them.. I'd get round to it sometime but it's hardly worth it in the early stages, from 1550-1650 I`m busy in IndoChina and mainland Europe, and by then the game is so obviously won that I get bored and start over.
 
Let me clarify something - I did see SOME annexations, just not the ones I talked about. France always seemed eager to annex- it actually annexed Milan and Navarre. Also, Prussia annexed Courland. But for some reason i did not see many annexations in the Eastern Europe, where actually annexations were more prevalent. Maybe it will be different this time around. I just started playing IGC on Agressive, and already Russia has annexed Golden Horde, and Spain annexed Lorraine and Navarre. All I am waiting is for Austria to annex Bohemia and for Russia to annex Pskov and Kazan,and my mind will be put to rest.

And by the way, I mean not only diplo-annex, but conquer annex is well. That is why it annoyed me so much that England actually allied with Iroquis, which is completely non-historical.
 
I am sorry but I dont get your point. On the one hand you complain about bigger powers not anexing smaller ones. You get the answer that on the contrary this happens. Then you agree that in fact annexation have taken place but not the ones you have expected due to historical reasons. Upon my answer that a change in history is part of the games attraction you again state that bigger powers should annex smaller ones. What exactly are you saying here?
 
You got me wrong. It does not bother me that the game doesn't follow excat history. But the GENERAL historical setting should be adhered to. An the bottom line is that during the era covered in the game, annexation by strongr powers of the weaker powers was very prevalent in the EASTERN EUROPE. And that is precisely the annexations I have not seen at all in my one GC i played. Now maybe the next time it will be different. Actually, I would probably not even make the post if at the time, I would have started playing the IGC game I am playing right now, where anexations are more prevalent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back