Nobody DOES anything

[mikemonger]

I mean, that's the primary problem with this game. It's static. Other than me, the player, and the scripted Northmen events, nothing HAPPENS. The AI won't do anything without a claim, and it won't do anything to get claims.

[Good Graces]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Try playing 867 around the Kirghiz Khanate. AI is constantly doing stuff without claims

yeah, just play steppe warriors III

[M82]

Originally posted by peequi:

There is a mod called something like "legendary commander" that will randomly give an AI character huge stat boosts that encourages them to expand rapidly. There should be other mods that try to make the game less static, other people please share.

I found that too many people get this trait. I once had Godwin of England, Harald of Norway, the Holy Roman Emperor of the time and IIRC the King of Navarra ALL have the trait at the same time. This created such a mess that basically all Kingdoms broke apart on succession and ended up weaker than they started at

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by lost:

this is a huge problem. the AI is incapable of forming large empires. realms break up too easily, apart from the first couple generations if things go well, the player totally eclipses the AI and you are literally incapable of losing a war again. they never work together and form alliances to dogpile the player.

Before we get to the subject; AI active around the Kyrgyz Khanate, in 867. Tribes simply don't need casus belli to wage war.

The problem ; The AI ​​eats rocks, yes, but that's not the main problem.

The AI ​​does not cheat and has no advantage. All the advantages are in the hands of the players. The player can cheat the succession and earn much more gold than the AI.

Gold ; the player as a tribal, can easily make a quick fortune through looting. The AI ​​doesn't. As a feudal player, he can actively use his religious leader, for example the Pope, as a cash cow. The AI ​​doesn't.

Eugenics is also something unique for the player. You'll notice that eugenics/bloodline is a direct in-game implementation of a Nazi program called Lebensborn. The goal was basically to create a superior race to rule the world. At CK3, superior race is replaced by superior dynasty, but the ubermensch so called philophy is the same.
AI has no plan for this.

Paradox has given so many benefits, perks and options, especially tailored to the players that this game became really very easy.

Probably if you were to play in the same condition as the AI, you would be crippled as well.

Imagine; your ruler is a normal human, you are poor, and you cannot cheat the succession.

I hope you will forgive my primitive english language.

[Metalhead123]

I dont think the game is intended for a player or an AI to paint their territories across the map. It's more about family legacy. Probably why disinheriting your children so the heir gets everything has a rather punishing renown penalty.

Perhaps a way of making the game more fun is set your own perameters such as not allowing you to use a Disinherit on anyone, or aim to have 15 children (there is an achievment for having 10)

[Lord Haart]

Originally posted by mikemonger:

I mean, that's the primary problem with this game. It's static. Other than me, the player, and the scripted Northmen events, nothing HAPPENS. The AI won't do anything without a claim, and it won't do anything to get claims.

I find a lot of ppl are always doing a lot, and that.

[pi73r]

Originally posted by Metalhead123:

I dont think the game is intended for a player or an AI to paint their territories across the map. It's more about family legacy. Probably why disinheriting your children so the heir gets everything has a rather punishing renown penalty.

Perhaps a way of making the game more fun is set your own perameters such as not allowing you to use a Disinherit on anyone, or aim to have 15 children (there is an achievment for having 10)

This doesn't solve anything. I've never used disinherit or even min maxed when it comes to succession. Game is easy even if you play somewhat ♥♥♥♥♥♥ on purpose.
I have no idea why this game still doesn't have proper difficulty options almost 2 years after release.

[Jackochainsaw]

What bugs me a lot is the AIs lack of foresight. They never go and try to take themselves out of tribal with the unreformed religion they have. They either get rolled over by a reformed faith, or sit there half the game in tribal. I've seen one or two organised religions appear, but it doesn't happen enough. I realise there are quite a few steps, and perhaps Paradox might consider changing the required number of Holy Sites needed. There are some religions that are very difficult to get three holy sites for (Pagan as an example). What they could do with is 1 holy sight and some holy relics perhaps. One Proud Bavarian suggested something good in one of his videos. I hope they took note.

You can apply the same to empires. Some are rarely created but could be easily achievable.

I think the problem is the AI lack goals. Often times they will sit back and take it easy.

[Jackochainsaw]

Originally posted by pi73r:

I think the main problem is that ai got very small armies compared to what player can achieve. I had medium sized kingdom without too many buildings or any strong counties and i literally had almost twice the army as some of the biggest empires which were over twice as big and normally should have at least 3 times the manpower.

The reason they struggle is that they don't grab a load of territory and hold onto it. They are happy to run an Empire with 1 mediocre county each time. That's why the HRE tends to decay, because it can't win the Independence wars with the army size it has.

[Banane]

Originally posted by Yaldabaoth:

The AI is constantly trying to get ahead in internal affairs. They make stupid decisions like granting a county one day, then trying to revoke it the next, leading to massive rebellions and situations where the AI never has longterm stability needed for it to make outside war declarations. If you look at any kingdom or empire title's history you will find "installed by faction demand" or similar every 5 years until they settle for one ruler for 20 years, then it starts again with his children.

For the same reason you cant install your family/children as rulers
Its a powder keg they never manage to get on top of.
So it forces you to constantly steal all land from your family or the just loose it very soon.
Maybe in 10years the AI will be more balanced *laughs*

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by pi73r:

This doesn't solve anything. I've never used disinherit or even min maxed when it comes to succession. Game is easy even if you play somewhat ♥♥♥♥♥♥ on purpose.
I have no idea why this game still doesn't have proper difficulty options almost 2 years after release.

I had slightly modified my files.
I removed quick intelligence and genius as a genetically inherited trait, I removed bloodline, I reduced the domain limit you can manage, I removed disinheritance, I made suicide possible only if you have a depressive trait, I removed the ability to ask your religious leader for money (the pope for example), I removed the perk restraint and know thyself and get into celibacy is impossible, etc...
The game despite this remains easy. Beginning as an earl owning a single earldom, in about 50 years, I am, usually, the world's leading military power.

If the game remains easy, it is because you have a strong lobby on the paradox forum to keep the game easy. The only thing they might ask is to ''give us better AI'' but will strongly oppose reducing any unfair advantage players have over the AI.
This is in line with Paradox's policy, imo, of wanting an easier and simpler game than CK2, in order to expand player audience (and therefore revenue). CK3 targets casual gamers who will play 90-120 hours before playing anything else. Paradox is not paid by the number of hours a player stays in the game. Perhaps the only weakness in this policy is that casual players might be less receptive to purchasing DLC.

[pi73r]

Still, creating harder difficulties is few weeks of chill work. In civilization you got difficulties where a noob will easily win and difficulties where you have to min max every 2nd turn.
The fact you have to hard mod AAA(A and 1 more A for this dlc) priced game to have any fun/challenge at all doesn't speak too good about the company.

[pi73r]

Originally posted by Jackochainsaw:

Originally posted by pi73r:

I think the main problem is that ai got very small armies compared to what player can achieve. I had medium sized kingdom without too many buildings or any strong counties and i literally had almost twice the army as some of the biggest empires which were over twice as big and normally should have at least 3 times the manpower.

The reason they struggle is that they don't grab a load of territory and hold onto it. They are happy to run an Empire with 1 mediocre county each time. That's why the HRE tends to decay, because it can't win the Independence wars with the army size it has.

Actually in my current run HRE is very stable. But still AI doesn't seem to be making any reasonable use of gold.

[Lord Haart]

eu iv

[glythe]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

I hope you will forgive my primitive english language.

Before the last sentence I would have never guessed. Your English is good - don't worry. I also agree with what you have to say.

Originally posted by KJ:

Originally posted by lost:

the AI is incapable of forming large empires. realms break up too easily, apart from the first couple generations if things go well, the player totally eclipses the AI and you are literally incapable of losing a war again.

It's because AI is incapable of handling its own line of succession... it just rolls with whatever RNG throws at it. That means every large realm eventually fractures into smaller and smaller bits.

I blame paradox for this, locking primogenitur law behind several hundred years of cultural research.

AI issues:

1. It wastes a lot of time to make claims then spends gold for them - gold it rarely has.
2. It must have an army bigger than the person they want to fight. Quite often there are two neighbors who are similarly sized and this creates a standstill for a long time. Usually you can't just be big enough to fight player A without also needing to have the ability to defend against Neighbor B who also wants your land.
3. Everyone suffers from land fragmentation and that is what breaks up many of the stalemates.

Land fragmentation actually hurts the player a lot more because you have to fight to get back what you had before and in the process you weaken allies.


The nations that do things are :
1. Usually Empires because they have plenty of gold and lots of soldiers.
2. Warmongers who dont need to make claims or pay to start wars.
3. Small nations that play "tall" for a long time to build up and then explode into their neighbors (with either good or bad results).

[Kalisa]

another thing im noticing of the AI is it doenst seem to consider your army compisition, only pure numbers, if i have a primarly MAA army with knights around 350-450% quality the AI will charge mindlessly into it again and again cause they have 2-3x my numbers even tho they dont counter my MAA and most of their troops are levies, and the game is aware of odds as it clearly states I will win decisively, and yet the AI will come back again and again till their army is totally killed off cause it has superior numbers.

At least playing with more rule mods allows me to tweak the AI and buff them considerably, they still may be dumb but them having more income, cheaper buildings so they actually develop their areas, a development boost so development actually rises abit in game, more troops, cheaper MAA and mercs, with tweaks to AI domain size and mood buffs seems to at least make them allot more active, also cranking their aggressiveness up at least makes the world shift allot more.