If You're Serious About Warfare the AI Needs to Beat the Stuffing Out of You. Regularly.

[jpcerutti]

Just reverting to CK2 isn't going to fix that, nor is tinkering with the finer points of anything, nor is restructuring MAA, nor is changing how knights work. Arguing one mechanic is more strategic, or realistic, or challenging is arguing in minutiae circles until that AI whoopin' happens.

First you have to decide if that's really what you want. Do you want elephants in your Viking army and over the top genetically engineered knights? They are great fun to play but not particularly realistic. Giving the AI crazy bonuses to compensate for its limitations has been tried and isn't particularly well liked. It is there and you can use it though. Handicapping the player somehow to squeeze them to AI levels is even less popular.

They are going to change the warfare AI soon, but even an 'improved' AI is only going to beat you for as long as it takes you to figure a way around it.

Do you want to play a game that regularly beats you or is this more of a medieval sandbox now where you mod, and tinker, and try strange things just to see what happens? How often do you want to see the endgame screen?

[Gingy]

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Originally posted by Seth:

Solution:
"Those who want hard mode should get it(like i wish), and those who prefer normal(like it is now) or easy mode should get that. -fair for every player."
And who knows maybe players from easy/normal mod would switch to hard for more challenges.

Not sure reloading saves, or adding a new hard mode, is the answer. You can already set 'hardness' by handicapping yourself/buffing AI with the rule set, just doing or not doing things, and there are mods that increase hardness over that even.

I think it boils down to - do you want to be some extra-ordinary hero or are you fine with having your head handed to you whenever you make a mistake, take a bigger bite than you should, or when the AI just feels like it? Certainly half the time when you are reasonably evenly matched.

Have played games where the AI was just going to stop you and the bar was to add cheats to you to balance things out. I don't think that's the answer here either.

A 'smart' AI is going to wait you out while you starve in the mountains, not divide forces, and is going to certainly try to counter whatever you bring to the conflict. Unless you have overwhelming odds you should lose. A lot.

Sounds like to me, that your're trying to stir up fear and panic that the game will no longer be of value if Devs work on AI or War AI. I disagree. I also feel that if you don't like an improved AI than perhaps have a rule setting for that so that you can stay at normal or less AI and be comfortable. I happily pay for more fair but difficult AI.

There is an expectation to lose more than what players are winning now. Otherwise, the expectation is that players will have to think more or consider more before declaring war and is that bad? if so, then like I said rule set it. CK3 is about dynasty and family. Its ok to lose, because you've already gained in other ways.

[Super Cosmic Space Magnet]

Peeps are going to be so happy if Total War: Medieval 3 ever happens.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Gingy:

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Not sure reloading saves, or adding a new hard mode, is the answer. You can already set 'hardness' by handicapping yourself/buffing AI with the rule set, just doing or not doing things, and there are mods that increase hardness over that even.

I think it boils down to - do you want to be some extra-ordinary hero or are you fine with having your head handed to you whenever you make a mistake, take a bigger bite than you should, or when the AI just feels like it? Certainly half the time when you are reasonably evenly matched.

Have played games where the AI was just going to stop you and the bar was to add cheats to you to balance things out. I don't think that's the answer here either.

A 'smart' AI is going to wait you out while you starve in the mountains, not divide forces, and is going to certainly try to counter whatever you bring to the conflict. Unless you have overwhelming odds you should lose. A lot.

Sounds like to me, that your're trying to stir up fear and panic that the game will no longer be of value if Devs work on AI or War AI. I disagree. I also feel that if you don't like an improved AI than perhaps have a rule setting for that so that you can stay at normal or less AI and be comfortable. I happily pay for more fair but difficult AI.

There is an expectation to lose more than what players are winning now. Otherwise, the expectation is that players will have to think more or consider more before declaring war and is that bad? if so, then like I said rule set it. CK3 is about dynasty and family. Its ok to lose, because you've already gained in other ways.

It's easier to understand if you just go with what I write instead of trying to read stuff that's not there and attach motive to it. So... that's a yes, I would want that vote?

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by dwarfpcfan:

I personally don't want a harder AI per say. I want an A.I that acts nore like a medieval ruler, The King of Scotland should not march 10K men to poland to die horribly because his third daughter married a count there in diplo range and now that idiot 1 county count declares holy wars non stop on his pagan neighbors because the math says he win when adding his 500 troops to the 10k of scotland,

In fact his daughter should never get into that kind of marriage, she should be married to someone in England or Ireland or Wales or maybe France, places Scotland could have vested interest or relations with. No the King of Scotland will not depleted his realm of armed men for who knows how long because a 1 county count in west poland hates pagans.

Thats silly, stuff like that needs to stop the king of Scotland would never do this, especially not when he's got England and Vikings barking at his heels regardless of his daughter being married to some nobody count.

We did fight a whole world war once because one guy got assassinated... and there were alliances.

What I'm asking is, from a warcraft standpoint, would you want realism, and balancing, and live with the resulting pain, or do you want to be the hero with the superpowers and superpowered whatevers? I don't see a way to incorporate both things. If you want an AI that is a challenge it has to kick you around more than just a few times. If you want the superpowers and the super whatevers the AI is never going to be a challenge no matter how you try to balance the thing.

What I wish they asked BEFORE they added plagues. Lots of people were all for plagues and checking character portrait/expansion - until they felt the pain.

[VoiD]

I think the issue with plagues was that it was poorly made, not the idea of losing anything by itself.

Granted some people would whine about anything, as they've done so before with harm events, but the issue with plagues was far deeper, just like legends, they were perceived as underwhelming dumbed down versions of CK2 systems, when you compare Bloodlines, which were permanent bonuses to the descendantes of great people, great heroes, with legends which were just money drains for temporary boosts & stories people seem to forget in a heartbeat it's just not a good system.

Likewise we took plagues from CK2 which were tied to prosperity vs depopulation, in which realms that decided to stay peaceful for long, caring for the health of it's citizens would benefit from prosperity levels added to their realms, while realms repeatedly hit by plagues, ignoring health would get depopulation debuffs instead.

Plagues also weren't annoying back in CK2 as they'd only really be relevant for you once they reached your throne county, while plagues in CK3 contribute to a long running problem of event spam, it's not about difficulty, it's just annoying as hell.

PS: Oh yeah, and let's not forget that back then, when you asked people to elaborate why they didn't like random harm events, nearly everyone would tell you it wasn't just the harm events that bothered them, it was the CK3 health system, as you'd get hit by an event and then you'd proceed to live for decades as an "incapable" ruler, unable to do most things as characters just refuse to die in this game, once you got through the decades of being incapable you'd often get hit again and keep playing with yet another incapable ruler that refused to die for ages. They'd be far less annoying if they simply killed your character instead.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by VoiD:

I think the issue with plagues was that it was poorly made, not the idea of losing anything by itself.

Granted some people would whine about anything, as they've done so before with harm events, but the issue with plagues was far deeper, just like legends, they were perceived as underwhelming dumbed down versions of CK2 systems, when you compare Bloodlines, which were permanent bonuses to the descendantes of great people, great heroes, with legends which were just money drains for temporary boosts & stories people seem to forget in a heartbeat it's just not a good system.

Likewise we took plagues from CK2 which were tied to prosperity vs depopulation, in which realms that decided to stay peaceful for long, caring for the health of it's citizens would benefit from prosperity levels added to their realms, while realms repeatedly hit by plagues, ignoring health would get depopulation debuffs instead.

Plagues also weren't annoying back in CK2 as they'd only really be relevant for you once they reached your throne county, while plagues in CK3 contribute to a long running problem of event spam, it's not about difficulty, it's just annoying as hell.

PS: Oh yeah, and let's not forget that back then, when you asked people to elaborate why they didn't like random harm events, nearly everyone would tell you it wasn't just the harm events that bothered them, it was the CK3 health system, as you'd get hit by an event and then you'd proceed to live for decades as an "incapable" ruler, unable to do most things as characters just refuse to die in this game, once you got through the decades of being incapable you'd often get hit again and keep playing with yet another incapable ruler that refused to die for ages. They'd be far less annoying if they simply killed your character instead.

Not to devolve too far into plagues, but people liked the idea, not the result. They didn't like it killing them or their family. They didn't want to be disabled or go blind from measles. They didn't like isolating. They didn't want to keep their development really low or build the buildings and not be plagueproof. They didn't like the hits to their development. Balancing, and messages, and issues were there - and I'm not defending anything - but let's be honest. 'If they would of only-' only solves a single issue for a single person at a time. The complaints didn't quit until you could disable plagues.

I'm not looking to devolve into the finer points of comparing superman boosts between games either.

If you want the superman boosts for you and/or your courtiers/MAA you're not going to have a balanced single player game against the AI. That's the whole point of the superman boosts - to smash and steamroll things.

[Gingy]

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

*Snip

Looks like nested quotes gui is broken and I can't just click the quote button to retain the entire nest. But I will manually break down where i find it clear that you have a bias and motive, although your message is off 10% due to language but I got the gist.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Not sure reloading saves, or adding a new hard mode, is the answer. You can already set 'hardness' by handicapping yourself/buffing AI with the rule set, just doing or not doing things, and there are mods that increase hardness over that even.

- Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.
- You're unsure if players deserve to have a difficulty setting above normal. CK2 btw has a difficulty setting that goes from easy, normal, hard and very hard. Its in the settings that is not located in rules and it provides modifiers to the AI.
- The rules offered in CK3 for AI Aggression is enable Conquers. Which is pretty much it. BTW that rules doesn't even work as I've had mine maxed out but low and behold there are no Conquers. Its either bugged or poorly implemented. Like why Can't Paradox just give us a rule to allow all rulers to be aggressive or 100% guaranteed to have the Conqueror trait. Hope you're following so far.
- Just doing or not doing things, I might as well turn off the computer then. Hell why play CK3?
- There are mods that increase difficulty? Effectively? If you know of them and can vouch for them. List them. Otherwise that's just hot air from your posterior.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

I think it boils down to - do you want to be some extra-ordinary hero or are you fine with having your head handed to you whenever you make a mistake, take a bigger bite than you should, or when the AI just feels like it? Certainly half the time when you are reasonably evenly matched.

-So you feel like CK3 is a game where players can't make mistakes? Because here I'm reading a clear bias where you're fear mongering improved AI will have players make more mistakes leading to a net negative experience. I think that improved AI makes you think and appriacte effort more in ones planning. Its like does one put socks on when going outside in the winter? If not, there was terrible planning invovled. Should players be punished be at a disavatage or dare I say lose if they did poor planning or no planning at all. Yes They Should Lose. Otherwise this isn't a stratagey game. Its not 100% RNG, there is still planning. By you stating that they will lose just because AI is improved suggests that you think players either A won't plan or that B the AI will just cheat and players that do plan will still lost more. That's just not logical. So yes. I think you do have a bias.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Have played games where the AI was just going to stop you and the bar was to add cheats to you to balance things out. I don't think that's the answer here either.

- There is no sense to be made of this statement. It appears to be your inner monologue. Not for the forum.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

A 'smart' AI is going to wait you out while you starve in the mountains, not divide forces, and is going to certainly try to counter whatever you bring to the conflict. Unless you have overwhelming odds you should lose. A lot.

- There are limits to what Devs Can and are Willing to do. Regarding AI purposefully defending in advantageous Terrain, Its doubtful they will have elaborate or smart defensive decisions. I just don't have faith in Paradox. This isn't my first game. Did you see this in CK2 or is this just some unrealistic whimsical poorly thought out wish that has no chance at being true. Basically arguing in bad faith.
-Dividing forces would be nice if done properly, only done if attrition from lack of supply would be too high and then divide and have them send the largest stack at the player and the other split to their capital. Yes that would be smart. It would even be smarter if they held that reserve stack and if marched it near by in an adjacent province and had it join if they were losing or better yet have it join anyway avoiding supply attrition.
- They can't counter for what they didn't invest in. Try all they might unless they cheat. If they don't have gold for mercs or if the player invested in certain MAAs to attack and conqueror their opposing neighboor (PLANNING) then no matter how smart the AI is (despite you fear mongering oh noes everyone losses, run smart AI) the AI will still lose. Because they aren't just worring and planning for the player but those around them as well. That and their planning will never be as good as the player. But the War AI could be improved still but it shouldn't be feared, not like you put it. Players shouldn't be afraid to Plan and Players that Plan should win. If the AI plans a bit more as an improvement, then yes the difficutly will go up. But the player could make uses of alliances, something that not every country has available. Sometimes you just lose. Sometimes the AI just loses because with all things being equal, the player has an large ally (THAT THE PLAYER PLANNED FOR) and the AI either didn't have one or there wasn't one available.
-No, the player should not lose a lot if they planned more. They should lost a bit more due to bad luck but if they PLANNED MORE THEY SHOULD WIN.

[Abacus]

"- Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here."

biggest issue right here. That is why it is mentioned. Did the same thing in 2 all the time (due to unstable AI), and had a much easier experience.

Yes playing a duke or kings is going to be easier.

Ck 2's harder aspects are usually to due it's one dimensional AI: Completely unpredictable, that ruins the thematic narrative because there are far less variables that simulate a coherent personality.

Not to mentioned digging through menus, Etc. But yeah, constant civil wars from psychotic AI that act nothing like the supposed traits they have. One of the main reasons I prefer 3.

As far as AI functionality, ck 2 couldn't even implement the full breadth of Jomini when it was added to Clausewitz. nuff said.

I just hope to see a DLC that add to warfare and makes it more thematic. I'd hope it comes with trade and the addition of maritime warfare.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Gingy:

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

*Snip

Looks like nested quotes gui is broken and I can't just click the quote button to retain the entire nest. But I will manually break down where i find it clear that you have a bias and motive, although your message is off 10% due to language but I got the gist.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Not sure reloading saves, or adding a new hard mode, is the answer. You can already set 'hardness' by handicapping yourself/buffing AI with the rule set, just doing or not doing things, and there are mods that increase hardness over that even.

- Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Maybe it is a language issue so I'm just going to explain your first one and I'm done.

Your first one: Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Here is the CLIFFS notes version of the conversation:

Me: "So you regularly got game overs?"
Seth: "If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over."
Me: "Not sure reloading saves is the answer."

Whatever you want to argue I don't and I'm not going to untangle any more conversations I'm having with other people for you, sorry. Find something else to poke at on the internet. Thanks for the writing critique, I'll be sure to forward it to my editor.

[Seth]

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Originally posted by Gingy:

Looks like nested quotes gui is broken and I can't just click the quote button to retain the entire nest. But I will manually break down where i find it clear that you have a bias and motive, although your message is off 10% due to language but I got the gist.




- Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Maybe it is a language issue so I'm just going to explain your first one and I'm done.

Your first one: Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Here is the CLIFFS notes version of the conversation:

Me: "So you regularly got game overs?"
Seth: "If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over."
Me: "Not sure reloading saves is the answer."

Whatever you want to argue I don't and I'm not going to untangle any more conversations I'm having with other people for you, sorry. Find something else to poke at on the internet.

This is what i said(whole):
----------------------------------------
"If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over. So my answer is yes. That don't mean it was always like that."
----------------------------------------
I worded that answer poorly. I don't reload save games just to avoid an end game (or black screen). I do it when I think I could have played better(in battles won or something like that). However, reloading because of an end game or black screen was rare for me.

As a non-native speaker, I didn't fully understand what you meant. For me, "Game Over" usually signifies a lost war or, more generally, a significant setback.

Edited:

Constantly reloading to avoid the "Game Over" would bore me, and I probably wouldn't play anymore. My comment: "If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over," shows I misunderstood you. You can't reach the "Game Over" if you're powerful (meaning you have a large country), so my statement didn't make sense in that context.

[Gingy]

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Originally posted by Gingy:

Looks like nested quotes gui is broken and I can't just click the quote button to retain the entire nest. But I will manually break down where i find it clear that you have a bias and motive, although your message is off 10% due to language but I got the gist.




- Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Maybe it is a language issue so I'm just going to explain your first one and I'm done.

Your first one: Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Here is the CLIFFS notes version of the conversation:

Me: "So you regularly got game overs?"
Seth: "If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over."
Me: "Not sure reloading saves is the answer."

Whatever you want to argue I don't and I'm not going to untangle any more conversations I'm having with other people for you, sorry. Find something else to poke at on the internet.

Haha well that's great. Thanks for putting the effort in to clearly convey your thoughts. Too bad your previous posts lack the same effort. Hey its your right to not have a conversation and go ahead and enjoy your echo chamber. Block and move along is what you should have done. I've also lost interest now knowing the caliber and player type of im dealing with. Ha to think just make large font and bold topics and bang tin cans together for some loud noise, how amusing.

It will remain to be seen what Paradox does. Im sure the new fan base will gobble up whatever they pump out. The mass exodus of loyal paying customers left a while ago and there are just ghosts passing by hoping to see something familiar. OP can enjoy on making loud noises, I'll see myself out.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Seth:

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Maybe it is a language issue so I'm just going to explain your first one and I'm done.

Your first one: Not sure why you're mentioning save scumming or reloading saves here.

Here is the CLIFFS notes version of the conversation:

Me: "So you regularly got game overs?"
Seth: "If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over."
Me: "Not sure reloading saves is the answer."

Whatever you want to argue I don't and I'm not going to untangle any more conversations I'm having with other people for you, sorry. Find something else to poke at on the internet.

This is what i said(whole):
----------------------------------------
"If I hadn't gone back to my saves, it would have been game over. So my answer is yes. That don't mean it was always like that."
----------------------------------------
I worded my that answer poorly. I don't reload save games just to avoid an end game (or black screen). I do it when I think I could have played better(in battles won or something like that). However, reloading because of an end game or black screen was rare for me.

As a non-native speaker, I didn't fully understand what you meant. For me, "Game Over" usually signifies a lost war or, more generally, a significant setback.

If it is any consolation, I understood it, he did not. 'CLIFFS notes' is a highly compressed version of a long book or article condensed down into the fewest words possible. They sell those in the US - for people that don't want to take the time to read or understand the original. The CLIFFS for 'War and Peace' ( 1,150-ish pages) is like 120 pages.

[Ashling]

A human player who has a reasonable understanding of the systems at play will always outperform an ai playing fairly. The only way to actually increase difficulty is by giving the ai cheats (which I am firmly behind; I think the great conqueror trait was a very good inclusion). No, this still won't make the game truly hard (because humans are clever) but anything more than that should be saved for competitive multiplayer.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Not to devolve too far into plagues, but people liked the idea, not the result.

I liked how plagues were implemented.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Ashling:

A human player who has a reasonable understanding of the systems at play will always outperform an ai playing fairly. The only way to actually increase difficulty is by giving the ai cheats (which I am firmly behind; I think the great conqueror trait was a very good inclusion).

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Not to devolve too far into plagues, but people liked the idea, not the result.

I liked how plagues were implemented.

The chess citation Jean-Maurice Nya used is a pretty good example of the exception to the general rule. If you can limit the variables, or expand the processing power, or want to run a LOT of script you can come up with AI that can win even when the player knows the rules. You can also extend winning streaks against learning curves by AI when you intentionally make it play worse, or just not do some things, at first and gradually change that when it loses. The reverse of that works too - giving the player bonuses that they aren't aware of at first and slowly taking them away. That's an old 'carnie' game trick.

I agree, the conqueror trait was a big step in the right direction and works any which way because you can use them, or not, and can step them up in a limited sort of way.

You were a minority though, if you liked them as is, when they first dropped. I can live with them, and use them myself. BUT until they dialed them back a little... just wasn't fun to play on a coast or river with anything larger than a Duchy for me - and the messages drove me nuts.

[PDX-Trinexx]

Remember to be civil and respectful to each other, please; you're more than welcome to criticize the game and its development to your heart's content (the game would never get better if people didn't!), but try to do it without picking fights with each other.

It's not helpful and shuts down any productive conversation in the process.