Ai should be less analytical for more fun

[ProgramTheta]

The AI shouldnt be so predictable with wars. The AI basically decides whether or not to declare a a war based on it's army and economy vs the other nation. This means that the AI will NEVER, EVER declare wars it doesnt have an 100% chance of winning.

If 2 identical nations were placed right next to eachother and no other countries were on the map, neither one would ever do anything unless something changed the status quo. This makes the game boring and predictable, and is also unrealistic. If you put 1 strong nation next to an OPM and there are no other countries on the map, the strong nation will attack the OPM ASAP.

Think about how this affects you as you play in singleplayer. Idk about you, but for me when im planning my wars it's so easy to predict exactly how the AI around you will do things.

"I'm going to attack this strong nation next to me. I can win the war, but if that smaller power on the opposite side of my country were to attack me right as I declared war, I would probably lose. Fortunately, they wont do it." and then they dont do it. AI only attacks you if they think they could defeat you and everyone who would join your war with ease.

Imagine if smaller powers with realistically little chance of beating you had a small chance of attacking you anyway. You wouldnt be able to let your gaurd down because you're so confident no one around you will attack. If you get too overconfident, it might actually matter.

Imagine if all the times you've sat there drilling your army knowing the AI around you are weaker and wont attack, they DID suddenly attack without warning. You're ♥♥♥♥♥♥! But the AI in the current game would never do it because their army is smaller.

[Halcyon]

Can you design an AI that can do this? I wouldn't mind the changes you suggest, but realistically it might be very difficult to implement an AI capable of comprehending such variables and conditions as inputs. The AI is smart enough to capitalize on moments of weakness, such as when you get stackwiped in a close war, but not smart enough to create moments of weakness by teaming up against the player outside of alliances.

AI design is something that's very easy to criticize from the player's perspective, but if it were easy to create an AI that played well, don't you think that the many many many professional AI designers who have tried would have created one by now?

[the_panther]

I have seen (way more times than I can count) an AI declaring a war that I absolutely know beyond any doubt he will lose.

[ProgramTheta]

Originally posted by Halcyon:

Can you design an AI that can do this? I wouldn't mind the changes you suggest, but realistically it might be very difficult to implement an AI capable of comprehending such variables and conditions as inputs. The AI is smart enough to capitalize on moments of weakness, such as when you get stackwiped in a close war, but not smart enough to create moments of weakness by teaming up against the player outside of alliances.

AI design is something that's very easy to criticize from the player's perspective, but if it were easy to create an AI that played well, don't you think that the many many many professional AI designers who have tried would have created one by now?

No no no! That would be making the AI MORE analytical. I mean they should think LESS about the odds, to add randomness! Frequently in history, smaller nations attacked larger more powerful ones even though statistically they stood no chance. Often they failed and were crushed by the larger force, but sometimes unpredictable variables outweighed the pure statistics and the great empire fell.

My example of your army drilling doesnt involve the AI KNOWING you are drilling attacking because of it. It involves the AI randomly declaring a possibly unwinnable war, but you just happen to be drilling and they win.

[Halcyon]

Originally posted by SpaceFascism:

My example of your army drilling doesnt involve the AI KNOWING you are drilling attacking because of it. It involves the AI randomly declaring a possibly unwinnable war, but you just happen to be drilling and they win.

Ah I see what you mean. The idea being to add a random element to the political situation that prevents the player having advance knowledge of outcomes. I could get behind that if it were implemented well, but it could also be implemented poorly and then the AI could be a suicidal mad dog or overly passive pushover. It's certainly an interesting idea.

[ProgramTheta]

Originally posted by the_panther:

I have seen (way more times than I can count) an AI declaring a war that I absolutely know beyond any doubt he will lose.

In the current game, these are just errors in calculation rather than legtimitately sudden wars. the AI THINKS it can win. If the AI THINKS it can win based on some of the data from the ledger, it attacks. The AI frequently calculates wrong though. Like they dont take into account that the enemy they outnumber has double the morale and discipline, so they attack and get destroyed.

This isnt random. This doesnt add surprise to the game. You can predict that the AI will make these moves because you know how the AI decides to attack or not.

[tonypa]

Countries do behave differently based on the ruler personality:
https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Personalities

Even the base 5 without Rights of Man DLC have impact on how likely countries are to start wars they can not realistically win.

[the_panther]

Originally posted by SpaceFascism:

This isnt random. This doesnt add surprise to the game. You can predict that the AI will make these moves because you know how the AI decides to attack or not.

Actually, you are correct. It is rare for me to be surprised when the AI wrongly declares war. Although it has, of course, happened to me many times over the past 5 years playing this game. It is actually kind of fun when the AI declares a crazy war that I never saw coming.

However, there is one thing that sometimes does add spice and unpredictability - Great Power interference.

[ProgramTheta]

Originally posted by tonypa:

Countries do behave differently based on the ruler personality:
https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Personalities

Even the base 5 without Rights of Man DLC have impact on how likely countries are to start wars they can not realistically win.

This isnt enough. But it also is predictable, which ruins the whole point. The game tells you what the personality of the other ruler is, so you know the chance is there.

I mean a legitimately random aspect to it. If I see an enemy ruler with a specific personality, I can just predict how they will react.

[Mr.M]

At the same time more RNG can be absolutely infuriating.

[Stormy Waters]

How often do you declare war knowing you are going to lose?
I can agree the AI is fairly exploitable, but it is about as rash as a new player with the mechanic knowledge of a highly versed player. But everyone eventually makes mistakes.

[ProgramTheta]

Originally posted by MrMonokel2000:

At the same time more RNG can be absolutely infuriating.

I usually am against RnG. But in this case, it's simply not possible to create an AI smart enough to be able to play the game like a player. The AI is boring and predictable.

The type of RnG that is infuriating is dice rolls. I want to punch a hole in my screen when I lose 3 battles in a row against a lower quality, outnumbered enemy because I roll 0s over and over again.

[Malvastor]

I feel like having the AI attack superior enemies will in the long run just make the AI stupider, and the game less challenging. You'll wind up with smaller countries essentially making suicide runs at the player or larger AI countries, in a way that won't really imitate human fallibility so much as it will look like really bad AI.

And frankly, for most human players getting surprise attacked by a smaller AI won't be much of a setback. If anything it will just let you take territory/cash/whatever without the risk of starting the war yourself.

[Howard Roark]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

I feel like having the AI attack superior enemies will in the long run just make the AI stupider, and the game less challenging. You'll wind up with smaller countries essentially making suicide runs at the player or larger AI countries, in a way that won't really imitate human fallibility so much as it will look like really bad AI.

And frankly, for most human players getting surprise attacked by a smaller AI won't be much of a setback. If anything it will just let you take territory/cash/whatever without the risk of starting the war yourself.

While I agree with this, there may be a partial way around it by making the AI only declare a war it thinks it won't win if it's close to thinking it could win. In other words, they are close to the same in power but the AI is at a slight disadvantage. So a OPM won't declare war on France but Portugal may declare war on Spain.

[Psychotic Fury]

I had thought that was why they added personalities, so countries actually acted more random.
(Think thats Rights of man dlc?)